U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–553 2016

ENDING CASH FOR CONVICTS AND OTHER 

WAYS TO IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY OF 

THE UI PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 

Serial No. 113–HR08 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan,Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

TOM REED, New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of September 11, 2013 announcing the hearing .................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Julia Hearthway, Secretary of Labor and Industry, Pennsylvania ..................... 7 

Scott Sanders, Commissioner, Department of Workforce Development, Indiana ......................................................................................................................... 14

Doug Holmes, President, UWC—Strategic Services on Unemployment & 

Workers’ Compensation ....................................................................................... 23 

Valerie Melvin, Director, Information Management and Technology Resources 

Issues, Government Accountability Office (GAO) .............................................. 38 

Sharon Dietrich, Managing Attorney, Community Legal Services ..................... 52 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Appriss, statement ................................................................................................... 71 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
(1) 

ENDING CASH FOR CONVICTS AND OTHER 

WAYS TO IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE 

UI PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:16 p.m. in Room 

1100 Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave 

Reichert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Chairman Reichert Announces Hearing on Ending 

Cash for Convicts and Other Ways to Improve 

the Integrity of the UI Program 

Washington, Sep 2013 

Congressman Dave Reichert (R–WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 

Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on preventing the payment of unemployment benefits 

to incarcerated individuals and other ways to improve the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance program. The hearing will take place at 1:15 pm on 

Wednesday, September 11, 2013, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building. 

In view of the limited time available to hear from witnesses, oral testimony at 

this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include public and 

private sector unemployment insurance experts. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for 

consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Federal-State Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, created by the Social 

Security Act of 1935, assists unemployed individuals by offering weekly unemployment benefit checks while they search for work. According to the Department of 

Labor (DOL), in order to be eligible for benefits, jobless workers must have a history 

of attachment to the workforce and must be able and available for work. 

As a result of a series of laws enacted since June 2008 to provide additional Federal extended benefits, the maximum number of weeks of total unemployment benefits payable per person grew to a record 99 weeks, including up to 73 weeks of Federally-funded benefits. More recently, the maximum number of Federally-funded unemployment benefits paid in any state has declined to 47 weeks. Since mid-2008, 

$275 billion in Federal extended and other unemployment benefit payments have 

been authorized, with most supported by Federal general revenues. 

As the number of weeks of unemployment benefits and total spending grew, so 

did total payments made in error. According to DOL, over the last five years, the 

UI program has made $58 billion in improper payments with an error rate consistently above 10% for both State and Federal UI payments. During the same period, 

employer taxes have also increased significantly, nearly doubling since the recession 

began, and 18 States are still repaying Federal loans. Progress toward improving 

UI trust fund solvency and preventing further payroll tax hikes should be made by 

ensuring correct payments are made to the correct individuals, reducing improper 

payments. Recent news articles in a number of states suggest millions of dollars in 

UI benefit payments have been wrongly paid to individuals who are not able and 

available to work because they are behind bars. 

Congress included several efforts to improve UI program integrity through Public 

Law 112–40, which increases penalties on individuals who commit fraud in collecting UI benefits, and Public Law 112–96, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act, which requires States to recover prior overpayments from current UI 

benefits. Additionally, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–291) expanded the authority to collect UI overpayments from federal tax refunds. As the 

UI benefit rolls return to their pre-recession levels, the 113th Congress looks to continue this important progress. On July 25, 2013, Chairman Reichert took the first 

step by introducing H.R. 2826, the Permanently Ending Receipt by Prisoners Act, 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
3 

also known as the PERP Act, to formally prevent incarcerated individuals from receiving UI benefits. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Reichert stated, ‘‘Unemployment benefits are meant to provide needed assistance to individuals who have fallen 

on hard times, but who are able and trying to find work so they can provide for themselves and their families. In the case of incarcerated individuals, it is an injustice that the tax dollars of law-abiding citizens are being 

used to provide assistance to people who have broken the law and simply 

should not qualify for these benefits. We must make it very clear that unemployment benefits should go only to those who are eligible.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will review possible measures to improve the program integrity of the 

UI program, including H.R. 2826, the Permanently Ending Receipt by Prisoners 

(PERP) Act. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Please click here to submit a 

statement or letter for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, 

submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in 

compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by September 25, 2013. 

Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol 

Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721 or (202) 

225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available online at 

http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
4 

Mr. YOUNG [presiding]. I call today’s hearing to order. I am 

honored to stand in for Chairman Reichert in today’s hearing. He 

has been called away to a briefing on Syria. And I expect he is 

going to join us shortly. 

But before I begin, I would ask that we take a moment to remember a long-time Ways and Means Committee colleague, and 

former chairman of this very subcommittee, Clay Shaw, who 

passed away last night. 

Clay’s legacy as a husband and father lives on through his wife 

of 53 years, Emily, and his four children and 15 grandchildren. 

They are in our thoughts and prayers. Clay’s legacy as a legislator 

is highlighted by the 1996 welfare reform law, which he authored 

and shepherded through this committee, the House, and ultimately, into law. This landmark law helped, literally, millions of 

his fellow citizens lead more fulfilling lives. Every time we work to 

improve that legislation, we are advancing Clay’s vision for a better 

America for all of its citizens. 

We are privileged to carry on that legacy in this institution on 

this committee and on this subcommittee, all of which Clay loved 

and honored through his many years of dedicated service. 

I would like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Doggett, for further remarks related to the passing. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, thank you so much. I just want to, join in 

honoring Clay and his service, and extending our condolences to his 

family. I had the good fortune to have Clay as a Washington neighbor over here on D Street, a couple blocks away. A good neighbor, 

a strong member of this committee who cared deeply about the 

issues that we are discussing here, and served honorably. And 

whenever we disagreed, we could always agree in a spirit of congeniality and collegiality. And it is a loss, and we join you in asking 

for a brief moment of silence in his honor. 

Mr. YOUNG. Why don’t we go ahead and, on his behalf, have 

that moment of silence. 

[A moment of silence is observed.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Today, of course, we also mark the 

twelfth anniversary of 9/11. We remember the victims of that tragic 

day and their families. We also remember those who, in the years 

since, have sacrificed so much to protect our country and our people. Please join me for another moment of silence on this count, as 

well. 

[A moment of silence is observed.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Today’s hearing is on ending benefits 

for incarcerated individuals, and other ways to improve the integrity of the unemployment insurance program. 

I would like to begin by asking unanimous consent that Chairman Reichert’s statement be submitted into the record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Chairman Reichert, as a former sheriff, was 

shocked to read headlines about individuals in jails collecting unemployment benefits, what you might call Cash for Cons. In New 

Jersey, there were 20,000 inmates who collected over $24 million. 

