Citation
Smith, T. C., King, C. T., & Schroeder, D. G. (2008). Rapid employment model evaluation: Update. Austin, TX: Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Rapid Employment Model (REM) program on participants’ employment, earnings, and Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit claims. (See the CLEAR review of the 2010 report here.)
- Using program data and state UI records, the authors matched treatment group cases to comparison group cases and conducted regression analyses to estimate the effect of the intervention.
- The study found that participation in the REM program was associated with an increase in the likelihood that jobseekers were employed in quarters following program participation.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate for employment and earnings outcomes because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects on employment and earnings are attributable to the REM program, but other factors might also have contributed. The quality of causal evidence presented for the UI benefit claiming outcome is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects on UI benefit claiming outcome are attributable to REM program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Rapid Employment Model (REM) Program
Features of the Intervention
The REM program combined short-term job preparedness and occupational skills training in combination with active job placement assistance to improve employment rates and decrease periods of unemployment. Treatment group members received pre-employment training on basic job preparedness and employment skills. Participants were then offered the opportunity to participate in an occupational skills training program, which focused on a specific field (for example, truck driving or nursing) and varied in length and content. Travis County Health and Human Services Department and Workforce Solutions led the program, which took place from January 2006 to October 2006.
Features of the Study
The study included 103 treatment group participants matched to 103 comparison group members selected from a pool of WorkInTexas’s registered jobseekers and Workforce Investment Act “core” services recipients. REM participants were selected based on participation in workforce programs that served disadvantaged groups, including ex-offenders and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and food stamps. The authors matched treatment to comparison cases based on similar demographic characteristics and employment and earnings history over the four years before the program began. The authors examined differences in the outcomes while accounting for pre-intervention differences between treatment and comparison group members.
Findings
- The study found that participation in the REM program was associated with a 5.3 percentage point increase in the likelihood that jobseekers were employed in quarters following program participation.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The quality of causal evidence presented for the UI benefit claiming outcomes is low because the authors did not account for pre-intervention differences in public benefits receipt or socioeconomic status of treatment and control group members in either the matching design or the analysis.
The authors noted they did not have access to data on ex-offender status and thus did not account for it in their analysis. The treatment group included participants of a program that targets formerly incarcerated workers (among other disadvantaged groups), so the level of offender status could vary between the groups. This omission may contribute to observed differences in outcomes between the groups.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate for employment and earnings outcomes because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects on employment and earnings are attributable to the REM program, but other factors might also have contributed.
The quality of causal evidence presented for the UI benefit claiming outcome is low because the authors did not adjust for potential differences between treatment and comparison groups. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects on UI benefit claiming outcome are attributable to REM program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Additional Sources
Smith, T. C., & King, C. T. (2007). Rapid employment model evaluation: Initial findings. Austin, TX: Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources.
Smith, T. C., King, C. T., & Schroeder, D. G. (2010). Rapid employment model evaluation: Update #2. Austin, TX: Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources.
Smith, T. C., King, C. T., & Schroeder, D. G. (2011). Rapid employment model evaluation: 2011 update. Austin, TX: Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources.