UNEMPLOYMENT 

INSURANCE

Economic 

Circumstances of 

Individuals Who 

Exhausted Benefits

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Finance, U.S. Senate

February 2012

GAO-12-408

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-408, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. 

Senate 

February 2012

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Economic Circumstances of Individuals Who 

Exhausted Benefits 

Why GAO Did This Study

The recession of 2007 to 2009 was the 

most severe in the United States since 

the 1930s, resulting in a net loss of 7.5 

million jobs. Workers who lose a job 

through no fault of their own (referred 

to as “displaced workers” in this report) 

may turn to financial assistance offered 

through the Unemployment Insurance 

(UI) program. Currently, through 

benefit extensions authorized by 

Congress, eligible displaced workers 

can receive UI benefits for up to 99 

weeks in certain states. However, with 

the slow economic recovery, some 

may exhaust UI benefits without finding 

a new job. This raises questions about 

how Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF), a program that 

provides cash assistance to lowincome families with children, and 

other support programs are aiding 

those who have exhausted UI benefits. 

GAO was asked to examine: (1) how 

many of the workers who lost jobs in 

the recession received and exhausted 

UI; (2) what are the economic 

circumstances of those who exhausted 

UI, and how many received support 

from TANF and other programs; and 

(3) the extent to which UI agencies 

refer those exhausting UI to other 

support programs. GAO analyzed data 

from the Current Population Survey’s 

2008 and 2010 Displaced Worker 

Supplements and the 2010 Annual 

Social and Economic Supplement and 

data from the Departments of Labor 

and Health and Human Services. GAO 

also surveyed 51 state UI agencies

and conducted interviews with 16 state 

TANF agencies, selected to reflect a 

range of unemployment rate changes 

in recent years. 

GAO is making no recommendations in 

this report.

What GAO Found

Among the 15 million workers who lost jobs from 2007 to 2009, half received 

Unemployment Insurance (UI), and about one-fourth of the recipients exhausted 

UI benefits by January 2010. This represents 2 million displaced workers who 

exhausted UI as of early 2010, the most recent survey data available. Labor 

estimated that about an additional 3-1/2 million individuals exhausted benefits in 

2010 and 2011.

Many of the displaced workers who exhausted UI by January 2010 appear to 

have faced difficult economic circumstances. Their unemployment rate was 

high—46 percent in January 2010. Most, however, appeared to have worked at 

some point in 2009 or to have been supported by another household member 

who was working, and some had income from assets, such as interest or 

dividends. Nevertheless, the poverty rate of displaced workers who exhausted UI

was higher than the rate among working-age adults—18 percent compared to 13 

percent, and more than 40 percent had relatively low incomes, below 200 

percent of the federal poverty threshold (see figure). Few (less than 3 percent) of 

the households of those who exhausted UI received TANF benefits in 2009. Most 

would not have qualified for TANF because they did not have children age 18 or 

younger, a general TANF eligibility criteria. More of these households received 

benefits from Social Security programs (18 percent) and the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (15 percent for the program formerly known as the 

Food Stamp Program).

While there are no federal requirements to refer those exhausting UI benefits to 

other support programs, most (45) of the state UI agencies GAO surveyed reported 

providing such individuals with information or connecting them to support 

programs. UI agencies made these connections in a variety of ways, such as 

through websites, mail, staff referrals, and interagency coordination. For example, 

Washington state has a multiagency workgroup which developed a resource guide 

that was mailed to those exhausting UI benefits and posted online and established 

a phone number to handle questions from these individuals. 

Income-to-Poverty Ratios of Individuals Who Exhausted UI Compared to Civilian Working-Age 

