Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 161 - 170 of 208
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s objective was to determine whether the benefits of Job Corps exceeded its costs. The authors used data on impacts from the National Job Corps Study to estimate the program’s benefits and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The National Job Corps Study included several reports, including this final impact report. The report’s objective was to examine the impact of the Job Corps program on participants’ long-term…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report presents an implementation analysis of 12 Center for Employment Training (CET) replication sites. The Center for Employment Training (CET) model targets economically disadvantaged youth…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report describes the implementation of and lessons learned from the National Job Corps Study, a random assignment impact evaluation of Job Corps. Job Corps provides comprehensive job training…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors’ objective was to propose a plausible explanation for the Center for Employment Training-San Jose’s (CET) success in placing disadvantaged people into jobs. CET is a national program…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
One of a series of reports emanating from the National Job Corps Study, a random assignment evaluation of the Job Corps program, this report describes the characteristics of eligible Job Corps…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The report sought to provide guidance on best practices for operating programs for at-risk youth. The authors based their conclusions on best practices from evaluations they conducted of three…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs on the long-term earnings and employment of male and female out-of-school youth and adults. This…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
The Center for Employment Training (CET) was shown by rigorous research conducted in the 1980s to increase the earnings and employment prospects of disadvantaged youth. The U.S. Department of Labor…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the effect of the Year Up program on employment, earnings, and education outcomes. Year Up is an intensive, yearlong program that provides training and…
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.