Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter 2: Implementation of the Texas ERA Program
In order to interpret the impacts that the Texas Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) program had on employment and other outcomes, it is important to understand how the program operated and how it was different from what members of the control group experienced in Choices, the state’s standard program for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Drawing from field research, program data, and a time study of program staff, this chapter focuses on how the ERA program was implemented in the three Texas ERA sites: Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, and Houston.1
After a brief summary, this chapter describes how the Texas ERA program was put into place and its structure, staffing, and management. It then discusses the program’s services, how program staff spent their time, and differences in implementation across the three sites.
Key Findings
While the Texas ERA program was intended to be distinct from Choices in terms of both pre- and postemployment services, most of the key differences were in the nature of the postemployment services, particularly the monthly stipend of $200 for working TANF leavers. In all three sites, the Choices program was relatively strong in terms of preemployment services — and experienced some improvements over the course of the study period — and the services were similar to those provided by ERA. Although team-based case management (involving partners from multiple agencies) was an important concept in the development of the ERA program and one that was intended to distinguish it from Choices, in the end the preemployment case management services of the two programs were similar and did not generally involve a range of organizations.
For TANF leavers who found jobs, ERA’s retention and advancement services were strongest and most distinct from Choices after the four-month earnings disregard period — once individuals were receiving a stipend. At this point, participants began working most closely with the postemployment staff, typically meeting with them at least once a month. In Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, program staff often conducted this monthly meeting at the worksite of those who were receiving a stipend — although this did not begin in Fort Worth until later in the study period.
Overall, Corpus Christi achieved the higheststipend receipt rate: Approximately 30 percent of the ERA group received it. (The rates in the other two sites were lower.) Individuals who found jobs and received the entire four-month earned income disregard generally became eligible for a stipend — although they may have not received it if they did not work enough hours, submit the required documentation, or attend the required activity. Among those who did become eligible for the stipend because they worked longer than the disregard period, about half received at least one stipend.
All three Texas sites found that significant effort had to be put into marketing the stipend, and they made a good-faith effort to do so, particularly over time. Yet there was clearly room for improvement. Among the participants who were eligible for the stipend, the reasons for not getting it appear to have varied and included not attending the required employment activity, having a desire to discontinue involvement with a government program, and lacking knowledge or understanding of the stipend requirements. In addition, despite the program’s services, it appears that job loss continued to be an issue in the ERA program, with some participants losing jobs before they became eligible for the stipend. Notably, among those who did receive a stipend, many received it on an ongoing basis.
Corpus Christi implemented the ERA program most smoothly and developed several strategies that were adopted by the other two sites over time. These included marketing strategies for the stipend, designating case managers to work only with individuals who were receiving stipends, and developing strong postemployment services (including regular site visits to employers, in-house support groups to meet the stipend participation requirement, and specific performance measures for staff). These innovative practices reflect the work of the strong management team that the program had in place during the early phases of the project. The Fort Worth program struggled for a good portion of the study period but made significant improvements when a new manager was hired and when more structured job search services and regular employer site visits were put into place. Houston moved most slowly to launch key components of the program — particularly postemployment services.
The Framework: Structure, Staffing, and Management
Organizational Structure and Program Funding
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Texas ERA program was designed by the state’s Department of Human Services (DHS), in coordination with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). At the local level, all employment services for TANF recipients are coordinated by local workforce development boards, under the guidance of TWC. Both the ERA program and Choices were funded by TANF,2 although, for ERA, the workforce boards contracted with DHS for funds, whereas resources for Choices are administered directly by TWC.3 In each of the sites, the local workforce development boards contracted with nonprofit organizations to operate the ERA and Choices employment programs.
Each site had some discretion in how it structured the ERA program, although each followed the same general model. Table 2.1 presents the key partners, roles, and staffing arrangements in the Texas ERA Program. Except in Fort Worth, the nonprofit agency that was under contract with the local board to operate the ERA program was also the contractor for Choices; for the most part, however, each program had separate staff. In Fort Worth, the workforce board contracted with a new organization –– the Women’s Center –– for some ERA services (primarily case management) while also using the Choices contractor and staff for other ERA services (primarily job search). In Houston and Fort Worth, the ERA and Choices programs operated from the same locations, in One-Stop Centers.
As part of developing a team-based case management approach, each site established partnerships with other organizations in operating its ERA program. The partnership in all the sites included the local DHS office and an organization working to prevent substance abuse. Houston also included a partnership with a domestic violence organization and a nonprofit organization that connected participants to training options. In contrast, the Choices program did not explicitly develop any partnerships with other organizations. Choices did work with DHS staff on eligibility issues, but the ERA programs generally forged stronger linkages with this agency. In Corpus Christi, for example, the ERA staff worked with only two DHS eligibility staff, whereas the Choices staff had to coordinate with a much larger number of DHS staff.
Staffing and Training
ERA services in Texas were provided primarily by case managers who were employed by the nonprofit agency operating the ERA program in each site. As shown in Table 2.1, while staff responsibilities in the ERA program evolved over time in all the sites, all ended up using a specialized case management approach — with one set of staff responsible for preemployment case management activities (primarily assessment and monitoring participation); another responsible for job search, job development, and reemployment assistance (in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth only); and another responsible for postemployment case management activities (monitoring individuals’ employment status, issuing stipends, assisting with job-related issues). In all three sites, DHS staff — not ERA program staff — were responsible for TANF eligibility issues.
