View the full project profile

Project Description

The EMPOWER program expands opportunities to work and save money while strengthening personal responsibility by placing restrictions, such as time limits, on program participation.

Project duration: Jun 1996 - Jun 2002

Sites studied include EMPOWER:
Glendale, Arizona
Maryvale, Arizona
Peoria, Arizona
Chinle, Arizona

EMPOWER comparison sites:
The Royal Palm, East Southern, and Tuba City offices of the Family Assistance Administration

Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied

For EMPOWER:

5,829 welfare recipients.

Random assignment to 2,983 program and 2,846 control group members.

Recent Findings in Brief

09/01/01: Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration: Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration: Final Report

Final Impact Findings

• Job quality increased in the Phoenix sites, with increased percentages employed full-time, at high wages (> $7.50/hr), and at jobs providing health insurance and dental benefits. In contrast, the employment gains in the Navajo site were predominantly at lower wage jobs ($6.50 or less per hr).
• In the Phoenix sites and Navajo site, there was reduced dependence on public benefits: cash assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance.
• Total household income showed little net change between follow up months 30 and 48; reduction in monthly cash assistance and food stamp benefits offset the modest gains in income.
• Substantial improvements have been made in the delivery of program services in local welfare offices as perceived by clients recently approved for cash assistance.
• Clients seemed generally well informed on key program rules. Some rules however such as school attendance and child immunization requirements, appeared inadequately explained.
• Clients reflected an awareness of the importance of finding employment, so that cash assistance could indeed be transitional. The use by clients of employee related services appeared low.
• Personal interviews and focus group sessions with selected former recipients of cash assistance provided additional insight that, although not generalizable, were nonetheless instructive in confirming other evidence and raising other questions.

Contact