Skip to main content

The Nevada claimant placement project (Steinman 1978)

Citation

Steinman, J. (1978). The Nevada claimant placement project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration.

Highlights

  • The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of the Nevada Claimant Placement Project (NCPP), an intervention designed to accelerate labor force reattachment among Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants through mandatory, intensive case management.
  • The study was a randomized controlled trial; UI claimants were randomly assigned to either a treatment group, which received enhanced case management services, or to a control group, which received typical services available to UI claimants. The author used UI administrative records to compare the UI benefit receipt of treatment group members with that of control group members.
  • The study found that the treatment group members received $318 less in UI benefits than control group members.
  • The quality of the causal evidence presented in this report is low because attrition could not be determined and the study did not include controls for claimant characteristics in its analysis. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the NCPP.

Intervention Examined

Reemployment Eligibility Assessment

Features of the Intervention

Operating in 1977–1978, NCPP was one of the first UI studies to make effective use of a computerized case management system. Beginning in their third week of benefit receipt, UI claimants receiving services through the project were required to meet weekly with a joint team of UI eligibility and employment service caseworkers. Relative to existing services, NCPP case management offered better coordination between UI and employment service workers and gave caseworkers more flexibility to assist claimants with job search.

Features of the Study

The study was conducted in Reno, North Las Vegas, and Las Vegas. Across the four sites, 3,545 participants were randomly assigned—2,371 in the treatment group and 1,174 in the control group. The primary data source was UI administrative records of benefit receipt. The author estimated the program’s impacts by comparing UI benefit receipt of treatment and control group members. The author also estimated impacts in a similar way for the subgroup of non-union claimants.

Findings

Public benefits receipt

  • The study found that treatment group members received $318 less in UI benefit payments than control group members.
  • For the subgroup of non-union claimants, the study found a $296 reduction in the average amount of UI benefits received and a 3.9-week reduction in the average weeks of UI benefits received.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The author estimated program impacts as simple research group differences and did not perform tests of statistical significance, which would provide a basis for confidence in the results; without the results of these statistical tests, it is not possible to determine whether the estimated impacts reflect true differences between the groups.

Although the research design was a randomized controlled trial, analysis sample sizes were not presented; because the study was published more than 20 years ago, CLEAR did not conduct an author query to gather this information. Because attrition could not be determined, the study is ineligible for a high evidence rating, and because the author did not include statistical controls for UI claimant characteristics when estimating impacts, it is ineligible for a moderate evidence rating.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of the causal evidence presented in this report is low because attrition could not be determined and the study did not include controls for claimant characteristics in its analysis. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the NCPP.

Reviewed by CLEAR

November 2014

Topic Area