Public benefits receipt-Low-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 1 - 10 of 15

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 Worker Retraining Program] (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 Community and Technical College (CTC) Worker Retraining (WR) program on employment, earnings, and benefit receipt of long-term unemployed and…
The impact of a state-based workers’ compensation insurer’s risk control services on employer claim frequency and cost rates (Wurzelbacher et al., 2022)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the risk control (RC) intervention on public benefits receipt, including workers’ compensation claim rate, workers’ compensation lost-time claim…
The Affordable Care Act as retiree health insurance: Implications for retirement and Social Security claiming (Gustman et al., 2019)
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) on the probability of retirement, expected age of retirement, and expected age of claiming Social Security…
Policy shifts: Evidence from inflation targeting and Social Security reforms (Cruz, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the 1983 Social Security reforms on employment status, hours worked, and receipt of disability benefits. The author used a difference…
Transitional Community Jobs, Chicago, Illinois: A summary report of the program and its outcomes (Rynell & Beachy-Quick 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Transitional Community Jobs (TCJ) on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental comparison group…
The impact of earnings disregards on the behavior of low‐income families. (Matsudaira & Blank 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of earnings disregards—the amount of earned income that is not counted when calculating whether someone is eligible for public benefits—for welfare…
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 SACM] (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 Substance Abuse Case Management (SACM) program on employment, earnings, and public assistance receipt after two years. The authors attempted to…
Family Independence Initiative (FII): Follow-up study final report (Tao & Alamprese 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Family Independence Initiative (FII) on education, earnings, employment, and public benefit receipt outcomes of low-income adults. The authors…
Prisoner reentry experiences of adult females: Characteristics, Service Receipt, and Outcomes of Participants in the SVORI multi-site evaluation (Lindquist et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a violent prisoner reentry program, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), on several outcomes of female prisoners reentering…
Evaluation of the Significant Improvement Demonstration Grants for the provision of reemployment services for UI claimants (Needels et al. 2002)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study examined the impacts of the Significant Improvement Demonstration Grants—awarded to 11 states to improve reemployment services for Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants—on weeks of UI…

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.