Study Details | Pathways to Work

3350.3350.01-EMPOWER Phoenix - Ca

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER)

Services provided:

Financial incentives, Health services, Sanctions, Supportive services, Work readiness activities

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

A total of 2,934 cases were randomly assigned among four research sites (2,538 cases in three sites in Phoenix, AZ and 396 cases in a Navajo community in Arizona). Of these cases, 2,601 were receiving cash assistance, and 333 were receiving Transitional Medical Assistance. Random assignment took place in October 1995 through July 1997 according to the following ratio: 25 percent to the intervention group, 25 percent to the comparison group, and 50 percent to a nonstudy group. This review reports on the 2,244 cases of cash assistance recipients from the initial case cohort who were randomly assigned in one of the three Phoenix sites. Among these participants, 1,142 cases were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 1,102 were randomly assigned to the comparison group. Reviews elsewhere on this site present findings for the full sample of Phoenix cases, the sample of Transitional Medical Assistance cases in Phoenix, and the Navajo sample.

Time period of study:

Evaluators studied EMPOWER for 30 to 36 months, beginning with random assignment in October 1995.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Family structure, Housing status

Study funded by:

This evaluation was contracted by Arizona's Department of Economic Security.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Monthly average amount of cash assistance, annual	Year 1	High	212.00	214.00	2.00	1996 dollars	1,578
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Monthly average amount of Food Stamps, annual	Year 1	High	182.00	184.00	2.00	1996 dollars	1,578
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Monthly average amount of cash assistance, annual	Year 3	High	82.00	67.00	-15.00	1998 dollars	1,578
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Monthly average amount of Food Stamps, annual	Year 3	High	81.00	75.00	-6.00	1998 dollars	1,578

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

The authors did not present characteristics for this sample.

Sex

Female	98%
Male	2%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	12%
White	40%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	45%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were long-term cash assistance recipients

35%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Arizona Department of Economic Security

Program history:

Arizona piloted this program for nine months before the evaluation began in June 1996.

Intervention services:

Clients assigned to the intervention condition were subject to EMPOWER polices, which included the following: cash assistance limited to 24 months in any 60-month period; restricted eligibility for cash assistance for single parents who were minors; mandatory participation in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program for teen parents; sanctions for not complying with JOBS; extended transitional child care and medical assistance; cancellation of the 100-hour rule, which made two-parent families ineligible for cash assistance when the primary wage earner worked more than 100 hours per month; and individual development accounts in which individuals could deposit money for training or education, and which was not considered countable income.

Mandatory services:

Participation was mandatory for parents who were minors (ages 13 to 15), and sanctions were imposed on all participants for noncompliance with JOBS requirements.

Comparison services:

Clients assigned to the comparison condition were not subject to EMPOWER policies.

Service receipt duration:

EMPOWER limited cash assistance to 24 months during a 60-month period for adults.

Intervention funding:

Arizona obtained authority from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children funding for EMPOWER's implementation.

Study publications

Kornfeld, Robert, Laura Peck, Diane Porcari, John Straubinger, Zacharay Johnson, Clemintina Cabral, and Grergory Mills (1999). Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER welfare reform demonstration—Impact study interim report, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Mills, Gregory, Robert Kornfeld, Diane Porcari, and Don Lalibery (2001). Evaluation of the Arizona EMPOWER welfare reform demonstration—Final report, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Available at https://www.abtassociates.com/files/Insights/reports/2001/2001367766680_93366.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER)—Phoenix Cash Assistance Recipients