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 71 - 80 of 129

New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare. (Bos et al 1999)
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, public benefits receipt, and educational attainment. The authors estimated the impact of the New Hope…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites. [Riverside, CA – Work Plus] (Bloom et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effectiveness of a Riverside, California, program to increase the earnings of welfare recipients after one year. The Riverside Phase 2 site was one of two in…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites. [Riverside, CA – Training Focused] (Bloom et al 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effectiveness of a Riverside, California, program to increase the earnings of welfare recipients after one year. The Riverside Phase 2 site was one of two in…
Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration. [Dayton] (Miller et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the early impacts of participation in the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration on employment, earnings, education and training, and receipt…
Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration. [San Diego] (Miller et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the early impacts of participation in the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration on employment, earnings, education and training, and receipt…
Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration. [Dayton—Move Up] (Miller et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of participation in Dayton—Move Up, a Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC), on participants’ earnings, employment, educational attainment, and…
Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration. [San Diego—EARN!] (Miller et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of participation in San Diego—EARN!, a Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC), on participants’ earnings, employment, educational attainment and…
Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration. [Academy for Career Advancement—Bridgeport] (Miller et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of participation in the Academy for Career Advancement—Bridgeport, a Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) on participants’ earnings, employment…
Impacts of transitional employment for mentally retarded young adults: Results of the STETS demonstration (Kerachsky et al. 1985)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Structured Training and Employment Transitional Services (STETS) program on employment rates, earnings, and Social Security Disability Income (…
Toward reduced poverty across generations: Early findings from New York City’s conditional cash transfer program (Riccio et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Family Rewards, an experimental privately funded conditional cash transfer program in New York City, on earnings, employment, public benefits…

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.