This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-496 
entitled 'Unemployment Insurance: States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act 
Distribution' which was released on March 07, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Requesters:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



March 2003:



Unemployment Insurance:



States Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution:



Unemployment Insurance:



GAO-03-496:



Contents:



Letter:



Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides:



Appendix II: Balances and Ceilings for Federal UI Payroll Tax Accounts:



Appendix III: Reed Act Distributions:



Appendix IV: Status of CY2002 Reed Act Dollars by State, 

as of 11-30-2002:



Appendix V: CY2002 Reed Act Distribution as a Percent of New 

UI Trust Fund Balances and Average High Cost 

Multiples (AHCM):



Appendix VI: Unemployment Insurance Benefit Enhancements 

Made in CY2002, by State:



Appendix VII: Effect of Reed Act Distribution on Employer 

Taxes as Reported by States:



Appendix VIII: States with Reed Act Dollars Appropriated by Law 

for UI, ES, or One-Stop Systems, as of 11-30-2002:



Appendix IX: UI Administrative Activities, by State, for which 

CY2002 Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, 

as of 11-30-2002:



Appendix X: ES and One-Stop Administrative Activities for which CY2002 

Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, 

as of 11-30-2002:



Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contact:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Abbreviations:



ES: Employment Services:



UI: Unemployment Insurance:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 

protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 

in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 

copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 

copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAOs product.



United States General Accounting Office:



Washington, DC 20548:



March 6, 2003:



The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate:



The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives:



The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, administered by the U.S. 

Department of Labor in partnership with states, plays a critical role 

in ensuring the financial security of Americas workforce. In fiscal 

year 2002, state UI programs paid benefits totaling $50.8 billion to 

10.6 million unemployed workers.[Footnote 1] In March 2002, in response 

to an increase in unemployment and the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks, the federal government passed the Job Creation and Worker 

Assistance Act of 2002. This broad stimulus package included a 

distribution to states of $8 billion of the unemployment tax revenue it 

holds in reserve, referred to as a Reed Act distribution.[Footnote 2] 

Under the act, these funds may be used to pay UI benefits, and/or to 

enhance UI benefits, such as increasing weekly benefit payments, 

extending the period of time benefits are paid, or otherwise expanding 

eligibility to groups that currently do not qualify for benefits. The 

funds may also be used for the administration of UI and employment 

services (ES) programs, including one-stop service centers, if 

appropriated by state law.[Footnote 3]



You asked us to determine how states used their calendar year 

(CY) 2002 Reed Act distributions. This report provides information on 

(1) the proportion of Reed Act dollars that states have spent, to date; 

(2) the proportion of total Reed Act dollars that remains in state UI 

trust funds and the effect this has had on employer UI taxes; (3) the 

proportion of those Reed Act dollars remaining in state UI trust funds 

that have been officially obligated to their trust funds or 

appropriated by state law for administering the UI, ES, or one-stop 

systems; and (4) the makeup of state UI advisory boards and any 

proposals they have made for using Reed Act dollars.



To obtain this information, we surveyed state workforce agency 

administrators in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands. We also reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and 

other documents and data relevant to unemployment insurance and Reed 

Act distributions and interviewed Labor officials responsible for 

overseeing state activities related to the CY2002 Reed Act 

distribution. This work was conducted from August 2002 through February 

2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.



On February 24, 2003, we briefed your staff on the results of our work. 

This report conveys the information provided during that briefing.



In summary, we found that about 17 percent ($1.34 billion) of the $8 

billion CY2002 Reed Act distribution had been spent as of November 30, 

2002, based on responses to our survey. Most was expended by three 

states to pay regular benefits--New York, North Carolina, and Texas. A 

small portion ($74 million) was expended on costs associated with 

administering UI, ES, or one-stop systems. One state spent Reed Act 

dollars to increase weekly UI benefit payments, and five other states 

said that the Reed Act dollars enabled their states to make 

enhancements to UI benefits during CY2002 using other funds. Three 

additional states reported that they plan to spend Reed Act dollars in 

2003 to implement UI benefit enhancements.



