Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Implementation of the Tier 2 Program
In order to interpret the impacts of the Minnesota Tier 2 program on employment and other outcomes, it is important to understand how it operated and how it was different from the Tier 1 program. Drawing on field research, program data, and a time study of program staff, this section focuses on how the Tier 2 program was implemented. It discusses its structure, staffing, and management, as well as its services and how staff spent their time. Throughout this discussion, differences between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs are highlighted.
Program Structure, Staffing, and Management
The Tier 2 program was overseen by the Hennepin County Office of Training and Employment Assistance (TEA), the workforce development agency for Hennepin County. TEA was also responsible for managing the Tier 1 program. The county’s Department of Economic Assistance (EA) was responsible for determining eligibility for MFIP cash assistance in both programs. The state Department of Human Services (DHS) administers the MFIP program at the state level.
To provide employment and other services under the Tier 2 program, TEA contracted with six agencies across Hennepin County. These six providers also offered Tier 1 program services. At all six, case managers were designated to work specifically with either Tier 1 or Tier 2 participants.25 Five of the Tier 2 providers were nonprofit, community-based organizations, and one was a county agency. They were:
-
Employment Action Center (EAC)
-
Hennepin County Welfare Employment Research Center (WERC)
-
HIRED
-
Jewish Vocational Services (JVS)
-
Lutheran Social Services (LSS)
-
RISE, Inc. — a consortium formed by RISE, Inc., and three other agencies (AccessAbility, Inc., Tasks Unlimited, and Opportunity Partners)
Under their contracts with TEA, the Tier 2 providers received $4,000 per program slot. The contractors were graded on whether they met a set of standards relating to the participation, employment, and wage rates of recipients. These benchmarks were: (1) a participation rate of 75 percent; (2) placements in unsubsidized employment (48 percent by the end of Quarter 1 after enrollment, 54 percent by the end of Quarter 2, 60 percent by the end of Quarter 4, and 64 percent by the end of Quarter 4); (3) a minimum wage rate of $8.00 per hour for working recipients; (4) an average wage rate of $9.00 per hour when working recipients leave MFIP; and (5) an employment retention rate of 80 percent for recipients within 90 days of finding a job and a rate of 70 percent at 180 days. These performance measures were the same as those used to grade the Tier 1 program providers.26 They were important because they set benchmarks toward which the providers strove, although in practice they did not affect the grants received by the Tier 2 providers during the study period.
Each of the Tier 2 providers had a Tier 2 Program Director who managed the Tier 2 case managers. The Tier 2 case managers were also known as “employment counselors,” “job counselors,” “jobs advisors,” and “employment specialists,” depending on the provider.27 At the outset of the program, the county provided training for case managers on the goals and procedures of the Tier 2 program, and each agency or organization had designated staff for participants who did not speak English, particularly for their Somali or Hmong populations. Such staff were essential, given that these groups made up a considerable proportion of Minnesota’s TANF caseload, particularly among two-parent families. At some providers, they were the majority. For instance, about two-thirds of LSS’s typical caseload did not speak English, and included people who were Somali, Hmong, Vietnamese, and Cambodian.
The Tier 2 case managers were responsible for overseeing or delivering all aspects of the program: initial contact and engagement; barrier assessment and referrals for assistance or treatment; and a range of employment services, including job preparation, job search, job development, supported employment, and retention and advancement activities. Neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2 case managers dealt with benefit eligibility determinations, as this responsibility fell to financial workers at EA.
A big difference between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs was the size of the case managers’ caseloads. Throughout the evaluation period, Tier 2 case managers across the providers reported caseloads of between 25 and 30 clients per worker.28 This made the typical Tier 2 caseload roughly one-fourth to one-third the size of those carried by Tier 1 case managers, which were closer to 100 per worker. Caseloads of this size appeared small enough to foster the kinds of relationships between recipients and case managers the Tier 2 program sought — relationships characterized by greater interaction and individualized attention.
Services and Program Flow
The following sections describe the primary components of the Tier 2 program, illustrating both how it worked and what the Tier 2 group experienced.
Initial Contact, Orientation, and Message
The individuals randomly assigned into the study29 — either to Tier 1 or Tier 2 — had participated in the Tier 1 program for at least 12 months without finding employment, were unemployed and had not worked in the preceding three months, were not participating in an approved education or training program, and were not currently being sanctioned. Those randomly assigned to Tier 2 were assigned to a Tier 2 provider, selected for its proximity to the client’s home and capacity to provide services in his or her primary language. (Those assigned to Tier 1 were not assigned to a new case manager and remained eligible for Tier 1 services.)
