VIP eligibility provisions included the following: (1) one-time payments to families with a temporary loss of income if they agreed to forgo AFDC/TANF receipt for 160 days; (2) a “family cap” that excluded children born more than 10 months after a family began to receive AFDC/TANF from a family’s benefit calculation; (3) an exemption for the accumulation of savings up to $5,000 to support education, entrepreneurship, or the purchase of a home; (4) the application of one-parent eligibility criteria in determining benefits for two-parent families; and (5) requirements for paternity establishment cooperation, child school attendance, and immunization, and a requirement that minor parents live with a parent or other eligible adult. In addition to VIP, participants were required to participate in VIEW. VIEW emphasized rapid reemployment, requiring individuals to sign an agreement of personal responsibility, begin job searching immediately, and obtain employment or participate in a community work experience program within 90 days of signing the agreement of personal responsibility. Finally, VIEW instituted a two-year time limit on cash assistance and tightened medical exemptions from AFDC/TANF work requirements. VIP with VIEW served AFDC/TANF recipients. VIP with VIEW was implemented in Lynchburg, Petersburg, and Prince William County in Virginia. This evaluation also studied the impacts of VIP Only (that is, VIP without VIEW).
- -0.01,1.50
- 0.03,2.25
- 0.08,1.50
- 0.06,2.25
Summary
VIP with VIEW changed the eligibility requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and emphasized rapid reemployment, paternity establishment and economic self-sufficiency.
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.
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 | 
|
$753 per year
|
0.036 | 6143 |
| Long-term |
|
$795 per year
|
0.038 | 5339 | |
| Very long-term |  |
||||
| Increase employment | Short-term | 
|
2% (in percentage points)
|
0.050 | 6143 |
| Long-term |
|
3% (in percentage points)
|
0.075 | 5339 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Decrease benefit receipt | Short-term | 
|
$-6 per year
|
-0.002 | 6143 |
| Long-term |
|
$-41 per year
|
-0.015 | 5339 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Increase education and training | All measurement periods | |
Effectiveness rating key:
-
Well-supported
-
Supported
-
Not supported
-
Mixed support
-
Insufficient evidence
-
No evidence
Studies of this intervention
| Study quality rating | Study counts per rating |
|---|---|
 High
|
6 |
Implementation details
Dates covered by study
Evaluators enrolled individuals in the study from July 1995 to September 1996. Eligibility reforms were implemented in July 1995, and VIEW was phased in between July 1995 and October 1997. The study reviewed program outcomes and impacts between July 1995 and October 1997. Although the VIP eligibility provisions are no longer state policy, the VIEW policies continue to operate as of November 2020.
Organizations implementing intervention
The Virginia Department of Social Services implemented VIP with VIEW.
Populations served
The participants in VIP with VIEW were parents who received AFDC/TANF in Virginia and did not have a child younger than 18 months old. The majority of participants were Black or African American in Lynchburg (about 73 percent) and Petersburg (about 93 percent). In Prince William County, about half of participants were White, and about half were Black or African American (about 47 percent each). Less than 5 percent of participants were Hispanic. A little more than half of participants (about 55 percent in Lynchburg, 64 percent in Prince William County, and 55 percent in Petersburg) had completed high school or received their GED.
Description of services implemented
VIP changed the eligibility provisions for families receiving AFDC/TANF benefits. These provisions included the following incentives:
- Cash assistance. One-time payments to families with a temporary loss of income if they agreed to forgo AFDC/TANF receipt for 160 days.
- Family cap. Participants receiving assistance had a “family cap” on their benefits that excluded benefits for children born more than 10 months after a family began to receive AFDC/TANF.
- Savings incentive. Participants could accumulate savings up to $5,000 to support education, entrepreneurship, or the purchase of a home.
- Two-parent benefit expansion. One-parent eligibility criteria was applied when determining benefits for two-parent families.
VIP included the following provisions for sanctioning participants:
- Paternity establishment. Mothers were required to name the fathers of their children and to provide information that would help locate the noncustodial parent. If the mother did not comply, a portion of her AFDC/TANF grant would be sanctioned, and her AFDC/TANF case would be closed after six months of noncompliance.
- Compulsory school attendance. All school-age children were required to comply with compulsory school attendance laws. Children who did not comply were removed from the AFDC/TANF grant.
- Immunization. Parents had to verify that all children were immunized; if they didn’t, their AFDC/TANF benefits would be reduced. The grant would be reduced by $50 for the first child who was not immunized and $25 for each additional child who was not immunized.
