DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Notice requesting public comment on two proposed Unemployment Insurance (UI) program 

performance measures to meet requirements in the Improper Payments Elimination and 

Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA).

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) is seeking public comment on two

proposed UI Performs Core Measures for UI Integrity: 1) UI Improper Payments; and 2) UI 

Overpayment Recovery.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section 

below on or before March 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to the address specified below. All 

comments will be made available to the public. WARNING: Do not include any personally 

identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential 

business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted 

on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be 

submitted anonymously.

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, identified by Docket ID 

Number ETA-2012-0001. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

 Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Please submit all written comments (including disk 

and CD-ROM submissions) to Mr. Andrew Spisak, U.S. Department of Labor, 
2

ETA/Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S4524, Washington, DC 20210. Be advised that mail delivery in the Washington, DC 

area may be delayed due to security concerns. Hand-delivered comments will be 

received at the above address. All overnight mail will be considered to be handdelivered and must be received at the designated place by the date specified above.

Please submit your comments by only one method. The Department will not review 

comments received by means other than those listed above or that are received after the 

comment period has closed. The Department will post all comments received on 

http://www.regulations.gov without making any change to the comments, including any 

personal information provided. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is a Federal portal, 

and all comments posted there are available and accessible to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

IPERA [Pub. L. 111-204 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note)] amended the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) [Pub. L. 107-300 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note)] and established 

several criteria that Federal agencies must meet in order to be in compliance with the law. 

According to section 3(a)(3) of IPERA:

The term ‘compliance’ means that the agency (F) has reported an improper payment 

rate of less than 10 percent for each program and activity for which an estimate was 

published under section 2(b) of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (31 

U.S.C. 3321 note).

For the 2010 IPIA reporting period, the Department reported an improper payment rate of 

11.2 percent (10.6 percent overpayment rate and 0.6 percent underpayment rate) in its Fiscal 
3

Year (FY) 2010 Agency Financial Report (AFR), p. 179, 

(http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2010/2010annualreport.pdf). For the 2011 

IPIA reporting period, the Department reported an improper payment rate of 12.0 percent 

(11.35 percent overpayment rate and 0.65 percent underpayment rate) in its FY 2011 AFR, p. 

204 (http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/annual2011/2011annualreport.pdf).

In addition, IPERA establishes requirements for payment recapture audits. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines in Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123, Part 

I(B)(3), established the follow requirements that Federal agencies must follow:

[A]ll agencies are required to establish annual targets for their payment recapture 

audit programs that will drive their annual performance. The targets shall be based 

on the rate of recovery (i.e., amount of improper overpayments recovered divided by

the amount of improper overpayments identified). 

Agencies have the discretion to set their own payment recapture targets for review 

and approval by OMB, but agencies shall strive to achieve annual recapture targets of 

at least 85 percent within three years (with the first reporting year being FY 2011, the 

second FY 2012, and the third FY 2013). 

In response, the Department has developed statistical models to set recovery targets based on 

historical performance data and the Administration’s economic assumptions. These targets 

have been reviewed by OMB and published in the Department’s FY 2011 AFR, p. 215.

Because the UI improper payment rate exceeds the 10 percent minimum performance 

level in IPERA, the Department has developed an Integrity Strategic Plan to bring the UI 

program into compliance. In June 2011, the Department issued a “call to action” in 

Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 19-11 to ensure that UI integrity is a 
4

top priority and to provide tools and support for State agencies to develop strategic plans to 

reduce improper payments. 

UIPL No. 33-11 (September 21, 2011) launched an initiative to reduce unacceptably 

high levels of improper payments in six “High Priority” States. The Department will work 

closely with these States to support cross-functional teams and develop strategic plans to 

reduce improper payments below the 10 percent IPERA criterion. UIPL No. 34-11 

(September 28, 2011) provided information on the definition and implementation of the UI

Performs Benefit Year Earnings Core Measure to reduce the leading cause of UI improper 

payments -- claimants who return to work and who continue to claim and collect UI benefits. 

This notice describes and solicits comments on two proposed performance measures 

to meet the IPERA statutory requirements. The Department establishes measures that 

capture key dimensions of UI program performance in accordance with applicable legislation 

and sets criteria or target levels defining acceptable performance according to the measure. 

