Study Details | Pathways to Work

3350.03-Arizona EMPOWER Welf

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)—Navajo Reservation

Population and employment barriers:

Cash assistance recipients

Services provided:

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

Setting: Rural 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 the three Phoenix sites and 396 cases in the Navajo reservation site). Random assignment first included all individuals eligible to receive cash assistance or Transitional Medical Assistance in October 1995. Twenty-five percent of identified individuals were assigned to the intervention group, 25 percent to the comparison group, and 50 percent to a nonstudy group. Individuals who were newly approved for cash assistance were randomly assigned using the same procedures in each month from November 1995 to July 1997. This review reports on the 396 cases enrolling in the study at the Navajo reservation site who were randomly assigned to intervention or comparison groups. Most analyses were restricted to the sample of individuals who received cash assistance at random assignment. Other reviews examine results for the Phoenix site.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from October 1995 to July 1997. Follow-up data was collected for three years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Family structure, Housing

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	Units	Sample size
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly cash assistance benefits, annual	Year 1	High	241.00	238.00	1996 dollars	299
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly Food Stamp/SNAP benefit, annual	Year 1	High	273.00	264.00	1996 dollars	299
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly cash assistance benefits, annual	Year 3	High	188.00	176.00	1998 dollars	299
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly Food Stamp/SNAP benefit, annual	Year 3	High	207.00	219.00	1998 dollars	299

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 study included AFDC, TANF and Transitional Medical Assistance (extended benefits available to individuals transitioning off of AFDC/TANF) cases. These cases were groups of individuals, such as families, who were jointly eligible for these benefits. Within the intervention group at baseline, 23 percent of cases had no adult associated with them, 64 percent of cases had one adult, and 13 percent of cases had two or more adults. More than 99 percent of cases had an associated child, and more than 40 percent of cases had three or more children. Almost all (97 percent) case heads were female, and all were American Indian. Most case heads were ages 30 to 49 (59 percent) or 20 to 29 (33 percent), with 5 percent ages 19 or younger and 4 percent ages 50 or older. Half of all case heads had received cash assistance for each of the previous 24 months.

Sex

Female	97%
Male	3%

Participant race and ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

100%

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.

Family status

Parents

99%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance

100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

State Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Program history:

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

Intervention services:

The EMPOWER program included both increased requirements for receipt of cash assistance and increased assistance. EMPOWER required that single parents younger than 18 live with a responsible adult to receive cash assistance and that parents ages 13 to 15 participate in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program to receive cash assistance. (Teen parents ages 16 to 19 were already required to participate in JOBS.) The program also strengthened sanctions for not complying with JOBS requirements and eliminated a rule that made two-parent families ineligible for cash assistance when the primary wage earner worked more than 100 hours per month. EMPOWER families could also receive medical and child care assistance for an additional year after becoming ineligible for cash assistance because of employment and were eligible to receive an individual development account (if they received both cash assistance and food stamps), in which they could deposit money for training or education that would be disregarded in calculating benefits.

Mandatory services:

Participation was required, and a family’s benefits were automatically sanctioned for a minimum of one month for the first occurrence of noncompliance.

Comparison services:

Clients assigned to the comparison group received services as usual under typical requirements for receiving cash assistance.

Service receipt duration:

Individuals were exempt from any program time limits.

Intervention funding:

Arizona Department of Economic Security (AFDC and TANF agency) using federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) funding.

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)—Navajo Reservation