- Log in to post comments
Subgroups
A total of 14,639 public assistance applicant and recipient families who entered the Financial Assistance Office in seven Minnesota counties to apply or reapply for any of three assistance programs (AFDC, Food Stamps, and Family General Assistance) were randomly assigned to the MFIP or AFDC programs from April 1994 through March 1996. This study looks at impacts for 2,770 two-parent families assigned to the MFIP or AFDC.
The study began in 1994, and subjects were randomly assigned through 1996. The main outcomes were collected after six years (ending in 2002).
The study was conducted through a contract with the Minnesota Department of Human Services with support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ford Foundation, McKnight Foundation, and Northwest Area Foundation.
All individuals were members of two-parent families. Most were currently married (72 percent), female (87 percent), and White, non-Hispanic (66 percent). About three-quarters had received AFDC before the study. About one-third (31 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent, and 14 percent had a postsecondary degree.
Minnesota state AFDC and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
The MFIP program originated in 1994 when the study began.
The MFIP used several strategies to encourage work among AFDC clients. First, the MFIP benefit calculation incentivized work by increasing the basic AFDC grant by 20 percent if clients worked and by reducing benefits by only 62 percent for every earned dollar (rather than a dollar-for-dollar reduction). These financial incentives remained in effect as long as clients remained in the MFIP. Second, long-term welfare recipients (two-parent families that had received AFDC for 24 of the past 36 months) were required to participate in employment and training activities unless they met certain exemption criteria. Exemption criteria included working at least 30 hours per week, having a child under the age of 1, or meeting so-called good cause criteria. (Recent AFDC applicants assigned to the MFIP could also volunteer to participate in these activities.) Employment and training activities emphasized quicker entry into the workforce and combined education and training with work. People who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent. Third, the MFIP combined families’ AFDC, Food Stamps, and Family General Assistance (a state-funded cash assistance program) into a single program with one monthly payment; in addition, Food Stamp benefits were provided in cash, rather than as coupons. Finally, the MFIP paid child care costs directly to providers rather than having parents pay out of pocket and receive reimbursement. Although outcomes are measured up to six years after random assignment, in June 1998 (two to four years after random assignment) the MFIP and the AFDC group were transferred into a new statewide program called the Minnesota Family Investment Program-Statewide (MFIP-S).
People assigned to the comparison condition received typical AFDC services for Minnesota. These clients could enroll in employment and training services through the employment and training arm of the state AFDC program, known as Success Through Reaching Individual Development and Employment, but participation was voluntary. AFDC did not offer the financial incentives offered by the MFIP. For example, benefits were reduced by almost one dollar for every dollar AFDC clients earned. A portion of a client’s earnings was disregarded when calculating the amount of a household’s AFDC grant, but the disregarded amount decreased over time. AFDC clients could receive assistance with child care costs in the form of reimbursements for incurred expenses. Although outcomes were measured up to six years after random assignment, in June 1998 (two to four years after random assignment), the MFIP and the AFDC group were transferred into a new statewide program called MFIP-S.
Long-term welfare recipients (two-parent families that had received AFDC for 24 of the past 36 months) were required to participate in employment and training activities unless they met certain exemption criteria. Exemption criteria included working at least 30 hours per week, having a child younger than 1, or meeting so-called good cause criteria. (Recent AFDC applicants assigned to the MFIP could also volunteer to participate in these activities.) Participants who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent.
The study implied that clients could receive the MFIP services as long as they remained enrolled in AFDC. In June 1998 (two to four years after random assignment), the MFIP and the AFDC group were transferred into a new statewide program called MFIP-S.
Minnesota Department of Human Services
The study took place in seven counties in Minnesota (three urban and four rural).
Couple relationships, Family formation, Child well-being, Physical health, Housing