If a State’s performance does not attain these levels, the State must take corrective action 

through its annual State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) (OMB No. 1205-0132, Expiration Date 

10/31/2014). Comments should be submitted by the date and to the address provided in the 

addresses section of this notice.

II. Proposed Improper Payments Measure Definition and Acceptable Level of 

Performance (ALP) 

Measure Definition: Combined percentage of UI benefits overpaid and underpaid, 

estimated from the results of the Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) survey of paid UI 

claims in the State UI, Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE), and 
5

Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Service Members (UCX) programs.

ALP: Section 3(a)(3)(F) of IPERA establishes “an improper payment rate of less 

than 10 percent for each program and activity for which an estimate was published under 

[IPIA].” Section 2(e) of IPERA amends section 2 of IPIA and defines an improper payment 

as “any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount 

(including overpayments and underpayments).” In accordance with IPERA requirements, the 

Department is proposing an ALP of less than 10 percent, first applicable to calendar year 

(CY) 2012 performance. State performance for the 2011 IPIA reporting period (July 2010 

through June 2011) is provided in Attachment A. This ALP will be effective unless the 

IPERA and/or IPIA are amended, in which case the Department will bring its ALP into line 

with the amended requirement. 

Calculation: The measure would be calculated from BAM data using the following 

data elements: 

 Total Overpayment Amount for Key Week (BAM data element h5) - defines the 

amount overpaid to the claimant in the key week (the paid week selected for audit), 

excluding overpayments for improper payments caused by another State’s workforce 

agency. 

The amounts coded in h5 include overpayment codes 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 in data 

element ei2 (Key Week Action). Overpayments attributable to a State workforce 

agency other than the State agency that selected and audited the payment are 

excluded (Prior Agency Action (data element ei6) codes 90 to 99).

 Total Underpayment Amount for Key Week (BAM data element h6) - defines the 
6

amount underpaid to the claimant in the key week, excluding underpayments for 

improper payments caused by another State’s workforce agency.

The amounts coded in h6 include underpayment codes 20, 21, and 22 in data element 

ei2 (Key Week Action). Underpayments attributable to a State workforce agency

other than the State agency that selected and audited the payment are excluded (Prior 

Agency Action (data element ei6) codes 90 to 99).

 Original Amount Paid (BAM data element f13) - defines the amount paid to the 

claimant in key week.

The Annual Report overpayment (OP) rate is the estimate of:

 Amount of UI benefits overpaid 

OP = ———————————————— X 100

 Amount of UI benefits paid 

It is derived from the weekly BAM samples; each week’s sample result is weighted by the 

number of paid UI weeks in the BAM survey population.

The Annual Report underpayment (UP) rate is the estimate of:

 Amount of UI benefits underpaid 

UP = ———————————————— X 100

 Amount of UI benefits paid 

It is derived from the weekly BAM samples; each week’s sample result is weighted by the 

number of paid UI weeks in the BAM survey population.
7

The improper payment (IP) rate (expressed as a percentage) is the sum of the Annual Report 

overpayment rate plus the underpayment rate: IP = OP + UP.

Information on the BAM program is available at http://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/bqc.asp.

Performance Period: The performance period would be based on BAM data for the 

CY. Per the BAM State Operations Handbook (ET Handbook 395, 5th edition), 95 percent 

of BAM cases must be completed within 90 days after the week ending date of the BAM 

sampling week (referred to as a batch), and 98 percent of BAM cases for the CY must be 

completed within 120 days after December 31. The first measurement period would be 

January 1, 2012, to December 29, 2012 (end date of the last BAM sampling batch in 2012).

Sampling Error: Because this measure would be based on sample data, the 

sampling error of the estimated BAM improper payment rate would be taken into account in 

determining whether a State meets its ALP. All estimates from samples are characterized as 

a distribution of values around the expected value of the universe. The sampling error is 

used to measure the variability of that distribution, and it is used to determine the probability

that the value calculated from a particular sample drawn from a universe that meets an ALP 

may be below (or above) the true (universe) value. 

Failure to Meet the ALP: States failing to meet the ALP would be expected to 

develop a Corrective Action Plan as part of the SQSP. Failures to attain an ALP in the first 

measurement period would be addressed in the 2014 SQSP (OMB No. 1205-0132, 

Expiration Date 10/31/2014).