| Corpus Christi | Fort Worth | Houston | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead agency | Coastal Bend Workforce Development Board | TWC/Workforce Development Board | Houston-Galveston Area Council |
| Provides TANF eligibility services | DHS | DHS | DHS |
| Operates ERA program | Workforce-1 | Women’s Center, CERCO a | HoustonWorks |
| Operates Choices program | Workforce-1 | CERCO a | HoustonWorks |
| Other ERA program partners | Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse | Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse | Employment and Training Centers, Inc.; Council on Alcohol and Drugs; Houston Area Women’s Center |
| Programs/services colocated at ERA program | DHS | DHS; One-Stop Center | One-Stop Center; Houston Area Women’s Center; Employment and Training Centers, Inc. |
| ERA case management approach | Specialized: pre-employment case management staff; job search/job development staff; postemployment staff | Specialized: pre-employment staff; job search/job development staff; postemployment staff. Women’s Center provides pre- and post-employment case management; CERCO provides job search services. | Started as generalist approach but moved to specialized: pre- and postemployment staff. |
| NOTE: a In September 2003, CERCO replaced Work Advantage as the contractor for ERA and Choices. |
Table 2.1 shows, however, that there were important distinctions across the sites. Corpus Christi moved most quickly to establish its staffing structure. Fort Worth used staff from two organizations to provide different services to ERA participants for much of the study period — with one organization being focused on case management and the other providing job search activities. Houston used a generalized case management approach for much of the study period but moved to a specialized approach over time. The size of the programs in terms of staff varied. Corpus Christi generally had the largest staff, at one point including a dozen case managers as well as other administrative staff and a workshop facilitator. The Fort Worth and Houston programs were generally smaller, with six to eight case managers. Caseload sizes varied across the sites, across type of staff, and over time. All the sites went through some period over the course of the study when they were short-staffed and caseloads were higher than intended.
Although team-based case management was an important concept in the development of the ERA program, in the end, ERA case management services did not involve staff from a range of organizations. In general, the primary staff providing services were ERA staff from the agency that contracted to operate the program, rather than from other organizations. As discussed above, several of the programs developed linkages with other organizations to provide specialized services, but these were generally used on an as-needed rather than routine basis, and few participants ended up accessing them. For example, in Houston, a representative from a domestic violence organization was colocated at the ERA program but provided assistance only to those who requested it — and few did. Across the sites, staff from organizations to prevent substance abuse were initially involved in assessing participants’ needs for these services, but they generally did not work with participants on an ongoing basis. By the end of the study period, these organizations had very limited involvement with the ERA program, in large part due to perceived limited interest in and use of their services by program participants.
Staff varied in their previous employment experiences. Some –– particularly in the Choices programs –– had a history of working with welfare-to-work programs. Others did not have experience in social services but brought experience from other related fields, such as employment placement or temp agencies. DHS held annual training sessions for ERA staff in all three sites, covering a range of issues related to the program, including the marketing of financial incentives, developing career ladders, and identifying strategies to prevent job loss and promote advancement.
The Choices program used a more traditional case management approach: The same case manager worked with a client throughout the client’s time in the program. There were no staff who specialized in job search or job development activities or in working with clients after they found jobs.
Management
At the local level, the ERA program was generally managed by a program director at the local workforce development board, and a program manager was responsible for day-to-day operations at the contracted agency. Over the course of the study, there were changes in the management of the program in two of the sites. In Fort Worth, a new program manager started in fall 2002 and was the impetus for many subsequent program improvements. In Corpus Christi, the strong management team that was in place during the early phases of the project and was responsible for developing the most innovative initial ERA program moved on to other positions and was replaced in summer 2002.
In addition to overseeing its contracts with the local workforce board in each of the sites, DHS also played a management role in the ERA program. DHS set performance targets for the individual ERA sites in several areas, including participation, placement rates, retention rates, and wage increases. State staff held monthly conference calls with the sites to review performance on these measures and to provide opportunities for sharing best practices. DHS staff also conducted regular site visits to assess operations and provide technical assistance.
Corpus Christi was the only site to develop a comprehensive performance management system for staff, based on measures similar to those developed by DHS (see Box 2.1). Although the staff performance measures in Corpus Christi evolved somewhat over time, both management and line staff took these performance measures seriously. The other sites generally did not have specific performance measures for staff — particularly measures related to job retention and advancement issues. For example, Houston did have some job placement measures for staff but had none related to postemployment services or stipend receipt. The Choices programs also did not include any comprehensive performance systems for staff, although some did require staff to meet a certain number of job placements.
The Texas ERA Program’s Services and Messages
While there were some variations across the three sites, Figure 2.1 illustrates the typical path of individuals through the Texas ERA program. The rest of the section discusses the services that were provided, with attention given to the differences across sites. (Chapter 3 presents quantitative information on the ERA and control groups’ use of employment-related services.)
Preemployment Services: Job Preparation Services
As noted in Chapter 1, individuals were randomly assigned to the ERA or the Choices group at their TANF application or recertification interview at the local DHS office. Those who were assigned to ERA attended a group “workforce orientation” that was required in order to individuals did not attend the workforce orientation or meet other eligibility requirements, they could not receive TANF or ERA services (including the stipend). As a result, and as discussed further below, some individuals in the sample were not certified for TANF and could not participate in the ERA program.
