|
This report examines the implementation and impacts of the
Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), which operated
as a field trial in Ramsey County (which includes the City
of St. Paul) between July 1996 and June 1998. Part of a state
welfare reform initiative, the Ramsey County MFIP program
(MFIP-R) was designed as a "work first" program
which offered welfare recipients financial incentives for
work and required them, after they had been on welfare for
one year, to participate in job search activities to facilitate
their quick entry into the workforce. Seven other counties
operated MFIP demonstration programs offering the same financial
incentives for work as MFIP-R; but these programs did not
require recipients to participate in work-related activities
until they had been on welfare for two years, and they offered
a broader menu of employment-related activities under the
participation mandate.
This study is part of a series of papers and reports produced
in an evaluation of MFIP in all eight demonstration counties,
which was conducted by the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation (MDRC) under contract with Minnesota's Department
of Human Services (DHS). It is released in conjunction with
the final report on the impacts of MFIP in the other seven
field trial counties.
The evaluation analyzes the MFIP-R program from several perspectives
using several data sources. Information from a recipient survey
is used to describe how single-parent MFIP-R recipients experienced
the program in Ramsey County and the kinds of jobs they found
during the first year after they entered the program. Administrative
records data are used to analyze the effects of the program
on recipients' employment, earnings, and welfare receipt within
12 months of program entry, compared with Minnesota's traditional
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and
its employment and training arm, known as STRIDE. Finally,
the study compares the MFIP-R impacts in Ramsey County with
the early MFIP results in three urban counties (Hennepin,
Anoka, and Dakota Counties).
Key Findings
- MFIP-R staff conveyed a strong work
first message, and the majority of single-parent recipients
participated in an employment-related activity within the
first year after program entry, most of them in the mandated
sequence of job search activities.
- Compared with AFDC/STRIDE, MFIP-R substantially
increased employment and earnings among single-parent recipients,
particularly in the first months after program entry. MFIP-R
moved recipients into jobs more quickly than AFDC/STRIDE,
and it also boosted the proportion who were employed during
all four quarters of the follow-up period. As expected because
of the financial incentives for working, welfare receipt
was higher among MFIP-R recipients than among AFDC recipients.
- MFIP-R was particularly effective in
increasing employment and earnings among recipients who
had not worked during the year prior to entering the program.
- Compared with single-parent MFIP recipients
who were subject to the MFIP participation mandate in the
three other urban counties, MFIP-R recipients heard a stronger
work first message, were more likely to participate in a
short-term employment-related activity, and were equally
likely to participate in an education or a training activity.
Comparing the MFIP-R impacts with the MFIP impacts in the
three urban counties suggests that MFIP-R produced larger
impacts on employment and earnings than MFIP in the first
two quarters after random assignment, but it had smaller
impacts than MFIP by the end of the first year of follow-up.
Because there are important differences among the recipient
groups and the time periods in the two studies, these findings
cannot be used to draw conclusions about which program was
more effective.
- MFIP-R increased employment and earnings
levels among two-parent families in Ramsey County, compared
with the AFDC program. As anticipated because of the financial
incentives for working and streamlining of eligibility for
two-parent families, welfare receipt was also higher among
the MFIP-R groups. The high proportion of Hmong recipients
in the MFIP-R sample makes comparison with the MFIP program
for two-parent families inadvisable.
|