UNEMPLOYMENT 

INSURANCE

States’ Customer 

Service Challenges 

and DOL’s Related 

Assistance

Report to the Ranking Member 

Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate

May 2016

GAO-16-430

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-430, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, 

U.S. Senate

May 2016

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

States' Customer Service Challenges and DOL's 

Related Assistance

Why GAO Did This Study

UI benefits are a critical source of 

income for millions of unemployed 

Americans. Overseen federally by DOL

and administered by states, the UI 

program requested $32.5 billion in 

benefits in fiscal year 2015 for 

approximately 7 million UI claims. 

During the 2007-2009 recession, 

states faced challenges processing 

record numbers of claims, and 

questions were raised about the quality 

of customer service. GAO was asked 

to review customer service issues in 

state UI programs. 

GAO examined (1) customer service 

challenges, if any, recent UI claimants 

have faced and the extent to which

states collect information on claimants’ 

challenges, (2) any challenges states

have faced providing customer service 

to claimants, and any improvements 

they have made, and (3) the extent to 

which DOL monitors states’ customer 

service efforts and provides assistance 

to help them make improvements. 

GAO surveyed state UI programs in 50 

states and the District of Columbia

(with 48 responding); interviewed 

officials from state UI programs and 

advocacy groups in California, New 

York, and Texas (selected for 

geographical diversity and large 

numbers of UI claims); and conducted 

six focus groups with recent UI 

claimants in these three states. Focus 

group results are not generalizable, but 

provide important insights into the

experiences of some UI claimants.

GAO also reviewed relevant federal 

laws and DOL guidance. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report.

What GAO Found

In GAO focus groups of recent claimants filing for unemployment insurance (UI) 

benefits, those who filed by phone reported experiencing various challenges, 

such as long call wait times; however, those filing for benefits online reported that 

it was generally easy to do. In all six of the focus groups GAO conducted in the 

three states it visited, individuals who had claimed benefits by phone between 

July 2014 and July 2015 reported experiencing challenges with the state UI 

program’s customer service. GAO defined customer service as including ease of

program access, courtesy, timeliness, and accuracy, as well as responsiveness 

to customer needs and expectations. Some participants in all six focus groups 

reported experiencing long call wait times and difficulties using automated phone 

systems. In addition, in two of the states visited, representatives of advocacy 

groups reported that special populations, including individuals with limited 

English proficiency, had difficulty accessing the UI program. In GAO’s survey of 

state UI programs, most states—including those GAO visited— reported 

collecting some data on customer service challenges for claimants. For example, 

38 states reported collecting data on average call wait times. 

Many states reported challenges in providing customer service, including staffing 

issues, and most have taken some steps to improve customer service, such as 

increasing self-service options. Specifically, more than half the states GAO 

surveyed reported insufficient staffing, outdated Information Technology (IT) 

systems, and funding constraints, all of which could play a role in claimant 

challenges. Many states also reported that they have taken or are planning to 

take some actions to improve customer service. For example, 45 states reported 

taking action to provide self-service options, and 42 states reported taking action 

to provide customer service training to program representatives.

The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employment and Training Administration 

(ETA) provides states with monitoring and assistance on some aspects of 

customer service. ETA monitors and measures state performance on the 

timeliness of benefit payments and appeals decisions. ETA also monitors and 

measures the accuracy of states’ non-monetary eligibility determinations, such as 

whether states accurately assess reasons for claimants’ separation from 

employment. In addition, ETA provides states with various technical assistance.

ETA has provided states with assistance on IT modernization, staffing issues, 

and program access for special populations. UI program officials in the three 

states GAO visited said they could benefit from more information on other states’ 

successful customer service practices, including practices for addressing 

continuing staffing and IT challenges. ETA plans to share these practices on an 

ongoing basis, officials said. For example, officials said ETA plans to share 

successful practices—including those related to staffing—obtained from its 

national study of call center operations through its online community of practice.

ETA also plans to continue to collect lessons learned from state IT system 

modernization efforts and disseminate them to states.

View GAO-16-430. For more information, 

contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-

7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Letter 1

Background 3

Claimants Faced Challenges Filing Claims by Phone and 

Accessing Services in Other Languages, and Most States 

Collect Some Information on Claimant Challenges 8

Many States Reported Facing Challenges, and Most Have Taken 

Some Steps to Improve Customer Service, Such as Increasing 

Self-Service 14

DOL Provides States with Monitoring and Assistance on Some 

Aspects of Customer Service, and Has Taken Steps to Share 

Successful State Practices 25

Agency Comments 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Unemployment Insurance (UI) Performance Measures and 

Acceptable Levels of Performance 37

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

Related GAO Products 40

Tables

Table 1: Customer Service Data Collected by States on 

Unemployment Insurance Claims Filed by Phone 13

Table 2: Core Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program 

Performance Measures That Directly Address Customer 

Service Issues 26

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Figures

Figure 1: General Overview of the Process for Filing 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claims 5

Figure 2: Staffing Challenges Reported by State Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) Programs, During Last 12 Months and 

During Recession 16

Figure 3: Challenges Related to Limitations of State Information 

Technology (IT) Systems Reported by State 

Unemployment Insurance Programs (UI), During Last 12 

Months and During Recession 17

Figure 4: Challenges Related to Federal Administrative Funding 

Constraints Reported by State Unemployment Insurance 

(UI) Programs, During Last 12 Months and During 

Recession 20

Figure 5: Challenges Related to Claims Filed by Phone Reported 

by State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs, During 

Last 12 Months and During Recession 22

Figure 6: Practices to Improve Customer Service Reported by 

State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs 24

Abbreviations

DOL Department of Labor

ETA Employment and Training Administration

IT Information Technology

ITSC Information Technology Support Center

NASWA National Association of State Workforce Agencies

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OUI Office of Unemployment Insurance

UI Unemployment Insurance

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 12, 2016

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Dear Senator Wyden:

Unemployment insurance (UI) benefits serve as a critical source of 

income for millions of unemployed Americans. The UI program is a 

federal-state partnership established by the Social Security Act in 1935 to 

provide temporary financial assistance to those who become unemployed 

through no fault of their own and to help stabilize the economy during 

recessions. According to officials from the Department of Labor (DOL), in 

fiscal year 2015 the agency requested $32.5 billion in benefits for 6.7 

million UI claims. The UI program is administered by the states, and 

DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) oversees states’

compliance with broad federal requirements, which include that states 

must have methods of administration that ensure full payment of 

unemployment benefits when due.

During the recession that began in 2007, state UI programs faced 

challenges processing record numbers of claims, and questions were 

raised about the quality of customer service provided to claimants.1 At the 

peak of the recession in calendar year 2009, according to DOL, states 

processed over 17.5 million new initial UI claims.2 By calendar year 2015, 

the number of these claims had dropped to approximately 9.2 million. You 

asked us to review customer service challenges faced by UI claimants 

and state UI programs.

This report examines (1) the customer service challenges, if any, recent 

UI claimants have faced and the extent to which states collect information 

 1

The National Bureau of Economic Research defines the economic recession as occurring 

from December 2007 to June 2009.

2

A new initial claim is the first claim filed to determine whether or not a claimant is eligible

for UI benefits.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

on claimants’ challenges, (2) any challenges states have faced in 

providing customer service to UI claimants, and any improvements they 

have made, and (3) the extent to which DOL monitors states’ customer 

service efforts and provides assistance to help them make improvements. 

For the purposes of our study, we defined customer service as the 

service that state UI programs provide to claimants, including those who 

are eligible and those who are ineligible for benefits. This includes, but is 

not limited to, ease of program access, courtesy, timeliness, and 

accuracy, as well as responsiveness to customer needs and 

expectations.

To examine the customer service challenges recent UI claimants have 

faced, we conducted six focus groups with UI claimants in California, New 

York, and Texas who applied for UI benefits between July 2014 and July 

2015, using a contractor to recruit and screen participants. We selected 

this time period to identify participants who had applied for benefits within 

the 12 months preceding the award of the contract. Focus groups were 

held in September 2015. We also conducted site visits in these states, 

which were selected for their geographic diversity and size based on the 

number of new initial UI claims in calendar year 2014, the most recent 

year for which data were available. We asked focus group participants 

about their experiences with customer service in their state UI programs, 

including any challenges they faced. Focus group results are not 

generalizable within states or nationwide, however, they provide 

important insights into the experiences of some UI claimants. We also 

identified and interviewed representatives of advocacy groups in our site 

visit states to discuss their views on the challenges experienced by UI 

claimants in those states. In part, we selected these groups to provide 

perspectives on the challenges faced by claimants with limited English 

proficiency and claimants with disabilities who were not specifically

selected for our focus groups. 3 The opinions expressed by these groups 

represent their points of view, and may not represent the views of all 

advocacy groups or the customer service experiences of all claimants 

with limited English proficiency and claimants with disabilities.

