Study Details | Pathways to Work

1037.1037.02-Minnesota Family Inv

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)

Population and employment barriers:

Parents

Services provided:

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

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

A total of 14,639 public assistance applicant and recipient families who entered the Financial Assistance Office in seven Minnesota counties to apply or reapply for any of three assistance programs (AFDC, Food Stamps, and Family General Assistance) were randomly assigned to the MFIP or AFDC programs from April 1994 through March 1996. This study looks at impacts for 2,770 two-parent families assigned to the MFIP or AFDC.

Time period of study:

The study began in 1994, and subjects were randomly assigned through 1996. The main outcomes were collected after six years (ending in 2002).

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase very long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Increase very long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Couple relationships, Family formation, Child well-being, Physical health, Housing

Study funded by:

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, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ford Foundation, McKnight Foundation, and Northwest Area Foundation.

Results

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

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings, annual	Year 1	High	2,691.00	2,320.00	-371.00	1996 dollars	2,256
Increase long-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings, annual	Year 5	High	5,297.00	5,015.00	-282.00	2000 dollars	2,256
Increase very long-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings, annual	Year 6	High	5,785.00	5,469.00	-316.00	2001 dollars	2,256
Increase short-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate with at least one parent employed, annual	Year 1	High	66.20	63.70	-2.50	percentage points	2,256
Increase short-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate with both parents employed, annual	Year 1	High	27.00	22.30	-4.70	percentage points	2,256
Increase long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate with at least one parent employed, annual	Year 5	High	70.30	70.30	0.00	percentage points	2,256
Increase long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate with both parents employed, annual	Year 5	High	32.30	32.50	0.20	percentage points	2,256
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate with at least one parent employed, annual	Year 6	High	71.50	68.90	-2.60	percentage points	2,256
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate with both parents employed, annual	Year 6	High	32.00	31.20	-0.80	percentage points	2,256
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly public benefit receipt, annual	Year 1	High	67.50	76.40	8.90	percentage points	2,256
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly public benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,312.00	1,815.00	503.00	1996 dollars	2,256
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly public benefit receipt, annual	Year 5	High	27.30	30.30	3.00	percentage points	2,256
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly public benefits, annual	Year 5	High	521.00	551.00	30.00	2000 dollars	2,256
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly public benefit receipt, annual	Year 6	High	22.30	26.30	4.00	percentage points	2,256
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly public benefits, annual	Year 6	High	394.00	465.00	71.00	2001 dollars	2,256

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

All individuals were members of two-parent families. Most were currently married (72 percent), female (87 percent), and White, non-Hispanic (66 percent). About three-quarters had received AFDC before the study. About one-third (31 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent, and 14 percent had a postsecondary degree.

Age

Mean age

31 years

Sex

Female	87%
Male	13%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	13%
White	66%
American Indian or Alaska Native	5%
Unknown, not reported, or other	13%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	3%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Family status

Married	73%
Parents	100%
Single parents	0%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	20%
Were long-term cash assistance recipients	48%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	14%
Had a high school diploma or GED	69%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	31%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Minnesota state AFDC and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Program history:

The MFIP program originated in 1994 when the study began.

Intervention services:

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 in the MFIP. Second, long-term welfare recipients (two-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 the MFIP could also volunteer to participate in these activities.) Employment and training activities emphasized quicker entry into the workforce and combined education and training with work. People who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent. Third, the 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, the MFIP paid child care costs directly to providers rather than having parents pay out of pocket and receive reimbursement. Although outcomes are measured up to six years after random assignment, in June 1998 (two to four years after random assignment) the MFIP and the AFDC group were transferred into a new statewide program called the Minnesota Family Investment Program-Statewide (MFIP-S).

Mandatory services:

Long-term welfare recipients (two-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 younger than 1, or meeting so-called good cause criteria. (Recent AFDC applicants assigned to the MFIP could also volunteer to participate in these activities.) Participants who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent.

Comparison services:

People assigned to the comparison condition received typical AFDC services for Minnesota. These clients could enroll in employment and training services through the employment and training arm of the state AFDC program, known as Success Through Reaching Individual Development and Employment, but participation was voluntary. AFDC did not offer the financial incentives offered by the MFIP. For example, benefits were reduced by almost one dollar for every dollar AFDC clients earned. A portion of a client’s earnings was disregarded when calculating the amount of a household’s AFDC grant, but the disregarded amount decreased over time. AFDC clients could receive assistance with child care costs in the form of reimbursements for incurred expenses. Although outcomes were measured up to six years after random assignment, in June 1998 (two to four years after random assignment), the MFIP and the AFDC group were transferred into a new statewide program called MFIP-S.

Service receipt duration:

The study implied that clients could receive the MFIP services as long as they remained enrolled in AFDC. In June 1998 (two to four years after random assignment), the MFIP and the AFDC group were transferred into a new statewide program called MFIP-S.

Intervention funding:

Minnesota Department of Human Services

Study publications

Gennetian, Lisa A., Cynthia Miller, and Jared Smith (2005). Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children from the Minnesota Family Investment Program, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_594.pdf.

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. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/mfip_vol1_adult.pdf.

Miller, Cynthia, Virginia Knox, Patricia Auspos, Jo Anna Hunger-Manns, and Alan Orenstein (1997). Making welfare work and work pay: Implementation and 18-month impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/making-welfare-work-and-work-pay-implementation-and-18-month-impacts-of-the.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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.

Study of Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP)—Two-Parent Families