In Illinois, another $2 million was misspent this very same way. 

Millions more were wasted in South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

and Wisconsin. It is an injustice that the tax dollars of law-abiding 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
5 

citizens are paying for these benefit checks for people who have 

broken the law, and simply should not qualify for these benefits. 

That is why Chairman Reichert introduced H.R. 2826, the Permanently Ending Receipts for Prisoners Act, also known as the 

PERP Act. This bill does two things. First, it makes clear that inmates are not allowed to collect UI benefits, in case there is any 

doubt. Second, it instructs states to use currently available prison 

data to ensure they are not paying benefit checks to inmates. 

I am one of several Members who have already cosponsored this 

legislation, and I know Chairman Reichert would welcome the support of anyone who agrees we should address this issue. 

This is only one aspect, one small aspect, of UI improper payments, though. It reflects an obvious area where we can and should 

make progress. We look forward to receiving valuable feedback on 

this bill from our panel today. 

Today’s hearing is about a lot more than ending Cash for Cons, 

though. We also want to identify other ways we can improve the 

integrity of the overall UI program, so it can be there for those who 

are deserving of help. That is a billion-dollar question. Or, actually, 

a 58 billion question. That is the total amount of the UI improper 

payments over the last five years. That $58 billion in improper payments is more than the total amount of state and federal taxes collected last year to support all the unemployment benefits paid 

across the country. That is a huge number, and one that deserves 

serious attention. 

Some of the problem involves fundamental mistakes, like paying 

UI checks to prison inmates, because UI places so much emphasis 

on getting checks out the door before verifying they are going to 

the right person. Data systems exist that can prevent these sorts 

of improper payments from being made in the first place. For example, involving prison inmates, deceased people, people who have 

already returned to work, and even people illegally applying from 

overseas. 

Another part of the problem involves states trying to recover improper UI payments after they occur. This pay-and-chase approach 

is costly, time consuming, wasteful, and there are other challenges 

associated with it since, according to a recent report, only about 

half of annual improper payments are expected to be recovered. 

So, the far-better approach is to prevent improper payments before they go out the door, and ensure we have systems in place to 

do just that. 

There are many reasons to prevent improper payments, starting 

with how they are paid for. State UI benefits are supported directly 

by payroll taxes on jobs, which already have risen over 60 percent 

in the last 5 years, due to the recent recession. In many states, UI 

payroll taxes are expected to continue to rise into the future. These 

rising taxes fall directly on jobs, further reducing new job creation 

and hiring. That makes it especially important to prevent improper 

payments wherever possible, and recover as much of those that are 

made. 

Joining us today to discuss all of these issues is a seasoned panel 

of experts representing the views of various states, including my 

home state of Indiana. Also businesses and program experts. I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can imVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:59 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 089553 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89553.XXX 89553

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
6 

prove the integrity of the UI program so it is there to serve those 

who need it to get back on their feet. 

Mr. Doggett, would you care to make an opening statement? 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. Unemployment insurance 

provides critical assistance to workers who have lost their jobs 

through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work. I 

don’t know how someone who is involved in long-term incarceration 

can be actively looking for work. And to the extent that there are 

individuals who are incarcerated that are wrongfully receiving unemployment benefits, we do need to do something about it. Indeed, 

my question is why the Department of Labor has not already done 

something about it. So I certainly join with you. 

While we want to assure that ex-offenders don’t become re-offenders, and there are major problems in our society about the way 

we treat ex-offenders and integrating them back in the labor force, 

I doubt that is the source of these problems. 

The additional issues concerning ensuring that this system works 

as it is intended is important, not only to the taxpayer, but it is 

important to the legitimate folks that are out there that are counting on an unemployment check. Just as with any other federal program in the employment or social service area, we want to be sure 

these programs are run efficiently and without fraud. 

Over the last five years, this Congress has taken a number of 

steps to improve the integrity of our unemployment system. In 

2008, legislation was passed to permit an individual’s tax return to 

be seized if they owe unemployment compensation debt due to 

fraud. And this measure was strengthened in 2010. More recently, 

Congress has required employers to more accurately report new 

hires, and it made employers liable when they are at fault for overpayment. 

Finally, we have required the states to recover 100 percent of 

any erroneous unemployment benefits by reducing further unemployment payments. These are good steps. But, as you indicated, 

Mr. Young, to the extent that we can prevent these problems from 

occurring in the first place, we don’t have to chase them down. 

The unemployment rolls are much higher because of the great recession. I believe that the studies that we will hear about indicate 

that, as to overpayments, while we need to get to them and prevent 

them, whatever the source, about a fourth are due to fraud, and 

most of the remainder are due to administrative errors by claimants and mistakes by employers or unemployment agencies. 

Second, a factor in this is that the Federal Government has not 

adequately funded the administrative costs of the unemployment 

system for many years, which has made it somewhat more susceptible to errors. On the whole, though, I agree fully with Mr. Young 

and Mr. Reichert in their commitment to ensuring that any fraudulent payment or even accidental waste of taxpayer dollars is avoided. And I look forward to working with them, with our whole committee, to help ensure that unemployment benefits are there for 

the many who count on them, and that we eliminate fraud and 

waste at every opportunity. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, thank you, Mr. Doggett. And, without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to submit a written 

statement and have it included in the record at this point. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
7 

I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral statements to 

five minutes. However, without objection, all the written testimony 

will be made a part of the permanent record. 

On our panel this afternoon we will be hearing from Julia 

Hearthway, Secretary of Labor and Industry, Pennsylvania; Scott 

Sanders, Commissioner, Department of Workforce Development, 

the great State of Indiana; Doug Holmes, president, UWC, Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation; Valerie Melvin, director, information management and technology resource issues, Government Accountability Office; and Sharon 

Dietrich, managing attorney, Community Legal Services. 

I understand that Mr. Kelly would like to introduce our first witness, who is from his home state of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. It is really a pleasure for me 

that the Secretary of Labor and Industry, Julie Hearthway, is with 

us today. And she has done a marvelous job in Pennsylvania. Let 

me just give you a little bit of her background. 

The secretary was unanimously confirmed by the Pennsylvania 

Senate in 2011. She was recently recognized by the National Federation of Unemployment Compensation and Workers’ Compensation with its integrity award. Now, this award is given to an individual who has demonstrated a commitment to preserving the integrity of the unemployment system. 

She played a vital role in restructuring Pennsylvania’s unemployment compensation system, restoring the fund to solvency, and 

ensuring that benefits will be available for years to come for those 

who need and deserve them. 

The secretary also created the first-ever office of integrity within 

the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry to combat 

fraud, waste, and abuse of Government funds. Working with the 

Pennsylvania Unemployment and Insurance Integrity Task Force 

and other state agencies, this office has aggressively pursued its 

important mission. 

