Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Human Resources, Committee on 

Ways and Means, House of 

Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

June 2005 UNEMPLOYMENT 

INSURANCE 

Better Data Needed to 

Assess Reemployment 

Services to Claimants 

GAO-05-413 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-413.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen, 

(202) 512-7215, nilsens@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-413, a report to 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human 

Resources, Committee on Ways and 

Means, House of Representatives 

June 2005

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

Better Data Needed to Assess 

Reemployment Services to Claimants 

Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone, the 

Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer have faceto-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all states told us 

they have found ways to provide information on eligibility requirements and 

reemployment services to individuals filing claims, such as by including this 

information in the scripts used by claims takers at UI call centers or as 

documents on Web pages. Officials from most states told us the shift to 

remote claims has not diminished their ability to provide information or 

deliver services to claimants. In fact, some report that this shift may have 

improved their ability to serve their customers. 

Across states, claimants have access to a variety of reemployment services, 

and states make use of UI program requirements to connect claimants with 

available services at various points in their claim. All federally approved 

state UI programs require that claimants be able and available to work, and 

in many states these requirements also serve to link claimants to 

reemployment services. States also engage some claimants in reemployment 

services through programs that identify certain groups for more targeted 

assistance. States primarily target reemployment services to claimants 

identified as most likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work, 

through federally required claimant profiling programs. 

Little is known about the extent to which claimants receive services from 

the broad array of programs designed to assist them or about the outcomes 

they achieve. States must meet a number of federal reporting requirements 

for their UI and employment and training programs, but none of these 

reports provides a complete picture of the services received or the outcomes 

obtained by UI claimants. GAO also found that few states monitor the extent 

to which claimants are receiving these services, and even fewer monitor 

outcomes for these claimants, largely due to limited information systems 

capabilities. Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on 

claimant services and outcomes, but none will provide a complete picture. 

Nearly All States Accept Initial UI Claims Remotely 

Internet only (5 states)

Telephone only (10 states)

Both Internet and telephone (29 states)

No remote filing (6 states)

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

With unemployed workers at a 

greater risk of long-term 

unemployment than in the past, it 

is increasingly important to quickly 

connect Unemployment Insurance 

(UI) claimants with reemployment 

activities. However, the shift to 

remote claims filing in many states 

has raised concerns about 

maintaining a connection between 

the UI program and reemployment 

services. This report examines (1) 

the extent to which states have 

shifted to remote claims filing and 

how they are making claimants 

aware of program requirements 

and services, (2) what states are 

doing to facilitate reemployment of 

UI claimants, and (3) what is 

known about the extent to which 

UI claimants receive reemployment 

services and about their outcomes. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Department of Labor work with 

states to consider the feasibility of 

collecting more comprehensive 

information on UI claimants' 

services and outcomes. Labor 

generally agreed with GAO’s 

findings, but took issue with the 

need for more comprehensive data, 

commenting that, in its view, 

current and planned data collection 

efforts will provide sufficient 

information to policy makers. 

However, none of Labor’s efforts 

provide a complete picture of UI 

claimants’ services and outcomes, 

which is key to good program 

management and is an important 

step in understanding the impact of 

Labor’s programs. 
Page i GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

Most States Have Shifted to Taking Claims Remotely, and All 

States Provide Claimants with Information on Their Obligations 

and Available Reemployment Services 9 

States Provide Claimants Access to a Range of Reemployment 

Services and Use UI Program Requirements to Connect Them 

with Available Services 15 

Little Information Exists to Provide a Complete Picture of 

Reemployment Services for Unemployment Insurance Claimants 19 

Conclusions 29 

Recommendations for Executive Action 30 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32 

Appendix II States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims 

Remotely 37 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 39 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41 

Related GAO Products 42 

Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Data Reporting Requirements and Their 

Limitations for Measuring Overall Claimant Services and 

Outcomes 22 

Table 2: States Selected for Site Visits 34 

Table 3: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Site Visits 35 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Table 4: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims 

Remotely 37 

Figures 

Figure 1: Most States Take Initial UI Claims Remotely 11 

Figure 2: Most States Reported It Was Difficult to Track Claimant 

Services across the Broad Array of Federal Employment 

and Training Programs 24 

Figure 3: Reasons States Said Tracking Client Services Was 

Difficult 25 

Figure 4: States’ Assessment of How Difficult It Would Be to Track 

Outcomes for Claimants Who Received Services 26 

Abbreviations 

ADARE Administrative Data Research and Evaluation 

CATI Computer-assisted telephone interview 

EMILE Employment and Training Administration Management 

 Information and Longitudinal Evaluation 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

TAPR Trade Act Participant Report 

UI Unemployment Insurance 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WIASRD WIA Standardized Record Data 

WPRS Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

June 24, 2005 

The Honorable Wally Herger 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

United States House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Over the past several decades, both the U.S. economy and its workforce 

have undergone substantial changes. Unemployed workers are now less 

likely to be rehired by their previous employers and are at greater risk of 

long-term unemployment than in the past. Over the past five decades, the 

average duration of unemployment has been gradually increasing, so that 

during 2002 periods of unemployment grew to an average of 16.6 weeks, 

compared with 11.3 weeks during the 1950s.1

 To assist workers who have 

lost their jobs, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program provided about 

$35 billion in temporary income support in calendar year 2004. The cost of 

providing this income support, coupled with a growing trend toward 

longer-term unemployment, increases the importance of quickly linking UI 

claimants to the tools they need to become reemployed. 

To be eligible for income support under the UI program, claimants must 

meet a federal requirement to be able to work and available for work. 

Traditionally, claimants were required to apply for benefits in person at an 

unemployment office, and information on available jobs and what they 

must do to remain eligible for benefits was often given to them as part of 

that process. However, over time many states have transitioned to the 

remote filing of UI claims—primarily by telephone or the Internet—and 

claimants have less face-to-face contact with staff. The shift to remote 

claims filing has raised concerns about maintaining a connection between 

the UI program and reemployment services. 

At the same time, the workforce development system—responsible for 

helping these workers become reemployed—has undergone reform. With 

 1

 Wayne Vroman, Extending Unemployment Insurance (UI) Protection, (Washington, 

D.C.: Urban Institute, May 6, 2003). 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, services for 

over 17 different federally funded programs have been streamlined into a 

single service delivery structure, the one-stop system, and a broad range of 

services are made available to anyone who walks through the door. To be 

able to make these services available to all who seek them, state and local 

officials have begun to rely more heavily on self-directed services, such as 

allowing job seekers to use available Internet capabilities to conduct 

online job searches or to use available computers to develop resumes 

without staff assistance. This shift in service delivery strategy has raised 

concerns that some UI claimants may not be receiving enough information 

on reemployment services or timely assistance to help them find a job, and 

little is known about whether states have policies in place to help 

unemployed workers quickly become reemployed. 

To address these issues, we examined (1) the extent to which states have 

shifted to remote methods for filing initial claims and how they are making 

claimants aware of their responsibilities to look for work and the services 

available to assist them, (2) what states are doing to facilitate the 

reemployment of UI claimants, and (3) what is known about the extent to 

which UI claimants receive reemployment services and about the 

outcomes of claimants who receive these services. 

To learn more about the strategies implemented by state and local officials 

to promote participation in activities that may assist claimants in getting a 

job, we conducted telephone interviews with UI and workforce 

development officials in 50 states. For purposes of this review, we defined 

reemployment services to mean all reemployment activities funded 

through Wagner-Peyser; WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker services; any 

other training or job search assistance provided using federal funds, such 

as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA); and any state-funded 

reemployment or training services. We supplemented the phone interviews 

with a follow-up questionnaire to gather information on the strategies 

states use to collect data on UI claimants who receive reemployment 

services.2

 In addition, we conducted site visits to four states—Georgia, 

Maryland, Michigan, and Washington—chosen to give us a range of 

unemployment rates, dislocation activity, and experiences implementing 

remote claims, and to allow for geographic dispersion. On our site visits, 

 2

 For purposes of the survey, we defined claimant as an individual who has applied for 

regular unemployment compensation, been found eligible, and received a first payment of 

benefits. 
Page 3 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

we interviewed state officials in the workforce development system and UI 

programs and visited at least two local areas in each state, selected to 

provide a range of urban and rural sites. In addition, we reviewed 

documents and interviewed Department of Labor (Labor) officials and 

other experts in the area of UI and reemployment services. For details 

about our scope and methodology, see appendix I. Our work was 

conducted between February 2004 and May 2005, in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Nearly all states have shifted to accepting most of their initial claims for 

unemployment insurance remotely by telephone or Internet, and states 

employ a variety of methods to make claimants aware of their 

responsibilities and the services available to them, often beginning at the 

time the claim is filed. Of the 44 states whose officials told us they 

currently accept initial claims by telephone or Internet, 29 states use both 

methods. Of the 6 states that do not currently accept remote claims, 3 said 

they plan to do so in the future. The remaining 3 states still require 

claimants to file for unemployment insurance in person. Even though 

claimants filing remotely may not have face-to-face contact with UI staff at 

the time the claim is filed, all states told us they have methods for 

providing information on eligibility requirements and reemployment 

services to individuals filing initial claims. For example, officials in 

Washington say that call center staff tell claimants of their responsibility 

to search for work and the penalty for failure to do so, and they direct 

them to the nearest one-stop center for assistance. In addition, most states 

that accept remote claims also mail claimants information on their 

responsibilities and available services. Some officials told us that rather 

than diminishing their ability to provide information on reemployment 

services to claimants, the shift to remote claims had improved services to 

claimants and helped ensure that they received consistent information 

about available services. 

