Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-No 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 80

The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [RFS-Los Angeles] (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 individualized and flexible post-employment job supports on employed welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after three…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Los Angeles EJC] (Hendra et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to gauge how a Los Angeles job club focused on participants’ career interests affected employment, earnings, and benefits receipt outcomes after about 36 months. The Los…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: A comparison of two job club strategies: The effects of enhanced versus traditional job clubs in Los Angeles (Navarro et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to gauge the effect of a Los Angeles job club focused on participants’ career interests on employment, earnings, and benefits receipt outcomes after about 18 months. The…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS) program in Riverside, California (Navarro 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 Riverside Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt after two years. The Riverside…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from Minnesota’s Tier 2 program (LeBlanc et al. 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to determine the 18-month impact of Minnesota’s Tier 2 welfare-to-work program compared with existing Tier 1 services. Minnesota’s Tier 2 program was part of the…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Texas ERA site [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] (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…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the South Carolina ERA site (Scrivener et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of South Carolina’s Moving Up program on former welfare recipients’ employment, earnings and public benefits receipt outcomes after one year. The…
College as a job advancement strategy: An early report of the New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project (Fein et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a pilot for Riverside Community College’s New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project on welfare recipients’ welfare receipt. The…
The Social Security Administration’s Youth Transition Demonstration projects: Interim report on Colorado Youth WINS (Fraker et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to measure 12-month impacts of the Colorado Youth Work Incentive Network of Supports (WINS) project, sponsored by the Social Security Administration (SSA), one of six…
Earnings and disability program participation of Youth Transition Demonstration Participants after 24 months (Hemmeter 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
This study’s objective was to measure 24-month impacts for the six Youth Transition Demonstration (YTD) sites that used a randomized evaluation. YTD projects provided services to help youth with…

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.