Now, prior to her nomination, Secretary Hearthway spent 18 

years in the attorney general’s insurance fraud section after working as an assistant district attorney in a private legal practice. 

Madam Secretary, thank you so much for being here today. And 

what you have done in Pennsylvania is absolutely phenomenal. 

And I think there are 49 other states that can learn from that. So 

thank you so much for being here. 

STATEMENT OF JULIA HEARTHWAY, SECRETARY OF LABOR 

AND INDUSTRY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. Thank you, Congressman Kelly, for that very 

kind introduction. Congressman Young, Ranking Member Doggett, 

Congressman Davis, and to the subcommittee, thank you very 

much for having me here today to talk about this extremely important issue. 

Governor Tom Corbett strongly believes that taxpayer dollars 

must be managed with the utmost integrity, and that appropriate 

safeguards must be in place so benefits go to the individuals who 

are eligible and in need. We all understand the value of providing 

a safety net to bridge the gap between losing a job and finding 

gainful employment. However, when cases arise where individuals 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
8 

fraudulently collect benefits they are not entitled to, the public’s 

trust in that system is jeopardized. When the public constantly 

hears of misuse and management of tax dollars at all levels of government, they become disheartened, cynical, and ultimately, disengaged. 

To combat the loss of confidence in the integrity of Government 

programs, it is incumbent upon us, as stewards of the taxpayer dollars, to ensure that safeguards are in place. We cannot afford to 

leave the barn door wide open. All too often government programs 

are rushed without appropriate or effective checks and balances. 

This creates a system that is ripe for fraud, waste, and abuse. 

During my time as Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of 

Labor and Industry, I have had both the privilege as well as the 

challenge of working to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in the unemployment compensation system. To that end, one of my first acts 

when I took office was to establish the office of integrity within the 

department. The bureau director of that office, James Tillman, is 

here with us today. 

This office has spearheaded each of the programs dealing with 

fraud that I am going to elaborate on in my testimony today. To 

date, in just a little over two years, these efforts at addressing 

fraud has saved Pennsylvania citizens and taxpayers an estimated 

over $100 million. 

One of these programs was aimed at stopping the abuse of prisoners collecting unemployment benefits. Under existing technology, 

at minimal cost, we have been able to weed out fraud through a 

cross-match system aimed at identifying individuals incarcerated in 

the state and county prisons who were either collecting benefits 

when they entered the prison, or applied for benefits after they’d 

been incarcerated. 

The system, administered by JNET, operates in real time to stop 

payments whenever a claimant is identified as being incarcerated. 

JNET’s integrated justice portal system provides a common online 

environment for authorized users to access public safety and criminal justice information. For the first quarter of 2013 incarceration 

stops were placed on more than 4,000 claims. Using that number, 

the average claim amount in duration, we have made an estimate 

of over $100 million in just that time period. 

JNET is just one of the successful integrity programs underway. 

We have also blocked all foreign Internet provider addresses from 

being able to be automatically used to apply for benefits when one 

is out of the country. We have, to date, annually saved 9.2 million 

with that step. 

Additionally, we are working in partnership with the United 

States Treasury to implement the TOP program. The TOP program 

has been implemented starting in January of 2012 to August of 

2013. That stops the refund of any tax dollars where we can intercept those funds for existing overpayments that have been made. 

To date we have been able to collect 26 million from that program. 

We also implemented a three-month unemployment compensation amnesty program, which we believe to be first of its kind in 

the nation. The program goals were much like any other tax amnesty programs. Over the course of 40-plus years, labor and industry accumulated an exceptionally large number of cases involving 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
9 

fraud overpayments due to individuals and the non-payment of 

taxes due from employers. More than 130,000 individual claimants 

and nearly 50,000 employers owed money to the state. 

The office of integrity was looking for ways to recoup those lost 

dollars, and we implemented the amnesty program for that purpose. It began on June 1st and ended on August 31st. 

We have implemented a number of other amnesty integrity programs which we think will reap benefit to Pennsylvania taxpayers 

in the future, but those are the highlights of what we have done. 

And by far, the incarceration program has been our most successful. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hearthway follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
10 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.001
11 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.002
12 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.003
13 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.004
14 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Secretary Hearthway. At 

this point I would like to take a point of personal privilege here 

and introduce my state’s own commissioner, Commissioner Sanders. 

Today I have a distinct privilege of introducing, specifically, the 

commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, or, as we call it, DWD, in Indiana, Scott Sanders. Commissioner Sanders was first appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels in 

May 2012 and is currently a member of the cabinet of Governor 

Mike Pence. He manages and implements training and employment programs for Hoosiers, collaborates on regional economic 

growth initiatives for Indiana, and oversees the unemployment insurance system. 

Commissioner Sanders brings many years of workforce development and financial management skills to his role at DWD. And 

prior to his appointment as commissioner, Scott served as the deputy commissioner of systems information and analysis, and was the 

agency’s CFO. 

In his role as commissioner, Mr. Sanders’ zeal for leading the 

agency and creating better outcomes for Hoosiers has helped pave 

the way for not only better, but more efficient service outputs, and 

also better quality and integrity in Indiana’s overall workforce development system. He has been a tremendous asset for the State 

of Indiana. And I am honored to have him here today to testify in 

front of this Human Resources Subcommittee to present his reforms and accomplishments within the unemployment insurance 

system. 

I yield back. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SANDERS, COMMISSIONER, 

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, INDIANA 

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Chairman Young, Ranking Member 

Doggett, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity and honor to share with you some of the efforts we have 

been making in Indiana regarding the issue of unemployment insurance integrity, and specifically, actions we have taken to increase our ability to detect and prosecute UI fraud cases while 

helping unemployed Hoosiers return to work. My name is Scott 

Sanders, and I serve as the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development. 

Indiana’s economy is beginning to recover from the recent recession. However, our unemployment rate remains too high, at 8.4 

percent. Last week we had 60,000 individuals collecting some form 

of UI benefits. As long as Hoosiers rely on these benefits as a safety net against involuntary unemployment, protecting that system 

from misuse and corruption is a top priority of our department. 

In 2012, roughly a third of Indiana’s estimated payments made 

in error went to individuals who had returned to work but continued to claim benefits to which they were not entitled. Obviously, 

working harder on the front end of the problem is a very important 

strategy, but also having plans on the back end to detect, investigate, and prosecute the fraud that has already occurred is needed, 

as well. Our agency has targeted UI fraud as a priority over the 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
15 

past two years. However, we had to overcome several challenges to 

combat UI fraud. 