Adults, Based on Annual Family Incomes in 2009 

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

View GAO-12-408. For more information, 

contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or 

brownke@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Letter 1 

Background 3

2 Million of Those Who Lost Jobs in the Recession Years 

Exhausted UI Benefits by Early 2010 8

Many UI Exhaustees Faced Difficult Economic Circumstances, but 

Few Were Likely to Qualify for TANF 17

Most State UI Agencies Reported Efforts to Provide UI Exhaustees 

with Information about Other Support Programs 27

Conclusions 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 40

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Related GAO Products 42

Tables

Table 1: Number of States Receiving Recovery Act Incentive Funds 12

Table 2: Percentage of UI Exhaustees’ Households with Private 

Income Sources, 2009 19

Table 3: Receipt of Benefits from Government Programs within UI 

Exhaustee Households, 2009 22

Table 4: Receipt of Benefits from Government Programs within 

Households of UI Exhaustees with Minor Children and 

Annual Incomes Below 200 Percent of the Federal Poverty 

Threshold, 2009 24

Table 5: Methods Reported by State UI Agencies to Provide 

Information and/or Connect UI Exhaustees with Support 

Programs 27

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Figures

Figure 1: Typical Potential Maximum Duration of UI Benefits, as of 

January 2012 5

Figure 2: UI Receipt among Displaced Workers 9

Figure 3: Percentage of Displaced Workers Receiving UI, 

Comparing Workers in the Bottom 30 Percent and Top 70 

Percent in Average Weekly Earnings 11

Figure 4: Benefit Exhaustion among Displaced Workers Who 

Received UI 14

Figure 5: Weekly UI Claims, by UI Program 15

Figure 6: Unemployed Persons per Job Opening 16

Figure 7: Employment Status of Displaced Workers Who 

Exhausted UI 17

Figure 8: Income-to-Poverty Ratios of UI Exhaustees Compared to 

Working-Age Civilian Adults, Based on 2009 Annual 

Family Incomes 20

Figure 9: Ages of UI Exhaustees, January 2010 23

Figure 10: Most Commonly Reported Limitations Associated with 

Connecting UI Exhaustees with TANF, SNAP, and Other 

Support Programs 29
Page iii GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Abbreviations

ASEC Annual Social and Economic Supplement

CPS Current Population Survey

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

Labor Department of Labor

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

UI Unemployment Insurance

USDA Department of Agriculture

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-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 17, 2012

The Honorable Max Baucus

Chairman

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The recession from 2007 to 2009 was the most severe in the United 

States since the Great Depression of the 1930s. From the start of the 

recession in December 2007 to its official end in June 2009, the U.S. lost 

a net total of 7.5 million jobs. Since then, the economy has been slow to 

recover. In January 2012, the unemployment rate was 8.3 percent, with 

more than 40 percent of the 12.8 million unemployed out of work for 6 

months or longer. Workers who involuntarily lose a job—referred to as 

“displaced workers” in this report—may turn to financial assistance 

offered through the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program.1 UI is a $156 

billion federal-state program that temporarily and partially replaces the 

lost earnings of those who become unemployed through no fault of their 

own.2

However, despite the UI benefit extensions, the slow economic recovery 

may result in some displaced workers exhausting UI benefits without 

finding a new job. This raises questions about how the Temporary 

Typically, states provide UI benefits for up to 26 weeks. Since mid2008, Congress and the states have temporarily extended the period of 

time that displaced workers can receive UI benefits to up to 99 weeks, 

though the maximum number of weeks of available benefits varies among 

the states.

 

1

The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines displaced workers as persons 20 years of age or 

older who lost or left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was 

insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished. Displaced workers 

are a distinct population from unemployed workers, since they may be employed, 

unemployed, or no longer in the labor force at a given point in time. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics defines unemployed workers as persons who do not have a job, have actively 

looked for a job in the past 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Unemployed 

workers includes several groups of workers who would not be considered displaced 

workers, including new entrants to the labor force and those who left jobs for reasons 

other than displacement, such as voluntary quits or firings.

2

The $156 billion is as of fiscal year 2010.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, one of the nation’s 

primary income support programs for low-income families, is aiding UI 

exhaustees. TANF is a $16.5 billion federal block grant program that

provides cash assistance and other services to low-income families with 

children.

You asked us to provide information about displaced workers’ receipt and 

exhaustion of UI. In response to your request, we answered the following 

questions: (1) Among workers who lost jobs during the recession, how 

many received and exhausted UI benefits? (2) What are the economic 

circumstances of those who exhausted UI, and how many received 

assistance from TANF and other support programs? (3) To what extent 

do state UI agencies refer exhaustees to support programs?

To address these questions we used several different research methods. 

