Minnesota’s Advance Child Tax Credit as a Model for Community-Centered Tax Communication

When Minnesota created one of the largest state child tax credits in the nation in 2023, the policy decision was straightforward in principle: provide meaningful financial support to families with children, make the credit fully refundable so that the lowest-income households could benefit fully, and set the benefit amount high enough to make a real difference. The credit provides $1,750 per qualifying child under 18 with no limit on the number of children claimed. For a family with three children, that represents more than $5,000 in annual support, available even to families whose income tax liability is zero.

The implementation challenge was less straightforward. A fully refundable credit of this scale is most valuable to families with the least institutional experience navigating the state tax system. Many of the households most likely to benefit significantly had never filed a Minnesota income tax return, or had filed infrequently, or had relied entirely on volunteer preparers to manage their tax obligations. Some spoke languages other than English as their primary language. Some lived in rural areas with limited access to professional tax advice or free filing assistance. Some were members of tribal nations with their own governmental relationships and distinct outreach needs. The credit existed on paper. Getting it to the families who had earned it required something the Department of Revenue could not accomplish alone.

In tax year 2024, Minnesota added an advance payment option, making it the first state in the nation to offer advance Child Tax Credit payments. Eligible families could elect to receive one-third of their anticipated credit in each of three advance installments before filing their return, rather than waiting until after filing to receive the full amount. The advance payment option increased both the complexity of the communication challenge and the stakes of getting that communication right. Families needed to understand not only that the credit existed and that they likely qualified, but also that a new advance payment option was available, how electing it would interact with their final return, and what would happen if their actual credit differed from the amount they had received in advance.

Minnesota’s response to this communication challenge is worth studying carefully, not because the state had unlimited resources or a perfect outreach infrastructure, but because it made a deliberate choice about how to organize the communication effort from the beginning. Rather than designing outreach internally and then distributing materials through community channels, the Department of Revenue built the outreach strategy around community partnerships as a foundational element, not a supplemental one. That choice shaped everything that followed.

Communication Through Partnership

Building the Outreach Strategy Around Community Organizations From the Start

The most important structural decision Minnesota made in designing its Child Tax Credit outreach was to treat community advocacy organizations as co-designers of the communication strategy rather than as distribution channels for materials the department had already produced. Advocates including Children’s Defense Fund-Minnesota, Legal Services Advocacy Project, the Minnesota Budget Project, and Prepare+Prosper worked directly with the Department of Revenue during implementation to ensure that the credit’s design and communication approach reflected the priorities and practical needs of potentially eligible families.

This distinction matters more than it might initially appear. When government agencies design outreach materials internally and then ask community organizations to distribute them, several predictable problems arise. The materials may use language that resonates within the agency but not within the communities they are trying to reach. The format may assume a level of institutional familiarity that the target population does not have. The questions that eligible families are actually asking may not be the questions the materials were designed to answer. Community organizations tasked with distributing those materials often find themselves explaining what the materials meant to say rather than simply sharing what they say.

By involving community advocates in the design process rather than the distribution process, Minnesota reduced the likelihood of those mismatches. Organizations that work directly with low-income families, immigrant communities, and tribal nations brought direct knowledge of what those families understood about the tax system, what they were afraid of, what questions they would ask, and what formats of communication they were most likely to engage with. That knowledge shaped the materials themselves, not just the channels through which those materials were eventually shared.

The partnership model also created a more durable outreach infrastructure. Organizations that participated in designing the outreach strategy had a clearer understanding of the credit’s purpose, eligibility rules, and advance payment mechanics than organizations that received a finished toolkit and a request to share it. That understanding made them more effective communicators in the direct, often conversational interactions through which many eligible families first learn about available tax benefits.

For revenue agencies considering how to reach populations with limited tax system engagement, the Minnesota model offers a clear organizing principle: the earlier community partners are involved in the communication design, the more effective the communication becomes. Outreach infrastructure built on genuine partnership is more resilient, more culturally responsive, and more likely to reach the households that standard agency communication channels do not.

