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’ Employment Strategies for Low-Income Adults Evidence Review (ESER). For those studies, CLEAR developed the study profiles posted here using information from the ESER review. HHS’s new Pathways to Work Evidence Clearinghouse builds on and replaced ESER in 2020.

Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 2005 – 2014.

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 11 - 20 of 110

The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from two education and training models for employed welfare recipients in Riverside, California. (Navarro et al 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of post-employment job supports and intensive case management on welfare recipients’ employment, earnings, and benefit receipt outcomes after two…
Paths to work in rural places: Key findings and lessons from the impact evaluation of the Future Steps rural welfare-to-work program. (Meckstroth 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Future Steps rural welfare-to-work program on earnings and public benefit receipt. The authors randomly assigned Temporary Assistance for Needy…
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…
Earnings progression among workforce development participants: Evidence from Washington State. (Chrisinger 2011)
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 on the earnings of low-income adults ages 18 to 64 in Washington State. The author assigned…
Testing case management in a rural context: An impact analysis of the Illinois Future Steps program: Findings from the Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration evaluation. (Meckstroth 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 Future Steps rural welfare-to-work program on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt. The authors randomly assigned Temporary…
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…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites. (Bloom et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effectiveness of a Riverside, California, program to increase the earnings of welfare recipients after one year. The Riverside Phase 2 site was one of two in…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Findings for the Eugene and Medford, Oregon, models: Implementation and early impacts for two programs that sought to encourage advancement among low-income workers. [TAAG - Medford] (Molina et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of post-employment job supports on former and current welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after 1.5 years. The Medford site…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites. [Texas ERA—Houston] (Bloom et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of pre- and post-employment job supports and intensive case management on welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after one year…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Early results from four sites. [Texas ERA—Fort Worth] (Bloom et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of pre- and post-employment job supports and intensive case management on welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after one year…

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.