To address all three objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of UI 

programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia about the customer 

 3

We did not assess state compliance with statutory and regulatory program access and 

nondiscrimination requirements.
Page 3 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

service data they collect, the customer service challenges they have 

faced, practices they have implemented to improve customer service, and 

customer service assistance they have received from DOL. A total of 48 

states responded to our survey, representing a 94 percent response rate. 

In our site visits to California, New York, and Texas, we interviewed UI 

program officials about their approach to customer service, any customer 

service challenges they have faced, and practices they have implemented 

to improve customer service. 4 We also interviewed various stakeholders, 

including national associations and officials from DOL, about their role in 

monitoring and helping to improve customer service in state UI programs. 

In addition, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance.

We did not assess state compliance with statutory and regulatory 

program access and nondiscrimination requirements. (For more 

information on our objectives, scope, and methodology, please see 

appendix I.)

We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 to May 2016 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

As a federal-state partnership, the framework for the UI program is 

established by federal law, which sets broad requirements that state 

programs must follow, including categories of workers that must be 

covered by the program. While states design and administer their own 

programs, DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is 

responsible for ensuring that state UI laws conform to, and state program 

operations comply with, federal law. For example, as required by the 

Social Security Act,5 ETA is to ensure state laws include provisions that 

allow for full payment of UI benefits when they are due. ETA also sets 

 4

In addition, we conducted interviews with the UI programs in Illinois and Pennsylvania. 

5

42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).

Background

UI Program Administration 

and Oversight
Page 4 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

overall program policy, monitors state performance, and provides states 

with technical assistance. For example, ETA sets acceptable levels of 

performance and monitors states on measures related to benefits, 

program integrity, appeals, tax, and reemployment (see appendix II). ETA

oversees state UI programs through its Office of Unemployment 

Insurance (OUI) and its six regional offices. The regional offices are the 

states’ main points of contact with DOL and serve as a link between the 

department and the states for providing technical assistance and 

clarifying program policies, objectives, and priorities.

While federal law sets forth broad provisions for the categories of workers 

that must be covered by the program, some benefit provisions, and 

certain administrative requirements, the specifics of regular UI benefits 

are determined by each state and the District of Columbia. This results in 

essentially 51 different programs.6 States administer their own programs 

and have considerable flexibility to set benefit amounts and their duration, 

and establish eligibility requirements and other program details. States 

are also responsible for customer service in their UI programs. For a 

general overview of the process for filing UI claims, see fig. 1.

 6

We did not include UI programs in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in our review.

State UI Programs, Claims 

Processes, and Benefits
Page 5 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 1: General Overview of the Process for Filing Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claims

Note: The methods available for filing claims vary across states.

a

A new initial claim is the first claim filed to determine whether or not a claimant is eligible for UI 

benefits.

b

In most states, calls to state UI programs are directed to call centers, where either program 

representatives, automated telephone systems, or a combination of both respond.

Typically, eligible unemployed workers can receive UI benefits for up to 

26 weeks in most states. In addition to state UI benefits, the FederalState Extended Benefit Program provides additional weeks of benefits 

during high and rising unemployment.

UI programs are generally funded by federal and state payroll taxes 

levied on employers. State benefits for unemployed workers are primarily 

financed by state employer payroll taxes and are placed in a trust fund 

that the federal government maintains on behalf of states. Ideally, states 

build reserves in their trust fund accounts through revenue from employer 

UI Program Funding
Page 6 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

taxes during periods of economic expansion in order to pay UI benefits 

during economic downturns. Federal taxes paid by employers are used to 

fund the costs of administering UI programs in all states, among other 

purposes.

As part of the President’s Budget, DOL uses a combination of national 

claims-related workload projections and other factors to develop the 

request for UI administrative funding for states. After Congress 

appropriates funds, DOL uses a formula to allocate the funding to states 

and considers state workloads estimates, as well as other information 

provided by states, such as cost accounting information. Since funding is 

calculated in part based on claims-related workloads, the federal funding 

available to states is generally sensitive to changes in total claims, with 

more funding available when claims increase and less when they 

decrease. States may also receive additional federal administrative 

funding above base levels on a quarterly basis when claims-related 

workloads exceed base funding levels. ETA may also award 

supplemental funds to states for special UI projects, such as supporting 

state efforts to reduce improper payments. In addition, states may provide 

additional state funding for the administration of their UI programs.

State UI programs rely extensively on Information Technology (IT) 

systems to carry out their UI program functions. Specifically, IT systems 

are used to administer the programs and to support related administrative 

needs. For example, these systems are used to support benefit eligibility 

determinations, record claimant filing information, and calculate benefit 

amounts.

The majority of the states’ existing systems for UI operations were, 

however, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, and we previously reported 

that states face challenges modernizing these legacy systems to operate 

more efficiently.7 These challenges included limited staff with the 

technical and project management expertise to manage system 

modernization efforts, limited funding for modernization efforts, and 

limited resources for operating legacy systems while implementing 

modernized systems.

 7

GAO, Information Technology: Department of Labor Could Further Facilitate 

Modernization of States’ Unemployment Insurance Systems, GAO-12-957 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 26, 2012). 

UI Information Technology 

Modernization
Page 7 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

In recognition of the importance of service delivery in effective 

governance, in April 2011 the White House issued Executive Order 

13571—Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service—

which required federal agencies to, among other things, work with the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a customer service 

plan for federally-administered programs, establish mechanisms to solicit 

customer feedback, and improve customer service by adopting best 

practices.8 Agencies’ plans were required to address approximately three 

to five of their highest volume services. In response, DOL developed a 

customer service plan which includes workers in federal contracting, 

worker safety and health, and worker rights; however, it does not cover 

the UI program because it is administered by states. According to DOL 

officials, while agencies were not required to update their plans and DOL 

has not done so, a committee report accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, directed OMB to report in March 2016 on 

agencies’ progress in developing customer service standards and 

incorporating them into their performance plans. 9

In a 2010 report on federal agency customer service standards, we 

identified several examples of quality customer service, including 

understanding customers’ needs and organizing services around those 

needs, offering self-service options, and providing citizens with the 

information necessary to hold government accountable for customer 

service performance.10 In 2014, we reviewed customer service standards 

for federally-administered programs at five federal agencies and found 

that none of the agencies’ standards included all the key elements of 

customer service standards, such as performance targets or goals and 

performance measures.11

 8

Exec. Order No. 13571 (Apr. 27, 2011), Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving 

Customer Service, 76 Fed. Reg. 24,339 (May 2, 2011).

9 Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242 (2015).

10GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies’ Customer Service 

Efforts, GAO-11-44 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2010). 

11Specifically, we reviewed customer service standards at Customs and Border 

Protection, the Forest Service, Federal Student Aid, the National Park Service, and the 

Veterans Benefits Administration. GAO, Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to 

Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service, GAO-15-84 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

24, 2014). 

Customer Service 

Practices and Standards
Page 8 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

In all six of the focus groups we conducted in California, New York, and 

Texas, claimants reported experiencing long call wait times or having to 

call multiple times before reaching program representatives to file claims 

or ask questions.12 Across all six focus groups, claimants reported call 

wait times ranging from about 20 minutes to 2 hours.13 Also, in one state 

with limited call center hours, claimants told us they waited on hold or 

called repeatedly for up to 4 hours before reaching a representative. 

Across all six groups, claimants described long wait times as being 

frustrating or inconvenient, and in three groups, claimants believed these 

wait times resulted from a lack of sufficient state UI program staff. In 

addition, claimants in five of six groups said they called multiple times— 

 

12Focus group findings cannot be generalized within states or nationwide.

13Focus group participants reported a range of call wait times that they considered to be 

lengthy; we did not define a long call wait time as a certain number of minutes.

