Table of Contents |
ERA Minnesota Figure Descriptions
Box 2: The Association of Barriers with UI-Covered Employment in Year 1 (Percentage Point Effect)
Text Description: This box has two bar graphs that present the associations of each barrier with work during the first year of follow-up, estimated for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 groups combined. Eight horizontal bars depict eight different types of barriers and the percentage point effect of each barrier on a scale ranging from -35 percent to 10 percent.
The bar graph on top shows the effect that the barriers have on the employment rate. Not having a high school diploma reduces the employment rate by 14 percentage points. Having experienced domestic violence reduces the employment rate by 2 percentage points. Having limited English skills reduces the employment rate by 3 percent. Having poor health reduces the employment rate by 7 percentage points and is statistically significant. Depression reduces the employment rate by 4 percentage points. Having a learning disability has no effect on the employment rate. Having activity limitations reduces the employment rate by 15 percentage points and is statistically significant. Having a child with poor health reduces the employment rate by 11 percentage points.
The bar graph on the bottom shows the percentage impact that the barriers have on employment stability (defined as working in all four quarters of a year). Not having a high school diploma reduces the employment stability rate by 2 percentage points. Having experienced domestic violence reduces the employment stability rate by 3 percentage points. Having limited English skills reduces the employment stability rate by 9 percent. Having poor health has no effect on employment stability. Depression reduces the employment stability rate by 11 percentage points and is statistically significant. Having a learning disability has no effect on the employment stability rate. Having activity limitations reduces the employment stability rate by 20 percentage points and is statistically significant. Having a child with poor health reduces the employment stability rate by 3 percentage points. (back to Box 2)
Figure 1: Summary of How Minnesota Tier 2 Case Managers Typically Spent Their Time
Text description: This pie chart shows how Tier 2 case managers in the Minnesota ERA program typically spent their time. The chart shows that case managers spent a total of 32 percent of their time working with clients, of which 20 percent was spent in contact with nonworking clients and 12 percent was spent in contact with working clients. Case managers spent 68 percent of their time working on other activities besides client contact, which included administrative duties (21 percent), attending staff meetings (9 percent), job development activities (7 percent), reaching out to clients (4 percent), staff development (3 percent), and other miscellaneous activities (24 percent). (back to Figure 1)
Figure 2: Receipt of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Domestic Violence Services
Text description: This bar graph shows the percentage of participants in the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 programs who received mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence services. The x axis depicts the percentage of respondents in both programs who received services, on a scale of 0 to 50. The y axis lists the three kinds of services.
A total of 15.9 percent of Tier 1 program participants received mental health services; 20.3 percent of Tier 2 program participants received mental health services. A total of 6.1 percent of Tier 1 program participants received substance abuse services; 7.5 percent of Tier 2 program participants received substance abuse services. A total of 6 percent of Tier 1 program participants received domestic violence services; 8 percent of Tier 2 program participants received domestic violence services. None of the differences between the two groups’ receipt of services was statistically significant. (back to Figure 2)
Figure 3: Effects on UI-Covered Employment for Those With and Without Recent Employment
Text description: This line graph shows the effects on UI-covered employment for those with and without recent employment for Quarters 2 through 7 after random assignment. The horizontal axis depicts Quarters 2 through 7. The vertical axis shows the percentage who had UI-covered employment on a scale of -5 to 30. The effects of being recently employed and not recently employed on UI-covered employment can be estimated by the difference in outcomes between the two groups. In Quarter 2, 9 percent of the recently employed group and 3 percent of the not recently employed group were employed. The impacts for the recently employed subgroup are statistically significant at the 5 percent level for Quarters 2, 3, and 4. If an impact is statistically significant it means that it is quite unlikely that the difference arose by chance (the lower the level of significance, the less likely that the impact is due to chance). In Quarter 3, 11 percent of the recently employed group and 1 percent of the not recently employed subgroup were employed. The differences in the impacts between subgroups are statistically significant for Quarters 3 and 4. In Quarter 5, the percentage employed decreased for the recently employed subgroup. The percentage of the not recently employed subgroup who had UI-covered employment remained constant through Quarter 6. In Quarters 6 through 7, there was a slight increase in both subgroups in the percentage who had UI-covered employment. (back to Figure 3)
| Table of Contents |