Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the MFIP topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee briefed on MFIP, 60‑month limit and repeal of diversionary work program
Summary
House Research staff described the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), asset and income rules, employment supports and the planned repeal of the Diversionary Work Program (DWP) effective March 1, 2026.
House Research staff briefed the House Children and Youth and Families Committee on the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), the state’s primary cash assistance program, and related employment supports.
"MFIP provides income assistance to low income families," Danielle Pennelli said, summarizing program scope and reminding members that counties administer day‑to‑day eligibility and service delivery even though the state supervises the program.
Why it matters: MFIP and associated employment supports contain statutory and federal requirements that determine who is eligible for cash and food assistance, how long households may receive aid and what exemptions apply. Changes to program structure or funding affect counties’ administration and service-provider contracts.
Pennelli told members MFIP includes cash and food assistance, employment and training services, and related supports; federal TANF rules limit assistance to 60 months with a handful of statutory exceptions. She said Minnesota’s asset limit for MFIP is $10,000 for personal property (cash, liquid assets and non‑excluded business assets), and a homestead is excluded from that limit.
On employment services and the Diversionary Work Program, staff explained that support-services grants fund employment services delivered through workforce centers, counties, tribes and community agencies. "The diversionary work program is being repealed effective March 1, 2026," Pennelli said, noting counties and advocates had raised administrative concerns about the program’s value and the burden of running a time‑limited diversion track that often resulted in people later ending up on MFIP.
Members asked whether work requirements under MFIP remain; Pennelli confirmed the MFIP work requirements remain unchanged. Representative Nadeau and Representative McDonald asked follow-ups about the fate of funds previously directed to DWP and how asset and income limits apply when family composition changes; staff said many operational details are governed by statute and county practice and will be reflected in forecasted program totals in the February revenue update.
No formal committee action or vote occurred during the orientation briefing.
