Study Details | Pathways to Work

3020.3147.06-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) (as compared with MFIP Incentives Only)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients, Parents (Single parents)

Services provided:

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

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

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 2,896 single-parent AFDC-applicant families in the urban counties (Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota) assigned to MFIP or MFIP Incentives Only.

Time period of study:

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.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health, Housing, Couple relationships

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, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Ford Foundation, the 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	1,150.00	1,146.00	-4.00	1996 dollars	2,896
Increase long-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings, three quarters	Quarters 9–11	High	1,881.00	2,032.00	151.00	1998 dollars	2,896
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	52.00	55.90	3.90	percentage points	2,896
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 12	High	55.10	58.40	3.30	percentage points	2,896
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly cash welfare and Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,317.00	1,289.00	-28.00	1996 dollars	2,896
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly cash welfare and Food Stamp/SNAP receipt, annual	Year 1	High	74.20	74.20	0.00	percentage points	2,896
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly cash welfare and Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, three quarters	Quarters 9–11	High	835.00	709.00	-126.00	1998 dollars	2,896
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly cash welfare and Food Stamp/SNAP receipt, three quarters	Quarters 9–11	High	47.00	43.10	-3.90	percentage points	2,896

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

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.

Age

Mean age

29 years

Sex

Female	88%
Male	12%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	24%
White	65%
American Indian or Alaska Native	5%
Unknown, not reported, or other	3%
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

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	23%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	16%
Had a high school diploma or GED	77%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	24%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Minnesota state AFDC and TANF

Program history:

The MFIP program originated in April 1994, when the study began. (This study examines the field pilot of the MFIP program.)

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 on MFIP. Second, long-term welfare recipients (single-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 MFIP could also volunteer to participate in these activities.) Employment and training activities emphasized quickly entering the workforce and combining education and training with work. People who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent. Third, 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.

Mandatory services:

Participants assigned to MFIP were required to participate in the mandatory activities and were not allowed to switch study groups. Participants who did not participate in employment and training activities could have their benefits reduced by 10 percent.

Comparison services:

Clients in the MFIP Incentives Only condition were eligible for all financial changes made under MFIP, but they could not receive MFIP education and training services (and were not subject to mandatory education and training). They could, however, participate voluntarily in employment and training under the state's usual employment and training program for AFDC recipients.

Service receipt duration:

The study implied that clients could receive MFIP services as long as they remained enrolled in AFDC.

Intervention funding:

Minnesota AFDC and TANF

Study publications

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 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) (as compared with MFIP Incentives Only)—Recent Applicant Single-Parent Households