Unemployment Insurance
Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants Gao ID: GAO-05-413 June 24, 2005With unemployed workers at a greater risk of long-term unemployment than in the past, it is increasingly important to quickly connect Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants with reemployment activities. However, the shift to remote claims filing in many states has raised concerns about maintaining a connection between the UI program and reemployment services. This report examines (1) the extent to which states have shifted to remote claims filing and how they are making claimants aware of program requirements and services, (2) what states are doing to facilitate reemployment of UI claimants, and (3) what is known about the extent to which UI claimants receive reemployment services and about their outcomes.
Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone, the Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer have face-to-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all states told us they have found ways to provide information on eligibility requirements and reemployment services to individuals filing claims, such as by including this information in the scripts used by claims takers at UI call centers or as documents on Web pages. Officials from most states told us the shift to remote claims has not diminished their ability to provide information or deliver services to claimants. In fact, some report that this shift may have improved their ability to serve their customers. cross states, claimants have access to a variety of reemployment services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect claimants with available services at various points in their claim. All federally approved state UI programs require that claimants be able and available to work, and in many states these requirements also serve to link claimants to reemployment services. States also engage some claimants in reemployment services through programs that identify certain groups for more targeted assistance. States primarily target reemployment services to claimants identified as most likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work, through federally required claimant profiling programs. Little is known about the extent to which claimants receive services from the broad array of programs designed to assist them or about the outcomes they achieve. States must meet a number of federal reporting requirements for their UI and employment and training programs, but none of these reports provides a complete picture of the services received or the outcomes obtained by UI claimants. GAO also found that few states monitor the extent to which claimants are receiving these services, and even fewer monitor outcomes for these claimants, largely due to limited information systems capabilities. Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant services and outcomes, but none will provide a complete picture.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-413, Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-413
entitled 'Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess
Reemployment Services to Claimants' which was released on June 24,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
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. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2005:
Unemployment Insurance:
Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants:
GAO-05-413:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-413, a report to Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
With unemployed workers at a greater risk of long-term unemployment
than in the past, it is increasingly important to quickly connect
Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants with reemployment activities.
However, the shift to remote claims filing in many states has raised
concerns about maintaining a connection between the UI program and
reemployment services. This report examines (1) the extent to which
states have shifted to remote claims filing and how they are making
claimants aware of program requirements and services, (2) what states
are doing to facilitate reemployment of UI claimants, and (3) what is
known about the extent to which UI claimants receive reemployment
services and about their outcomes.
What GAO Found:
Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone,
the Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer
have face-to-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed,
all states told us they have found ways to provide information on
eligibility requirements and reemployment services to individuals
filing claims, such as by including this information in the scripts
used by claims takers at UI call centers or as documents on Web pages.
Officials from most states told us the shift to remote claims has not
diminished their ability to provide information or deliver services to
claimants. In fact, some report that this shift may have improved their
ability to serve their customers.
Across states, claimants have access to a variety of reemployment
services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect
claimants with available services at various points in their claim. All
federally approved state UI programs require that claimants be able and
available to work, and in many states these requirements also serve to
link claimants to reemployment services. States also engage some
claimants in reemployment services through programs that identify
certain groups for more targeted assistance. States primarily target
reemployment services to claimants identified as most likely to exhaust
their UI benefits before finding work, through federally required
claimant profiling programs.
Little is known about the extent to which claimants receive services
from the broad array of programs designed to assist them or about the
outcomes they achieve. States must meet a number of federal reporting
requirements for their UI and employment and training programs, but
none of these reports provides a complete picture of the services
received or the outcomes obtained by UI claimants. GAO also found that
few states monitor the extent to which claimants are receiving these
services, and even fewer monitor outcomes for these claimants, largely
due to limited information systems capabilities. Labor has some
initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant services and
outcomes, but none will provide a complete picture.
Nearly All States Accept Initial UI Claims Remotely:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Department of Labor work with states to
consider the feasibility of collecting more comprehensive information
on UI claimants' services and outcomes. Labor generally agreed with
GAO‘s findings, but took issue with the need for more comprehensive
data, commenting that, in its view, current and planned data collection
efforts will provide sufficient information to policy makers. However,
none of Labor‘s efforts provide a complete picture of UI claimants‘
services and outcomes, which is key to good program management and is
an important step in understanding the impact of Labor‘s programs.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-413.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen, (202) 512-
7215, nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most States Have Shifted to Taking Claims Remotely, and All States
Provide Claimants with Information on Their Obligations and Available
Reemployment Services:
States Provide Claimants Access to a Range of Reemployment Services and
Use UI Program Requirements to Connect Them with Available Services:
Little Information Exists to Provide a Complete Picture of Reemployment
Services for Unemployment Insurance Claimants:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Data Reporting Requirements and Their Limitations
for Measuring Overall Claimant Services and Outcomes:
Table 2: States Selected for Site Visits:
Table 3: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Site Visits:
Table 4: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely:
Figures:
Figure 1: Most States Take Initial UI Claims Remotely:
Figure 2: Most States Reported It Was Difficult to Track Claimant
Services across the Broad Array of Federal Employment and Training
Programs:
Figure 3: Reasons States Said Tracking Client Services Was Difficult:
Figure 4: States' Assessment of How Difficult It Would Be to Track
Outcomes for Claimants Who Received Services:
Abbreviations:
ADARE: Administrative Data Research and Evaluation:
CATI: Computer-assisted telephone interview:
EMILE: Employment and Training Administration Management Information
and Longitudinal Evaluation:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
TAA: Trade Adjustment Assistance:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
TAPR: Trade Act Participant Report:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIASRD WIA Standardized Record Data:
WPRS: Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 24, 2005:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
United States House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Over the past several decades, both the U.S. economy and its workforce
have undergone substantial changes. Unemployed workers are now less
likely to be rehired by their previous employers and are at greater
risk of long-term unemployment than in the past. Over the past five
decades, the average duration of unemployment has been gradually
increasing, so that during 2002 periods of unemployment grew to an
average of 16.6 weeks, compared with 11.3 weeks during the
1950s.[Footnote 1] To assist workers who have lost their jobs, the
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program provided about $35 billion in
temporary income support in calendar year 2004. The cost of providing
this income support, coupled with a growing trend toward longer-term
unemployment, increases the importance of quickly linking UI claimants
to the tools they need to become reemployed.
To be eligible for income support under the UI program, claimants must
meet a federal requirement to be able to work and available for work.
Traditionally, claimants were required to apply for benefits in person
at an unemployment office, and information on available jobs and what
they must do to remain eligible for benefits was often given to them as
part of that process. However, over time many states have transitioned
to the remote filing of UI claims--primarily by telephone or the
Internet--and claimants have less face-to-face contact with staff. The
shift to remote claims filing has raised concerns about maintaining a
connection between the UI program and reemployment services.
At the same time, the workforce development system--responsible for
helping these workers become reemployed--has undergone reform. With the
passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, services for
over 17 different federally funded programs have been streamlined into
a single service delivery structure, the one-stop system, and a broad
range of services are made available to anyone who walks through the
door. To be able to make these services available to all who seek them,
state and local officials have begun to rely more heavily on self-
directed services, such as allowing job seekers to use available
Internet capabilities to conduct online job searches or to use
available computers to develop resumes without staff assistance. This
shift in service delivery strategy has raised concerns that some UI
claimants may not be receiving enough information on reemployment
services or timely assistance to help them find a job, and little is
known about whether states have policies in place to help unemployed
workers quickly become reemployed.
To address these issues, we examined (1) the extent to which states
have shifted to remote methods for filing initial claims and how they
are making claimants aware of their responsibilities to look for work
and the services available to assist them, (2) what states are doing to
facilitate the reemployment of UI claimants, and (3) what is known
about the extent to which UI claimants receive reemployment services
and about the outcomes of claimants who receive these services.
To learn more about the strategies implemented by state and local
officials to promote participation in activities that may assist
claimants in getting a job, we conducted telephone interviews with UI
and workforce development officials in 50 states. For purposes of this
review, we defined reemployment services to mean all reemployment
activities funded through Wagner-Peyser; WIA Adult and Dislocated
Worker services; any other training or job search assistance provided
using federal funds, such as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA); and any
state-funded reemployment or training services. We supplemented the
phone interviews with a follow-up questionnaire to gather information
on the strategies states use to collect data on UI claimants who
receive reemployment services.[Footnote 2] In addition, we conducted
site visits to four states--Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and
Washington--chosen to give us a range of unemployment rates,
dislocation activity, and experiences implementing remote claims, and
to allow for geographic dispersion. On our site visits, we interviewed
state officials in the workforce development system and UI programs and
visited at least two local areas in each state, selected to provide a
range of urban and rural sites. In addition, we reviewed documents and
interviewed Department of Labor (Labor) officials and other experts in
the area of UI and reemployment services. For details about our scope
and methodology, see appendix I. Our work was conducted between
February 2004 and May 2005, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Nearly all states have shifted to accepting most of their initial
claims for unemployment insurance remotely by telephone or Internet,
and states employ a variety of methods to make claimants aware of their
responsibilities and the services available to them, often beginning at
the time the claim is filed. Of the 44 states whose officials told us
they currently accept initial claims by telephone or Internet, 29
states use both methods. Of the 6 states that do not currently accept
remote claims, 3 said they plan to do so in the future. The remaining 3
states still require claimants to file for unemployment insurance in
person. Even though claimants filing remotely may not have face-to-face
contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all states told
us they have methods for providing information on eligibility
requirements and reemployment services to individuals filing initial
claims. For example, officials in Washington say that call center staff
tell claimants of their responsibility to search for work and the
penalty for failure to do so, and they direct them to the nearest one-
stop center for assistance. In addition, most states that accept remote
claims also mail claimants information on their responsibilities and
available services. Some officials told us that rather than diminishing
their ability to provide information on reemployment services to
claimants, the shift to remote claims had improved services to
claimants and helped ensure that they received consistent information
about available services.