Eighty-three percent, or $6.66 billion of the Reed Act distribution had 

not been spent as of November 30, 2002, and state workforce officials 

in 

30 states reported that adding these dollars to their UI trust funds 

enabled them to avoid automatic employer tax increases or 

surcharges[Footnote 4] in 2002. Five states said that they lowered 

employer tax rates in 2003.[Footnote 5] Twenty-six states also reported 

that their employer tax rates would likely have been higher than they 

actually were in 2003, had it not been for the Reed Act distribution. 

This includes two states whose tax rates were lower in 2003 than 2002.



Nine states formally obligated $1.27 billion of the Reed Act 

distribution to remain in their UI trust funds, citing the desire to 

avoid increases in employer UI taxes as the most frequent reason for 

doing this. In addition, 27 states passed laws appropriating a total of 

7 percent of the Reed Act distribution ($590 million) to be used for 

administrative costs of UI, ES, or one-stop systems. In general, states 

reported that few Reed Act dollars were being used to replace other 

state and federal funding sources to administer UI, ES, or one-stop 

systems.



Twenty-five states have UI advisory boards, which are largely made up 

of representatives of worker and employer groups, state workforce 

agency officials, or members of the general public. Only five states 

reported that their UI advisory board had developed or endorsed a 

proposal for the use of the Reed Act dollars.



We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Department of 

Labor for their technical review and incorporated their comments where 

appropriate.



We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. The report is 

also available at no charge on GAOs Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If 

you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or Clarita Mrena at (202) 512-3022. Other major 

contributors are listed in appendix XI.



Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director

Education, Workforce, and

 Income Security Issues:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Congressional Briefing Slides:



[See PDF for image}



[End of section]



Appendix II Balances and Ceilings for Federal UI Payroll Tax Accounts:



(Dollars in billions).



Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA); Purpose: Funds both 

federal and state administrative costs of UI and ES.; Account balance 

as of: 1-31-03: $1.354; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $1.632.



Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA); Purpose: Funds the 

federal share of extended UI benefits.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: 

$11.246; Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $19.174.



Federal Unemployment Account (FUA); Purpose: Funds loans to insolvent 

state UI trust funds.; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $10.903; 

Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $19.174.



Total; Purpose: [Empty]; Account balance as of: 1-31-03: $23.503; 

Projected: ceiling[A]: 9-30-03: $39.98.



Source: U.S. Department of Labor.



Note: There is a statutory cap or ceiling placed on the size of each of 

these accounts. The ceiling for the ESAA account is 40 percent of the 

appropriated amounts during the fiscal year for which the ceiling is 

being calculated. For the EUCA and FUA accounts, this ceiling is 0.5 

percent of the total covered wages in the prior calendar year.



[A] The ceilings for these accounts are calculated each September. By 

that time, all funds will have been appropriated for the year, and 

total covered wages for the prior year will be known. The amounts noted 

here are Labors projections of what the ceilings should be in 

September 2003 based on their estimates, at this time, of the total 

amount appropriated for 2003, and total covered wages in calendar year 

2002.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix III: Reed Act Distributions:



Distribution date: July 1, 1956; Amount: $33.4 million.



Distribution date: July 1, 1957; Amount: $71 million.



Distribution date: July 1, 1958; Amount: $33.5 million.



Distribution date: October 1, 1998; Amount: $16 million.



Distribution date: October 1, 1999; Amount: $100 million.



Distribution date: October 1, 2000; Amount: $100 million.



Distribution date: October 1, 2001; Amount: $100 million.



Distribution date: March 13, 2002; Amount: $8 billion.



Source: U.S. Department of Labor.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Status of CY2002 Reed Act Dollars by State, as of 11-30-

2002:



State: Alabama; Total Reed Act allotment: $110,623,477; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 15.0; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 85.0.



State: Alaska; Total Reed Act allotment: 14,820,932; Percent expended: 

0.5; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 19.7; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 79.8.



