Unemployment Insurance
States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution
Gao ID: GAO-03-496 March 6, 2003
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor in partnership with states, plays a critical role in ensuring the financial security of America's workforce. In fiscal year 2002, state UI programs paid benefits totaling $50.8 billion to 10.6 million unemployed workers. In March 2002, in response to an increase in unemployment and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This broad stimulus package included a distribution to states of $8 billion of the unemployment tax revenue it holds in reserve, referred to as a Reed Act distribution. Under the act, these funds may be used to pay UI benefits, and/or to enhance UI benefits, such as increasing weekly benefit payments, extending the period of time benefits are paid, or otherwise expanding eligibility to groups that currently do not qualify for benefits. The funds may also be used for the administration of UI and employment services (ES) programs, including one-stop service centers, if appropriated by state law. This report provides information on (1) the proportion of Reed Act dollars that states have spent, to date; (2) the proportion of total Reed Act dollars that remains in state UI trust funds and the effect this has had on employer UI taxes; (3) the proportion of those Reed Act dollars remaining in state UI trust funds that have been officially obligated to their trust funds or appropriated by state law for administering the UI, ES, or one-stop systems; and (4) the makeup of state UI advisory boards and any proposals they have made for using Reed Act dollars.
We found that about 17 percent ($1.34 billion) of the $8 billion CY2002 Reed Act distribution had been spent as of November 30, 2002, based on responses to our survey. Most was expended by three states to pay regular benefits--New York, North Carolina, and Texas. A small portion ($74 million) was expended on costs associated with administering UI, ES, or one-stop systems. One state spent Reed Act dollars to increase weekly UI benefit payments, and five other states said that the Reed Act dollars enabled their states to make enhancements to UI benefits during CY2002 using other funds. Three additional states reported that they plan to spend Reed Act dollars in 2003 to implement UI benefit enhancements. Eighty-three percent, or $6.66 billion of the Reed Act distribution had not been spent as of November 30, 2002, and state workforce officials in 30 states reported that adding these dollars to their UI trust funds enabled them to avoid automatic employer tax increases or surcharges in 2002. Five states said that they lowered employer tax rates in 2003. Twenty-six states also reported that their employer tax rates would likely have been higher than they actually were in 2003, had it not been for the Reed Act distribution. This includes two states whose tax rates were lower in 2003 than 2002. Nine states formally obligated $1.27 billion of the Reed Act distribution to remain in their UI trust funds, citing the desire to avoid increases in employer UI taxes as the most frequent reason for doing this. In addition, 27 states passed laws appropriating a total of 7 percent of the Reed Act distribution ($590 million) to be used for administrative costs of UI, ES, or one-stop systems. In general, states reported that few Reed Act dollars were being used to replace other state and federal funding sources to administer UI, ES, or one-stop systems. Twenty-five states have UI advisory boards, which are largely made up of representatives of worker and employer groups, state workforce agency officials, or members of the general public. Only five states reported that their UI advisory board had developed or endorsed a proposal for the use of the Reed Act dollars.
GAO-03-496, Unemployment Insurance: States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-496
entitled 'Unemployment Insurance: States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act
Distribution' which was released on March 07, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
March 2003:
Unemployment Insurance:
States‘ Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution:
Unemployment Insurance:
GAO-03-496:
Contents:
Letter:
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides:
Appendix II: Balances and Ceilings for Federal UI Payroll Tax Accounts:
Appendix III: Reed Act Distributions:
Appendix IV: Status of CY2002 Reed Act Dollars by State,
as of 11-30-2002:
Appendix V: CY2002 Reed Act Distribution as a Percent of New
UI Trust Fund Balances and Average High Cost
Multiples (AHCM):
Appendix VI: Unemployment Insurance Benefit Enhancements
Made in CY2002, by State:
Appendix VII: Effect of Reed Act Distribution on Employer
Taxes as Reported by States:
Appendix VIII: States with Reed Act Dollars Appropriated by Law
for UI, ES, or One-Stop Systems, as of 11-30-2002:
Appendix IX: UI Administrative Activities, by State, for which
CY2002 Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated,
as of 11-30-2002:
Appendix X: ES and One-Stop Administrative Activities for which CY2002
Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated,
as of 11-30-2002:
Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
ES: Employment Services:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 6, 2003:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate:
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives:
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor in partnership with states, plays a critical role
in ensuring the financial security of America‘s workforce. In fiscal
year 2002, state UI programs paid benefits totaling $50.8 billion to
10.6 million unemployed workers.[Footnote 1] In March 2002, in response
to an increase in unemployment and the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, the federal government passed the Job Creation and Worker
Assistance Act of 2002. This broad stimulus package included a
distribution to states of $8 billion of the unemployment tax revenue it
holds in reserve, referred to as a Reed Act distribution.[Footnote 2]
Under the act, these funds may be used to pay UI benefits, and/or to
enhance UI benefits, such as increasing weekly benefit payments,
extending the period of time benefits are paid, or otherwise expanding
eligibility to groups that currently do not qualify for benefits. The
funds may also be used for the administration of UI and employment
services (ES) programs, including one-stop service centers, if
appropriated by state law.[Footnote 3]
You asked us to determine how states used their calendar year
(CY) 2002 Reed Act distributions. This report provides information on
(1) the proportion of Reed Act dollars that states have spent, to date;
(2) the proportion of total Reed Act dollars that remains in state UI
trust funds and the effect this has had on employer UI taxes; (3) the
proportion of those Reed Act dollars remaining in state UI trust funds
that have been officially obligated to their trust funds or
appropriated by state law for administering the UI, ES, or one-stop
systems; and (4) the makeup of state UI advisory boards and any
proposals they have made for using Reed Act dollars.