Box 2.1
Throughout the course of the study, the Corpus Christi ERA program used specific performance measures to assess staff performance. Although these changed over the course of the study, they were focused on key tasks, including participation levels, job placements, retention rates, wage increases, employer site visits, and payment of stipends. Because staff were specialized in terms of their job responsibilities, performance measures varied for different types of staff. For most of the study period, staff who were responsible for managing preemployment services for a case were expected to have at least two-thirds of their caseload actively participating in program activities at any time. Staff who were responsible for helping participants find jobs were evaluated primarily on the basis of job placement rates and average wage placement. Postemployment services staff, who worked with participants once they were receiving a stipend, were evaluated based on wage rates and participants’ retention after 1, 6, 12, and 18 months of employment. They were also required to contact each participant monthly, meet with each participant quarterly, and conduct at least 25 employer site visits per month. Later in the study period, performance measures for postemployment staff changed somewhat; each month, staff were expected to issue 50 stipends, make 38 employer site visits, and have five participants with a wage increase. Each staff person in Corpus Christi met individually with his or her supervisor for a monthly review, which was designed to discuss progress made toward meeting performance benchmarks. If a staff member was not meeting benchmarks, the supervisor reviewed cases with him or her to find ways to make improvements. |
Separate workforce orientations were held for ERA and Choices; the orientations were usually held on a different day than the eligibility or recertification interview at the DHS or the ERA/Choices office. In the orientations, individuals heard about the purpose of the program and its services and requirements, and they were scheduled to meet with an ERA case manager. While both orientations emphasized the importance of work and the program requirements, the ERA orientation included more information on the stipend and other services unique to ERA. At the workforce orientation, clients were referred for services at the ERA program.
Across the three sites, job placement was the primary goal for program participants, and the preemployment services were focused on this objective. As the first step in the program, participants generally attended a job search workshop of several days (the duration of the workshop varied by site and over time). The workshop covered a range of job search including resources, résumé development, and interviewing techniques, and it included a discussion and marketing of the postemployment stipend. As part of the job search workshop, participants met individually with their case manager, an assessment was conducted, and support services were arranged. (Those needing child care were referred to a contractor who handled these arrangements.)
[D]
|
The assessments generally focused on reviewing education and work history and addressing needs for support services. There was some focus on identifying long-term career goals and pathways as part of the assessment — particularly in Corpus Christi. The assessment also included a test of basic reading and math skills and screenings for learning disabilities and for mental health and substance abuse issues. During the early stages of the program, Fort Worth had a very strong focus on the assessment component. This was often a multistep process involving various staff, and the process had the effect of limiting the number of individuals who received other program services. Throughout the study period, Houston also included an additional in-depth assessment for many participants (which involved an extensive interview with a staff person who was a licensed psychologist).
The Texas ERA program in all the sites had a strong focus on immediate employment, particularly when the federal waiver from participation requirements ended; it had allowed individuals to engage in a wide range of employment and training activities in order to meet the federal work participation requirements. After the waiver, an individual’s initial activity was generally a four-to-six-week search for employment. Before the waiver expired, however, although job search was still the primary initial activity, the sites allowed more flexibility and included such activities as obtaining a General Educational Development (GED) certificate. During the job search phase, participants were typically expected to make a certain number of employer contacts each month and to bring a completed job log to their weekly meeting with the case manager. Staff did explore clients’ interests and, if possible, helped them find jobs that fit those interests. But –– largely because of the emphasis on achieving the federal participation rates –– staff usually encouraged participants to take a job quickly.
The sites varied in how they handled job development — or locating potential job openings for ERA participants. The Corpus Christi and Fort Worth programs designated specific staff to focus on job development and placement, whereas the Houston program gave this responsibility to individual case managers. During the early phases of the program in Fort Worth, difficulties arose in coordinating case management and job search services, which were provided by two different organizations, and this affected client flow through the job search services. Houston tried to use job development services provided by One-Stop staff or the ERA program but found that many of the openings required skills that participants did not have.
Individuals who did not find work by the end of the job search period generally participated in community service or a volunteer position at an employer. ERA case managers had a number of potential slots available, and they helped participants locate the one that best fit their interests. Community service positions generally required 20 hours or more of participation per week and continued until the individual found a job or left TANF. Staff reported that few individuals took community service positions, because they either found jobs or left TANF for other reasons.
Participation in the ERA program was mandatory except for those who had a child younger than age 1, were ill or disabled, or were caring for a disabled family member. (Individuals who were not mandated to participate were known as “exempt.”)4 ERA case managers took the participation mandate seriously, by closely monitoring attendance and sanctioning individuals if they did not attend program activities without good cause. For most of the study period, the sanction was a partial reduction of the family’s grant, although Texas adopted a full-family sanction in June 2003. Exempt individuals were eligible for all components of the ERA program and were strongly encouraged to participate — and it appears that many did so.5
In terms of preemployment services, the Choices programs across the sites were relatively strong and similar to the ERA programs. In addition, these services in Choices appear to have grown stronger over time, particularly after the waiver from federal participation requirements ended. After this, Choices developed a stronger focus on immediate employment and made a more concerted effort to increase participation levels in program services in order to meet federal requirements. Although there was some variation across the sites, Choices typically included the following preemployment services:
-
Participants were required to attend a workforce orientation on the Choices program in order to be certified for TANF.
-
A basic assessment was followed by four to six weeks of job search as the initial activity. Participants worked one-on-one with their case manager to find jobs and were required to make a certain number of employer contacts per week.
-
In some cases, a job readiness workshop (in addition to the one-on-one job search assistance) was provided, but not as routinely as in ERA. Choices also generally put less emphasis on longer-term career planning.
-
Community service or a volunteer position was provided for individuals who did not find employment by the end of the job search period.
-
Like ERA, Choices was a mandatory program, and participants faced the same sanctions as under ERA if they did attend services as required.
Postemployment Services: Retention and Advancement Case Management Services
For employed participants, the goal of the ERA program was job retention and advancement in the labor market; both case management and financial incentives were provided to achieve this goal. As discussed above, individuals in the ERA program who found jobs received a four-month earnings disregard prior to receiving the monthly stipend that was part of the standard TANF program in Texas (and was also available to control group members in Choices). During the earnings disregard period, ERA’s case management services were as follows:
-
Except in Fort Worth, preemployment case managers (rather than retention and advancement staff) were generally required to have monthly contact with working participants during the earnings disregard period. In order to determine continued eligibility for TANF and the disregard, case managers were required to verify the hours and wages of employment monthly, through these contacts, but they also used the opportunity to address any job-related issues. The contacts often but not always took place over the phone, and participants faxed any necessary paperwork to the case manager.