State: Arizona; Total Reed Act allotment: 144,079,575; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Arkansas; Total Reed Act allotment: 63,958,998; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: California; Total Reed Act allotment: 936,873,766; Percent 

expended: 0.6; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.7; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 64.0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 31.6.



State: Colorado; Total Reed Act allotment: 142,666,574; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Connecticut; Total Reed Act allotment: 100,418,304; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 9.0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 91.0.



State: Delaware; Total Reed Act allotment: 26,024,719; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: District of Columbia; Total Reed Act allotment: 25,765,401; 

Percent expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 31.3; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 68.7.



State: Florida; Total Reed Act allotment: 449,667,718; Percent 

expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.2; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 96.4.



State: Georgia; Total Reed Act allotment: 249,673,858; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: a; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Hawaii; Total Reed Act allotment: 30,761,048; Percent expended: 

0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Idaho[B]; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,244,586; Percent 

expended: 21.7; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 78.3.



State: Illinois; Total Reed Act allotment: 376,244,918; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Indiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 174,573,012; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 42.4; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 57.6.



State: Iowa; Total Reed Act allotment: 82,395,262; Percent expended: 

1.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 35.2; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 63.6.



State: Kansas; Total Reed Act allotment: 78,166,750; Percent expended: 

0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: Kentucky; Total Reed Act allotment: 103,829,381; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Louisiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 105,499,296; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 24.9; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 75.1.



State: Maine; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,486,816; Percent expended: 

0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Maryland; Total Reed Act allotment: 142,929,005; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Massachusetts; Total Reed Act allotment: 193,639,110; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 1.3; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 98.7.



State: Michigan; Total Reed Act allotment: 291,485,481; Percent 

expended: 13.9; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 85.0; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 1.2.



State: Minnesota[B]; Total Reed Act allotment: 163,061,573; Percent 

expended: 7.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 92.6.



State: Mississippi; Total Reed Act allotment: 64,670,097; Percent 

expended: 1.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 23.3; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 75.3.



State: Missouri; Total Reed Act allotment: 161,426,814; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: Montana; Total Reed Act allotment: 18,551,627; Percent expended: 

3.0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 97.0; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: Nebraska; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,380,203; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 28.9; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 71.1.



State: Nevada; Total Reed Act allotment: 68,082,942; Percent expended: 

0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 100; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: New Hampshire; Total Reed Act allotment: 38,475,620; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: New Jersey; Total Reed Act allotment: 242,816,310; Percent 

expended: 0.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 15.1; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 84.8.



State: New Mexico; Total Reed Act allotment: 38,599,338; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: New York; Total Reed Act allotment: 491,343,135; Percent 

expended: 100; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: North Carolina; Total Reed Act allotment: 240,892,032; Percent 

expended: 100; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: North Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 15,267,835; Percent 

expended: 0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 1.1; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 98.5.



State: Ohio; Total Reed Act allotment: 343,709,635; Percent expended: 

0.4; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 14.4; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 63.0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 22.1.



State: Oklahoma; Total Reed Act allotment: 81,441,628; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 2.5; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 97.5.



State: Oregon; Total Reed Act allotment: 98,029,105; Percent expended: 

0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Pennsylvania; Total Reed Act allotment: 337,595,975; Percent 

expended: 0.1; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 4.3; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 95.6.



State: Puerto Rico; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,875,605; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 33.8; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 66.2; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 0.



State: Rhode Island; Total Reed Act allotment: 27,123,409; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 9.6; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 90.4.



State: South Carolina; Total Reed Act allotment: 108,203,982; Percent 

expended: 1.5; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 98.5.



State: South Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 19,140,671; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Tennessee; Total Reed Act allotment: 162,633,730; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 4.6; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 95.4.



State: Texas; Total Reed Act allotment: 596,446,497; Percent expended: 

89.7; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 10.3.



State: Utah; Total Reed Act allotment: 61,627,678; Percent expended: 0; 

Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 3.5; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 96.5.



State: Vermont; Total Reed Act allotment: 16,395,967; Percent expended: 

10.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 89.8.



