Evaluation of the Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) Program in California

• In Event: Unemployment Insurance, Administrative Capacity, and Labor Market Outcomes

Abstract

The Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program is a federal–state initiative that helps Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants return to work more quickly by providing targeted reemployment services and strengthening the integrity of the UI system. This study examines the causal impact of RESEA on UI duration, employment, and earnings among California UI claimants. We focus on two core questions: (1) Does RESEA assignment reduce UI durations? and (2) Does it improve post‑UI employment or earnings? Identifying these effects is essential for designing cost‑effective reemployment strategies and improving the targeting of limited program resources. 

California’s RESEA program uses a profiling model to estimate each eligible claimant’s probability of exhausting UI benefits, with higher‑risk claimants prioritized for assignment. Because assignment occurs weekly and claimants remain eligible for up to 35 days after filing a UI claim, individuals may receive multiple opportunities to be assigned. When the number of eligible claimants exceeds available meeting slots at the profiling cut-off score, claimants are randomly assigned to RESEA. We leverage this institutional feature to compare claimants randomly assigned to RESEA with those not assigned, providing a credible causal estimate of the program’s effects.

Our analysis draws on nearly ten years of statewide administrative data linking UI claims, RESEA participation records, and quarterly earnings. Preliminary results, using claimants who receive only one opportunity to be assigned, show that RESEA assigned claimants experience shorter UI durations, by 0.67 weeks on average, with meaningful variation across industries. Notably, most of this reduction occurs before claimants attend RESEA appointments, suggesting that the assignment notification itself, rather than the services delivered, drives the effect. Despite these shorter UI spells, we find no measurable differences in post‑UI employment rates or earnings up to eight quarters after exit.

Taken together, these findings indicate that RESEA’s primary effect in California operates through administrative or behavioral channels triggered by assignment, not through reemployment services. While this mechanism reduces UI durations, it does not appear to improve longer‑term labor market outcomes, highlighting the need to reassess how profiling, assignment, and service delivery can be aligned to generate more durable employment gains.

Using the linked claimant data with training programs, we plan to further explore the mechanisms behind the reduced UI durations. In particular, we will examine how much of the relatively longer UI duration among non‑RESEA claimants reflects enrollment in training programs, an important channel that has not been studied in the existing literature.

Author

• Swapnil Motghare, University of California - Los Angeles
  Presenting Author