-
ERA participants typically met with postemployment staff once during the disregard period to encourage individuals to take advantage of the stipend after the period ended and to review the requirements to receive it (particularly the hours of work required, the documentation needed, and the required monthly employment-related activities).
Retention and advancement services were strongest once individuals started receiving the stipend. At this point, postemployment staff were expected to continue to make at least monthly contact with individuals on their caseload. During the initial stages of employment, staff focused on job retention and job-related problems while ensuring that individuals met the requirements to receive the stipend. However, as clients became stabilized in their jobs, staff also discussed advancement options — primarily in terms of the next job at the current employer or a job change.
In order to address both retention and advancement issues more effectively, the ERA programs in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth conducted many of their monthly meetings with stipend recipients at the worksite — although Fort Worth did not begin employer site visits until later in the study period. Because it was difficult to schedule office visits when participants were working and because staff found in-person meetings more valuable than phone contacts, Corpus Christi initiated the practice of routinely meeting at the worksite. These meetings generally included both the employee and the employer in discussions of job-related issues, job performance, and advancement options. (See Box 2.2.)
Box 2.2
In Corpus Christi, for most of the study period, postemployment staff conducted employer site visits at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after an individual found a job; staff later moved to the goal of monthly site visits whenever possible. During the employer site visit, program staff spoke to both the worker and the supervisor about job performance and any issues that might have arise on the job (such as attendance, punctuality, or relationships with coworkers). After the individual had been stabilized on the job, staff members discussed advancement with both the employee and the employer. ERA staff worked with participants on things that were needed in order to move into a better job, such obtaining more skills and training or taking greater initiative on the job. The employer was also asked what workers needed to do to advance in their jobs and how often the employer evaluated workers and gave raises. ERA staff conducting employer site visits noted that not all employers were amenable to meeting with them about specific employees but that most were. To gain employers’ buy-in to the program, staff found that it was important to explain the goals of the ERA program, to emphasize the assistance that they could provide (improving job retention by addressing problems, assisting with staff development, and assisting in filling future vacancies), and to build a relationship with the employer. Staff also found that it was helpful to keep the meetings with employers “friendly and casual” and short (lasting less than five minutes). Staff reported that most employees were amenable to the site visits because it saved them a trip to the ERA office or trying to connect by phone. If an employer or employee did find the visits problematic, ERA staff arranged to meet with the employee during lunch hour or a break or at an offsite location. |
In Houston, due to administrative issues, ERA staff were generally unable to conduct employer site visits, and so they maintained contact with working participants through office visits and phone calls. In general, for much of the study period, the Houston program placed a higher priority on enrolling welfare recipients and on delivering preemployment services. This site focused on developing more comprehensive retention and advancement services near the end of the study period.
Despite the ERA program’s retention and advancement services and financial incentives, staff reported that job loss was more pervasive and occurred more quickly than they expected. Although staff knew that job loss was a common problem for the ERA population, they were still surprised by its magnitude. Sometimes participants informed staff when they were going to lose a job or quit, but other times staff did not find out until attempting their monthly contact. Because of this, all the sites found that they needed to strengthen their reemployment services. Corpus Christi and Fort Worth had goals of reemploying ERA participants within two weeks of finding out about the job loss. This assistance was provided regardless of whether the individual was on TANF or not. Fort Worth also designated a case manager to address all cases who needed reemployment services.
In Choices, the postemployment services consisted primarily of monthly contact with participants to monitor and verify employment status while they were receiving the four-month earned income disregard. Choices case managers generally did not maintain contact with individuals once they left TANF and were no longer receiving the disregard. Choices also did not offer reemployment assistance unless an individual reapplied for TANF, and then it offered standard Choices preemployment services.
Financial Incentives: Administration and Use of the Postemployment Stipend
As discussed above, to encourage job retention and advancement, the Texas ERA program used an innovative approach: a payment of $200 per month for up to 12 months. This stipend was available after the earned income disregard period for individuals who worked 30 hours per month or who worked part time in combination with attending school. The following sections discuss the marketing and use of the stipend, why some individuals did not use it, and the experiences of participants who did use the stipend.
The Marketing and Use of the Stipend
The Texas ERA program made a solid effort to market the stipend to participants. Particularly in the early stages of the program, take-up of the stipend was lower than expected, and all three sites increased their marketing efforts over the course of the study. Staff had initially thought that the stipend would essentially “sell itself” — given its relatively generous level and minimal requirements (particularly compared with TANF). However, staff across the sites eventually recognized the need to adopt a multifaceted marketing approach that focused primarily on the stipend as a way to increase participants’ income but that also increased the incentive for participants to find and keep jobs.
Corpus Christi moved most quickly to develop a strong marketing effort, and many of its strategies were adopted by Fort Worth and Houston. These marketing strategies included:
-
Telling participants about the stipend and strongly encouraging them to take advantage of it at all junctures of the program — immediately after participants were assigned to the program, at their assessment, during job search activities, when they found a job, and when they had finished the earnings disregard period.
-
Displaying posters and fliers throughout the ERA offices to inform participants about this benefit.
-
Developing strategies to make the stipend sound more straightforward and appealing. For example, staff started calling the financial incentive an “employment bonus” — because many clients did not understand what a stipend is (some thought it was a loan that had to be paid back). Staff also started emphasizing that participants could receive a total of $2,400 –– because the larger amount obviously had greater appeal.
