Earnings and wages-Mod/high-No impacts

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Search
for studies on
this topic using
keywords
and filters

Displaying 131 - 140 of 182

The Washington Reemployment Bonus Experiment: Final report (Spiegelman et al. 1992)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to assess the impacts of the Washington Reemployment Bonus experiment, which aimed to encourage faster reemployment rates among Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants by…
Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Study: FY 2005 Initiative: Final Report (Benus et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) initiative in Minnesota, a program that provided eligibility and reemployment case…
The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration Project: Six-year Follow-up and Summary Report (Corson & Haimson 1996)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the long-term impacts of the New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration Project on the unemployment insurance (UI) receipt, employment, and…
Evaluating pooled evidence from the reemployment bonus experiments (Decker & O'Leary 1995)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to assess the effectiveness of Pennsylvania and Washington programs that aimed to encourage faster reemployment among Unemployment Insurance (UI) recipients by offering…
Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy (Hendra et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program at the Towards Employment site on employment, earnings, education, and training from 2011 to 2015. The…
To work for yourself, for others, or not at all? How disability benefits affect the employment decisions of older veterans (Coile et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of a 2001 expansion in eligibility for Disability Compensation (DC) to cover type 2 diabetes for Vietnam-era veterans on their employment, earnings, and public benefit…
Schooling and the Vietnam-era GI bill: Evidence from the draft lottery (Angrist & Chen 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the G.I. Bill on education, employment, earnings. The authors used a nonexperimental comparison group analysis to estimate the impact of the…
New Jersey Health Professions Pathways to Regional Excellence project TAACCCT evaluation: Final report: Implementation and impact (Van Noy et al. 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the New Jersey Health Professions Pathways to Regional Excellence Project (NJ-PREP) on earnings and employment outcomes. The study used a…
TAACCCT3 INTERFACE project: Final evaluation report (Smith et al. 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Intentional Networks Transforming Effective and Rigorous Facilitation of Assessment, Collaboration, and Education (INTERFACE) project on…
Making the Future: The Wisconsin strategy: Final evaluation report (Price et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Wisconsin Making the Future program on education, earnings, and employment outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the…

CLEAR Icon Key

Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.

High Causal Evidence

Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence

Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence

Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis

Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis

Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis

Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable

Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.