To identify the number of displaced workers who received and exhausted 

UI, referred to as “exhaustees” in this report, we analyzed data from the 

2010 Displaced Worker Supplement to the January 2010 Current 

Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the Census Bureau, which 

surveyed individuals who lost jobs from 2007 to 2009.3

 

3

The term exhaustee is used by the UI program. For the purposes of this report, we define 

a UI exhaustee as a displaced worker with “yes” responses to the following two questions 

in the Displaced Worker Supplement: (1) “Did you receive unemployment insurance after 

that job (the job from which the worker was displaced) ended?,” and (2) “Did you exhaust 

your eligibility for unemployment benefits?” As used in this report, the term includes all 

exhaustees, regardless of whether they were employed, unemployed, or not in the labor 

force at the time of the survey.

We also 

compared some results from the 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement to 

data from the 2008 supplement, which surveyed individuals who lost jobs 

prior to the recession, from 2005 to 2007. Using data from the Displaced 

Worker Supplements allowed us to examine the experiences of a cohort 

of workers who lost jobs in the recession years and compare them to 

workers who lost jobs before the recession, but our results are as of 

January 2010 when the 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement was 

conducted. To examine UI exhaustees’ economic circumstances and 

determine how many exhaustees received supports from TANF and other 

federal income support programs, we analyzed data from the 2010 

Displaced Worker Supplement, merged with data from the Annual Social 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

and Economic Supplement of the 2010 CPS.4 Merging these two data 

sets allowed us to identify UI exhaustees as of January 2010 (using data 

from the Displaced Worker Supplement) and examine their household 

incomes in 2009 (using data from the Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement). We also interviewed officials from 16 state TANF agencies, 

selected to reflect a range of changes in unemployment rates in recent 

years, and we analyzed data on the UI and TANF programs from the 

Department of Labor (Labor) and the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). To determine the extent to which UI agencies refer 

exhaustees to other programs, we conducted a web-based survey with UI 

agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia, obtaining responses 

from all 51.5 For all research questions, we spoke with officials at Labor 

who oversee the UI program and officials at HHS who oversee TANF. We 

also reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations, studies, and policy 

documents. We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 to 

February 2012, 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 (see appendix I 

for further information on our scope and methodology).

The UI program, established under Title III of the Social Security Act in 

1935, was intended to, among other things, help those who become 

unemployed through no fault of their own, and help stabilize the economy 

during recessions. The program is generally financed by federal and state 

payroll taxes levied on employers. Within the guidelines of federal law, 

states administer the program and can specify who is eligible to receive 

 

4

Specifically, we merged data of individuals who were surveyed by the Census Bureau 

both in January 2010 for the Displaced Worker Supplement and in March 2010 for the 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents in 

the Displaced Worker Supplement were also surveyed for the Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement. 

5

We include the District of Columbia in our discussion of states. 

Background 

Unemployment Insurance 

Program
 

Page 4 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

UI benefits and how much they receive. Nationwide, UI benefit payments 

replaced 46 percent of a worker’s previous wages in 2010 on average.6

Applicants must have earned at least a certain amount in wages and/or 

have worked a certain number of weeks over a period of time to be 

eligible for benefits.7

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

26 weeks in most states, though individuals may be eligible for fewer 

weeks.

In addition, they must be available for and able to 

work. For their part, UI agencies must identify recipients who are likely to 

exhaust their benefits and refer them to re-employment services, such as 

those available through state run-employment centers, known as “onestops.” At these one-stops, states and localities are required to provide 

services for many federally funded employment and training programs, 

and they have the option of including additional programs, such as TANF.

8 During periods of high unemployment, states may provide up to 

13 or 20 additional weeks of benefits through the Extended Benefits 

program, funded jointly by states and the federal government. In 2009, 

Congress temporarily authorized full federal financing of the Extended 

Benefits program9 and later extended the authorization several times, 

most recently in 2011.10 In 2008, Congress made additional weeks of 

benefits available through the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 

program, which are federally funded.11

 

6

The proportion of workers’ wages replaced by UI benefits is known as the replacement 

rate. According to Labor’s data, the average replacement rates in 2010 ranged from 33 

percent to 57 percent among the states. 

The Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation program has four tiers of benefits, the first two of which 

are available in all states and enable eligible UI recipients to obtain 

benefits for up to an additional 34 weeks. The second two tiers are only 

7

Congressional Research Service, Unemployment Insurance: Available Benefits and 

Legislative Activity (Washington, D.C.: Dec 21, 2010). 

