VIP Only 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 the 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. AFDC and TANF recipients were subject to the VIP Only provisions as long as they received AFDC/TANF benefits. VIP Only was implemented in Portsmouth and Wise County in Virginia. This evaluation also studied the impacts of VIP combined with Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare.
- -0.03,1.00
- 0.00,1.50
- 0.07,1.50
Summary
VIP Only changed the eligibility requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to encourage 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 | 
|
$84 per year
|
0.004 | 4470 |
| Long-term |
|
$21 per year
|
0.001 | 3458 | |
| Very long-term |  |
||||
| Increase employment | Short-term | 
|
2% (in percentage points)
|
0.046 | 4470 |
| Long-term |
|
1% (in percentage points)
|
0.017 | 3458 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Decrease benefit receipt | Short-term |
|
$17 per year
|
0.006 | 4470 |
| Long-term |
|
$11 per year
|
0.004 | 3458 | |
| 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
|
4 |
Implementation details
Dates covered by study
VIP Only began in July 1995, and evaluators enrolled individuals in the study from July 1995 to September 1996. The study program reviewed outcomes and impacts of VIP Only between July 1995 and October 1997. The VIP Only provisions are no longer state policy.
Organizations implementing intervention
The Virginia Department of Social Services implemented VIP Only.
Populations served
The participants in VIP Only were AFDC/TANF recipients in Virginia. The majority of participants were White in Wise County (about 96 percent) and Black or African American in Portsmouth County (about 87 percent). Less than 2 percent of participants were Hispanic. About half of the participants (49 percent in Wise County and 48 percent in Portsmouth County) had completed high school or received their GED.
Description of services implemented
VIP Only 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 Only also 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 were required to verify that all children were immunized; otherwise, AFDC/TANF benefits were reduced for noncompliance by $50 for the first child who wasn’t immunized and $25 for each additional child who wasn’t immunized.
- Minor parent restrictions. Minor parents were required 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.
Service intensity
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 1998, a period in which the state managed 126,323 cases overall, 1,040 cases statewide were sanctioned for not immunizing their children; 2,228 were sanctioned because of school attendance; and 3,572 were sanctioned for not establishing paternity.
Comparison conditions
People 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/TANF policies. After the study concluded in October 1997, comparison group members were transitioned to the VIP Only eligibility provisions, as stated above.
Partnerships
Each of the VIP Only sites built relationships with local schools, the Virginia Department of Education, and the Division of Child Support Enforcement within the Virginia Department of Social Services.
Staffing
Eligibility workers reviewed the updated provisions under VIP Only and verified an individual’s eligibility. Caseworkers reviewed the requirements of VIP Only 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 Only 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.