1. Lithuanian Experience of Counterfactual Impact Evaluation
Dovilė Žvalionytė
Public Policy and Management Institute

2. What was evaluated? Context Object THE NET LONG-TERM IMPACT OF:
„Evaluation of social integration services for socially vulnerable and socially excluded individuals for the effective use of the EU structural assistance for the period of “
commissioned by the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania
carried out by PPMI
THE NET LONG-TERM
IMPACT OF:
4 ESF projects
aimed at labour market integration
of unemployed persons with disabilities and ex-offenders
implemented during
by Lithuanian Labour Exchange (LLE)

3. The net long-term impact on what?
On labour market outcomes for projects‘ participants such as:
employability
percentage of the participants who found jobs
average number of days at work per year
average earnings per year
quality of jobs
average daily salary

4. Design of control groups
Definition: persons with disabilities or ex-offenders who were registered as unemployed at the LLE during
Qualified: 50 thousand people
Selected: 3925 persons
Similar to the treatment groups in socio-demographic composition (by gender, level of education and level of disability)

5. Data collection or breaking through the brick wall...
Main ‚bricks‘:
personal data protection
lack of regulations on data exchange

6. … until special arrangement was made
Important preconditions:
strong institutional relations
easily accessible data (electronic databases)

7. Methodology: difference-in-difference
Assumption of parallelism:
in the absence of the intervention the labour market outcomes for the participants of the projects (treatment group) would continue to follow the same trajectory of changes as the labour market outcomes for the non-participants (control group).

8. What do we know better now?
ESF SUPPORT…
affected positively:
probability of socially vulnerable people entering into employment,
length of their employment;
and average early income;
had no significant impact towards the quality of employment;
made bigger net long-term impact on the persons with disabilities than on the ex-offenders;
produced greater net long-term effect through subsidized works than through vocational training.