-
Creating posters and videotapes to tell the “success stories” of participants who had received stipends and how they had used the resources.
While the sites made a good-faith effort to market the ERA stipend, it appears that their efforts were not as strong as those made in other programs that provided a financial incentive to encourage work. (See Box 1.1 in Chapter 1.) For example, the Canadian Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP) provided an hour-long individual orientation that focused exclusively on the program’s earnings supplement and included brochures and illustrations of various financial scenarios to help the client understand the incentive. In contrast, the Texas ERA program often provided information about the stipend along with a range of other information about different program rules and requirements. Although the stipend information was repeated consistently throughout the ERA program, because it was delivered among many other program features, it may not have been as effective as a message that focused exclusively on the financial incentive. The marketing of the ERA stipend may have been particularly challenging, given that receipt of the stipend could seem far in the future to some participants and was contingent on achieving several outcomes in addition to becoming employed (discussed further below).
Steps Required to Receive a Stipend
After ERA participants had received the entire four-month earned income disregard, several steps were required in every month that they wanted to receive the $200 postemployment stipend:
-
Participants had to work the required number of hours, which was generally 30 hours per week in the given month. Although ERA allowed individuals to receive a stipend if they were going to school and working part time, this was not strongly promoted — in part because of TANF’s emphasis on employment (preferably full time). Staff also reported that participants were not interested in this option and preferred to work full time. Staff did encourage ERA participants to pursue additional education and training — primarily, to get a GED certificate and some job training — but to do that in addition to working full time.
-
Participants had to submit documentation of the hours they worked. This was usually a paycheck stub, which could be faxed to the ERA office or provided in person to the case manager.
-
Finally, participants had to attend some type of employment-related activity each month. The Texas sites implemented this requirement in different ways but generally were flexible in what they allowed to count toward the monthly participation requirement — including training at work, education and training programs, various support groups, or other activities in the community. Each site also operated its own workshops or support groups that participants could attend to meet the requirement, and each also handed out a monthly calendar of both ERA-operated support groups and other community events that could be used to fulfill this requirement. In Corpus Christi and later in Fort Worth, staff distributed stipend checks at a monthly workshop, which allowed participants to get their check and meet the requirement at the same time –– a popular approach. Otherwise, stipend checks were mailed to participants.
Initially, all the sites experienced some difficulty issuing the stipend checks in a timely manner, particularly because they did not have experience disbursing funds on a monthly basis. There were also some issues regarding how to verify that participants had worked enough hours to qualify for the stipend. Corpus Christi at first required a work supervisor’s signature, but participants sometimes had difficulty obtaining this or did not want to ask for it. Such issues were resolved relatively quickly, however, and most stipend checks were issued on time.
The Use of the Stipend
To understand the Texas program’s success in marketing and administering the postemployment stipend, this section examines the proportion of individuals in the ERA program group who received a stipend and the frequency and duration of stipend use.
Stipend Receipt Rates for the Program Group
To examine stipend receipt rates, administrative data were collected for all individuals who were assigned to the ERA program. This sample includes many individuals who did not qualify for the stipend because they did not find jobs, did not work enough hours, or did not work longer than the four-month earned income disregard period. As Table 2.2 shows, stipend receipt rates were highest in Corpus Christi, where 30 percent of all ERA group members received a stipend (including those who found jobs as well as those who did not) through the duration of the program. The receipt rate was lower in Fort Worth and Houston, where about 20 percent of ERA group members ever received a stipend. Figure 2.2 shows the proportion of the ERA group in Corpus Christi who received the stipend in each quarter as well as when individuals received their first stipend. Stipend receipt rates increased relatively quickly through the first and second year before leveling off in the third year. (Appendix E presents results for Fort Worth and Houston.)
Stipend Receipt Rates Among Key Subgroups
Figure 2.3 shows stipend receipt rates among key subgroups. (Chapter 4 also analyzes these subgroups in terms of program impacts.) The figure shows that stipend receipt was highest among those who had a strong employment history prior to random assignment. In Corpus Christi, for example, 40 percent of those who earned more than $5,000 in the year prior to random assignment received a stipend, compared with only 30 percent of the full sample. This subgroup may be more likely to find jobs and benefit from the postemployment services provided through ERA. In contrast, only 26 percent of those who were unemployed in the year prior to random assignment received a stipend. Other subgroups — such as those based on welfare history or high school graduation — did not show any differences in stipend receipt rates (not shown in the figure).
| Outcome | Corpus Christi | Fort Worth | Houston | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among all program group members | Ever received a stipend (%) | 30.0 | 21.7 | 20.4 | |
| Sample size (total = 2,857) | 988 | 821 | 1,048 | ||
| Among those receiving a stipend | Average number of months to first stipend | 16.8 | 14.4 | 17.1 | |
| Number of months to first stipend | Less than 6 | 15.4 | 20.7 | 9.8 | |
| 6 to 12 | 26.2 | 30.7 | 28.5 | ||
| 13 to 24 | 35.5 | 33.6 | 38.4 | ||
| Over 24 | 22.9 | 15.0 | 23.3 | ||
| Total number of stipends (%) | 1 | 11.1 | 5.6 | 17.8 | |
| 2 | 4.7 | 6.7 | 10.3 | ||
| 3 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 12.1 | ||
| 4-6 | 17.9 | 15.2 | 24.8 | ||
| 7-10 | 13.9 | 16.9 | 25.7 | ||
| 11 or more | 48.6 | 49.4 | 9.3 | ||
| Average amount received ($) | 1,631 | 1,681 | 1,247 | ||
| Average number of months stipend received | 8.2 | 8.4 | 5.2 | ||
| Sample size (total = 688) | 296 | 178 | 214 | ||
|
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from ERA program tracking data. Note: a Among all ERA group members randomly assigned October 2000 through January 2003.
