Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Minnesota Family Investment Program
Performance Measurement TrainingPublished: June 16, 2017
Compiled by Health & Wellness Administration, Office of Research & Evaluation
“Minnesota Family Investment Program helps families with children meet their basic needs,
while helping parents move to financial stability through work. Parents are expected to work,
and are supported in working with both cash and food assistance. Most families have a lifetime
limit of 60 months on MFIP.”
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Others49%
Anoka
6%Dakota
8%
Washington5%
Hennepin22%
Ramsey10%
Minnesota Population = 5,489,594 *
Selected Counties Population = 2,771,716 *
* United States Census Bureau: Quick Facts – Population estimates, July 1, 2015 (V2015)
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Factors for County Selections:1. Proximity to Ramsey County2. Population Size
Others39%
Anoka5%
Dakota4%
Washington2%
Hennepin30%
Ramsey20%
3. MFIP Active Caseload
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Minnesota *Active Caseload = 34,598
Selected Counties *Active Caseload = 20,976
* Minnesota Family Investment Program Management Indicators Report: January – March 2016
An estimated 61% of all active MFIP cases within
the state of Minnesota are located within the
following five counties: Anoka, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington.*
Measure: Monthly MFIP Closings• # and % of MFIP case closures
• Closed Case = eligible during any month
of the previous quarter+ ineligible during the entire
quarter being measured
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
UN
EMP
LOYM
ENT R
ATE (%
)TER
MIN
ATI
ON
RA
TE (
%)
Graph A: MFIP Closing Rate by County over Time and Unemployment Rates over Time
Anoka County
Dakota County
Hennepin County
Ramsey County
Washington County
MN Unemployment Rate*
USA Unemployment Rate*
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
* Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED): Minnesota Unemployment Statistics LAUS Data (2006-2016)Note: USA Unemployment Rate has been seasonally adjusted
Measure: Self-Support Index (S-SI)1. Help participants find and maintain employment
2. Increase earnings
3. Decrease use of cash assistance
4. Recognize services available to participants and refer
Goals
Help Participants Find and Maintain Employment
1.Engagement
2.Education
3.Employment
4.Employment Retention
Increase Earnings1. The Four E’s
2. Focus on Good Service
3. Understand a family’s path to self-sufficiency and stabilization is not
linear.
4. Guided Self-Determination
5. Learn from each other (Continuous Process Improvement)
Decrease use of (need for) Cash Assistance1. Remember, earnings and hours tracking for the self-support index is
all generated from MAXIS so be sure to communicate with our
Financial Assistance partners.
2. Cases are successful when they are no longer receiving cash
assistance or when they are working at least 30 hours per week for
the measurement quarter based on their hour tracking in MAXIS.
3. Provide good service to all and work with employed families to
increase their earnings and hours.
4. Employment Retention is essential to success in the Self-Support
Index. Retention starts with your first encounter with a family.
Refer/Engage Families in Services available in the Community
1. Subsidized/Supported Employment
2. Education and Training
3. Culturally Specific Services and Trainings
4. Community Partners
5. Mental Health Services
6. Many, Many more…
Remember the 4 E’s and Focus on Good Service to Families
Measure: Self-Support Index (S-SI)• Number of adults that within the first 60 months of finishing MFIP were either:
Employed working 30+ hours/week
No longer receive cash payments from DWP or MFIP
S-SI * = # participants off cash assistance OR working 30+ hours/week in baseline quarter
total # active participants in the baseline quarter
*Exceptions apply to participants who left within 60 counted months or due to the sanction limit
• DHS “leveled” the playing field by examining many external factors significantly impacting the S-SI
• Each county has a different range of expected performance based on its own “environment”:
Complex statistical model to find key factors
Examples: migration rates, race, use of interpreters, local unemployment, and several more
• The larger the county, the more likely the statistical model predicts the S-SI on these external factors.
• Annually, Ramsey has about a 3 percentage point range from “lower” to “upper” end of range
• Employment: “retrospective” hours on MAXIS from paystubs sent to financial worker.
• Success is employed 130+ hours or no cash grant in all three months of a quarter
• Measures current results of those on MFIP or DWP same quarter three years ago (funding) and one year ago (racial disparities).
Timed off or sanctioned off MFIP does not count as having no cash grant unless working 130 or more hours
Even if timed or sanctioned off MFIP, working 130+ hours in last months on MFIP still counts positively
Things to Avoid Whenever Possible
1. Prioritizing families who are easier to work with.
2. Closing at 60 months without an extension
3. If sanction is during the last month of service, the participant will be a
negative for as long as they were active MFIP in the S-SI
4. Sanctioning a participant who is employed
1. Do everything possible to work with participant
2. Check MAXIS to determine how many work hours are coded to verify that they are not working prior to sanction.
Measure: Self-Support Index (S-SI)Next two slides hold graphs that separate each County in order to see how their S-SI has changed over time.
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Graph C.3: MFIP/DWP 3-year S-SI Projected Range of Expected Performance by Suburban Metro County over Time
60%
70%
80%
% o
f P
arti
cip
ants
ANOKA COUNTY
60%
70%
80%
% o
f P
arti
cip
ants
DAKOTA COUNTY
60%
70%
80%
% o
f P
arti
cip
ants
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Actual Value Upper Range Lower Range
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Graph C.4: MFIP/DWP 3-year S-SI Projected Range of Expected Performance by Core Metro County over Time
50%
60%
70%
80%
% o
f P
arti
cip
ants
HENNEPIN COUNTY
50%
60%
70%
80%
% o
f P
arti
cip
ants
RAMSEY COUNTY
Actual Value Upper Range Lower Range
Measure: Self-Support Index (S-SI)Next three slides hold graphs that separate each type of Range of Expected Performance for each County (1-year, 2-years, and 3-years) in order to
see how these Ranges change over time.
