How surprised would you be to find out that there is very little academic research on employment programs, something Canada and other countries spend billions of dollars on? It’s not like the government does not keep track of people who gain employment after going through these programs, but rarely does a study appear that compares the programming to no programming or that randomly assigns participants to one condition or the another. This study by Helgesson, et al. does both these things: the study compares employment outcomes of immigrant women who have received job search assistance to those who receive only the basic services (e.g., job database, connecting employers to workers) of the Swedish Public Employment Service (PES). The study is part of a larger study, the full results of which are not yet available.
The researchers chose immigrant women for their study because in Sweden, as in Canada, immigrant women are disproportionately unemployed compared to non-immigrant women and immigrant men. The job search assistance (JSA) program in the study was specifically designed for newly arrived immigrant women’s circumstances, such as lack of work experience and the responsibilities of childcare. The program engaged in small group processes in which women identify their skills and work aspirations, compare these to available work opportunities, and seek suitable employment. In addition, caseworkers assisted with the job seeker–employer relationship, helping the women with applications, interviews and, on occasion, follow-up. The program was run in 16 sites over 3 years; this study took place from March of 2019 to September, 2020 and included 1,660 participants for whom data were available for at least 15 months. Individuals who agreed to be part of the study were randomly assigned to the JSA program or the normal services of the PES.
Their findings are what every employment service provider hopes for: i.e., that job search assistance helps (see Figure 1 below). Fifteen months after entering the study, 40% of the JAS group is employed whereas only 30% of the group receiving basic services is employed. The 10% difference in employment can be viewed another way: The JAS group was 33% more likely to be employed than the control group at the 15-month mark.
Notice when the difference between the two groups begins to show, only after about 5 or 6 months. Stopping measurement after 3 months would have detected no difference.
You may be thinking that this study has simply verified what you already know. The takeaways, however, include its precision around the degree to which JSA is helpful and when the difference begins to show up. Further, the larger study of which this is a part is also calculating something of great interest to funders: return on investment (ROI). Helgesson, et al. were anticipating the extra costs of JSA to be neutralized if the JSA group maintained their employment advantage compared to the control group for another 18 months past the 15-month mark.
Responses