Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-No 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 31 - 40 of 77

New perspectives on creating jobs: Final impacts of the next generation of subsidized employment programs (Barden et al., 2018)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration (ETJD) on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt in seven sites. This profile focuses on…
Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings on the labor force attachment and human capital development programs in three sites (Hamilton et al., 1997)
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 and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the comparison…
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…
Evaluation of the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care: Final Report (Courtney et al. 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care (Outreach) on youths’ education, employment, earnings, and…
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…
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…
Growing America Through Entrepreneurship: Findings from the evaluation of Project GATE (Benus et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impacts of the Growing America Through Entrepreneurship (Project GATE) demonstration project, which offered entrepreneurship training and business counseling…
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: Early results from four sites. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children & Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [South Carolina]
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 former welfare recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after…
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…

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.