State: Virgin Islands; Total Reed Act allotment: 1,950,917; Percent 

expended: 5.1; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 2.9; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 92.0.



State: Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 214,949,942; Percent 

expended: 1.2; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 13.2; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 85.6.



State: Washington; Total Reed Act allotment: 167,011,815; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: West Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 36,210,068; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 10.3; Unexpended: 

Percent officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 89.7.



State: Wisconsin; Total Reed Act allotment: 166,214,419; Percent 

expended: 0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: Wyoming; Total Reed Act allotment: 12,043,444; Percent expended: 

0; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 0; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 0; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 100.



State: United States; Total Reed Act allotment: $8,000,000,000; Percent 

expended: 16.8; Unexpended: Percent appropriated for 

administration of UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 7.4; Unexpended: Percent 

officially obligated to 

UI trust fund: 15.9; Unexpended: Percent neither appropriated

 nor obligated: 60.0.



Source: GAO data and U.S. Department of Labor data.



[A] Appropriated Reed Act funds for administration of UI, but could not 

specify the dollar amount allocated for this purpose.



[B] Appropriated Reed Act funds for administration of UI, ES, or one-

stop systems and expended all the dollars appropriated.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix V: CY2002 Reed Act Distribution as a Percent of New UI Trust 

Fund Balances and Average High Cost Multiples (AHCM):



State: Alabama; UI trust fund balance: $324.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: $110.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 25; AHCM: .065; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.5.



State: Alaska; UI trust fund balance: 231.9; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 14.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.03; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.03.



State: Arizona; UI trust fund balance: 954.0; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 144.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 13; AHCM: 1.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.57.



State: Arkansas; UI trust fund balance: 179.2; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 64.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 26; AHCM: 0.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.45.



State: California; UI trust fund balance: 5,689.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 936.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.78; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.77.



State: Colorado; UI trust fund balance: 684.5; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 142.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 17; AHCM: 1.05; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.89.



State: Connecticut; UI trust fund balance: 629.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 100.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.96; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.7.



State: Delaware; UI trust fund balance: 312.5; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 26.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 8; AHCM: 2.02; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.83.



State: District of Columbia; UI trust fund balance: 278.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 25.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 8; AHCM: 1.05; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.07.



State: Florida; UI trust fund balance: 1,761.8; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 449.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 20; AHCM: 1.4; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.17.



State: Georgia; UI trust fund balance: 1,542.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 249.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 1.79; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.43.



State: Hawaii; UI trust fund balance: 306.5; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 30.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.56; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.47.



State: Idaho; UI trust fund balance: 233.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 32.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 0.95; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.79.



State: Illinois; UI trust fund balance: 1,382.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 376.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 21; AHCM: 0.48; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.32.



State: Indiana; UI trust fund balance: 1,330.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 174.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 1.57; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.31.



State: Iowa; UI trust fund balance: 772.8; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 82.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.24; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.15.



State: Kansas; UI trust fund balance: 473.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 78.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 0.93; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.87.



State: Kentucky; UI trust fund balance: 544.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 103.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 16; AHCM: 0.77; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.59.



State: Louisiana; UI trust fund balance: 1,508.9; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 105.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.36; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.3.



State: Maine; UI trust fund balance: 410.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 32.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.43; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.66.



State: Maryland; UI trust fund balance: 826.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 142.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.94; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.84.



State: Massachusetts; UI trust fund balance: 1,770.5; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 193.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.01; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.83.



State: Michigan; UI trust fund balance: 2,601.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 291.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 0.75; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.65.



State: Minnesota; UI trust fund balance: 450.0; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 163.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 27; AHCM: 0.58; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.36.



State: Mississippi; UI trust fund balance: 658.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 64.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.98; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.87.



State: Missouri; UI trust fund balance: 276.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 161.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 37; AHCM: 0.55; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.32.



State: Montana; UI trust fund balance: 186.9; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 18.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.42; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.41.



State: Nebraska; UI trust fund balance: 144.1; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 48.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 25; AHCM: 0.99; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.78.



State: Nevada; UI trust fund balance: 481.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 68.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 1.07; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.97.



