Interventions Details | Pathways to Work

Skip to sections below

Effectiveness
Implementation

Share this intervention

Summary

MFIP used financial work incentives and mandatory employment and training activities to increase employment and reduce poverty among Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients.

MFIP was one of the demonstration projects made possible by Section 1115 waivers to the rules in effect at the time for the AFDC program. These Section 1115 waivers allowed states to test new approaches to advance the objectives of the AFDC program.

MFIP was evaluated with single-parent families, two-parent families, and families in Ramsey County(MFIP-R). The MFIP program for single-parent and two-parent families was implemented in three urban Minnesota counties (Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota) and four rural Minnesota counties (Lacs, Morrison, Sherburne, and Todd), and the MFIP-R program was implemented in Ramsey County, MN.

MFIP provided financial incentives for work by (1) increasing the basic AFDC grant by 20 percent if participants worked; (2) reducing AFDC benefits by only 62 percent for every earned dollar (rather than dollar for dollar); and (3) eliminating the work history requirements and the 100-hour rule for two-parent families, which had required that two-parent family work less than 100 hours per month to remain on welfare.
MFIP made it easier for families to receive benefits by combining families’ AFDC, Food Stamps (provided in cash, rather than coupons), and Family General Assistance (a state-funded cash assistance program) into one monthly payment.
MFIP paid child care costs directly to providers rather than reimbursing parents for costs paid out of pocket.
Long-term welfare recipients were required and others could volunteer to participate in employment and training activities that focused on rapid entry into employment. Long-term welfare recipients were single-parent families that had received AFDC for two of the past three years; two-parent families that had received AFDC for more than six months; Ramsey County single-parent families that had received AFDC for more than one year; and Ramsey County two-parent families that had received AFDC for more than six months.
Single-parent or two-parent families had the option to choose from various MFIP employment and training activities, which included job search, education and job training programs, and case management to develop plans for employment, whereas Ramsey County families were required to partake in a one-week job skills workshop that was followed by seven weeks of guided job search and group activities.
Participants were exempt from employment and training activities if they were working at least 30 hours per week, had a child younger than 1, or met “good cause” criteria. Participants who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent.

The financial incentives remained in effect as long as clients remained in MFIP. All AFDC, Food Stamps, or Family General Assistance applicants and recipients were eligible to participate in MFIP.

The study also evaluated the MFIP Incentives Only program.

1037.1037.02-Minnesota Family Inv

Populations and employment barriers: Parents

1037.1307.01-Minnesota Family Inv

Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Single parents

3148.3148.02-Minnesota Family Inv

Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents

3148.3148.01-Minnesota Family Inv

Populations and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Single parents

Quick info

Primary service

Financial incentives

Read Evidence Snapshot

Intervention services

Education, Financial incentives, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities

Review services terms

Setting(s)

Tested in multiple settings

Year evaluation began

1994

Implementing organization(s)MFIP was implemented by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, with services provided at the county level.

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

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

View table help

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

Outcome domain	Term	Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages	Effect in standard deviations	Sample size
Increase earnings	Short-term	$0 per year	0.000	0
	Long-term	$0 per year	0.000	0
	Very long-term	$0 per year	0.000	0
Increase employment	Short-term	0% (in percentage points)	0.000	0
	Long-term	0% (in percentage points)	0.000	2256
	Very long-term	0% (in percentage points)	0.000	0
Decrease benefit receipt	Short-term	$0 per year	0.000	0
	Long-term	$0 per year	0.000	0
	Very long-term	$0 per year	0.000	0
Increase education and training	All measurement periods

* 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
Supported
Not supported
Mixed support
Insufficient evidence
No evidence

Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating	Study counts per rating
Low	2
High	2

Implementation details

Dates covered by study

MFIP began in April 1994, and individuals were included in the evaluation if they had newly enrolled in or recertified for MFIP between April 1 and December 31, 1994. Outcomes were measured at 18 months and 3 years after enrollment. MFIP is still running today, but MFIP Incentives Only does not appear to be currently active.

Organizations implementing intervention

MFIP was implemented by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, with services provided at the county level.