- Minor parent restrictions. Minor parents had to live with a parent or other eligible adult to be eligible to receive assistance. If the parent did not comply, their case was suspended for one month.
In practice, the school attendance requirement was difficult to implement because Virginia social services staff had not previously worked with the Department of Education on truancy issues, and the varied operations of local school districts made it difficult to develop broadly applicable administrative rules for the provision.
In addition to VIP, participants were subject to the VIEW provisions. VIEW first required individuals to sign an agreement of personal responsibility that outlined the program requirements and bound participants to the requirements. Any participants who did not sign the agreement had their AFDC/TANF case closed. Participants were then expected to begin job searching immediately, and obtain employment or participate in a community work experience program within 90 days of signing the agreement of personal responsibility. Participants had access to job-readiness classes, education, and training. The job-readiness training was a short-term course that taught participants how to look for jobs and behave in a workplace. Individuals who did not comply with this work requirement could face the loss of all AFDC/TANF cash benefits. If the participant was working while receiving AFDC/TANF benefits, VIEW provided enhanced funding for child care, transportation, and work-related expenses. Families subject to VIEW provisions could receive AFDC/TANF cash benefits for a total of 24 months. At the end of the 24 months, families were ineligible for all AFDC/TANF benefits for two years. The VIEW provisions encouraged families to close their AFDC/TANF cases by extending eligibility for Medicaid and child care benefits by up to one year to families that closed their AFDC/TANF case. Finally, VIEW made benefit receipt for all able-bodied AFDC/TANF recipients conditional on VIEW participation and narrowed other exemptions, including those related to a child’s age. Under JOBS, mothers of children younger than 3 years were exempt. Under VIEW, only mothers of children younger than 18 months were exempt. Medical exemptions were also more closely monitored, requiring participants to submit a physician’s report within 30 days of their initial request for exemption and to submit to a re-evaluation of the medical exemption every 60 days.
The state of Virginia saw VIEW as a bold experiment, and as such, slowly introduced the provisions in different areas of the state, instead of implementing it statewide. The staff that implemented VIEW felt that the state provided them with enough support to implement the provisions successfully. Although participation in the community work experience program was expected to increase substantially after the implementation of VIEW, this did not happen. Instead, most VIEW participants were able to find unsubsidized jobs due to a strong economy.
Service intensity
In Lynchburg County, about half (50 percent) of VIP with VIEW recipients participated in any activity, including job searches, job-readiness classes, education, training, work experience, and other activities. In Prince William and Petersburg Counties, fewer recipients (36 and 38 percent) participated in any activity. Job-readiness training was a short-term course lasting about two to four weeks.
Between the state fiscal years 1996 and 1998, a total of 1,857 AFDC/TANF recipients received the cash assistance benefit. Similarly, very few cases were able to accumulate enough money to be eligible for the savings incentive.
Between the state fiscal years 1996 and 1997, during a time when the state managed 126,323 cases overall, 1040 cases statewide were sanctioned for not immunizing their children; 2,228 were sanctioned because of school attendance; 3,572 were sanctioned for not establishing paternity; 2,355 were sanctioned for not participating in VIEW; and 1,422 were sanctioned for failing to sign the agreement of personal responsibility. In total, nearly 27 percent of VIEW participants were sanctioned at some point.
Comparison conditions
Individuals with an active AFDC case or who applied for benefits were randomly assigned to an intervention or comparison group. The comparison group for this study received benefits under the original AFDC policies and received employment-related services only under the old Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program. After the study concluded in October 1997, comparison group members were transitioned to VIP with VIEW.
Partnerships
Each of the VIP with VIEW sites built relationships with local schools, the state Department of Education, employment agencies (including the Virginia Employment Commission), the Private Industry Council, the Job Training and Partnership Act agencies, and the Division of Child Support Enforcement within the Virginia Department of Social Services.
Staffing
Eligibility workers reviewed the updated provisions under VIP with VIEW and verified an individual’s eligibility. Caseworkers reviewed the requirements of VIP with VIEW with the clients and coordinated with schools to ensure children younger than 18 met the attendance requirement. The study authors did not include information on the number of staff or their training, degrees, or certifications.
Fidelity measures
The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.
Funding source
VIP with VIEW was funded by AFDC/TANF federal block grants.
Cost information
The study did not discuss a cost per participant or a comparison of costs and benefits.
State(s) where implemented
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.