State: New Hampshire; UI trust fund balance: 317.0; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 38.5; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 11; AHCM: 2.01; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.91.



State: New Jersey; UI trust fund balance: 3,121.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 242.8; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 7; AHCM: 1.15; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.16.



State: New Mexico; UI trust fund balance: 581.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 38.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 2.79; AHCM: as of December 2001: 2.74.



State: New York; UI trust fund balance: 474.9; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 491.3; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 51; AHCM: 0.31; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.12.



State: North Carolina; UI trust fund balance: 626.3; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 240.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 28; AHCM: 0.91; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.48.



State: North Dakota; UI trust fund balance: 33.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 15.3; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 31; AHCM: 0.28; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.28.



State: Ohio; UI trust fund balance: 1,904.0; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 343.7; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.64; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.55.



State: Oklahoma; UI trust fund balance: 491.0; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 81.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 14; AHCM: 1.46; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.21.



State: Oregon; UI trust fund balance: 1,467.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 98.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.48; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.41.



State: Pennsylvania; UI trust fund balance: 2,380.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 337.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 12; AHCM: 0.68; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.56.



State: Puerto Rico; UI trust fund balance: 507.0; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 48.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.24; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.16.



State: Rhode Island; UI trust fund balance: 277.8; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 27.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 0.89; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.83.



State: South Carolina; UI trust fund balance: 627.2; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 108.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 1.29; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.03.



State: South Dakota; UI trust fund balance: 45.5; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 19.1; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 30; AHCM: 0.84; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.72.



State: Tennessee; UI trust fund balance: 650.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 162.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 20; AHCM: 0.9; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.66.



State: Texas; UI trust fund balance: 439.8; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 596.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 58; AHCM: 0.26; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.15.



State: Utah; UI trust fund balance: 564.8; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 61.6; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 10; AHCM: 1.61; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.42.



State: Vermont; UI trust fund balance: 308.4; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 16.4; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 5; AHCM: 2.54; AHCM: as of December 2001: 2.46.



State: Virgin Islands; UI trust fund balance: 64.1; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 2.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 3; AHCM: 3.33; AHCM: as of December 2001: 3.03.



State: Virginia; UI trust fund balance: 905.5; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 214.9; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 19; AHCM: 1.32; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.07.



State: Washington; UI trust fund balance: 1,796.1; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 167.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.04; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.96.



State: West Virginia; UI trust fund balance: 239.6; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 36.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 13; AHCM: 0.52; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.54.



State: Wisconsin; UI trust fund balance: 1,585.1; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 166.2; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 9; AHCM: 1.08; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.93.



State: Wyoming; UI trust fund balance: 195.1; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: 12.0; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 6; AHCM: 1.61; AHCM: as of December 2001: 1.56.



State: United States; UI trust fund balance: $46,550.7; 2002 Reed 

Act allotment: $8,000; Distribution as percent of new UI trust fund 

balance[A]: 15; AHCM: 0.91; AHCM: as of December 2001: 0.78.



Source: U.S. Department of Labor.



[NOTE:] The average high cost multiple (AHCM) indicates how many years 

a state can pay benefits before its trust fund became insolvent. It is 

based on the average amount a state paid out in UI benefits during its 

3 highest cost years in the previous 20 years, without collecting any 

additional revenue. As a guideline, the Department of Labor uses a 

reserve multiple of 1.0 as a minimally acceptable level of solvency.



[A] Percentage of new UI trust fund balance was calculated by dividing 

the amount of the Reed Act allotment by the sum of that amount and the 

UI trust fund balance as of 12-31-01.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix VI: Unemployment Insurance Benefit Enhancements Made in 
CY2002, 

by State:



State: Alabama; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: California; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: ; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; Increase 

maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: Yes.



State: Colorado; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Connecticut; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to 

use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: District of Columbia; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to 

enhance benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: 

Plans to use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand 

eligibility to part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit 

payments: Yes; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: 
[Empty]; 

Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; 

Other changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Georgia; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Plans to 

use; Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Idaho; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, 

or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/

implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-

time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Indiana; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Iowa; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, 

or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/

implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-

time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase 

maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Maryland; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes 

to UI benefits[A]: Yes.