To obtain this information, we surveyed state workforce agency
administrators in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. We also reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and
other documents and data relevant to unemployment insurance and Reed
Act distributions and interviewed Labor officials responsible for
overseeing state activities related to the CY2002 Reed Act
distribution. This work was conducted from August 2002 through February
2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
On February 24, 2003, we briefed your staff on the results of our work.
This report conveys the information provided during that briefing.
In summary, we found that about 17 percent ($1.34 billion) of the $8
billion CY2002 Reed Act distribution had been spent as of November 30,
2002, based on responses to our survey. Most was expended by three
states to pay regular benefits--New York, North Carolina, and Texas. A
small portion ($74 million) was expended on costs associated with
administering UI, ES, or one-stop systems. One state spent Reed Act
dollars to increase weekly UI benefit payments, and five other states
said that the Reed Act dollars enabled their states to make
enhancements to UI benefits during CY2002 using other funds. Three
additional states reported that they plan to spend Reed Act dollars in
2003 to implement UI benefit enhancements.
Eighty-three percent, or $6.66 billion of the Reed Act distribution had
not been spent as of November 30, 2002, and state workforce officials
in
30 states reported that adding these dollars to their UI trust funds
enabled them to avoid automatic employer tax increases or
surcharges[Footnote 4] in 2002. Five states said that they lowered
employer tax rates in 2003.[Footnote 5] Twenty-six states also reported
that their employer tax rates would likely have been higher than they
actually were in 2003, had it not been for the Reed Act distribution.
This includes two states whose tax rates were lower in 2003 than 2002.
Nine states formally obligated $1.27 billion of the Reed Act
distribution to remain in their UI trust funds, citing the desire to
avoid increases in employer UI taxes as the most frequent reason for
doing this. In addition, 27 states passed laws appropriating a total of
7 percent of the Reed Act distribution ($590 million) to be used for
administrative costs of UI, ES, or one-stop systems. In general, states
reported that few Reed Act dollars were being used to replace other
state and federal funding sources to administer UI, ES, or one-stop
systems.
Twenty-five states have UI advisory boards, which are largely made up
of representatives of worker and employer groups, state workforce
agency officials, or members of the general public. Only five states
reported that their UI advisory board had developed or endorsed a
proposal for the use of the Reed Act dollars.
We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Department of
Labor for their technical review and incorporated their comments where
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. The report is
also available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If
you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-7215 or Clarita Mrena at (202) 512-3022. Other major
contributors are listed in appendix XI.
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director
Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides:
[See PDF for image}
[End of section]
Appendix II Balances and Ceilings for Federal UI Payroll Tax Accounts:
(Dollars in billions).
Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA); Purpose: Funds both
federal and state administrative costs of UI and ES.; Account balance
as of: 1-31-03: $1.354; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $1.632.
Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA); Purpose: Funds the
federal share of extended UI benefits.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03:
$11.246; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $19.174.
Federal Unemployment Account (FUA); Purpose: Funds loans to insolvent
state UI trust funds.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $10.903;
Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $19.174.
Total; Purpose: [Empty]; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $23.503;
Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $39.98.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor.
