Long-Term Effects of the Minnesota Family Investment Program on Marriage and Divorce Among Two-Parent Families. Appendix

06/01/2003

Appendix Table 1.
Selected Characteristics of Two-Parent Sample Members,
by Welfare Status at Random Assignment
Characteristic Recipients Applicants
Demoraphic characteristics
Geographic area (%) Hennepin County (Minneapolis) 52.4 37.2
   Anoka/Dakota counties 20.3 24.2
   Rural counties 27.3 38.6
Gender of respondent (%)
   Female 90.7 78.0
   Male 9.3 22.0
Average age (years) 31.2 30.6
Race/Ethnicity (%)
   White, non-Hispanic 59.5 79.7
   Black, non-Hispanic 16.2 7.2
   Hispanic 2.7 4.3
   Native American/Alaskan Native 5.6 2.2
   Asian/Pacific Islander 16.0 6.6
Family status
Marital status (%)
  Never married 24.2 17.4
   Married, living with spouse 68.7 78.8
   Married, living apart 1.8 0.7
   Separated 0.2 0.1
   Divorced 5.2 3.0
   Widowed 0.1 0.0
Age of youngest child in years (%)
   Under 3, or client pregnant at the time of random assignment 55.2 61.1
   3-5 22.3 12.8
   6-18 22.5 26.1
Number of children (%)
   One 20.8 39.4
   Two 31.1 28.1
   Three or more 46.3 30.7
Labor force status
Worked full-time for 6 months or more for one employer (%) 52.4 73.5
Any earnings in past 12 months (%) 59.2 21.2
Currently employed (%) 15.1 30.6
Average hourly wagea ($) 6.41 7.38
Average hours worked per weekb (%)
   1-19 36.7 36.4
   20-29 24.3 15.5
   30 or more 38.9 48.2
Never worked (%) 16.6 3.6
Education status
Highest credential earned (%)
   GED certificatec 12.6 10.4
   High school diploma 38.9 51.1
   Technical/2-year college degree 9.2 12.7
   4-year college degree or higher 2.1 7.0
   None of the above 37.2 18.9
Highest grade completed in school (average) 11 12
Prior welfare receipt
Total prior AFDC receiptd (%)
   None 3.7 74.4
   Less than 4 months 4.5 2.6
   4 months or more but less than 1 year 13.0 8.7
   1 year or more but less than 2 years 13.4 4.3
   2 years or more but less than 5 years 30.5 6.4
   5 years or more but less than 10 years 23.0 2.4
   10 years or more 12.1 1.2
Housing status
Current housing status (%)
   Public housing 7.6 2.1
   Subsidized housing 17.8 3.4
   Emergency or temporary housing 3.7 3.4
   None of the above 70.8 91.1
Number of moves in the past 2 years (%)
   None 34.8 34.2
   1 or 2 45.6 50.1
   3 or more 19.6 15.8
Current and recent education and training activities
Currently enrolled in education or traininge (%)
   Any type 20.3 12.3
      GED preparation 2.6 0.7
      English as a Second Language 5.7 1.6
      Adult Basic Education 1.2 0.6
      Vocational education/skills training 4.5 2.2
      Post-secondary education 3.4 4.0
      Job search/job club 3.0 2.1
      Work experience 0.5 0.4
      High school 0.7 1.5
Enrolled in any type of education or training during the previous 12 months (%) 28.4 16.0
Sample size (total = 2,256) 1,523 733
SOURCE: MDRC calculations using data from Background Information Forms.
NOTES: The sample includes AFDC and MFIP group members who were randomly assigned from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1996, excluding the small percentage who were receiving or applying only for food stamps at random assignment.
This table includes eight recipient families and two applicant families who were excluded from the rest of the analysis because they did not provide information at baseline on their marital status.
a Calculated for those employed at the time of random assignment who reported an hourly wage. Twenty percent of those employed were excluded because they did not report an hourly wage.
b Calculated for those employed at the time of random assignment.
cThe General Educational Development (GED) certificate is given to those who pass the GED test and is intended to signify knowledge of basic high school subjects.
d This refers to the total number of months an individual or her spouse has spent on AFDC at one or more periods of time as an adult. It does not include AFDC receipt under a parent's name.
e Totals may not equal all categories summed because some sample members may be in more than one category.
Appendix Table 2
Effects on Marriage and Divorce for Two-Parent Recipient Families
over a Seven-Year Follow-Up Period, Year by Year
  Sample Size Divorced at End of Year (%) Married at End of Year (%)
MFIP AFDC Impacta Percentage Change MFIP AFDC Impacta Percentage Change
Full recipient sample 1,515  
  Year 1   0.5 0.5 0.0 0.7 { Not applicable }              
  Year 2   2.0 2.7 -0.8 -28.3
  Year 3   3.3 4.8 -1.4 -30.2
  Year 4   6.3 6.8 -0.4 -6.6
  Year 5   7.5 9.1 -1.6 -17.1
  Year 6   8.7 11.7 -3.0** -25.9
   Year 7   9.1 12.9 -3.8 ** -29.5
Among those who were married at baseline 1,043  
  Year 1   0.6 0.7 -0.1 -16.6 { Not applicable }             
  Year 2   2.5 3.6 -1.2 -32.2
  Year 3   4.3 6.0 -1.7 -28.1
  Year 4   8.6 8.8 -0.3 -3.0
  Year 5   10.2 12.0 -1.8 -15.1
  Year 6   11.7 15.0 -3.3 -21.7
   Year 7   12.1 16.8 -4.6 ** -27.7
Among those who were cohabiting at baseline 472        
  Year 1   0.2 0.0 0.2 N/A 6.4 7.2 -0.8 -11.0
  Year 2   0.9 0.8 0.1 10.0 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.0
  Year 3   0.8 2.5 -1.7 -67.4 13.8 15.8 -2.0 -12.9
  Year 4   0.8 3.4 -2.6* -76.2 16.1 17.1 -1.0 -6.0
  Year 5   1.1 4.0 -2.9* -72.4 17.5 18.2 -0.7 -3.9