Claimants Faced 

Challenges Filing 

Claims by Phone and 

Accessing Services in 

Other Languages, 

and Most States 

Collect Some 

Information on 

Claimant Challenges

Claimants in Our Focus 

Groups Reported

Experiencing Long Call 

Wait Times and Difficulty 

Using Automated Phone 

Systems

Claimant Quote 

“It’s pretty much been the same, the same 

problems as in 2009 when I first applied, 

specifically, the wait times, trying to get a hold 

of someone taking so long. I usually am on 

the phone for 20, 30 minutes, get frustrated, 

hang up, call back another day.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430.
Page 9 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

sometimes over days or weeks—before reaching a representative, or said 

it took several days for a representative to call them back or respond to 

their email messages. For example, claimants told us that when they 

missed a call from a representative, it was difficult to reach them to return 

the call. One claimant reported making 15 attempts to leave a message 

because a representative’s voice mailbox was full.

In all six focus groups, claimants told us they had difficulty using 

automated phone systems, and in five groups, claimants said they were 

unable to reach program representatives by phone. Claimants said they 

had difficulty using automated phone systems because phone menus 

were long and complex, involving numerous steps, or because it was 

easy to make mistakes and difficult to fix them. For example, claimants 

told us that if they selected the wrong option from the menu, they were 

forced to start over. One claimant said it took 40 minutes to file a claim 

after accidentally pressing the wrong button. In other examples, claimants 

told us they had to hang up—or the system ended the call—after they 

reached a “dead end” and were unable to return to the previous menu. In 

addition, in five groups, claimants told us they were unable to reach 

program representatives by phone. For example, claimants said that 

when they called to file a claim, they received a message indicating that 

the phone system was at full capacity and could not accept additional 

calls.14

When claimants were able to reach program representatives by phone, 

they reported mixed experiences with their helpfulness and courtesy. In 

five of six focus groups, some claimants told us the representatives they 

spoke to were helpful and able to answer their questions, while others 

said they were not helpful or able to answer questions. For example, 

some claimants noted that representatives identified and corrected 

mistakes that otherwise would have reduced their benefit amounts, and 

 14After unsuccessful attempts to file using their personal phones, some of these claimants 

told us they were able to successfully file claims using a private, dedicated phone line at 

an American Job Center. American Job Centers—formerly known as one-stop centers—

offer employment and training services for jobseekers in a single location.

Claimant Quote 

“So then I call them on Monday, but I can’t get 

through until Wednesday or Thursday or 

Friday or sometimes the whole week.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430.

Claimant Quote 

“So you’ve already got three prompts before 

you even get to one that will allow you to ask 

questions. And then that prompt has two or 

three prompts. So you probably go through six 

before you get to a line that says we have a 

heavy volume and we can’t service you now 

and click.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430

Claimant Quote 

“I haven’t actually had anyone that has been 

mean. I have spoken to people that were 

stressed and overworked, but for the most 

part they were as helpful and kind as they 

could be under the circumstances that they 

had to work with. Especially when I was falling 

apart.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430
Page 10 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

one claimant said a representative gave helpful advice about the best day 

of the week to file a claim. However, other claimants said representatives 

seemed to lack knowledge or training, or that different representatives 

provided conflicting information. Also, in four of six groups, some 

claimants said representatives were courteous, while others said they 

were not.

In contrast, in all six focus groups, claimants who filed their claims online 

said it was generally easy to do so, though they occasionally experienced 

system disruptions. For example, claimants described the Internet filing 

process as “quick,” “user-friendly,” and “convenient,” and said they found 

certain features helpful, such as the ability to view their past and future 

benefit payments and print out information about their claims. In addition, 

claimants said they preferred filing online to filing by phone because it 

was faster, or because they were less likely to make mistakes. Less 

frequently, claimants in five groups told us that they experienced 

challenges filing online. For example, claimants said that some state UI 

program websites only accepted claims during business hours or were 

temporarily unavailable due to system outages.15

In all six focus groups, claimants had mixed opinions about the sufficiency 

of the information provided by their state UI programs. For example, in all 

six groups, some claimants reported that the state UI program website or 

written program materials provided answers to their questions—such as 

next steps in the application process, or the amount of their benefit 

payment and when they could expect to receive it. However, others 

reported that the UI program website or written materials did not answer 

their questions—such as how to calculate their quarterly wages, or what 

activities qualify as “work.” In five of six groups, claimants reported that 

these sources did not provide answers to questions about their unique or 

complex situations, such as how medical leave or severance pay affected 

their claims, or how to report income from multiple jobs.

 15Claimants mentioned 11 times that they experienced challenges filing claims online, and 

mentioned 63 times that it was generally easy to file claims online.

Claimant Quote 

“I would say maybe 70 percent of the time it’s 

somebody that is new and I feel like I am 

educating them.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430

Claimant Quote 

“I felt like it was easy. I just found the website 

and put in pretty basic stuff and it pulled up all 

my employers that I have had and the 

earnings and everything was already in there-

-I didn’t have to enter any of that. They 

already knew. And then I got the stuff in the 

mail a few weeks later, pretty quick.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430

Claimant Quote 

“The online works well. The amount of 

information, if you actually spend the time to 

look through all of the information, it answers 

many more questions than they would have 

time for on the phone.”

Source: GAO’s focus groups with unemployment insurance 

claimants. | GAO-16-430
Page 11 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

In addition to the challenges reported by recent UI claimants, advocacy 

groups told us that claimants with limited English proficiency have 

experienced challenges accessing translated materials and program 

representatives who speak their language when filing claims.16 For 

example, in one state, advocates told us that program materials are 

available in a limited number of languages, despite the many languages 

spoken in the state. In addition, advocates in two states said that program 

representatives speak a limited variety of languages, which can make it 

difficult for claimants to provide additional information after they file 

claims.17 Advocates noted that these challenges can be particularly 

difficult for claimants who speak languages that are less common in their 

states. For example, in one state, advocates said that an Arabic-speaking 

claimant did not receive benefits for over 3 months because of delays he 

experienced in receiving translated application materials and receiving an 

interpreter for his appeal hearing.

In addition, advocacy groups in two states told us that the quality of 

translated materials—as well as the quality of interpretation—is 

sometimes poor, which can contribute to benefit delays or result in 

erroneous determinations that claimants are not eligible for benefits. For 

example, advocates in one state said that program representatives have 

sometimes incorrectly translated the reason for a claimant’s separation 

from employment, which has resulted in claimants being deemed 

ineligible for benefits. Furthermore, advocates in two states noted that 

when claimants with limited English proficiency appeal these eligibility 

determinations, the interpretation provided at the hearings is sometimes 

of poor quality, and that it is sometimes difficult to even find an interpreter.

 16State UI programs provide access for claimants with limited English proficiency in a 

variety of ways, including translating printed materials and communicating with claimants 

using program representatives or interpreters who speak languages other than English. 

Under Department of Labor nondiscrimination regulations, if a language is spoken by a 

significant number or proportion of the population served, the state must take reasonable 

steps to provide services and information in that language. With respect to less widely

used languages, the state should make reasonable efforts to meet the language needs of 

such persons. 29 C.F.R. § 37.35; 29 C.F.R. § 38.35. Also see Unemployment Insurance 

Program Letter (UIPL) No. 02-16, State Responsibilities for Ensuring Access to 

Unemployment Insurance Benefits. We did not assess state compliance with statutory and 

regulatory program access and nondiscrimination requirements.

17Advocates in one state explained that when claimants with limited English proficiency 

file claims by phone, they can access interpreters who speak a variety of languages. If the 

UI program needs to follow up with claimants to gather additional information, they use a 

staff person who speaks the appropriate language, if such staff are available.

Advocates Reported 

Individuals with Limited 

English Proficiency and 

Other Special Populations 

Have Had Difficulty 

Accessing the Program
Page 12 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

In addition to language challenges, advocacy groups in two states told us 

that special populations of claimants, such as individuals with limited 

English proficiency and individuals with disabilities, also face challenges 

filing claims over the Internet or by phone because it can be difficult for 

them to communicate without face-to-face contact. Given these 

challenges, advocates said it is important for state UI programs to ensure 

that these special populations and individuals without access to 

computers or phones are able to file claims and ask questions in person. 

In our survey, most states reported that they have taken various steps to 

make their UI programs accessible to special populations, for example, by 

offering assistance in languages other than English and by making their 

websites accessible for individuals with disabilities.18

Most states collect some data on the extent to which UI claimants 

experience customer service challenges when filing claims by phone and 

over the Internet. In our survey of state UI programs, 39 of the 43 states 

that allow unemployed workers to file for UI benefits by phone (91 

percent) reported that they collect some related customer service 

information, such as whether claimants are able to reach program 

representatives by phone in order to file claims or ask questions. For 

example, 38 states (88 percent)—including the three we visited—reported 

collecting data on the total number of calls answered by program 

representatives and average call wait times. In addition, 26 states (60 

percent)—including two of the states we visited—reported collecting data 

on the number or percentage of calls dropped by automated phone 

systems (see table 1). As noted above, long call wait times, difficulties 

reaching program representatives by phone, and difficulties using 

automated phone systems were cited as challenges by claimants in most 

of our focus groups. Furthermore, of the 48 states that allow unemployed 

workers to file claims over the Internet, 39 (81 percent) collect customer 

service data for these claims. Over two-fifths of states (21 states, or 44 

percent) reported monitoring how often claimants are unable to complete 

filings due to system disruptions, such as website timeouts or crashes, 

 18Of the 48 states responding to our survey, 40 (83 percent) reported that claimants with 

limited English proficiency could obtain assistance by phone in a language other than 

English, and 37 (77 percent) reported that claimants could complete the entire benefit 

application process in a language other than English. In addition, 34 states (71 percent) 

reported that their UI program websites are accessible for claimants with disabilities.

Most States Reported 

Collecting Some 

Information on Customer 

Service Challenges 

Experienced by Claimants
Page 13 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

and over half (28 states, or 58 percent) conduct usability testing for their 

UI program websites.

Table 1: Customer Service Data Collected by States on Unemployment Insurance 

Claims Filed by Phone

Data Element 

Total Number of States that

Reported Collecting this Dataa

Average call wait time 38

Number or percentage of calls answered by program 

representatives 38

Average call handling time 37

Number or percentage of calls abandoned by callers 31

Number or percentage of calls dropped by system 26

Number or percentage of calls answered within a 

predetermined timeframe 25

Source: GAO survey of state unemployment insurance programs. | GAO-16-430. 

a

Forty-eight states responded to our survey and 43 allowed claimants to file by phone.

While some states reported using this data to make changes to customer 

service, officials in two states we visited said that funding constraints may 

make it challenging to implement these changes. In our survey, 28 of the 

43 states that allow claims to be filed by phone (65 percent) reported that 

they have used data on these claims to make changes to customer 

service for UI claimants. For example, officials in one state we visited said 

that they use the data to adjust the number of program representatives 

available to answer calls and to forecast future claim volumes.

In addition, 32 of the 48 states that responded to our survey (67 percent) 

reported collecting feedback directly from claimants. The two most 

commonly reported methods for soliciting feedback, according to the 

states we surveyed, was through surveys and the UI program website.19

For example, program officials in one state we visited told us they 

conduct annual and ad hoc surveys of claimants to assess their 

experiences in filing claims. Officials we met with in another state told us 

that while they do not collect systematic feedback from claimants, they do 

solicit informal feedback via social media and their website.

19We did not assess state methods for collecting feedback or the content of claimant 

feedback in the states we visited.
Page 14 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

States responding to our survey reported facing various customer service 

challenges—such as staffing, outdated IT systems, funding constraints —

which may help explain some of the challenges reported by claimants in 

our focus groups. While these issues were reported by many states, they 

were generally reported by fewer states during the last 12 months than 

during the recent recession.20

Many states cited insufficient staff as a challenge for their UI programs. 

Specifically, 24 of 39 states (62 percent)21 reported in our survey that 

insufficient call center staff was a challenge to a large or moderate extent 

during the last 12 months, compared to 30 of 39 states (79 percent) 

during the recession (see fig. 2).22 Officials in the three states we visited 

told us they cannot hire as many call center staff as they need. In 

addition, about 40 percent of the states responding to our survey (22 of 

 

20According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession lasted from 

December 2007 to June 2009. 21Although 43 states reported that claims can be filed by 

phone, 4 of these states did not respond to questions about phone-related challenges in 

our survey. 

21Although 43 states reported that claims can be filed by phone, 4 of these states did not 

respond to questions about phone-related challenges in our survey. 

22In our survey, we asked states to describe the extent to which certain issues 

represented challenges “during the recession” and “during the last 12 months.” While the 

survey defined the recession as occurring from December 2007 to June 2009, it did not 

specify a timeframe for “the last 12 months.” However, the survey was in the field from 

June to October 2015, and 47 states completed the survey within that timeframe. One 

state completed the survey in February 2016. In addition, because we asked all states 

about their challenges during the recession and during the last 12 months, the number of 

states reporting challenges during the last 12 months does not represent a subset of the 

states reporting challenges during the recession.

Many States 

Reported Facing 

Challenges, and Most 

Have Taken Some 

Steps to Improve 

Customer Service, 

Such as Increasing 

Self-Service

Many States Reported 

Facing Challenges 

Related to Staffing, 

Outdated IT Systems, and 

Funding Constraints

Staffing Challenges
Page 15 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

48) cited staff turnover as a challenge to at least a moderate extent during 

the last 12 months—compared to the 27 states (56 percent) that reported 

facing similar challenges during the recession. Staff retention may reflect 

the complexity of the job, which was noted by UI officials in two states we 

visited. Also, 12 of 48 states (25 percent) reported staff training and 

expertise as a challenge to at least a moderate extent in the last 12 

months, as compared to 28 states (58 percent) during the recession. 

While fewer states reported that staff training was a challenge recently 

than during the recession, it remains challenging due to the complexity of 

the job and the length of time required to adequately train new hires, 

according to officials in two states.
Page 16 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 2: Staffing Challenges Reported by State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs, During Last 12 Months and During 

Recession

Note: While 43 states reported that claims can be filed by phone, 4 states did not respond to the 

question about insufficient call center staff in our survey. All 48 states responded to questions about 

UI program staff turnover and limited staff training.

Outdated IT systems are another challenge for many states, according to 

our survey. Specifically, 29 of 48 states (60 percent) reported that their 

current IT systems have significant limitations. These limitations can 

include legacy mainframe technology from the 1970s and 1980s or 

outdated programming languages that have implications for state 

Challenges Related to 

Outdated IT Systems
Page 17 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

programs’ ability to efficiently process claims and serve claimants.23

Moreover, 26 states (54 percent) reported that their IT systems were a 

challenge to a large or moderate extent during the last 12 months, 

compared to the 34 states (71 percent) that reported these systems were 

a challenge to at least a moderate extent during the recession (see fig. 3). 

In the aftermath of the recession, according to state UI program officials, 

frequent reprogramming of their IT systems was required, in part, to 

reflect changes in a temporary federal UI benefit program.24 Additionally, 

officials in one state we visited explained that their outdated system 

continues to present challenges because UI program staff must check 

multiple systems for information on claims, which can lead to errors in 

processing claims.

Figure 3: Challenges Related to Limitations of State Information Technology (IT) Systems Reported by State Unemployment 

Insurance Programs (UI), During Last 12 Months and During Recession

Note: The total number of survey respondents is 48.

 23According to a survey conducted by the National Association of State Workforce 

Agencies in 2010, the majority of state UI programs’ IT systems were developed in the 

1970s and 1980s, and almost all depended on outdated programming languages. See 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies Center for Employment Security and 

Research, Information Technology Support Center, A National View of UI IT Systems, July 

2010.

24There were numerous extensions of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 

program, created by the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-252, 122 

Stat. 2323, 2353. The program expired in December 2013.
Page 18 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Additionally, while several states that responded to our survey reported 

that they were planning to modernize their IT systems, officials we spoke 

to in all three of our site visit states explained that they faced challenges 

in fully modernizing their systems.25 In our survey, 19 of 48 states (40 

percent) reported that they have implemented a modernized IT system. 

Of the remaining 29 that had not yet done so, 16 indicated that their state 

plans to implement a modernized IT system by 2019. However, officials in 

three states we visited identified challenges in implementing fully 

modernized systems—primarily, federal administrative funding 

constraints. In these states, in the absence of full modernization, officials 

told us they responded by making modifications to selected capabilities 

within their existing systems or that they were considering adopting 

practices from other states that have upgraded their existing systems.26

A larger number of states that described their current IT systems as 

having significant limitations reported other challenges than did states 

with modernized systems. For example, a larger number of states 

reporting IT system limitations cited call handling times as a challenge to 

at least a moderate extent during the recession than did states with 

modernized systems. Officials in one state without a modernized system 

told us that because claimants cannot check status updates and other 

information online, they must phone the call center, which consumes 

significant staff resources for routine requests that a modernized system 

could handle easily.

 25In our 2012 report, we highlighted several challenges states faced in modernizing their 

UI systems. For example, officials in several states said they lacked staff with the 

necessary program and technical expertise to manage modernization efforts. It was also 

difficult for states to operate legacy systems while simultaneously implementing 

modernized systems. Moreover, state officials said there were only a small number of 

vendors with the knowledge and expertise to build modernized UI IT systems. 

GAO-12-957.

26In addition, in our 2012 report, we noted the potential risk of introducing processing 

errors when states continue to operate their legacy IT systems while simultaneously 

implementing new IT systems. GAO-12-957.
Page 19 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Federal funding constraints was one area cited as a challenge to a large 

or moderate extent by more states during the last 12 months (28 of 48 

states, or 58 percent) than during the recession (24 states, or 50 percent), 

as shown in fig. 4.27 All states rely on federal funding for the 

administration of their UI programs, and the total federal funding available 

to states has declined to pre-recession levels. Officials in one state we 

visited explained that after the recession ended, claim volumes 

decreased and, consistent with the funding model DOL uses to allocate 

funding to the states, federal administrative funding provided to the state 

was reduced. However, according to officials in this state, other aspects 

of UI program administration have remained constant or increased, such 

as efforts to identify and collect benefit overpayments, which also rely on 

federal funding. Moreover, in our survey, half of states said their UI 

programs receive no additional state administrative funds (24 states, or 

50 percent), and nearly one quarter reported receiving less than 5 percent 

of their total administrative funds from their states (11 states, or 23 

percent). While officials in all 3 states we visited cited limited federal 

administrative funding as a challenge, only one of these states requested 

and received additional state administrative funds. Representatives from 

an advocacy group we spoke with in that state noted that the additional 

funds, which the state used to hire more call center staff, resulted in a 

significant reduction in blocked calls.

 27In our survey, we also asked about the extent to which state funding constraints were a 

challenge. Most states did not characterize them as a challenge to a large or moderate 

extent, either during the recession or during the last 12 months.

Challenges Related to Federal 

Funding Constraints

Federal Legislative Changes to Temporary 

Benefits Program 

During the recession, federal legislative 

changes included relatively frequent changes 

to a temporary federal benefits program. In 

GAO’s survey, 39 states (81 percent) cited 

federal legislative changes as challenges to a 

large or moderate extent during the recession. 

Comments from State Unemployment 

Insurance Program Officials Related to 

Federal Legislative Changes:

State A: “...the excessive programming 

changes...caused program issues in often 

unrelated areas of the system which were 

difficult to diagnose (result of a very old and 

fragile system). This often exacerbated the 

difficulty in meeting service demand and also 

created additional frustration (for) both staff 

and the public.”

State B: “(the temporary federal UI benefit 

program) was constructed... and 

administered...in a manner certain to create 

challenges for applicants and therefore for 

state programs. We never really had problems 

with the volume of actual applicants, but 

rather with the unnecessary volume of phone 

calls and administrative transactions...”

State C: “(the temporary federal UI benefit 

program) was difficult to administer due to the 

large number of law changes and their 

retroactive effective dates.”

Source: GAO survey of state UI directors, 2015. | GAO-16-

430
Page 20 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 4: Challenges Related to Federal Administrative Funding Constraints Reported by State Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

Programs, During Last 12 Months and During Recession

Note: The total number of survey respondents is 48.

Some states reported experiencing challenges related to claims filed by 

phone to a large or moderate extent, both during the recession and during 

the last 12 months (see fig. 5).28 According to a DOL regional office 

official and officials in one state we visited, challenges related to claims 

filed by phone are likely due to staffing issues. For example, if claimants 

are unable to reach program representatives by phone within a 

 28We also asked about challenges related to claims filed online. Specifically, we asked 

about challenges related to the usability and accessibility of states’ UI program websites 

for specific populations and the length of time required to file a claim online. In contrast to 

other challenges, most states did not characterize these issues as challenging, either 

during the recession or during the last 12 months. For example, the general usability of 

states’ UI program websites was reported as a challenge to a great extent by two states 

during the recession, as well as by two states within the last 12 months.

Some States Reported 

Facing Challenges 

Related to Claims Filed by 

Phone and Claims 

Processing Delays

Challenges Related to Claims 

Filed by Phone
Page 21 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

reasonable amount of time, it may indicate that the UI program has an 

insufficient number of call center staff. Also, 18 of the 39 states (46 

percent) who responded in our survey about claims filed by phone 

reported that call handling times remain a challenge to at least a 

moderate extent. Officials in one state we visited explained that as the 

state has made it easier for claimants to manage their own claims, calls to 

the state UI program, including claimant calls directed from American Job 

Centers, are becoming more complex and may take longer to address. 

Officials in that state told us that call handling times remain challenging 

because program representatives have to balance the competing goals of 

completing calls quickly and meeting customer needs. In addition, 13 of 

39 states (33 percent) reported continuing challenges related to calls 

abandoned by callers, and 8 of 39 states (21 percent) reported continuing 

challenges with calls dropped by the automated phone system, to at least 

a moderate extent.
Page 22 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 5: Challenges Related to Claims Filed by Phone Reported by State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs, During 

Last 12 Months and During Recession

Note: Although 43 states reported that claims can be filed by phone, 4 states did not respond to 

questions about phone-related challenges in our survey.

In addition, some states described challenges related to claims 

processing delays or backlogs. For example, 16 of 48 states (33 percent) 

cited delays or backlogs in claims processing during the last 12 months 

as a challenge to a large or moderate extent, while these issues were 

challenges for 34 states (71 percent) during the recession. Although claim 

volumes have generally declined, since federal administrative funding is 

tied, in part, to the volume of claims, some states may face challenges in 

this area. In one state we visited, for example, officials said they feel 

understaffed despite having a lower workload, particularly when there are 

Challenges Related to Delays 

in Claims Processing
Page 23 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

unexpected spikes in claim volumes due to seasonal unemployment 

fluctuations or changes in economic conditions, for example.

Many states reported that they took or are planning to take some actions 

to improve customer service, such as providing self-service options on 

state UI program websites and implementing automated telephone 

systems (see fig. 6). For example, almost all of the 48 states responding 

to our survey reported having provided self-service options on the state 

UI program website (94 percent) or implementing an automated 

telephone system (88 percent), both of which are designed to allow 

claimants to file their own claims with little or no staff assistance. Other 

commonly-reported practices included posting “Frequently Asked 

Questions” on state UI program websites (94 percent) and providing 

customer service training to call center staff (77 percent).

Other practices, though potentially helpful, have not been implemented as 

frequently. For example, 22 states reported having implemented virtual 

hold or courtesy call back on their phone lines, which allows claimants to 

opt out of holding and instead receive a call back, and an additional 9 

states said they planned to do so.

Several states have also undertaken efforts to streamline program 

processes to improve efficiency. For example, officials in California crosstrained program staff so that all staff could answer incoming calls, and 

reduced call center hours from a full business day to a half day. Prior to 

this change, some call center staff answered calls while others worked on 

eligibility or payment issues throughout the day. As more staff are crosstrained in all functions, their competencies to answer all types of calls are 

enhanced, according to officials. Officials told us that these changes 

allowed them to answer more calls than with their previous staffing model 

in which staff specialized in different tasks. Officials described the 

changes as helping to create additional capacity in an environment of 

constrained resources. Additionally, in our survey, several states 

described efforts to streamline or modify their processes to improve 

services.

Many States Reported 

Providing or Planning to 

Provide Self-Service and 

Other Practices to Ease 

Customers Claims Filing 

Experiences
Page 24 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 6: Practices to Improve Customer Service Reported by State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs

Note: The total number of survey respondents is 48.
Page 25 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

DOL’s ETA monitors states on a range of UI performance measures, 

some of which directly address certain aspects of customer service. 

Under the federal-state partnership, ETA sets overall program policy and 

monitors state performance, and states provide customer service to 

claimants. ETA sets acceptable levels of performance and monitors 

states on a total of 15 core measures within the following categories: 1) 

benefits, 2) program integrity, 3) appeals, 4) tax, and 5) reemployment. 

(For a comprehensive list of core performance measures, see appendix 

II.) According to ETA officials, while most of these measures indirectly

address customer service issues, four of them directly address certain 

aspects of customer service. Specifically, ETA measures the timeliness of 

first payments to eligible claimants and of appeals decisions and 

assesses the accuracy of two types of non-monetary eligibility 

determinations. Officials told us they consider these measures to be

important indicators of customer service (see table 2). 

DOL Provides States 

with Monitoring and 

Assistance on Some 

Aspects of Customer 

Service, and Has 

Taken Steps to Share 

Successful State 

Practices

DOL’s Monitoring and 

Assistance Efforts Address 

Some Aspects of 

Customer Service
Page 26 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Table 2: Core Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program Performance Measures That Directly Address Customer Service Issues

Category Performance Measure

Acceptable

Level of Performance

Benefits Percentage of all first payments to eligible UI claimants made within 14a or 21 days 

after the end of the first week claimants were eligible for benefits.

At least 87 percent

Benefits Percentage of a sample of non-monetary eligibility determinations not related to 

claimants’ separation from employment that were determined to be accurate based 

on state law. Each determination is evaluated and must receive a score of 95 points 

or greater to be considered accurate. 

At least 75 percent of sample 

receives a score of 95 points 

or greater 

Benefits Percentage of a sample of non-monetary eligibility determinations related to 

claimants’ separation from employment that were determined to be accurate based 

on state law. Each determination is evaluated and must receive a score of 95 points 

or greater to be considered accurate. 

At least 75 percent of sample 

receives a score of 95 points 

or greater

Appeals For all pending initial appeals: the sum of the number of days that have elapsed since 

the appeals were filed, divided by the total number of pending appeals.

30 days or fewer

Source: ETA documentation and interviews with ETA officials. | GAO-16-430

a

States are subject to the 14-day measure if state law requires claimants to wait an additional week to 

receive benefits after being determined eligible.

ETA provides states with technical assistance for the UI program overall, 

and provides technical assistance on customer service under certain 

circumstances. According to ETA officials, ETA’s six regional offices 

monitor state performance on a quarterly basis and provide technical 

assistance—which may address customer service—if states fail to meet 

acceptable levels of performance over a prolonged period of time.29 For 

example, if a state fails to pay benefits to claimants in a timely manner, 

ETA officials said they may review the state’s call center operations and 

provide related assistance. Officials told us they have also provided 

technical assistance when states have faced major customer service 

challenges that are not addressed in the performance measures, such as 

significant delays in answering calls. In addition, ETA provides ongoing 

 29ETA officials told us that they designate these states “at risk” and provide them with 

intensive monitoring and technical assistance, which may include on-site reviews. ETA 

also requires these states to develop corrective action plans to improve their performance 

and document these plans in their State Quality Service Plans (SQSPs). The SQSP is the 

state UI performance management and service plan, and also serves as the grant 

document through which states receive federal administrative funding. Officials said they 

monitor states until they have finished implementing the corrective actions documented in 

their SQSPs. However, if states are able to improve their performance and meet 

acceptable levels of performance for 6 months, they are no longer designated “at risk.” In 

addition, officials said ETA has offered supplemental funding to those states that are “at 

risk” on certain performance measures to support process improvements.
Page 27 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

technical assistance to states on program administration, which has 

occasionally addressed customer service issues. For example, officials 

said they have developed training, hosted webinars, provided 

supplemental funding, and maintained an online community of practice 

through which states can share information. According to officials, ETA is 

currently piloting an effort to ensure states are routinely assessing 

program operations and processes, complying with applicable laws, and 

effectively administering their UI programs.

30 As part of this effort, officials

expect that beginning in fiscal year 2017, states will conduct annual selfassessments of their benefit processes—including reviews of their call 

center operations and supporting IT infrastructure—and ETA will provide 

related assistance, such as sharing best practices for areas in which 

states are experiencing challenges.

ETA has also provided states with technical assistance or guidance on IT 

modernization, staffing issues, and program access, which were reported 

as customer service challenges by states and advocacy groups. ETA 

provides states with technical assistance on IT modernization by funding 

and overseeing the Information Technology Support Center (ITSC), which 

is operated by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies 

(NASWA).31 For example, in March 2015, ETA and ITSC issued a 

checklist to help states prepare to launch modernized UI IT systems.32

ITSC has also developed a comprehensive guide for UI IT modernization 

projects, among other resources.33 In addition, ETA has provided states 

with supplemental funding to establish consortia in which states work 

 30ETA officials told us that they began this effort in 2014, are currently piloting it with 

selected states in fiscal year 2016, and expect to implement it nationwide in fiscal year 

2017.

31ITSC was created in 1994 as a partnership between DOL and the Maryland Department 

of Labor, Licensing and Regulation to support state UI IT initiatives. DOL supports ITSC 

through grants to the Maryland agency, and ITSC’s Steering Committee includes 

representatives from ETA. According to ETA officials, ITSC supports state UI IT 

modernization efforts by collecting and disseminating information, providing training, 

maintaining a collection of software tools and components, and helping states leverage 

the systems and products built by other states.

32ETA, Training and Employment Notice No. 28-14, Pre-Implementation Planning 

Checklist for State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Information Technology (IT) 

Modernization Projects, March 2015.

33ITSC developed this guide in response to our previous recommendation that DOL 

should analyze and document states’ challenges and lessons learned regarding UI IT 

modernization, and share this information with states. GAO-12-957.
Page 28 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

together to develop and share a common, modernized IT system.34 With 

respect to staffing issues, ETA officials said they have provided technical 

assistance under certain circumstances, such as when states have been 

unable to adequately staff their call centers due to high volumes of claims 

during the recent recession or the implementation of modernized IT 

systems. Regarding program access, in October 2015, ETA issued 

guidance directing states to ensure that all individuals—including 

individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals with disabilities, 

and older individuals—can effectively access the UI program.35

Officials in all three states we visited told us that they have consulted with 

other states to learn from their experiences administering the UI program. 

For example, officials said they have consulted with other states about 

process improvements and online chat capabilities, among other issues. 

In two states, officials told us that they have contacted other states 

directly because they have sometimes been unable to obtain timely 

responses to questions posted on ETA’s online community of practice.36

In one of these states, officials explained that it can be challenging for 

staff to monitor the online community of practice on a regular basis and 

respond to other states’ requests for information in a timely manner. In a 

third state, officials said that they have contacted other states directly 

because officials are more willing to openly share challenges and lessons 

learned in private discussions. In addition, officials told us that NASWA 

 34According to ETA officials, ETA provided states with such funding in fiscal year 2009 

and fiscal years 2011 through 2015. As of March 2016, 13 states were participating in five 

state consortia to modernize their IT systems. ETA’s goals for each consortium are to 1) 

develop a system that can be used by multiple states, while allowing for modifications to 

accommodate the needs of individual states, and 2) allow other consortia or states to 

leverage these systems. ETA has also provided states with supplemental funding to 

support a variety of other efforts, including streamlining state benefit processes. 

35According to the guidance, states must also ensure program access for individuals who 

experience challenges with technology and those who experience challenges with literacy. 

See ETA, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 2-16, State Responsibilities for 

Ensuring Access to Unemployment Insurance Benefits, October 2015. 

36In our survey, 43 of 48 states (90 percent) reported accessing ETA’s online community 

of practice.

Several States Reported 

They Could Benefit From 

More Information on Other 

States’ Successful 

Practices, and ETA Plans 

to Share Such Practices 

on an Ongoing Basis
Page 29 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

has helped them gather information about other states’ UI programs.37

For example, officials in one state said NASWA helped them survey all 

states about their claims workloads and staffing, among other issues, 

which helped them determine that they have more claims per staff 

member than other states.

While states are sharing some information, officials in all three states said 

their UI programs could benefit from more information about other states’

successful customer service practices. For example, officials in all three 

states said it would be helpful to have more information—beyond ETA’s 

recent guidance—on successful practices for serving special populations, 

such as limited English proficiency claimants and those with disabilities. 

In particular, officials in all three states said that their programs could 

benefit from more information about other states’ successful practices for 

addressing ongoing challenges, such as insufficient staffing and IT 

limitations for states that have been unable to implement fully modernized 

systems.

ETA has taken some steps to help states share successful customer 

service practices, and plans to continue to help states do so—including 

those that the states we visited said would be helpful. According to ETA 

officials, one of ITSC’s core activities is to collect lessons learned from 

state IT modernization efforts and disseminate them to states, including 

successful practices for partial modernization when states are unable to 

fully modernize their systems. In addition, ETA regional offices have 

helped states share successful customer service practices through 

ongoing technical assistance, including periodic conference calls and 

conferences, and by connecting states facing challenges with other states 

that have successfully addressed similar challenges. Furthermore, ETA is 

currently in the process of conducting a national study of UI call center 

operations which officials expect will identify best practices on a range of 

issues, including staffing. Officials also expect that ETA’s efforts to 

comprehensively assess state UI program operations and processes will 

identify best practices in a range of areas related to customer service, 

such as call center operations, IT infrastructure, and program access. 

 37NASWA coordinates a national UI Committee, which is comprised of state UI directors 

or other UI program representatives and provides input on UI policies, requirements, and 

ways to strengthen the UI system. NASWA also hosts annual conferences for state UI 

directors and surveys states annually on state taxes and supplemental state funding for UI 

programs.
Page 30 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

When these efforts are completed, ETA plans to share the best practices 

it identifies with all states it its online community of practice.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for review 

and comment. The agency provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated where appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Labor, 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 or at 

brownbarnesc@gao.govif you or your staff have any questions about this 

report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found of the last page of this report. Key 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Cindy S. Brown Barnes

Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

We examined (1) the customer service challenges, if any, recent 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants have faced, and the extent to 

which states collect information on claimants’ challenges, (2) any 

challenges states have faced in providing customer service to UI 

claimants, and any improvements they have made, and (3) the extent to 

which Department of Labor (DOL) monitors states’ customer service 

efforts and provides assistance to help them make improvements.

To address our objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 

regulations, and guidance; conducted a survey of state unemployment 

insurance (UI) programs; interviewed DOL and state UI programs 

officials; conducted site visits to 3 states; and held 6 focus groups with 

recent UI claimants in all 3 site visit states. We also interviewed various 

stakeholders, including representatives of national associations and 

advocacy groups that represent UI claimants.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 to May 2016 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

To address all three objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of UI 

programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey 

included questions about available methods for filing UI claims in each 

state, the status of information technology (IT) systems modernization in 

each state, the data states collect related to customer service, the 

challenges that states have experienced with respect to UI claims during 

the recent recession and during the previous 12 months,1 the practices 

 1

We asked all states about their challenges during the recession and during the last 12 

months. While the survey defined the recession as occurring from December 2007 to June 

2009, it did not specify the timeframe for “the last 12 months.” However, the survey was in 

the field from June through October 2015, and 47 states completed the survey within that 

timeframe. One state completed the survey in February 2016. In addition, because we 

asked all states about their challenges during the recession and during the last 12 months, 

the number of states that reported challenges during the 12 months prior to their 

completion of the survey does not represent a subset of the states that reported 

challenges during the recession.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Survey of State UI 

Programs
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

that states have implemented to improve customer service, and the views 

of state UI officials about the assistance that DOL has provided related to 

customer service. We received responses from 48 states, for a response 

rate of 94 percent.2

To minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be 

interpreted and to reduce variability in responses that should be 

qualitatively the same, we conducted pretests with five state UI programs.

To ensure that we obtained a variety of perspectives on our survey, we 

selected states with diversity on the following criteria: 1) Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) region, 2) average unemployment rate, 3) 

UI claims volume, and 4) the status of IT modernization. In addition, we 

considered whether the state had been identified as employing certain 

practices related to customer service, such as conducting surveys of 

claimants. Based on feedback from these pretests, we revised the 

questionnaire in order to improve the clarity of the questions. An 

independent survey specialist within GAO also reviewed a draft of the 

questionnaire prior to its administration.

After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On June 25, 

2015, we sent an e-mail announcement of the questionnaire to state UI 

directors, notifying them that our online questionnaire was available for 

them to complete, and provided them with unique passwords and user 

names. To encourage state UI programs to respond, we followed up with 

non-respondents by phone and email through October 6, 2015. We also 

followed up by email with state UI directors to clarify their survey 

responses. We collected responses through February 2016.

We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the 

questionnaire. Because we surveyed all states, the survey did not involve 

sampling errors. To minimize non-sampling errors, and to enhance data 

quality, we employed recognized survey design practices in the 

development of the questionnaire and in the collection, processing, and 

analysis of the survey data. For instance, as previously mentioned, we 

pretested the questionnaire with state UI programs to minimize errors 

arising from differences in how questions might be interpreted and to 

 2

We did not receive survey responses from UI programs in the District of Columbia, North 

Carolina, and Vermont. 

Analysis of Survey 

Responses and Data 

Quality
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

reduce variability in responses that should be qualitatively the same. We 

further reviewed the survey to ensure the ordering of survey sections was 

appropriate and that the questions within each section were clearly stated 

and easy to comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of 

non-sampling error, we followed up by email with states that had not 

responded to the survey to encourage them to complete it. In reviewing 

the survey data, we performed automated checks to identify inappropriate 

answers. We further reviewed the data for missing or ambiguous 

responses and followed up with states when necessary to clarify their 

responses. On the basis of our application of recognized survey design 

practices and follow-up procedures, we determined that the data were of 

sufficient quality for our purposes.

Concurrently with our survey, we conducted site visits to three states: 

California, New York, and Texas.3 We selected these states because they 

had the largest number of new UI claims in their respective regions in 

calendar year 2014, which was the last year for which data were 

available. We also selected these states because they are located in 

geographically diverse ETA regions. In each state, we interviewed state 

UI program officials, as well as officials at two ETA regional offices and 

organizations that advocate for UI claimants. The results from our 

interviews with state UI programs and ETA regional offices are not 

generalizable. In all three states, we conducted focus groups with recent 

UI claimants (see additional discussion below). We also identified and 

interviewed representatives of advocacy groups that represent UI 

claimants in our site visit locations. In part, we selected these groups to 

provide perspectives on the challenges faced by claimants with limited 

English proficiency and claimants with disabilities, who were not 

represented in our focus groups. The opinions expressed by these groups 

represent their points of view, and may not represent the views of all 

advocacy groups or the customer service experiences of all claimants 

with limited English proficiency and claimants with disabilities.

In our interviews with state UI program officials, we asked about the data 

collected by the program, such as call handling times, and the ways the 

data are used; the extent to which and how the state UI program collected 

 3

In addition, we conducted interviews with officials in the UI programs in Illinois and 

Pennsylvania.

Site Visits and Focus 

Groups
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

feedback from claimants; customer service challenges experienced by 

the state UI program; and practices to improve customer service. In our 

interviews with ETA regional offices, we asked about federal monitoring 

and technical assistance efforts and the extent to which they relate to 

customer service. In our interviews with advocacy organizations, we 

asked about the customer service challenges faced by state UI programs 

and by claimants, communications with claimants, access for special 

populations of claimants, ways in which the state UI program is currently 

working well, and state practices to improve customer service.

To learn about recent UI claimants’ challenges related to customer 

service, we conducted 6 focus group sessions with a total of 58 claimants 

at 3 locations, using a contractor to recruit and screen participants and 

record and transcribe the sessions. In order to recruit focus group 

participants, we provided participant selection criteria to the contractor. 

Specifically, we stipulated that potential participants be 21 years of age or 

older, speak English, have personally applied for UI benefits within the 12 

months preceding the time the contract was awarded, or from July 2014 

to July 2015, and be able to provide written verification that they applied 

for UI benefits in their states. The contractor then contacted and screened 

potential participants from its database, and over-recruited a total of 15-

20 individuals for each session as necessary to ensure that 8-10 eligible 

individuals participated. We conducted these focus groups in September 

2015. These sessions involved structured small-group discussions 

designed to gain more in-depth information about specific issues that 

could not easily be obtained from another method, such as a survey or 

individual interviews. Consistent with typical focus group methodologies, 

our design included multiple groups with varying characteristics but some 

similarity on one or two homogeneous characteristics. In all focus groups, 

the participants had filed UI claims within the last 12 months in the state 

where the group was held. Most participants said they had filed their 

claims online or by phone, although other filing methods were 

represented.

Our overall objective in using a focus group approach was to obtain 

views, insights, and feelings of UI claimants who had filed claims within 

the last 12 months. Specifically, we wanted to learn about challenges they 

faced in filing claims, including their experiences with state UI program 

websites and phone lines, as well as their views about the courtesy and 

responsiveness of UI program staff, their thoughts about ways in which 

the state UI program is currently working well, their views about the 

timeliness of agency actions, their experience with information provided 

by the state UI program and opportunities to provide feedback, and their 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

recommendations for improvement. By including UI claimants who had 

filed using different methods, and claimants who varied according to age, 

gender, ethnicity, and self-reported education level and income, we 

intended to gather a range of perspectives regarding state UI programs’

customer service efforts. All of the participants selected for the focus 

groups were fluent English speakers.

We selected three cities as focus group locations. We selected these 

locations because they corresponded to the states we selected for site 

visits. We conducted two sessions in each of the three cities—Albany, 

New York; Austin, Texas; and Sacramento, California.

Discussions were structured, guided by a moderator who used a 

standardized list of questions to encourage participants to share their 

thoughts and experiences. We conducted one pretest focus group 

session in Rockville, Maryland prior to beginning our travel for the 

sessions.

Each of the 6 focus groups was recorded and transcripts were created, 

which served as the record for each group. Those transcripts were then 

evaluated using content analysis to develop our findings. The analysis 

was conducted in two steps. In the first step, three analysts jointly 

developed a set of codes to track the incidence of various responses and 

themes during focus group sessions. In the second step, each transcript 

was coded by an analyst and then those codes were verified by two other 

analysts. Any coding discrepancies were resolved by all three analysts 

agreeing on what the codes should be.

Methodologically, focus groups are not designed to (1) demonstrate the 

extent of a problem or to generalize results to a larger population, (2) 

develop a consensus to arrive at an agreed-upon plan or make decisions 

about what actions to take, or (3) provide statistically representative 

samples or reliable quantitative estimates. Instead, they are intended to 

generate in-depth information about the reasons for the focus group 

participants’ attitudes on specific topics and to offer insights into their 

concerns about and support for an issue. The projectability of the 

information produced by our focus groups is limited for several reasons. 

First, the information includes only the responses from recent UI 

claimants from the six selected groups. Second, while the composition of 

the groups was designed to ensure a range of age, gender, and ethnicity, 

the groups were not randomly sampled. Third, participants were asked 

questions about their experiences or expectations, and other UI claimants 

not in the focus groups may have had other experiences or expectations. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Because of these limitations, we did not rely entirely on focus groups, but 

rather used several different methods to corroborate and support our 

conclusions.
Appendix II: Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

Performance Measures and Acceptable Levels 

of Performance

Page 37 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Performance Measure

Acceptable

Level of Performance

Benefits Measures

First Payment Promptness: % of all 1st payments made within 14/21 days after the week 

ending date of the first compensable week in the benefit year (excludes Workshare, 

episodic claims such as Disaster Unemployment Assistance, and retroactive payments for 

a compensable waiting period).

>87%

Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse: % of Nonmonetary Determinations (Separations 

and Nonseparations) made within 21 days of the date of detection of any nonmonetary 

issue that had the potential to affect the claimant’s benefit rights.

>80%

Nonmonetary Determination Quality- Nonseparations: % of Nonseparation Determinations 

with Quality Scores equal to or greater than 95 points, based on the evaluation results of 

quarterly samples selected from the universe of nonseparation determinations.

>75%

Nonmonetary Determination Quality- Separations: % of Separation Determinations with 

Quality Scores equal to or greater than 95 points, based on the evaluation results of 

quarterly samples selected from the universe of separation determinations.

>75%

Program Integrity Measures

Detection of Overpayments: % of detectable, recoverable overpayments estimated by the 

Benefit Accuracy Measurement survey that were established for recovery.

≥50% and <95% of 

detectable/recoverable overpayments 

are established for recovery

Benefit Year Earnings (BYE) Measure: % of the amount overpaid due to BYE issues 

divided by the total amount of UI benefits paid.

25% reduction from State’s Calendar 

Year 2010 – Calendar Year 2012 

baseline BYE rate

Improper Payments Measure: % of UI benefits overpaid plus UI benefits underpaid minus 

overpayments recovered divided by the total amount of UI benefits paid.

< 10%

UI Overpayment Recovery Measure: % of Amount of overpayments recovered divided by 

(Amount of overpayments established minus overpayments waived)

(example Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) Reporting Year 2013 = July 1, 2012 –

June 30, 2013)

IPIA 2013: 55%;

IPIA 2014: 58%;

IPIA 2015: 65%;

IPIA 2016: 68%

Appeals Measures

Average Age of Pending Lower Authority Appeals: The sum of the ages, in days from filing, 

of all pending Lower Authority Appeals divided by the number of Lower Authority Appeals.

<30 Days

Average Age of Pending Higher Authority Appeals: The sum of the ages, in days from 

filing, of all pending Higher Authority Appeals divided by the number of Higher Authority 

Appeals.

<40 Days

Lower Authority Appeals Quality: % of Lower Authority Appeals with Quality Scores equal 

to or greater than 85% of potential points, based on the evaluation results of quarterly 

samples selected from the universe of lower authority benefit appeal hearings.

>80%

Tax Measures

New Employer Status Determinations Time Lapse: % of New Employer Status 

Determinations made within 90 days of the last day in the quarter in which the business 

became liable.

>70%

Appendix II: Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

Performance Measures and Acceptable 

Levels of Performance
Appendix II: Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

Performance Measures and Acceptable Levels 

of Performance

Page 38 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Performance Measure

Acceptable

Level of Performance

Tax Quality: Tax Performance System (TPS) assessment of the accuracy and 

completeness of the tax program determined by scoring, on a pass/fail basis, samples of 

the 13 tax functions.

No more than 3 tax functions failing TPS 

in any year

No single tax function failing for 3 

consecutive years

Effective Audit Measure: Evaluates whether a state’s employer audit program meets or 

exceeds minimum levels of achievement in the following four factors: Factor 1 - % of 

Contributory Employers Audited Annually, Factor 2 - % of Total Wages Changed from 

Audits, Factor 3 - % of Total Wages Audited, Factor 4 - Average Number of 

Misclassifications Detected per Audit, and meets or exceeds a minimum overall score of 

the four factors.

Factor 1: >1%;

Factor 2: >2%;

Factor 3: >1%;

Factor 4: >1; and

Sum of Four Factors: >7

Reemployment Measure

Facilitate Reemployment: % of UI claimants who are reemployed within the quarter 

following the quarter in which they received their first UI payment.

Varies by state

Source: ETA. | GAO-16-430
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Cindy S. Brown Barnes, (202) 512-7215, brownbarnesc@gao.gov. 

In addition to the contact named above, Mary Crenshaw, Assistant 

Director; Divya Bali, Analyst-in-Charge; Daniel Berg, Caitlin Croake, 

Christopher Morehouse, and Betty Ward-Zuckerman made significant 

contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Jessica 

Botsford, David Chrisinger, Carol Henn, Jill Lacey, Kathy Leslie, Mimi 

Nguyen, Lisa Pearson, Carl Ramirez, Jerome Sandau, Almeta Spencer, 

Valerie Melvin, Margaret Weber, Charles Willson, and Charles Youman.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 40 GAO-16-430 Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment Insurance: States’ Reductions in Maximum Benefit 

Durations Have Implications for Federal Costs. GAO-15-281. 

Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2015.

Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts 

to Improve Customer Service. GAO-15-84. Washington, D.C.: October 

24, 2014.

Information Technology: Department of Labor Could Further Facilitate 

Modernization of States’ Unemployment Insurance Systems. 

GAO-12-957. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2012.

Unemployment Insurance: Economic Circumstances of Individuals Who 

Exhausted Benefits. GAO-12-408. Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2012.

Managing for Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies’ Customer 

Service Efforts. GAO-11-44. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2010.

Related GAO Products

(131341)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.