8

Department of Labor, Significant Provisions of State Unemployment Insurance Laws, 

Effective July 2011. 

9

Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 2005(a), 123 Stat. 115, 444.

10Pub. L. No. 112-78, § 201(a)(2), 125 Stat. 1280, 1282.

11Pub. L. No. 110-449, § 2, 122 Stat. 5014. Congress created the current temporary 

Emergency Unemployment Compensation program in the Supplemental Appropriations 

Act, 2008. Pub. L. No. 110-252, Title IV, 122 Stat. 2323, 2353. Congress extended this 

program several times, most recently in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act 

of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112-78, § 201(a)(1), 125 Stat. 1280, 1282). 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

available in states with high unemployment and provide up to 19 weeks of 

additional benefits. In states that provide at most 26 weeks of regular UI 

benefits, that offer the maximum 20 weeks of Extended Benefits 

payments, and that are on all four tiers of Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation, some eligible unemployed workers may receive up to 99 

weeks of UI benefits (see fig. 1). As of January 8, 2012, eligible 

unemployed workers could potentially receive the maximum 99 weeks of 

benefits in 17 states, according to Labor’s data, though some individuals 

may be eligible for fewer weeks in these states. The Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation program and full federal financing of the 

Extended Benefits program are scheduled to expire in March 2012.

Figure 1: Typical Potential Maximum Duration of UI Benefits, as of January 2012

Notes: The actual duration varies by state and by individual, based on how they meet states’ eligibility 

criteria. As of January 8, 2012, eligible unemployed workers could potentially receive the maximum 

99 weeks of benefits in 17 states, based on Labor’s data.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

1996 created the TANF block grant, a $16.5 billion fixed federal funding 

stream allocated to states to provide a wide range of services to lowincome families who have children.12

As established in federal law, the goals of the TANF program are to 

provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in 

their own homes or in the homes of relatives, end needy families’ 

dependence on government benefits, reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, 

and encourage two-parent families. In line with these goals, TANF funds 

may be used in a variety of ways, including monthly cash assistance to 

low-income families, child care, employment and training, subsidized 

employment, transportation, and single or short-term payments for onetime urgent needs, such as for rent or utilities. States have flexibility to set 

eligibility requirements for TANF benefits and services and to determine 

the type of assistance they provide. However, federal law requires states 

to involve at least a specified percentage of TANF cash assistance 

recipients in work activities, such as participating in job training or 

subsidized employment.

States must maintain a specified 

level of spending, referred to as maintenance of effort, to get their federal 

TANF funds. The most recent data available show that in fiscal year 

2010, states spent approximately $35.8 billion in federal and state TANF 

funds, with 70 percent used for programs and services other than ongoing 

cash assistance.

13

 

12Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103, 110 Stat. 2105, 2112.

States face financial penalties if they do not 

13To be counted as engaging in work activities for a month, most families receiving TANF 

cash assistance are required to participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours 

per week in that month. There are 12 work activities that may count toward meeting the 

specified work participation rate: unsubsidized employment, subsidized private sector 

employment, subsidized public sector employment, work experience (if sufficient private 

sector employment is not available), on-the-job training, job search and job readiness 

assistance, community service programs, vocational education training, job skills training 

directly related to employment, education directly related to employment (if the recipient 

has not received a high school diploma or certificate of high school equivalence), 

satisfactory secondary school attendance or in a course of study leading to a certificate of 

general equivalence, and providing child care services to others in community service. 

TANF Block Grant
 

Page 7 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

meet these specified rates.14

In the period of the recession, states were able to draw upon two 

additional TANF-related funding sources. The Personal Responsibility 

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 had created a TANF 

Contingency Fund of up to $2 billion that states could access in times of 

economic distress. Only a portion of this fund had been drawn down by 

the states at the start of the recession, but the fund was depleted by the 

end of 2009. Congress has appropriated up to $612 million for the 

Contingency Fund for fiscal year 2012. In 2009, Congress also created a 

$5 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund in the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which was made available 

to states that had certain increases either in their cash assistance 

caseloads or in their expenditures for nonrecurrent short-term benefits or 

subsidized employment.

Additionally, certain individuals who do not 

cooperate in establishing or enforcing child support orders face reduced 

levels of TANF assistance, and possible denial of all TANF benefits.

15 

 

14Generally speaking, states are required to have 50 percent of all families receiving 

ongoing cash assistance participate in work activities and 90 percent of two-parent 

families. However, states can reduce the rates they are required to meet by reducing their 

cash assistance caseloads or by using more state funds than required to provide 

assistance to some families. Some families are excluded from these work requirements, 

such as those in which children alone receive the cash assistance benefits. States may 

also disregard certain other families from the work participation rate, such as families in 

which a single custodial parent is caring for a child under age one (for not more than 12 

months over a person’s lifetime). For further information on work participation rates, see 

GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Implications of Recent Legislative and 

Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates, GAO-10-525

(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010).

15Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 2101, 123 Stat. 115, 446. For information on subsidized 

employment programs supported by TANF Recovery Act funds, see Mary Farrell, Sam 

Elkin, Joseph Broadus, and Dan Bloom, Subsidized Employment Opportunities for LowIncome Families: A Review of State Employment Programs Created Through the TANF 

Emergency Fund, OPRE Report 2011-38, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research 

and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2011. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

The number of displaced workers increased substantially during the 

recession years, and proportionately more of them received UI than in the 

3 years prior to the recession. Specifically, from 2007 to 2009, 49 percent 

of the 15.4 million people who lost jobs received UI. In contrast, 36 

percent of the 8.3 million people who lost jobs from 2005 to 2007 received 

UI (see fig. 2).16

 

16Specifically, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ definition, these displaced workers 

are persons 20 years of age and older who lost or left jobs within the 3 years prior to the 

survey because their plant or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for 

them to do, or their position or shift was abolished.

The UI safety net expanded during a recession that 

affected so many workers, as it is designed to do.

2 Million of Those 

Who Lost Jobs in the 

Recession Years 

Exhausted UI 

Benefits by Early 2010

Half of Workers Who Lost 

Jobs in the Recession 

Years Received UI, an 

Increase from Prior Years
 

Page 9 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 2: UI Receipt among Displaced Workers

Notes: The top bar represents data from the 2008 Displaced Worker Supplement, which was 

conducted in January 2008 with people ages 20 and older who experienced a job loss from 2005 to 

2007. The bottom bar represents data from the 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement, which was 

conducted in January 2010 with people ages 20 and older who experienced a job loss from 2007 to 

2009. Estimates presented in this figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 2 

percentage points. The difference in the percentages of displaced workers receiving UI between the 

time periods is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Percentages may not total 

100 due to rounding.

One reason for the higher rate of UI receipt during the recession is that 

fewer displaced workers became re-employed quickly. Displaced workers 

have diverse labor market experiences following a job loss, with some 

finding new work soon afterwards, while others take longer to become reemployed. For workers displaced during the recession years, however, 

comparatively fewer of them found new jobs quickly. Prior to the 

recession, 30 percent of displaced workers did not receive UI and were 

working again within 5 weeks of losing their job, compared to 18 percent 

of workers who lost jobs in the recession years.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

In both recessionary and nonrecessionary times, not all people who lose 

jobs receive UI, an issue of interest to policymakers for many years. Our 

previous work found that lower-wage workers were less likely to receive 

UI than higher-wage workers in the 1990s and early 2000s.17 This trend 

continued in the recent recession. Among workers who lost jobs from 

2007 to 2009, those in the bottom 30 percent in earnings were half as 

likely to receive UI benefits as displaced workers in the top 70 percent. 

However, both groups received UI at a higher rate during the recession 

than in the period before the recession (see fig. 3). We and others 

previously identified several possible reasons for the historically lower 

rate of UI receipt among lower-wage workers. For example, they are less 

likely to have met the minimum earnings required for UI eligibility, 

particularly if their work was intermittent or part-time. Family crises can 

also cause some in marginal financial situations to quit a job (for example, 

to care for a sick child), potentially making them ineligible for UI.18

 

17See GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Low-Wage and Part-Time Workers Continue to 

Experience Low Rates of Receipt, GAO-07-1147 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2007) and 

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

GAO-01-181 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 29, 2000), which examined selected years in the 

1990s and 2003. Another GAO study examining a cohort of individuals born between 

1957 and 1964 and their labor market experiences from 1979 to 2002 also found that 

unemployed workers with higher earnings were more likely to receive UI benefits. See 

GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Factors Associated with Benefit Receipt, GAO-06-341

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2006). 

