Employment-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 91 - 100 of 170

The relative importance of selected variables on the employment consistency of Virginia ex-offenders (Onyewu 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
This study examines the effectiveness of prison-based career and technical education (CTE) on post-incarceration employment among males released from Virginia prisons from July 2000 to June 2001.…
Twelve-month employment intervention outcomes for drug-involved offenders (Webster et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a drug court employment intervention on participants’ employment and earnings one year after the intervention. The study is a randomized controlled…
An outcome evaluation of a prison work release program: Estimating its effects on recidivism, employment, and cost avoidance (Duwe 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of the Minnesota Department of Correction’s work release program on post-release employment, earnings, and recidivism outcomes for adult offenders. The author used a…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). [WIA Dislocated Workers] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
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 public benefit receipt of dislocated workers in…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). [WIA Adult] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
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 employment rate, earnings, and public benefit receipt of low-income adults in Washington…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). [WIA Youth] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
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) Youth program on the employment rate and earnings of low-income youth. The authors used a nonexperimental method…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). [Private career school programs] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Private Career School program on the employment rate, earnings, and public benefit receipt of adults with a high school education. The authors…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). [Comm. and Tech. ABE] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Community and Technical Colleges Adult Basic Education (ABE) program on the employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt of low-income…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). [Community and Technical College Worker Retraining Program] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Community and Technical College (CTC) Worker Retraining program on the employment rate, earnings, and public benefit receipt of long-term…
Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020. [Community and Technical College Job Prep Training] (Hollenbeck & Huang 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Community and Technical College (CTC) Job Preparatory Training program on the employment rate, earnings, and public benefit receipt of adults…

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.