Program Outcome Stigma versus Welfare Stigma
RCTClinical Trial
Low participation in subsidized employment programs is often attributed to the shame of receiving public assistance (welfare stigma), when the primary psychological barrier is actually the social status stigma associated with the entry-level jobs the program leads to.
Picture this
Think of a student deciding whether to sign up for free math tutoring. The student does not care about being seen accepting free tutoring from an agency; instead, they worry that finishing the program will lead to a low-status job at a fast-food register that peers look down upon. The embarrassment attached to the end-result job overshadows any discomfort from receiving aid.
What the evidence says
Emphasizing that training was subsidized for financial hardship produced no statistically significant change in application rates (+0.003, SE = 0.022, control mean = 0.426) and generated no significant heterogeneous treatment effects across machine learning groups (p = 0.315).
- Who was studied
- N = 1,949 unemployed and underemployed youth in Cairo, Egypt (Experiment 1).
- How
- Randomized Field Experiment comparing a standard fee-reduction control pitch against a welfare stigma treatment explicitly stating subsidies were provided "to help those in financial hardship."
What to do
Focus public policy communications on elevating job title prestige and career growth trajectory rather than masking or hiding benefit subsidy eligibility.
From the source
"Telling recruits that the program is subsidized 'to help those in financial hardship' has no significant effect on application rates or program composition, and we do not find significant evidence of heterogeneity in these effects."
Stigma and Take-Up of Labor Market Assistance: Evidence from Two Field Experiments