First, the low number of actual fraud prosecutions. Last year 

only 24 percent of the UI fraud cases that were referred to county 

prosecutors had charges filed. This is due to the complexities of the 

UI system and the limited resources of prosecutors’ offices. UI 

fraud cases can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive. 

Another challenge we faced was the issue of venue. By statute, 

generally all criminal actions are tried in the county where the offense was committed. This creates a challenge in determining 

which county the claim was actually filed, since claimants file for 

benefits using Internet-based online filing system. We determined 

that a partnership with the Marion County prosecutor’s office was 

a solid solution. The department issued a grant to the prosecutor’s 

office to help fund a dedicated deputy prosecutor to specifically 

work with our investigators on pursuing UI fraud cases. This 

solved the problem of resources in the prosecutor’s office in handling complex UI fraud cases. Additionally, it solved the question 

of venue, since their office is located in Indianapolis, where all UI 

claims are processed. 

We have also launched a public awareness campaign by publishing all UI fraud prosecutions on our website, including the 

names and photos and specifics of those that were convicted. We 

hope this creates an environment that conveys a heightened certainty and severity of punishment for fraudulent conduct. 

Since the beginning of this year, when the partnership started, 

the number of fraud cases filed by prosecutors has increased by 

over 330 percent over the same period last year. So far, nearly 

$450,000 in fraudulent benefits and penalties have been ordered to 

be repaid, versus expenses totaling $64,000 for the grant. This 

partnership is still in its infancy, but already the returns are beyond original expectations. And we believe it will reduce the 

amount of UI fraud. 

In addition, we have put some focus on the front end of our 

cases. Earlier this year, we were able to pass a bill through our 

state legislature that we refer to as Jobs for Hoosiers. This provision allows the department to direct recipients of UI benefits to receive re-employment and eligibility assessment activities after they 

draw their fourth week of benefit, similar to the federal program 

required by Congress last year. The primary goal of this program 

is to educate unemployed individuals on the services, training, and 

assistance offered by our one-stop work-one centers. But, most importantly, it gets Hoosiers back to work as quickly as possible. 

One valuable feature of this new law is that claimants appearing 

at the work-one centers may need to provide proof of identification. 

Fraudulent claimants typically have not shown up to receive these 

services. And, subsequently, their claim was placed on hold. This 

potential stopping of benefits for individuals who are fraudulently 

claiming them will have a critical reduction on the amount of fraud 

that occurs. 

In summary, protecting our UI system from misuse and corruption is a top priority of our department. By establishing this partnership with the Marion County prosecutor’s office, we have realized the benefits that go beyond the simple filing of more cases. We 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
16 

have fostered a greater awareness, expertise, and prosecution of UI 

fraud, increased the amount of fraudulent funds recovered, and 

have created an environment to deter fraud. Additionally, by adopting the Jobs for Hoosiers program, we will be able to get unemployed individuals back to work more quickly, while ensuring only 

those that are truly unemployed receive UI benefits. All of these 

efforts are important steps in improving UI program integrity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today, and for your 

interest in our UI integrity initiatives. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanders follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
17 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.005
18 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.006
19 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.007
20 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.008
21 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.009
22 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.010
23 

Chairman REICHERT [presiding]. Mr. Sanders, thank you so 

much for being here today, and thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Holmes, you are recognized—— 

Mr. Holmes. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT [continuing]. For five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG HOLMES, PRESIDENT, UWC, STRATEGIC 

SERVICES ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

Mr. HOLMES. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggett, 

and Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the integrity of the federal and 

state unemployment insurance system. I am Doug Holmes, president of UWC Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ 

Compensation, UWC. We very much appreciate the work of this 

subcommittee in the enactment of the integrity measures in the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and the attention that you have given to the integrity issues this year. 

We support H.R. 2826, the Permanently Ending Receipt by Prisoner’s Act. We favor legislation and policy that addresses a number 

of key points, including; methods of administration should seek to 

reduce employer administrative burden while improving the efficiently and effectiveness in the exchange of information needed for 

proper administration. 

Two, employers and their representatives should be actively engaged by USDOL and states in the design and implementation of 

new systems. 

Public and private databases should be more actively used to 

avoid erroneous payments, and to identify fraud and overpayment 

issues. 

States should implement regular statements of charges to employer accounts and use the full social security number in the exchange of information. 

New performance measures for UI integrity should be developed 

based on return on investment to the unemployment trust funds. 

Additional targeted resources should be provided with incentive 

funding to states with the best performance. Clear direction should 

be provided to the states in defining the federal requirement that 

states must not pay unemployment compensation to individuals 

who have not been determined to be able to work, available to 

work, and actively seeking work. 

The need for improved integrity became evident during the great 

recession, and the lack of integrity in the system led to dramatic 

increases in benefit payments, significantly higher benefit payment 

errors, and doubling of employer taxes. The speed of payment, as 

measured by the time lapse standards developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, has been emphasized for many years over the 

quality of decisions in integrity of UI trust funds. 

Four years after the end of the recession, state and federal unemployment taxes in many states continue to increase, and 18 

states have outstanding unpaid Title XII loans, totaling over 20 billion. Seven states have had to resort to bonds and borrowing in the 

private market to repay federal loans and interest, with employers 

paying the debt service for the next seven years. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
24 

Some individuals who are claiming unemployment compensation 

unduly limit their availability as long as they continue to receive 

unemployment compensation. Individuals must be registered for 

work. A mere statement by the claimant that he or she is actively 

seeking work should not be sufficient to meet the actively-seekingwork requirement. Work search should be documented and independently verified. If not, individuals should not be paid. 

States should consider a variety of techniques to identify fraud. 

Is the application or claim being filed through a foreign IP address? 

Is the same IP address, phone number, and/or address used to initiate multiple UI claims? Are there multiple deposits of unemployment compensation into the same or related bank account? Is there 

prior verification of a legitimate employer account or accounts 

against which benefits are to be charged? 

The process that is used in most states in requesting employers 

to verify wages continue to be, believe it or not, paper requests. A 

solution is needed to this earnings verification reporting that minimizes the general reporting requirements while preserving the 

ability to exchange information for effective prosecution of fraud. 

In closing, permit me to emphasize that employers recognize the 

important role of the unemployment insurance safety net system. 

Employers are willing to provide funding for the system. However, 

employers also have an expectation of good stewardship of the 

funding they provide, and in the integrity of the federal/state UI 

system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmes follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
25 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.011
26 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.012
27 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.013
28 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.014
29 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.015
30 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.016
31 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.017
32 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.018
33 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.019
34 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.020
35 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.021
36 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.022
37 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.023
38 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Holmes, thank you for your testimony. 

And, Ms. Melvin, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VALERIE MELVIN, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. MELVIN. Good afternoon, Chairman Reichert, Ranking 

Member Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for inviting me to today’s hearing. My testimony discusses information technology systems supporting the unemployment insurance 

program. 