|
[D]
|
[D]
|
Stipend Receipt Rates Among Those Who Were Eligible
Individuals who found jobs and received the entire four-month earned income disregard generally became eligible for the stipend — although they may have not received it if they did not work enough hours, submit the required documentation, or attend the required activity in a given month. Clearly, compared with the whole sample, a higher proportion of those who became eligible for the stipend did receive one. However, due to data limitations, it is not possible to estimate who was eligible for a stipend. To provide a rough idea of the receipt rate among those who were eligible, Figure 2.4 estimates the proportion of people who were likely to have gone through the steps involved in receiving a stipend in Corpus Christi. (Appendix E presents estimates for the other two sites in Texas.) Figure 2.4 shows that:
-
Out of every 100 people randomly assigned to ERA, 84 met the first criterion for receiving a stipend: They were determined eligible for the TANF program and received benefits. As noted above, individuals were not eligible for a stipend unless they received TANF cash assistance.
-
Of those 84 people, 70 became employed at some point during the follow-up period. However, to receive a stipend, an individual must have worked beyond the four-month earned income disregard period. Because participants could receive the disregard only once in a 12-month period (and the disregard did not have to be received in consecutive months), the eligible population was estimated as those employed individuals who worked in two or more quarters within a year and who earned over $2,400 in these two quarters, based on unemployment insurance (UI) data.6 This was done to eliminate those who worked very little over the two quarters and who would not have received the disregard for the full period. Figure 2.4 shows that an estimated 55 of the 70 employed participants in Corpus Christi appear to have worked enough to receive the entire four-month earnings disregard.7
-
Of the 55 who worked at least four months, 30 individuals (or 55 percent) received a stipend. While this is not a precise estimate of the stipend receipt rate among those who were eligible, it shows that Corpus Christi, in particular, was effective in encouraging the take-up of the incentive for at least a moderate proportion of the eligible population. In Fort Worth and Houston, approximately 40 percent of those who worked longer than four months received a stipend. (See Appendix E.)
These take-up rates are lower than were found in other studies of programs using financial incentives. In SSP, for example, a similar proportion—approximately 35 percent of the program group—used the financial incentive offered in that program.8 However, in contrast, almost all the individuals who were eligible to receive the SSP incentive (because they worked full time) did so. In the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), because the financial incentive was provided in the welfare grant in the form of an earnings disregard, all the individuals who went to work automatically received the payment for as long as they remained on assistance.
[D]
|
The Timing of Stipend Receipt
As Table 2.2 shows, it was a relatively long period of time before individuals received their first stipend — about 17 months, on average (but less time in Fort Worth). In part this reflects that individuals were receiving their first stipend well into the third and fourth years of the follow-up period (Figure 2.2). In Corpus Christi, about 40 percent receive their first stipend in the first year; one-third did so in the second year; and one-fifth waited until the third year. As discussed above, this partly reflects the number of steps required before receiving a stipend, including participating in preemployment services, finding a job, and completing the earned income disregard period. It also could reflect the ongoing outreach efforts of staff to bring back into the program those who had left or had never participated.
The Duration of Stipend Receipt
Particularly in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, many of those who did receive a stipend continued to receive it. Almost half of stipend recipients in those two sites received eleven or more monthly payments (Table 2.2). In Houston, nearly two-thirds of those who received a stipend received six or fewer payments, and only 9 percent received eleven or more. Similarly, among recipients in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, the average number of months of stipend receipt was eight, compared with an average of five months in Houston. Among those who received stipends, the total payments averaged $1,631 in Corpus Christi; $1,681 in Fort Worth; and $1,247 in Houston.
To increase the stipend receipt rate, all three Texas sites expended considerable effort trying to locate individuals who had previously been in the ERA program but were not currently participating or who had never participated. Once these people were located, staff engaged them in job search services (if not employed) or encouraged them to take advantage of the stipend (if employed). Based on interviews with staff, these efforts appear to have had some, but limited, effects on increasing the receipt of stipends. This was a greater concern in Houston and Fort Worth, where the programs lost touch with some participants early on because of startup issues. Although these sites had organized outreach efforts to contact such individuals, staff were unable to get many of them back into the ERA program. Many former participants were difficult to locate or could not be contacted, and many nonparticipants were still not interested in the program.
Reasons for Not Using the Stipend
While many ERA participants did use the monthly stipend, some working individuals clearly did not use it. There are several reasons why this could have occurred: The individual may not have met specific requirements, such as working enough hours in a particular month or attending the monthly activity; the individual may not have known about or understood the stipend; or the individual may not have wanted the stipend. Overall, it appears that different people did not use the stipend for different reasons, with no single reason dominating.
As one way of examining this issue, MDRC staff held telephone discussions with a small number of individuals (three in Corpus Christi and five in Houston) who had not received the stipend even though they appear to have been eligible for it, based on a review of the programs’ employment records (that is, they had been employed for four or more consecutive months).9 Given the small sample size, these individuals are not representative of all those who did not receive stipends when they may have been eligible, but their views are suggestive of hypotheses. Most of the respondents said they knew about the availability of the stipend, but two did not. Of the six who knew about it, a few said that they were not receiving the stipend because they found the monthly workshop requirement too burdensome; for example, one mother did not have anyone to take care of her children during the workshop’s scheduled time. Other reasons for not using the stipend include not working enough hours, thinking that they would not be eligible for the stipend (and not being in communication with ERA staff), and not being sure why they were not receiving the stipend.