Note: There is a statutory cap or ceiling placed on the size of each of
these accounts. The ceiling for the ESAA account is 40 percent of the
appropriated amounts during the fiscal year for which the ceiling is
being calculated. For the EUCA and FUA accounts, this ceiling is 0.5
percent of the total covered wages in the prior calendar year.
[A] The ceilings for these accounts are calculated each September. By
that time, all funds will have been appropriated for the year, and
total covered wages for the prior year will be known. The amounts noted
here are Labor‘s projections of what the ceilings should be in
September 2003 based on their estimates, at this time, of the total
amount appropriated for 2003, and total covered wages in calendar year
2002.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Reed Act Distributions:
Distribution date: July 1, 1956; Amount: $33.4 million.
Distribution date: July 1, 1957; Amount: $71 million.
Distribution date: July 1, 1958; Amount: $33.5 million.
Distribution date: October 1, 1998; Amount: $16 million.
Distribution date: October 1, 1999; Amount: $100 million.
Distribution date: October 1, 2000; Amount: $100 million.
Distribution date: October 1, 2001; Amount: $100 million.
Distribution date: March 13, 2002; Amount: $8 billion.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Status of CY2002 Reed Act Dollars by State, as of 11-30-
2002:
State: Alabama; Total Reed Act allotment: $110,623,477; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 15.0; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 85.0.
State: Alaska; Total Reed Act allotment: 14,820,932; Percent expended:
0.5; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 19.7; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 79.8.
State: Arizona; Total Reed Act allotment: 144,079,575; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Arkansas; Total Reed Act allotment: 63,958,998; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: California; Total Reed Act allotment: 936,873,766; Percent
expended: 0.6; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.7; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 64.0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 31.6.
State: Colorado; Total Reed Act allotment: 142,666,574; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Connecticut; Total Reed Act allotment: 100,418,304; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 9.0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 91.0.
State: Delaware; Total Reed Act allotment: 26,024,719; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: District of Columbia; Total Reed Act allotment: 25,765,401;
Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 31.3; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 68.7.
State: Florida; Total Reed Act allotment: 449,667,718; Percent
expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.2; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 96.4.
State: Georgia; Total Reed Act allotment: 249,673,858; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: a; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Hawaii; Total Reed Act allotment: 30,761,048; Percent expended:
0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Idaho[B]; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,244,586; Percent
expended: 21.7; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 78.3.
State: Illinois; Total Reed Act allotment: 376,244,918; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Indiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 174,573,012; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 42.4; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 57.6.
State: Iowa; Total Reed Act allotment: 82,395,262; Percent expended:
1.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 35.2; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 63.6.
State: Kansas; Total Reed Act allotment: 78,166,750; Percent expended:
0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: Kentucky; Total Reed Act allotment: 103,829,381; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Louisiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 105,499,296; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 24.9; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 75.1.
State: Maine; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,486,816; Percent expended:
0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Maryland; Total Reed Act allotment: 142,929,005; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Massachusetts; Total Reed Act allotment: 193,639,110; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 1.3; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 98.7.
State: Michigan; Total Reed Act allotment: 291,485,481; Percent
expended: 13.9; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 85.0; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 1.2.
State: Minnesota[B]; Total Reed Act allotment: 163,061,573; Percent
expended: 7.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 92.6.
State: Mississippi; Total Reed Act allotment: 64,670,097; Percent
expended: 1.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 23.3; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 75.3.
State: Missouri; Total Reed Act allotment: 161,426,814; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: Montana; Total Reed Act allotment: 18,551,627; Percent expended:
3.0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 97.0; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: Nebraska; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,380,203; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 28.9; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 71.1.
State: Nevada; Total Reed Act allotment: 68,082,942; Percent expended:
0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: New Hampshire; Total Reed Act allotment: 38,475,620; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: New Jersey; Total Reed Act allotment: 242,816,310; Percent
expended: 0.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 15.1; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 84.8.
State: New Mexico; Total Reed Act allotment: 38,599,338; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: New York; Total Reed Act allotment: 491,343,135; Percent
expended: 100; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: North Carolina; Total Reed Act allotment: 240,892,032; Percent
expended: 100; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: North Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 15,267,835; Percent
expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 1.1; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 98.5.
State: Ohio; Total Reed Act allotment: 343,709,635; Percent expended:
0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 14.4; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 63.0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 22.1.
State: Oklahoma; Total Reed Act allotment: 81,441,628; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 2.5; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 97.5.
