Some welfare reforms produced lasting gain, research group says

08/05/2005

Jean Hopfensperger,
Star Tribune
August 5, 2005

Minnesota’s earliest welfare reforms produced long-lasting gains for some of the state’s most disadvantaged parents and children, according to a study released this week.

But the reforms did not improve the incomes or employment of other welfare recipients over the six years examined, according to a study by MDRC, a New York research group that evaluates social programs.

The study tracked 9,200 families that enrolled in the pilot project that eventually became Minnesota’s welfare system—the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP). It was launched as an experiment in seven counties in 1994 and became state law in 1998.

The families were tracked through 2001 to see how the program affected family income and their children’s well-being. The program was considered a new vision of welfare reform: letting parents keep some of their benefits as they moved off welfare, instead of immediately reducing them.

The study found that after six years, the parents in the program who were most disadvantaged—meaning they didn’t have high school diplomas or had few work skills—continued to earn more than similar welfare recipients who were not enrolled in MFIP.

Likewise, their children fared better in school than children of families in the control group. Their math and reading scores were higher.

The study found no similar gains for families where parents had more education and skills when they applied for welfare.

“This is further evidence that supporting employment through earnings supplements can have lasting benefits for families,” said Lisa Gennetian, a senior researcher at MDRC who was in Minnesota Thursday to explain the findings.

“Providing supplements are costly,” she said. “But for the most disadvantaged families, their welfare benefits are going down too.”

Chuck Johnson, assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said he found the results interesting, especially the long-term educational improvements for children. Typically, welfare studies don’t look at the effect on children, he said.

“It shows what we’re doing is the right thing, in terms of earning supplements,” he said. “Whether we’re doing enough of it is the question we don’t have the answer to.”

To see the full report, go to http://www.mdrc.org