- Log in to post comments
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 3,113 single-parent, AFDC-applicant families in the urban counties (Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota) assigned to MFIP Incentives Only or normal AFDC.
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.)
MFIP Incentives Only used financial incentives 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 MFIP. Second, 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.
People assigned to the comparison condition received typical AFDC services for Minnesota.
None.
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