  Year 6   1.7 5.5 -3.8** -68.9 18.6 17.3 1.4 7.8
   Year 7   2.4 4.6 -2.2 -48.0 20.4 15.9 4.5 28.2
SOURCES: MDRC calculations using public divorce and marriage certificate records from the state of Minnesota.
NOTES: The sample includes members randomly assigned from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1996, excluding the small percentage who were receiving or applying only for food stamps at random assignment. Approximately 96 percent of two-parent recipient families were randomly assigned from April 1994 to March 1995.
A two-tailed t-test was applied to regression-adjusted impact estimates. Statistical significance levels are indicated as ***= 1 percent; **= 5 percent; * =10 percent.
Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in sums and differences.
Because of the long intake period, the full sample size was not available for follow-up Year Seven; the sample size at the end of Year Seven was 1,235.
a The difference is the impact of the financial incentives, mandatory services, reinforced incentive messages, and elimination of the 100-hour rule and work history requirement.
N/A = Not applicable
Appendix Table 3.
MFIP's Effects on Marriage and Divorce for Two-Parent Applicant Families
over a Six-Year Follow-Up Period, Year by Year
Sample Size Divorced at End of Year (%) Married at End of Year (%)
MFIP AFDC Impacta Percentage Change MFIP AFDC Impacta Percentage Change
Full applicant sample 731    
  Year 1   0.6 1.7 -1.1 -63.3 { Not applicable }
  Year 2   3.1 2.9 0.2 7.2
  Year 3   5.7 6.8 -1.1 -16.3
  Year 4   12.3 8.9 3.5 39.1
  Year 5   16.2 11.9 4.3 * 35.8
  Year 6   19.0 15.8 3.3 20.6
Among those who were married at baseline 577    
  Year 1   0.5 2.1 -1.6 -74.5 { Not applicable }
  Year 2   4.1 3.4 0.7 19.6
  Year 3   7.2 8.0 -0.8 -9.7
  Year 4   15.0 10.5 4.5 42.7
  Year 5   19.8 14.2 5.6 * 39.1
  Year 6   23.2 19.2 3.9 20.5
Among those who were cohabiting at baseline 154    
  Year 1   1.9 0.0 1.9 * 0.0 7.9 4.3 3.6 82.2
  Year 2   1.9 0.0 1.9 * 0.0 13.8 10.2 3.6 35.2
  Year 3   0.5 3.0 -2.5 -82.2 16.0 10.7 5.3 49.2
  Year 4   3.8 2.7 1.0 37.0 19.5 12.5 7.0 55.4
  Year 5   4.4 4.0 0.4 10.4 20.1 13.8 6.3 46.0
  Year 6   4.9 4.3 0.6 15.1 21.5 15.0 6.6 44.0
SOURCES: MDRC calculations using public divorce and marriage certificate records from the state of Minnesota.
NOTES: The sample includes members randomly assigned from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1996, excluding the small percentage who were receiving or applying only for food stamps at random assignment.
A two-tailed t-test was applied to regression-adjusted impact estimates. Statistical significance levels are indicated as ***= 1 percent; **= 5 percent; * =10 percent.
Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in sums and differences.
Because of the long intake period, the full sample size was not available for follow-up Year Six; the sample size at the end of Year Six was 696.
a The difference is the impact of the financial incentives, mandatory services, reinforced incentive messages, and elimination of the 100-hour rule and work history requirement.
Appendix Table 4.
Effects on Divorce for Two-Parent Applicant Families
over a Six-Year Follow-Up Period
  Sample Size Ever Divorced (%)
MFIP AFDC Impacta Percentage Change P-Value for Subgroup Differences
Overall
All applicant families 731 21.0 18.8 2.2 11.7  
Number of children 0.08 *
  Fewer than 3 children 494 17.3 18.6 -1.3 -7.1  
  3 or more children 224 31.3 19.7 11.6 * 58.8  
Race/Ethnicity 0.16
  White, non-Hispanic 575 21.9 21.0 0.8 3.9
Age of youngest child 0.21
  Less than 6 years old 530 23.6 19.7 3.8 19.3  
  6 years old or older 188 13.2 17.8 -4.7 -26.3  
Employment 1 year prior to study entry 0.12
  One parent employed 226 24.4 14.3 10.1 * 70.6  
  Both parents employed 373 20.2 24.8 -4.6 -18.6  
Welfare receipt prior to study entry
  Less than 2 years 650 21.7 19.1 2.5 13.2  
Married at Baseline
All Applicant Families 577 25.0 23.5 1.5 6.3
Number of children 0.09 *
  Fewer than 3 children 362 21.3 24.2 -2.9 -11.9  
  3 or more children 208 33.0 21.8 11.1 50.9  
Race/Ethnicity  
  White, non-Hispanic 454 25.2 26.9 -1.7 -6.4  
Age of Youngest Child 0.40
  Less than 6 years old 388 28.7 27.0 1.7 6.4  
  6 years old or older 182 13.7 18.5 -4.8 -26.0  
Employment 1 year prior to study entry 0.10 *
  One parent employed 191 27.2 16.0 11.2 70.4  
  Both parents employed 277 25.9 33.6 -7.7 -22.9  
Welfare receipt prior to study entry  
Less than 2 years 512 25.3 23.6 1.8 7.5  
SOURCES: MDRC calculations using public divorce and marriage certificate records from the State of Minnesota.
NOTES: The sample includes members randomly assigned from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1996, excluding the small percentage who were receiving or applying only for food stamps at random assignment.
A two-tailed t-test was applied to regression-adjusted impact estimates. Statistical significance levels are indicated as ***= 1 percent; **= 5 percent; * =10 percent.
Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in sums and differences.
a The difference is the impact of the financial incentives, mandatory services, reinforced incentive messages, and elimination of the 100-hour rule and work history requirement.