The Community Partner Toolkit as Communication Infrastructure

Designing Materials That Community Organizations Can Actually Use

Minnesota’s Department of Revenue published promotional materials designed for distribution by community organizations, libraries, healthcare providers, and social service agencies. The materials were formatted to be ready for use in a community newsletter or on a library bulletin board without adaptation. This design decision is easy to overlook in a summary of the program’s outreach strategy, but it represents a significant practical commitment to reducing the friction between the agency’s communication effort and the communities it was trying to reach.

Many government outreach materials, even well-intentioned ones, require adaptation before a community organization can effectively use them. The layout may not fit the format of the organization’s newsletter. The language may need simplification for the specific audience the organization serves. The contact information may point back to the agency rather than to local resources the community trusts. Legal or compliance language may need to be explained or contextualized before the material makes sense to someone unfamiliar with how state tax credits work. Each of these adaptation requirements is a barrier that reduces the likelihood that the material reaches anyone at all.

By designing materials that were ready to use without modification, Minnesota shifted that burden from community organizations back to the agency, where it belonged. A library that wanted to post information about the Child Tax Credit could do so immediately. A healthcare provider that wanted to include a flyer in a waiting room packet did not need to consult with a communications staff member about formatting. A community organization producing a neighborhood newsletter could run the promotional content as provided.

This approach also reflects an important insight about how information about tax credits actually spreads through lower-income communities. Formal outreach events, agency websites, and press releases reach a portion of the eligible population. But a significant share of eligible families first learn about available credits through incidental contact with a trusted organization: a church bulletin, a pediatrician’s waiting room, a food pantry handout, a conversation with a case worker at a social service agency. These incidental channels are most effective when the material they carry requires no translation, no explanation, and no detour through an agency website to complete the connection between the information and the action.

The toolkit model also extended the Department of Revenue’s communication reach significantly without proportional increases in agency staff capacity. Each community organization that could independently distribute ready-to-use materials became an extension of the outreach system rather than a request on the agency’s to-do list. For departments of revenue with limited outreach staff relative to the size of the eligible population, this multiplier effect is essential.

The Legislature’s Role in Funding Communication as a Program Function

Recognizing That Outreach Is Not Optional for Refundable Credits

One of the most consequential decisions in Minnesota’s Child Tax Credit rollout was made not by the Department of Revenue but by the state legislature. In funding the credit, the legislature also provided grants to nonprofits and tribal nations specifically for outreach and education about tax credits. This legislative recognition that a refundable credit requires funded outreach to reach its intended beneficiaries reflects a mature understanding of how public benefit programs actually function.

Refundable tax credits are among the most effective tools available to state governments for delivering economic support to lower-income families. They are also among the most systematically underclaimed public benefits, precisely because claiming them requires active engagement with the tax system by households that may have limited experience with that system, limited access to professional tax advice, and limited exposure to standard government communication channels. A credit that is not claimed delivers no benefit, regardless of how generous the benefit amount is.

The gap between a credit’s potential impact and its actual impact is almost always a communication gap. Some eligible families do not know the credit exists. Some know it exists but do not understand whether they qualify. Some understand they qualify but do not know how to claim it. Some know how to claim it but face barriers, language, digital access, geographic isolation, fear of government contact, that prevent them from completing the process. Funded outreach addresses these gaps systematically rather than leaving them to chance.

When outreach funding is not provided alongside the credit itself, the result is predictable: the households most likely to benefit significantly are the least likely to receive the benefit, because they are the hardest to reach through standard agency communication. The households most likely to claim the credit without targeted outreach are those with more institutional familiarity, more access to professional tax advice, and more engagement with standard government communication channels. A credit designed to help the most vulnerable families disproportionately benefits less vulnerable families when outreach is underfunded.

Minnesota’s decision to fund nonprofit and tribal nation outreach through dedicated grants treated communication as a program function rather than an administrative overhead item. For legislators and agency leaders designing refundable credit programs at any level of government, this framing is worth adopting explicitly: the outreach budget is not a communications line item. It is a delivery mechanism for the credit itself.

