Print

The FAST program sought to provide individuals with disabilities, or family members of individuals with a disability, with improved employment outcomes by incorporating motivational interviewing and an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model into the existing Family Support Services (FSS) program.

Skip to:  Effectiveness Ratings   |  Studies of this Intervention

The FAST program sought to provide individuals with disabilities, or family members of individuals with a disability, with improved employment outcomes by incorporating motivational interviewing and an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model into the existing Family Support Services (FSS) program.

FAST provided extra services to participants who qualified for FSS. FAST integrated the IPS supported employment model into the existing FSS program to provide participants with individualized job search assistance based on their preferences, a vocational assessment, and job development services. FAST also integrated motivational interviewing into the existing FSS program alongside IPS. The caseload of FAST case managers was reduced to 50 active cases from an average of 75 to 100 to better support FAST participants with individualized assistance. FAST served Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients who were individuals with disabilities or people who shared a household with those individuals. FAST was implemented in Ramsey County, MN.

Year evaluation began: 2011
Implementing organization(s): The county TANF office oversaw implementation. Four private organizations provided services: (1) Goodwill/Easter Seals Minnesota provided individual placement and support (IPS) services, vocational rehabilitation, and mental health services; (2) HIRED (a nonprofit) provided case management and employment services; (3) Open Cities Health Center (a health clinic) provided physical health services; and (4) People Incorporated (a nonprofit) provided mental health services.
Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Disability(ies)
Intervention services: Case management, Employment retention services, Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services, Physical health services, Sanctions, Work and work-based learning, Individual Placement and Support, Work readiness activities, Job search assistance, Job development/job placement
Setting(s): Urban only

Effectiveness Rating and Effect By Outcome Domain

Back to top
View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

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

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Supported favorable $5,041 per year 0.24 389
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Supported favorable 7% (in percentage points) 0.18 389
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $25 per year 0.01 379
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this Intervention

Back to top
Study Quality Rating Study Counts per Rating
High High 1