References

Miller, Cynthia, Virginia Knox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Martey Dodoo, Jo Anna Hunter and Cindy Redcross. 2000. Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program, Volume 1: Effects on Adults. New York: MDRC.

Knox, Virginia, Cynthia Miller, and Lisa A. Gennetian. 2000. Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final Report on the Minnesota Family Investment Program. New York: MDRC.

Harknett, Kristen and Lisa A. Gennetian. In press. "How an Earnings Supplement Can Affect Union Formation Among Low-Income Single Mothers." Demography.

Endnotes

1.  Miller et al., 2000.

2.  Miller et al., 2000.

3.  Miller et al., 2000.

4.  In most two-parent families, both biological parents were present, and the family was evaluated for eligibility for AFDC-UP. To be eligible for AFDC-UP, the family had to document that the primary wage earner had worked in at least 6 of the previous 13 calendar quarters (the "work history" requirement) and had been unemployed for at least 30 days prior to approval for benefits. In addition to these restrictions, the two-parent family had to be financially eligible for benefits; if the primary wage earner worked while receiving AFDC-UP benefits, he or she was limited to working no more than 100 hours per month (the 100-hour rule).

5.  Families were also eligible for the AFDC-Incapacitated Program (AFDC-INCAP), if one parent was incapacitated. A small proportion of two-parent families in the AFDC group received cash assistance from the FGA program instead of from AFDC.