Data Collection Costs: Because the performance measure would use data collected 
8

through the BAM survey, there would be no data collection start-up costs for this 

performance measure. 

III. Proposed UI Overpayment Recovery Measure Definition and ALP 

Measure Definition: OMB Issuance of Revised Parts I and II to Appendix C of 

OMB Circular A-123 [Part 1(B)(3)] defines the recovery rate as “the amount of improper 

overpayments recovered divided by the amount of improper overpayments identified.” This 

ratio will be expressed as a percentage.

ALP: The Department conducted an analysis of the UI recovery data and has 

established recovery targets of 64 percent in FY 2012 and 72 percent in FY 2013. These 

targets were reviewed by OMB and published in the Department’s AFR, p 125. Attachment

B outlines the methodology. The Department will use this methodology to compute future 

recovery targets based on the most recent recovery and other performance data available. 

State performance data for the period October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, the most 

recent 12-month reporting period available, are provided in Attachment C. 

Calculation: The measure would be calculated from ETA Overpayment Detection and 

Recovery reports (ETA 227 and ETA 227 EUC): 

 Total Overpayments Recovered - section C, the sum of line 302, columns 11, 12, 13, 

14, 22, and 23.

 Total Overpayments Established Minus Overpayments Waived - section A, the sum 

of line 101, columns 4, 5, and 21, and line 103, columns 4, 5, and 21, minus section 

C, the sum of line 308, columns 13, 14, and 23.
9

 Amount of UI Overpayments Recovered 

Recovery Rate = ————————————————————— X 100

 Amt. of (UI Overpayments Established - Waived) 

Performance Period: The performance period would be based on the ETA 227 and 

ETA 227 EUC data for the CY. Per the Unemployment Insurance Reports Handbook (ET 

Handbook 401, 4th edition), the December quarter ETA 227 reports are due February 1. The 

first measurement period would be January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012.

Sampling Error: Not applicable; this measure would be based on population data 

reported on the ETA 227 reports. 

Failure to Meet the ALP: States failing to meet the ALP would be expected to 

develop a Corrective Action Plan as part of the SQSP. Failures to meet the CY 2012 target 

will be addressed in the 2014 SQSP (OMB No. 1205-0132, Expiration Date 10/31/2014).

Data Collection Costs: Because the performance measure would use data collected 

through the ETA 227 and ETA 227 EUC reports, there would be no data collection start-up 

costs for this performance measure. 