State: Oregon; Total Reed Act allotment: 98,029,105; Percent expended:
0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Pennsylvania; Total Reed Act allotment: 337,595,975; Percent
expended: 0.1; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 4.3; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 95.6.
State: Puerto Rico; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,875,605; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 33.8; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 66.2; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 0.
State: Rhode Island; Total Reed Act allotment: 27,123,409; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 9.6; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 90.4.
State: South Carolina; Total Reed Act allotment: 108,203,982; Percent
expended: 1.5; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 98.5.
State: South Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 19,140,671; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Tennessee; Total Reed Act allotment: 162,633,730; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 4.6; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 95.4.
State: Texas; Total Reed Act allotment: 596,446,497; Percent expended:
89.7; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 10.3.
State: Utah; Total Reed Act allotment: 61,627,678; Percent expended: 0;
Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.5; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 96.5.
State: Vermont; Total Reed Act allotment: 16,395,967; Percent expended:
10.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 89.8.
State: Virgin Islands; Total Reed Act allotment: 1,950,917; Percent
expended: 5.1; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 2.9; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 92.0.
State: Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 214,949,942; Percent
expended: 1.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 13.2; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 85.6.
State: Washington; Total Reed Act allotment: 167,011,815; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: West Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 36,210,068; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 10.3; Unexpended:
Percent officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 89.7.
State: Wisconsin; Total Reed Act allotment: 166,214,419; Percent
expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: Wyoming; Total Reed Act allotment: 12,043,444; Percent expended:
0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 100.
State: United States; Total Reed Act allotment: $8,000,000,000; Percent
expended: 16.8; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for
administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 7.4; Unexpended: Percent
officially obligated to
UI trust fund: 15.9; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated
nor obligated: 60.0.
Source: GAO data and U.S. Department of Labor data.
[A] Appropriated Reed Act funds for administration of UI, but could not
specify the dollar amount allocated for this purpose.
[B] Appropriated Reed Act funds for administration of UI, ES, or one-
stop systems and expended all the dollars appropriated.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: CY2002 Reed Act Distribution as a Percent of New UI Trust
Fund Balances and Average High Cost Multiples (AHCM):
State: Alabama; UI trust fund balance: $324.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: $110.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 25; AHCM: .065; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.5.
State: Alaska; UI trust fund balance: 231.9; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 14.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.03; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.03.
State: Arizona; UI trust fund balance: 954.0; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 144.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 13; AHCM: 1.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.57.
State: Arkansas; UI trust fund balance: 179.2; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 64.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 26; AHCM: 0.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.45.
State: California; UI trust fund balance: 5,689.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 936.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.78; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.77.
State: Colorado; UI trust fund balance: 684.5; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 142.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 17; AHCM: 1.05; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.89.
State: Connecticut; UI trust fund balance: 629.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 100.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.96; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.7.
State: Delaware; UI trust fund balance: 312.5; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 26.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 8; AHCM: 2.02; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.83.
State: District of Columbia; UI trust fund balance: 278.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 25.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 8; AHCM: 1.05; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.07.
State: Florida; UI trust fund balance: 1,761.8; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 449.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 20; AHCM: 1.4; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.17.
State: Georgia; UI trust fund balance: 1,542.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 249.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 1.79; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.43.
State: Hawaii; UI trust fund balance: 306.5; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 30.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.56; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.47.
State: Idaho; UI trust fund balance: 233.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 32.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 0.95; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.79.
State: Illinois; UI trust fund balance: 1,382.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 376.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 21; AHCM: 0.48; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.32.
State: Indiana; UI trust fund balance: 1,330.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 174.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 1.57; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.31.
State: Iowa; UI trust fund balance: 772.8; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 82.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.24; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.15.
State: Kansas; UI trust fund balance: 473.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 78.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.93; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.87.
State: Kentucky; UI trust fund balance: 544.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 103.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 16; AHCM: 0.77; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.59.
State: Louisiana; UI trust fund balance: 1,508.9; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 105.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.36; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.3.
State: Maine; UI trust fund balance: 410.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 32.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.43; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.66.
State: Maryland; UI trust fund balance: 826.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 142.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.94; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.84.
State: Massachusetts; UI trust fund balance: 1,770.5; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 193.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.01; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.83.
State: Michigan; UI trust fund balance: 2,601.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 291.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 0.75; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.65.
State: Minnesota; UI trust fund balance: 450.0; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 163.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 27; AHCM: 0.58; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.36.