With oversight by the Department of Labor, state workforce 

agencies rely heavily on information technology systems to collect 

and process the taxes that fund the program and to determine eligibility and administer benefits. However, the majority of the 

states’ existing systems for unemployment insurance operations 

were developed in the 1970s and 1980s. And, although some agencies have performed upgrades throughout the years, many systems 

are reported to be outdated, costly, and difficult to support, and incapable of efficiently handling workload demands. 

In September 2012, we reported on 9 selected states’ efforts to 

modernize their unemployment insurance systems, and the challenges that they faced in doing so. At your request, my testimony 

today summarizes our findings regarding those modernization efforts and the related challenges. Our report noted that the selected 

states had made varying progress in modernizing their systems 

supporting the unemployment insurance programs. 

Specifically, each of three states that were part of a multi-state 

consortium established to pool resources for developing joint systems were in the initial phases of planning that included defining 

benefits—I am sorry, business—needs and requirements. Two individual states were in the development phase. That is, building the 

system based on requirements. Two were in a mixed phase, where 

part of the system was in development and part was in operations 

and maintenance. And two states’ systems had been completed and 

were in operations and maintenance. 

The states reported that modernization efforts already undertaken had, among other things, helped enhance their unemployment insurance technology to support web-based services with 

more modern databases, and replaced outdated programming languages. Nevertheless, the states cited numerous challenges to 

achieving their modernized capabilities. 

For example, all nine states said limited funding and/or the increasing cost of unemployment insurance systems had impacted 

their planning and execution of modernization projects. Seven 

states cited a lack of staff in their unemployment insurance offices 

with the expertise necessary to manage IT modernization efforts. 

And six states said that continuing to operate their legacy systems 

while simultaneously implementing new systems had required 

them to balance scarce staff resources between the two major efforts. 

In addition, we noted separate and unique challenges for states 

participating in the consortiums. These included differences in 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
39 

state laws and business processes that impacted efforts to design 

and develop a common system, difficulty among states in reaching 

consensus on the best approach for developing and modernizing 

systems, and decision-making by consortium leadership that raised 

concerns about the liability for outcomes that could negatively affect member states. 

At the time of our study, the nine states had begun to address 

some of these challenges. They had also established certain IT 

management controls that are essential to carrying out successful 

modernization initiatives, such as incorporating industry-accepted 

program management processes and tools in their modernization 

efforts. 

We noted in our report that a comprehensive assessment of lessons learned from the modernization work could further assist 

states’ efforts, and that the Department of Labor could play a vital 

role in supporting and advising states. Accordingly, we recommended that Labor perform a comprehensive analysis of lessons 

learned, and distribute this analysis to each state through an information-sharing platform or repository. 

In its response to our recommendations, Labor stated that it was 

committed to sharing the lessons learned, and we are continuing 

to follow up on the Department’s actions in this regard. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Melvin follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
40 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.024
41 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.025
42 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.026
43 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.027
44 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.028
45 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.029
46 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.030
47 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.031
48 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.032
49 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.033
50 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.034
51 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.035
52 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Ms. Melvin. 

Ms. Dietrich, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON DIETRICH, MANAGING ATTORNEY, 

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES 

Ms. DIETRICH. Thank you, Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the Committee. My name is Sharon 

Dietrich. I am a managing attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia. I have been a legal aid lawyer for 26 years. 

During most of that time I have handled unemployment compensation cases on behalf of claimants. And during most of that time I 

have been the lead policy advocate for the legal aid community in 

Pennsylvania on issues involving unemployment insurance. 

Let me start by saying that, although I am here to represent the 

perspective of claimants, I, of course, agree that fraud must not be 

tolerated. We can all agree on that. And I certainly have no objection with the content of House Bill 2826, that there be use of databases in order to make sure that people who are incarcerated and 

are not available for benefits are not getting them. 

I would add, from my work in the area of helping people with 

criminal records, that not all criminal databases are necessarily infallible. I have seen issues around accuracy, matching, updating. 

And I do hope that, as one of the implementation goals here, making sure that the data is verified is part of how the statute would 

be implemented. 

When discussing program integrity, I think that some context is 

important. And as Ranking Member Doggett mentioned earlier, 

fewer than one in four overpayments is a fault overpayment. Most 

overpayments in the unemployment system are for reasons of nonfault, either because there was agency error, employer error, or 

claimant error. 

Secondly, I want to point out that dollars are lost from the system on both sides. I understand from the amnesty program that 

Pennsylvania ran earlier this summer that a good deal of money 

was sought back from employers, as well as from employees, that 

356 million was sought from employees for both fraud and nonfraud overpayments. 

$274 million was sought from employees who committed fraud, 

as opposed to $257 million being sought from employers for unpaid 

taxes. So, clearly, money is leaking out of the system from the employer side, as well. 

And third, I would note that many workers are underpaid unemployment benefits, or unpaid unemployment benefits. Indeed, more 

are underpaid than are getting fault overpayments. And I certainly 

agree with the idea that correct payments must be made. But I 

would urge that we consider making sure that people who are entitled to unemployment get paid, as well as those who are not and 

who are committing fraud. 

Now, to meet this goal of making correct payments, I urge Congress to look at the issue of adequate funding of the state administrative programs, which is a topic that I think that Secretary 

Hearthway and I can agree on. Certainly we have a federal source 

of funding for these programs, the FUTA funding source. But funding has been stagnant for a long time, and the states are starting 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
53 

to hurt in their administration of the UI programs, as a result of 

that. 

The Pennsylvania experience over the last year has been quite 

difficult, where there has been inadequate staff to answer phones 

and perform other work, as a result of which the Pennsylvania 

state legislature had to enact a measure to supplement our federal 

funding so that we would have adequate money to run our program 

effectively. 

You may ask, ‘‘Why is adequate federal funding an issue of program integrity?’’ Well, first of all, it allows the states to do a better 

job in administering the program, so that erroneous decisions can 

be avoided, and overpayments, therefore, avoided. But I would also 

urge that, with more staff, claimants have a better opportunity to 

make sure that they understand what the system wants them to 

do. In many cases, the difficult criteria of the program are simply 

not understood by claimants. And if they are not able to speak to 

staff, agency employees, because they are not available, then, unfortunately, they may get into an overpayment situation that they 

did not intend. 

Finally, a couple of preventative measures I urge consideration 

of. First of all, is better communications with claimants. I think if 

the states were to look at their notices, their technological interfaces, to make sure that clear communications are happening with 

claimants, there would be fewer overpayments. And secondly, we 

should incentivize employers to engage on claims as soon as possible. 