The Tier 2 case managers then contacted those who were assigned to the program group by mail and telephone in an effort to engage them, making it clear that participation was mandatory and that sanctions could be imposed for noncompliance.30 However, in reality, many Tier 2 case managers were generally reluctant to sanction individuals for noncompliance, and some went to great lengths to avoid doing so, by giving clients multiple chances to attend required program meetings and activities.
This process of contacting recipients varied only slightly across the providers. For instance, at HIRED, staff attempted to arrange three-way meetings among the Tier 1 case manager, the recipient, and the Tier 2 case manager to introduce the Tier 2 program, although such meetings were not always possible. When they were not, an initial letter was sent from the Tier 1 case manager, who introduced the program and the newly assigned Tier 2 case manager. The Tier 2 case manager then followed up with an additional letter or letters, and telephone calls.
People assigned to Tier 2 also participated in an orientation or overview meeting.31 At some providers, this was a group process. For instance, at RISE, Inc., group orientations were held periodically at times when all the case managers could attend. One of the primary messages of these meetings was that recipients had a unique opportunity to receive more individualized attention and help for themselves and their families. At other providers, orientation was conducted one-on-one, rather than in groups. Also, a key goal of the program was to ensure that participants in Tier 2 not view the program in any way as a punishment for long-term reliance on Tier 1 or unsuccessful efforts to find a job. Rather, it was stressed that Tier 2 offered participants a chance to make a fresh start in a program that was more attentive to their needs. In addition, all of the Tier 2 providers considered home visits to be an option as part of their efforts to contact and engage potential participants. However, home visits were rare.
Those assigned to Tier 1 were informed of their research status by mail and remained assigned to work with their existing Tier 1 case managers. They, too, were reminded that participation was mandatory and that sanctions could be imposed for noncompliance.
Assessment and Referral to Specialized Services
All individuals assigned to the Tier 2 program were required to complete a “full-family assessment.” These assessments took place shortly after random assignment and varied somewhat across the Tier 2 providers, as each developed slightly different instruments and processes. Nonetheless, all developed assessments that went far beyond the basic assessment conducted in Tier 1 and that focused on recipients’ employment and educational histories.
Because barriers to employment often go undetected, assessment was a key component of the Tier 2 program. Tier 2 case managers were trained to conduct the full-family assessment, and many did so throughout the evaluation period. However, many of the case managers also had support in carrying out this task. At some of the Tier 2 providers, staff who had clinical training led the assessment process, creating greater capacity to identify behavioral health issues and even work with some clients on those issues in-house. For instance, at LSS a part-time psychologist led assessments — although Tier 2 case managers typically also attended32 — and was available for follow-up assessments, services, and referrals. At JVS, two of the case managers who had a master’s degree and the special title of Employment Development Counselor conducted assessments for the Tier 2 team.33
Generally speaking, all of the Tier 2 program assessments included gathering information from recipients regarding: living arrangements and housing,34 education and employment histories, basic skills (such as reading and math), medical history, criminal background, mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, and family members. The focus on the “full family” was critical to the design of the Tier 2 program because it helped the case managers gain a deeper understanding of the employment barriers individuals might face as a result of familial relationships, such as, for example, informal responsibilities caring for infirm or disabled relatives. Given this broad focus on a range of issues — and for the family (not just the individual) — the program almost certainly led to increases in the identification of problems. When significant barriers were identified, Tier 2 case managers were expected to refer people to services in the community, although they also occasionally referred in-house, as noted above.
Once this full-family assessment was completed, many Tier 2 case managers administered additional assessments to help identify vocational proclivities or skills. For instance, they used interest inventories to identify work possibilities that would motivate individuals to become engaged and sustain their participation over time. At WERC, the Tier 2 case managers had access to the McCroskey DataMaster system, which assisted in matching recipients to certain jobs.35
In the early stages of program operation, it became clear that the assessment process was at times too lengthy. In some instances, assessments could be completed in a single meeting, but, in others, they were extended over days or even weeks. Therefore, over time, some of the providers let the assessment evolve into a process that took place over multiple meetings with clients,36 and some streamlined their assessment tools to reduce administration time.
The assessment process was sometimes more difficult when participants were less assimilated into U.S. culture. This was most evident at the providers who were working with large numbers of new immigrants and refugees. For instance, at RISE, Inc., Tier 2 program staff articulated the importance of understanding clients’ cultural background during the assessment process. They stated that some of the newcomers with whom they worked had experienced traumatic events that had led them to leave their homelands, but they did not share the framework or language commonly used in the United States for thinking and talking about them. For example, such clients had difficulty describing their experiences or feelings in terms of symptom severity or clinical diagnoses.
