Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-Favorable 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 121 - 129 of 129

The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [PROGRESS—Eugene]
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 on former welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after three years. The Eugene site was one of…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [TAAG—Medford] (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 on former and current public assistance recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after three years. The…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now (VISION) program in Salem, Oregon (Molina et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Salem, Oregon, Valuing Individual Success and Increasing Opportunities Now (VISION) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits…
College as a job advancement strategy: Final report on the New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project (Fein & Beecroft 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Riverside Community College’s New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project on welfare recipients’ employment, earnings, welfare…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Chicago ERA site (Bloom et al. 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine the effectiveness of a Chicago program to increase the earnings of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients after two years. The Chicago site…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Texas ERA—Houston] (Martinson & Hendra 2006)
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 welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after 18 to…
College as a job advancement strategy: An interim report on the New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project (Fein et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Riverside Community College’s New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project on welfare recipients’ employment, earnings, and welfare…
The Social Security Administration’s Youth Transition Demonstration projects: Interim report on Broadened Horizons, Brighter Futures (Fraker et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to measure 12-month impacts of the Florida Broadened Horizons, Brighter Futures (BHBF) program, one of six project sites of the larger Youth Transition Demonstration (YTD…
Do stronger age discrimination laws make Social Security reforms more effective? (Nuemark & Song 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined whether the strength of state age discrimination protections affected rates of Social Security benefit claiming and employment outcomes of older workers. The study used a…

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.