Share this program

  • 0.15,1.00

Summary

Minnesota Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (MSTED) supplemented the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) program by providing participants with subsidized employment as well as job readiness and search services to improve employment and earnings outcomes and reduce benefit receipt.

In addition to MFIP employment services, MSTED participants received job-readiness assessments, one-on-one training to support job readiness, and assistance finding subsidized employment. Subsidized employment under the MSTED model took two forms. The first form, which aimed to improve participant workplace skills, was a paid work experience at a public agency or nonprofit organization for up to 24 hours per week for up to 8 weeks. Participants earned a fully subsidized wage of $9 per hour under this option. The second form of subsidized employment, which was intended for participants deemed more job-ready by MSTED staff, provided participants with subsidized wages of up to $15 per hour for up to 40 hours per week at a private employer. Participants’ wages at private employers were fully subsidized for the first 8 weeks, then 50 percent subsidized for a subsequent 8 weeks. MSTED provided services for a minimum of eight weeks and provided job readiness services as needed during this time. Participants were recipients of MFIP services who were referred to the MSTED program in Ramsey, Dakota, and Hennepin Counties in Minnesota. MFIP was Minnesota’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Public Benefits Recipients, Cash assistance recipients

Implementation at a glance

Primary service
Program services
Job placement, Job readiness, Subsidized employment/transitional jobs
Setting(s)
Tested in multiple settings
Year evaluation began
2014
Implementing organization(s)Minnesota Department of Human Services; three employment services providers: HIRED, Avivo, Goodwill-Easter Seals

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

View table definitions

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2024 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $948 per year 0.026 798
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $620 per year 0.017 798
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $474 per year 0.013 798
Increase employment Short-term Supported favorable 5% (in percentage points) 0.131 798
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 1% (in percentage points) 0.030 798
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-326 per year -0.095 799
Long-term Cannot assess support
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Cannot assess support

Effectiveness ratings

  • Well- supported
  • Supported
  • Mixed support
  • Not supported
  • Insufficient evidence
  • Cannot assess support

Studies of this program

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1

Program cost

No cost information available.

Cost results

Estimate (in 2024 dollars) Quality of cost analysis that produced the estimate
Total program cost, per participant $7,779
Interpret cost findings with caution

Cost information

How much did the program cost per participant?

The average total program cost per participant was $7,779 in 2024 dollars. This figure is based on cost information for this program reported in one cost study reviewed by Pathways to Work (for details, see the FAQ). This study received a rating of Interpret cost findings with caution for the cost analysis.

Cost information is not directly comparable across programs due to differences in the categories of costs reported and program length. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Implementation details

Dates covered by study

The study ran from November 2014 to July 2022. Study enrollment ran from November 2014 to June 2016. Data collection occurred from November 2014 to July 2022, with outcomes measured using administrative data over an six-year follow-up period and using survey data at a 12-month follow-up.

Organizations implementing program

The Minnesota DHS oversaw the MSTED program and selected three counties (Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey) to implement the model. DHS administers and oversees the federally funded TANF cash assistance program called MFIP in Minnesota, which the MSTED program was designed to supplement. The counties contracted out the delivery of MSTED services to three employment service providers: HIRED (Dakota), Avivo (Hennepin), and Goodwill-Easter Seals (Hennepin and Ramsey).

Populations served

Study participants were TANF recipients in one of the three participating counties in Minnesota. Most participants were female (81 percent). The majority of participants had a high school diploma or GED (73 percent), were Black (65 percent), and had some postsecondary education (56 percent). About one-third (35 percent) were formerly incarcerated.

Description of services implemented

MSTED’s primary goal was to improve employment outcomes for recipients of Minnesota’s TANF program, MFIP. The program sought to provide subsidized employment to MFIP recipients unable to obtain employment in the local labor market. MSTED included two tracks of subsidized employment based on the job readiness of eligible MFIP recipients:

  • Paid work experience. Participants who were not job ready, as determined by MFIP job developers, were placed in a job at a public agency or nonprofit where they earned fully subsidized wages of $9 per hour up to 24 hours a week for up to eight weeks. Employment was expected to conclude at the end of the eight-week subsidy period.
  • Subsidized employment. Participants who were more job ready, as determined by MFIP job developers, were placed in a job at a private employer where they earned subsidized wages up to $15 per hour for up to 40 hours a week. MSTED subsidized 100 percent of participant wages for the first eight weeks and 50 percent of wages for another eight weeks. MSTED required employers to place participants on their payroll for the second eight weeks with the hope it would allow for a smooth rollover to unsubsidized employment at the end of the subsidy period.