Through the in-depth assessments, staff realized that some clients had such severe disabilities or health problems that they could be eligible for Social Security Administration disability benefits. Although some case managers did assist a few clients to apply for such benefits, the 12-month follow-up survey data showed that the Tier 2 program did not increase application for, or receipt of, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, relative to the Tier 1 program (not shown).37
All of the Tier 2 providers had good working relationships with area agencies for referrals to help Tier 2 recipients with specific barriers, and it appeared there were resources available in the community for help with many problems. Some developed formal agreements with outside agencies, as RISE, Inc., did by making the Community University Health Care Center part of its consortium to assist with mental health and substance abuse problems. Similarly, HIRED subcontracted with Family and Child Services, a provider of family counseling and behavioral health services, to assist with assessment, referral, and treatment. Several providers reported working with local HMOs, such as Allina Health System and United Behavioral Health, on mental health referrals. All were well connected to the local organizations that had special expertise in cases of domestic violence or housing crises.
Data from site visits suggest that the Tier 2 case managers made referrals for further assessments and specialized services as a result of initial assessments.38 These referrals were tracked in a “family support plan,” which was a formal record of activities to seek social services for problems uncovered in the assessment process. Although assessments were a mandatory part of the Tier 2 program, the case managers could not require people to engage in services to address barriers to employment.39 In addition, during the early phases of the program, Minnesota was operating under a waiver of the federal welfare reform law that allowed individuals to participate in a wide range of employment and training activities — including social service activities — to meet federal work participation requirements. When the waiver ended in July 2002, Minnesota was required to follow the federal rules, which placed more limitations on what types of activities counted toward meeting federal participation rates and more strongly emphasized work-focused activities. Thus, while the program staff could encourage participants to receive recommended assistance or care, these follow-up activities were not viewed as mandatory.
Employment and Case Management Services
When the Tier 2 case managers had completed the assessment process — or at least after it was in progress — they focused on employment-related services. In addition to the family support plan, they developed an “employment plan,” which became the key means of tracking program participation. Employment plans were often updated monthly in the Tier 2 program, compared with every three months in Tier 1.
Job Search Activities
Program services received by the Tier 2 and Tier 1 groups were similar in many respects. Across the Tier 2 providers, the program had a strong emphasis on immediate employment, and recipients generally began their activities in job search.40 For most of the job search activities, participants worked one on one with their case manager to identify and follow up on job leads. However, in addition, the providers offered a variety of job search events, such as job clubs. For example, EAC required clients to attend a job club that met for three hours daily over a two-week period. At LSS, an appointed “workshop coordinator” organized job workshops and tailored some of them to people whose primary language was not English. These workshops were ongoing; most participants attended for six to eight weeks, and some new immigrants or refugees participated for three to six months. Because these group job search activities were available in both programs, they were sometimes, but not always, offered in settings where Tier 1 and Tier 2 clients attended the same sessions.
Unpaid Work
Recipients in both the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 program who did not find jobs after six weeks of job search were required to work in unpaid or volunteer employment arranged by the providers.41 These volunteer positions,42 like the supported employment positions described below, were intended to provide people with an opportunity to gain work experience, refine their more technical work skills, and learn some of the “soft skills” needed for retention and advancement. Sometimes program staff worked both one-on-one with participants and in group settings (for example, at worksites where a number of clients were placed) to help them gain experience and develop these skills.
Job Development Services
The Tier 2 case managers were responsible for the job development component of the program and located appropriate job opportunities for program participants, although they typically also worked with colleagues on this task. Some providers had a designated job developer who assisted both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs. Others did not have a designated job developer, but other staff — for example, those who led employment workshops or job search events — worked with the case managers on job development. Moreover, the Tier 2 case managers worked with one another by sharing job leads for their collective caseload. Nonetheless, job development was not a central focus.
Education and Training
Like their Tier 1 counterparts, the Tier 2 group had access to educational programs, such as adult basic education, GED, and English as a Second Language classes. They could also access training programs to learn specific job skills.43 In both Tier 1 and Tier 2, participation in education or training activities was affected by MFIP’s predominant focus on employment. For example, participants were required to work 20 hours a week in order to pursue any long-term education or training, making it hard for some to fit in educational activities. In addition, many individuals in Tier 2 entered the program close to their 60-month TANF time limit, which was another impediment to long-term education or training.
Supported Employment
An area of greater difference between Tier 2 and Tier 1 was the use of supported employment, where individuals worked for a wage but with access to on-the-job training and job coaching.44 While supported employment slots were available to recipients in both programs, Tier 2 staff made a more concerted effort to refer clients to these slots. Some providers prioritized Tier 2 recipients to receive the limited number of program slots — each provider was allotted enough funds to support 20 to 50 supported employment slots.
