1SOURCE EXTRACT — arxiv-2606.14621v12Title: Evaluating the Impact of Rhode Island's Self-Sustaining Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) Program on Employment Outcomes3Authors: Harrison H. Li; Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz; David Yokum4Bibliographic record: arXiv:2606.14621v1 [econ.GN], submitted 12 Jun 2026 (version 1, the only version at retrieval). Abstract page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14621v15Retrieved: https://arxiv.org/html/2606.14621v1 on 2026-10-30T03:23:18Z (SHA-256 of the retrieved HTML: f98fb1b39edd2107051cddf1da34aa8cf19e74e04d60bf9305a88cf966417da1)6License: CC BY 4.0 (license shown on the arXiv abstract page; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Reproduced in part with attribution.7Extract contents: title, authors and abstract; Section 3 'Results' (Table 2 with caption, the results paragraphs, Section 3.1 'Cost-benefit analysis'); from Section 4.1, Table 3 with its caption and the paragraph that discusses it.8Omitted: Sections 1-2, Table 1, Section 3.2 (heterogeneous effects), the rest of Section 4, the references and the appendix.9Rendering note: converted from the HTML rendering to plain text. Tables are rendered one row per line with " | " separating cells; in regression tables the line following a coefficient row holds the standard errors in parentheses, exactly as printed. Mathematical expressions appear as LaTeX source; non-breaking spaces were replaced by ordinary spaces. No numbers were altered.10Editorial note: Tables 2 and 3 were re-set in a one-row-per-outcome layout because the HTML rendering split each outcome over three rows and detached the p-values from their columns; the p-values and confidence intervals are attached to the column they belong to in the original (first p-value = treatment-control difference, second = average treatment effect).11================================================================1213# Evaluating the Impact of Rhode Island's Self-Sustaining Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) Program on Employment Outcomes1415Harrison H. Li (Harvey Mudd College), Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz (University of Maryland, College Park), David Yokum (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)1617###### Abstract1819Prolonged unemployment carries serious economic, health, and wellbeing costs. With federal support, most U.S. states now operate a Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program to help Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants return to work faster. We report results from a large (N = 23,549) preregistered randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating Rhode Island’s RESEA program from February 2022 to September 2023. We estimate that selection into the program increased annualized wages by $1,153, increased reemployment by 1.5 percentage points, and reduced UI duration by nearly two weeks. The vast majority of these wage and reemployment effects appeared within two quarters of claimants’ first pay dates and persisted through at least the following year, and we estimate that each dollar spent on the program saved the state $2.64. Using causal forests, a machine learning technique for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE), we also conduct an exploratory analysis to investigate if there are differential effects of selection into the RESEA program. We find that all participants experienced positive wage benefits from RESEA selection, with particularly large effects for older and lower-income workers. Finally, we improve upon prior RESEA evaluations by explicitly controlling for the week of treatment assignment — a methodological refinement absent from several existing RCTs of job-training programs that is important to eliminate confounding bias. We also discuss ways to harvest precision gains from baseline covariate adjustment without introducing large-sample bias.2021## 3 Results2223[Table 1 (pre-treatment characteristics) omitted from this extract.]2425[Table 2 — re-set by the extract editor from the HTML rendering, in which each outcome occupied three table rows; all values are verbatim. Columns: Outcome | Treatment | Control | Treatment-control difference | Average treatment effect estimate]2627Outcome | Treatment | Control | Treatment-control difference | Average treatment effect estimate28Wage | $33,073 (SD: 36,749) | $33,043 (SD: 36,231) | $29; p=0.95; 95% CI: [-903, 962] | $1,153; p=0.022; 95% CI: [166, 2,141]29Reemployment | 75.2% | 75.0% | 0.26 pp; p=0.64; 