Earnings and wages-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 31 - 40 of 68

Prison-based education and reentry into the mainstream labor market (Tyler & Kling 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of obtaining a general education diploma (GED) while in prison from 1994 to 2000 in Florida on male prisoners’ post-incarceration employment, earnings…
An outcome evaluation of a prison work release program: Estimating its effects on recidivism, employment, and cost avoidance (Duwe 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of the Minnesota Department of Correction’s work release program on post-release employment, earnings, and recidivism outcomes for adult offenders. The author used a…
Two essays on unemployment insurance: Claimant responses to policy changes [Comparison between claimants who applied for UI benefits before and after WPRS] (Noel 1998)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of reemployment services through the Worker Profiling and Reemployment System (WPRS) on unemployment insurance (UI) benefit receipt and earnings for…
Net impact estimates for services provided through the Workforce Investment Act. ETA Occasional Paper 2005-06. [WIA Adult] (Hollenbeck et al. 2005)
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) Adult Program’s core, intensive, and training services on the employment rate, earnings, and benefits receipt of…
Net impact estimates for services provided through the Workforce Investment Act. ETA Occasional Paper 2005-06. [WIA Dislocated Worker] (Hollenbeck et al. 2005)
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’s core, intensive, and training services on the employment rate, earnings, and…
The promise of worker training: New insights into the effects of government funded training programs. (McEntaffer 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of participation in a Workforce Investment Act (WIA) occupational skills training (OST) or on-the-job training (OJT) program on employment and…
The Jobs I Preventive Intervention for Unemployed Individuals: Short- and long-term effects on reemployment and mental health (Vinokur et al. 1995)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Jobs Program on short-term earnings. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Researchers administered a pre-test two weeks…
Final evaluation report of the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project (Kregel 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to measure employment and earnings impacts for the four State Partnership Initiative (SPI) sites that implemented the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Work Incentives…
University of the District of Columbia - Final annual evaluation report TAACCCT grant program, round 4 (Hendricks et al. 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the University of the District of Columbia Community College (UDC-CC) grant-funded healthcare and hospitality programs on earnings and employment…
Heroes for Hire (H4H) program evaluation final report (Horwood et al. 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Heroes for Hire (H4H) program on education and earnings outcomes. The authors used a nonexperimental design to compare the education outcomes…

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.