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 31 - 40 of 129

GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties: California’s greater avenues for independence program (Riccio & Friedlander 1992)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for…
Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and three-year impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program (Scrivener & Walter 2001)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of case management approaches on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the comparison of participants in the…
Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and three-year impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program (Scrivener & Walter 2001)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of a traditional case management approach on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the comparison of…
Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and three-year impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program (Scrivener & Walter 2001)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of an integrated case management approach on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the comparison of…
The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation: First-year findings on participation patterns and impacts (Freedman, Mitchell, & Navarro 1999)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Jobs-First GAIN on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the two-parent household sample.…
The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation: First-year findings on participation patterns and impacts (Freedman, Mitchell, & Navarro 1999)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Jobs-First GAIN on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the single-parent household sample…
The Indiana welfare reform evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits (Beecroft et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Indiana Welfare Reform on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the single…
The Indiana welfare reform evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits (Beecroft et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Indiana Welfare Reform on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the single…
Implementation and Relative Impacts of Two Job Search Assistance Programs in New York City the Job Search Assistance Strategies Evaluation (Martinson et al. 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Back to Work (B2W) and Independent Job Search (IJS) programs on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. The study used a…
The ABC evaluation: Turning the corner: Delaware’s a better chance welfare reform program at four years (Fein et al. 2001)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of A Better Chance (ABC) Welfare Reform Program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. The study was a randomized controlled trial…

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.