|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Pathway to work : evaluation of a French induction program for social welfare recipients.
|
After
Leaving welfare for work : evaluation of a French training program for social welfare recipients
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
December 15, 2022
|
After
December 31, 2023
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
October 19, 2020 05:34 AM
|
After
October 21, 2020 03:21 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
We would like to know the impact of the training program PEE on the RSA (Revenu de Solidarité Active) recepients' career plan. The dispositive PEE helps the RSA recipients to find or to improve a professional project according to their skills and their needs. Thus, our study concerns RSA (Revenu de Solidarité Active) recipients in the Region Île-de-France who are interested in participating in a training program.
Amont those interested in the dispositive, we realize a random draw. They are randomly assigned to a treatment or a control group.
To answer our research questions, we follow both groups for one year, with administrative data and 3 surveys.
|
After
We implement our experiment in the region Île-de-France. Participants in our study are unemployed welfare recipients (RSA recipients) who are interested in participating in the training program “Parcours d’Entrée en Emploi” (PEE). Among those interested in the program, we randomly offer participation in the PEE. The treatment corresponds to being offered to participate in the PEE. Those who are randomly chosen to be not treated are part of the control group and get informed that they cannot be offered participation in PEE.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
September 01, 2022
|
After
July 01, 2023
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
1. Whether a rsa recipient find a job
2. Whether a rsa enter and finish a training program
|
After
1. Entering (stable) employment
2. Having a professional project
3. Social Inclusion
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
1. In the FORCE database, we will be able to follow the career of the person (whether they find a job, the type of job, the duration of the contract etc.).
2. In the FORCE database and in the surveys, we will know all information about the training followed by the people.
|
After
1. Entering (stable) employment: Based on administrative data, we will be able to observe the labor market outcomes for all participants in our experiment (periods of employment, earnings, duration of the employment, type of contract, etc.).
2. Having a professional project: Based on a survey which we will conduct around 2 months after randomization, we will observe whether the individuals have an idea about the type of occupation they want to enter. Moreover, we plan to ask them about the importance of different skills for this type of occupation. Based on these questions, we aim to evaluate their knowledge about the occupation they aim to enter.
3. Social Inclusion: In the endline survey (around 10 months after randomization), we will ask the participants in the experiment about their social activities (like meeting friends, watching TV, going out) and their level of mastering the French language. We will also measure to what extent they have access to additional rights (health, housing, etc.). These questions will be used to evaluate the impact of program participation on social inclusion.
In the baseline survey, we try to measure the locus of control and the self-control of individuals using standard items employed in other surveys. We plan to investigate effect heterogeneity along these dimensions and to analyze whether the effectiveness of the program differs depending on the locus of control and the self-control of the participants. The feasibility of this analysis will depend on answers’ reliability (those questions rely on items which might not be understood by the whole sample because the share of non-native speakers might be high).
We also measure in the baseline survey whether individuals face situations that could potentially deter them from entering a training program (e.g. having no access to childcare and a living far away from the closest training center). We aim at analyzing whether the program impacts individuals differently according to these potential barriers. We also measure the maturity of the professional plan and aim at comparing the program effectiveness according to this characteristic.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
Among the RSA recipients that are interested in the dispositive, we realize a random draw. If 2 people are oriented in the same training center in less than 7 days, they form a pair. The randomization is realized within pair in this case. If a person is oriented without forming a pair, he is drawn alone, with a 0.5 probability. Those who are assigned in the treatment group can participate to PEE. The others cannot enter into the dispositive for one year.
We then follow both groups for one year, using administrative data and 3 surveys.
|
After
Among the RSA recipients that are interested in the program, we realize a random draw. As soon as two individuals have filled the required surveys to confirm their registration in the same training center, we randomly draw their status: within such a pair, each individual has a 0.5 probability to be assigned to the treatment and comparison group. If during the 5 days period there is not any additional application such that one cannot form a pair, we draw the individual with a probability of 0.5. As soon as another individual applies in the overall Region during the next 5 days, the latter is assigned the opposite status. Those who are assigned to the treatment group can participate to PEE.
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
- If there are 2 inscriptions in the same training center in less than a week , there is a randomization : one is treated and the other is not.
- If there are not 2 inscriptions in less than a week, the individual is drawn with a 0.5 probability
|
After
The randomization unit is the individual.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
23 (training centers)
|
After
4000 individuals.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
2000 observations per occupation
|
After
2000 recipients control and 2000 recipients treated. The treatment group size is fixed but the sample size can increase if there are more individuals in the control group.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
|
After
We are able to define a minimum detectable effect (MDE) for the probability of welfare recipients to find a job. The MDE that we can measure depends on the number of prescriptions which are made by social workers and on the compliance rate of individuals once assigned to their treatment status. Relying on a 100% compliance hypothesis, the minimum detectable effect that we can measure on the probability of welfare recipients to find a job is 4 percentage points, with a power of 80% and significance level of 0.05. It can be compared to the average exit rate of RSA of 27% (the most recent French data allow us to compute the exit rate of RSA between the 2016 and 2017 years, see Minima sociaux et prestations sociales – Ménages aux revenus modestes et redistribution, Edition 2019, DREES).
It corresponds to 4000 prescriptions, such that 2000 individuals enter the training program (it is the maximum amount of individuals who can enter the program during the experiment) and that 2000 individuals are included in the control group. If the compliance rate decreases to 80%, keeping the power and significance level constant, 5000 prescriptions will be required to ensure that 2000 individuals enter the training program : in this case the MDE that we can measure is 0.046 points of percentage on the probability to find a job.