18In our prior work, we noted that individuals generally must have become unemployed 

involuntarily or for “good cause” to be eligible for UI. We and others found variation among 

states in the circumstances which constitute “good cause.” For example, some states had 

policies allowing individuals to be eligible for UI if they left a job to care for a sick child or 

due to domestic violence, while others did not. See GAO-01-181 and GAO-07-1174; 

Wayne Vroman, Low Benefit Recipiency in State Unemployment Insurance Programs

(June 2001); and Lewin Group, Unemployment Insurance Non-Monetary Policies and 

Practices: How Do They Affect Program Participation? A Study of 8 States (Jan. 31, 

2003).

Lower-Wage Workers Were 

Less Likely to Receive UI
 

Page 11 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 3: Percentage of Displaced Workers Receiving UI, Comparing Workers in the 

Bottom 30 Percent and Top 70 Percent in Average Weekly Earnings

Notes: This figure represents data on all displaced workers with information on average weekly 

wages. Estimates presented in the figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 4 

percentage points. Differences in UI receipt between displaced workers in the bottom 30 percent and 

top 70 percent in average weekly wages are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level 

in all four comparisons presented above. In this analysis, among all displaced workers, those in the 

bottom 30 percent had wages of $380 per week or less in the 2005-2007 time frame and wages of 

$418 per week or less in the 2007-2009 time frame. We also conducted the analysis using the same 

cut-off points ($380, adjusting for inflation) for defining the lower-wage group in both time periods and 

obtained similar results. See appendix I for further information.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

In the Recovery Act, Congress provided for incentive payments for states 

that have certain UI laws in place,19

Table 1: Number of States Receiving Recovery Act Incentive Funds

and low-wage workers may benefit 

from such laws. As of September 2011, 39 states have been approved for 

Recovery Act incentive payments totaling $4.4 billion (see table 1). Labor 

has contracted with a research organization to examine the effects of 

these incentive payments. The final evaluation report is due in 2013.

States that received 

funds for an 

existing law

States that received 

funds for changing 

law or regulation a Total number of states 

States must have in place the following to receive one-third of their 

incentive paymentb

 

A base period that includes recent wages 19 20 39

States must have in place at least two of the following four to 

receive two-thirds of their incentive paymentsc 

No denial of benefits for seeking part-time work 8 18 26

No disqualification for separations from employment for compelling 

family reasons

1 18 19

Provide extended compensation to UI recipients in qualifying 

training programs 

0 16 16

Provide dependents’ allowances to UI recipients with dependents 4 3 7 

Number of states that have been approved for 1/3 of their payment 39

Number of states that have been approved for all of their payments 34

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.

Note: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which both received Recovery Act incentive funds, are not 

included in this table.

a

Incentive funds were also provided to states that already had the specific policies in place. This also 

includes states that clarified procedures to ensure that current law is interpreted in a way that meets 

the requirements for approval.

b

To obtain the first one-third of incentive payments, the state must generally use a base period that 

includes the most recent quarter before the start of the benefit year. The base period is the time 

period during which wages earned or hours/weeks worked are examined to determine a worker’s 

monetary entitlement to UI.

c

States that qualify for the first one-third can obtain the remaining two-thirds if their state meets 2 of 

the following 4 requirements: (1) the state generally cannot deny UI payments to an individual solely 

because that person is seeking only part-time work, (2) the state shall not disqualify a person from 

receiving UI payments for separating from employment if that separation is for a compelling family 

reason, (3) UI payments must generally be available for individuals who have exhausted their regular 

UI payment and are making progress in certain training programs, and (4) the state must generally 

provide dependents’ allowances to individuals entitled to regular UI payments and who have any 

dependents.

 

19Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 2003, 123 Stat. 115, 439.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Most of the states that did not apply for incentive payments (8 states out 

of 13) reported in our survey that they did not apply because of concerns 

about costs, such as increased benefit payments or effects on state trust 

funds or employers.20 Additionally, in our survey, 11 states responded 

that their state had enacted laws resulting in more stringent eligibility 

requirements or decreased coverage, such as reducing the maximum 

number of weeks UI benefits could be provided or increasing the wage 

level needed to qualify for UI.

