The following research questions were addressed in the study.

• Was WorkFIRST a more effective front end than MFIP in terms of moving new welfare applicants off welfare and into employment? What were the effects of the different time triggers on welfare participation?
• Did the immediacy of the work message embodied by WorkFIRST result in applicants spending less time receiving employment services?
• What effect did WorkFIRST sanctions have on clients?
• What effect did participation in WorkFIRST and MFIP have on client outcomes after exiting MFIP and at their 1-year and 18-month anniversaries?

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.

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.

Employment policies linked to treatment:
WorkFIRST- Job search and other work requirements for first-time, mandatory applicants started within 5 days of application for welfare.
MFIP- Counties were given the option of starting work requirements immediately or up to 6 months after eligibility determination for single parents; 1 month for two parent families.

WorkFIRST requirements focused on immediate job search or work; limited job training or employment training were made available to mandatory clients. The WorkFIRST counties offered limited post-placement (job retention) services to clients for up to 180 days for clients who left welfare.

Financial Disincentives/Sanctions:
Evaluation of different sanction policies on the number of families sanctioned by each program as well as the rationale for sanctioning.
Non-compliance with key program requirements could lead to a unit 6-month sanction. Non-compliance with other requirements could lead to a 6-month individual sanction. The report explored different outcomes for sanctioned WorkFIRST clients.

Program Requirements:
Evaluation of the effects of the different work requirements esp. the 5-day vs. 1-6 month time trigger on welfare benefit receipt, employment outcomes and well-being.

Social/Support Services
Evaluation of the different rates of Food Stamps and transitional medical assistance utilization rates for welfare leavers. Evaluation of different outcomes in areas of leaver’s employment and earnings, self-assessed well-being, educational experiences and achievements of children, health status and health services utilization, and availability and affordability of day care up to 18 months after application for welfare.

In the Year 4 Evaluation Report, we evaluated the impact of Minnesota’s Work First program compared to MFIP on overall welfare participation of the applicants. MAXIMUS developed a logistic model in which the welfare status of participants 18 months after application served as the dependent variable in the study. MAXIMUS wanted to explore whether WorkFIRST applicants had a different probability of being active in welfare compared to applicants in the MFIP comparison counties. We utilized a series of individual, demographic, and programmatic covariates in the model.

We found that there was no statistically significant difference in the probability of being active in the welfare program between the WorkFIRST and 1-month time trigger clients. For applicants in the 6-month MFIP counties, the odds ratio was less than 1, indicating that their risk of exiting was less than for clients in the WorkFIRST counties.

The variables that had a statistically significant increase on the odds ratio of leaving welfare compared to a reference category included the following: Hispanics, African-Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, households with 2 caretakers or which changed from 1 to 2 caretakers, and an increase in the age of the caretaker.

The variables that had a statistically significant decrease on the odds ratio of leaving welfare compared to a reference category included the following: African-Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, clients with no high school diploma or GED, families with 3 children or which had an increase in the number of children, clients who were pregnant at application, an increase in the number of months working while receiving benefits, and an increase in the number of months exempt from work requirements.

In the Year 3 Evaluation Report, we analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of welfare stayers and leavers, by model. With regard to welfare leavers, we analyzed the various employment, personal, and family factors given as reasons for leaving welfare. In addition, we analyzed the reasons clients gave for terminating from employment services. We analyzed whether there was a correlation between working while receiving MFIP and leaving MFIP due to employment. We also examined Food Stamp and Medical Assistance usage and combined family income after exiting MFIP.

With regard to welfare stayers, we assessed their overall well-being in their 1-year anniversary month, their utilization of employment services, and the usefulness of various employment services.

MFIP was implemented in the state on January 1, 1998 and the site visits that year focused on documenting how the program was implemented in each of the study counties. MAXIMUS developed a model of the various case processing and employment procedures and initially filled in the template for each county. In 1999-2000, the site visits reexamined the model and noted any changes in the study counties. Of particular note, we found that the immediacy of the WorkFIRST message and procedures were diluted during the transition to MFIP statewide. MAXIMUS recommended ways to improve the model, which we documented in 2000. In 2001, MAXIMUS compiled a county narrative that documented how the program was implemented over the four year period. The narrative was sent out for review and comment by various financial work staff and supervisors and by employment services supervisors and staff.

In 1999, MAXIMUS conducted two focus groups in each of the study counties. One group was composed of active clients and the second included welfare leavers. The total N was 41 participants. In 2000, MAXIMUS conducted only one focus group in each county, composed of welfare leavers. The total N was 30 participants. Focus groups were dropped from the last site visit round at the request of DHS.

Used to obtain data on welfare eligibility and participation and receipt of various forms of public assistance after leaving welfare (e.g., Food Stamps and medical assistance).

Used to obtain data on employment services participation, services utilization, and job outcomes and wages.

N=958 valid cases reached their 18 month anniversary.

• 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.