Across states, UI claimants have access to a variety of reemployment
services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect
claimants with available services at various points in their claim. In
all states, claimants may receive services available to all job seekers
through the one-stop system, and in some states, claimants may also
receive services provided through special state initiatives. In
satisfying the requirement that claimants be able and available for
work, officials in 44 states told us claimants are required to register
for work with the state's labor exchange, which provides services
matching job seekers with employers. In all but one state, claimants
must also meet a work search requirement to maintain their eligibility
for unemployment insurance and avoid a potential loss of benefits. In
many states, these requirements also serve to link claimants to
reemployment services. For example, states may require claimants to
come into a local employment service office or one-stop center to
complete the work registration process. Interviews, which are often
used to check whether or not claimants are conducting a job search that
meets the state's requirements, may also include suggestions on
reemployment services or job search strategies. States also engage some
claimants in reemployment services directly through programs that
identify certain groups for more targeted assistance. The federal
requirement of claimant profiling--a process that identifies those most
likely to exhaust their benefits before finding work--is the primary
mechanism for targeting reemployment services to claimants in many
states.
Despite states' efforts to design systems that link UI claimants to
reemployment services, little data are available to gauge the extent to
which claimants are receiving these services or about the outcomes they
achieve. States must meet a number of federal reporting requirements
for their UI programs and for their federally funded employment and
training programs, but none of these reports provides a complete
picture of the services received or the outcomes obtained by all UI
claimants. For example, states must report on services provided to
profiled claimants, but there is no report of services provided to all
claimants. Further, states report on several measures of performance
for their UI programs, but these measures do not currently provide any
reemployment information, instead focusing largely on benefit and tax
timeliness, quality, and accuracy. In our telephone interviews and
surveys to states on their efforts to track claimants, we found that
only 14 states currently go beyond the federal requirements to monitor
how many claimants are receiving services from the range of federally
funded programs that are designed to assist them, and only 6 monitor
any outcomes for these claimants. Most states told us that the data
elements needed to perform these calculations reside in separate, often
incompatible, data systems, and they are unable to readily link them.
Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant
services and outcomes. For example, Labor is revising the UI
performance measures and, in the summer of 2005, will begin requiring
states to track a reemployment rate for all of their claimants. In
addition, Labor's Administrative Data Research and Evaluation program,
currently under way, will provide third-party researchers with detailed
data from 9 states on participants in several programs, allowing
researchers for the first time to track UI claimants' participation in
a broad array of programs and to measure some of their outcomes. While
these initiatives provide more information than is currently available,
none allows for a comprehensive nationwide understanding of the role of
federal programs in helping claimants become reemployed.
To improve the understanding of claimants' use of services and of their
outcomes, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states to
develop a plan for considering the feasibility of collecting more
comprehensive service and outcome information, including the length of
time claimants receive UI before they are reemployed. In its written
comments, Labor generally agreed with our findings, but took issue with
the need for more comprehensive data, commenting that, in its view,
current reporting requirements in addition to new initiatives will
provide sufficient information to policy makers. However, as we noted,
none of Labor's efforts provide a complete picture of UI claimants'
services and outcomes. Having such a picture is key to good program
management and is an important step in understanding the impact of
Labor's programs.
Background:
The UI program was established by Title III of the Social Security Act
in 1935 and is a key component in ensuring the financial security of
America's workforce. The program, which is administered by the states
with oversight from Labor's Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), provides temporary cash benefits to workers who lose their jobs
through no fault of their own. Today UI coverage is nearly universal,
extending to almost all wage and salaried workers.[Footnote 3] To help
claimants become reemployed, employment and training assistance is
provided through a number of federal programs, including Wagner-Peyser
Employment Service, WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and TAA programs.
Unemployment Insurance--Structure of the Program:
The UI program is funded by federal and state taxes levied on
employers. The states collect the portion of the tax needed to pay UI
benefits, while the federal tax finances state and federal
administrative costs and other related federal costs. Labor holds these
funds in trust on behalf of the states in the Unemployment Trust Fund.
In fiscal year 2004, Congress authorized about $2.6 billion to states
to administer their programs.
Labor is responsible for overseeing the UI program to ensure that the
states operate an effective and efficient UI program. Labor is also
responsible for monitoring state operations and procedures, providing
technical assistance and training, as well as analyzing UI program data
to diagnose potential problems. Although Labor provides oversight and
guidance to ensure that each state operates its program consistent with
federal guidelines, the federal-state structure of UI places primary
responsibility for administering the program on the states. The states
have wide latitude to administer their UI programs in a manner that
best suits their needs within these guidelines.
States establish initial eligibility requirements to determine which
unemployed workers are qualified to start collecting UI benefits. These
requirements seek to ensure that an unemployed worker has had
sufficient employment experience to qualify for UI benefits (known as
the monetary eligibility requirements), and to determine whether the
worker lost the job through no fault of his or her own (the nonmonetary
eligibility requirements). State claims representatives are responsible
for determining each claimant's initial eligibility for UI benefits by
gathering and (when possible) verifying important information, such as
identity, employment history, why the claimants is no longer working,
and other sources of income the claimant may have. Once the claim has
been submitted for processing, the state sends forms to the claimant's
employer(s) requesting them to verify the claimant's wages and the
reason the claimant is no longer working. If the individual's claim for
UI is approved, the state then determines the amount of UI benefits,
depending on the individual's earnings during the period upon which the
claim is based and other factors. In general, most states are expected
to provide the first benefits to the claimant within 21 days of the
date the state determined that the claimant was entitled to benefits.
In order to remain eligible for benefits on a continuing basis,
claimants must also demonstrate that they are able to work and
available for work and are still unemployed. Claimants must submit this
certification of continuing eligibility--by mail, telephone, or
Internet, depending on the state--throughout the benefit period. This
practice is usually done weekly or biweekly. States may continue to
monitor claimant eligibility through an eligibility review program, in
which certain claimants are periodically contacted to review their
eligibility for benefits, work search activities, and reemployment
needs. Typically, the maximum duration of benefits is 26 weeks.
Claimant Profiling in the Unemployment Insurance Program:
In November 1993, Congress enacted legislation amending the Social
Security Act to require that each state establish a Worker Profiling
and Reemployment Services (WPRS) system and implement a process
typically referred to as claimant profiling. The claimant profiling
process uses a statistical model or characteristics screen to identify
claimants who are likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding
work. Claimants identified through this process are then referred to
reemployment services while they are still early in their claim. For
profiled claimants, participation in designated reemployment services
becomes an additional requirement for continuing eligibility for UI
benefits.
To assist states in implementing WPRS, Labor developed a prototype
model for determining the probability that claimants will exhaust their
benefits based on a set of five claimant characteristics: education,
job tenure, industry, occupation, and the local unemployment rate.
While some states have included only these five variables in their
profiling models, others have used this prototype as a benchmark and
have included additional variables, such as the claimant's pre-
unemployment earnings, weekly benefit amount, UI wage replacement rate,
potential duration of UI benefits, delay in filing, and the ratio of
quarterly earnings to earnings in the base year.
Reemployment Services for Unemployment Insurance Claimants:
Reemployment services for UI claimants are usually delivered by a range
of federally funded employment and training programs, often through
consolidated service delivery structures called one-stop centers. When
it was passed in 1998, the WIA began requiring that about 17 federal
employment and training programs, including UI, provide services
through the one-stop system. WIA allows local areas considerable
flexibility in how these programs provide services through the system,
so the degree of connection throughout the one-stop system between UI
and other workforce programs can vary widely by state and local area.
Among the many federal workforce programs that may provide reemployment
services to UI claimants, four programs funded by Labor are most likely
to serve UI claimants: Employment Service, WIA Adult program, WIA
Dislocated Worker program, and TAA. All four of these are required to
be part of the one-stop system, and each has its own performance
reporting requirements.
