Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment
Services to Claimants (24-JUN-05, GAO-05-413).			 
                                                                 
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.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-413 					        
    ACCNO:   A27738						        
  TITLE:     Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess     
Reemployment Services to Claimants				 
     DATE:   06/24/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Claims						 
	     Claims processing					 
	     Eligibility criteria				 
	     Eligibility determinations 			 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Federal aid to states				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Reemployment					 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Unemployment compensation programs 		 
	     Unemployment insurance				 
	     Program graduation 				 
	     DOL Unemployment Insurance Program 		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-413

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives

June 2005

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

                             Better Data Needed to
                              Assess Reemployment
                             Services to Claimants

GAO-05-413

[IMG]

June 2005

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants

                                 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
faceto-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

Source: GAO analysis of data supplied by state officials in October and November
                                     2004.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

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

                                       1

                                      3 5

                                       9

15

19 29 30 30

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 22

Table 2: States Selected for Site Visits 34 Table 3: Local Workforce Areas
Selected for Site Visits 35

Table 4: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely 37

Figures

Figure 1: Most States Take Initial UI Claims Remotely 11

Figure 2: Most States Reported It Was Difficult to Track Claimant Services
across the Broad Array of Federal Employment and Training Programs 24

Figure 3: Reasons States Said Tracking Client Services Was Difficult 25
Figure 4: States' Assessment of How Difficult It Would Be to Track
Outcomes for Claimants Who Received Services 26

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

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. However, 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.

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.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

1 Wayne Vroman, Extending Unemployment Insurance (UI) Protection,
(Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, May 6, 2003).

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.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,

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.

  Results in Brief

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.

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
onestop 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.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

3 Self-employed individuals and agricultural workers on small farms are
generally not covered under UI.

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.4

Other Funds to Support Reemployment Services

  Most States Have Shifted to Taking Claims Remotely, and All States Provide
  Claimants with Information on Their Obligations and Available 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.

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.

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).

Most States Accept Initial UI Claims by Telephone or Internet

Forty-four states accept initial claims for unemployment insurance by
telephone5 or the Internet,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.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,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.)

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.

Figure 1: Most States Take Initial UI Claims Remotely

Source: GAO analysis of data supplied by state officials in October and
November 2004.

Note: Information on remote claims taking provided to GAO by state
officials during telephone interviews in October and November 2004.

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.

o  	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.

o  	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 twothirds 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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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

o  job search assistance;

o  resume assistance;

o  job matching, referral, and placement services;  o  orientation to
services;

o  referral to WIA or other partners;

o  initial or general needs assessment;

o  counseling; and

o  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 twothirds
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-byprogram 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.9 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.

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).

Table 1: Summary of Data Reporting Requirements and Their Limitations for
Measuring Overall Claimant Services and Outcomes

Reporting requirement

What it contains Limitations

                  Unemployment Insurance program requirements

UI Performs	Summary information reported annually on overall performance
Contains no information on of state's UI program, including: claimant
services or

o  accuracy determining claimant's benefits outcomes.

o  time to process first payment to claimants

o  timeliness of appeals process

o  tax timeliness and accuracy

ETA 5159-UI Claims and Payment Summary information on claims and payments,
including: Contains no information on Activities  o  total new initial
claims claimant services or outcomes.

o  continued weeks claimed

o  weeks compensated

o  first payments

o  final payments for all unemployed

Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services

ETA 9048-Claimant Activity

ETA 9049-Claimant Outcomes Summary information on services, including:

o  number who are profiled and targeted for services

o  number reporting for services, by type of service

o  number completing services, by type of service

Summary information on outcomes, including:

o  benefit duration and amount

o  employment and wages Only contains information on claimants who have
been targeted for services through profiling.

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

ETA 9002 Quarterly Report Summary information reported quarterly on
participants

                          Only contains information on

registered with the Employment Service, including:

o  demographics

o  services provided or referred

o  employment outcomes claimants who have registered with the Employment
Service program.

Workforce Investment Act requirements

ETA 9090 - WIA Quarterly Report 	Quarterly updates to annual report
providing summary Only contains information on information on current WIA
participants, including: claimants who have

o  	job placement received services and are registered under WIA.

o  employment retention Those receiving only self

o  earnings change service or information are

o  credential rate not registered.

ETA 9091 - WIA Annual Report 	Summary information on WIA registrants who
exited the Only contains information on program, including: claimants who
have

o  	job placement received services and are registered under WIA.

o  employment retention Those receiving only self

o  earnings change service or information are

o  credential rate not registered.