By way of comparison, Blundell et al. (2004) measure the effect of the New Deal for Young People (targeting young unemployed individuals only) and show that the probability of beneficiaries to find a job increases by 5 percentage points, though this effect seems to decrease with time.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
Hypothesis :
- Participating to PEE helps unemployed to find a job because the dispositive helps them to develop some professional skills, such as being on time for a professional appointment.
- Participating to PEE provides incentives to enter and finish a training program because PEE helps them to be more motivated.
- Participating to PEE helps RSA recipients to define a logical professional project, in line with their needs and skills thanks to the sas d'entrée. For a week, people think about their professional projet. They also participate to workshops that show them the work in detail.
- Participating to PEE increases self-estimate, autonomy and social insertion because they are more motivated, remobilized and they are aware of the skills they have.
|
After
The training program “Parcours d’Entrée en Emploi” (PEE) is a program for unemployed welfare recipients. The program provides support to individuals when defining their professional project and matches individuals to training programs which are relevant for acquiring skills needed in the occupation and sector they want to work in.
The program is provided by training centers, which are independent of the public employment service and the municipalities (départements) being in charge of providing the social benefits (RSA). The program consists of two parts. In the first part, which lasts for one to two weeks, the aim is to develop the job seeker’s professional project and to assess potential needs for qualification. During this period, the participant is conducting cognitive and non-cognitive tests and meets with a training counsellor. Together they fill the “skills map” (“carte de compétences”) : this tool allows the individual to visualize which cognitive and non-cognitive skills she already has, and which ones she should develop in order to achieve her professional project. These individual meetings are complemented by collective sessions with other participants. During these collective meetings, the participants also get general information about the labor market and information about the job search process, for example about how to write a CV.
In the second part, the individual enters either a “classic” or a “secure” program. In the first option, the participants follow a training program related to their professional project in a training center. This training program includes an internship at a firm. During this training, individuals mainly learn skills related to the targeted occupation and sector. In addition to that, they might participate in training modules to improve communication skills, IT skills, and general professional skills including mastering the French language. During and after the training program, the participants meet with their training counsellor to update the “skills map”. Such a “classic” program consists of up to 945 hours of training and up to 12 weeks of firm internship.
Another possible path is the “secure” program. This program aims to match participants directly with firms and corresponding job vacancies. During the program, individuals participate in mostly firm specific training. The program consists of up to 450 hours of training and up to 4 weeks of internship in the firm. This program usually leads to an employment contract with the firm. The overall share of this “secure” program is supposed to be relatively low and the majority of participants is supposed to enter the “classic” program.
We aim to evaluate the PEE program for welfare recipients by implementing a random draw among individuals who are interested in participating in the program. Based on this random draw, the individuals are either offered to participate in the program or they do not get this offer. The aim is to have 2000 actual participants in the training program.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
1. Non-cognitive skills (self-control, locus of control, self-estimate, social insertion, happiness, autonomy)
2. Cognitive skills
3. Social insertion
|
After
1. Having finished a training program
2. Expectations about their labor market status in one year.
3. Interpersonal trust
4. Self-esteem
5. Ability to deal with everyday life problems.
6. Life Satisfaction
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
1. People will answer 3 surveys : the baseline (before the randomization), the midline (1 month after the randomization) and the endline (1 year after the randomization). In the baseline, we measure self-control and locus of control with scales. In the midline, we measure self-estimate using the Rosenberg scale. Happiness and autonomy will be asked in the endline.
2. Cognitive skills outcomes may be impacted by the sas d'entrée. It is asked in the midline.
3. Social insertion is measured with questions about time spent on daily activities (such as watch TV or meet friends) in the midline and the endline.
The answers of the surveys will be compared between the control and treatment group. Also, within a group, we will be able to see the evolution for some questions. there are going to be compared between surveys. For instance, questions on social insertion are going to be asked in the midline and the endline, in order to examine the evolution.
|
After
1. Having finished a training program: Based on administrative and survey data, we will collect information about whether or not individuals finished a training program. We will distinguish between short (up to 4 weeks) and long (more than 4 weeks) training programs.
2. Expectations about their employment in one year : in the midline survey, we will ask the individuals what they think they will do in one year. They have to choose one of the following categories: being employed, being unemployed and being in a training program, being unemployed without being in a training program, being self-employed.
3. Interpersonal trust: in the midline and endline survey, we will observe the level of interpersonal trust. This will be based on standard survey items used in other surveys.
4. Self-esteem: in the endline survey, we will observe the level of self-esteem based on the Rosenberg scale. The feasibility of this analysis will depend on answers’ reliability (for measuring self-esteem we rely on items which might not be understood by the whole sample because the share of non-native speakers might be high).
5. Ability to deal with everyday life problems: in the midline and endline surveys we will ask questions about everyday life such as writing a letter for administrative purposes or using a map. This will be based on standard survey items used in other surveys.
6. Life Satisfaction : based on a Likert Scale ranging from 0 to 10, we will ask individuals how happy they are in their life. This question will be asked in the endline survey.
In the baseline survey, we try to measure the locus of control and the self-control of individuals using standard items employed in other surveys. We plan to investigate effect heterogeneity along these dimensions and to analyze whether the effectiveness of the program differs depending on the locus of control and the self-control of the participants. The feasibility of this analysis will depend on answers’ reliability (those questions rely on items which might not be understood by the whole sample because the share of non-native speakers might be high).
We also measure in the baseline survey whether individuals face situations that could potentially deter them from entering a training program (e.g. having no access to childcare and a living far away from the closest training center). We aim at analyzing whether the program impacts individuals differently according to these potential barriers. We also measure the maturity of the professional plan and aim at comparing the program effectiveness according to this characteristic.
|