6.  Note, however, that the length of stay on welfare for recipients in the research sample is partly an artifact of the way random assignment was conducted. Because random assignment of recipients took place at annual recertification interviews, most recipients, by definition, should have been on welfare for at least one year at baseline.

7.  Miller et al., 2000; Knox et al., 2000

8.  All effects or impacts were estimated using ordinary least squares techniques and regression-adjusted, for precision, with the following baseline and pre-random assignment covariates: county of residence, recipient status, marital status, number of children, receipt of high school degree or General Education Development (GED) certificate, race/ethnicity, age, quarter of random assignment, current employment of primary parent, prior welfare receipt, and prior employment of each parent. Prior work suggests that impacts on marriage outcomes estimated using other nonlinear techniques, such as probit or logit techniques, are similar (e.g., see Harknett and Gennetian, in press). Effects were tested for statistical significance using a two-tailed t-test. Unless otherwise noted, only statistically significant effects are discussed.

9.  As noted in Miller et al., 2000, the survey sample of two-parent applicant families was too small to analyze other family outcomes at the 36-month follow-up point, such as material hardship, health insurance coverage, home ownership, and marital stability.

10.  One key benefit of obtaining the divorce records data electronically is that all resulting analyses capture any divorce that occurred in any county in the state rather than the seven counties that participated in the pilot MFIP evaluation. The availability of state data eliminates any bias that may have been generated by intra-state moves by sample members during the follow-up time period.

11.  Note that each sample family's marital status was checked for consistency using information from divorce and marriage records, and the BIF. With these three sources of information, the following coding decisions were implemented: (1) ten sample members with missing baseline information about marital status are excluded from the analysis; (2) three sample members who had two dates of marriage documented in the marriage certificates data were coded as married at the first noted date, unless a divorce was also documented; (3) four couples who were recorded on the BIF as cohabiting were recoded as married at baseline. In addition, one family who was recorded on the BIF as married, and for whom a divorce was recorded with divorce records data at around the time of random assignment, were coded as divorced one month after random assignment. The findings do not change if we assume that this divorce occurred at a different time (i.e., at or much later than the time of random assignment.)

12.  No record of marriage was found for 13 cohabiting two-parent families who were divorced according to the match with the divorce records data. This may be because the marriages took place out of the state of Minnesota or because the quality of information was not adequate to secure a match with the Minnesota marriage records.

13.  Note that these findings are not based on the same measure as the findings reported from the 36-month follow-up: Prior findings were based on a survey respondent stating that she and her partner were "married and living together," while the current findings are based on data from marriage certificates and divorce records.

14.  Long-term follow-up results for the sample of 290 two-parent recipient families who were surveyed at the 36-month follow-up point (see Miller et al., 2000 for a more detailed description of this survey sample) are as follows: Approximately 18.2 percent of AFDC recipient families had a finalized divorce at the seven-year follow-up point, compared with 12.4 percent of MFIP recipient families, for a 5.8 percentage point difference, or 46.8 percent reduction. This effect is not statistically significant at the seven-year follow-up point (p=0.20), very possibly due to the small sample size. Note also that the general magnitude of this effect is quite similar to what was reported for this survey sample at the five-year follow-up point (see Table 6.6, page 173, in Miller et al., 2000).

15.  MFIP-S, the statewide program, was implemented in January 1998. However, MFIP pilot study members were exempt from the statewide program until June 1998. For this analysis the data were converted back into calendar months. Thus, the "relative" length of follow-up differs slightly for each two-parent family because most of the two-parent recipient families were randomly assigned over a 12- month period.

16.  Some aspects of MFIP-S that applied to MFIP pilot families were implemented in July 1997. For example, the elimination of the 100-hour rule applied to all MFIP pilot and AFDC families starting in July 1997.

17.  A similar conclusion was drawn based on the 36-month survey data on 290 recipient families (see Chapter 6, Miller et al., 2000).

18.  The increase in marriage among cohabiting recipients for families in which both parents had been employed prior to study entry (5.1 percentage points, or a 26 percent increase) is worth noting because of its magnitude; the same is true for cohabiting short-term welfare recipients (7.8 percentage points, or a 46 percent increase). These effects may not have achieved statistical significance because of their small sample size, particularly for the subgroup in which both parents had been previously employed. Effects on marriage among the subgroup in which both parents had been employed prior to study entry overall (N=450) were statistically significant at 6.7 percentage points.

19.  The sample of two-parent cohabiting couples was too small to pursue comparable subgroup analyses.

View full report

Preview
Download

"report.pdf" (pdf, 495.33Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®