Employment-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 51 - 60 of 199

Testing two subsidized employment models for TANF recipients: Final impacts and costs of the Los Angeles County transitional subsidized employment program (Anderson et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of two approaches to subsidized employment for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients: Paid Work Experience (PWE) in the…
Testing two subsidized employment models for TANF recipients: Final impacts and costs of the Los Angeles County transitional subsidized employment program (Anderson et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of two approaches to subsidized employment for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients: Paid Work Experience (PWE) in the…
Testing two subsidized employment models for TANF recipients: Final impacts and costs of the Los Angeles County transitional subsidized employment program (Anderson et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of two approaches to subsidized employment for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients: Paid Work Experience (PWE) in the…
Implementation and early impacts of the Minnesota subsidized and transitional employment demonstration (Farrell & Webster, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Minnesota Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (MSTED) on participants’ employment, earnings, receipt of public benefits, and…
Do pension cuts for current employees increase separation? (Quinby & Wettstein, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of 2005 reform to the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island (ERSRI) on employee separation. The reform enacted reductions to retirement…
Assisting Unemployment Insurance claimants: The long-term impacts of the Job Search Assistance Demonstration (Decker et al. 2000)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Job Search Assistance Demonstration in Washington, D.C., and Florida on Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits receipt, earnings, and employment…
Can sector strategies promote longer-term effects? Three-year impacts from the WorkAdvance demonstration (Schaberg 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program on year three employment and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the evaluation at the Per…
GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties: California’s greater avenues for independence program (Riccio & Friedlander 1992)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for…
GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties: California’s greater avenues for independence program (Riccio & Friedlander 1992)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for…
Engaging young men involved in Chicago's justice system: A feasibility study of the Bridges to Pathways Program (Wasserman et al. 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Bridges to Pathways (Bridges) on earnings, employment, and education outcomes. The study is a randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned…

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.