Program Outcome Stigma Dominance Over Participation Stigma
Public policy research traditionally assumes low participation in social programs stems from the social shame of receiving public assistance, overlooking the negative social perceptions attached to the target job positions themselves.
Picture this
When a person decides whether to take a job training course, their biggest concern is not being seen walking into the training center; it is the long-term embarrassment of working in the specific job at the end of the course. It is like avoiding a free swimming lesson not because the lesson is free, but because you do not want to be seen working as a lifeguard afterwards.
What the evidence says
Interventions addressing job outcome stigmas created large heterogeneous responses ranging from a -15.5 percentage point reduction in applications in low-response groups to positive gains in high-response groups, whereas financial hardship framing produced no statistically significant change in application rates (-2.3 percentage points, p = 0.44) or applicant composition.
- Who
- N = 1,460 to 1,470 unemployed/underemployed youth aged 18–35 in Cairo, Egypt for Experiment 1; N = 834 for the welfare stigma treatment [3-5].
- How
- Randomized field experiment comparing recruitment pitches addressing job outcome stigmas against a treatment explicitly framing subsidies as assistance for those in financial hardship [6, 7].
What to do
Reframe active labor market program outreach to focus on occupational growth and employer prestige rather than attempting to destigmatize the financial subsidies of the training program.
From the source
"Our results suggest that in some contexts the stigmas surrounding program outcomes (e.g., entry-level jobs) may be more important than stigma surrounding program participation itself."
Stigma and Take-Up of Labor Market Assistance- Evidence from Three Experiments