|
|
|
Recommendations
|
Minnesota’s Family Investment Program Evaluation: Making Welfare Work and Work Pay: Implementation and 18-Month Impacts of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (10/01/97)
|
|
"It was MFIP’s combination of financial incentives and mandated activities that produced the increases in employment and earnings and the reduction in poverty for long-term urban recipients. Offering either component alone would not have achieved gains of this magnitude in both areas simultaneously"(ES-17).
"MFIP’s success with long-term recipients is particularly noteworthy. Conversely, the absence of a sustained increase in employment or earnings among applicants suggests the program might need to be structured differently for them"(ES-18).
"The implementation evidence suggests that the financial incentives were instrumental in shaping the employment focus of the mandated activities and services"(ES-18).
"In the short term, MFIP recipients stayed on welfare longer than their AFDC counterparts because they were able to combine welfare and work. It is unclear whether, over the long term, recipients will extend their work hours and go off welfare completely. This result has implications for imposing time limits on welfare receipt"(ES-18).
"Financial incentives may help change the culture of welfare office and of welfare employment and training programs"(ES-19).
|
| |
|
|