State: Mississippi; UI trust fund balance: 658.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 64.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.98; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.87.
State: Missouri; UI trust fund balance: 276.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 161.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 37; AHCM: 0.55; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.32.
State: Montana; UI trust fund balance: 186.9; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 18.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.42; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.41.
State: Nebraska; UI trust fund balance: 144.1; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 48.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 25; AHCM: 0.99; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.78.
State: Nevada; UI trust fund balance: 481.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 68.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 1.07; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.97.
State: New Hampshire; UI trust fund balance: 317.0; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 38.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 11; AHCM: 2.01; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.91.
State: New Jersey; UI trust fund balance: 3,121.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 242.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.15; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.16.
State: New Mexico; UI trust fund balance: 581.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 38.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 2.79; AHCM: as of December 2001: 2.74.
State: New York; UI trust fund balance: 474.9; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 491.3; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 51; AHCM: 0.31; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.12.
State: North Carolina; UI trust fund balance: 626.3; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 240.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 28; AHCM: 0.91; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.48.
State: North Dakota; UI trust fund balance: 33.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 15.3; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 31; AHCM: 0.28; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.28.
State: Ohio; UI trust fund balance: 1,904.0; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 343.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.64; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.55.
State: Oklahoma; UI trust fund balance: 491.0; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 81.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 1.46; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.21.
State: Oregon; UI trust fund balance: 1,467.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 98.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.48; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.41.
State: Pennsylvania; UI trust fund balance: 2,380.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 337.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 0.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.56.
State: Puerto Rico; UI trust fund balance: 507.0; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 48.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.24; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.16.
State: Rhode Island; UI trust fund balance: 277.8; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 27.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 0.89; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.83.
State: South Carolina; UI trust fund balance: 627.2; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 108.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 1.29; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.03.
State: South Dakota; UI trust fund balance: 45.5; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 19.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 30; AHCM: 0.84; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.72.
State: Tennessee; UI trust fund balance: 650.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 162.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 20; AHCM: 0.9; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.66.
State: Texas; UI trust fund balance: 439.8; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 596.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 58; AHCM: 0.26; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.15.
State: Utah; UI trust fund balance: 564.8; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 61.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.61; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.42.
State: Vermont; UI trust fund balance: 308.4; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 16.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 5; AHCM: 2.54; AHCM: as of December 2001: 2.46.
State: Virgin Islands; UI trust fund balance: 64.1; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 2.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 3; AHCM: 3.33; AHCM: as of December 2001: 3.03.
State: Virginia; UI trust fund balance: 905.5; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 214.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 19; AHCM: 1.32; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.07.
State: Washington; UI trust fund balance: 1,796.1; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 167.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.04; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.96.
State: West Virginia; UI trust fund balance: 239.6; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 36.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 13; AHCM: 0.52; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.54.
State: Wisconsin; UI trust fund balance: 1,585.1; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 166.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.08; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.93.
State: Wyoming; UI trust fund balance: 195.1; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: 12.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.61; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.56.
State: United States; UI trust fund balance: $46,550.7; 2002 Reed
Act allotment: $8,000; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund
balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.91; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.78.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor.
[NOTE:] The average high cost multiple (AHCM) indicates how many years
a state can pay benefits before its trust fund became insolvent. It is
based on the average amount a state paid out in UI benefits during its
3 highest cost years in the previous 20 years, without collecting any
additional revenue. As a guideline, the Department of Labor uses a
reserve multiple of 1.0 as a minimally acceptable level of solvency.
[A] Percentage of new UI trust fund balance was calculated by dividing
the amount of the Reed Act allotment by the sum of that amount and the
UI trust fund balance as of 12-31-01.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Unemployment Insurance Benefit Enhancements Made in
CY2002,
by State:
State: Alabama; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled;
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: California; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: ; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase
maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: Yes.
State: Colorado; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Connecticut; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to
use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to
enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so:
Plans to use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand
eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit
payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI:
[Empty];
Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty];
Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Georgia; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to
use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Idaho; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits,
or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/
implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-
time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Indiana; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Iowa; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits,
or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/
implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-
time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase
maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Maryland; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled;
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes
to UI benefits[A]: Yes.
State: Michigan; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Minnesota; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled;
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: Yes; Extend benefits
to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: New Hampshire; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: New Jersey; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments:
[Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty];
Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.
State: Ohio; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits,
or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/
implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-
time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase
maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled;
Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to
part-
time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: [Empty];
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Oregon; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled;
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Rhode Island; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments:
[Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty];
Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty];
Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.
State: South Carolina; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Texas; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits,
or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/
implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-
time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase
maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Vermont; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Used; Test/
implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-
time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase
maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Virgin Islands; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].
State: Washington; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments:
[Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty];
Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.
State: Wisconsin; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: Yes; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase
maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to
individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI
benefits[A]: Yes.
State: Wyoming; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty];
Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to
part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes;
Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend
benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other
changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.
State: Total: 25; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance
benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: 9; Test/
implement alternative base period: 4; Expand eligibility to part-time
workers: 2; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: 21; Increase maximum
number of weeks of potential UI: 1; Extend benefits to individuals who
have exhausted coverage: 6; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: 7.
Source: GAO survey of states.
[A] Other changes include activities such as: elimination of the
waiting week, reduction of social security offsets, and increasing the
replacement rate for benefits.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Effect of Reed Act Distribution on Employer Taxes as
Reported by States:
State: Alabama; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Alaska; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for
2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Arizona; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Arkansas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: California; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Colorado; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Connecticut; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Delaware; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: District of Columbia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge
triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in
2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates:
Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax
rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Florida; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Georgia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Hawaii; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Idaho; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Illinois; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Indiana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Iowa; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust
fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering
an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates
compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Kansas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Kentucky; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Louisiana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Maine; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for
2003
would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Maryland; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Massachusetts; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Michigan; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Minnesota; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Mississippi; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Missouri; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Montana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Nebraska; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Nevada; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: New Hampshire; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: New Jersey; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: New Mexico; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: New York; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: North Carolina; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge
triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: North Dakota; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in
2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower
in
2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax
rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Ohio; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust
fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering
an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates
compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Oklahoma; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Oregon; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Puerto Rico[B]; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge
triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in
2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates:
Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution,
tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were:
[Empty].
State: Rhode Island; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: South Carolina; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge
triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: South Dakota[C]; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge
triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than
in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003
as
in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in
2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax
rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Tennessee; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Texas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Utah; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust
fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering
an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates
compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Vermont; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Virgin Islands; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge
triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds
prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in
2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates:
Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax
rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Virginia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: Washington; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty];
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would
likely have been higher than they were: Yes.
State: West Virginia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered
if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes;
2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than
in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Wyoming; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002:
[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in
2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003
than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for
2003
would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].
State: Total; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if
trust fund falls below certain level: 49; Reed Act funds prevented
triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 30; 2003 tax
rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 25; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 22; 2003
tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 5;
Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have
been higher than they were: 26.
Source: GAO survey of states.
[A] According to the Department of Labor, for most states, any
increases triggered in CY2002 would not have gone into effect until
CY2003.
[B] Data for this state was not available.
[C] Data for this state is preliminary. Final rates have not been
determined.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: States with Reed Act Dollars Appropriated by Law for UI,
ES, or One-Stop Systems, as of 11-30-2002:
State: Alabama; Total Reed Act allotment: $110,623,477; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: $16,593,522.
State: Alaska; Total Reed Act allotment: 14,820,932; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES
or
one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-
stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: $76,656; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,923,344.
State: California; Total Reed Act allotment: 936,873,766; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 5,700,000; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 34,936,000.
State: Connecticut; Total Reed Act allotment: 100,418,304; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 9,000,000.
State: District of Columbia; Total Reed Act allotment: 25,765,401; Reed
Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-
02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems:
Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 8,060,000.
State: Florida; Total Reed Act allotment: 449,667,718; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for
ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES,
or
one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 1,684,530; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 14,544,970.
State: Georgia; Total Reed Act allotment: 249,673,858; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES
or
one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or
one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: [A]; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: [A].
State: Idaho; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,244,586; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES
or
one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-
stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 7,000,000; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 0.
State: Iowa; Total Reed Act allotment: 82,395,262; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES
or
one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or
one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 992,109; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 29,007,891.
State: Louisiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 105,499,296; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 26,316,771.
State: Massachusetts; Total Reed Act allotment: 193,639,110; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-
02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems:
Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,425,000.
State: Michigan; Total Reed Act allotment: 291,485,481; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 40,378,377; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 247,621,623.