95% CI: [-0.84, 1.37] | 1.47 pp; p=0.013; 95% CI: [0.32, 2.62]30Weeks on UI | 15.2 weeks (SD: 9.3) | 17.3 weeks (SD: 9.4) | -2.10 weeks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-2.34, -1.86] | -1.99 weeks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-2.24, -1.75]31Short-term wage | $23,776 (SD: 31,948) | $23,897 (SD: 32,293) | -$121; p=0.77; 95% CI: [-941, 700] | $1,195; p=0.007; 95% CI: [326, 2,064]32Short-term reemployment | 61.4% | 61.6% | -0.18 pp; p=0.77; 95% CI: [-1.43, 1.06] | 1.66 pp; p=0.012; 95% CI: [0.37, 2.96]33Short-term weeks on UI | 14.2 weeks (SD: 8.4) | 15.9 weeks (SD: 8.3) | -1.70 weeks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-1.92, -1.49] | -1.77 weeks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-1.99, -1.55]3435Table 2: The average values of our long-term and short-term outcomes for the aggregate treatment and control groups in the study cohort, along with information about the differences in these averages between the treatment and control groups and our average treatment effect estimates. For the average outcomes, standard deviations are given in parentheses for the quantitative outcomes (wage and weeks on UI). For the treatment-control differences and the average treatment effect estimates, we provide two-sided p -values and 95% confidence intervals based on Welch’s two-sample t -test and the methodology described in the main text, respectively. The two rightmost columns illustrate how direct comparisons of outcome averages between the aggregate treatment and control groups can lead to significantly biased causal conclusions.3637Overall, we find that RESEA selection led to a statistically significant improvement in all three of the preregistered outcomes. RESEA selection led to a wage outcome that was $1,153 higher annually (95% CI: [$166, $2,141]; p=0.022 ), a 3.5% increase relative to the mean wage outcome of $33,043 in the control group (Table 2). There was also an estimated 1.47 percentage point increase in reemployment (95% CI: [0.32, 2.62]; p=0.013 ) and a 1.99 week reduction in the number of weeks on UI (95% CI: [1.75 weeks, 2.24 weeks]; p<0.001 ) due to RESEA selection. The latter is an 11.5% decrease compared to the mean control group weeks on UI outcome of 17.3 weeks. All three of these results remain statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing using Holm’s method to keep the familywise error rate below 5 percent.3839The results for the short-term outcomes are substantively similar to those for the longer-term outcomes (Table 2). We estimate RESEA selection leads to a short-term wage outcome that is $1,195 higher (95% CI: [$326, $2,064]; p = 0.007) on an annualized basis and a 1.66 percentage point higher rate of short-term reemployment (95% CI: [0.37, 2.96]; p = 0.012). Given that the magnitudes of these causal estimates are very similar to those for the corresponding long-term outcomes, this suggests that the full impact of RESEA selection on wages and reemployment appears quickly by the second quarter after randomization, and persists for at least five quarters. We also find that those selected for RESEA spend 1.77 fewer weeks on UI in the benefit year of their claim (95% CI: [1.55 weeks, 1.99 weeks]; p ¡ 0.001). As this is a bit smaller than the effect size of 1.99 weeks estimated for the long term weeks on UI outcome, which includes an additional 26 weeks beyond the benefit year, we see some directional evidence that RESEA selection may also reduce the time spent on UI in the following year, suggesting that it may be helping claimants find employment that lasts longer, thereby reducing repetitive use of UI benefits.4041As noted earlier, wages and reemployment are artificially zero-inflated due to missing out-of-state wage data. The Rhode Island job market is tightly integrated with those of the neighboring states of Massachusetts and Connecticut; the 2016-2020 5-Year American Community Survey found that nearly 16 percent of Rhode Island workers 16 years and older commuted out of state, mainly to Massachusetts. We note, however, that this missingness should not affect the directional validity of our causal analysis. This is because randomization ensures that this missingness is balanced between the treatment and control groups (within each block), unless RESEA selection itself differentially helps or hinders finding employment out of state or self-employment. To investigate this, we examined the presence of individuals who failed to exhaust their UI benefits in the benefit year of their claim while having $0 in