Supported employment was available to recipients who did not find jobs after six weeks of job search.45 Because of the relatively disadvantaged nature of the target population and their potential to benefit from this type of approach, the Tier 2 providers demonstrated early on that they were committed to developing a strong supported employment component for the program. Early in the implementation of Tier 2, program staff worked toward making these kinds of positions available, and as the program matured, this component was strengthened.46 For example, in early 2001, EAC expressed a desire to expand a supported work program in the corporate sector that it had developed with area nonprofit organizations. By the spring of that year, it was placing individuals in positions with private employers in industries that fit with their career interests. EAC paid the participants’ full wages and arranged for them to start work part time, increasing their hours over time.
Other providers — such as JVS — had longstanding experience with a range of supported employment programs and offered filing work at Wells Fargo Bank and data entry at UCARE, a health maintenance organization. RISE, Inc., operated its own “production floor” in Spring Lake Park, where recipients could earn $6.00 an hour in assembly-line jobs that varied over time, such as, for example, assembling cardboard boxes. LSS worked with Goodwill Industries and Easter Seals, which also offered assembly-line work where clients could earn up to $5.25 an hour. These kinds of supported work placements were typically slated to last for three months or less.
Case Management Services
Another area of service difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 was the level of contact between program staff and clients. Due to their low caseloads, once assessments were completed, the Tier 2 case managers typically had contact with clients once a week. Sometimes circumstances required greater contact, for example, when clients with serious barriers to employment worked closely with program staff to begin addressing them. However, even in these instances, home visits were not the norm. In contrast, contacts between the Tier 1 case managers and recipients were less frequent and more perfunctory.
Postemployment Services
Postemployment services were similar across the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs. If clients became employed, they stayed in Tier 1 or Tier 2 as long as they remained on MFIP. Many maintained eligibility for cash assistance due to Minnesota’s relatively generous earnings disregard, where individuals could receive some cash assistance with earnings up to 120 percent of the federal poverty guideline. In most instances, the case managers met with working participants at 30, 60, 90, and 180 days following their hire date — or initially around their pay schedule if they were not paid monthly — to verify employment. Tier 1 and Tier 2 case managers also gave employed recipients bus passes or helped them access other support services, such as child care or emergency assistance. In Tier 2, case managers would occasionally visit a work-place to meet with either an employer or employee, but this was rare. Some of the Tier 2 providers also offered modest employment-retention incentives, such as small gift certificates at the three-month and six-month milestones. Although it was felt initially that the reduced caseloads would allow Tier 2 case managers to offer intensive retention and advancement services in some instances — including worksite visits, job mediation, and intensive on-the-job follow-up — these aspects of the program were less developed. Instead, Tier 2 staff focused more strongly on preemployment services.
Reaching the Time Limit
Under both the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 program, in cases where individuals began to near their TANF time limits, specifically when they reached 48 months of assistance, the case managers met with them to discuss potential next steps. At approximately 56 months of assistance, participants attended a formal exit interview, accompanied by their case managers.47 Some participants who were employed when they reached their time limit qualified for an extension of benefits. Others became eligible for Tier 3, a program the county began operating in July 2002, which was designed for Tier 1 or Tier 2 participants who had reached their time limit and had an IQ below 80 or a “very severe disability.” The goal of the Tier 3 program was to connect these people to appropriate services, recognizing they might never become employed. Those who did not qualify for an extension or for the Tier 3 program became ineligible for further assistance.
How the Tier 2 Case Managers Spent Their Time
This evaluation included a special time study in all of the ERA sites to better understand the practices of program case managers. The study captured detailed information on the nature of ERA staff-client interactions and on the topics covered in these interactions. It also collected information on how ERA case managers typically spent their time each day. In Minnesota, 36 Tier 2 case managers participated in the time study over a two-week study period, from September 18 to October 1, 2003. Select findings are highlighted below.
Tier 2 case managers spent about 32 percent of their work time — a little more than two hours per day — in contact with clients.48 They spent twice the amount of time interacting with nonworking clients (20 percent of their work time) than with working clients (almost 12 percent) (Figure 1). This result can be seen as evidence of MFIP’s strong focus on employment services. It might also be viewed as an indication that the population targeted by Tier 2 was hard to employ, as the large majority were not working when they entered the program. On average, Tier 2 case managers reported 4.5 client interactions per day, with each of those lasting about 29 minutes (Table 4). Over half of all client contacts took place over the phone (53 percent). Over 40 percent of all contacts were in person, and the vast majority of those were office visits (Table 5). Therefore, the time study offers further evidence that the Tier 2 counselors generally did not meet with clients outside their offices. More than two-thirds of these case managers (72.2 percent), however, did report working outside standard hours, typically either in the early morning or evening (not shown), which presumably contributed to their overall higher level of client contact.
