Title,Citation,Topic_area,Study_type,Study_evidence_rating,Outcome_effectiveness,Findings,Intervention_program,Topics,Target_population,Firm_characteristics,Geographic_setting,Original_publication_date,Original_publication_link "Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report","Klerman, J. A., Saunders, C., Dastrup, E., Epstein, Z., Walton, D., Adam, T., & Barnow, B. S. (2019). Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. [Comparison between existing REA group and partial REA group]",Reemployment,"Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis","Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence","Employment-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Employment Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Public benefit receipt","Summary: The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program in four states (Indiana, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) on people’s public benefit receipt, employment, and earnings. The authors investigated similar research questions for three other contrasts, the profiles of which are available using the study search. The authors used a randomized controlled trial to compare public benefit receipt and employment outcomes among unemployment insurance (UI) claimants randomly assigned to each state’s existing REA program as well as with a partial REA condition. The authors drew on state administrative records from the UI benefit and case management systems for 28 weeks after random assignment and National Directory of New Hires data for two years after random assignment. The study found that the existing REA treatment group received significantly fewer weeks of UI benefits and worked significantly more quarters than the partial REA treatment group. These findings were consistent in some of the individual states. The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the REA program and not to other factors.","the Reemployment and Eligibility (REA) Program","RESEA Unemployment Insurance",Unemployed,,"United States",2019,https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/REA%20Impact%20Study… "Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report","Klerman, J. A., Saunders, C., Dastrup, E., Epstein, Z., Walton, D., Adam, T., & Barnow, B. S. (2019). Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. [Comparison between existing REA services group and control group]",Reemployment,"Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis","Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence","Earnings and wages-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Earnings and wages Employment-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Employment Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Public benefit receipt","Summary: The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program in four states on people’s public benefit receipt, employment, and earnings. The authors investigated similar research questions for three other contrasts, the profiles of which are available using the study search. The authors used a randomized controlled trial to compare the public benefit, earnings, and employment outcomes among unemployment insurance (UI) claimants randomly assigned to each state’s existing REA program or a control group. The authors drew on state administrative records from the UI benefit and case management systems for 28 weeks after random assignment and National Directory of New Hires data for two years after random assignment. The study found that, across the states, the existing REA treatment group received significantly fewer weeks and dollars of UI benefits than the control group did, and the existing REA treatment group had higher employment, longer job tenure, and higher earnings than the control group in the first or second year after random assignment. The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the REA program and not to other factors.","the Reemployment and Eligibility (REA) Program","RESEA Unemployment Insurance",Unemployed,,"United States",2019,https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/REA%20Impact%20Study… "Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report","Klerman, J. A., Saunders, C., Dastrup, E., Epstein, Z., Walton, D., Adam, T., & Barnow, B. S. (2019). Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. [Comparison between multiple REA treatment group and single REA treatment group]",Reemployment,"Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis","Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence","Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Public benefit receipt","Summary: The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program in four states (Indiana, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) on people’s public benefit receipt, employment, and earnings. The authors investigated similar research questions for three other contrasts, the profiles of which are available using the study search. The authors used a randomized controlled trial to compare public benefit receipt outcomes among unemployment insurance (UI) claimants randomly assigned to states’ multiple REA treatment group as well as with the single REA treatment group. The authors drew on state administrative records from the UI benefit and case management systems for 28 weeks after random assignment. For this contrast, the study used data from New York and Washington. The study found that weeks of UI benefits were significantly lower for the multiple REA treatment group than the single REA treatment group. The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the REA program and not to other factors.","the Reemployment and Eligibility (REA) Program","RESEA Unemployment Insurance",Unemployed,,"United States",2019,https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/REA%20Impact%20Study… "Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report","Klerman, J. A., Saunders, C., Dastrup, E., Epstein, Z., Walton, D., Adam, T., & Barnow, B. S. (2019). Evaluation of impacts of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Program: Final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. [Comparison between partial REA treatment group and control group]",Reemployment,"Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis","Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence","Employment-Mod/high-No impacts Employment Public benefits receipt-Mod/high-Favorable impacts Public benefit receipt","Summary: The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program in four states (Indiana, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) on people’s public benefit receipt, employment, and earnings. The authors investigated similar research questions for three other contrasts, the profiles of which are available using the study search. The authors used a randomized controlled trial to compare public benefit receipt and employment outcomes among unemployment insurance (UI) claimants randomly assigned to a partial REA treatment group or a control group. The authors drew on state administrative records from the UI benefit and case management systems for 28 weeks after random assignment and National Directory of New Hires data for two years after random assignment. The study found that, across the four states, the partial REA treatment group received significantly fewer weeks of UI benefits. The study found no statistically significant differences between the groups in the number of quarters employed or longest job tenure one or two years after random assignment. The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the REA program and not to other factors.","the Reemployment and Eligibility (REA) Program","RESEA Unemployment Insurance",Unemployed,,"United States",2019,https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/REA%20Impact%20Study…