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%P
erce
nt
of
MFI
P/D
WP
Elig
ible
Ad
ult
s th
at M
et S
elf-
Sup
po
rt In
dex
wit
hin
1 y
ear
Graph C.5: S-SI : 1-Year
Anoka
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Washington
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%P
erce
nt
of
MFI
P/D
WP
Elig
ible
Ad
ult
s th
at M
et S
elf-
Sup
po
rt In
dex
wit
hin
2 y
ear
s
Graph C.6: S-SI : 2-Years
Anoka
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Washington
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%P
erce
nt
of
MFI
P/D
WP
Elig
ible
Ad
ult
s th
at M
et S
elf-
Sup
po
rt In
dex
wit
hin
3 y
ear
s
Graph C.7: Upper Range S-SI Expectations: 3-Year
Anoka
Dakota
Hennepin
Ramsey
Washington
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Annualized Self-Support Index (3-year)“Service area receives 100% of Consolidated Fund allocation plus…” *
• Potential 2.5% bonus if performance is Above their Range of Expected Performance
• Potential cut in funding & submit improvement plan if consistently Below their Range of Expected Performance
Why does all this matter?
FUNDING
* (2014) Minn. Stat. 256J.626, subd.7:
Health and Wellness, Research and Evaluation Office
Des
Mo
ines
Val
ley
Fair
bau
lt/M
arti
nM
N P
rair
ieSW
HH
SLe
ech
Lak
e B
and
MN
Ch
ipp
ewa
Trib
eR
ed L
ake
Nat
ion
Wh
ite
Ear
th N
atio
nA
itki
nA
no
kaB
ecke
rB
eltr
ami
Ben
ton
Big
Sto
ne
Blu
e E
arth
Bro
wn
Car
lto
nC
arve
rC
ass
Ch
ipp
ew
aC
his
ago
Cla
yC
lear
wat
er
Co
ok
Cro
w W
ing
Dak
ota
Do
ugl
asFi
llmo
reFr
eeb
orn
Go
od
hu
eG
ran
tH
enn
epin
Ho
ust
on
Hu
bb
ard
Isan
tiIt
asca
Kan
abec
Kan
diy
oh
iK
itts
on
Ko
och
ich
ing
Lac
Qu
i Par
leLa
keLa
ke o
f th
e W
oo
ds
Le S
ueu
rM
cleo
dM
ahn
om
en
Mar
shal
lM
eeke
rM
ille
Lacs
Mo
rris
on
Mo
we
rN
ico
llet
No
ble
sN
orm
anO
lmst
ed
Ott
er T
ail
Pen
nin
gto
nP
ine
Po
lkP
op
eR
amse
yR
ed L
ake
Ren
ville
Ric
eR
ose
auSt
. Lo
uis
Sco
ttSh
erb
urn
eSi
ble
ySt
earn
sSt
even
sSw
ift
Tod
dTr
aver
seW
abas
ha
Wad
ena
Was
hin
gto
nW
ato
nw
anW
ilkin
Win
on
aW
righ
tYe
llow
Med
icin
e
Result (2015)D
es M
oin
es V
alle
yFa
irb
ault
/Mar
tin
MN
Pra
irie
SWH
HS
Leec
h L
ake
Ban
dM
N C
hip
pew
a Tr
ibe
Red
Lak
e N
atio
nW
hit
e E
arth
Nat
ion
Ait
kin
An
oka
Bec
ker
Bel
tram
iB
ento
nB
ig S
ton
eB
lue
Ear
thB
row
nC
arlt
on
Car
ver
Cas
sC
hip
pe
wa
Ch
isag
oC
lay
Cle
arw
ate
rC
oo
kC
row
Win
gD
ako
taD
ou
glas
Fillm
ore
Free
bo
rnG
oo
dh
ue
Gra
nt
Hen
nep
inH
ou
sto
nH
ub
bar
dIs
anti
Itas
caK
anab
ecK
and
iyo
hi
Kit
tso
nK
oo
chic
hin
gLa
c Q
ui P
arle
Lake
Lake
of
the
Wo
od
sLe
Su
eur
Mcl
eod
Mah
no
me
nM
arsh
all
Mee
ker
Mill
e La
csM
orr
iso
nM
ow
er
Nic
olle
tN
ob
les
No
rman
Olm
ste
dO
tter
Tai
lP
enn
ingt
on
Pin
eP
olk
Po
pe
Ram
sey
Red
Lak
eR
envi
lleR
ice
Ro
seau
St. L
ou
isSc
ott
Sher
bu
rne
Sib
ley
Stea
rns
Stev
ens
Swif
tTo
dd
Trav
erse
Wab
ash
aW
aden
aW
ash
ingt
on
Wat
on
wan
Wilk
inW
ino
na
Wri
ght
Yello
w M
edic
ine
Result (2016)
Graph D: Annualized MFIP 3-Year Self-Support Index: Outcomes for 2015 & 2016
Above
Within
Below
Above
Within
Below
Thank youPlease let us know if you have any questions
Larry Timmerman: Senior Program Evaluator
Mark Herzfeld: Senior Program Evaluation