Several of these telephone respondents reported that they had limited interaction with ERA staff and did not use the services very much, although some had found the services helpful in the past. Several were no longer working (for a variety of reasons, including quitting, being fired, and being laid off), but most were not interacting with ERA staff to become reemployed. Most said they did not know that they could receive the stipend by attending school and working part time, but most were not interested in this option because of time constraints.
To understand why some ERA participants did not use the stipend, MDRC also conducted interviews with ERA staff, who again offered a range of reasons. First, some clients lost a job before the earned income disregard period ended. Several staff reported that this sometimes was beyond the control of the participant but that, in other cases, participants had a “fear” of leaving TANF or they left the job for other reasons. In some cases, participants could not meet the stipend requirements; they either did not attend the monthly job-related activity or did not work enough hours in the month. Staff also reported that some participants felt a stigma associated with the stipend –– much like being on cash assistance –– and were not interested in continuing involvement with a “government program” after leaving TANF. Finally, staff reported that some clients were concerned about losing TANF’s child care assistance. Even though ERA participants were eligible for transitional child care subsidies when they left TANF, some participants were concerned because ERA had a somewhat higher child care copayment (although the stipend could be used to cover it), and this caused some to quit their job before the disregard period ended.
The Experiences of Individuals Who Received a Stipend
To better understand how the ERA participants who received a stipend used these funds, MDRC also held telephone discussions with several stipend recipients (five in Corpus Christi and seven in Houston). Again, because of the small sample size, the responses of these individuals are simply suggestive. Most respondents had received the stipend for at least several months, and three had received it for all 12 months.
Overall, these individuals found the stipend to be very helpful in covering household and work-related expenses. Most used the stipend to pay for rent, other household bills, food, child care or transportation. A few tried to save some of the funds for an emergency, although this was not as common. A few also used the money to buy something for their children. Although all respondents found the stipend useful, they consistently stated that the availability of the stipend did not affect their decision to take a job or stay in it — they would have made the same decisions even without this monthly incentive. A few individuals had lost their job at the time of the interview, primarily because they had been laid off or because the job had been temporary.
Most of the individuals in this group did not find the requirement to attend a monthly workshop burdensome, and many were enthusiastic about the sessions: “I love them”; the instructor makes it “fun for us”; they provide “great information”; and they “really opened my eyes.” Several said that having a Saturday session to which they could bring their children made it easier to meet this requirement. But a few individuals did find the sessions difficult to get to, particularly given their work schedules. Three respondents (across both sites) reported experiencing at least some delay in receiving a stipend check.
Most of the individuals in this group spoke positively about their interactions with ERA staff. The type of assistance they received from staff varied but included help with transportation, child care, housing, work supplies, job search, and finding a better job. While one person was combining part-time work and attending a GED program in order to receive the stipend, most individuals said that they did not know they could also receive the stipend if they attended school part time while working. But these respondents also said that they would not be interested in this option at the moment because they did not have the time and had too many other responsibilities.
How Did ERA Staff Spend Their Time?
MDRC administered a “time study” in all the ERA sites to better understand the practices of program staff and what it takes to operate a program like ERA. The study captured detailed information on the nature of interactions between ERA staff and clients and on the topics covered in their interactions. It also collected information on how ERA staff typically spent their time each day. In Texas, the time study was administered over a two-week period in July 2003 in Corpus Christi and Houston and in February 2004 in Fort Worth — which is toward the end of the follow-up period for this report. During this time, all staff who worked directly with ERA participants — including pre- and postemployment case managers and staff who worked with participants to find jobs — recorded their activities each day, using forms designed by MDRC. At that time, very few new cases were being assigned to staff, although they continued to work with ongoing cases.
When the time study was administered, the caseloads of individual ERA staff ranged from 61 in Corpus Christi to 76 in Houston. Reflecting that the time study was conducted when few new clients were enrolling in the program, over half the caseload in each site were working (over 80 percent in Fort Worth were working). Caseload sizes varied somewhat across staff and types of staff but were generally in the range of other ERA programs.
Figure 2.5 shows that when the time study was administered, staff spent about one-quarter of their time in contact with clients (ranging from 22 percent of the time in Corpus Christi to 29 percent in Houston). This is typical across the ERA sites. Staff spent about equal amounts of time with working and nonworking clients — except in Houston, where almost twice as much time was spent with working clients. Although activities varied somewhat across the sites, staff spent the remainder of their time doing administrative duties, participating in meetings, completing notes in the Management Information System (MIS), or attempting to contact participants (outreach). Notably, staff in Corpus Christi spent 8 percent of their time interacting with employers –– one of the highest rates among all the ERA sites.
As shown in Table 2.3, the number of contacts per day that ERA staff had with program participants ranged from five in Corpus Christi to eight in Fort Worth. The average contact lasted about 18 minutes in Corpus Christi and Houston and was somewhat shorter in Fort Worth. Overall, staff in Fort Worth had more but shorter contacts than staff in the other two sites. About an equal amount of time was spent with working and nonworking clients — except in Houston, where contacts with nonworking clients were longer.
[D]
|
Table 2.4 shows the type and location of all client contacts throughout the period studied. In Corpus Christi, contacts were split evenly between those that took place in person and those that did not, whereas more than 60 percent of contacts in the other sites were not in person. In all three sites, one-third of contacts occurred in the office. Corpus Christi was unique because it also conducted in-person visits to clients’ employers and homes (9 percent and 6 percent of all contacts, respectively), whereas most contacts in the other sites were by phone.10 In Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, staff initiated most of the contacts, but almost three-quarters of the contacts in Houston were initiated by clients.
