View the full project profile

Project Description

The WorkFIRST program was authorized in 1995 when the Minnesota Legislature enacted welfare reform legislation. The state obtained an 1115 waiver from DHHS and implemented the program in two small counties, Carver and Clay, in November 1996. In 1997, the Legislature passed a law that authorized MFIP as the statewide TANF program. This same legislation also reauthorized the WorkFIRST program for a further 5 years. The law stipulated that WorkFIRST applicants were subject to the eligibility and benefits requirements that guided MFIP, Food Stamps, and Medical Assistance. Thus, WorkFIRST was embedded within MFIP with respect to eligibility and benefits. The programs differed in the requirements for employment and training and in the severity of sanctions for non-compliance. The WorkFIRST was discontinued by the two counties in March 2001.

WorkFIRST targeted “first-time applicants” to public assistance -- those who had not previously received welfare benefits in the state. The purpose of the program was to: (1) ensure that the participant was working as early as possible; (2) promote greater opportunity for economic self-support, participation, and mobility in the work force; and (3) minimize the risk for long-term welfare dependency. WorkFIRST embodied the concepts that work should be the “primary means of economic support” and that applicants should be required to aggressively approach the job market.

Key WorkFIRST policies included the following:
1. The “work” requirement for eligible applicants was almost immediate as applicants were required to start a job search within 5 days of applying for assistance.
2. Work activities focused on job search and employment. Job training and employment training were very limited.
3. Employment services were made available to applicants, even before eligibility was determined. Post - placement services available to clients for 180 days.
4. Non-compliance with key program requirements could lead to a unit 6-month sanction. Non-compliance with other requirements could lead to an individual sanction.
5. Childcare and transportation assistance were available immediately for job search and employment activities; even before eligibility was determined.
6. Transitional child care/transportation assistance were available if the recipient left the program due to increased earnings.

The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) is Minnesota’s implementation of the TANF program. The purpose of this program was to (1) encourage and enable all families to find employment; (2) help families increase their income; and (3) prevent long-term dependence on welfare as a primary source of family income. MFIP was similar to WorkFIRST in that it required clients to participate in work and work-related activities whose object was to place them on the most direct path to unsubsidized employment.

MFIP also provided financial incentives that were designed to “make work pay” for welfare recipients who actually worked. This was achieved through a combination of income disregards and higher income thresholds that permitted working clients to retain more income. The philosophy that best characterized MFIP was progressive labor force attachment. Welfare recipients were encouraged to make a progressive transition from dependency toward self-sufficiency by promoting entry into the workforce and supplementing or replacing welfare as the primary source of family income.

For the purposes of this study, individual participation in the MFIP comparison counties was limited to first-time applicants. Recipients who had ever received AFDC or other assistance were excluded from the study.

Key MFIP policies included the following:
1. Counties were given the option of requiring applicants to engage in work activities anywhere from the same month all the way up to 6 months after the applicant was found to be eligible for assistance. This is called the “time trigger” and applied to single parents only. The time trigger was 1 month for two parents families. The legislature changed the time trigger policy in the four comparison counties to 1 month for all parents in January 2001.
2. Childcare and transportation assistance were immediately available for job search and employment activities; transitional assistance was available only after three months on welfare.
3. Job activities included work, training, limited post-secondary programs, and other activities.
4. Job retention services available at county option.
5. Graduated sanctions for non-compliance; 10% of grant for first occurrence; vendor payment of rent and 30% of other cash assistance thereafter.

Project duration: Jan 1998 - Mar 2003

Sites studied include WorkFIRST Program:
Carver, Clay counties, MN

MFIP Program:
1-month Time Trigger: Kandiyohi, McLeod counties, MN.
6-month Time Trigger:Blue Earth, Nicolett counties, MN.

Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied

N= 500 first-time applicants in WorkFIRST counties;
N= 477 first-time applicants 1-month MFIP counties;
N= 388 first-time applicants in the 6-month MFIP counties.
Total = 1365 eligible first-time applicant cases in the study

Various criteria were used for inclusion in the study:
1. The applicant applied for and was found to be eligible to receive cash assistance between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000.
2. The applicant had never received AFDC, MFIP, refugee assistance or Family General Assistance prior to the application date.
3. One or more caretakers had to be eligible in the assistance unit and the applicant could not be a minor caretaker who was deferred from work requirements.

Recent Findings in Brief

03/01/03: Minnesota Work First and MFIP Program Evaluation: Findings from the WorkFIRST-MFIP Evaluation, Final Report

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings:

• When the welfare participation rates of Work First clients were compared to 1-month MFIP clients, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of exiting welfare between the groups.
• Clients in the 6-month program had a 29% lower risk of exiting welfare compared with those in Work First.
• When the employment services participation was contrasted with clients in 1-month MFIP counties, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of exiting ES between the groups.
• Clients in the 6-month counties has a 70% lower risk of exiting employment services programs compared with those in Work First.
• Of the total number of applicable Work First cases, 64 cases (12.8%) received a sanction. Of these, the majority of sanctioned cases (57) resulted in a closure of the case (11.4 percent), while the remainder (7) resulted in an individual sanction in which the non-compliant caretaker was removed from the case (1.4 percent) although the case remained open.
• Comparing sanction rates, the rate was statistically significantly lower in the Work First counties than it was in the MFIP counties with 12.8% compared to 29.6%. One could argue that the stricter rules of Work First discouraged sanctioning.
• The survey indicates that 86.7% of MFIP recipients had at least one person in their family working within one year of leaving the program.
• There were no statistically significant differences in earnings between the different models at any of the different milestones.
• Over the first four quarters, the earnings of MFIP leavers showed a gradual increase.
• Assessments of global well-being at their first anniversary showed "stayers" assessments were not statistically significant for this group of clients and for the leaver group tests indicated that the different cell counts were statistically significant.
• When asked by surveyors how well the oldest child interacted with classmates and teachers, over 93% said their child got along “very well” or “okay”; under 6% said they “just got by” or “did not get along well.”
• When asked if their child had to repeat a grade 87% said their oldest child completed each grade successfully.
• On a global indicator of well-being, approximately 2/3 of stayers and ¾ of “leavers” said that they were better off than they were a year earlier.
• Relationship Status: Just over 20% of respondents moved in with a partner; 8.6% said they got married w/i the last 18 months; 14.4% said their spouse/partner/someone close died in the last 18 months; 14.1% said they got divorced or separated.
• Family Formation: One third of all respondents said that they had given birth to a child and 22% had gotten pregnant in the last 18 months.
• There were no statistically significant differences between the different models with respect to the child outcomes of how well their child adjusted to school or whether their child(ren) completed each grade or else had to repeat a grade.
• In response to questions about housing and mobility, 30% of respondents said that they moved to a new household so that they could have their own place to stay.

Contact