Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Evaluation of the impacts of the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment (Johnson & Klepinger 1991)

Review Guidelines

Causal Evidence Guidelines

Citation

Johnson, T., & Klepinger, D. (1991). Evaluation of the impacts of the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment. Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper, 91(4), 1–90.

Highlights

  • The study assessed the impacts of four different work search policy approaches implemented through the Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment on Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits receipt, employment, and earnings outcomes.
  • Eligible UI claimants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups or a control group. The four study groups faced different work search requirements to continue receiving UI benefits. For all participants, the study team collected administrative data, which provided information on UI benefits receipt, employment, and earnings.
  • The study found that UI claimants facing less-stringent work search requirements received more UI benefits for longer and were more likely to exhaust their benefits, on average, than those facing standard work search requirements. There were few differences in UI benefits, employment, or earnings among claimants subject to more stringent work search requirements compared with those facing standard work search requirements.
  • The quality of causal evidence presented in this study is high because it is based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the alternative work search requirements, and not to other factors.

Intervention Examined

The Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment

Features of the Intervention

The Washington Alternative Work Search Experiment was implemented through the Tacoma, Washington Job Service Center. A total of 9,634 new, eligible UI claimants from July 1986 to August 1987 were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups or a control group. Control group members faced standard work search requirements typical in most states at the time: they were required to make at least three employer contacts per week in their primary industry and to participate in eligibility review interviews focused on work-search activities 13 to 15 weeks after filing initial claims.
The three treatment groups represented adjustments to the standard work search requirements:

  1. In the exception reporting treatment, claimants received their customary weekly benefits unless they reported a change in status. They were encouraged to participate in work-search activities but were not obligated to report on those efforts.
  2. In the new work search policy treatment, claimants were subject to personalized work-search requirements that intensified as their UI spell continued. Members of this group who remained unemployed participated in eligibility review interviews to develop employability strategies.
  3. In the intensive services treatment, claimants who remained unemployed after receiving benefits for 4 weeks were required to attend a two-day job search training session. Those who were still unemployed after 12 weeks were required to attend an eligibility review interview to develop employability strategies.

Data for the study were collected from Washington State Employment Security Department databases and a survey administered at the time of random assignment. The authors estimated the average differences between each of the treatment groups and the control group on measures of UI benefit amount, duration of UI receipt, employment, earnings, hours worked, and hourly wages.

Findings

Public benefits receipt

  • Members of the exception reporting treatment group, who faced less-stringent work search requirements than the standard work search group, received $265 more in UI benefit payments, remained on UI for approximately three weeks longer, and were 13 percentage points more likely to exhaust UI benefits than members of the control group. These differences were statistically significant.
  • The new work search policy and intensive services treatment groups had UI benefits receipt outcomes no better or worse than those of the control groups, on average.

Earnings and wages

  • Members of the exception reporting treatment group earned $0.28 more per hour than members of the control group in the first quarter after the initial claim, but these increased hourly earnings did not translate into significantly higher total earnings, nor did they persist past the first quarter.
  • The new work search policy and intensive services treatment groups had earnings outcomes no better or worse than those of the control groups, on average.

Employment

  • The new work search policy and intensive services treatment groups had employment outcomes no better or worse than those of the control groups, on average.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to UI benefits receipt, earnings, and employment. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. Because the authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, the number of statistically significant impacts for the exception reporting treatment group is likely to be overstated.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this study is high because it is based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the alternative work search requirements, and not to other factors.

Additional Sources

Johnson, T., & Klepinger, D. (1994). Experimental evidence on Unemployment Insurance work-search policies. Journal of Human Resources, 29(3), 695–717.

Reviewed by CLEAR

June 2015

Topic Area