Across states, UI claimants have access to a variety of reemployment 

services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect 

claimants with available services at various points in their claim. In all 

states, claimants may receive services available to all job seekers through 

the one-stop system, and in some states, claimants may also receive 

services provided through special state initiatives. In satisfying the 

requirement that claimants be able and available for work, officials in 44 

states told us claimants are required to register for work with the state’s 

labor exchange, which provides services matching job seekers with 

employers. In all but one state, claimants must also meet a work search 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

requirement to maintain their eligibility for unemployment insurance and 

avoid a potential loss of benefits. In many states, these requirements also 

serve to link claimants to reemployment services. For example, states may 

require claimants to come into a local employment service office or onestop center to complete the work registration process. Interviews, which 

are often used to check whether or not claimants are conducting a job 

search that meets the state’s requirements, may also include suggestions 

on reemployment services or job search strategies. States also engage 

some claimants in reemployment services directly through programs that 

identify certain groups for more targeted assistance. The federal 

requirement of claimant profiling—a process that identifies those most 

likely to exhaust their benefits before finding work—is the primary 

mechanism for targeting reemployment services to claimants in many 

states. 

Despite states’ efforts to design systems that link UI claimants to 

reemployment services, little data are available to gauge the extent to 

which claimants are receiving these services or about the outcomes they 

achieve. States must meet a number of federal reporting requirements for 

their UI programs and for their federally funded employment and training 

programs, but none of these reports provides a complete picture of the 

services received or the outcomes obtained by all UI claimants. For 

example, states must report on services provided to profiled claimants, but 

there is no report of services provided to all claimants. Further, states 

report on several measures of performance for their UI programs, but 

these measures do not currently provide any reemployment information, 

instead focusing largely on benefit and tax timeliness, quality, and 

accuracy. In our telephone interviews and surveys to states on their efforts 

to track claimants, we found that only 14 states currently go beyond the 

federal requirements to monitor how many claimants are receiving 

services from the range of federally funded programs that are designed to 

assist them, and only 6 monitor any outcomes for these claimants. Most 

states told us that the data elements needed to perform these calculations 

reside in separate, often incompatible, data systems, and they are unable 

to readily link them. Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed 

light on claimant services and outcomes. For example, Labor is revising 

the UI performance measures and, in the summer of 2005, will begin 

requiring states to track a reemployment rate for all of their claimants. In 

addition, Labor’s Administrative Data Research and Evaluation program, 

currently under way, will provide third-party researchers with detailed 

data from 9 states on participants in several programs, allowing 

researchers for the first time to track UI claimants’ participation in a broad 

array of programs and to measure some of their outcomes. While these 
Page 5 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

initiatives provide more information than is currently available, none 

allows for a comprehensive nationwide understanding of the role of 

federal programs in helping claimants become reemployed. 

To improve the understanding of claimants’ use of services and of their 

outcomes, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor work with states to 

develop a plan for considering the feasibility of collecting more 

comprehensive service and outcome information, including the length of 

time claimants receive UI before they are reemployed. In its written 

comments, Labor generally agreed with our findings, but took issue with 

the need for more comprehensive data, commenting that, in its view, 

current reporting requirements in addition to new initiatives will provide 

sufficient information to policy makers. However, as we noted, none of 

Labor’s efforts provide a complete picture of UI claimants’ services and 

outcomes. Having such a picture is key to good program management and 

is an important step in understanding the impact of Labor’s programs.

The UI program was established by Title III of the Social Security Act in 

1935 and is a key component in ensuring the financial security of 

America’s workforce. The program, which is administered by the states 

with oversight from Labor’s Employment and Training Administration 

(ETA), provides temporary cash benefits to workers who lose their jobs 

through no fault of their own. Today UI coverage is nearly universal, 

extending to almost all wage and salaried workers.3

 To help claimants 

become reemployed, employment and training assistance is provided 

through a number of federal programs, including Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Service, WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and TAA 

programs. 

The UI program is funded by federal and state taxes levied on employers. 

The states collect the portion of the tax needed to pay UI benefits, while 

the federal tax finances state and federal administrative costs and other 

related federal costs. Labor holds these funds in trust on behalf of the 

states in the Unemployment Trust Fund. In fiscal year 2004, Congress 

authorized about $2.6 billion to states to administer their programs. 

Labor is responsible for overseeing the UI program to ensure that the 

states operate an effective and efficient UI program. Labor is also 

 3

 Self-employed individuals and agricultural workers on small farms are generally not 

covered under UI. 

Background 

Unemployment 

Insurance—Structure of 

the Program 
Page 6 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

responsible for monitoring state operations and procedures, providing 

technical assistance and training, as well as analyzing UI program data to 

diagnose potential problems. Although Labor provides oversight and 

guidance to ensure that each state operates its program consistent with 

federal guidelines, the federal-state structure of UI places primary 

responsibility for administering the program on the states. The states have 

wide latitude to administer their UI programs in a manner that best suits 

their needs within these guidelines. 

States establish initial eligibility requirements to determine which 

unemployed workers are qualified to start collecting UI benefits. These 

requirements seek to ensure that an unemployed worker has had sufficient 

employment experience to qualify for UI benefits (known as the monetary 

eligibility requirements), and to determine whether the worker lost the job 

through no fault of his or her own (the nonmonetary eligibility 

requirements). State claims representatives are responsible for 

determining each claimant’s initial eligibility for UI benefits by gathering 

and (when possible) verifying important information, such as identity, 

employment history, why the claimants is no longer working, and other 

sources of income the claimant may have. Once the claim has been 

submitted for processing, the state sends forms to the claimant’s 

employer(s) requesting them to verify the claimant’s wages and the reason 

the claimant is no longer working. If the individual’s claim for UI is 

approved, the state then determines the amount of UI benefits, depending 

on the individual’s earnings during the period upon which the claim is 

based and other factors. In general, most states are expected to provide 

the first benefits to the claimant within 21 days of the date the state 

determined that the claimant was entitled to benefits. 

In order to remain eligible for benefits on a continuing basis, claimants 

must also demonstrate that they are able to work and available for work 

and are still unemployed. Claimants must submit this certification of 

continuing eligibility—by mail, telephone, or Internet, depending on the 

state—throughout the benefit period. This practice is usually done weekly 

or biweekly. States may continue to monitor claimant eligibility through an 

eligibility review program, in which certain claimants are periodically 

contacted to review their eligibility for benefits, work search activities, 

and reemployment needs. Typically, the maximum duration of benefits is 

26 weeks. 
Page 7 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

In November 1993, Congress enacted legislation amending the Social 

Security Act to require that each state establish a Worker Profiling and 

Reemployment Services (WPRS) system and implement a process typically 

referred to as claimant profiling. The claimant profiling process uses a 

statistical model or characteristics screen to identify claimants who are 

likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work. Claimants 

identified through this process are then referred to reemployment services 

while they are still early in their claim. For profiled claimants, 

participation in designated reemployment services becomes an additional 

requirement for continuing eligibility for UI benefits. 

To assist states in implementing WPRS, Labor developed a prototype 

model for determining the probability that claimants will exhaust their 

benefits based on a set of five claimant characteristics: education, job 

tenure, industry, occupation, and the local unemployment rate. While 

some states have included only these five variables in their profiling 

models, others have used this prototype as a benchmark and have 

included additional variables, such as the claimant’s pre-unemployment 

earnings, weekly benefit amount, UI wage replacement rate, potential 

duration of UI benefits, delay in filing, and the ratio of quarterly earnings 

to earnings in the base year. 