Attachment A

 Unemployment Insurance Integrity Rates

 From: CY 2010 QTR 3

 To: CY 2011 QTR 2

 Annual Under

 IPIA Report Payment

 ST Amount Paid (OP+UP) Rate Rate

 __ ________________ _______ ______ _______

 AK $187,793,437 13.06% 12.01% 1.05%

 AL $423,475,745 24.38% 24.15% .24%

 AR $404,922,070 12.59% 12.43% .16%

 AZ $612,311,633 21.70% 21.52% .18%

 CA $7,878,548,634 6.28% 5.78% .51%

 CO $759,225,578 16.84% 16.13% .71%
10

 CT $910,540,113 6.62% 5.64% .98%

 DC $173,907,643 7.05% 6.26% .78%

 DE $130,506,869 11.07% 9.35% 1.72%

 FL $1,981,338,921 8.36% 8.09% .27%

 GA $1,051,141,752 5.36% 5.05% .31%

 HI $308,105,469 3.62% 3.29% .32%

 IA $517,702,648 14.37% 12.70% 1.67%

 ID $244,089,005 9.60% 9.52% .08%

 IL $2,614,374,425 14.91% 13.49% 1.42%

 IN $950,389,758 60.33% 59.90% .42%

 KS $460,373,464 3.64% 3.61% .02%

 KY $574,241,696 8.42% 7.95% .47%

 LA $356,969,426 32.95% 31.46% 1.49%

 MA $1,808,499,194 5.54% 4.20% 1.34%

 MD $864,135,379 10.83% 10.74% .09%

 ME $198,708,529 17.76% 16.97% .78%

 MI $1,608,631,516 11.91% 11.40% .51%

 MN $1,040,046,493 10.72% 10.25% .47%

 MO $722,648,523 8.26% 7.73% .54%

 MS $234,393,333 13.73% 13.15% .58%

 MT $155,810,976 11.45% 10.41% 1.03%

 NC $1,564,424,194 10.66% 10.42% .24%

 ND $66,158,178 11.87% 11.30% .57%

 NE $161,824,757 16.46% 15.94% .52%

 NH $123,301,707 8.07% 6.84% 1.23%

 NJ $2,770,764,470 12.51% 10.86% 1.65%

 NM $270,220,624 22.71% 21.83% .88%

 NV $642,558,333 9.17% 8.77% .40%

 NY $3,760,176,447 7.39% 6.99% .40%

 OH $1,491,641,475 20.95% 19.42% 1.53%

 OK $347,057,290 6.61% 6.14% .47%

 OR $884,638,346 12.13% 11.80% .32%

 PA $3,329,117,904 11.82% 11.24% .58%

 PR $265,690,172 10.06% 8.73% 1.33%

 RI $289,317,413 6.06% 5.65% .41%

 SC $486,351,866 17.94% 17.72% .22%

 SD $43,851,969 17.12% 16.69% .43%

 TN $539,350,249 17.92% 17.77% .15%

 TX $2,548,344,654 12.54% 12.00% .54%

 UT $331,290,619 10.99% 10.43% .56%

 VA $692,676,373 16.73% 16.57% .16%

 VT $131,581,881 5.63% 5.25% .38%

 WA $1,509,672,386 15.71% 15.52% .19%

 WI $1,154,698,728 12.73% 12.37% .36%

 WV $217,742,942 5.52% 5.01% .51%

 WY $97,180,931 9.42% 8.96% .47%
11

Notes: 1. Amount paid includes State UI, UCFE, and UCX payments.

 2. Rates exclude agency errors by States other than the 

 sampling State.

Source: Benefit Accuracy Measurement

Prepared by: ETA Office of Unemployment Insurance on 18 Jan 12.

Attachment B

Methodology for Establishing Recovery Targets

Background

As required by the IPERA implementing guidance, ETA has developed UI 

overpayment recovery targets for FY 2011, FY 2012 and FY 2013. According to Part 

I(B)(3) of OMB’s IPERA guidelines, “Issuance of Revised Parts I and II to Appendix C of 

OMB Circular A-123” (April 14, 2011):

[A]ll agencies are required to establish annual targets for their payment recapture 

audit programs that will drive their annual performance. The targets shall be based on 

the rate of recovery (i.e., amount of improper overpayments recovered divided by the 

amount of improper overpayments identified). 

Methodology

The UI recovery targets involve aggregating overpayments established and recovered 

under three UI program areas: State UI, permanent Extended Benefits (EB) and the 

temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) programs. Recoveries are made 
12

using the traditional tools available to States in addition to the Federal Tax Offset Program 

(TOP), implemented by only three States as of the date of the analysis. The recovery targets 

reflect separate methodologies for projecting recoveries or recovery rates for (a) State UI

plus EB recoveries obtained using traditional tools; (b) recoveries of EUC overpayments 

made using traditional tools; and (c) recoveries of State UI, EB, and EUC overpayments 

through TOP. Administration economic assumptions as of the time of the analysis were 

taken into consideration for all projections.

a. Traditional State UI and EB recoveries. Recovery estimates for this segment are 

based on statistical (regression) models that use the historical establishment and 

recovery data reported on the ETA 227 report to project recoveries for State UI and 

EB overpayments. The models estimate the relationships between UI overpayments 

established and recovered for the State UI and EB programs based on several 

explanatory variables, including the amount of State UI and EB unemployment 

compensation (UC) program benefit payments, the Total Unemployment Rate (TUR), 

the overpayment balances available for collection, and the amount of EB program 

payments as a percentage of total UC benefits paid. The TUR, produced by the 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is used as the primary economic 

indicator of overall labor market conditions. UI overpayment recovery targets for FY 

2011 were projected for the full FY based on actual performance data for the first 

three quarters. Model projections for FY 2012 and FY 2013 were based on the 

Administration’s economic assumptions for the TUR and projections of UI and EB 

payments based on those assumptions. Estimates for FY 2012 and FY 2013 reflect 
13

TOP recoveries to the extent that those recoveries reduce overpayment balances 

available for collection by standard State recovery techniques, for example, recovery

through cash, UI benefit offset, liens, wage garnishment, etc. These models exclude 

EUC establishments and recoveries because EUC is a temporary program without 

sufficient historical data.

b. TOP Recoveries. In 2008, State workforce agencies gained access to TOP to recover 

UI fraud overpayments that were not more than 10 years old. In December 2010, 

new legislation expanded TOP access to include nonfraud overpayments resulting 

from claimants’ failures to report earnings and removed the 10-year limit on the debt. 

