Low-Income Adults

Low-Income Adults
The low-income adults topic area includes reviews of studies examining the effectiveness of interventions that serve low-income adults with the goal of improving their employment and earnings outcomes. CLEAR assessed the strength of causal evidence provided in each study and summarized each study’s design, methods, findings, and the intervention examined.

CLEAR conducted many reviews in this topic area in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Pathways to Work Evidence Clearinghouse and its predecessor the Employment Strategies for Low-Income Adults Evidence Review (ESER). For those studies, CLEAR rated the studies using the CLEAR Causal Evidence Guidelines and developed the study profiles posted here using information from the Pathways and ESER reviews.

Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1990 – 2021.

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 279

Washington State’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) Program: Three-year impact report (Martinson et al., 2021)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Washington State’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) on education and earnings outcomes. The study used a randomized…
Breaking Barriers: Implementing Individual Placement and Support in a Workforce Setting (Freedman, Elkin, & Millenky, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Breaking Barriers on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt outcomes.The study was a randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned…
Breaking barriers: Implementing individual placement and support in a workforce setting (Freedman, Elkin, & Millenky, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Breaking Barriers, a program implementing the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model in a workforce setting, on employment, earnings, use of…
Breaking Barriers: Implementing Individual Placement and Support in a workforce setting (Freedman et al., 2019)
Study Type: Implementation Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the implementation of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model within the Breaking Barriers program. This intervention aimed to provide individualized…
Effectiveness of screened, demand-driven job training programs for disadvantaged workers: An evaluation of the New Orleans career pathway training (Baird et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the New Orleans Office of Workforce Development (OWD) Career Pathways training program on employment, earnings, and job satisfaction. This…
Do state-customized TANF work policies actually reduce unemployment? (Kim & Berry, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) worker supplement programs on low-income women’s unemployment. The authors used state-…
Promoting work and self-sufficiency for housing voucher recipients: Early findings from the family self-sufficiency program evaluation (Verma et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effects of the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program, a voluntary program supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), on…
The effect of wage subsidies on piece rate workers: Evidence from the penny per pound program in Florida (Ku, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Penny Per Pound (PPP) on daily hours worked. The author used a statistical model to compare the outcomes of…
Nine year gains: Project QUEST's continuing impact (Roder & Elliott, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Project QUEST on employment and earnings over nine years. The study was a randomized controlled trial that used quarterly earnings…
The Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and early impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs (Redcross et al., 2016)
Study Type: Implementation Analysis
The objective of the study was to examine the implementation of the Next STEP program which aimed to increase job-readiness and employment among persons recently released from prison. The Fort…

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.