Advance Payments and the Communication Challenge of New Program Mechanics

Explaining a New Option Without Creating Confusion or Fear

The advance payment option Minnesota launched for tax year 2024 created a communication challenge distinct from the general credit outreach work. Families that already knew about the Child Tax Credit and had claimed it in prior years needed to understand a new option that had not previously existed. Families encountering the credit for the first time needed to understand both the credit itself and the advance payment option simultaneously. Both groups needed enough information to make an informed election decision without being overwhelmed by complexity.

The advance payment option introduced several specific pieces of information that eligible families needed to understand correctly to make good decisions. They needed to know that electing advance payments would result in receiving one-third of their anticipated credit in each of three installments before filing. They needed to understand that the advance amounts were estimates based on prior-year information and that if their actual credit differed from the advance amount, the difference would be reconciled on their final return. They needed to understand the timeline of the advance payments and what action, if any, was required to elect them.

For families with limited prior tax system experience, each of these pieces of information carries potential for misunderstanding. A family that does not understand the reconciliation mechanism might spend the advance payments without recognizing that a smaller refund, or a balance due, could result at filing. A family that does not understand that electing advance payments is optional might assume they are required to participate, or might forgo the option because the election process seemed complicated. A family concerned about government contact might hesitate to provide the income verification information needed to calculate advance amounts.

Minnesota’s community partner infrastructure was particularly valuable in addressing these more nuanced communication challenges. A department of revenue website can provide accurate information about how advance payments work, but it cannot easily address the specific misunderstandings and anxieties that arise in a particular community’s context. A trusted community organization whose staff understand both the credit mechanics and the community’s specific concerns can address those misunderstandings in conversation, in the community’s language, in a setting where the eligible family feels comfortable asking questions.

The result of this infrastructure was that almost 18,000 families elected advance payments in the program’s first year, benefiting approximately 35,000 children. This outcome reflects successful communication across multiple dimensions: awareness of the credit, understanding of the advance payment option, confidence to elect it, and access to the support needed to navigate any questions that arose during the process.

Reaching Communities That Standard Outreach Channels Do Not Serve

Multilingual Outreach, Tribal Nations, and the Limits of Agency Communication

Minnesota’s Child Tax Credit outreach explicitly addressed the reality that the eligible population includes communities that standard agency communication channels do not effectively reach. The grant program for nonprofits and tribal nations recognized that Somali, Hmong, Latino, and Native American communities are reachable through trusted community intermediaries in ways that English-only government communication is not.

This recognition reflects a basic truth about communication across cultural and linguistic difference: information delivered in a language the recipient does not speak well, through a channel they do not regularly use, from an institution they may not fully trust, is not effective communication regardless of how accurate the information is. A tax credit notice written in English and mailed to a household where Somali is the primary language may be technically received but practically inaccessible. A flyer distributed by a Somali community organization, written in Somali, explaining the credit in terms that reflect how the community understands its relationship with government financial programs, is a fundamentally different communication act.

Tribal nations present a distinct communication context. Minnesota has eleven federally recognized tribal nations, each with its own governmental structure, its own relationship with state agencies, and its own community context for discussing financial programs administered by the state. Outreach that treats tribal communities as simply another geographic population to reach through standard channels misunderstands the nature of the relationship between tribal nations and state government. Outreach that involves tribal nations as partners, provides resources for tribally-administered education efforts, and respects tribal governmental authority is more likely to reach eligible tribal members and more likely to be trusted.

For revenue agencies designing outreach for new credits or exemptions, the Minnesota approach provides a model for how to extend reach into communities that standard channels do not serve. The starting point is an honest assessment of which eligible populations the agency’s existing communication channels can and cannot effectively reach. The next step is identifying community organizations and tribal nations with established trust relationships in those communities and involving them early enough in the process to shape the outreach strategy rather than simply distribute finished materials.

The VITA network deserves specific mention as a critical component of multilingual and community-based tax access. VITA sites operate with multilingual volunteer preparers, have established trust relationships that make eligible taxpayers comfortable sharing financial information, and are positioned to help families both claim the credit and understand the advance payment option at the moment of filing. Revenue agencies that actively support and promote VITA sites, coordinate with VITA operators on credit-specific guidance, and treat VITA as a partner in the credit outreach system extend their reach significantly.