Reemployment services for UI claimants are usually delivered by a range 

of federally funded employment and training programs, often through 

consolidated service delivery structures called one-stop centers. When it 

was passed in 1998, the WIA began requiring that about 17 federal 

employment and training programs, including UI, provide services through 

the one-stop system. WIA allows local areas considerable flexibility in how 

these programs provide services through the system, so the degree of 

connection throughout the one-stop system between UI and other 

workforce programs can vary widely by state and local area. Among the 

many federal workforce programs that may provide reemployment 

services to UI claimants, four programs funded by Labor are most likely to 

serve UI claimants: Employment Service, WIA Adult program, WIA 

Dislocated Worker program, and TAA. All four of these are required to be 

part of the one-stop system, and each has its own performance reporting 

requirements. 

Employment Service. The Employment Service was created in 1933 by the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, making labor exchange services—that link job seekers 

with job opportunities—universally available to employers and job seekers 

alike without charges or conditions. Historically, many states colocated 

Claimant Profiling in the 

Unemployment Insurance 

Program 

Reemployment Services 

for Unemployment 

Insurance Claimants 
Page 8 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

local Employment Service and UI offices so that when UI claimants 

applied for benefits at Employment Service offices, they would be exposed 

to employment services. Today, states’ labor exchanges typically involve 

online databases where job seekers can look for work and apply for jobs, 

and where employers can post jobs and recruit employees. In addition, 

Employment Service offers a range of services to job seekers, including 

job search assistance, job referral, placement assistance, assessment, 

counseling, and testing. Employment Service also offers a number of 

services to employers, including taking job orders, recruitment, screening, 

referrals of job seekers, assisting with job restructuring, and helping 

employers manage layoffs. 

WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs. When WIA was enacted 

in 1998, it replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for 

economically disadvantaged adults and youth and for dislocated workers 

with three new programs—WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth—

that provide a broader range of services to the general public, no longer 

using income to determine eligibility for all program services. WIA 

programs provide for three tiers, or levels, of service for adults and 

dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include 

basic services such as job searches and labor market information. These 

activities may be self-service or require some staff assistance. Intensive 

services include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case 

management—activities that require greater staff involvement. Training 

services include such activities as occupational skills or on-the-job 

training. Labor’s guidance provides for monitoring and tracking of 

performance for the adult and dislocated worker programs to begin when 

job seekers receive core services that require significant staff assistance. 

WIA currently excludes job seekers who receive core services that are 

self-service and informational in nature from being included in the 

performance measures. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance. To assist workers who are laid off as a 

result of international trade, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 created the 

Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Historically, the primary benefits 

available through the program have been extended income support and 

training. Participants are generally entitled to income support, but the 

amount of funds available for training is limited by statute. Congress has 

amended the TAA program a number of times since its inception. 

Amendments to the TAA program in the TAA Reform Act of 2002 extended 

income support to 78 weeks after exhausting UI benefits (plus 26 more 

weeks if participating in and completing remedial training) and added new 
Page 9 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

health coverage assistance and wage insurance benefits for older 

workers.4

To promote reemployment through the one-stop system, Congress 

appropriated $35 million a year beginning in 2001 for Reemployment 

Services Grants specifically to provide reemployment services for UI 

claimants. Each year Labor has provided a minimum of $215,000 to each 

state, with the remainder of the $35 million distributed according to the 

share of each state’s first payments to UI claimants in the previous fiscal 

year. These funds are authorized under Wagner-Peyser, and services are 

generally delivered by state Employment Service staff. Labor issued 

guidance to the states to use the funds to enhance the quality and quantity 

of services that UI claimants receive within the one-stop system, 

encouraging states to use the funds to provide direct services to UI 

claimants. 

Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone, 

Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer have 

face-to-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all states 

told us they have found ways to provide information on eligibility 

requirements and reemployment services to individuals filing initial 

claims, often beginning at the time the claim is filed. Most states told us 

that the shift to remote claims did not diminish their ability to provide 

information on reemployment services to claimants and, in some cases, 

had improved customer service and helped ensure that claimants received 

consistent information. 

 4

 For more information, see GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have 

Accelerated Training Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004), and Health Coverage Tax Credit: Simplified and More 

Timely Enrollment Process Could Increase Participation. GAO-04-1029 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004). 

Other Funds to Support 

Reemployment Services 

Most States Have 

Shifted to Taking 

Claims Remotely, and 

All States Provide 

Claimants with 

Information on Their 

Obligations and 

Available 

Reemployment 

Services 
Page 10 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Forty-four states accept initial claims for unemployment insurance by 

telephone5

 or the Internet,6 based on our telephone interviews with state 

officials. Of these states, 29 use both remote filing methods, while 10 

accept claims only over the telephone and 5 take them only by Internet 

(see fig. 1). In most states with telephone claims, claimants speak with 

customer service representatives, although in 6 states claimants may use 

an automated voice response system to complete their claim.7

 In some 

states with such automated systems, it is possible for a claimant to file an 

initial claim without speaking to anyone. However, if problems occur 

during the process, callers can be transferred to remote claims centers 

where a service representative works with them to complete the claim. Of 

the 6 states that did not accept remote claims, 3 said they plan to begin 

accepting initial claims by Internet or telephone in the future. The 

remaining 3 states still require claimants to file for unemployment 

insurance in person. For example, Georgia officials told us that they do 

not currently allow claimants to file initial UI claims remotely, preferring 

instead to have claimants file in person at workforce centers,8

 where they 

typically file their claims using the state’s private computer network. (See 

app. II for more information on which states take initial UI claims 

remotely by telephone or Internet.) 

 5

 For the purposes of this study, a state was considered to take telephone claims remotely 

if it had implemented telephone filing for intrastate initial claims at the time of our 

interview. Most of these states provided the telephone option statewide, but a few of them, 

such as Tennessee and Virginia, were still transitioning to statewide implementation. 

6

 For the purposes of this study, a state was considered to take Internet claims remotely if 

claimants statewide had the option of filing over the Internet from outside of a one-stop, 

Employment Service, or UI office at the time of our interview. We did not consider a state 

as an Internet filing state if it operated only a pilot program in a part of the state and had 

not established a definite date for statewide implementation. 

7

 Even when the claim is filed through a customer service representative, the process in 

most states involves both an automated response system and a conversation with a 

customer service representative. Typically claimants first key data that is converted to a 

numeric response using an automated system. The claimants are then transferred to a 

customer service representative to complete the claim. 

8

 In Georgia, unemployed workers can participate in reemployment services at either a 

Career Center or a one-stop center. Only the Career Centers, however, handle UI initial 

claims, and they have UI staff on site. 

Most States Accept Initial 

UI Claims by Telephone or 

Internet 
Page 11 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Figure 1: Most States Take Initial UI Claims Remotely 

Note: Information on remote claims taking provided to GAO by state officials during telephone 

interviews in October and November 2004. 

In addition to accepting initial claims by telephone or Internet, some states 

also reported using other remote filing methods. Officials in several states 

told us that they accept claims submitted directly by employers, but the 

role of employer-filed claims differs from state to state. For example, 

Michigan officials told us they had established an employer-filed claim 

process in which employers with more than 1,000 layoffs in 3 consecutive 

years must file employee claims electronically. With an employer-filed 

claim, the claimant is not involved in filing the initial claim but still must 

certify and file for continuing claims. State officials told us that these 

Internet only (5 states)

Telephone only (10 states)

Both Internet and telephone (29 states)

No remote filing (6 states)

Source: GAO analysis of data supplied by state officials in October and November 2004.
Page 12 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

claims simplify the filing process in cases of large layoffs and help workers 

receive their UI benefit checks more quickly. They said their goal was to 

have 20 to 25 percent of all initial claims filed through this method. In 

general, however, employer-filed claims are used for mass layoffs or 

seasonal shutdowns. 

Most states that accept remote claims also allow claimants to file their 

initial claims at a one-stop center, either by using available telephones—

sometimes with a direct telephone link to a call center— or by using on 

site computer resources to access the Internet. In Washington, for 

example, individuals who come to the state’s one-stop centers are directed 

to file by Internet or by phone at an on site kiosk. These kiosks, which the 

state has placed in most of its one-stop centers, provide a direct 

connection to a call center and display UI program information to help 

claimants understand the process. In addition, at least 8 states told us that 

they have staff at the one-stop who can take claims or assist claimants in 

filing their claims. 

In all states that accept claims remotely, officials told us they have found 

ways to provide information during the claims filing process on 

requirements that claimants must meet to maintain their eligibility for 

unemployment benefits. At the same time, they also told us they provide 

information on how to access reemployment services to help claimants get 

back to work. Among the 39 states that allow filing by telephone, the 

methods they use to notify claimants of their work search requirements 

and available services vary. 

