Earnings and wages-Mod/high-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 151 - 160 of 170

National Job Corps Study: Findings using administrative earnings records data (Schochet et al. 2003)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact on long-term earnings and employment of the Job Corps program, which offers intensive academic classroom instruction and vocational skills training…
The impact of federal civil rights policy on black economic progress: Evidence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Chay 1998)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOA) on employment, earnings, and occupational outcomes of African American men. The study used a non-…
Conditional cash transfers in New York City: The continuing story of the Opportunity NYC—Family Rewards demonstration (Riccio et al. 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Family Rewards, an experimental privately funded conditional cash transfer program in New York City, on earnings, employment, public benefits…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [Texas ERA—Corpus Christi] (Hendra et al. 2010)
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 four…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models [TAAG—Medford] (Hendra et al. 2010)
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 public assistance recipients’ employment and benefits receipt outcomes after three years. The…
Work after prison: One-year findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (Redcross et al. 2010)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) on ex-offenders’ employment and wages. The study used a randomized controlled trial to assign…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program in New York City (Bloom et al. 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) welfare-to-work program in New York City on the employment, earnings, and…
The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Results from the Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS) program 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 the Riverside Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt after two years. The Riverside…
New evidence on workplace education (Krueger & Rouse 1994)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of employer-based workplace education on wage growth at two mid-sized companies in New Jersey, one in the manufacturing sector and the other in the…
Given time it worked: Positive outcomes from a SSDI benefit offset pilot after the initial evaluation period (Delin et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Wisconsin’s Benefit Offset Pilot Demonstration (BOPD), which provided a more-generous work incentive for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI…

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.