Employment Service. The Employment Service was created in 1933 by the
Wagner-Peyser Act, making labor exchange services--that link job
seekers with job opportunities--universally available to employers and
job seekers alike without charges or conditions. Historically, many
states colocated local Employment Service and UI offices so that when
UI claimants applied for benefits at Employment Service offices, they
would be exposed to employment services. Today, states' labor exchanges
typically involve online databases where job seekers can look for work
and apply for jobs, and where employers can post jobs and recruit
employees. In addition, Employment Service offers a range of services
to job seekers, including job search assistance, job referral,
placement assistance, assessment, counseling, and testing. Employment
Service also offers a number of services to employers, including taking
job orders, recruitment, screening, referrals of job seekers, assisting
with job restructuring, and helping employers manage layoffs.
WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs. When WIA was enacted in
1998, it replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for
economically disadvantaged adults and youth and for dislocated workers
with three new programs--WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth--that
provide a broader range of services to the general public, no longer
using income to determine eligibility for all program services. WIA
programs provide for three tiers, or levels, of service for adults and
dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services
include basic services such as job searches and labor market
information. These activities may be self-service or require some staff
assistance. Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive
assessment and case management--activities that require greater staff
involvement. Training services include such activities as occupational
skills or on-the-job training. Labor's guidance provides for monitoring
and tracking of performance for the adult and dislocated worker
programs to begin when job seekers receive core services that require
significant staff assistance. WIA currently excludes job seekers who
receive core services that are self-service and informational in nature
from being included in the performance measures.
Trade Adjustment Assistance. To assist workers who are laid off as a
result of international trade, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 created
the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Historically, the primary
benefits available through the program have been extended income
support and training. Participants are generally entitled to income
support, but the amount of funds available for training is limited by
statute. Congress has amended the TAA program a number of times since
its inception. Amendments to the TAA program in the TAA Reform Act of
2002 extended income support to 78 weeks after exhausting UI benefits
(plus 26 more weeks if participating in and completing remedial
training) and added new health coverage assistance and wage insurance
benefits for older workers.[Footnote 4]
Other Funds to Support Reemployment Services:
To promote reemployment through the one-stop system, Congress
appropriated $35 million a year beginning in 2001 for Reemployment
Services Grants specifically to provide reemployment services for UI
claimants. Each year Labor has provided a minimum of $215,000 to each
state, with the remainder of the $35 million distributed according to
the share of each state's first payments to UI claimants in the
previous fiscal year. These funds are authorized under Wagner-Peyser,
and services are generally delivered by state Employment Service staff.
Labor issued guidance to the states to use the funds to enhance the
quality and quantity of services that UI claimants receive within the
one-stop system, encouraging states to use the funds to provide direct
services to UI claimants.
Most States Have Shifted to Taking Claims Remotely, and All States
Provide Claimants with Information on Their Obligations and Available
Reemployment Services:
Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone,
Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer have
face-to-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all
states told us they have found ways to provide information on
eligibility requirements and reemployment services to individuals
filing initial claims, often beginning at the time the claim is filed.
Most states told us that the shift to remote claims did not diminish
their ability to provide information on reemployment services to
claimants and, in some cases, had improved customer service and helped
ensure that claimants received consistent information.
Most States Accept Initial UI Claims by Telephone or Internet:
Forty-four states accept initial claims for unemployment insurance by
telephone[Footnote 5] or the Internet,[Footnote 6] based on our
telephone interviews with state officials. Of these states, 29 use both
remote filing methods, while 10 accept claims only over the telephone
and 5 take them only by Internet (see fig. 1). In most states with
telephone claims, claimants speak with customer service
representatives, although in 6 states claimants may use an automated
voice response system to complete their claim.[Footnote 7] In some
states with such automated systems, it is possible for a claimant to
file an initial claim without speaking to anyone. However, if problems
occur during the process, callers can be transferred to remote claims
centers where a service representative works with them to complete the
claim. Of the 6 states that did not accept remote claims, 3 said they
plan to begin accepting initial claims by Internet or telephone in the
future. The remaining 3 states still require claimants to file for
unemployment insurance in person. For example, Georgia officials told
us that they do not currently allow claimants to file initial UI claims
remotely, preferring instead to have claimants file in person at
workforce centers,[Footnote 8] where they typically file their claims
using the state's private computer network. (See app. II for more
information on which states take initial UI claims remotely by
telephone or Internet.)
Figure 1: Most States Take Initial UI Claims Remotely:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to accepting initial claims by telephone or Internet, some
states also reported using other remote filing methods. Officials in
several states told us that they accept claims submitted directly by
employers, but the role of employer-filed claims differs from state to
state. For example, Michigan officials told us they had established an
employer-filed claim process in which employers with more than 1,000
layoffs in 3 consecutive years must file employee claims
electronically. With an employer-filed claim, the claimant is not
involved in filing the initial claim but still must certify and file
for continuing claims. State officials told us that these claims
simplify the filing process in cases of large layoffs and help workers
receive their UI benefit checks more quickly. They said their goal was
to have 20 to 25 percent of all initial claims filed through this
method. In general, however, employer-filed claims are used for mass
layoffs or seasonal shutdowns.
Most states that accept remote claims also allow claimants to file
their initial claims at a one-stop center, either by using available
telephones--sometimes with a direct telephone link to a call center--or
by using on site computer resources to access the Internet. In
Washington, for example, individuals who come to the state's one-stop
centers are directed to file by Internet or by phone at an on site
kiosk. These kiosks, which the state has placed in most of its one-stop
centers, provide a direct connection to a call center and display UI
program information to help claimants understand the process. In
addition, at least 8 states told us that they have staff at the one-
stop who can take claims or assist claimants in filing their claims.
States Inform Claimants of Their Eligibility Requirements and the
Availability of Reemployment Services during the Claim Process:
In all states that accept claims remotely, officials told us they have
found ways to provide information during the claims filing process on
requirements that claimants must meet to maintain their eligibility for
unemployment benefits. At the same time, they also told us they provide
information on how to access reemployment services to help claimants
get back to work. Among the 39 states that allow filing by telephone,
the methods they use to notify claimants of their work search
requirements and available services vary.
* For eligibility requirements, most of the 39 states explain program
rules over the telephone, most often during the initial call. For
example, UI call center representatives in Washington give initial
claimants information on their responsibility to search for work, the
penalty for failure to do so, the location of the nearest one-stop
center, and the types of services claimants could receive at the one-
stop. In addition, a few states direct telephone claimants to a Web
page where they can find information on work search requirements and
how to certify and file for continuing claims.
* For reemployment services, all 39 states that accept initial claims
by telephone reported that all or most of their telephone filers are
provided information about these services, and approximately two-thirds
of the states provide some of this information to their claimants
during the initial call. Telephone filers in over 20 states are also
directed to the one-stop system, through information that is either
provided during the telephone call or sent to claimants later by mail.
In Maryland, for example, officials told us that they inform claimants
about reemployment services during the initial call and provide
directions to the one-stop centers or Employment Service offices.
Additionally, a few states have one-stop staff follow up with claimants
to inform them of available services.
The 34 states that allow remote filing by Internet also have a variety
of methods for notifying claimants about their work search requirements
and available services.
* For work search requirements, more than three-fourths of these states
reported that such information was available on a Web page that
claimants could access while filing their claims. In over 20 of those
states, individuals were required to go through an Internet page on UI
program rules in order to complete their claims. Some states provided
this information through a link on the Web page but did not require
claimants to access that page at the time they filed their initial
claims.
* For reemployment services, all 34 states reported that all or most of
their Internet filers are provided information about these services.
Over three-fourths of those states provide some information to their
claimants during the initial online filing process, although claimants
may or may not be required to view this information to complete the
claim. Almost half of the states that take initial claims by Internet
told us they require claimants to access a document with reemployment
services information before their claim is complete. Additionally, many
told us that a link to this information is provided but claimants are
not required to access the document in order to complete the claim. In
some states, call center and one-stop staff may also contact claimants
with information on how they may obtain services. For example, Virginia
officials said the state runs a daily report of Internet claims filed,
and call center representatives then call or e-mail a majority of those
claimants to tell them about job seeker services and work search
requirements.
In addition to the information that remote filers receive over the
phone or on a Web page, most of the 44 states that accept remote claims
also mail claimants information on their responsibilities and available
services. In Maryland, for example, officials told us that, as part of
the claims filing process, claims center staff inform telephone filers
of the work search requirement and the implications for not meeting it
as well as the location of the Employment Service offices. After the
claim is filed, all claimants are sent mailings that address UI and
work search requirements and that provide directions to the one-stops
and Employment Service offices. In Washington, everyone who files a
claim receives a copy of the state's unemployment claims kit, which
contains information on claimant responsibilities as well as on
reemployment services, online resources, and one-stop and employment
services center locations.
