Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to evaluate the impact of Washington State’s Reemployment Appointment Scheduler (RAS) system on Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment Program (RESEA) appointment attendance and weeks of unemployment compensation. The RAS system provides Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants selected to participate in RESEA the ability to schedule their initial meeting within a three-week window.
- The study used an interrupted time series design to compare predicted RESEA meeting no-show rates and UI claim duration to actual no-show rates and UI claim duration after Washington State’s implementation of the RAS system.
- The study found that the introduction of RAS decreased RESEA meeting no-show rates and increased the number of weeks that claimants received UI benefits.
- The study receives a low evidence rating because the authors’ interrupted time series design focused on a single implementation of the RAS invention that occurred in July 2019. This means that we cannot be confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the implementation of the RAS system; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Claimant self-scheduling
Features of the Intervention
The study authors report that, prior to the implementation of the RAS system, less than 40 percent of Washington State UI claimants assigned to RESEA attended their scheduled RESEA initial meetings. Under the old scheduling system, UI claimants selected for RESEA did not have the opportunity to select the time or location of their initial meeting.
In July 2019, Washington State implemented the Reemployment Appointment Scheduler system, which gave UI claimants selected for RESEA the flexibility to schedule their own initial meeting within a three-week scheduling window. Under the RAS system, UI claimants selected for RESEA are notified by mail that they must schedule an appointment online or by phone. Claimants are allowed to select any office location for their initial meeting as long as there is an available appointment slot within their three-week scheduling window.
Features of the Study
The study used an interrupted time series design to compare predicted RESEA meeting no-show rates and UI claim duration to actual no-show rates and UI claim duration after the implementation of the RAS system in July 2019. To conduct the analysis, the authors used administrative records for all UI claimants selected for RESEA from January 2017 to the beginning of March 2020. The data included information about participants’ demographic characteristics, the duration of the UI claim, the total amount of UI benefits received, RESEA appointment times, and meeting attendance.
The treatment group consisted of 35,232 UI claimants assigned to RESEA between July 22, 2019, and March 1, 2020, following the implementation of the RAS system. The comparison group consisted of 152,279 UI claimants assigned to RESEA between January 1, 2017 and July 22, 2019, prior to the implementation of the RAS system. RESEA participants in the analysis sample tended to be in their forties (on average), were slightly more likely to be male than female, and about half had received a college or post-college degree.
The authors compared post-intervention outcomes to an estimated post-intervention trend using two regression models. The difference between actual and estimated post-intervention outcomes (no-show rates and UI benefit receipt) is interpreted as evidence of the impact of RAS.
Findings
Public Benefits Receipt
- The study’s findings suggested that no-show rates for RESEA meetings were lower following the implementation of the RAS system. Approximately 3,616 additional claimants attended RESEA meetings over the 33-week post-implementation period (110 per week).
- Additionally, findings suggested that UI claim durations for RESEA participants were approximately two weeks longer in the post-implementation period than they would have been without the RAS.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The evaluation only examines one demonstration of the RAS intervention: Washington State's implementation of RAS in July 2019. Therefore, we cannot be confident that observed changes in no-show rates or UI claim durations were due to the impact of the intervention and not due to other factors or changes that took place in Washington State during the post-intervention period.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this study is low, because the authors’ interrupted time series design focused on a single demonstration of the RAS invention that occurred in July 2019 in Washington State. This means that we cannot be confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the implementation of the RAS system; other factors are likely to have contributed.