- Log in to post comments
Subgroups
A total of 14,639 public assistance applicant families and recipient families in seven Minnesota counties entered the Financial Assistance Office to apply or reapply for any of three assistance programs (Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], Food Stamps, or Family General Assistance), and were randomly assigned to MFIP or AFDC programs from April 1994 through March 1996. Single-parent families in Hennepin County (one of three urban counties in the study) were randomly assigned across two versions of MFIP (normal MFIP and MFIP Incentives Only) and two versions of AFDC (normal AFDC and AFDC without services). Single-parent families in Anoka and Dakota counties, the two other urban counties, were randomly assigned to normal MFIP, MFIP Incentives Only, or normal AFDC. Single-parent families in four rural counties and two-parent families in all counties were assigned only to normal MFIP and normal AFDC. This study looks at impacts for 2,896 single-parent AFDC-applicant families in the urban counties (Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota) assigned to MFIP or MFIP Incentives Only.
Participants were randomly assigned between April 1, 1994, and December 31, 1994, and were followed for up to three years. The study ended in June 1998 when new public assistance rules took effect for all study participants.
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, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Ford Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, and Northwest Area Foundation.
The study included urban, single-parent families that had recently applied for AFDC. Within the sample of all recent, single-parent AFDC applicants in the study (including rural participants not eligible to be assigned to the MFIP Incentives Only group), the average age was 29. Sample members were predominantly from urban areas (84 percent), were female (88 percent), and were White (65 percent). Three-quarters had earnings in the year before random assignment, and 23 percent were currently employed. About one-quarter (24 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent certification, and 16 percent had a postsecondary degree.
Minnesota state AFDC and TANF
The MFIP program originated in April 1994, when the study began. (This study examines the field pilot of the MFIP program.)
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 on MFIP. Second, long-term welfare recipients (single-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 MFIP could also volunteer to participate in these activities.) Employment and training activities emphasized quickly entering the workforce and combining education and training with work. People who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent. Third, 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, MFIP paid child care costs directly to providers rather than having parents pay out of pocket and receive reimbursement.
Clients in the MFIP Incentives Only condition were eligible for all financial changes made under MFIP, but they could not receive MFIP education and training services (and were not subject to mandatory education and training). They could, however, participate voluntarily in employment and training under the state's usual employment and training program for AFDC recipients.
Participants assigned to MFIP were required to participate in the mandatory activities and were not allowed to switch study groups. 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 MFIP services as long as they remained enrolled in AFDC.
Minnesota AFDC and TANF
The study was conducted in three urban counties in Minnesota: Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota. At the time of the study, Minnesota's welfare grant was higher than the national average, and the state was experiencing high unemployment rates.
Physical health, Housing, Couple relationships
I am unable to edit the first citation. Here is the edited version of that manuscript:
Miller, Cynthia, Virginia Knox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Martey Dodoo, Jo Anna Hunter, and Cindy Redcross (2000). Reforming welfare and rewarding work: Final report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program—Volume 1: Effects on adults, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.