Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-Unfavorable 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 21 - 30 of 31

Estimated impacts for participants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program under the 2002 amendments. (Schochet et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program on education and training, employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The study used a…
Evaluation of the Welfare to Work Voucher program: Report to Congress. (Patterson et al 2004)
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…
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 providing low-income families with private market housing vouchers on employment, earnings, receipt of public assistance, and receipt of education…
Turning welfare into a work support: Six-year impacts on parents and children from the Minnesota Family Investment Program (Gennetian et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), a precursor to the national Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, on employment,…
The effects of eliminating the work search requirement on job match quality and other long-term employment outcomes. (Lachowska et al. 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of less-stringent work search requirements for unemployment insurance (UI) claimants on earnings, employment, and UI benefit receipt over a nine-year…
New evidence on earnings and benefit claims following the changes in the retirement earnings test in 2000. (Song & Manchester 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2000 on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt outcomes of workers ages 65 to 69. The study was a…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Texas ERA—Houston] (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 welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after four…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Chicago ERA] (Hendra et al. 2010)
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. The Chicago site was one of 16…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program in New York City (Bloom et al. 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) welfare-to-work program in New York City on the employment, earnings, and…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites [Chicago] (Bloom et al. 2005)
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 one year. The Chicago site…

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.