reported RI wages for all of the five complete quarters after randomization. There were 3,325 claimants falling into this group, including 1,618 individuals (13.7%) in the aggregate control group and 1,707 individuals (14.6%) in the aggregate treatment group. After controlling for randomization week, this difference in proportions was not significant ( p = 0.55). The lack of statistical significance on this test with our large sample size along with the fact that the Rhode Island job database focuses overwhelmingly on jobs offered by Rhode Island employers suggests that RESEA selection does not differentially assist in finding out-of-state employment or self-employment.4243### 3.1 Cost-benefit analysis4445We find that the decrease in time spent drawing UI benefits due to RESEA selection corresponds to a considerable cost savings to the state from paying out a smaller amount of UI benefits. We estimate that the average individual selected for RESEA during the study period drew $676 less (95% CI: [$563, $789], p<0.001 ) in UI benefits during the same benefit year of their claim than they would have if they were not selected for RESEA. This is a 9.9 percent reduction relative to the control group average of $6,839 in UI benefits drawn during the benefit year of the claim. Multiplying the estimate by the total number of individuals selected for RESEA in the study ( n=11,700 ) suggests that as a result of the program, the state paid out about $7.9 million fewer in UI benefits to claimants randomized during the study period over the same benefit year as their UI claims. This is much higher than the total expenditures of $2.99 million for the RESEA program over the study period, representing $2.64 in savings for the state budget for every $1 spent on the program.4647### 4.1 Methodological lessons (excerpt)4849[Table 3 — re-set by the extract editor from the HTML rendering; all values are verbatim. Columns: Outcome | Difference in means | Covariate adjusted | Fixed effects regression]5051Outcome | Difference in means | Covariate adjusted | Fixed effects regression52Wage | $1,153; p=0.022; 95% CI: [166, 2,141] | $1,137; p=0.014; 95% CI: [228, 2,047] | $1,100; p=0.027; 95% CI: [127, 2,073]53Reemployment | 1.47 pp; p=0.013; 95% CI: [0.32, 2.62] | 1.48 pp; p=0.012; 95% CI: [0.32, 2.63] | 1.49 pp; p=0.011; 95% CI: [0.34, 2.64]54Weeks on UI | -1.99 wks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-2.24, -1.75] | -1.93 wks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-2.18, -1.68] | -1.97 wks; p<0.001; 95% CI: [-2.22, -1.72]5556Table 3: A comparison of the ITT estimates, two-sided p -values, and 95% confidence intervals for our primary outcomes from three different methodologies: the preregistered analysis based on eq. (1), the covariate adjusted analysis based on eq. (2), and the fixed effects regression in eq. (3). The leftmost column based on the preregistered analysis duplicates the rightmost column in Table 2 for ease of comparison.5758If we directly compared treatment group and control group outcome averages without accounting for the week of randomization, the results would suggest RESEA selection had no detectable average effect on the wage and reemployment outcomes (column 4, Table 2). However, such an analysis is potentially biased under the experimental design because it does not respect the blocked randomization, which makes the week of randomization a known confounder. For example, weeks with a larger number of UI applicants, which had a higher proportion of control group individuals, tended to have lower-earning applicants (Fig. 7), thereby inflating the average wage outcome in the control group relative to the treatment group. This is critical because out of the thirteen publically available studies of RESEA-related employment assistance programs rated by CLEAR as having high causal evidence, six used block randomization like we do, yet only two of these (Black, Smith, Berger, & Noel., 2002; Klerman et al., 2019) properly adjusted for the block. Three others among these six studies used regression or matching methods in an attempt to control for observed demographic variables but not the block (Poe-Yamagata et al., 2011; Michaelides et al., 2012; Manoli et al., 2018), while the remaining study (Michaelides & Mueser, 2018) fit a linear regression model with the block indicators as fixed effects, as did two other more recent evaluations in Nevada (Michaelides & Mian, 2021; Brigandi et al., 2024) . These fixed effects regressions amount to estimating the coefficient in the regression model59