Table 2.5 shows the percentage of client contacts that included discussion of various topics. Reflecting the emphasis on marketing the stipend, the most common topic/activity across all three sites was discussing issues related to the stipend (included in 23 percent to 44 percent of discussions). “General check-ins” were common in Corpus Christi and Houston; Houston had a large proportion of contacts addressing reemployment; and Corpus Christi and Fort Worth had a large proportion of contacts that included a discussion of participation and sanctioning issues. Discussions of career goals and advancement occurred in 10 percent to 16 percent of the client contacts.
| Corpus Christi | Fort Worth | Houston | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of work time spent in contact with | Any client | 21.5 | 28.5 | 29.2 |
| Working clients | 11.3 | 12.0 | 18.5 | |
| Nonworking clients | 10.2 | 16.5 | 10.7 | |
| Work experience clients | NA | NA | NA | |
| Average number of client contacts per day per case manager | Any client | 4.9 | 8.1 | 5.7 |
| Working clients | 2.6 | 4.2 | 3.8 | |
| Nonworking clients | 2.3 | 3.9 | 1.8 | |
| Work experience clients | NA | NA | NA | |
| Average number of minutes per contact with | Any client | 18.6 | 14.8 | 18.3 |
| Working clients | 15.6 | 13.1 | 16.3 | |
| Nonworking clients | 16.2 | 16.8 | 23.5 | |
| Work experience clients | NA | NA | NA | |
| Number of case managers time-studied | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
|
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study. NOTE: NA = not applicable.
|
Variations in Implementation Across Sites
As the above discussion indicates, there was significant variation in how the three Texas programs implemented the ERA model. Overall, implementation was smoothest in Corpus Christi — the site that moved most quickly to establish a staffing structure and program services reflecting all aspects of the model. This included preemployment services with some focus on longer-term career planning; intensive postemployment case management, including regular employer site visits; and strong marketing of the stipend. Many of the practices in Corpus Christi — such as the specialized staffing arrangements, practices for marketing and distributing the stipend, and employer site visits for individuals receiving the stipend — were eventually adopted by the other two sites. Corpus Christi was also the only site to implement a comprehensive performance measurement system for staff.
| Corpus Christi | Fort Worth | Houston | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of all client contacts that were: | In person | 51.0 | 37.9 | 36.4 | |
| Office visit | 36.5 | 34.8 | 33.1 | ||
| Home visit | 6.0 | 1.2 | 0.9 | ||
| Employer visit | 8.6 | 0.0 | 1.1 | ||
| Elsewhere | 0.0 | 1.9 | 1.3 | ||
| Not in person | 49.0 | 62.1 | 63.6 | ||
| Phone contact | 40.5 | 61.8 | 61.8 | ||
| Written contact | 8.5 | 0.0 | 1.8 | ||
| Other type of contact | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | ||
| Percentage of all client contacts, over a two-week period, that were initiated by: | Staff member | 59.2 | 57.1 | 26.3 | |
| Client | 40.5 | 42.5 | 73.7 | ||
| Another person | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | ||
| Number of case managers time-studied | 9 | 6 | 7 | ||
| SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study |
The Fort Worth program struggled for a good portion of the study period, particularly in designing effective preemployment services. Initially, the program strongly emphasized assessment and removal of employment barriers, which limited the extent to which participants moved into employment and postemployment services. Coordination issues between the two agencies that were involved also affected client flow through the program’s components. When a new manager was hired in 2002, however, the Fort Worth program made significant improvements, including more structured job search services and stronger postemployment case management services, along with regular employer site visits. During the early period, though, the program lost track of many individuals and could not locate many of them after things improved (although attempts were made). Thus, the stronger set of services was provided to only a portion of the participants who were assigned to the ERA group.
| Corpus Christi | Fort Worth | Houston | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of all client contacts that included the following topics: a | Initial client engagement | 16.8 | 15.9 | 7.6 |
| Supportive service eligibility and issues | 15.1 | 12.4 | 12.5 | |
| General check-in | 27.7 | 5.8 | 25.1 | |
| Screening/assessment | 10.3 | 2.7 | 9.3 | |
| Address on-the-job issues/problems | 8.3 | 0.2 | 13.4 | |
| Address personal or family issues | 7.2 | 5.1 | 17.3 | |
| Explore specific employment and training options | 10.3 | 2.7 | 7.3 | |
| Discuss career goals and advancement | 16.2 | 9.6 | 13.8 | |
| Assist with reemployment | 11.5 | 7.3 | 20.6 | |
| Discuss issues related to financial incentives or stipends | 31.3 | 23.0 | 43.7 | |
| Schedule/refer for work experience position b | NA | NA | NA | |
| Enrollment in government assistance and ongoing eligiblity issues | 0.0 | 9.2 | 1.1 | |
| Assistance with the EITC | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | |
| Participation/sanction issues | 28.6 | 23.8 | 8.5 | |
| Schedule/refer for screening/assessment | 1.2 | 1.4 | 2.1 | |
| Schedule/refer for job search or other employment services | 6.2 | 2.7 | 5.1 | |
| Schedule/refer for education or training | 0.3 | 3.3 | 1.6 | |
| Schedule/refer for services to address special or personal issues | 1.1 | 2.0 | 3.7 | |
| Provide job leads or referrals b | NA | NA | NA | |
| Number of case managers time-studied | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
|
SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study. NOTES: NA = not applicable. a Percentages total over 100 percent, since more than one topic could be recorded for each client contact. b This measure was not included in the time-study instrument used in Texas.
|
The Houston program moved most slowly to get ERA’s retention and advancement services off the ground. For much of the study period, this program placed a higher priority on outreach and recruitment of new clients and developing preemployment services; postemployment services were not fully developed until very late in the study. Local administrative issues also made it difficult for this program to implement certain features that the staff felt would have been beneficial — particularly, employer site visits for working individuals and job development staff that would be dedicated to ERA participants.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |