Earnings and wages-Mod/high-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 81 - 90 of 178

Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
Blending traditional vocational services and Individualized Placement and Support for formerly incarcerated veterans (LePage et al. 2020)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effect of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) program on earnings and employment outcomes for justice-involved veterans with at least one prior…
State collective bargaining laws and public-sector pay (Brunner & Ju, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of collective bargaining for public sector workers on hourly earnings and wages. The authors used a nonexperimental design to compare the…
Becoming adults: One year impact findings from the youth villages’ Transitional Living evaluation (Valentine et al. 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Transitional Living program on education, earnings, and recidivism outcomes. The authors used a randomized controlled trial and estimated…
Testing rapid connections to subsidized private sector jobs for low-income individuals in San Francisco: Implementation and early impacts of the STEP Forward program (Walter 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of STEP Forward on employment, earnings, and education outcomes. The authors used a randomized controlled trial to estimate impacts of enrollment in…
Evaluating multi-treatment programs: Theory and evidence from the U.S. Job Training Partnership Act experiment. (Plesca & Smith 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) on earnings and employment for disadvantaged adults. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial.…
New Hope’s eight-year impacts on employment and family income. (Miller et al 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the New Hope program on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors estimated the impact of the New Hope program by comparing…
New Hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare. (Huston et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the New Hope program on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors estimated the impact of the New Hope program by comparing…
Effects of housing vouchers on welfare families: Final report. (Mills et al. 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Welfare-to-Work housing voucher on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors allocated the available vouchers by lottery to…

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.