• For eligibility requirements, most of the 39 states explain program 

rules over the telephone, most often during the initial call. For 

example, UI call center representatives in Washington give initial 

claimants information on their responsibility to search for work, the 

penalty for failure to do so, the location of the nearest one-stop center, 

and the types of services claimants could receive at the one-stop. In 

addition, a few states direct telephone claimants to a Web page where 

they can find information on work search requirements and how to 

certify and file for continuing claims. 

• For reemployment services, all 39 states that accept initial claims by 

telephone reported that all or most of their telephone filers are 

provided information about these services, and approximately twothirds of the states provide some of this information to their claimants 

during the initial call. Telephone filers in over 20 states are also 

States Inform Claimants of 

Their Eligibility 

Requirements and the 

Availability of 

Reemployment Services 

during the Claim Process 
Page 13 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

directed to the one-stop system, through information that is either 

provided during the telephone call or sent to claimants later by mail. In 

Maryland, for example, officials told us that they inform claimants 

about reemployment services during the initial call and provide 

directions to the one-stop centers or Employment Service offices. 

Additionally, a few states have one-stop staff follow up with claimants 

to inform them of available services. 

The 34 states that allow remote filing by Internet also have a variety of 

methods for notifying claimants about their work search requirements and 

available services. 

• For work search requirements, more than three-fourths of these states 

reported that such information was available on a Web page that 

claimants could access while filing their claims. In over 20 of those 

states, individuals were required to go through an Internet page on UI 

program rules in order to complete their claims. Some states provided 

this information through a link on the Web page but did not require 

claimants to access that page at the time they filed their initial claims. 

• For reemployment services, all 34 states reported that all or most of 

their Internet filers are provided information about these services. Over 

three-fourths of those states provide some information to their 

claimants during the initial online filing process, although claimants 

may or may not be required to view this information to complete the 

claim. Almost half of the states that take initial claims by Internet told 

us they require claimants to access a document with reemployment 

services information before their claim is complete. Additionally, many 

told us that a link to this information is provided but claimants are not 

required to access the document in order to complete the claim. In 

some states, call center and one-stop staff may also contact claimants 

with information on how they may obtain services. For example, 

Virginia officials said the state runs a daily report of Internet claims 

filed, and call center representatives then call or e-mail a majority of 

those claimants to tell them about job seeker services and work search 

requirements. 

In addition to the information that remote filers receive over the phone or 

on a Web page, most of the 44 states that accept remote claims also mail 

claimants information on their responsibilities and available services. In 

Maryland, for example, officials told us that, as part of the claims filing 

process, claims center staff inform telephone filers of the work search 

requirement and the implications for not meeting it as well as the location 

of the Employment Service offices. After the claim is filed, all claimants 
Page 14 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

are sent mailings that address UI and work search requirements and that 

provide directions to the one-stops and Employment Service offices. In 

Washington, everyone who files a claim receives a copy of the state’s 

unemployment claims kit, which contains information on claimant 

responsibilities as well as on reemployment services, online resources, 

and one-stop and employment services center locations. 

Officials in 32 of the 44 states told us that in their opinion the shift to 

remote claims did not diminish their ability to provide information on 

reemployment services to claimants. Officials in at least 7 of the states that 

have established remote filing methods said they had faced challenges in 

maintaining the connections between UI claimants and the reemployment 

services available to them. For example, some states said that staff 

providing reemployment services had less initial contact with job seekers, 

who may wait several weeks before seeking out more information about 

services available to them. However, officials in almost three-quarters of 

the 44 states told us they thought the shift to remote claims either had no 

negative impact or had improved their ability to deliver reemployment 

services to UI claimants. Officials in some states reported that providing 

reemployment services in a remote claims environment proved more 

difficult at first. However, once they had completed the transition, they 

said they have perceived no negative impact on the linkages between UI 

and reemployment services. Officials generally cited benefits that included 

improved customer service, more consistent information for claimants, 

and the ability of states to focus their resources on providing 

reemployment services to claimants. 

• Several officials told us that they believed one benefit from the shift to 

remote claims was improved customer service. Claimants no longer 

needed to drive the sometimes great distances or wait around for hours 

just to file a claim. In addition, some states reported that it was easier 

to get information about services to claimants. 

• Additionally, some officials told us that they thought the use of remote 

claims had helped ensure that claimants received consistent 

information. Several states, for example, reported that using scripts for 

telephone customer service representatives or screens of information 

for Internet filers helps ensure that all claimants are told the same 

thing. 

• Some states said the transition to remote claims had enabled them to 

shift their focus from filing claims to providing services, and had 

reduced claims processing time. For example, officials in one state told 
Page 15 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

us that some positive effects of using the Internet were that claims 

were processed more quickly, documentation was easily retrieved, and 

papers were not moving between offices. 

Across states, UI claimants have access to a variety of reemployment 

services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect 

claimants with available services at various points in their claim. All 

federally approved state UI programs must include able-to-work and 

available-for-work requirements that claimants must meet in order to 

receive benefits. In many states, these requirements also serve to link 

claimants to reemployment opportunities and services. In addition, states 

provide targeted reemployment services to particular groups of UI 

claimants. The federal requirement of claimant profiling is typically the 

primary mechanism for targeting reemployment services to claimants. 

UI claimants have access to the range of reemployment services available 

to all job seekers through the one-stop system. Officials in all states, for 

example, told us that claimants can access job listings and information on 

their state’s labor market trends using the Internet, and many said that 

claimants have access to online labor exchange, or job matching, services 

as well as other self-assisted services such as resume writing assistance, 

career guidance, and self-assessment services. Officials in all states also 

told us that one-stop centers make computers available on-site, and most 

said that claimants have access to self-help software, such as aptitude 

tests, computer tutorials, or job search guidance, at the centers. Claimants 

also have access to a variety of staff-assisted reemployment services 

through the one-stop system. Officials most often mentioned that 

claimants were likely to be offered 

• job search assistance; 

• resume assistance; 

• job matching, referral, and placement services; 

• orientation to services; 

• referral to WIA or other partners; 

• initial or general needs assessment; 

• counseling; and 

• interview assistance. 

States Provide 

Claimants Access to a 

Range of 

Reemployment 

Services and Use UI 

Program 

Requirements to 

Connect Them with 

Available Services 

Claimants Have Access to 

a Range of Reemployment 

Services 
Page 16 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Some states have also undertaken special initiatives to expand the types of 

reemployment services available to claimants. Maryland, for example, 

responded to growth in white collar unemployment in the early 1990s with 

the establishment of the Professional Outplacement Assistance Center. 

This program provides outplacement services for executive, professional, 

technical, and managerial workers who are unemployed, and if capacity 

allows, those who are underemployed. The program begins with an 

interactive three day orientation targeted to the needs of professionals and 

then offers participants networking opportunities through occupational 

affinity groups that bring together job seekers from similar occupations. 

Former participants also forward information on job opportunities to the 

program and offer assistance to current participants — a concept the staff 

term Pay-It-Forward. 

UI program requirements often provide the context for states’ efforts to 

link claimants to reemployment services. In satisfying the requirement that 

claimants be able and available for work, officials in 44 states told us that 

claimants are required to register for work with the state’s labor exchange. 

In addition, officials in all but one state told us that claimants must meet a 

work search requirement in order to remain eligible for benefits. The work 

search requirement varies across states but is typically defined in terms of 

the number of contacts claimants are required to make with employers. In 

about half of the states with a work search requirement, officials told us 

claimants subject to this requirement are required to make a specified or 

minimum number of job contacts, ranging from one to five contacts per 

week. In the rest, the required number of contacts is determined by what 

is seen to be reasonable for a particular area or occupation or the 

requirement is stated in more general terms. 

Claimants document that they are meeting their state’s work search 

requirement in a number of ways, most commonly by keeping a log of 

work search activities that may be subject to review or by certifying they 

are able and available to work through the process of filing for a 

continuing claim. Washington, for example, has recently revised its work 

search requirement to be more specific, requiring each week that 

claimants make three job contacts, participate in three in-person 

reemployment services at a one-stop center, or complete some 

combination of the two. Claimants keep a log of these contacts and 

activities, which is subject to random review. In Michigan, as in many 

states, when claimants call in to the state’s automated telephone system 

each week to file for their continuing claims, they must also certify that 

they are available for and seeking full-time work. In all states with a work 

States Use Compliance 

with Work Requirements 

to Connect Claimants with 

Reemployment Services 
Page 17 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

search requirement, officials told us that the primary consequence faced 

by claimants who fail to comply is that they could be denied benefits. 