The topics covered during staff-client interactions varied depending on the client’s employment status (Table 6). For example, many contacts with nonworking clients included discussion of “personal or family issues” (24 percent), while sizable numbers of contacts with working clients addressed “on-the-job issues/problems” (11 percent) and “career goals and advancement” (27 percent).
Summary
The MFIP Tier 2 program was generally well organized and managed, and Tier 2 case managers worked diligently to develop better relationships with the target population. In many cases, they built relationships characterized — compared with those typical of Tier 1 — by a greater level of interaction and a deeper understanding of the difficult circumstances of these individuals and their families. The program’s much smaller caseload sizes and more in-depth assessment process appear to have facilitated this closer case manager-client relationship. The supported employment component was also well developed under the Tier 2 program, and it appeared to gain strength over the course of the evaluation. Although supported employment was available to both the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 group, providers generally made it a priority for their Tier 2 caseloads.
Although the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs differed in important ways, they also had much in common. Because Tier 2 was built on the basic structure of Tier 1, the two shared some important characteristics: a strong focus on employment; four weeks of job search, followed by unpaid or volunteer employment for those who did not find work; support services, including child care and transportation; and some assistance with job retention and advancement for working participants. Finally, it is important to note that, aside from the more in-depth assessments, the two groups had access to essentially the same range of services and supports, and this may have set a high standard for Tier 2 to surpass and demonstrate impacts.
[D] |
| Contact | ||
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of work time spent in contact with | Any client | 32.1 |
| Working clients | 11.8 | |
| Nonworking clients | 20.3 | |
| Average number of client contacts per day per case manager | Any client | 4.5 |
| Working clients | 1.8 | |
| Nonworking clients | 2.7 | |
| Average number of minutes per day spent in contact with | Any client | 134.8 |
| Working clients | 49.5 | |
| Nonworking clients | 85.4 | |
| Number of case managers time-studied | 36 | |
| SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study. |
| Contact | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of all client contacts that were: | In person | 40.6 | |
| Office visit | 35.6 | ||
| Home visit | 1.3 | ||
| Employer visit | 1.5 | ||
| Visit elsewhere | 2.1 | ||
| Not in person | 59.4 | ||
| Phone contact | 52.6 | ||
| Written contact | 6.4 | ||
| Other type of contact | 0.5 | ||
| Percentage of all client contacts, over a 2-week period, that were initiated by: | Staff person | 57.1 | |
| Client | 42.2 | ||
| Another person | 0.7 | ||
| Number of case managers time-studied | 36 | ||
| SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study. |
| Case Managers Working with | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working clients | Nonworking clients | All clients | ||
| Percentage of all client contacts that included the following topics: a | Initial client engagement | 2.4 | 6.1 | 5.0 |
| Supportive service eligibility and issues | 37.3 | 20.9 | 28.5 | |
| General check-in | 32.0 | 28.3 | 30.5 | |
| Screening/assessment | 2.2 | 5.4 | 4.0 | |
| Address on-the-job issues/problems | 11.4 | 2.0 | 4.7 | |
| Address personal or family issues | 13.9 | 24.4 | 21.2 | |
| Explore specific employment and training options | 6.2 | 9.7 | 9.4 | |
| Discuss career goals and advancement | 27.2 | 16.2 | 20.6 | |
| Assist with reemployment | 14.4 | 27.5 | 23.0 | |
| Discuss issues related to financial incentives or stipends | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.9 | |
| Schedule/refer client for work experience position b | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Enrollment in government assistance and ongoing eligibility issues | 5.4 | 2.0 | 3.0 | |
| Assistance with the Earned Income Tax Credit | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.6 | |
| Participation/sanctioning issues | 17.1 | 21.4 | 19.6 | |
| Schedule/refer client for screening/assessment | 1.3 | 3.9 | 2.9 | |
| Schedule/refer client for job search or other employment services | 3.9 | 6.3 | 5.5 | |
| Schedule/refer client for education or training | 0.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | |
| Schedule/refer client for services to address special or personal issues | 3.0 | 8.3 | 6.3 | |
| Provide job leads or referrals b | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Number of case managers time-studied | 36 | |||
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study. NOTES: a Percentages exceed 100 percent because more than one topic could be recorded for each client contact. b This measure was not included in the time-study instrument used in Minnesota. |
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |