Public benefits receipt-Low-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 1 - 10 of 25

The impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions on agricultural workers’ health insurance coverage, medical care utilization, and labor supply (Kandilov & Kandilov, 2022)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion among documented agricultural workers on health insurance coverage; employer-paid health insurance…
Bridging the opportunity divide for low-income youth: Implementation and early impacts of the Year Up program (Fein & Hamadyk, 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Year Up program on employment, earnings, education, and public benefits receipt outcomes. The study used a randomized controlled trial to…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute Technical Report No. 13-029). [VOC] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Vocational Rehabilitation (VOC) programs on the employment rate, earnings, and benefit receipt of adults with disabilities in Washington State. The…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington state. (Upjohn Institute Technical Report No. 13-029). [Community and Technical College Job Prep Training]
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Community and Technical College (CTC) Job Preparatory Training on employment rates, average quarterly earnings, and benefit receipt of high school…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington state. (Upjohn Institute Technical Report No. 13-029). [WIA Dislocated Workers] (Hollenbeck et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker Program on the employment rate, earnings, and benefit receipt of dislocated workers in…
Evaluating the potential cost-savings of job accommodations among individuals with psychiatric disability (Chow et al., 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of access to workplace accommodations on public benefits receipt for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. The study used a nonexperimental…
Do SNAP work requirements work? (Harris, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reinstated SNAP work requirements on employment and SNAP participation for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). The study…
The long-term effects of California’s 2004 Paid Family Leave Act on women’s careers: Evidence from U.S. tax data (Bailey et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of California’s 2004 Paid Family Leave Act (PFLA) on take-up of paid leave, along with employment, wage earnings, and self-employment income for…
National evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and two-year impacts of the Detroit welfare-to-work program (Farrell et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Michigan Opportunity and Skills Training (MOST)/Work First on public benefit receipt, employment, and earnings. The study was a randomized…
What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the Hard-to-Employ demonstration and evaluation project and selected sites from the Employment Retention and Advancement project. [NYC PRIDE] (Butler et al 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program on employment, earnings, and public assistance receipt. The study was a…

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.