In addition to the subsidized wages, MSTED provided job readiness training and case management services before and concurrently with paid work experience and subsidized employment to help participants obtain their employment goals. Participants could participate in both paid work experience and subsidized employment tracks (not concurrently) as long as the total subsidy period did not exceed six months. The program model intended for most participants to initially be placed into subsidized employment, with paid work experiences reserved for participants who were not as job ready. However, as program implementation unfolded, MSTED job developers placed more people in paid work experiences as they found difficulties finding private employers to agree to subsidized employment placements.

Participation in MSTED was voluntary and was not required of individuals referred by MFIP employment counselors. For those who did decide to participate in the MSTED study and were assigned to the program group, their participation counted toward MFIP recipients’ required work activity hours.

MSTED providers successfully implemented most of the key elements of the program model; however, the three providers varied in how they delivered services. The primary variation was in how providers balanced the tradeoff between teaching participants job skills to prepare for subsidized employment and getting them placed quickly before they became disinterested and left the program. Some providers required that participants attend a two-week workshop at the beginning of the program, whereas others offered optional workshops over a longer period. Providers also varied in their use of paid work experience to build skills and provide immediate employment to increase engagement with the program. Two of the three providers used paid work experience in this manner, whereas the third provider did not.

Study authors also identified several challenges related to MSTED implementation:

  • MSTED job developers reported difficulties meeting enrollment targets because of an improved economy that resulted in lower MFIP caseloads and because of MFIP employment counselors’ reluctance to refer people to the MSTED program due to doubts about the benefits and effectiveness of MSTED relative to the employment services the employment counselors provided. This required MSTED job developers to spend more of their time recruiting and enrolling people into the program instead of identifying potential private employer placements and preparing participants for work placements.
  • MSTED service providers reported challenges in finding a balance between (1) providing job search assistance and soft-skills training like developing a résumé, interviewing, and job searching and (2) quickly placing participants in paid work experience or subsidized employment.
  • MSTED sites reported only 34 percent of program group participants were placed and employed in a paid work experience placement, a subsidized job, or both one year following enrollment. The challenges with lower-than-expected placement rates were caused by the first two challenges above and difficulties MFIP job developers had finding private employers to host placements for MSTED participants.

Service intensity

MSTED participants in paid work experience received fully subsidized wages for up to eight weeks. Subsidized jobs participants received fully subsidized wages for eight weeks, and then the subsidy was reduced to 50 percent for an additional eight weeks.

Comparison conditions

MFIP recipients assigned to the comparison group did not have access to MSTED services. People assigned to the MSTED group and comparison group all had access to MFIP employment services, which included structured job readiness classes, independent job search, uncompensated work experience, community service, English as a second language training, and education services (postsecondary education or training, adult basic education, and high school completion or GED classes).

Partnerships

The study did not discuss any partners involved with implementing the MSTED program beyond the contracted service providers mentioned above.

Staffing

The primary MSTED staff were called job developers and helped participants find paid work experience or subsidized employment. Job developers also provided case management, assessed participant job readiness, and conducted workshops and one-on-one trainings to help participants increase their job readiness and soft skills. Job developers also marketed the MSTED services to MFIP staff and recipients and reached out to employers to identify potential subsidized employment opportunities. MFIP employment counselors identified potential MFIP recipients and made referrals to MSTED providers. The study authors did not include information on the number of staff or their training, degrees, or certifications.

Fidelity measures

The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the program model.

Funding source

The Minnesota Department of Human Services funded the program with state funds.

Local context

The MSTED program took place in three counties in Minnesota—Dakota County, Hennepin County (includes the city of Minneapolis), and Ramsey County (includes the city of St. Paul). The program occurred in a mix of urban and suburban settings. In Hennepin County, a significant portion of the MFIP recipients were Somali speaking. This required MSTED providers to hire job developers who were fluent in Somali to help participants find employment.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
65%
White, not Hispanic
16%
More than one race
8%
Unknown, not reported, or other
5%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
7%

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.