Lessons for Revenue and Tax Administration Agencies

Minnesota’s advance Child Tax Credit outreach offers several lessons for revenue agencies designing communication strategies for refundable credits, exemptions, and other benefit programs intended to reach lower-income and underserved populations.

First, community partners should be involved as co-designers, not distributors. The earlier community organizations participate in shaping a credit’s communication strategy, the more effective that strategy becomes. Organizations with direct knowledge of the target population’s concerns, language, and relationship with government can prevent the communication failures that arise when materials designed for an internal audience are adapted for community distribution.

Second, partner toolkits should require no adaptation to be useful. Materials that community organizations can share immediately, without modification or explanation, extend the agency’s outreach reach without extending its staff capacity. The design standard should be: can a library post this on its bulletin board as received? Can a healthcare provider include this in a waiting room packet without editing anything?

Third, outreach funding should be treated as a program delivery function, not an administrative cost. A refundable credit that is not claimed delivers no benefit. The outreach budget is the mechanism through which the credit reaches the families it was designed to help. Legislatures and agency leaders that treat outreach as optional are effectively choosing to limit the credit’s reach to families who can navigate the tax system without assistance.

Fourth, advance payment options and new program mechanics require specific communication investment beyond general credit awareness. Families that understand a credit exists but do not understand how a new advance payment option works cannot make informed elections. Community partners with the trust and linguistic capacity to answer nuanced questions in context are essential for navigating the more complex communication challenges that new program mechanics create.

Fifth, multilingual outreach is not supplemental. For credits designed to reach the broadest possible eligible population, outreach materials and delivery channels in the languages those populations actually use are a core part of the communication strategy, not an add-on. Agencies that design outreach in English first and translate second are accepting reduced effectiveness in the communities that most need to hear the message.

Conclusion: Minnesota’s Child Tax Credit as a Model for Equity-Centered Tax Communication

Minnesota’s experience with the advance Child Tax Credit illustrates what it looks like when a revenue agency treats communication as inseparable from program delivery rather than as a separate function that follows program design. By involving community advocates in the outreach strategy from the beginning, designing materials that community organizations could use without adaptation, funding nonprofit and tribal nation outreach through dedicated legislative grants, and building multilingual delivery infrastructure through VITA sites and community partners, Minnesota created a communication system capable of reaching families that standard agency channels could not.

The result, nearly 18,000 families electing advance payments in the program’s first year and approximately 35,000 children benefiting, reflects what is possible when the communication investment matches the ambition of the policy. A credit designed to deliver meaningful financial support to the families who need it most can only fulfill that design when the families who need it most know it exists, understand they qualify, and have the support they need to claim it.

The broader lesson for revenue agencies is that equity in tax credit design requires equity in tax credit communication. A credit available on paper to every qualifying family is not equally accessible to every qualifying family if the communication strategy to reach them is not equally resourced, equally inclusive, and equally grounded in the trust relationships that make information actionable. Minnesota’s advance Child Tax Credit outreach offers a model for how to close that gap, and for what revenue agencies can accomplish when they treat communication as the delivery mechanism it actually is.

SCG’s Strategic Approach to Revenue and Tax Administration Communication

Align your agency’s messaging, processes, and taxpayer engagement strategies

SCG helps state departments of revenue, city finance agencies, and county assessor and treasurer offices build communication systems that make complex tax obligations and available benefits easier for taxpayers to understand, access, and act on. By aligning taxpayer-facing language with community partner networks, digital tools, multilingual outreach, and filing support infrastructure, agencies can reduce confusion, improve credit and exemption claim rates, and strengthen public trust throughout the tax administration experience.

Whether your agency is launching a new refundable credit, developing advance payment communication, building partner toolkits for VITA sites and community organizations, designing multilingual outreach materials, or creating clearer pathways between eligible families and the benefits they have earned, a strategic communication framework can help ensure that the credit reaches the households it was designed to serve.

Use the form below to connect with our team and explore how a strategic communication framework can elevate your agency’s impact.