In summary, I urge a holistic approach to program integrity, and 

I thank you for your attention, and am happy to answer questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dietrich follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
54 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.036
55 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.037
56 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.038
57 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.039
58 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.040
59 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.041
60 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.042
61 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.043
62 

Chairman REICHERT. Well, thank you all for your testimony. 

And if you have testified before Congress, you know that the next 

phase of our hearing today is the question-and-answer phase. So 

we would like to get into that for a moment. 

But I would like to comment, first of all. I apologize, Ms. 

Hearthway, for not being here for your testimony. I appreciate the 

testimony of all the witnesses, and I just want to make a quick 

comment on Ms. Dietrich’s remarks regarding inaccurate law enforcement or criminal records. I don’t know if the panel is aware 

of it, but I was in law enforcement 33 years, starting from the deputy through the end of my career as the sheriff in King County in 

Seattle, Washington. I am very familiar with the fact that criminal 

records are not accurate. I think it is a very poignant point to make 

here. 

And the other point that you made, the whole effort here is to 

make sure that those people who deserve the assistance are paid 

the assistance. And I think that is really what this panel has come 

together and just some quick figures. In New Jersey, 20,000 inmates collected over $24 million. And I could give you a list of some 

other states here, but the total cost of abuse, in this system, loss 

of dollars that could go to those folks that really need it, is $58 billion. That is the total amount of UI improper payments over the 

last five years. 

So, we do have a lot of work and ground to cover. And I am very 

pleased to hear that Mr. Doggett is supporting the legislation, as 

are you, Ms. Dietrich, and I think other members of the panel have 

been invited to also sign on to this legislation. It is common sense. 

Common sense brings me to the first question. Ms. Hearthway, 

the steps that you have taken in Pennsylvania with your office of 

integrity, the word ‘‘remarkable’’ has been used. And ‘‘remarkable,’’ 

I think it is just sort of a definition of what common sense is, I 

guess, now, in today’s world. Because you have taken some valuable and available information, and you are actually putting it to 

use. 

So, what lessons, from what you have done in Pennsylvania, can 

we learn and apply to this piece of legislation that we are considering? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. I think perhaps the most obvious is that 

there are some simple solutions to some large problems. You have 

to look for them, you have to be open to those ideas. 

We knew Pennsylvania has a JNET system that housed all individuals who have been incarcerated. Obviously, we had a database 

for everyone applying for unemployment. It was really, in all honesty, a simple step, then, to marry those two concepts. In doing so, 

we knew fraud existed. We knew the scam of sitting in prison and 

collecting an unemployment check existed. The sheer numbers 

were a little surprising to us. It is the kind of information—and 

Representative Kelly and I spoke about this briefly—that spreads 

pretty quickly through the prison system. So, a few individuals receive a check, a whole lot more know about it. 

Marrying two systems, technology allowed us to stop that process 

fairly quickly. Now, the technology was there for us to do it, and 

it was not complicated. So I think the first lesson is look at the 

fraud that is being committed and look at your existing systems. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
63 

There could be a program to implement quickly to stop the bleeding. 

Chairman REICHERT. So the bill points to the Social Security 

Administration’s prisoner database, but there might be other databases that could help states with this task, too. What criteria 

should we use to evaluate various prisoner databases, in ensuring 

that the UI benefits are not paid to prisoners? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. When someone is entering prison, if you 

marry up two identifiers, social security and date of birth—it is not 

a massive database, it is a prisoner database—that will pretty 

much ensure you have the accurate person. We then match that 

with the social security number and date of birth of any claimant 

applying for unemployment. There is the opportunity, should a 

mistake happen, for that individual to say, ‘‘No, I wasn’t incarcerated,’’ and then further checks can occur. We have not had that situation. We have been able to verify each one of the stops has been 

because someone was in prison at the time. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your answers. And we are 

going to go to three minutes a piece, because we have, I have been 

told, some votes that may be called to interrupt our day. So, Mr. 

Doggett is recognized. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thanks to each of you for your testimony. Secretary Hearthway, I was particularly interested in your comment 

just now, that we can act fast and stop the bleeding, and that 

states can act fast on this, as well. 

Do you know if your counterparts in some of our other states 

have followed your example on this? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. I know we have talked to a number of other 

states, told them about our program. Not all states have a similar 

or the same JNET-type system that we do. So each state could run 

into slightly different problems. But once you institute this, it is 

something that comes to a stop pretty quickly. 

I mentioned a moment ago the sort of word of mouth that goes 

through a prison when there is a benefit like this. The same word 

of mouth will go through the prison when it can’t happen, because 

it would affect someone’s parole, perhaps probation. This is a type 

of fix that can go a long way. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And, Ms. Dietrich, thank you for your comments. 

I gather that, while there may be some policy differences with the 

Secretary in Pennsylvania on some other issues, this particular 

program that she is testifying about today has not led to any negative consequences in your state. 

Ms. DIETRICH. I have not personally seen any. I would point 

out that this program has not been in effect for all that long. So 

I feel it is a little premature to say that from our perspective it has 

worked perfectly. 

I think the issue that has most concerned me as I have studied 

it is the question of whether people who are incarcerated pending 

the posting of bail are running into any difficulties after they are 

able to post bail and have made themselves able and available for 

work again. 

But, no, personally I have not seen any issues with that—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. And the accuracy of the systems, as you discussed with the Chair. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
64 

While we want to prevent even one dollar of fraud, overall I 

think your testimony is that this problem of prisoners getting payments to which they are not entitled is a pretty small part of this. 

Ms. DIETRICH. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And as far as the integrity of the system generally, maybe you might just expand on your testimony as to where 

you think our focus needs to be. 

Ms. DIETRICH. Well, I do think that preventative measures are 

a great idea. And one thing that worries me about the increased 

technological way that claims-handling is being done these days in 

order to save money is that we have lost the opportunity for unemployed people to talk to live staff sometimes. And the result of that 

is that the sort of isolated unemployed person is in a position 

where he or she doesn’t necessarily know what the rules are. 

My brother, for instance, was unemployed last year. He was a 

laid-off school teacher. He has a master’s degree in reading comprehension. And he was often confused to what the rules are, and 

said to me that if he was confused, certainly somebody with a much 

lesser level of education might be confused. 

So, I do think that, from the perspective of the claimants, getting 

out better information, making available good ways of getting answers to questions, looking at interfaces to the computer systems, 

I commend Secretary Hearthway for having taken very seriously 

feedback that we gave the Department about ways that we thought 

the computer—the online application was confusing, so that people 

aren’t answering incorrectly because they don’t see the world quite 

the same way that unemployment insurance administrators do. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. Mr. Young, you 

are recognized for three minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The General Accountability Office’s report on this very topic, where you studied IT modernization challenges for the states with respect to their UI programs, one of the things I find quite interesting is towards the end 

of your oral and written testimony. You indicate that, number one, 

you recommended to Labor to perform a comprehensive analysis of 

lessons learned, and they agreed with that recommendation. 