Officials in 32 of the 44 states told us that in their opinion the
shift to remote claims did not diminish their ability to provide
information on reemployment services to claimants. Officials in at
least 7 of the states that have established remote filing methods said
they had faced challenges in maintaining the connections between UI
claimants and the reemployment services available to them. For example,
some states said that staff providing reemployment services had less
initial contact with job seekers, who may wait several weeks before
seeking out more information about services available to them. However,
officials in almost three-quarters of the 44 states told us they
thought the shift to remote claims either had no negative impact or had
improved their ability to deliver reemployment services to UI
claimants. Officials in some states reported that providing
reemployment services in a remote claims environment proved more
difficult at first. However, once they had completed the transition,
they said they have perceived no negative impact on the linkages
between UI and reemployment services. Officials generally cited
benefits that included improved customer service, more consistent
information for claimants, and the ability of states to focus their
resources on providing reemployment services to claimants.
* Several officials told us that they believed one benefit from the
shift to remote claims was improved customer service. Claimants no
longer needed to drive the sometimes great distances or wait around for
hours just to file a claim. In addition, some states reported that it
was easier to get information about services to claimants.
* Additionally, some officials told us that they thought the use of
remote claims had helped ensure that claimants received consistent
information. Several states, for example, reported that using scripts
for telephone customer service representatives or screens of
information for Internet filers helps ensure that all claimants are
told the same thing.
* Some states said the transition to remote claims had enabled them to
shift their focus from filing claims to providing services, and had
reduced claims processing time. For example, officials in one state
told us that some positive effects of using the Internet were that
claims were processed more quickly, documentation was easily retrieved,
and papers were not moving between offices.
States Provide Claimants Access to a Range of Reemployment Services and
Use UI Program Requirements to Connect Them with Available Services:
Across states, UI claimants have access to a variety of reemployment
services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect
claimants with available services at various points in their claim. All
federally approved state UI programs must include able-to-work and
available-for-work requirements that claimants must meet in order to
receive benefits. In many states, these requirements also serve to link
claimants to reemployment opportunities and services. In addition,
states provide targeted reemployment services to particular groups of
UI claimants. The federal requirement of claimant profiling is
typically the primary mechanism for targeting reemployment services to
claimants.
Claimants Have Access to a Range of Reemployment Services:
UI claimants have access to the range of reemployment services
available to all job seekers through the one-stop system. Officials in
all states, for example, told us that claimants can access job listings
and information on their state's labor market trends using the
Internet, and many said that claimants have access to online labor
exchange, or job matching, services as well as other self-assisted
services such as resume writing assistance, career guidance, and self-
assessment services. Officials in all states also told us that one-stop
centers make computers available on-site, and most said that claimants
have access to self-help software, such as aptitude tests, computer
tutorials, or job search guidance, at the centers. Claimants also have
access to a variety of staff-assisted reemployment services through the
one-stop system. Officials most often mentioned that claimants were
likely to be offered:
* job search assistance;
* resume assistance;
* job matching, referral, and placement services;
* orientation to services;
* referral to WIA or other partners;
* initial or general needs assessment;
* counseling; and:
* interview assistance.
Some states have also undertaken special initiatives to expand the
types of reemployment services available to claimants. Maryland, for
example, responded to growth in white collar unemployment in the early
1990s with the establishment of the Professional Outplacement
Assistance Center. This program provides outplacement services for
executive, professional, technical, and managerial workers who are
unemployed, and if capacity allows, those who are underemployed. The
program begins with an interactive three day orientation targeted to
the needs of professionals and then offers participants networking
opportunities through occupational affinity groups that bring together
job seekers from similar occupations. Former participants also forward
information on job opportunities to the program and offer assistance to
current participants--a concept the staff term Pay-It-Forward.
States Use Compliance with Work Requirements to Connect Claimants with
Reemployment Services:
UI program requirements often provide the context for states' efforts
to link claimants to reemployment services. In satisfying the
requirement that claimants be able and available for work, officials in
44 states told us that claimants are required to register for work with
the state's labor exchange. In addition, officials in all but one state
told us that claimants must meet a work search requirement in order to
remain eligible for benefits. The work search requirement varies across
states but is typically defined in terms of the number of contacts
claimants are required to make with employers. In about half of the
states with a work search requirement, officials told us claimants
subject to this requirement are required to make a specified or minimum
number of job contacts, ranging from one to five contacts per week. In
the rest, the required number of contacts is determined by what is seen
to be reasonable for a particular area or occupation or the requirement
is stated in more general terms.
Claimants document that they are meeting their state's work search
requirement in a number of ways, most commonly by keeping a log of work
search activities that may be subject to review or by certifying they
are able and available to work through the process of filing for a
continuing claim. Washington, for example, has recently revised its
work search requirement to be more specific, requiring each week that
claimants make three job contacts, participate in three in-person
reemployment services at a one-stop center, or complete some
combination of the two. Claimants keep a log of these contacts and
activities, which is subject to random review. In Michigan, as in many
states, when claimants call in to the state's automated telephone
system each week to file for their continuing claims, they must also
certify that they are available for and seeking full-time work. In all
states with a work search requirement, officials told us that the
primary consequence faced by claimants who fail to comply is that they
could be denied benefits. However, the length of time for which
benefits are denied, and the extent to which claimants receive a
warning prior to being denied benefits, varies across states.
These work registration and work search requirements often serve to
link claimants to reemployment services. The process of registering for
work with the state's labor exchange, for example, may bring claimants
into an Employment Service office or one-stop center where reemployment
services are delivered. Officials in nearly two-thirds of the 44 states
where claimants are required to register for work told us that coming
into an Employment Service office or one-stop center is either a
required part of the process or one of the options claimants have for
completing their registration. Officials in close to a third of the
states with this requirement told us claimants are automatically
registered with the labor exchange when they file their initial UI
claim. In Michigan, for example, most claimants file their initial
claim remotely and may begin the work registration process remotely as
well by placing their resume on the state's public online labor
exchange. They must come into a one-stop center, however, to have their
resumes validated by one-stop staff in order to complete the work
registration process. In Washington, on the other hand, claimants who
are required to look for work are automatically registered for work at
the same time they file an initial telephone or Internet claim. Under
this system, claimant information is uploaded into the state's
workforce development management information system and becomes
available to one-stop center staff.
Some states also use their processes for monitoring compliance with the
work search requirement to direct claimants to reemployment services.
Officials in 39 of the 49 states that require claimants to actively
seek employment told us that telephone or in-person interviews with
claimants may be used to monitor compliance with this requirement. In
over two-thirds of these states, officials told us that some
information on job search strategies or reemployment services is
provided during the interview. The level of information varies from
suggestions offered on a case-by-case basis to a discussion of
strategies and services that is a standard part of the interview. In
Georgia, for example, the state's eligibility review program is used to
determine whether a claimant faces particular problems in returning to
work and if a claimant is making use of available reemployment
services, in addition to determining eligibility and compliance with
state work search rules.
States Target Reemployment Services to Particular Groups of Claimants:
States also engage some claimants in reemployment services directly
through programs that identify certain groups for more targeted
assistance. States primarily target reemployment services to claimants
identified as most likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding
work through federally required claimant-profiling systems. While
claimants identified and referred to services through profiling can
access the services available to all job seekers through the one-stop
system, participation in the services they are referred to is mandatory
for profiled claimants. Specifically, state officials most often
identified orientation and assessment as services profiled claimants
were required to receive. In addition, many officials told us that the
services profiled claimants received depended on their individual needs
following an assessment, the development of an individual plan, or the
guidance of staff at a one-stop center. While failure to report to
required reemployment services can result in benefits being denied,
states vary in the conditions that prompt denying benefits.
Maryland, for example, targets reemployment services to profiled
claimants through its Early Intervention program. This program, which
began in 1994, offers an interactive, 2-day, 10-hour workshop,
addressing self-assessment, job search resources, resume writing and
interviewing skills, and other community resources available to job
seekers. Profiled claimants selected for the workshop who fail to
attend are given one opportunity to reschedule; after that, their
failure to participate is reported to the UI program and their benefits
may be suspended. When claimants complete the workshop, they are
registered with the Maryland Job Service, they receive an individual
employment plan, and the workshop facilitator may refer them to
additional services. Officials told us that although they currently do
not have data to show the impact of this program, they have received
very positive feedback about the quality and effectiveness of the
workshops.
From our site visits we also learned that some states have developed
additional methods to target reemployment services to particular groups
of UI claimants. For example, one-stop staff in Washington have the
ability to identify various subgroups of claimants using a tracking
device called the Claimant Progress Tool. Officials told us that one-
stop staff typically use this tool to identify claimants who are about
100 days into their claim, and then contact them for targeted job
search assistance and job referrals. This process was developed to help
the state achieve a goal of reducing the portion of their UI benefits
that unemployed workers claim. Georgia's state-funded Claimant
Assistance Program identifies claimants who are seen to be ready for
employment and requires them to participate in the same services
required of profiled claimants. This program is designed to help the
state achieve its goal of generating savings for the UI Trust Fund.
Claimants meeting this program's eligibility criteria also have the
option of participating in the Georgia Works program, a recent state
initiative to promote on-the-job training opportunities for UI
claimants. Through Georgia Works, claimants receive 20 hours of on-the-
job training weekly for 8 weeks while continuing to receive their UI
benefits.
States often make use of Labor's Reemployment Services Grants--
available since 2001 for direct services to UI claimants--to fund these
services. Officials in the majority of the states we interviewed told
us their states have been using the Reemployment Services Grant funds
to hire staff to provide reemployment services. For example, Maryland
state officials said they use their funds to hire staff for the Early
Intervention program, which has enabled them to run more workshops in
areas that need them and to make further improvements in the program.
Some states have also used these grants to direct reemployment services
to claimants beyond those who have been profiled and to support other
enhancements in the provision of reemployment services to claimants.
For example, Washington state officials told us they used funds from
these grants to support the development of the Claimant Progress Tool.
Little Information Exists to Provide a Complete Picture of Reemployment
Services for Unemployment Insurance Claimants:
Despite states' efforts to design systems that link UI claimants to
reemployment services, little data are available to gauge the extent to
which claimants are receiving these services or the outcomes they
achieve. While states must meet a number of federal reporting
requirements for their UI programs, and for their federally funded
employment and training programs, none of these reports provide a
complete picture of the services received or the outcomes obtained by
all UI claimants. Furthermore, we found that few states currently go
beyond the federal reporting requirements to monitor the extent to
which claimants are receiving services from the range of federally
funded programs that are designed to assist them, and even fewer
monitor outcomes for these claimants, largely because of limited
information systems capabilities. Labor has some initiatives that may
begin to shed light on claimant services and outcomes, but some
limitations remain.
Current Reporting Requirements Do Not Provide a Full Picture of
Claimants' Use of Reemployment Services:
UI claimants may access reemployment assistance from a number of
federally-funded programs, most often Wagner-Peyser Employment Service,
WIA Dislocated Worker or WIA Adult, and Trade Adjustment Assistance (if
they are dislocated because of trade). To monitor the performance of
these programs, Labor requires states to meet a number of reporting
requirements, but the reports are submitted on a program-by-program
basis. None of the reports provides a complete picture of the services
received or the outcomes obtained by all UI claimants.
UI reporting requirements. States must track and report annually on
several performance measures considered key indicators of UI program
performance--a system named UI Performs--but as currently configured,
the system does not contain any measures related to services or
outcomes for claimants. Instead, the measures focus exclusively on
benefit and tax accuracy, quality, and timeliness. States also must
report monthly on their UI claims and payment activities through form
ETA 5159. These reports provide summary information that can be used to
calculate average benefit duration and exhaustion rates at an aggregate
level by state. These data are useful in following trends over time,
but, do not contain information on those who had received services and
those who did not.
In addition, states must also report to Labor on their claimant
profiling process--termed Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services--
but information in these reports represent only a portion of all UI
claimants the state has served. The two profiling reports--ETA 9048 and
9049--require states to provide summary information on the number of
claimants targeted for services through the profiling process, and on
the reemployment services and outcomes for this group of claimants.
While the reports contain information on claimant services and
outcomes, the data represent only the portion of claimants who were
identified through profiling as likely to exhaust their benefits and
who were also referred to services. This proportion can vary from place
to place and from month to month depending on available resources, but
may be a small proportion of all of the state's claimants.
Wagner-Peyser Employment Service reporting requirements. States must
provide quarterly reports for the Employment Service program, but these
reports do not provide a complete picture of all claimants receiving
reemployment services. The reports consist of summary information on
the numbers of Employment Service participants who received specified
services or who obtained certain outcomes. The report tracks service
and outcome data by several demographic categories, including age
grouping, gender, and whether or not the participant was a UI claimant.
However, the report contains information on only those individuals who
are registered with the Employment Service, and while all who receive
services funded by Wagner-Peyser must be registered with the Employment
Service, not all UI claimants receive Wagner-Peyser-funded services.
WIA and the TAA programs. WIA and TAA reporting requirements are
similarly limited and do not provide a complete picture of claimant
services and outcomes. WIA tracks several performance measures directly
related to outcomes for Adults and Dislocated Workers, including job
placement, job retention, and wage gain or wage replacement. Labor
requires states to report their performance on these measures in both
quarterly and annual reports. In addition, once each year states submit
a file to Labor, the WIA Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) file,
containing a complete record of demographic, services, and outcome
information on each WIA registrant who has exited the program. While
these records contain information on whether or not the WIA registrant
is also a UI claimant, they do not contain information for those
claimants who are not registered under WIA. We and others have noted
that many individuals served under WIA--particularly those who receive
only self-directed services--are not registered or tracked for
performance and are, therefore, not reflected in any of the WIA
data.[Footnote 9] [Footnote 10] Similarly, for the TAA program Labor
requires states to submit participant data files on all who exit the
program each quarter, but the reports are limited to those claimants
served by TAA. Table 1 summarizes these reporting requirements and
their limitations for measuring overall claimant services and outcomes.
Table 1: Summary of Data Reporting Requirements and Their Limitations
for Measuring Overall Claimant Services and Outcomes:
Unemployment Insurance program requirements:
Reporting requirement: UI Performs;
What it contains: Summary information reported annually on overall
performance of state's UI program, including:
* accuracy determining claimant's benefits;
* time to process first payment to claimants;
* timeliness of appeals process;
* tax timeliness and accuracy;
Limitations: Contains no information on claimant services or outcomes.
Reporting requirement: ETA 5159--UI Claims and Payment Activities;
What it contains: Summary information on claims and payments,
including:
* total new initial claims;
* continued weeks claimed;
* weeks compensated;
* first payments;
* final payments for all unemployed;
Limitations: Contains no information on claimant services or outcomes.
Reporting requirement: Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services: ETA
9048--Claimant Activity;
What it contains: Summary information on services, including:
* number who are profiled and targeted for services;
* number reporting for services, by type of service;
* number completing services, by type of service;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who have been
targeted for services through profiling.
Reporting requirement: Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services: ETA
9049--Claimant Outcomes;
What it contains: Summary information on outcomes, including:
* benefit duration and amount;
* employment and wages;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who have been
targeted for services through profiling. Includes only those reemployed
within the same state.
Wagner-Peyser Employment Service requirements:
Reporting requirement: ETA 9002 Quarterly Report;
What it contains: Summary information reported quarterly on
participants registered with the Employment Service, including:
* demographics;
* services provided or referred;
* employment outcomes;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who have registered
with the Employment Service program.
Workforce Investment Act requirements:
Reporting requirement: ETA 9090-WIA Quarterly Report;
What it contains: Quarterly updates to annual report providing summary
information on current WIA participants, including:
* job placement;
* employment retention;
* earnings change;
* credential rate;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who have received
services and are registered under WIA. Those receiving only self-
service or information are not registered.
Reporting requirement: ETA 9091-WIA Annual Report;
What it contains: Summary information on WIA registrants who exited the
program, including:
* job placement;
* employment retention;
* earnings change;
* credential rate;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who have received
services and are registered under WIA. Those receiving only self-
service or information are not registered.
Reporting requirement: WIA Standard Record Data;
What it contains: Participant-level data file of all WIA registrants
who exited the program, including:
* demographics;
* services/activities;
* employment/wage outcomes;
* credential attainment;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who have received
services and are registered under WIA. Those receiving only self-
service or information are not registered.
Trade Adjustment Assistance Act requirements:
Reporting requirement: Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR);
What it contains:
* Participant-level data file of all TAA participants who exited the
program:
* demographics;
* services/activities;
* employment/wage outcomes;
Limitations: Only contains information on claimants who are also
participating in TAA.
Source: Department of Labor guidance.
[End of table]
States Face Challenges in Assessing Claimant Services and Outcomes:
Having data that show the degree to which reemployment services are
reaching UI claimants is key to good program management and provides a
first step toward understanding the impact of these programs. However,
knowing how many claimants may be accessing reemployment services and
the type of outcomes they may be achieving has proven difficult for
state and local officials. Only 14 states reported[Footnote 11] that
they go beyond the federal reporting requirements to routinely track
the extent to which claimants[Footnote 12] receive services from the
broad array of federally funded programs that are designed to assist
them.[Footnote 13] Of the states that reported that they did not
routinely track claimant services, 4 states told us it would not be
possible to do so. Overall, 37 states told us doing so was somewhat or
very difficult, while 6 states said it was not at all difficult (see
fig. 2).
Figure 2: Most States Reported It Was Difficult to Track Claimant
Services across the Broad Array of Federal Employment and Training
Programs:
[See PDF for image] -- graphic text:
Bar graph with five items.
Degree of difficulty: Not at all difficult;
Number of states: 6.
Degree of difficulty: Somewhat difficult;
Number of states: 26.
Degree of difficulty: Very difficult;
Number of states: 11.
Degree of difficulty: Cannot calculate this;
Number of states: 4.