State: Michigan; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Minnesota; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: Yes; Extend benefits 

to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: New Hampshire; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: New Jersey; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: 

[Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; 

Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.



State: Ohio; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, 

or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/

implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-

time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase 

maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Oklahoma; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; 

Test/implement alternative base period: Yes; Expand eligibility to 
part-

time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: [Empty]; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Oregon; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Enabled; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Rhode Island; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: 

[Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; 

Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; 

Other changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.



State: South Carolina; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Texas; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance benefits, 

or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; Test/

implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-

time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase 

maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Vermont; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: Used; Test/

implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to part-

time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase 

maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Virgin Islands; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: [Empty].



State: Washington; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: 

[Empty]; Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; 

Extend benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.



State: Wisconsin; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: Yes; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase 

maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend benefits to 

individuals who have exhausted coverage: Yes; Other changes to UI 

benefits[A]: Yes.



State: Wyoming; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: [Empty]; 

Test/implement alternative base period: [Empty]; Expand eligibility to 

part-time workers: [Empty]; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: Yes; 

Increase maximum number of weeks of potential UI: [Empty]; Extend 

benefits to individuals who have exhausted coverage: [Empty]; Other 

changes to UI benefits[A]: Yes.



State: Total: 25; Used/planned to use Reed Act dollars to enhance 

benefits, or distribution otherwise enabled state to do so: 9; Test/

implement alternative base period: 4; Expand eligibility to part-time 

workers: 2; Increase weekly UI benefit payments: 21; Increase maximum 

number of weeks of potential UI: 1; Extend benefits to individuals who 

have exhausted coverage: 6; Other changes to UI benefits[A]: 7.



Source: GAO survey of states.



[A] Other changes include activities such as: elimination of the 

waiting week, reduction of social security offsets, and increasing the 

replacement rate for benefits.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix VII: Effect of Reed Act Distribution on Employer Taxes as 

Reported by States:



State: Alabama; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Alaska; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 

than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 
2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Arizona; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Arkansas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: California; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Colorado; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Connecticut; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Delaware; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: District of Columbia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge 

triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 

2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: 

Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax 

rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Florida; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Georgia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Hawaii; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Idaho; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Illinois; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Indiana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Iowa; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust 

fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 
triggering 

an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates 

compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Kansas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Kentucky; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Louisiana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Maine; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 

than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 
2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Maryland; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Massachusetts; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Michigan; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Minnesota; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Mississippi; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Missouri; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Montana; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Nebraska; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Nevada; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: New Hampshire; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: New Jersey; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: New Mexico; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: New York; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: North Carolina; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge 

triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 
2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: North Dakota; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: [Empty]; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 

2003 as in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower 

in 

2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax 

rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Ohio; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust 

fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 
triggering 

an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates 

compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Oklahoma; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Oregon; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Pennsylvania; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Puerto Rico[B]; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge 

triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 

2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: 

Lower in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, 

tax rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: 

[Empty].



State: Rhode Island; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: South Carolina; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge 

triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 
2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: South Dakota[C]; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge 

triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than 

in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 
as 

in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 

2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax 

rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Tennessee; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Texas; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Utah; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if trust 

fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 
triggering 

an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax rates 

compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Vermont; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 
Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Virgin Islands; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge 

triggered if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds 

prevented triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 

2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: 

Lower in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax 

rates for 2003 would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Virginia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: Washington; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: Yes; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 
2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: [Empty]; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would 

likely have been higher than they were: Yes.



State: West Virginia; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered 

if trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: Yes; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 
than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Wisconsin; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: Yes; 

2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than 

in 2002: [Empty]; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Wyoming; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: Yes; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: [Empty]; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 

[Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 

2002: [Empty]; 2003 tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 

than in 2002: Yes; Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 
2003 

would likely have been higher than they were: [Empty].