However, the length of time for which benefits are denied, and the extent 

to which claimants receive a warning prior to being denied benefits, varies 

across states. 

These work registration and work search requirements often serve to link 

claimants to reemployment services. The process of registering for work 

with the state’s labor exchange, for example, may bring claimants into an 

Employment Service office or one-stop center where reemployment 

services are delivered. Officials in nearly two-thirds of the 44 states where 

claimants are required to register for work told us that coming into an 

Employment Service office or one-stop center is either a required part of 

the process or one of the options claimants have for completing their 

registration. Officials in close to a third of the states with this requirement 

told us claimants are automatically registered with the labor exchange 

when they file their initial UI claim. In Michigan, for example, most 

claimants file their initial claim remotely and may begin the work 

registration process remotely as well by placing their resume on the state’s 

public online labor exchange. They must come into a one-stop center, 

however, to have their resumes validated by one-stop staff in order to 

complete the work registration process. In Washington, on the other hand, 

claimants who are required to look for work are automatically registered 

for work at the same time they file an initial telephone or Internet claim. 

Under this system, claimant information is uploaded into the state’s 

workforce development management information system and becomes 

available to one-stop center staff. 

Some states also use their processes for monitoring compliance with the 

work search requirement to direct claimants to reemployment services. 

Officials in 39 of the 49 states that require claimants to actively seek 

employment told us that telephone or in-person interviews with claimants 

may be used to monitor compliance with this requirement. In over twothirds of these states, officials told us that some information on job search 

strategies or reemployment services is provided during the interview. The 

level of information varies from suggestions offered on a case-by-case 

basis to a discussion of strategies and services that is a standard part of 

the interview. In Georgia, for example, the state’s eligibility review 

program is used to determine whether a claimant faces particular 

problems in returning to work and if a claimant is making use of available 

reemployment services, in addition to determining eligibility and 

compliance with state work search rules. 
Page 18 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

States also engage some claimants in reemployment services directly 

through programs that identify certain groups for more targeted 

assistance. States primarily target reemployment services to claimants 

identified as most likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work 

through federally required claimant-profiling systems. While claimants 

identified and referred to services through profiling can access the 

services available to all job seekers through the one-stop system, 

participation in the services they are referred to is mandatory for profiled 

claimants. Specifically, state officials most often identified orientation and 

assessment as services profiled claimants were required to receive. In 

addition, many officials told us that the services profiled claimants 

received depended on their individual needs following an assessment, the 

development of an individual plan, or the guidance of staff at a one-stop 

center. While failure to report to required reemployment services can 

result in benefits being denied, states vary in the conditions that prompt 

denying benefits. 

Maryland, for example, targets reemployment services to profiled 

claimants through its Early Intervention program. This program, which 

began in 1994, offers an interactive, 2-day, 10-hour workshop, addressing 

self-assessment, job search resources, resume writing and interviewing 

skills, and other community resources available to job seekers. Profiled 

claimants selected for the workshop who fail to attend are given one 

opportunity to reschedule; after that, their failure to participate is reported 

to the UI program and their benefits may be suspended. When claimants 

complete the workshop, they are registered with the Maryland Job 

Service, they receive an individual employment plan, and the workshop 

facilitator may refer them to additional services. Officials told us that 

although they currently do not have data to show the impact of this 

program, they have received very positive feedback about the quality and 

effectiveness of the workshops. 

From our site visits we also learned that some states have developed 

additional methods to target reemployment services to particular groups 

of UI claimants. For example, one-stop staff in Washington have the ability 

to identify various subgroups of claimants using a tracking device called 

the Claimant Progress Tool. Officials told us that one-stop staff typically 

use this tool to identify claimants who are about 100 days into their claim, 

and then contact them for targeted job search assistance and job referrals. 

This process was developed to help the state achieve a goal of reducing 

the portion of their UI benefits that unemployed workers claim. Georgia’s 

state-funded Claimant Assistance Program identifies claimants who are 

States Target 

Reemployment Services to 

Particular Groups of 

Claimants 
Page 19 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

seen to be ready for employment and requires them to participate in the 

same services required of profiled claimants. This program is designed to 

help the state achieve its goal of generating savings for the UI Trust Fund. 

Claimants meeting this program’s eligibility criteria also have the option of 

participating in the Georgia Works program, a recent state initiative to 

promote on-the-job training opportunities for UI claimants. Through 

Georgia Works, claimants receive 20 hours of on-the-job training weekly 

for 8 weeks while continuing to receive their UI benefits. 

States often make use of Labor’s Reemployment Services Grants — 

available since 2001 for direct services to UI claimants — to fund these 

services. Officials in the majority of the states we interviewed told us their 

states have been using the Reemployment Services Grant funds to hire 

staff to provide reemployment services. For example, Maryland state 

officials said they use their funds to hire staff for the Early Intervention 

program, which has enabled them to run more workshops in areas that 

need them and to make further improvements in the program. Some states 

have also used these grants to direct reemployment services to claimants 

beyond those who have been profiled and to support other enhancements 

in the provision of reemployment services to claimants. For example, 

Washington state officials told us they used funds from these grants to 

support the development of the Claimant Progress Tool. 

Despite states’ efforts to design systems that link UI claimants to 

reemployment services, little data are available to gauge the extent to 

which claimants are receiving these services or the outcomes they 

achieve. While states must meet a number of federal reporting 

requirements for their UI programs, and for their federally funded 

employment and training programs, none of these reports provide a 

complete picture of the services received or the outcomes obtained by all 

UI claimants. Furthermore, we found that few states currently go beyond 

the federal reporting requirements to monitor the extent to which 

claimants are receiving services from the range of federally funded 

programs that are designed to assist them, and even fewer monitor 

outcomes for these claimants, largely because of limited information 

systems capabilities. Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed 

light on claimant services and outcomes, but some limitations remain. 

Little Information 

Exists to Provide a 

Complete Picture of 

Reemployment 

Services for 

Unemployment 

Insurance Claimants 
Page 20 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

UI claimants may access reemployment assistance from a number of 

federally-funded programs, most often Wagner-Peyser Employment 

Service, WIA Dislocated Worker or WIA Adult, and Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (if they are dislocated because of trade). To monitor the 

performance of these programs, Labor requires states to meet a number of 

reporting requirements, but the reports are submitted on a program-byprogram basis. None of the reports provides a complete picture of the 

services received or the outcomes obtained by all UI claimants. 

UI reporting requirements. States must track and report annually on 

several performance measures considered key indicators of UI program 

performance—a system named UI Performs—but as currently configured, 

the system does not contain any measures related to services or outcomes 

for claimants. Instead, the measures focus exclusively on benefit and tax 

accuracy, quality, and timeliness. States also must report monthly on their 

UI claims and payment activities through form ETA 5159. These reports 

provide summary information that can be used to calculate average benefit 

duration and exhaustion rates at an aggregate level by state. These data 

are useful in following trends over time, but, do not contain information 

on those who had received services and those who did not. 

In addition, states must also report to Labor on their claimant profiling 

process—termed Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services—but 

information in these reports represent only a portion of all UI claimants 

the state has served. The two profiling reports—ETA 9048 and 9049—

require states to provide summary information on the number of claimants 

targeted for services through the profiling process, and on the 

reemployment services and outcomes for this group of claimants. While 

the reports contain information on claimant services and outcomes, the 

data represent only the portion of claimants who were identified through 

profiling as likely to exhaust their benefits and who were also referred to 

services. This proportion can vary from place to place and from month to 

month depending on available resources, but may be a small proportion of 

all of the state’s claimants. 

Wagner-Peyser Employment Service reporting requirements. States must 

provide quarterly reports for the Employment Service program, but these 

reports do not provide a complete picture of all claimants receiving 

reemployment services. The reports consist of summary information on 

the numbers of Employment Service participants who received specified 

services or who obtained certain outcomes. The report tracks service and 

outcome data by several demographic categories, including age grouping, 

gender, and whether or not the participant was a UI claimant. However, 

Current Reporting 

Requirements Do Not 

Provide a Full Picture of 

Claimants’ Use of 

Reemployment Services 
Page 21 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

the report contains information on only those individuals who are 

registered with the Employment Service, and while all who receive 

services funded by Wagner-Peyser must be registered with the 

Employment Service, not all UI claimants receive Wagner-Peyser-funded 

services. 

