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 61 - 70 of 129

Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on education, earnings, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
New Hope’s eight-year impacts on employment and family income. (Miller 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 New Hope program on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors estimated the impact of the New Hope program by comparing…
New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare. (Huston 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 New Hope program on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors estimated the impact of the New Hope program by comparing…
Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report. (Mills et al. 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Welfare-to-Work housing voucher on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors allocated the available vouchers by lottery to…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford, Oregon, models: Implementation and early impacts for two programs that sought to encourage advancement among low-income workers. [TAAG - Medford] (Molina et al. 2009)
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 welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after 1.5 years. The Medford site…
Long-term findings from an experimental evaluation of three service delivery models. (Perez-Johnson et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of individual training account (ITA) programs on employment, earnings, education and training, and benefit receipt. The authors conducted a randomized…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models. [PASS - Riverside] (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 supportive services on recent welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after four years. The…
Teaching self-sufficiency: An impact and benefit-cost analysis of a home visitation and life skills education program. Findings from the rural welfare-to-work strategies demonstration evaluation. (Meckstroth 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 Building Nebraska Families (BNF) rural welfare-to-work program on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors randomly…

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.