State: Total; Automatic increases in UI tax/surcharge triggered if 

trust fund falls below certain level: 49; Reed Act funds prevented 

triggering an increase in a tax or surcharge in 2002[A]: 30; 2003 tax 

rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Higher in 2003 than in 2002: 25; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Same in 2003 as in 2002: 22; 2003 

tax rates compared to 2002 tax rates: Lower in 2003 than in 2002: 5; 

Without the Reed Act distribution, tax rates for 2003 would likely have 

been higher than they were: 26.



Source: GAO survey of states.



[A] According to the Department of Labor, for most states, any 

increases triggered in CY2002 would not have gone into effect until 

CY2003.



[B] Data for this state was not available.



[C] Data for this state is preliminary. Final rates have not been 

determined.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix VIII: States with Reed Act Dollars Appropriated by Law for UI, 

ES, or One-Stop Systems, as of 11-30-2002:



State: Alabama; Total Reed Act allotment: $110,623,477; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: $16,593,522.



State: Alaska; Total Reed Act allotment: 14,820,932; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES 
or 

one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-

stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: $76,656; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,923,344.



State: California; Total Reed Act allotment: 936,873,766; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 5,700,000; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 34,936,000.



State: Connecticut; Total Reed Act allotment: 100,418,304; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 9,000,000.



State: District of Columbia; Total Reed Act allotment: 25,765,401; Reed 

Act dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-

02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 

Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 8,060,000.



State: Florida; Total Reed Act allotment: 449,667,718; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for 

ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, 
or 

one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 1,684,530; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 14,544,970.



State: Georgia; Total Reed Act allotment: 249,673,858; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES 
or 

one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or 

one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: [A]; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: [A].



State: Idaho; Total Reed Act allotment: 32,244,586; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES 
or 

one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-

stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 7,000,000; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 0.



State: Iowa; Total Reed Act allotment: 82,395,262; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES 
or 

one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or 

one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 992,109; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 29,007,891.



State: Louisiana; Total Reed Act allotment: 105,499,296; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 26,316,771.



State: Massachusetts; Total Reed Act allotment: 193,639,110; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-

02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 

Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,425,000.



State: Michigan; Total Reed Act allotment: 291,485,481; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 40,378,377; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 247,621,623.



State: Minnesota; Total Reed Act allotment: 163,061,573; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for 

UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 12,000,000; 

Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount 

remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 0.



State: Mississippi; Total Reed Act allotment: 64,670,097; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-

02: 905,889; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop 

systems: Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 15,094,111.



State: Montana; Total Reed Act allotment: 18,551,627; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES 
or 

one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-

stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 565,143; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 17,986,484.



State: New Jersey; Total Reed Act allotment: 242,816,310; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 433,514; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 36,566,486.



State: North Dakota; Total Reed Act allotment: 15,267,835; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for 

UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 57,868; Reed 

Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount 

remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 173,604.



State: Ohio; Total Reed Act allotment: 343,709,635; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for ES 
or 

one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-

stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 1,531,288; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 49,468,712.



State: Oklahoma; Total Reed Act allotment: 81,441,628; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for 

ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, 
or 

one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,000,000.



State: Pennsylvania; Total Reed Act allotment: 337,595,975; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 444,337; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 14,555,663.



State: Puerto Rico; Total Reed Act allotment: 48,875,605; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 16,500,000.



State: Rhode Island; Total Reed Act allotment: 27,123,409; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-

02: 0; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: 

Amount remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,600,000.



State: Tennessee; Total Reed Act allotment: 162,633,730; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 7,400,000.



State: Utah; Total Reed Act allotment: 61,627,678; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI system: [Empty]; Reed Act dollars appropriated for 

ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, 
or 

one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 2,160,000.



State: Virgin Islands; Total Reed Act allotment: 1,950,917; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 98,548; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 56,577.



State: Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 214,949,942; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 2,529,421; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining 

in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: 28,376,035.