WIA and the TAA programs. WIA and TAA reporting requirements are 

similarly limited and do not provide a complete picture of claimant 

services and outcomes. WIA tracks several performance measures directly 

related to outcomes for Adults and Dislocated Workers, including job 

placement, job retention, and wage gain or wage replacement. Labor 

requires states to report their performance on these measures in both 

quarterly and annual reports. In addition, once each year states submit a 

file to Labor, the WIA Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) file, containing 

a complete record of demographic, services, and outcome information on 

each WIA registrant who has exited the program. While these records 

contain information on whether or not the WIA registrant is also a UI 

claimant, they do not contain information for those claimants who are not 

registered under WIA. We and others have noted that many individuals 

served under WIA—particularly those who receive only self-directed 

services—are not registered or tracked for performance and are, 

therefore, not reflected in any of the WIA data.9 10 Similarly, for the TAA 

program Labor requires states to submit participant data files on all who 

exit the program each quarter, but the reports are limited to those 

claimants served by TAA. Table 1 summarizes these reporting 

requirements and their limitations for measuring overall claimant services 

and outcomes. 

 9

 The Workforce Investment Act specifically excludes self-service clients from performance 

measures. 

10 For more information see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have 

Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, 

GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004), and Workforce Investment Act: 

Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of 

WIA’s Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002). 
Page 22 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

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

Outcomes 

Reporting requirement What it contains Limitations 

Unemployment Insurance program requirements

UI Performs Summary information reported annually on overall performance 

of state’s UI program, including: 

• accuracy determining claimant’s benefits 

• time to process first payment to claimants 

• timeliness of appeals process 

• tax timeliness and accuracy 

Contains no information on 

claimant services or 

outcomes. 

ETA 5159—UI Claims and Payment 

Activities 

Summary information on claims and payments, including: 

• total new initial claims 

• continued weeks claimed 

• weeks compensated 

• first payments 

• final payments for all unemployed 

Contains no information on 

claimant services or 

outcomes. 

Worker Profiling and Reemployment 

Services 

ETA 9048—Claimant Activity 

ETA 9049—Claimant Outcomes 

Summary information on services, including: 

• number who are profiled and targeted for services 

• number reporting for services, by type of service 

• number completing services, by type of service 

Summary information on outcomes, including: 

• benefit duration and amount 

• employment and wages 

Only contains information on 

claimants who have been 

targeted for services through 

profiling. 

Only contains information on 

claimants who have been 

targeted for services through 

profiling. Includes only those 

reemployed within the same 

state. 

Wagner-Peyser Employment Service requirements

ETA 9002 Quarterly Report Summary information reported quarterly on participants 

registered with the Employment Service, including: 

• demographics 

• services provided or referred 

• employment outcomes 

Only contains information on 

claimants who have 

registered with the 

Employment Service 

program. 
Page 23 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Workforce Investment Act requirements

ETA 9090 – WIA Quarterly Report Quarterly updates to annual report providing summary 

information on current WIA participants, including: 

• job placement 

• employment retention 

• earnings change 

• credential rate 

Only contains information on 

claimants who have 

received services and are 

registered under WIA. 

Those receiving only selfservice or information are 

not registered. 

ETA 9091 – WIA Annual Report Summary information on WIA registrants who exited the 

program, including: 

• job placement 

• employment retention 

• earnings change 

• credential rate 

Only contains information on 

claimants who have 

received services and are 

registered under WIA. 

Those receiving only selfservice or information are 

not registered. 

WIA Standard Record Data Participant-level data file of all WIA registrants who exited the 

program, including: 

• demographics 

• services/activities 

• employment/wage outcomes 

• credential attainment 

Only contains information on 

claimants who have 

received services and are 

registered under WIA. 

Those receiving only selfservice or information are 

not registered. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Act requirements

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

program: 

• demographics 

• services/activities 

• employment/wage outcomes 

Only contains information on 

claimants who are also 

participating in TAA. 

Source: Department of Labor guidance. 

Having data that show the degree to which reemployment services are 

reaching UI claimants is key to good program management and provides a 

first step toward understanding the impact of these programs. However, 

knowing how many claimants may be accessing reemployment services 

and the type of outcomes they may be achieving has proven difficult for 

state and local officials. Only 14 states reported11 that they go beyond the 

federal reporting requirements to routinely track the extent to which 

claimants12 receive services from the broad array of federally funded 

 11 Based on our follow-up e-mail questionnaire to state officials. 

12 For purposes of our survey, a claimant was one who was determined eligible according 

to both monetary and nonmonetary criteria. 

States Face Challenges in 

Assessing Claimant 

Services and Outcomes 
Page 24 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

programs that are designed to assist them.13 Of the states that reported that 

they did not routinely track claimant services, 4 states told us it would not 

be possible to do so. Overall, 37 states told us doing so was somewhat or 

very difficult, while 6 states said it was not at all difficult (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Most States Reported It Was Difficult to Track Claimant Services across 

the Broad Array of Federal Employment and Training Programs 

States most often told us that tracking claimant services across multiple 

programs was made difficult by the fact that reemployment services and 

UI claimant data were maintained in separate data systems—systems that 

were either incompatible or difficult to link. (See fig. 3.) 

 13 We specifically asked states to exclude self-assisted services when they considered their 

response to this survey question. 
Page 25 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Figure 3: Reasons States Said Tracking Client Services Was Difficult 

Note: States could cite more than one reason. 

While relatively few states routinely track claimants’ services, even fewer 

track outcomes. Only 6 states told us that they go beyond the federal 

reporting requirements to routinely monitor any outcomes for the subset 

of UI claimants that receives reemployment services—outcomes such as 

entered employment rate, average benefit duration, and UI exhaustion 

rate. Eleven states told us it would not be possible to calculate any of the 

outcomes for these claimants.14 More states reported difficulty tracking the 

 14 We asked states whether it would be possible to calculate the outcomes for a specific 

time period for the subset of claimants who (1) filed a new initial claim, (2) received a first 

payment in a given fiscal year, and (3) received reemployment services within 6 months of 

their initial claim. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state officials.

9

33

7

10

3

Not routinely

 captured

Data maintained in

different data systems

Use different data

definitions and coding

Privacy Issues

prevent or complicate

One or more data

elements not reliable

Reasons

7

Data maintained by

different departments
Page 26 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

entered employment rate than the average benefit duration or UI 

exhaustion rate. (See fig. 4).15

Figure 4: States’ Assessment of How Difficult It Would Be to Track Outcomes for 

Claimants Who Received Services 

The issues states cited in tracking outcomes across programs for UI 

claimants were similar to those for tracking use of services. Most states 

(35) told us that tracking one or more outcome measures was made 

difficult by the fact that reemployment services and UI claimant data were 

maintained in different systems that were either incompatible or difficult 

to link. 

 15 Four states said in written comments that our definition of claimants—that they received 

a first payment—contributed to the difficulty in performing the calculations. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of state officials.

11 11 11

25 25

12 12

2

Degree of difficulty

2

No it would not 

be possible

to calculate this 

outcome

Yes technically 

possible,

added resources 

required

Yes possible, no 

added resources 

required

Unsure if it would

be possible

Entered employment rate

Average benefit duration

UI exhaustion rate

28

5

6
Page 27 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant 

services and outcomes, but the efforts still fall short of giving us a 

nationwide understanding of services and outcomes for UI claimants. 

UI performance measures. Labor is modifying its UI performance 

measures, and some of the changes will begin to focus attention on 

claimant outcomes. Beginning in summer 2005, in addition to reporting on 

benefit timeliness and accuracy, states will be required to track a 

reemployment rate for their UI claimants—defined as the percentage of UI 

claimants who are reemployed within the quarter following their first UI 

payment.16 This change will improve the understanding of how many UI 

claimants are quickly reemployed nationwide, but, it will not provide 

information on claimants who become reemployed after the first quarter. 

Further, it will not allow for an assessment of how many claimants access 

reemployment services nor will it allow the outcomes claimants achieve to 

be attributed to services. 

Employment Service, WIA, and TAA reporting changes. Labor is also 

modifying its reporting requirements for Employment Service, WIA, and 

TAA programs.17 With the transition beginning in July 2005, states’ 

Employment Service, WIA, and TAA programs will be required to report 

on their performance using a new set of common measures—measures 

that use the same data definitions and data coding across all included 

programs. The new measures, focused on job placement, employment 

retention, and earnings increase, will help eliminate some of the 

definitional difficulties states faced as they tried to measure performance 

across multiple programs. In addition, it will require that states begin 

counting all job seekers who use the one-stop, including those who only 

receive services that are informational or self-service in nature. However, 

because the Unemployment Insurance program is not included in these 

measures, this change would not allow for a complete assessment of UI 

claimants’ use of services. 

