Active Labour Market Programme Participation for Unemployment Insurance Recipients: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The Campbell Collaboration was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. Campbell offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of Campbell's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peer reviewers contribute. Plain language summaryInterventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effectiveThere are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required. What is this review about?There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. What is the aim of this review?This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. What studies are included?Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark. 6The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org What are the main findings of this review?Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability. What do the findings of this review mean?A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Hous...

Active Labour Market Programme Participation for Unemployment Insurance Recipients

“…Thirty-nine studies were included in the data synthesis. See Filges et al (2015) for flowchart for the literature search and screening.…”

“…Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. A screening guide (see Filges et al, 2015) was used to determine inclusion or exclusion and was provided in the protocol (Filges et al, 2013).…”

“…The search resulted in a final selection of 73 studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Of these, 26 did not provide data sufficient for the calculation of an effect size (see Filges et al, 2015). In general, standard errors were not reported and no other information making it possible to calculate standard errors was reported (with a few exceptions where not even an effect size could be extracted).…”

“…Finally, one study analyzed an RCT conducted in Florida and Washington, DC (Decker, 2000). Results were reported separately for the two states and we used the effect estimates separately in the metaanalysis (see Filges et al, 2015, for details). Note.…”

“…As mentioned, five studies scored 5 on the confounding item. The majority of the remaining studies were assessed to be of no concern regarding confounding or only of minor concern (see the detailed assessment of confounding in Filges et al, 2015).…”