Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Nebraska RESEA Evaluation Report (Hoffman et al., 2022)

Review Guidelines

Causal Evidence Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest.

Citation

Hoffman, S., Walther, J., Schiwart, M., Sloane, A., Abdel-Monem, T. (2022). Nebraska RESEA Evaluation Report. University of Nebraska Public Policy Center.

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of an additional RESEA follow-up meeting on UI claimants’ employment and earnings and UI benefit receipt.
  • The study used a regression design to compare outcomes for UI claimants who participated in a second follow-up RESEA meeting to those who participated in only one RESEA meeting.
  • The study did not find statistically significant differences in earnings, employment, or UI benefit receipt between treatment and control groups.
  • This study receives a low causal evidence rating. This means we are not confident that any estimated effects are attributable to the RESEA follow-up meeting; other factors are likely to have contributed. The study did not find statistically significant effects.

Intervention Examined

The Reemployment Services Eligibility Assessment program in Nebraska

Features of the Intervention

The Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program supports unemployment insurance (UI) claimants in their quest to find work. RESEA was federally authorized in 2018 under amendments to the Social Security Act. The study enrolled UI claimants selected into the RESEA program in Nebraska between October 31, 2020 and November 7, 2020. The program requires one in-person meeting between RESEA staff and the claimant. In addition to the one required meeting, the Nebraska Department of Labor (NDOL) evaluated the effect of a second meeting between UI claimants and RESEA staff. 

Features of the Study

The study used a regression design to compare outcomes for UI claimants who participated in a second follow-up RESEA meeting to those who participated in only one RESEA meeting. Authors initially randomized UI claimants into the treatment and control groups, with treatment groups scheduled to receive a second meeting and control groups scheduled to only have one. However, throughout the study period, some control group members had a second meeting and some treatment group members did not have a second meeting. For analysis, the treatment and control groups were redefined as those who received or did not receive the intervention. The original sample included 746 claimants who began RESEA during the three-week period from October 31, 2020, to November 14, 2020. This sample was 69.5% White, 16.9% African American/Black, 11.1% unreported, 4.5% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1.8% Asian, and 0.3% Hawaiian/Other. 5.4% of participants were Hispanic or Latino, 52.3% were female, and 43.9% were male. At analysis, six people were excluded because they did not ultimately apply for UI benefits or have reported employer-earned income during the entire 12-month study reporting period. The final analysis sample included 740 UI claimants. Of these 740, 543 claimants received the intervention and 197 did not. The authors used two different ANCOVA models with different controls to evaluate the difference in outcomes between the treatment and control groups. Data for the models came from the NDOL.

Study Sites

The program was implemented in Nebraska. 

Findings

UI Benefit Receipt

  • There was no difference in UI benefit receipt between treatment and control group members.

Earnings

  • There was no difference in earnings between treatment and control group members after two or four quarters. 

Employment

  • There was no difference in employee retention between treatment and control groups after two or four quarters. 

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

Treatment and control groups changed after assignment, with some control group members able to opt into treatment and some treatment group members who did not receive the treatment. This makes it more likely that individuals with shared yet unobserved characteristics chose to receive or not receive the intervention, which limits how much we can attribute the changes in outcome to the intervention. Although the study controlled for differences in Race, Statistical Area, Age and Gender, the study did not measure or control for differences in pre-RESEA earnings or employment.  

Causal Evidence Rating

This study receives a low evidence rating. This means we are not confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to RESEA follow-up meeting and not to other factors. The study did not find statistically significant effects.

Reviewed by CLEAR

February 2026

Topic Area