Secondarily, you recommended they distribute the analysis to 

each state through an information-sharing platform or repository. 

Say, a website. And they were silent, for some reason, on that recommendation. Do you have any thoughts about the manner, if you 

wish, do they intend to share best practices, unsuccessful practices, 

or so forth, absent a website? 

Ms. MELVIN. It is my understanding that they are in the process of compiling lessons learned. They have not communicated back 

with us about how they would do that, other than that they were 

putting that information together to disseminate—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. 

Ms. MELVIN [continuing]. To the state officials. 

Mr. YOUNG. I just think it is essential that we get better in all 

areas of public policy at the state level through talking more, and 

sharing best and worst practices. I understand there are differences across populations and cultures and sub-cultures and 

economies. But, nonetheless, we have to formalize these things, as 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
65 

I see it. And hopefully, Labor will be a willing and engaged partner 

in that regard on this topic. 

Commissioner Sanders, we have a great story to tell in the State 

of Indiana. I am going to give you an opportunity to expound upon 

it a little bit. But perhaps you could start just by indicating what 

motivated you and DWD and the administration more broadly to 

take up this initiative of targeting UI fraud, and then maybe speak 

to where you go from here. 

Mr. SANDERS. Well, thank you, Congressman. I think it gets 

back to really having unemployment insurance truly be a safety 

net for those that are unemployed. And I think too often we see the 

amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on in the system. And 

one of the challenges we had in Indiana was getting local prosecutors to take up the drum and march with it. And obviously, as the 

secretary mentioned, word of mouth in unemployment insurance 

moves very quickly, whether it is those that are incarcerated, or 

those that are actually unemployed and that are gaming the system. So now that we have been able to pick up the prosecution 

front in Prosecutor Curry’s office, we have been able to really move 

the ball forward. 

I really think the piece, though, with Jobs for Hoosiers, that will 

attack UI fraud, as well. It is similar to the program that the Feds 

started in—last year, but they brought individuals in at the 27th 

week. By that point, it is too far out. We are going to bring those 

individuals in the fourth week to verify that they are who they are, 

and then also help them get re-employed. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, thank you so much for your good work. To 

the extent—for all of you—we can help remove obstacles for further 

reform and further improvement in these programs and how they 

operate, please let us know. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Kelly, you 

are recognized. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. Just so we understand—and, 

Secretary Hearthway, maybe you could help us—the revenue that 

goes into unemployment insurance, where does it come from? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. Employers, primarily. Now, Pennsylvania—— 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. Employers. 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. All right. I happen to own a company. We pay eight 

percent of everybody that works for us. And I think they put in 

about 7 percent on their own. So I want to make sure we understand this isn’t some benevolent monarch showering these folks 

with some kind of a benefit. It comes out of employers. It drives 

the cost of operation higher. And you have to be very careful of 

that. 

Pennsylvania, though—it may be early—you are estimating savings of $100 million. 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, in a time where 100 million means absolutely 

nothing. That was, last minute, what we spent in interest. I think 

it is incredibly important that everybody understands everybody 

who deserves this funding should get it. Those who don’t should 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
66 

not. And why do I say that? Because it ruins the safety net for 

those who are deserving. So I am all on board with you. 

Let me ask you, though, to share the information—because there 

are 49 other states that could benefit from what you have done— 

is there a best business practices exchange? How do we share that 

information? How do we get it out to other people? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. It is an excellent question, and it is something I wish that USDOL would work a little bit more on, in pushing out this information. We have contacts of—we reach out to our 

counterparts. But we do need a more easy, systematic system 

where we can exchange more detailed information. All of those 

using JNET, we can walk them through almost a 10-step process 

of how to utilize this or a system like JNET. 

That is something that I think would help tremendously. Perhaps a little bit more focus on that and a little bit less, perhaps, 

on the ban of imports. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. Mr. Sanders, you want to weigh in? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, if I could. There is an agency, the National 

Association of State Workforce Agencies, that our agency belongs 

to. I believe the Secretary may, as well. In the last year, they have 

actually set up a best practices group for information technology. 

And it is something that is picking up steam. So I think it is an 

area where we could really get the word out fairly quickly on how 

we could take this approach. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, thanks for what you are all doing. I think the 

key to this, like in every program, it starts off with one mission in 

mind, it grows, and it gets really—it morphs into something different. We get the economy back on track, we get people going back 

to work and making higher wages, that automatically grows, it 

solves your insolvency problem in Pennsylvania. 

So, it is really not that difficult to figure out. Maybe it is hard 

to talk about, but we know the goose that lays the golden egg. It 

is the employer. It is the ability for us to raise our economy, get 

it back on its feet, that is going to help all these safety net programs that we have. 

So, thank you all for what you do. You are incredibly important 

to society. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Davis, you are 

recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 

Hearthway, does one have to be in active pursuit of work or a job 

to qualify for unemployment insurance? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. You have to be ready and available to work 

in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. 

Mr. DAVIS. And individuals who are incarcerated, they—on the 

applications they indicate that they are available and ready to 

work? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. Yes. Pennsylvania actually has a separate 

law that simply states if you are incarcerated you are not eligible 

for unemployment. There is also the broader law, that you must be 

able and available to work in order to collect unemployment. So 

there are actually two provisions in our state that would apply to 

that situation and legally prevent someone from collecting. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
67 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Melvin, you indicated that fraud occurs because 

some of the agencies are using outdated computer equipment and 

don’t have the accuracy of their data systems What would you 

think some of the barriers are as to why they don’t have this equipment that they need? 

Ms. MELVIN. We found that the states, first of all, were in very 

mixed states of implementing modernized capabilities, but they 

were facing a number of challenges, and those challenges ranged 

from inconsistencies in the funding that they received that they 

were relying on to actually implement some of the capabilities. 

Often times with information technology, modernization efforts, it 

can take a long time for some programs to be designed and actually 

executed. So the time frame for getting money across the time that 

they would actually be doing that could be problematic. 

We also saw a lot of problems with the skills, the staff skills that 

were involved. In many cases, the states reported to us that they 

did not have the appropriate skills, in terms of IT staff, who could 

actually carry out these particular projects for them. 

So there were a number of complicating factors that impacted 

whether they, in fact, could get modernization efforts in place. 

Mr. DAVIS. So in some instances inadequate funding and inadequate skill is actually costing money, rather than saving money. 

Ms. MELVIN. Unfortunately, if you were trying to tie it to the 

improper payments, that potentially could be a factor. 

