Public benefits receipt-Low-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 11 - 20 of 40

Return on investment analysis of a selected set of workforce system programs in Indiana. [WIA Dislocated Worker] (Hollenbeck 2009)
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) Dislocated Worker program on the employment rate, earnings, and benefit receipt of low-income adults who are…
Return on investment analysis of a selected set of workforce system programs in Indiana. [TAA] (Hollenbeck 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program on the employment, earnings, and benefit receipt of dislocated workers in Indiana. The author used a…
What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the Hard-to-Employ demonstration and evaluation project and selected sites from the Employment Retention and Advancement project. [NYC PRIDE] (Butler et al 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program on employment, earnings, and public assistance receipt. The study was a…
What strategies work for the hard-to-employ? Final results of the Hard-to-Employ demonstration and evaluation project and selected sites from the Employment Retention and Advancement project. [Minnesota Tier 2] (Butler et al 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of the Minnesota Tier 2 program on employment, earnings, and receipt of public assistance for unemployed single parents. The study was a randomized controlled trial.…
Framing and claiming: How information-framing affects expected social security claiming behavior (Brown et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of different ways of framing retirement information on the age at which individuals intended to claim Social Security benefits. The authors randomly…
Improving basic skills: The effects of adult education in welfare-to-work programs (Bos et al. 2002)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of both education- and employment-focused welfare-to-work programs on earnings and public benefit receipt. The study was a randomized controlled trial…
Assessment of the impact of WorkSource job search services (Lee et al. 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to assess the effectiveness of Washington State WorkSource job search services. WorkSource services included staff-assisted job matching, provision of labor market…
An experimental evaluation of a comprehensive employment-oriented prisoner re-entry program (Cook et al. 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Milwaukee Safe Street Prisoner Release Initiative on employment, earnings, public benefit receipt, and recidivism. Drawing on administrative…
Employment services utilization and outcomes among substance abusing offenders participating in California’s Proposition 36 drug treatment initiative (Evans et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effect of California’s Proposition 36 employment services on employment, earnings, receipt of public benefits, and recidivism. The authors used a…
Two essays on unemployment insurance: Claimant responses to policy changes [Comparison between claimants who applied for UI benefits before and after WPRS] (Noel 1998)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of reemployment services through the Worker Profiling and Reemployment System (WPRS) on unemployment insurance (UI) benefit receipt and earnings for…

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.