During FY 2011, three States -- New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin -- began 

participating in TOP, and data on their recoveries are reported by the U. S. 

Department of the Treasury. Projections of amounts recovered through TOP are 

based on the rates of TOP recoveries in these three States relative to the uncollected 

overpayment balance data from the ETA 227 report and fraud overpayments that the 

States wrote off as uncollectable before they gained access to TOP. At the beginning 

of FY 2011, States had uncollected fraud overpayment balances of approximately

$3.2 billion, of which about $360 million was amounts written off during the past 10 

years. Projected national totals for TOP for the country as a whole are based on very

preliminary estimates of the rate at which States begin to access TOP.

c. EUC Recoveries. The recovery targets also take into account overpayment 

establishments and recoveries contributed by the EUC program. It is assumed that 
14

EUC overpayment establishments and recoveries will continue into FY 2013 and that 

collections through traditional techniques and TOP will be based on the amount of 

unrecovered EUC overpayments. The rates reflect existing information on amounts 

established and recovered reported on the ETA 227 EUC report. Existing data show 

that EUC recovery rates are considerably lower than State UI and EB recovery rates.

Targets

The following table summarizes the UI overpayment recovery rate targets, rounded 

down to the nearest integer. The UI recovery rates are constructed by dividing UI 

overpayment recoveries reported on the ETA 227 UI / EB and EUC reports by overpayments 

established, minus overpayments waived because they are unrecoverable under State law or 

policy. The sharp increase in recovery targets for FY 2012 and FY 2013 reflects the 

expected impact of the TOP program.

FY

UI+EB+EUC

Including TOP

(Adjusted for Waivers)

2011 45%

2012 64%

2013 72%

These targets are based on the following assumptions:

 The TUR and State UI/EB outlays will not differ significantly from the 

Administration assumptions in the FY 2012 Budget Midsession Review. The TUR is 

projected as part of the Administration economic assumptions, and ETA forecasts UI 

and EB outlays based on the TUR and other economic assumptions. Because 

amounts of overpayments made, established, and recovered are highly sensitive to 
15

economic conditions, any significant change in these economic assumptions will 

affect the recovery rate estimates of the model. 

 Recovery activity for overpayments established for the EUC program is expected to 

continue into FY 2013 with residual recoveries for overpayments established after the 

expiration of the EUC program.

 State agencies will begin to participate in TOP according to the adoption path 

reflected in the model. Based on Treasury information on State plans for adopting 

TOP and implementation status, the model assumes that by the end of FY 2011 three

States will have enrolled in TOP; by the end of FY 2012, 26 States will participate; 

and by the end of FY 2013 and beyond, 49 States will participate. The 

implementation model is quarterly because data from the first three States suggest 

that over 95 percent of recoveries by TOP occur in the first or second calendar 

quarters, so the calendar quarter during which a State begins to participate in TOP is 

critical for estimates of first-year recoveries. Changes in the TOP implementation 

schedule will have a significant impact on recovery rates.

It is important to note that these estimates are based on actual counts of UI overpayments 

identified and recovered by the State agencies and reported on the ETA 227 reports for the 

FY 1986 to the third quarter of FY 2011 period, not the estimated UI overpayment rates and 

amounts that are reported in the Department’s AFR for the IPIA, which are based on the 

results of the BAM audits of paid claims samples. Targets are also adjusted to exclude 
16

overpayments that are waived as unrecoverable by State agencies, according to the definition 

in the UI Reports Handbook (ET Handbook 401, 4th edition).

Additionally, although these targets were developed using historical FY counts of UI 

overpayments identified and recovered as reported on the ETA 227, they may be applied to a 

calendar year measurement cycle. As actual data on recoveries accumulate -- driven largely 

by the rate at which States implement TOP -- the out-year targets are likely to be revised.

Attachment C

 State UI Overpayments Established and Recovered

 October 2010 - September 2011

 UI + EB + EUC UI + EB + EUC UI + EB + EUC

 Overpayments Adjusted OPs Overpayments Pct.

