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 51 - 60 of 170

The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation: First-year findings on participation patterns and impacts (Freedman, Mitchell, & Navarro, 1999)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Jobs-First GAIN on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the single-parent household sample…
Helping public housing residents find better jobs and build careers: Evaluation findings from New York City’s Jobs-Plus expansion (Leopold et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Jobs-Plus on employment and earnings. The study used a difference-in-differences design to compare members in the targeted Jobs-Plus…
The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN Evaluation: First-year findings on participation patterns and impacts (Freedman, Mitchell, & Navarro, 1999)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Jobs-First GAIN on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the two-parent household sample.…
The Indiana welfare reform evaluation: Five-year impacts, implementation, costs, and benefits (Beecroft 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 Indiana Welfare Reform on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the outcomes for the single…
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, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
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…
Do sectoral employment programs work? New evidence from New York City's Sector‐Focused Career Centers (Gasper, Henderson, & Berman, 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Sector-Focused Career Centers (SFCC) on employment and earnings outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of…
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, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
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, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses…
PACE cross-program implementation and impact study findings (Gardiner & Juras, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Year Up on education and earnings outcomes. The authors investigated similar research questions for other programs, the profiles of which can be…

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.