Study Details | Pathways to Work

2946-Minnesota Tier 2

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Minnesota Tier 2

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients (Long-term cash assistance recipients), Employment status and income level (Unemployed), Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Sanctions, Training, Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training), Work readiness activities (Employment coaching, Job development/job placement)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Eligible Tier 1 recipients were randomly assigned from January 2002 to April 2003 to enroll in Tier 2 or remain in Tier 1; half were randomly assigned to each condition. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients who had been assigned to a Tier 1 employment services provider for at least 12 months, had not worked in the previous 3 months, were unemployed at the time of random assignment, were not participating in an education or training program, and were not under sanction were eligible for assignment to Tier 2.

Time period of study:

2002 through 2008

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Mental health, Physical health, Job characteristics, Child care, Transportation

Study funded by:

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study, with support from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	6,529.00	6,476.00	-53.00	2003 dollars	1,692
Increase short-term earnings	Weekly earnings	12 months	High	128.00	128.00	0.00	2003 dollars	503
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	21,963.00	22,456.00	493.00	2005 dollars	1,691
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	12 months	High	41.60	39.50	-2.10	percentage points	503
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	43.40	45.20	1.80	percentage points	1,692
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	78.40	80.40	2.00	percentage points	1,691
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed, follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	7.00	7.10	0.10	quarters	1,691
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	4,991.00	5,162.00	171.00	2003 dollars	1,692
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	4,465.00	4,536.00	71.00	2003 dollars	1,692
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	12 months	High	39.50	42.40	2.90	percentage points	503
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	93.10	93.40	0.30	percentage points	1,692
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	12 months	High	70.00	79.20	9.20	percentage points	503
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, follow-up period	Quarters 1–6	High	96.80	97.50	0.70	percentage points	1,692
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received SSI or disability income, annual	12 months	High	14.30	13.10	-1.20	percentage points	503
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	8,773.00	9,010.00	237.00	2005 dollars	1,691
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	10,682.00	10,572.00	-110.00	2005 dollars	1,691
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	94.30	94.20	-0.10	percentage points	1,691
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	97.60	98.30	0.70	percentage points	1,691

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

All sample members were unemployed single parents who had received TANF benefits for at least 12 months. The vast majority of participants were female (93 percent), and most were African American (68 percent). Nearly 70 percent had received Aid to Families with Dependent Children or TANF benefits for more than two years, and roughly one-third described themselves as suffering from health problems.

Age

Mean age	31 years
Young adults	4%

Sex

Female	93%
Male	7%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	68%
White, not Hispanic	16%
Asian	5%
American Indian or Alaska Native	7%
More than one race	1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	2%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Family status

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were unemployed	100%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%
Were long-term cash assistance recipients	100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	54%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	46%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Contractor agencies provided services under the supervision of Hennepin County's Office of Training and Employment Assistance (local workforce agency).

Program history:

The Tier 2 program grew out of Minnesota's pre-existing Tier 1 program, which was introduced in 1998 to expedite employment for welfare recipients. Tier 2, a more intensive version of Tier 1, was implemented starting in 2000 as part of Minnesota's ERA grant.

Intervention services:

The program was built on the services provided by Tier 1, the existing welfare-to-work program. Long-term TANF recipients who had participated in Tier 1 services for 12 months, were currently unemployed and had not worked in the prior three months, were not participating in education or training, and were not currently being sanctioned were randomly assigned to the Tier 2 condition. They worked with case managers whose caseloads had been reduced to 25 to 30 cases. Participation in Tier 2 was mandatory and could be enforced by sanctioning TANF benefits. Case managers performed detailed assessments of clients to identify the underlying challenges affecting them and their families and then referred clients to services that addressed those challenges. Clients had access to education or job training programs but were required to work 20 hours per week concurrently with participation in such programs. Clients searched for jobs for up to six weeks, and those still unemployed at the end of that period were placed in either unpaid employment or supported employment in which their paid employment was paired with job coaching or on-the-job training.

Mandatory services:

Clients were required to participate in work-related activities to remain eligible for TANF.

Comparison services:

Clients randomly assigned to the comparison condition participated in Minnesota’s existing Tier 1 welfare-to-work program, which assigned TANF recipients to a caseworker for assessment. Caseworkers often managed 75 to 100 cases. For up to four weeks, clients searched for jobs and attended an optional job-readiness seminar; if they did not find work within that period, they began an unpaid work placement or forfeited a percentage of their TANF benefits. Participation in job search was mandatory and could be enforced by sanctioning TANF benefits. Education and training activities were also available but not required.

Service receipt duration:

Clients engaged in focused job search activities for up to six weeks, and those who could not obtain employment were placed in an unpaid work experience program. The study does not specify the length of the placement or the point at which services were discontinued.

Intervention funding:

Minnesota Department of Human Services

Study publications

Butler, David, Julianna Alson, Dan Bloom, Victoria Deitch, Aaron Hill, JoAnn Hsueh, Erin Jacobs, Sue Kim, Reanin McRoberts, and Cindy Redcross (2012). What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project and selected sites from the Employment Retention and Advancement Project, OPRE Report #2012-08, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/strategies_work.pdf.

LeBlanc, Allen, Cynthia Miller, Karin Martinson, and Gilda Azurdia (2007). The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: Results from Minnesota's Tier 2 program, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/minnesota_tier2.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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

Study of Minnesota Tier 2