State: West Virginia; Total Reed Act allotment: 36,210,068; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: Yes; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 
ES, 

or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: 0; Reed Act dollars 

appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount remaining in the 

trust fund as of 11-30-02: 3,745,000.



State: Total: 27; Total Reed Act allotment: $4,413,593,220; Reed Act 

dollars appropriated for UI system: 21; Reed Act dollars appropriated 

for ES or one-stop system: 22; Reed Act dollars appropriated for UI, 

ES, or one-stop systems: Amount spent as of 11-30-02: $74,397,680; Reed 

Act dollars appropriated for UI, ES, or one-stop systems: Amount 

remaining in the trust fund as of 11-30-02: $588,111,793.



Source: GAO survey of states.



[A] State was unable to report dollar amount.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix IX: UI Administrative Activities, by State, for which CY2002 

Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002:



State: Alabama; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program 

integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: Alaska; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; 

Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 

[Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].



State: California; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims 

system 

developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; 

Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 

[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Connecticut; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; 

Appeals 

system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; 

Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: District of Columbia; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; 

Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying 

enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct 

deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Georgia[A]; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: 

[Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit 

cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].



State: Idaho; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals 

system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; 

Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: Iowa; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: 

Yes; 

Other: [Empty].



State: Louisiana; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 
system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program 

integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Michigan; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; 

Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 

[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Minnesota; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: 

Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: Montana; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals 

system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; 

Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: New Jersey; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; 

Appeals 

system improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program 

integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: North Dakota; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: 

[Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit 

cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: Ohio; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program 

integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: Pennsylvania[A]; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: [Empty]; 

Claims system developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying 

enhancements: [Empty]; Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct 

deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program integrity: [Empty]; Other: 

[Empty].



State: Puerto Rico; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: Yes; Direct deposit/ debit cards: Yes; Program integrity: 

Yes; 

Other: [Empty].



State: Tennessee; General technology: Yes; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: Yes; Appeals 

system 

improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: [Empty]; Program 

integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Virgin Islands; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; 

Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 

[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Virginia; General technology: [Empty]; Staff: Yes; Claims system 

developments: [Empty]; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; 

Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 

[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: [Empty].



State: West Virginia; General technology: Yes; Staff: [Empty]; Claims 

system developments: Yes; Tax filing and paying enhancements: [Empty]; 

Appeals system improvements: [Empty]; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 

[Empty]; Program integrity: Yes; Other: Yes.



State: Total: 21; General technology: 14; Staff: 10; Claims system 

developments: 13; Tax filing and paying enhancements: 8; Appeals system 

improvements: 5; Direct deposit/ debit cards: 4; Program integrity: 18; 

Other: 7.



Source: GAO survey of states.



[A] State was unable to report how dollars were allocated.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix X: ES and One-Stop Administrative Activities for which CY2002 

Reed Act Dollars had been Appropriated, as of 11-30-2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contact:



Clarita Mrena, (202) 512-3022:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Laura Heald, Carolyn Blocker, Cheri Harrington, Stuart Kaufman, Daniel 

Schwimer, and Barbara Hills made significant contributions to this 

briefing.



[End of section]



FOOTNOTES



[1] For UI purposes, federal law designates the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as states.



[2] The term Reed Act refers to a part of the Employment Security 

Financing Act of 1954. The Reed Act provides that when federal accounts 

in the UI trust fund reach their statutory limits at the end of a 

federal fiscal year, any excess funds are transferred to state UI trust 

funds. Unlike traditional Reed Act distributions, this distribution 

was required regardless of the ceilings and did not take place at the 

beginning of a fiscal year.



[3] The one-stop center system--a centralized service delivery 

structure consolidating delivery of most federally funded state and 

local employment and training assistance--was mandated by the Workforce 

Investment Act, passed in 1998.



[4] Forty-nine states set triggers that automatically increase employer 

taxes or institute surcharges when trust funds fall below specified 

levels.



[5] States set employer tax rates annually, and most states had their 

2002 tax rates in place before the Reed Act distribution in March 2002.



GAOs Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAOs commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAOs Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as Todays Reports, on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: