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 131 - 140 of 157

National evaluation of Youth Corps: Findings at follow-Up (Price et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Youth Corps, a diverse set of programs that offer educational services, employment and training, and community service activities to young adults.…
Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Study: FY 2005 Initiative: Final Report (Benus et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Initiative in North Dakota, a program that provided eligibility and reemployment case…
The Accelerated Benefits Demonstration and Evaluation Project: Impacts on health and employment at twelve months (Michalopoulos et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This is the 12-month survey impact report of the Accelerated Benefits Demonstration (ABD), an effort to provide immediate health insurance and employment and benefits counseling to new, uninsured…
A two-generational child-focused program enhanced with employment services: Eighteen-month impacts from the Kansas and Missouri sites of the enhanced services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation project (Hsueh et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Enhanced Early Head Start (EHS) participation on employment, earnings, public assistance receipt, and education for low-income families with young…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Achieve—Cleveland] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine the impact of a Cleveland, Ohio, program designed to increase employment retention among low-wage workers in the long-term nursing care industry. Cleveland…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Los Angeles EJC] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to gauge how a Los Angeles job club focused on participants’ career interests affected employment, earnings, and benefits receipt outcomes after about 36 months. The Los…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [RFS-Los Angeles] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of individualized and flexible post-employment job supports on employed welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after three…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Training Focused and Work Plus—Riverside, California] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of post-employment job supports and intensive case management on welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after four years. The…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Moving Up—South Carolina] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of pre- and post-employment job supports and intensive case management on former welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: A comparison of two job club strategies: The effects of enhanced versus traditional job clubs in Los Angeles (Navarro et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to gauge the effect of a Los Angeles job club focused on participants’ career interests on employment, earnings, and benefits receipt outcomes after about 18 months. 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.