Study Details | Pathways to Work

2797-California Work Pays

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: California Work Pays Demonstration Project (CWPDP)

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

Financial incentives

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The California Department of Social Services and University of California Data Archive and Technical Assistance randomly selected about 15,000 families receiving financial assistance in Alameda, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Joaquin counties as of October 1992. Of these, they randomly assigned two-thirds to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) rule changes, and the remaining one-third continued with the preexisting welfare rules. Individuals in San Joaquin are excluded from all analyses because of difficulties obtaining data for those individuals. Because random assignment was conducted within counties, the omission of individuals in San Joaquin does not contribute to attrition.

Time period of study:

The intervention was studied over the course of six years, but after four years, the two groups both received the same services; in 1997, all households were subject to the same requirements and provisions of California's TANF program.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase very long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Increase very long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Total income (combining earnings and benefit receipt)

Study funded by:

No information is provided about study funding.

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
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	1,553.00	1,606.00	53.00	1998 dollars	6,767
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	4,730.00	5,226.00	496.00	1997 dollars	6,767
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 6	High	5,692.00	6,131.00	439.00	1998 dollars	6,648
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	26.50	28.50	2.00	percentage points
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	44.50	49.00	4.50	percentage points
Increase very long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 6	High	46.00	48.90	2.90	percentage points

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

No information is available describing the full population of participants across counties included in the analyses. Among the Los Angeles sample, most sample members were women. The average female head of household in the Los Angeles sample was 33 years old, and the average age of the youngest child was roughly 4 years old. Los Angeles sample members had an average of two children. About two-thirds (65 percent) of these sample members were native English speakers, and about 30 percent were native Spanish speakers. Los Angeles sample members had received public assistance for an average of 45 months, or just less than 4 years.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance

100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

California Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Program history:

The program was first initiated at the same time that the study was initiated.

Intervention services:

In October 1992, welfare funding provided to California residents through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program became subject to new limits. First, the maximum aid payment was reduced by 8.3 percent between October 1, 1992, and September 1, 1993. Second, two-parent families in which one parent was unemployed could remain eligible for AFDC even if one parent worked more than 100 hours per week. Third, the Minimum Basic Standard of Adequate Care (the benchmark need level) increased in conjunction with the California cost of living. Finally, the program eliminated the time limit on earnings disregards (the amount of income not counted against monthly benefit payments).

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Members of the comparison group continued to receive benefits according to the AFDC rules in place before October 1992.

Service receipt duration:

Duration of service receipt is not described.

Intervention funding:

Not known

Study publications

Becerra, Rosina M., Vivian Lew, Michael N. Mitchell, and Hiromi Ono (1998). Final report: California Work Pays Demonstration Project, report of the first forty-two months, Los Angeles: UCLA, School of Public Policy and Social Research.

Becerra, Rosina, Alisa Lewin, Michael Mitchell, and Hiromi Ono (1996). California Work Pays Demonstration Project: Interim report of first thirty months, Unpublished manuscript, Los Angeles: UCLA, School of Public Policy and Social Work.

Hotz, V. Joseph, Charles H. Mullin, and John Karl Scholz (2002). Welfare, employment, and income: Evidence on the effects of benefit reductions from California, American Economic Review 92(2): 380-384.

Hotz, V. Joseph, Charles H. Mullin, and John Karl Scholz (2002). Welfare benefits, employment and income: evidence from the California Work Pays Demonstration Project, Unpublished manuscript.

Park, Neung-Hoo (1998). An evaluation of work incentive provisions in welfare reform: California Work Pays Demonstration Project, Doctoral dissertation, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

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 California Work Pays Demonstration Project (CWPDP)