Mr. DAVIS. And finally, Ms. Dietrich, you mentioned that some 

employers defraud the unemployment insurance system by falsely 

claiming that individuals are independent contractors. 

Ms. DIETRICH. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. What difference does that make? 

Ms. DIETRICH. Well, the difference is that if you are an independent contractor, the employer is not going to pay those taxes 

that have been discussed previously. And that also leads to the 

underfunding of the system, resulting in other employers having to 

pick up the slack. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Renacci, you 

are recognized for three minutes. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

Chairman Reichert for his introduction of H.R. 2826 and for holding this hearing today, so we can better understand the issues 

states are facing us when it comes to preventing UI fraud. And I 

want to thank the witnesses for being here. 

In my home state of Ohio, the UI administrators serve approximately 225,000 active Ohio employers, and process 1 billion of tax 

revenues per year. Those tax revenues, as we heard earlier, are 

coming from businesses. The UI program has made 58 billion in 

improper payments over the last 5 years. And as a small business 

owner, I understand the impact these errors can have on businesses. But I also understand the importance of the safety net for 

individuals, who through no fault of their own, have lost their job. 

And I think that is important. But we must ensure, as Mr. Kelly 

said, that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and not on individuals 

that do not qualify. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
68 

In the last 12 months I know the Ohio benefit payment control 

division identified more than 34 billion in fraudulent overpaid benefits. Mr. Sanders, you mentioned in your testimony that the benefit payment control division in your state encountered some challenges when investigating fraud and improper payments. Can you 

expand a little on those challenges? 

Mr. SANDERS. Sure, absolutely. When our investigators first believe there is somebody that is committing fraud, it takes some 

time and process to then go out and investigate those. In addition, 

we weren’t getting a lot of cooperation from law enforcement agencies. Through our partnership now with Marion County, it has the 

ability to pull in, whether it is state police, the county sheriff, or 

even local individuals to actually have that subpoena power and do 

those investigations and pull that information in. 

That was, I think, one of the biggest barriers that has now been 

opened up for us to be able to investigate these fraud cases. 

Mr. RENACCI. And overall for the panel, the status of UI error 

rates, do you think they are getting worse, better, or generally unchanged? 

Mr. SANDERS. I can speak for our state. I haven’t studied the 

other states, but our state continues to improve. Probably over the 

last year we have cut that number in half. But we are still too 

high, personally. And I think we really need to continue to improve 

that and drive that number down, probably into the three to five 

percent range. 

Mr. RENACCI. Any others? 

Ms. HEARTHWAY. If I could just add, I mean, Pennsylvania is 

improving slightly. But if I could make one point here. The benefits 

error, BAM, program would not have taken into account the prison 

cross-match that we just instituted. They look at your processes 

and procedures and see if you are following them, and they extrapolate your error rate based on that. 

We have a fairly solid estimate of $100 million, and that would 

not show up, either as an error previously or as a benefit now unless you happened upon a case that you knew someone was incarcerated. It wouldn’t show those kinds of numbers. And so, I think 

there is a portion of this that we may be emphasizing form over 

some substance. 

Mr. RENACCI. I am running out of time, and I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. Mr. Griffin, you are recognized for three minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my home state of 

Arkansas I have got some of the most recent figures. In 2012 it 

looks like we had about $46 million in improper payments. And for 

a state with only three million people, that is a lot of money. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Sanders if you would tell me, first of all, 

how are the prosecutors organized in Indiana? In Arkansas, they 

are not under the attorney general, for example.They are independently elected. And so, there is a prosecutor coordinator that can 

help get those elected officials on the same page with regard to the 

push to prosecute fraud. But could you tell me a little bit about 

how you got things moving in Indiana? And have you gotten things 

moving on a statewide scale, or is it very targeted? 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
69 

Mr. SANDERS. That is the specific issue we had in Indiana, as 

well, where each of our county prosecutors is independently elected 

into the position. 

First of all, I don’t think they have the staff or the resources to 

go after unemployment insurance fraud, nor do they have the expertise. It is such a unique field. And the fact that we utilized 

where our computer server—where all the claims are processed is 

based in Marion County—that actually created the venue issue, 

which then gave the Marion County prosecutor the ability to prosecute in every county in the state. It is no different than, I think, 

under federal law. We could charge those individuals with wire 

fraud because we use the Internet to actually then make payments, 

as well. 

So that is really what was the lynch pin that then opened up the 

gates. Now we also see our county prosecutors wanting to jump in 

and help out. Obviously, it helps them, as well. So I think that was 

really the key—— 

Mr. GRIFFIN. So that is Indianapolis, is that right? 

Mr. SANDERS. And Marion County, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Right. And so I represent all of Pulaski County, 

which is Little Rock. And so you would be sort of an analogous situation there, potentially. 

Real quickly I want to ask you. You may be familiar that in the 

federal system there is something called qui tam actions, where 

people can report fraud and get it—basically get a cut of it. Are 

there incentives in Indiana to—for people to report fraud? And is 

there a way for some of these prosecutors to get a cut of some of 

these cases? Are there mechanisms like that that could help sustain? 

Because you mentioned the lack of resources. If you get a system 

where people are getting a cut to report it, and prosecutors are getting a cut to prosecute it, then you can incentivize that behavior 

that is otherwise hard to incentivize without money and resources 

and what have you. 

Do you have any comment on that? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I would. In Indiana there, obviously, is not 

an incentive to get a cut of what is collected back. We do have an 

anonymous website. But the piece that is unique, I believe—in 

most states there is what is called the penalty and interest fund, 

which means if you find someone that has committed fraud, you 

can not only charge them with the return of the benefits that go 

back into the trust fund, but you can also hit them with a penalty 

and interest on top of that amount, so those funds can then be 

turned back in to help prosecutors for whatever else you may have 

going on. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Any—well, it looks like I am out of time. So thank 

you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Yes, sir, Mr. Griffin, you are out of time. 

I want to thank all of the panel for being here, and all of our 

witnesses for being here today. We all recognize the need to make 

corrections within the system. And I think that we are all in agreement this is at least one small step, this is a small piece of the pie, 

as was mentioned by Ms. Dietrich and others. But it is an obvious 

area where we can make progress. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
70 

And you have shared some information with us today, some of 

the areas that we need to focus on, where we need help in technology, information sharing, and lack of resources. Those are 

things we can make progress on and we can maybe have an impact 

on making sure that the money our taxpayers put forward go to 

the people who really need it. So thank you all for your time. 

One last comment. If Members have additional questions for the 

witnesses, they will submit them to you in writing. And we would 

appreciate receiving your responses for the record within two 

weeks. This committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
71 

Appris, statement 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.044
72 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.045
73 

Æ 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert 89553A.046