Degree of difficulty: Not sure;
Number of states: 3.
Source: GAO survey of state officials.
[End of figure]
States most often told us that tracking claimant services across
multiple programs was made difficult by the fact that reemployment
services and UI claimant data were maintained in separate data systems-
-systems that were either incompatible or difficult to link. (See fig.
3.)
Figure 3: Reasons States Said Tracking Client Services Was Difficult:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Bar graph with six items.
Reason: Not routinely captured;
Number of states: 9.
Reason: Data maintained in different data systems;
Number of states: 33.
Reason: Use different data definitions and coding;
Number of states: 7.
Reason: Data maintained by different departments;
Number of states: 10.
Reason: Privacy issues prevent or complicate;
Number of states: 3.
Reason: One or more data elements not reliable;
Number of states: 7.
Source: GAO survey of state officials.
Note: States could cite more than one reason.
[End of figure]
While relatively few states routinely track claimants' services, even
fewer track outcomes. Only 6 states told us that they go beyond the
federal reporting requirements to routinely monitor any outcomes for
the subset of UI claimants that receives reemployment services--
outcomes such as entered employment rate, average benefit duration, and
UI exhaustion rate. Eleven states told us it would not be possible to
calculate any of the outcomes for these claimants.[Footnote 14] More
states reported difficulty tracking the entered employment rate than
the average benefit duration or UI exhaustion rate. (See fig.
4).[Footnote 15]
Figure 4: States' Assessment of How Difficult It Would Be to Track
Outcomes for Claimants Who Received Services:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Bar chart with 12 items.
Degree of difficulty: No it would not be possible to calculate this
outcome;
Entered employment rate: Number of states: 11;
Average benefit duration: Number of states: 11;
UI exhaustion rate: Number of states: 11.
Degree of difficulty: Yes technically possible, added resources
required;
Entered employment rate: Number of states: 28;
Average benefit duration: Number of states: 25;
UI exhaustion rate: Number of states: 25.
Degree of difficulty: Yes possible, no added resources required;
Entered employment rate: Number of states: 6;
Average benefit duration: Number of states: 12;
UI exhaustion rate: Number of states: 12.
Degree of difficulty: Unsure if it would be possible;
Entered employment rate: Number of states: 5;
Average benefit duration: Number of states: 2;
UI exhaustion rate: Number of states: 2.
Source: GAO survey of state officials.
[End of figure]
The issues states cited in tracking outcomes across programs for UI
claimants were similar to those for tracking use of services. Most
states (35) told us that tracking one or more outcome measures was made
difficult by the fact that reemployment services and UI claimant data
were maintained in different systems that were either incompatible or
difficult to link.
Some Federal Initiatives and Research May Help Our Understanding of
Services and Outcomes to Claimants, but Limitations Remain:
Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant
services and outcomes, but the efforts still fall short of giving us a
nationwide understanding of services and outcomes for UI claimants.
UI performance measures. Labor is modifying its UI performance
measures, and some of the changes will begin to focus attention on
claimant outcomes. Beginning in summer 2005, in addition to reporting
on benefit timeliness and accuracy, states will be required to track a
reemployment rate for their UI claimants--defined as the percentage of
UI claimants who are reemployed within the quarter following their
first UI payment.[Footnote 16] This change will improve the
understanding of how many UI claimants are quickly reemployed
nationwide, but, it will not provide information on claimants who
become reemployed after the first quarter. Further, it will not allow
for an assessment of how many claimants access reemployment services
nor will it allow the outcomes claimants achieve to be attributed to
services.
Employment Service, WIA, and TAA reporting changes. Labor is also
modifying its reporting requirements for Employment Service, WIA, and
TAA programs.[Footnote 17] With the transition beginning in July 2005,
states' Employment Service, WIA, and TAA programs will be required to
report on their performance using a new set of common measures--
measures that use the same data definitions and data coding across all
included programs. The new measures, focused on job placement,
employment retention, and earnings increase, will help eliminate some
of the definitional difficulties states faced as they tried to measure
performance across multiple programs. In addition, it will require that
states begin counting all job seekers who use the one-stop, including
those who only receive services that are informational or self-service
in nature. However, because the Unemployment Insurance program is not
included in these measures, this change would not allow for a complete
assessment of UI claimants' use of services.
Future plans for reporting on performance for Labor's Employment and
Training Administration (ETA) programs include the development of a
system to consolidate reporting. This system--ETA's Management
Information and Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) system--would
consolidate performance reporting across a range of Labor programs
including WIA, Employment Service, and TAA. Current plans do not
include incorporating UI reporting into EMILE. We recently reported
that implementing a comprehensive reporting system across workforce
programs could provide a better picture of the one-stop system, but
recommended that Labor consider greater ongoing consultation with key
stakeholders, including states, in order to enhance its efforts to
implement it.[Footnote 18] Labor is currently conducting a feasibility
study on implementation issues associated with EMILE, and, at present,
it is unclear how soon such a system could be implemented.
Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE). Because Labor
lacked the capacity to evaluate services across the broad array of
employment and training programs, it commissioned ADARE to begin to
fill the gap. ADARE is an alliance of 9 state partners--Florida,
Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, Texas, Illinois, Washington, California,
and Ohio--that cover 43 percent of the country's civilian workforce.
ADARE provides third-party researchers with detailed, longitudinal
administrative data from the 9 states on participants in several
programs, including Employment Service, WIA, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), and Perkins Vocational Education, as well as UI
wage and benefit records and education records. ADARE efforts so far
have focused largely on evaluating welfare-to-work programs and WIA.
Currently under way is an effort to examine three facets of UI claimant
behavior--repeat claims, benefit exhaustion, and reemployment profiles.
Unfortunately, planned expansions of the data collection have been
slower to implement than originally anticipated, and some of the data
used in ADARE, such as the WIA performance data, are limited. Having
the capacity to link data across multiple programs within a state is a
major leap forward in understanding UI claimants' participation in a
broad array of programs and to measure some of their outcomes. But,
while the participating states represent a relatively large proportion
of the workforce, they don't provide a nationwide perspective. In
addition, until WIA's new reporting requirements go into effect, the
WIA data will be limited to those claimants who are registered under
WIA.
Five-Year Evaluation. Labor has also begun a 5-year national study of
the UI benefits program. The evaluation is intended to provide detailed
information on the effectiveness of the UI program in light of its
goals and underlying program design. Researchers hope to enlist up to
25 states willing to share their data, and the study seeks to identify,
in part, changes in the labor market, population, and economy relative
to the UI program, as well as detailed characteristics of who receives
and does not receive UI benefits. As part of the study, researchers are
hoping to learn more about the extent to which UI claimants are
receiving reemployment services in those states, and about the outcomes
they are achieving, including how long claimants receive benefits.
However, at this point, it is too soon to know how successful they will
be in obtaining information on claimants' use of the broad array of
programs designed to serve them. And because it is limited to states
that are willing to participate, it, too, falls short of providing a
nationwide perspective.
Conclusions:
States have increasingly shifted to requiring that most UI claimants
file their claims remotely. To help them get the reemployment services
they need to facilitate their reemployment, states have often designed
their processes to help link claimants to reemployment services.
However, knowing how many claimants are actually accessing reemployment
services has proven difficult for state and local officials. Most
states lack this information, arguably critical for good program
management, often because data reside in separate systems that cannot
be easily linked. In the new environment created by WIA, where
claimants may be served by a range of programs that go beyond
Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service, it becomes increasingly
important to find new ways to link program data across a broader range
of programs. Current reporting requirements are not enough to provide a
complete picture.
Labor has some initiatives underway to help fill this gap, but the
issue of collecting complete information on those individuals served by
the nation's workforce development system--mainly through the one-
stops--needs to be viewed in a broader context, not program-by-program.
The nine-state effort under ADARE to link administrative data on
participants in a range of programs is a step in the right direction,
but doesn't include information on all services claimants receive. The
common measures and EMILE initiative are steps to provide more
comprehensive and complete information on those served by the one-
stops, including unemployment insurance claimants who come in to the
one-stops for services. However, the present EMILE proposal does not
include a link to Unemployment Insurance administrative data, so it
will not be able to provide information on all UI claimants, only those
who receive services through a one-stop. As such, EMILE cannot be used
as a source of information on benefit duration. Taken together, these
efforts will not be able to provide all states with an understanding of
services and outcomes for all UI claimants, an understanding that is
critical for assessing the performance of the program or the potential
need for future reforms.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that as Labor develops EMILE, the Secretary of Labor work
with states to develop a plan for considering the feasibility of
requiring states to collect more comprehensive information on UI
claimants' use of reemployment services and the outcomes achieved by
claimants, including the length of time claimants receive UI before
they are reemployed.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor officials for their review
and comment. Labor generally agreed with our findings, but took issue
with our recommendation that it work with states to consider the
feasibility of collecting more comprehensive information on UI
claimants' services and outcomes, saying that its current and planned
data gathering and research efforts would provide adequate information
to guide policy making.
Labor noted that, in addition to the efforts acknowledged in our
report, a new initiative will provide additional data on some UI
claimants and their reemployment services in the future. Labor also
said that, given the burden placed on states to collect and report
data, it is important to show a clear benefit to the system for
additional data collection. Labor requested that GAO provide additional
guidance on how collection of the data is expected to improve services
to UI claimants and hasten their reemployment.
We continue to assert that comprehensive data on the extent to which UI
claimants receive reemployment services and the outcomes claimants
achieve is important for program management in an environment where
claimants may receive services from a number of different programs.
While Labor's new initiatives, in combination with current reporting
requirements, will provide valuable information on the reemployment
activities of some UI claimants, this information is generally
collected on a program-by-program basis or is focused on a single
category of claimants. Consequently, these efforts will not allow for a
comprehensive, nationwide understanding of claimants' participation in
the broad range of reemployment services provided through federal
programs nor do they move states in the direction of having the data
they need to better manage their systems. In recommending that Labor
study the feasibility of a more comprehensive data collection effort,
we acknowledge the challenges faced by states to collect and track
these data and understand that acquiring a comprehensive picture of UI
claimant's participation in reemployment services will have a cost.
However, having information on UI claimants who are and are not
receiving services is an important step in the development of
reemployment efforts that hasten workers' reemployment and minimize UI
benefit costs.
Labor also provided technical comments which we have incorporated in
our report, as appropriate. A copy of Labor's comments is in appendix
III.
We will send 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. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to provide information on (1) the extent to which states
have shifted to remote methods for filing initial claims and how they
are making claimants aware of their responsibilities to look for work
and the services available to assist them, (2) what states are doing to
facilitate the reemployment of unemployment insurance (UI) claimants,
and (3) what is known about the extent to which unemployment insurance
claimants receive reemployment services and about the outcomes of
claimants who receive these services. To address these questions, we
conducted telephone interviews with unemployment insurance and
workforce development officials in all 50 states. We then used a
separate brief e-mail instrument to gather more specific information on
the strategies states use to collect data on unemployment insurance
claimants who receive reemployment services. Additionally, we conducted
site visits to 4 states--Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington--
and interviewed state and local officials in these states. We reviewed
data and documents from the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) and other
sources. We also interviewed officials from Labor, the National
Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the UI Information
Technology Support Center, as well as researchers from the University
of Texas at Austin, the Upjohn Institute, and the Urban Institute.
For this review, we defined reemployment services to mean all
reemployment activities funded through Wagner-Peyser; Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker services; any other
training or job search assistance provided using federal funds, such as
Trade Adjustment Assistance; and any state-funded reemployment or
training services. We defined UI claimants as individuals who have
filed an initial UI claim, been found eligible according to both
monetary and nonmonetary criteria, and received a first payment of UI
benefits.
We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Department of
Labor for their review and incorporated their comments where
appropriate. We conducted our work from February 2004 through May 2005
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Telephone Interview and Supplemental Data Collection Instruments:
To collect broad information on unemployment insurance claimants' use
of reemployment services, we conducted telephone interviews with
officials in all 50 states from agencies that oversee the unemployment
insurance and workforce development programs.[Footnote 19] We designed
a structured computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) instrument
that consisted of closed-and open-ended questions on a range of topics,
including methods used in each state to file initial claims, both
outside of one-stop centers, employment security offices, and
unemployment insurance offices and on site at those locations; work
search requirements and available reemployment services and how states
notify claimants of them; worker profiling; and states' data collection
efforts related to remote filing, work search requirements, receipt of
reemployment services, and performance outcomes the states may track.
For a majority of the telephone interview questions, we asked state
officials to consider the present status of a topic in their state. We
asked them to consider either a particular program or fiscal year for
only a few questions. Telephone interviews were conducted during
October and November 2004.
To better understand states' issues associated with tracking
performance data, and using results from our CATI as a guide, we
supplemented our telephone interviews with a brief data collection
instrument that asked state officials for greater detail about what
states tracked for UI claimants receiving reemployment services. We
also asked them about the specific challenges they faced in tracking
data on reemployment services and outcomes for all UI claimants. We
completed this effort in March 2005. Officials from all 50 states
provided responses about their states' data concerns.
Because we surveyed officials from all 50 states, no sampling error is
associated with our work. However, nonsampling error could figure into
any data collection effort and involve a range of issues that could
affect data quality and introduce unwanted variability into the
results. We took several steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For
example, GAO survey specialists and staff with subject matter expertise
collaboratively designed both instruments. Also, the draft telephone
interview instrument was pretested with officials in 3 states to ensure
that the questions were relevant, clear, and easy to comprehend and
that states would have the capacity to readily respond to them.
Similarly, the draft data collection instrument was pretested with
officials from 2 states. During the telephone interviews, responses
were called back to state officials to ensure the data were being
accurately captured. To further minimize errors, programs used to
analyze data collected through both instruments were independently
verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
Site Visits:
We selected 4 states for site visits according to several criteria that
gave us a range of state unemployment rates (as of March 2004), amounts
of program year 2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funding, acceptance of
initial UI claims by telephone or Internet, and whether the state had
an employer tax-funded state training or job placement program. States
selected for site visits are shown in table 2. We also sought
recommendations from Labor officials and other experts and considered
geographic diversity in our state selections. In each state, we
interviewed officials in the workforce development system and UI
programs on issues such as labor market information, UI claims filing,
worker profiling, work search requirement, reemployment services
offered, and data collection and management.
Table 2: States Selected for Site Visits:
State: Georgia;
Unemployment rate (Mar 2004): 3.6%;
PY2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funds: $23,938,297;
Intrastate phone initial claims (as of 8/03): Planning;
Internet initial claims (as of 3/04): Planning;
Employer tax funded state training or job placement program: No.
State: Maryland;
Unemployment rate (Mar 2004): 4.0%;
PY2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funds: $11,824,549;
Intrastate phone initial claims (as of 8/03): Yes;
Internet initial claims (as of 3/04): Yes;
Employer tax funded state training or job placement program: No.
State: Michigan;
Unemployment rate (Mar 2004): 6.9%;
PY2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funds: $50,409,392;
Intrastate phone initial claims (as of 8/03): Partial;
Internet initial claims (as of 3/04): Yes;
Employer tax funded state training or job placement program: Yes.
State: Washington;
Unemployment rate (Mar 2004): 6.1%;
PY2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funds: $37,037,061;
Intrastate phone initial claims (as of 8/03): Yes;
Internet initial claims (as of 3/04): Yes;
Employer tax funded state training or job placement program: Yes.
Source: Department of Labor, UI Information Technology Support Center,
and GAO analysis.
Note: Georgia and Maryland were in the bottom quartile for unemployment
rate in March 2004, while Michigan and Washington were in the top
quartile. Additionally, Michigan and Washington were in the top
quartile in program year 2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funds.
[End of table]
In coordination with state officials, we selected two local areas in
each state, visiting a mix of urban and rural areas that had been
identified by the state as having taken innovative approaches to
providing reemployment services to UI claimants.[Footnote 20] Local
areas selected for site visits are shown in table 3. At the local
areas, we met with local workforce officials at one-stop or career
centers to collect information on UI claims filing procedures,
reemployment services offered, how these services are targeted to UI
claimants, how UI claimants are linked to services, enforcement of work
search requirements, and data collection and use. We also talked with
officials at state telephone call centers in Maryland, Michigan, and
Washington; a problem resolution office in Lansing, Michigan; and the
Professional Outplacement Assistance Center in Columbia, Maryland.
Table 3: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Site Visits:
State: Georgia;
One-stop center/local workforce area: LaGrange Career Center[A];
City: LaGrange;
One-stop center/local workforce area: Gwinnett Career Center;
City: Norcross.
State: Maryland;
One-stop center/local workforce area: Southwest One-Stop Career Center
(Baltimore City Workforce Investment Board);
City: Baltimore;
One-stop center/local workforce area: One-Stop Job Market (Lower Shore
Workforce Alliance);
City: Salisbury.
State: Michigan;
One-stop center/local workforce area: Montcalm Service Center (Central
Area Michigan Works! Consortium);
City: Greenville;
One-stop center/local workforce area: Southgate Service Center
(Southeast Michigan Community Alliance);
City: Southgate.
State: Washington;
One-stop center/local workforce area: WorkSource Grays Harbor (Pacific
Mountain Workforce Development Council);
City: Aberdeen;
One-stop center/local workforce area: WorkSource North Seattle
(Seattle/King County Workforce Development Council);
City: Seattle.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] The sites we visited in Georgia are not one-stops but rather are
among the 53 career centers run by the Georgia Department of Labor.
Only career centers handle UI initial claims or UI eligibility reviews.
Some career centers are designated primary one-stops for their local
areas; those that are not are still based on the one-stop model and
provide their clients access to the full range of reemployment
services.
[End of table]
We attempted to corroborate the responses collected through the
telephone interview and supplemental data collection instruments. To
the extent possible, for the states we visited we compared responses
gathered through our instruments with information we collected during
those visits. During the time of our work, other sources, such as
Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE), that could have
acted as comparisons for some items or topics related to unemployment
insurance claimants, were not yet available. Based on the comparisons
we made, and discussions and interviews we held with agency staff and
officials and outside experts, we believe the data are sufficiently
reliable to be used in providing information on UI claims and claimants
and reemployment services.
[End of section]
Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely:
At the time of our survey, 39 states reported that they accepted
telephone initial claims, and 34 said they took Internet initial claims
(table 4). Additionally, 29 states reported that they used both remote
filing methods, and 6 states said they did not currently accept initial
claims remotely by either telephone or Internet. Several states that
currently use a single remote filing method--Internet or telephone--
indicated to us that they have plans to begin accepting claims by both
methods in the future.
Table 4: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely:
State: Alabama;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Alaska;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Arizona;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Arkansas;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: No.
State: California;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Colorado;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Connecticut;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Delaware;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: No.
State: Florida;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Georgia;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: No.
State: Hawaii;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Idaho;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Illinois;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: No.
State: Indiana;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Iowa;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Kansas;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Kentucky;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Louisiana;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Maine;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Maryland;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Massachusetts;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Michigan;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Minnesota;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Mississippi;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: No.
State: Missouri;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Montana;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Nebraska;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Nevada;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: New Hampshire;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: New Jersey;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: New Mexico;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: New York;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: North Carolina;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: North Dakota;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Ohio;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Oklahoma;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Oregon;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Pennsylvania;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Rhode Island;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: South Carolina;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: South Dakota;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Tennessee;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Texas;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Utah;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Vermont;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: No.
State: Virginia;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Washington;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: West Virginia;
Phone claims: No;
Internet claims: No.
State: Wisconsin;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
State: Wyoming;
Phone claims: Yes;
Internet claims: Yes.
Source: GAO table from survey responses--October and November 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
JUN 15 2005:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Better Data Needed to
Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants" (GAO-05-413). The report is
the result of an audit to determine whether unemployment insurance (UI)
beneficiaries who file UI claims remotely are receiving sufficient
information and are linked to reemployment services. The GAO
recommended in the report that--
"[A]s Labor develops EMILE [Management Information and Longitudinal
Evaluation system], the Secretary of Labor works with states to develop
a plan for considering the feasibility of requiring states to collect
more comprehensive information on UI claimants' use of reemployment
services and the outcomes achieved by claimants, including the length
of time claimants receive UI before they are reemployed."
We appreciate that GAO recognizes the potential value of EMILE overall
and that the stated purpose of the recommendation is "to improve the
understanding of claimant' use of services and of their outcomes." The
report, however, did not describe the possible uses of this data.
As acknowledged in the report, the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) currently collects data on UI beneficiaries to
whom the publicly funded workforce system provides training and
reemployment services, with the exception of self-services and
"information provided without additional services." Also as noted in
the report, the UI program is implementing as a performance measure the
rate at which UI beneficiaries become reemployed.
Another initiative for which data will be available is the recently
implemented Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) initiative.
The Department has provided funding to 21 states to conduct in-person
interviews with UI beneficiaries to assure that the beneficiaries meet
continuing eligibility requirements including their responsibilities
for finding reemployment and to assess their need for reemployment
services. Initially, the results of these assessments will be collected
from nine (9) states. ETA will seek authority to collect similar data
from all states funded for REA activity.
Another recent project designed to promote the placement and
reemployment of unemployed workers, specifically UI beneficiaries, is
the Claimant Placement and Claimant Reemployment (CPCR) project
conducted by one of ETA's regional offices. In collaboration with
states, CPCR has identified high performance states and is determining
factors most likely contributing to their success such as program
structure, program policy, service delivery and coordination of
UI/workforce reemployment services. The high performance states have
taken on the role as mentors of states interested in improving
performance and are sharing with them their methods to reemploy UI
claimants. Although CPCR is not a data collection instrument per se,
the practices of high performing states will be shared with other
states.
We also note that UI beneficiaries are experienced workers-many are
expected to be called back to their old jobs and others, unemployed for
seasonal reasons, have tried-and-true methods of becoming reemployed.
Therefore, reemployment services may not be necessary for all
beneficiaries.
We believe that the current data collected, combined with the data soon
to be collected, and supplemented by periodic research provide adequate
information to guide policy making related to promoting UI
beneficiaries reemployment. In addition, the report discusses the
difficulties states would have collecting additional information
because the data for the Ul program and public workforce system
generally reside in separate computer systems within the states. We are
cognizant of the burden placed on states in regard to data collection
and reporting, so it is important to show a clear benefit to the system
for additional data collections. Therefore, we would appreciate having
the GAO provide additional guidance on how collection of the additional
data is expected to improve services to UI beneficiaries and hasten
their reemployment.
Enclosed are ETA's technical comments on the draft report. If you would
like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (202)
693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, (202) 512-7215:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Dianne Blank, Assistant Director:
Janice Peterson, Analyst-in-Charge:
In addition, the following staff made major contributions to this
report: Karyn Angulo and Andrew Bauck served as team members and
assisted with all phases of the effort; Jennifer Miller, Alison Pan,
and Leslie Sarapu assisted with data collection; Kevin Jackson advised
on design and methodology issues; Erin Daugherty, Theresa Chen, R.
Jerry Aiken, and Catherine Hurley assisted with data analysis; Susan
Bernstein and Stan Stenersen advised on report preparation; Jessica
Botsford advised on legal issues; and Lise Levie and Regina Santucci
verified our findings.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539.
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Unemployment Insurance: Information on Benefit Receipt. GAO-05-291.
Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training
Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012.
Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004:
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004:
Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement and
Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally
Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004:
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003:
Unemployment Insurance: States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution.
GAO-03-496. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002:
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Unemployment Insurance: Role as Safety Net for Low-Wage Workers Is
Limited. GAO-01-181. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Wayne Vroman, Extending Unemployment Insurance (UI) Protection,
(Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, May 6, 2003).
[2] For purposes of the survey, we defined claimant as an individual
who has applied for regular unemployment compensation, been found
eligible, and received a first payment of benefits.
[3] Self-employed individuals and agricultural workers on small farms
are generally not covered under UI.
[4] For more information, see GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms
Have Accelerated Training Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges
Remain. GAO-04-1012 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004), and Health
Coverage Tax Credit: Simplified and More Timely Enrollment Process
Could Increase Participation. GAO-04-1029 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2004).
[5] For the purposes of this study, a state was considered to take
telephone claims remotely if it had implemented telephone filing for
intrastate initial claims at the time of our interview. Most of these
states provided the telephone option statewide, but a few of them, such
as Tennessee and Virginia, were still transitioning to statewide
implementation.
[6] For the purposes of this study, a state was considered to take
Internet claims remotely if claimants statewide had the option of
filing over the Internet from outside of a one-stop, Employment
Service, or UI office at the time of our interview. We did not consider
a state as an Internet filing state if it operated only a pilot program
in a part of the state and had not established a definite date for
statewide implementation.
[7] Even when the claim is filed through a customer service
representative, the process in most states involves both an automated
response system and a conversation with a customer service
representative. Typically claimants first key data that is converted to
a numeric response using an automated system. The claimants are then
transferred to a customer service representative to complete the claim.
[8] In Georgia, unemployed workers can participate in reemployment
services at either a Career Center or a one-stop center. Only the
Career Centers, however, handle UI initial claims, and they have UI
staff on site.
[9] The Workforce Investment Act specifically excludes self-service
clients from performance measures.
[10] For more information see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and
Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor
Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004), and
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness, GAO-02-275
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).
[11] Based on our follow-up e-mail questionnaire to state officials.
[12] For purposes of our survey, a claimant was one who was determined
eligible according to both monetary and nonmonetary criteria.
[13] We specifically asked states to exclude self-assisted services
when they considered their response to this survey question.
[14] We asked states whether it would be possible to calculate the
outcomes for a specific time period for the subset of claimants who (1)
filed a new initial claim, (2) received a first payment in a given
fiscal year, and (3) received reemployment services within 6 months of
their initial claim.
[15] Four states said in written comments that our definition of
claimants--that they received a first payment--contributed to the
difficulty in performing the calculations.
[16] Data will be reported in summer 2006.
[17] These reporting changes also affect the Veterans' Employment and
Training Programs.
[18] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider
Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting
Requirements, GAO-05-539 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.)
[19] We did not include Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or the Virgin
Islands in this review.
[20] While we took measures to ensure the selected sites reflect the
substantive criteria, our visits were made to nonprobability samples of
states and local areas. Therefore, results from these samples cannot be
used to make inferences about a population. Additionally, the
information that we gathered on our site visits represents only the
conditions present in the states and local areas at the time of our
site visits, conducted from April through September 2004; therefore,
some changes may have occurred after our fieldwork was completed.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