State: Minnesota; Total Reed Act allotment: 163,061,573; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for
UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 12,000,000;
Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount
remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 0.
State: Mississippi; Total Reed Act allotment: 64,670,097; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-
02: 905,889; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop
systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 15,094,111.
State: Montana; Total Reed Act allotment: 18,551,627; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES
or
one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-
stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 565,143; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 17,986,484.
State: New Jersey; Total Reed Act allotment: 242,816,310; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 433,514; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 36,566,486.
State: North Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 15,267,835; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for
UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 57,868; Reed
Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount
remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 173,604.
State: Ohio; Total Reed Act allotment: 343,709,635; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES
or
one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-
stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 1,531,288; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 49,468,712.
State: Oklahoma; Total Reed Act allotment: 81,441,628; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for
ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES,
or
one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,000,000.
State: Pennsylvania; Total Reed Act allotment: 337,595,975; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 444,337; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 14,555,663.
State: Puerto Rico; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,875,605; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 16,500,000.
State: Rhode Island; Total Reed Act allotment: 27,123,409; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-
02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems:
Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,600,000.
State: Tennessee; Total Reed Act allotment: 162,633,730; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 7,400,000.
State: Utah; Total Reed Act allotment: 61,627,678; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for
ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES,
or
one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,160,000.
State: Virgin Islands; Total Reed Act allotment: 1,950,917; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 98,548; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 56,577.
State: Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 214,949,942; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 2,529,421; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining
in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 28,376,035.
State: West Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 36,210,068; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES,
or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars
appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the
trust fund as of 11-30-02: 3,745,000.
State: Total: 27; Total Reed Act allotment: $4,413,593,220; Reed Act
dollars appropriated for UI system: 21; Reed Act dollars appropriated
for ES or one-stop system: 22; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI,
ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: $74,397,680; Reed
Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount
remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: $588,111,793.
Source: GAO survey of states.
[A] State was unable to report dollar amount.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: UI Administrative Activities, by State, for which CY2002
Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002:
State: Alabama; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program
integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: Alaska; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes;
Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards:
[Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: California; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims
system
developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty];
Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards:
[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Connecticut; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes;
Appeals
system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty];
Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes;
Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying
enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct
deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Georgia[A]; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements:
[Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit
cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Idaho; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals
system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty];
Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: Iowa; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity:
Yes;
Other: [Empty].
State: Louisiana; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program
integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Michigan; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty];
Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards:
[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Minnesota; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity:
Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: Montana; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals
system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty];
Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: New Jersey; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty];
Appeals
system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program
integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: North Dakota; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements:
[Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit
cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: Ohio; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program
integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania[A]; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty];
Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying
enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct
deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other:
[Empty].
State: Puerto Rico; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity:
Yes;
Other: [Empty].
State: Tennessee; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals
system
improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program
integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Virgin Islands; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty];
Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards:
[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Virginia; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system
developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty];
Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards:
[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].
State: West Virginia; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims
system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty];
Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards:
[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.
State: Total: 21; General technology: 14; Staff: 10; Claims system
developments: 13; Tax filing and paying enhancements: 8; Appeals system
improvements: 5; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 4; Program integrity: 18;
Other: 7.
Source: GAO survey of states.
[A] State was unable to report how dollars were allocated.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix X: ES and One-Stop Administrative Activities for which CY2002
Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Clarita Mrena, (202) 512-3022:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Laura Heald, Carolyn Blocker, Cheri Harrington, Stuart Kaufman, Daniel
Schwimer, and Barbara Hills made significant contributions to this
briefing.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] For UI purposes, federal law designates the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as ’states.“
[2] The term ’Reed Act“ refers to a part of the Employment Security
Financing Act of 1954. The Reed Act provides that when federal accounts
in the UI trust fund reach their statutory limits at the end of a
federal fiscal year, any excess funds are transferred to state UI trust
funds. Unlike ’traditional“ Reed Act distributions, this distribution
was required regardless of the ceilings and did not take place at the
beginning of a fiscal year.
[3] The one-stop center system--a centralized service delivery
structure consolidating delivery of most federally funded state and
local employment and training assistance--was mandated by the Workforce
Investment Act, passed in 1998.
[4] Forty-nine states set triggers that automatically increase employer
taxes or institute surcharges when trust funds fall below specified
levels.
[5] States set employer tax rates annually, and most states had their
2002 tax rates in place before the Reed Act distribution in March 2002.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: