Employment-Low-Mixed 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 27

Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. Upjohn Institute technical report no. 13-029. [Adult basic education programs on community and technical college campuses] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2014)
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 campus Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs on the employment rate, earnings, and benefit receipt of adults in…
Vocational rehabilitation services and employment for SSDI beneficiaries with visual impairments (Giesen & Hierholzer, 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services on employment outcomes for individuals who were blind or visually impaired (B/VI). The study used a…
Engaging SSI youth and families with ASPIRE services (Ipsen et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of ASPIRE (Achieving Success by Promoting Readiness for Education and Employment) program on youth employment and educational activities. …
Recruiting and retaining dental labor in federal facilities: Harder than pulling teeth? (Richards & Wang, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act’s (HCPEA) authorization of flexible, and potentially more generous, pay…
Essays in labor economics (McNichols, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Salary History Bans (SHBs) on employment and earnings outcomes by sex and age. The author conducted a difference-in-differences…
Not all laws are created equal: Legal differences in state non-discrimination laws and the impact of LGBT employment protections (Burn, 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of state employment nondiscrimination acts on employment and earnings of cohabitating gay men and lesbian women. The study used a…
Unanticipated effects of California's Paid Family Leave Program (Das & Polachek, 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the California Paid Family Leave Program (CPFL) on employment. The study used a nonexperimental design to assess the impact of CPFL…
The impact of affirmative action on the employment of minorities and women: A longitudinal analysis using three decades of EEO-1 filings (Kurtulus, 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Affirmative Action on employment outcomes for women and minorities. The author used a nonexperimental design to study employment…
For law and markets: Employment discrimination lawsuits, market performance, and managerial diversity (Hirsch & Cha, 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of court-mandated organizational accountability policies on the representation of white women, black men, and black women employed in managerial…
For law and markets: Employment discrimination lawsuits, market performance, and managerial diversity (Hirsch & Cha, 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of court-mandated diversity training on the representation of white women, black men, and black women employed in managerial positions. The authors…

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.