This topic area focuses on interventions designed to promote faster reemployment of unemployment insurance (UI) claimants. CLEAR identified causal research on whether interventions focused on UI claimants reduced their UI benefit receipt, increased their reemployment rate, or improved their longer-term employment and earnings outcomes.
Reemployment
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1978 - 2018.
Synthesis Reports
Synthesis reports look at the research evidence across studies within a topic area. They also highlight gaps in the literature, and suggest areas in which further research is needed.
588
Findings:
The majority of reemployment interventions reduced weeks of benefit receipt and amount of benefits paid.
The reemployment interventions had varying degrees of effectiveness.
The Reemployment and Eligibility Assistance (REA) program boosted short-and long-term employment and earnings.
Job search assistance (JSA) services had favorable impacts on all outcomes examined, but employment and earnings impacts varied over time.
Reemployment bonuses appear to work in the short term, but their long-term effects are not known.
Lighter-touch interventions, such as profiling and changing employer contact requirements,yield more limited benefits.
View full synthesis report: Reemployment Synthesis
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 60
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the comparison between the Nevada…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the comparison between the Idaho…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the comparison between the Florida…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the comparison between the Florida…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes for youth. This profile focuses on the comparison between the…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes for youth. This profile focuses on the comparison between the…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes for youth. This profile focuses on the comparison between the…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of reemployment programs on public benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes for youth. This profile focuses on the comparison between the…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
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…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of an additional RESEA follow-up meeting on Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants’ employment, earnings, and benefit receipt.The study used a…
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.