 ST Established Established Recovered Rec.

 __ _______________ _______________ ______________ ______

 AK $10,786,946 $10,786,946 $4,926,536 45.67%

 AL $43,289,401 $43,109,121 $10,989,706 25.49%

 AR $15,834,291 $15,535,040 $3,548,631 22.84%

 AZ $49,972,545 $49,153,663 $17,927,220 36.47%

 CA $355,671,845 $319,473,699 $88,802,967 27.80%

 CO $68,391,997 $61,271,197 $29,375,647 47.94%

 CT $24,034,518 $23,869,538 $9,940,414 41.64%

 DC $12,220,616 $12,202,781 $3,673,039 30.10%

 DE $8,965,003 $8,935,039 $4,552,476 50.95%

 FL $147,623,645 $145,775,041 $44,571,895 30.58%

 GA $23,231,700 $22,569,632 $8,087,146 35.83%

 HI $2,770,116 $2,357,971 $1,435,108 60.86%

 IA $15,843,340 $15,754,367 $9,341,187 59.29%

 ID $15,065,271 $14,128,402 $7,303,007 51.69%

 IL $182,087,681 $182,087,681 $70,338,632 38.63%

 IN $42,788,522 $42,788,522 $26,348,519 61.58%

 KS $34,676,662 $34,144,019 $10,576,328 30.98%

 KY $19,160,015 $19,160,015 $8,310,033 43.37%

 LA $26,509,327 $25,299,358 $7,617,548 30.11%

 MA $52,507,008 $49,520,685 $19,786,563 39.96%

 MD $74,634,081 $73,857,637 $24,762,560 33.53%

 ME $11,251,820 $10,473,860 $4,290,528 40.96%

 MI $159,904,300 $154,893,349 $46,695,875 30.15%
17

 MN $78,107,121 $78,107,121 $34,172,193 43.75%

 MO $43,124,208 $43,124,208 $17,194,165 39.87%

 MS $24,647,373 $24,647,373 $10,327,401 41.90%

 MT $8,315,543 $8,243,443 $3,282,896 39.82%

 NC $29,499,484 $26,206,623 $13,432,770 51.26%

 ND $2,829,616 $2,819,461 $1,590,573 56.41%

 NE $9,203,878 $9,203,878 $6,117,042 66.46%

 NH $8,765,741 $6,758,020 $2,106,741 31.17%

 NJ $217,078,665 $216,569,050 $173,289,168 80.02%

 NM $26,144,403 $26,144,403 $7,695,583 29.43%

 NV $79,263,713 $75,184,087 $11,304,039 15.04%

 NY $173,450,225 $136,332,802 $119,837,684 87.90%

 OH $110,977,907 $110,839,890 $40,467,585 36.51%

 OK $13,589,431 $13,589,431 $6,334,034 46.61%

 OR $52,034,282 $43,226,825 $15,972,461 36.95%

 PA $179,666,995 $178,969,168 $71,342,580 39.86%

 PR $9,015,270 $9,015,270 $4,352,634 48.28%

 RI $12,555,567 $11,690,902 $4,753,249 40.66%

 SC $42,786,170 $42,315,788 $18,882,525 44.62%

 SD $2,598,766 $2,511,814 $1,280,515 50.98%

 TN $26,502,776 $25,426,645 $9,965,361 39.19%

 TX $200,713,633 $193,763,711 $83,402,654 43.04%

 UT $24,886,880 $24,659,843 $11,568,309 46.91%

 VA $37,941,504 $37,941,504 $15,385,906 40.55%

 VT $3,181,382 $2,097,223 $917,377 43.74%

 WA $144,933,042 $137,873,967 $71,128,301 51.59%

 WI $81,590,555 $78,734,237 $53,254,357 67.64%

 WV $8,231,348 $8,231,348 $3,020,124 36.69%

 WY $6,047,490 $5,741,420 $2,155,330 37.54%

Notes: 1. UI includes State UI, UCFE, and UCX overpayments.

 2. Overpayments established exclude overpayments waived.

Source: ETA 227 and ETA 227 EUC Reports

Prepared by Div. of Performance Management on: 18 Jan 12

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 2nd day of February, 2012.

_____________________________

Jane Oates

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training

BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P