Populations served

All AFDC, Food Stamps, or Family General Assistance applicants and recipients were eligible to participate in MFIP. In comparison, MFIP Incentives Only focused on single-parent households that were either current recipients of AFDC or new program applicants.

At the time of random assignment, three-fourths of participants were living in an urban county, with the majority of them living in Minneapolis in Hennepin County, MN. Nearly all of the participants were female. About half were White, not Hispanic, and around a third of the participants were Black, not Hispanic. About half of the participants had never been married, and about a quarter of them were divorced. More than half of the participants had either a GED or a high school diploma. The average age of participants was between 29 and 30 years old.

Description of services implemented

MFIP was created under the federal Section 1115 waivers to test new approaches to achieving AFDC’s goals. MFIP provided financial incentives for work through the following:

Adjusting AFDC policies. MFIP increased the basic AFDC grant by 20 percent if participants worked; reduced AFDC benefits by only 62 percent for every earned dollar (instead of reducing benefits by a dollar for every dollar earned); and eliminated the work history requirements and the 100-hour rule for two-parent families, which had required that two-parent family work fewer than 100 hours per month to remain on welfare.
Making it less burdensome for families to receive benefits. MFIP combined families’ AFDC, Food Stamps, and Family General Assistance (a state-funded cash assistance program) into one monthly cash payment.
Paying child care costs directly. MFIP paid child care costs directly to providers rather than reimbursing parents for costs paid out of pocket.

Long-term welfare recipients were required—and others could volunteer—to participate in employment and training activities that focused on rapid entry into employment. Long-term welfare recipients were single-parent families that had received AFDC for two of the past three years or two-parent families that had received AFDC for more than six months. The MFIP employment and training activities were designed to be shorter than Minnesota’s AFDC education and training program (known as STRIDE) to motivate individuals to find work.

Participants could choose from various MFIP employment and training activities, which included job search, education and job training programs, and case management to develop plans for employment. Three types of job search activities were available: job search classes, job search club, or individual job search. Participants were exempt from employment and training activities if they were working at least 30 hours per week, had a child younger than 1, or met good cause criteria. Long-term recipients who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent.

Service intensity

MFIP financial workers spent about an hour completing initial eligibility interviews (or recertification interviews, if the individual was already enrolled in the state welfare system), and up to 14 minutes of this time was dedicated to discussing employment and training options. Financial workers also spent this time explaining how the participant’s grant would change for the better if the participant found work. Financial workers were supposed to contact their clients every 90 days, but in practice, they contacted about 58 percent of their caseload every 3 months.
Case managers typically contacted their clients once a month, either in person or by phone. They reiterated the financial incentives for finding work to their clients and suggested education or training that would suit the client.

Job search classes ran for one to two weeks. Job clubs did not have a unified structure throughout the state and did not require individuals to contact a specific number of employers or answer a certain number of ads. In one county, the job club ran for two hours a day for two days a week, whereas another county had the job club run for two days a week but only required attendance for one day per week.

Nearly 60 percent of the MFIP long-term recipients participated in any employment and training activity, with the most popular activities being career workshops and job searches. Almost half of MFIP short-term recipients participated in any employment and training activity, with the most popular activities being job searches and postsecondary education.

The financial incentives remained in effect as long as clients remained in MFIP.

Comparison conditions

MFIP Incentives Only participants were eligible for all the financial incentives and changes to benefits made under MFIP, but MFIP Incentives Only participants could not receive MFIP employment and training services. They could, however, participate voluntarily in employment and training under Minnesota’s welfare-to-work program if they (1) had been receiving AFDC benefits for 36 of the previous 60 months, (2) were younger than 24 without a high school diploma or GED or without significant work experience, or (3) were within 2 years of becoming ineligible for AFDC benefits because their youngest child was age 16 or older. Although MFIP required long-term welfare recipients to participate in employment and training activities, no MFIP Incentives Only participants faced this mandate.

Local context

MFIP was implemented in seven counties in Minnesota: three urban counties (Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota) and four rural counties (Mille Lacs, Morrison, Sherburne, and Todd).

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American	25%
White	62%
American Indian or Alaska Native	6%
Unknown, not reported, or other	11%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	3%

State(s) where implemented

West North Central, Minnesota

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Take our survey

Highlights

Program description