Home > Promising Practices > Minnesota Family Investment Program

Minnesota Family Investment Program

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) is a welfare reform program for low-income families with children that encourages work, reduces reliance on public assistance, and reduces poverty. The program helps families secure work, and provides case and food assistance. The program helps families transition to economic stability by providing financial incentives to work, increasing a welfare recipient's basic grant by 20% to offset work-related expenses, and disregarding 38% of earnings when calculating the family's grant level. As a result, a parent who is working part or full-time can receive more money through MFIP than under the traditional Aid to Families with Dependent Children system. Recipients who have received welfare for two of the prior three years are required to participate in employment and training services designed to move participants into the workforce.

Goal / Mission

The goal of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) is to help families transition to economic stability by providing financial incentives to work.

Impact

Although MFIP cost Minnesota more than the ADFC welfare program, MFIP overall increased employment and wage earnings of participants by supplementing low income with welfare supplements. Most encouragingly, there is evidence to suggest the effects of the program persist after the program ended for the most disadvantaged.

Results / Accomplishments

MFIP was evaluated by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation using a random assignment research design comparing MFIP recipients with families in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. MFIP significantly increased employment, earnings, welfare receipt and income through four years of follow-up for single-parent families (p < 0.01). In two-parent families, MFIP reduced employment among second earners, however, this reduction in family earnings was offset by higher welfare benefits, resulting in no effects on family income. Among the small group of disadvantaged single parents, including those with little employment history, long-term welfare receipt, and no high school diploma or GED, economic effects persisted through six years of follow-up (p's < 0.001). MFIP had no effect on educational attainment for young children in any type of family.

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Primary Contact
Minnesota Department of Human Services
444 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 431-2000
DHS.info@state.mn.us
http://mn.gov/dhs/general-public/about-dhs/contact...
Topics
Economy / Government Assistance
Economy / Employment
Economy / Poverty
Organization(s)
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Source
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC)
Date of publication
Jul 2005
Date of implementation
Apr 1994
Location
Minnesota
For more details
http://www.mdrc.org/project/minnesota-family-inves...
http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_594.p...
Target Audience
Families

Related Promising Practices

  1. Partnerships That Work: National Service and Business in Welfare to Work
  2. Warren Village
  3. Welfare-to-Work Voucher Program
  4. Integration of TANF and Child Welfare Systems in El Paso
  5. Nevada’s Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment Program
  6. The Los Angeles Jobs-First Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program

More

Related Content for: Minnesota Family Investment Program

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance