Reemployment Services Evidence: A Collection of Briefs on Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments (RESEA) Program Components Compendium
Related Tags
Topic
Research Methods
Study Population
DOL Partner Agency
Country
About the Brief
The briefs aim to inform states about the current status of evidence on Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments (RESEA) programs and strategies. These briefs are intended to be useful to states as they refine their programs and build evidence in response to the legislative and administrative requirements. These briefs describe findings from research on the effectiveness of elements frequently used in RESEA programs. Each of the three briefs reviews and considers the evidence and gaps in one of three subject areas:
- Brief 1: research related to program activities that precede the in-person RESEA meeting, namely claimant selection, scheduling, and attendance policies;
- Brief 2: research on the impact of basic career services;
- Brief 3: research on the impact of individualized career services.
Key Takeaways
- Available evidence suggests that the statistical likelihood that a claimant will exhaust UI benefits is not the best predictor of program impact. This is a common method of participant selection, but other claimant characteristics, such as their weekly benefit amount at the time of enrollment, may more accurately predict impacts of program participation.
- Additional evidence is needed to robustly demonstrate the effectiveness of several RESEA program components. For example, most RESEA programs incorporate both basic and individualized career services, and while there is evidence that individualized and intensive services improve participant outcomes, this evidence may not align to the conditions under which RESEA programs are implemented. In addition, mandatory participation requirements appear relevant to program impacts, but few studies have isolated the effect of reemployment services from the mandate to participate.
- Researchers identified priority evaluation options for the short and long term, as well as how those options align in an evidence-building strategy. The evaluation options are related to whole program evaluations, participant subgroups, or program components. For each option, researchers showed whether it is likely to be led by states or by DOL, how soon the activity might start and end, and a rough estimate of cost.
- Evaluation timelines imply that new RESEA-specific impact results will not be available until after evidence-based requirements are in effect. Some requirements are currently in effect, while others take effect in FY2023. In contrast, the earliest effectiveness results may be approved in time for state FY2025 or 2026 RESEA Plans, and based on the chosen design, many states’ evaluations may yield results in time for state FY2027 or 2028 RESEA Plans.
- Longer-term evaluation studies should build on short-term designs to yield results by the early 2030s. These studies require more preparation, including developing sufficiently large sample sizes and piloting the program or program component to be studied.
Citation
Epstein, Z., Klerman, J.A., Clarkwest, A., Nightingale, D. (2022). Abt Associates. Reemployment Services Evidence: A Collection of Briefs on RESEA Program Components. Chief Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Labor.
Download Brief View Study Profile
The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) sponsors independent evaluations and research, primarily conducted by external, third-party contractors in accordance with the Department of Labor Evaluation Policy and CEO’s research development process.