|
View the full project profile
Project Description
Iowa’s FIP replaced the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in Iowa on October 1, 1993. FIP reflects a broad agreement among Iowa welfare policymakers that the previous program should be replaced from one which emphasized income maintenance to one that emphasizes employment and client responsibility. FIP includes the Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) to which cases that fail to sign or meet the requirements of a written Family Investment Agreement (FIA) are assigned, and the PROMISE JOBS employment and training program. FIP’s major provisions include: providing financial incentives and support for employment; requiring participants to take steps toward self-sufficiency; encouraging formation and preservation of two-parent families; imposing stiffer consequences; and encouraging productive saving and asset accumulation.
Project duration: Oct 1997 - Jun 2002
Sites studied include Urban counties:
Black Hawk County, Iowa
Linn County, Iowa
Woodbury County, Iowa
Polk County, Iowa
Pottawattamie County, Iowa
Rural Counties:
Clinton County, Iowa
Des Moines County, Iowa
Jackson County, Iowa
Jones County, Iowa
Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied
7,178 FIP recipient cases (cases that were receiving public assistance in September 1993). Random assignment to treatment (n=4,800) and control (n=2,378) group.
4,000 welfare applicants (cases that applied for assistance on of after October 1993 without regard for whether applications were approved or denied). Random assignment to treatment (n=2,781) or control (n=1,409) group.
1,858 ongoing Food Stamp only (FSO) cases.
Random assignment to treatment (n=1,240) and control (n=618) groups.
3,141 applicant Food Stamp cases. Random assignment to treatment (n=2,060) and control (n=1,081) groups.
Recent Findings in Brief
06/01/02:
Iowa Family Investment Program: The Evaluation of Welfare Reform in Iowa
Final Impact Findings:
Participation in training and receipt of employment-related services increased by 6 to 7 percentage points.
Over the short term, employment and earnings increased. For the group on welfare when the reforms began, longer-term impacts on earnings were also noted for household heads, with earnings on the principal job 10 percent higher. This increase was accompanied by reductions in cash assistance and food stamp benefits, indicating greater levels of self-sufficiency.
For those who entered welfare after the reforms began, total household earnings and income at the end of the follow-up period, including earnings from all household members, decreased by about $200 a month. Participation rates in Medicaid and subsidized housing rose.
Participation in welfare increased slightly for both groups in the short run, as more generous earnings disregards made it possible for more cases to remain on assistance while employed. Welfare participation remained elevated at the end of the follow-up period for those who started receiving assistance after the reforms began.
The impact on marriage was negative for women who started receiving welfare after the reforms began and were not married when they applied for assistance. Those in the welfare reform program were 8 percent less likely than those in the traditional program to be married at follow-up, and they experienced more instability in their relationships. Researchers also noted negative impacts on some measures of family and child well-being, such as financial strain, doubling up of households, domestic abuse, and school engagement of children.
Contact
Thomas Fraker (not reported)
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 2393
(T) (202) 484-4698
(F) (609)-799-0005
|