Future plans for reporting on performance for Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) programs include the development of a 

system to consolidate reporting. This system—ETA’s Management 

Information and Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) system—would 

consolidate performance reporting across a range of Labor programs 

 16 Data will be reported in summer 2006. 

17 These reporting changes also affect the Veterans’ Employment and Training Programs. 

Some Federal Initiatives 

and Research May Help 

Our Understanding of 

Services and Outcomes to 

Claimants, but Limitations 

Remain 
Page 28 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

including WIA, Employment Service, and TAA. Current plans do not 

include incorporating UI reporting into EMILE. We recently reported that 

implementing a comprehensive reporting system across workforce 

programs could provide a better picture of the one-stop system, but 

recommended that Labor consider greater ongoing consultation with key 

stakeholders, including states, in order to enhance its efforts to implement 

it.18 Labor is currently conducting a feasibility study on implementation 

issues associated with EMILE, and, at present, it is unclear how soon such 

a system could be implemented. 

Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE). Because Labor 

lacked the capacity to evaluate services across the broad array of 

employment and training programs, it commissioned ADARE to begin to 

fill the gap. ADARE is an alliance of 9 state partners—Florida, Georgia, 

Maryland, Missouri, Texas, Illinois, Washington, California, and Ohio—that 

cover 43 percent of the country’s civilian workforce. ADARE provides 

third-party researchers with detailed, longitudinal administrative data 

from the 9 states on participants in several programs, including 

Employment Service, WIA, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), and Perkins Vocational Education, as well as UI wage and benefit 

records and education records. ADARE efforts so far have focused largely 

on evaluating welfare-to-work programs and WIA. Currently under way is 

an effort to examine three facets of UI claimant behavior—repeat claims, 

benefit exhaustion, and reemployment profiles. Unfortunately, planned 

expansions of the data collection have been slower to implement than 

originally anticipated, and some of the data used in ADARE, such as the 

WIA performance data, are limited. Having the capacity to link data across 

multiple programs within a state is a major leap forward in understanding 

UI claimants’ participation in a broad array of programs and to measure 

some of their outcomes. But, while the participating states represent a 

relatively large proportion of the workforce, they don’t provide a 

nationwide perspective. In addition, until WIA’s new reporting 

requirements go into effect, the WIA data will be limited to those claimants 

who are registered under WIA. 

Five-Year Evaluation. Labor has also begun a 5-year national study of the 

UI benefits program. The evaluation is intended to provide detailed 

 18 See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to 

Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements, GAO-05-539 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 27, 2005.) 
Page 29 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

information on the effectiveness of the UI program in light of its goals and 

underlying program design. Researchers hope to enlist up to 25 states 

willing to share their data, and the study seeks to identify, in part, changes 

in the labor market, population, and economy relative to the UI program, 

as well as detailed characteristics of who receives and does not receive UI 

benefits. As part of the study, researchers are hoping to learn more about 

the extent to which UI claimants are receiving reemployment services in 

those states, and about the outcomes they are achieving, including how 

long claimants receive benefits. However, at this point, it is too soon to 

know how successful they will be in obtaining information on claimants’ 

use of the broad array of programs designed to serve them. And because it 

is limited to states that are willing to participate, it, too, falls short of 

providing a nationwide perspective. 

States have increasingly shifted to requiring that most UI claimants file 

their claims remotely. To help them get the reemployment services they 

need to facilitate their reemployment, states have often designed their 

processes to help link claimants to reemployment services. However, 

knowing how many claimants are actually accessing reemployment 

services has proven difficult for state and local officials. Most states lack 

this information, arguably critical for good program management, often 

because data reside in separate systems that cannot be easily linked. In the 

new environment created by WIA, where claimants may be served by a 

range of programs that go beyond Unemployment Insurance and 

Employment Service, it becomes increasingly important to find new ways 

to link program data across a broader range of programs. Current 

reporting requirements are not enough to provide a complete picture. 

Labor has some initiatives underway to help fill this gap, but the issue of 

collecting complete information on those individuals served by the 

nation’s workforce development system—mainly through the one-stops—

needs to be viewed in a broader context, not program-by-program. The 

nine-state effort under ADARE to link administrative data on participants 

in a range of programs is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t include 

information on all services claimants receive. The common measures and 

EMILE initiative are steps to provide more comprehensive and complete 

information on those served by the one-stops, including unemployment 

insurance claimants who come in to the one-stops for services. However, 

the present EMILE proposal does not include a link to Unemployment 

Insurance administrative data, so it will not be able to provide information 

on all UI claimants, only those who receive services through a one-stop. As 

such, EMILE cannot be used as a source of information on benefit 

Conclusions 
Page 30 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

duration. Taken together, these efforts will not be able to provide all states 

with an understanding of services and outcomes for all UI claimants, an 

understanding that is critical for assessing the performance of the program 

or the potential need for future reforms. 

We recommend that as Labor develops EMILE, the Secretary of Labor 

work with states to develop a plan for considering the feasibility of 

requiring states to collect more comprehensive information on UI 

claimants’ use of reemployment services and the outcomes achieved by 

claimants, including the length of time claimants receive UI before they 

are reemployed. 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor officials for their review and 

comment. Labor generally agreed with our findings, but took issue with 

our recommendation that it work with states to consider the feasibility of 

collecting more comprehensive information on UI claimants' services and 

outcomes, saying that its current and planned data gathering and research 

efforts would provide adequate information to guide policy making. 

Labor noted that, in addition to the efforts acknowledged in our report, a 

new initiative will provide additional data on some UI claimants and their 

reemployment services in the future. Labor also said that, given the 

burden placed on states to collect and report data, it is important to show 

a clear benefit to the system for additional data collection. Labor 

requested that GAO provide additional guidance on how collection of the 

data is expected to improve services to UI claimants and hasten their 

reemployment. 

We continue to assert that comprehensive data on the extent to which UI 

claimants receive reemployment services and the outcomes claimants 

achieve is important for program management in an environment where 

claimants may receive services from a number of different programs. 

While Labor's new initiatives, in combination with current reporting 

requirements, will provide valuable information on the reemployment 

activities of some UI claimants, this information is generally collected on a 

program-by-program basis or is focused on a single category of claimants. 

Consequently, these efforts will not allow for a comprehensive, nationwide 

understanding of claimants' participation in the broad range of 

reemployment services provided through federal programs nor do they 

move states in the direction of having the data they need to better manage 

their systems. In recommending that Labor study the feasibility of a more 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 31 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

comprehensive data collection effort, we acknowledge the challenges 

faced by states to collect and track these data and understand that 

acquiring a comprehensive picture of UI claimant's participation in 

reemployment services will have a cost. However, having information on 

UI claimants who are and are not receiving services is an important step in 

the development of reemployment efforts that hasten workers’ 

reemployment and minimize UI benefit costs. 

Labor also provided technical comments which we have incorporated in 

our report, as appropriate. A copy of Labor's comments is in appendix III. 

We will send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, 

the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Major contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 32 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

We were asked to provide information on (1) the extent to which states 

have shifted to remote methods for filing initial claims and how they are 

making claimants aware of their responsibilities to look for work and the 

services available to assist them, (2) what states are doing to facilitate the 

reemployment of unemployment insurance (UI) claimants, and (3) what is 

known about the extent to which unemployment insurance claimants 

receive reemployment services and about the outcomes of claimants who 

receive these services. To address these questions, we conducted 

telephone interviews with unemployment insurance and workforce 

development officials in all 50 states. We then used a separate brief e-mail 

instrument to gather more specific information on the strategies states use 

to collect data on unemployment insurance claimants who receive 

reemployment services. Additionally, we conducted site visits to 4 states—

Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington—and interviewed state and 

local officials in these states. We reviewed data and documents from the 

U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) and other sources. We also interviewed 

officials from Labor, the National Association of State Workforce 

Agencies, and the UI Information Technology Support Center, as well as 

researchers from the University of Texas at Austin, the Upjohn Institute, 

and the Urban Institute. 

For this review, we defined reemployment services to mean all 

reemployment activities funded through Wagner-Peyser; Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker services; any other 

training or job search assistance provided using federal funds, such as 

Trade Adjustment Assistance; and any state-funded reemployment or 

training services. We defined UI claimants as individuals who have filed an 

initial UI claim, been found eligible according to both monetary and 

nonmonetary criteria, and received a first payment of UI benefits. 

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

for their review and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We 

conducted our work from February 2004 through May 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

To collect broad information on unemployment insurance claimants’ use 

of reemployment services, we conducted telephone interviews with 

officials in all 50 states from agencies that oversee the unemployment 

insurance and workforce development programs.19 We designed a 

structured computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) instrument that 

consisted of closed- and open-ended questions on a range of topics, 

including methods used in each state to file initial claims, both outside of 

one-stop centers, employment security offices, and unemployment 

insurance offices and on site at those locations; work search requirements 

and available reemployment services and how states notify claimants of 

them; worker profiling; and states’ data collection efforts related to remote 

filing, work search requirements, receipt of reemployment services, and 

performance outcomes the states may track. For a majority of the 

telephone interview questions, we asked state officials to consider the 

present status of a topic in their state. We asked them to consider either a 

particular program or fiscal year for only a few questions. Telephone 

interviews were conducted during October and November 2004. 