WIA Standard Record Data 	Participant-level data file of all WIA
registrants who exited the Only contains information on program,
including: claimants who have

o  	demographics received services and are registered under WIA.

o  services/activities Those receiving only self

o  employment/wage outcomes service or information are

o  credential attainment not registered.

Trade Adjustment Assistance Act requirements

Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR) Participant-level data file of all TAA
participants who exited the

                          Only contains information on

program:

o  demographics

o  services/activities

o  employment/wage outcomes

claimants who are also participating in TAA.

                     Source: Department of Labor guidance.

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 reported11 that they go beyond the federal
reporting requirements to routinely track the extent to which claimants12
receive services from the broad array of federally funded

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.

programs that are designed to assist them.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

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.)

13 We specifically asked states to exclude self-assisted services when
they considered their response to this survey question.

      Figure 3: Reasons States Said Tracking Client Services Was Difficult

Number of states

                                       33

                     erent data systems Use different data

                             definitions and coding

erent departments diff

acPriv

nt or complicateelements not reliab

                                  y Issues ley

Not routinelcaptured

                               yData maintained b

veprediff Reasons

Source: GAO survey of state officials.

Note: States could cite more than one reason.

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.14 More states reported difficulty
tracking the

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.

entered employment rate than the average benefit duration or UI exhaustion
rate. (See fig. 4).15

Figure 4: States' Assessment of How Difficult It Would Be to Track
Outcomes for Claimants Who Received Services

Number of states

30

28

25

20

15

10

5

0

No it would not Yes technically Yes possible, no Unsure if it would be
possible possible, added resources be possible to calculate this added
resources required outcome required

Degree of difficulty

Entered employment rate

Average benefit duration

UI exhaustion rate

Source: GAO survey of state officials.

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.

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.

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.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.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

16 Data will be reported in summer 2006. 17 These reporting changes also
affect the Veterans' Employment and Training 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.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

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.)

Conclusions

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.

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

  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

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,

Sigurd R. Nilsen Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

  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.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

19 We did not include Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands
in this review.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

                                                                 Employer tax 
                             PY2004 WIA Intrastate    Internet   funded state 
                                        phone                  
              Unemployment   Dislocated   initial      initial    training or 
                                           claims       claims            job 
     State     rate (Mar   Worker funds (as of 8/03)    (as of      placement 
                 2004)                                   3/04)        program 
    Georgia           3.6% $23, 938,297     Planning  Planning             No 
    Maryland          4.0%   11,824,549          Yes       Yes             No 
    Michigan          6.9%   50,409,392      Partial       Yes            Yes 
Washington         6.1%   37,037,061          Yes       Yes            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.

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

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

reemployment services to UI claimants.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          One-stop center/local workforce area       City 
             Georgia                       LaGrange Career Centera   LaGrange 
                                            Gwinnett Career Center   Norcross 
                     Southwest One-Stop Career Center (Baltimore    Baltimore 
            Maryland City                                          
                                       Workforce Investment Board) 
                     One-Stop Job Market (Lower Shore Workforce     Salisbury 
                                                         Alliance) 
                     Montcalm Service Center (Central Area         Greenville 
            Michigan Michigan                                      
                                                Works! Consortium) 
                     Southgate Service Center (Southeast Michigan   Southgate 
                                               Community Alliance) 

Washington 	WorkSource Grays Harbor (Pacific Mountain Workforce Aberdeen
Development Council)

WorkSource North Seattle (Seattle/King County Seattle Workforce
Development Council)

Source: GAO analysis.

aThe 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.

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

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 Phone claims Internet claims

Alabama X

Alaska X

Arizona X X

                                    Arkansas

California X X

Colorado X X

Connecticut X

                                    Delaware

Florida X X

                                    Georgia

Hawaii X

Idaho X X

                                    Illinois

Indiana X

Iowa X X

Kansas X X
Kentucky X X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland X X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X X
Minnesota X X
Mississippi
Missouri X X
Montana X
Nebraska X X
Nevada X X

Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely

                       State Phone claims Internet claims

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X

New Mexico X X

New York X X

North Carolina X

North Dakota X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X X

Texas X X

Utah X X

Vermont X

Virginia X X
Washington X X
West Virginia
Wisconsin X X
Wyoming X X

Source: GAO table from survey responses-October and November 2004.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor

Page 39 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI Appendix III: Comments from the
      Department of Labor Page 40 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI

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.

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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***