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 141 - 150 of 172

More than a job: Final results from the evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) transitional jobs program (Redcross et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a comprehensive employment program on ex-offenders’ employment and wages. The authors randomly assigned former prisoners to an employment program…
Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Implementation, two-year impacts, and costs of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program (Redcross et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a comprehensive employment program on ex-offenders’ employment and wages. The authors randomly assigned former prisoners to an employment program…
Returning to work after prison: Final results from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (Jacobs 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) on ex-offenders’ employment and wages. The author used a randomized controlled trial to assign…
New evidence on earnings and benefit claims following the changes in the retirement earnings test in 2000. (Song & Manchester 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2000 on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt outcomes of workers ages 65 to 69. The study was a…
Work outcomes after benefits counseling among veterans applying for service connection for a psychiatric condition (Rosen et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of benefits counseling on employment and earnings. The study was a randomized controlled trial and collected self-reported data directly from veterans. At one month,…
Working toward Wellness: Telephone care management for Medicaid recipients with depression, thirty-six months after random assignment (Kim et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impacts of a telephone care management program, Working toward Wellness (WtW), on low-income depressed parents’ employment and earnings. The study used a…
A random assignment evaluation of learning communities at Kingsborough Community College: Seven years later (Weiss et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study aimed to examine the impact of the Opening Doors learning communities at Kingsborough Community College in New York on progress toward completing a degree, actual completion of a degree,…
The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Final impacts (Schirm et al. 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The report’s objective was to evaluate the impact of the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP)—which included case management and mentoring, education, developmental activities, community service,…
Job Training Partnership Act: Long-term earnings and employment outcomes (GAO/HEHS-96-40) (United States General Accounting Office 1996)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs on the long-term earnings and employment of male and female out-of-school youth and adults. This…
The challenge of repeating success in a changing world: Final report on the Center for Employment Training replication sites (Miller et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
This report’s objective was to examine the effectiveness of the Center for Employment Training (CET) model. Under this model, local employers help design training programs and provide them in a work…

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.