To better understand states’ issues associated with tracking performance 

data, and using results from our CATI as a guide, we supplemented our 

telephone interviews with a brief data collection instrument that asked 

state officials for greater detail about what states tracked for UI claimants 

receiving reemployment services. We also asked them about the specific 

challenges they faced in tracking data on reemployment services and 

outcomes for all UI claimants. We completed this effort in March 2005. 

Officials from all 50 states provided responses about their states’ data 

concerns. 

Because we surveyed officials from all 50 states, no sampling error is 

associated with our work. However, nonsampling error could figure into 

any data collection effort and involve a range of issues that could affect 

data quality and introduce unwanted variability into the results. We took 

several steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, GAO survey 

specialists and staff with subject matter expertise collaboratively designed 

both instruments. Also, the draft telephone interview instrument was 

pretested with officials in 3 states to ensure that the questions were 

relevant, clear, and easy to comprehend and that states would have the 

capacity to readily respond to them. Similarly, the draft data collection 

instrument was pretested with officials from 2 states. During the telephone 

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

Telephone Interview 

and Supplemental 

Data Collection 

Instruments 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

interviews, responses were called back to state officials to ensure the data 

were being accurately captured. To further minimize errors, programs 

used to analyze data collected through both instruments were 

independently verified to ensure the accuracy of this work. 

We selected 4 states for site visits according to several criteria that gave us 

a range of state unemployment rates (as of March 2004), amounts of 

program year 2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funding, acceptance of initial 

UI claims by telephone or Internet, and whether the state had an employer 

tax-funded state training or job placement program. States selected for site 

visits are shown in table 2. We also sought recommendations from Labor 

officials and other experts and considered geographic diversity in our 

state selections. In each state, we interviewed officials in the workforce 

development system and UI programs on issues such as labor market 

information, UI claims filing, worker profiling, work search requirement, 

reemployment services offered, and data collection and management. 

Table 2: States Selected for Site Visits 

State 

Unemployment 

 rate (Mar 2004) 

PY2004 WIA 

Dislocated

 Worker funds

Intrastate phone 

initial claims

 (as of 8/03)

Internet 

 initial claims 

 (as of 3/04) 

Employer tax 

funded state 

training or job 

placement program

Georgia 3.6% $23, 938,297 Planning Planning No

Maryland 4.0% 11,824,549 Yes Yes No

Michigan 6.9% 50,409,392 Partial Yes Yes

Washington 6.1% 37,037,061 Yes Yes Yes

Source: Department of Labor, UI Information Technology Support Center, and GAO analysis. 

Note: Georgia and Maryland were in the bottom quartile for unemployment rate in March 2004, while 

Michigan and Washington were in the top quartile. Additionally, Michigan and Washington were in the 

top quartile in program year 2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funds. 

In coordination with state officials, we selected two local areas in each 

state, visiting a mix of urban and rural areas that had been identified by 

the state as having taken innovative approaches to providing 

Site Visits 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 35 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

reemployment services to UI claimants.20 Local areas selected for site 

visits are shown in table 3. At the local areas, we met with local workforce 

officials at one-stop or career centers to collect information on UI claims 

filing procedures, reemployment services offered, how these services are 

targeted to UI claimants, how UI claimants are linked to services, 

enforcement of work search requirements, and data collection and use. 

We also talked with officials at state telephone call centers in Maryland, 

Michigan, and Washington; a problem resolution office in Lansing, 

Michigan; and the Professional Outplacement Assistance Center in 

Columbia, Maryland. 

Table 3: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Site Visits 

State One-stop center/local workforce area City 

Georgia LaGrange Career Centera 

Gwinnett Career Center 

LaGrange 

Norcross 

Maryland Southwest One-Stop Career Center (Baltimore City 

Workforce Investment Board) 

One-Stop Job Market (Lower Shore Workforce 

Alliance) 

Baltimore 

Salisbury 

Michigan Montcalm Service Center (Central Area Michigan 

Works! Consortium) 

Southgate Service Center (Southeast Michigan 

Community Alliance) 

Greenville 

Southgate 

Washington WorkSource Grays Harbor (Pacific Mountain Workforce 

Development Council) 

WorkSource North Seattle (Seattle/King County 

Workforce Development Council) 

Aberdeen 

Seattle 

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

The sites we visited in Georgia are not one-stops but rather are among the 53 career centers run by 

the Georgia Department of Labor. Only career centers handle UI initial claims or UI eligibility reviews. 

Some career centers are designated primary one-stops for their local areas; those that are not are 

still based on the one-stop model and provide their clients access to the full range of reemployment 

services. 

 20 While we took measures to ensure the selected sites reflect the substantive criteria, our 

visits were made to nonprobability samples of states and local areas. Therefore, results 

from these samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population. Additionally, 

the information that we gathered on our site visits represents only the conditions present in 

the states and local areas at the time of our site visits, conducted from April through 

September 2004; therefore, some changes may have occurred after our fieldwork was 

completed. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

We attempted to corroborate the responses collected through the 

telephone interview and supplemental data collection instruments. To the 

extent possible, for the states we visited we compared responses gathered 

through our instruments with information we collected during those visits. 

During the time of our work, other sources, such as Administrative Data 

Research and Evaluation (ADARE), that could have acted as comparisons 

for some items or topics related to unemployment insurance claimants, 

were not yet available. Based on the comparisons we made, and 

discussions and interviews we held with agency staff and officials and 

outside experts, we believe the data are sufficiently reliable to be used in 

providing information on UI claims and claimants and reemployment 

services. 
Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone 

and Internet Claims Remotely 

Page 37 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

At the time of our survey, 39 states reported that they accepted telephone 

initial claims, and 34 said they took Internet initial claims (table 4). 

Additionally, 29 states reported that they used both remote filing methods, 

and 6 states said they did not currently accept initial claims remotely by 

either telephone or Internet. Several states that currently use a single 

remote filing method—Internet or telephone—indicated to us that they 

have plans to begin accepting claims by both methods in the future. 

Table 4: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely 

State Phone claims Internet claims 

Alabama X 

Alaska X 

Arizona X X 

Arkansas 

California X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X 

Delaware 

Florida X X 

Georgia 

Hawaii X 

Idaho X X 

Illinois 

Indiana X 

Iowa X X 

Kansas X X 

Kentucky X X 

Louisiana X 

Maine X 

Maryland X X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi 

Missouri X X 

Montana X 

Nebraska X X 

Nevada X X 

Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone 

and Internet Claims Remotely 
Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone 

and Internet Claims Remotely 

Page 38 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

State Phone claims Internet claims 

New Hampshire X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X X 

New York X X 

North Carolina X 

North Dakota X 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X 

Oregon X X 

Pennsylvania X X 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota X 

Tennessee X X 

Texas X X 

Utah X X 

Vermont X 

Virginia X X 

Washington X X 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin X X 

Wyoming X X 

Source: GAO table from survey responses—October and November 2004. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor 

Page 39 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor 

Page 40 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 41 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, (202) 512-7215 

Dianne Blank, Assistant Director 

Janice Peterson, Analyst-in-Charge 

In addition, the following staff made major contributions to this report: 

Karyn Angulo and Andrew Bauck served as team members and assisted 

with all phases of the effort; Jennifer Miller, Alison Pan, and Leslie Sarapu 

assisted with data collection; Kevin Jackson advised on design and 

methodology issues; Erin Daugherty, Theresa Chen, R. Jerry Aiken, and 

Catherine Hurley assisted with data analysis; Susan Bernstein and Stan 

Stenersen advised on report preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on legal 

issues; and Lise Levie and Regina Santucci verified our findings. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 42 GAO-05-413 Reemployment Services and UI 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005. 

Unemployment Insurance: Information on Benefit Receipt. GAO-05-291. 

Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training 

Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012. 

Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004 

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement 

and Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with 

Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 

2004 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington D.C.: June 18, 

2003. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and 

Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, 

D.C.: April 18, 2003 

Unemployment Insurance: States’ Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution. 

GAO-03-496. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. 

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002 

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance 

Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. 

GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. 

Unemployment Insurance: Role as Safety Net for Low-Wage Workers Is 

Limited. GAO-01-181. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000. 

Related GAO Products 

(130358) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER