Employment-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 101 - 110 of 157

Providing public workforce services to job seekers: 15-month impact findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs [Comparison between Full-WIA Services versus Core-and-Intensive Services]. (McConnell 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 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs on training, employment, earnings, and service receipt after 15 months.…
Providing public workforce services to job seekers: 15-month impact findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs [Comparison betwwen Full-WIA Services versus Core Services]. (McConnell 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 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs on training, employment, earnings, and service receipt after 15 months.…
Providing public workforce services to job seekers: 15-month impact findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs [Comparison between Core-and-Intensive Services versus Core Services]. (McConnell 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 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs on training, employment, earnings, and service receipt after 15 months.…
Back to work: Testing reemployment services for displaced workers (Bloom 1990)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Texas Worker Adjustment Demonstration on the Unemployment Insurance (UI) receipt, employment, and earnings of UI claimants one year after…
Evaluation of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services systems: Final Report. (Dickinson et al. 1999)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study assessed the effectiveness of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services (WPRS), a system for predicting which Unemployment Insurance (UI) recipients are at greatest risk of exhausting…
Evaluation of the impacts of the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment (Johnson & Klepinger 1991)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study assessed the impacts of four different work search policy approaches implemented through the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment on Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits receipt,…
Evaluation of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Work Search Demonstration (Benus et al. 1997)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study assessed the effectiveness of four interventions designed to encourage rapid reemployment among Unemployment Insurance (UI) recipients. The study was a randomized controlled trial with…
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…
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…

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.