Process Evaluation of Hennepin County’s Benefits Cliff Pilot: Findings on Design and Implementation Strategies

• In Event: Piloting Transitional Benefits to Mitigate the Benefits Cliff: Implementation Lessons and Early Findings

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The benefits cliff is “is the point on the economic mobility path where those dependent on governmental benefits and entitlements increase income but not enough to cover the additional expenses associated with the loss of benefits” (Dillard, 2023, p. 1). Hennepin County, Minnesota, launched a Benefits Cliff Pilot (HCBCP) program in 2021 funding 13 community agencies to design and implement programs for helping county residents mitigate losing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. This process evaluation sought to understand how the HCBCP approach supports long-term economic stability for residents losing benefits, with attention to specific program implementation and design strategies that served as facilitators or barriers to this goal. 

Methods: Data used in this process evaluation include qualitative data from focus groups, breakout groups, and individual interviews with staff across 13 community agencies and Hennepin County, as well as an individual interview with a program participant. Agency staff also completed a questionnaire with both quantitative and qualitative questions about their pilot programs, services, barriers, and facilitators. Finally, quantitative and qualitative data from agency monthly reports to Hennepin County were shared with evaluators. Evaluators developed a codebook drawing from the domains used in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and through inductive coding, which was used to code interview, focus group, and breakout group data. Overarching themes were identified from the coded data in data sessions. Quantitative data was consolidated and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Findings: Data indicate several strategies that facilitated engagement with participants and mitigation of the benefits cliff. In particular, strategies for implementing program flexibility and fostering self-determination of enrolled participants encouraged ongoing engagement. One such strategy includes direct financial support, or transitional benefits. Evaluation participants indicated that systemic barriers hampered the effectiveness of the HCBCP at mitigating the benefits cliff. While evaluation participants witnessed instances of increased financial stability among program beneficiaries, the pilot alone could not fix broader issues like the affordable housing crisis, discriminatory hiring practices, and additional benefits cliffs (such as losing childcare assistance) that happen at a higher income level.

Conclusions and Implications: This pilot is unique in that it offers 13 different approaches to assisting residents who are transitioning off of TANF. Design and implementation barriers and facilitators identified in this pilot provide valuable information for further benefits cliff programming. Our findings support continued use of flexible funding for benefit cliff mitigation that encompasses transitional benefits. The evaluation also highlights what is beyond the scope of benefits cliff programs and must instead be addressed through systemic policy change. 

Author

• Laura Soltani, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
  Presenting Author