The authors examine the effects of a job counseling program targeting unemployment insurance (UI) recipients in Nevada during both the Great Recession and a period characterized by a strong economy. The program reduced UI duration and improved participant employment and earnings in both periods. Effects can be partially attributed to participant exits before receiving services (moral hazard effects) and partly to exits after receiving services (service effects). Notably, moral hazard effects appear more important during a strong economy, whereas the value of services is more evident during a recession. The authors find no evidence that the positive effects of job counseling for participants can be attributed to displacement effects on nonparticipants.
BehaghelLucCréponBrunoGurgandMarc. 2012. Private and public provision of counseling to job-seekers: Evidence from a large controlled experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 6518. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics.
2.
BlackDan A.SmithJeffrey A.BergerMark C.NoelBrett J.2003. Is the threat of reemployment services more effective than the services themselves? Evidence from random assignment in the UI system. American Economic Review93(4):1313–27.
3.
BlundellRichardMeghirCostasDiasMonica CostaVan ReenenJohn. 2004. Evaluating the employment impact of a mandatory job search program. Journal of the European Economic Association2(4):569–606.
4.
CardDavidKluveJochenWeberAndrea. 2018. What works? A meta analysis of recent active labor market program evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association16(3):894–931.
CheungMariaEgebarkJohanForslundAndersLaunLisaRodinMagnusVikstromJohan. 2025. Does job search assistance reduce unemployment? Evidence on displacement effects and mechanisms. Journal of Labor Economics43(1):47–81.
7.
CockxBartDejemeppeMurielLaunovAndreyVan der LindenBruno. 2018. Imperfect monitoring of job search: Structural estimation and policy design. Journal of Labor Economics36(1):75–120.
8.
CréponBrunoDufloEstherGurgandMarcRathelotRolandZamoraPhilippe. 2013. Do labor market policies have displacement effects? Evidence from a clustered randomized experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics128(2):531–80.
9.
CréponBrunovan den BergGerard J.2016. Active labor market policies. IZA Discussion Paper No. 10321. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics.
10.
DeckerPaul T.OlsenRobert B.FreemanLanceKlepingerDaniel H.2000. Assisting unemployment insurance claimants: The long-term impacts of the job search assistance demonstration. No. 8170-800. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
11.
De GiorgiGiacomi. 2005. Long-term effects of a mandatory multistage program: The New Deal for Young People in the UK. Working Paper No. 5. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
12.
DickinsonKatherine P.DeckerPaul T.KreutzerSuzanne D.WestR.W.1999. Evaluation of worker profiling and reemployment services: Final report. Research and Evaluation Report 99-D. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
13.
DiNardoJohnFortinNicole M.LemieuxThomas. 1996. Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973–1992: A semiparametric approach. Econometrica64(5):1001–44.
14.
FeracciMarcJolivetGregoryvan der BergGerard J.2010. Treatment evaluation in the case of interactions within markets. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4700. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics.
15.
GautierPieterMullerPaulvan der KlaauwBasRosholmMichaelSvarerMichael. 2018. Estimating equilibrium effects of job search assistance. Journal of Labor Economics36(4):1073–125.
16.
GeerdsenLars Pico. 2006. Is there a threat effect of labour market programmes? A study of ALMP in the Danish UI system. Economic Journal116(513):738–50.
17.
GraversenBrian Kroghvan OursJan C.2008. How to help the unemployed find jobs quickly: Experimental evidence from a mandatory activation program. Journal of Public Economics92(10–11):2020–35.
18.
HägglundPathric. 2011. Are there pre-programme effects of active placement efforts? Evidence from a social experiment. Economics Letters112(1):91–93.
19.
KahnLawrence M.2012. Labor market policy: A comparative view on the costs and benefits of labor market flexibility. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management31(1):94–110.
20.
KlepingerDaniel H.JohnsonTerry R.JoeschJutta M.2002. Effects of unemployment insurance work-search requirements: The Maryland experiment. Industrial and Labor Relations Review56(1):3–22.
21.
KrugGerhardStephanGesine. 2013. Is the contracting-out of intensive placement services more effective than provision by the PES? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7403. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics.
22.
LinWinston. 2013. Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. Annals of Applied Statistics7(1):295–318.
23.
LiseJeremySeitzShannonSmithJeffrey A.2004. Equilibrium policy experiments and the evaluation of social programs. NBER Working Paper No. 10283. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
24.
MaibomJonasRosholmMichaelSvarerMichael. 2017. Experimental evidence on the effects of early meetings and activation. Scandinavian Journal of Economics119(3):541–70.
25.
ManoliDayanandMichaelidesMariosPatelAnkur. 2018. Long-term effects of job search assistance: Experimental evidence using administrative tax data. NBER Working Paper No. 24422. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
MartinsPedro S.Pessoa e CostaSofia. 2014. Reemployment and substitution effects from increased activation: Evidence from times of crisis. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8600. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics.
27.
MeyerBruce. 1995. Lessons from the U.S. unemployment insurance experiments. Journal of Economic Literature33(1):91–131.
28.
MichaelidesMariosMueserPeter. 2018. Are reemployment services effective? Experimental evidence from the Great Recession. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management37(3):546–70.
29.
MichaelidesMariosMueserPeter. 2020. The labor market effects of U.S. reemployment policy: Experimental evidence from four programs during the Great Recession. Journal of Labor Economics38(4):1099–140.
30.
MichaelidesMariosMueserPeterPoe-YamagataEileenNearchouParisCiobanuIuliana. 2024. Randomized control trial impact study of the Nevada RESEA program: Interim report. Prepared for the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Actus Policy Research.
31.
MichaelidesMariosMueserPeterSmithJeffrey A.2021. Do reemployment programs for the unemployed work for youth? Evidence from the Great Recession in the United States. Economic Inquiry59(1):162–85.
32.
O’LearyChristopher J.WandnerStephen A.2005. Do job search rules and reemployment services reduce insured unemployment? Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 05-112. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
33.
PissaridesChristopher. 2017. Equilibrium Unemployment Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Poe-YamagataEileenBenusJacobBillNicholasMichaelidesMariosShenTed. 2012. Impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) initiative. ETA Occasional Paper 2012-08. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
35.
RidleyNeilTracyWilliam A.2004. State and local labor exchange services. In BalducchiDavid E.EbertsRandall W.O’LearyChristopher J. (Eds.), Labor Exchange Policy in the United States, pp. 73–99. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
36.
TooheyDesmond. 2017. The effectiveness of work-search requirements over the business cycle: Evidence for job rationing. Unpublished working paper. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
37.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2005. Office of Public Affairs news release, No. 05-0343-NAT. Washington, DC.
38.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2012. Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 10–12. Employment and Training Administration Advisory System: Washington, DC.
39.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2015. Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 13–15. Employment and Training Administration Advisory System: Washington, DC.
40.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2019. Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 7–19. Employment and Training Administration Advisory System: Washington, DC.
41.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2023Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 02–23. Employment and Training Administration Advisory System: Washington, DC.
42.
WallaceGeoffrey L.HavemanRobert. 2007. The implications of differences between employers and worker employment/earnings reports for policy evaluation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management26(4):737–53.
43.
WandnerStephen A.2010. Solving the Reemployment Puzzle: From Research to Policy. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
44.
WhittakerJulie M.IsaacsKatelin P.2014. Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