Two million of the 7.5 million workers who lost jobs from 2007 to 2009 

and received UI had exhausted their UI benefits by January 2010, based 

on the 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement (see fig. 4).21 While this 

number is based on the most recent data available, it does not include 

those who may have exhausted their benefits after the survey was 

conducted.22

 

20We previously reported that the severity and length of the recent recession, and the slow 

pace of recovery, have placed a heavy demand on state UI trust funds, and many states 

have needed loans from the federal government to continue to pay benefits. See GAO, 

Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds: Long-standing State Financing Policies Have 

Increased Risk of Insolvency, 

Nevertheless, the 2007 to 2009 period numbers about 

700,000 more who exhausted benefits than in the earlier period. Also, a 

smaller percentage of those displaced in the 2007 to 2009 period 

exhausted UI (27 percent) than in the earlier period (44 percent), likely 

reflecting to some extent the availability of additional weeks of UI benefits 

(see fig. 5).

GAO-10-440 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2010).

21For purposes of this report, we define a UI exhaustee as a displaced worker with a 

“yes” response to the following two questions in the Displaced Worker Supplement: (1) 

“Did you receive unemployment insurance after that job (the job from which the worker 

was displaced) ended?” and (2) “Did you exhaust your eligibility for unemployment 

benefits?” 

22Given the structure of the Displaced Worker Supplement, workers who lose jobs earlier 

in the 3-year period of the survey would be more likely to have exhausted UI benefits by 

the time of the survey, since more time would have elapsed between when they lost their 

job and when the survey was conducted. Among those surveyed in the 2010 Displaced 

Worker Supplement, 46 percent of those who lost jobs in 2007 exhausted their UI benefits 

by January 2010, 32 percent of those who lost jobs in 2008 exhausted their UI benefits, 

and 18 percent of those who lost jobs in 2009 exhausted their UI benefits. For the 2008 

Displaced Worker Supplement, UI exhaustion rates were 50 percent for those who lost 

jobs in 2005 and received UI, 55 percent for 2006, and 33 percent for 2007.

2 Million Displaced 

Workers Exhausted UI by 

January 2010, with More 

since Then
 

Page 14 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 4: Benefit Exhaustion among Displaced Workers Who Received UI

Notes: Estimates presented in this figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 3 

percentage points. The difference in the exhaustion rate between the two time periods is statistically 

significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Figure 5: Weekly UI Claims, by UI Program

Notes: A small number (about 2 percent) of UI claimants received UI benefits from other programs, 

including those for federal government employees, ex-service members, individuals affected by 

disasters, participants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, and individuals receiving UI 

benefits for reduced work hours. Claimants in these programs are not shown in the figure above.

Other data show that significant numbers of people have continued to 

receive and exhaust UI benefits in 2010 and 2011. For example, the 

number of people claiming the benefit extensions from the Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits programs 

continued to be substantial in both these years, beyond the official end of 

the recession in June 2009 (see fig. 5). In addition, Labor’s Employment 

and Training Administration, which oversees state unemployment 

programs, provided us with estimates that there were 1.6 million 

exhaustees in calendar year 2010 and 2.0 million in 2011.23

 

23The estimates from Labor are of all UI claimants who exhausted UI, and therefore may 

not be comparable to the estimate of the number of UI exhaustees from the Displaced 

Worker Supplement, which are of displaced workers who received and exhausted UI. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

The relatively large numbers of UI exhaustees and UI beneficiaries must 

be seen in the context of the extremely poor labor market conditions in 

recent years, when job seekers have faced bleak job prospects. Data 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the number of unemployed 

persons per job opening increased from 1.8 when the recession began in 

December 2007 to 6.1 when the recession officially ended in June 2009 

(see figure 6). This ratio has declined to 4.2 unemployed persons per job 

opening in November 2011, the most recent data available, remaining 

above prerecession levels.

Figure 6: Unemployed Persons per Job Opening
 

Page 17 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

For those who lost jobs from 2007 to 2009 and exhausted UI, the CPS 

data suggest that many faced difficult economic circumstances. Many 

were still not employed in January 2010 and those with employment often 

had reduced earnings. It is unknown whether the situations of these 

exhaustees have improved or worsened since then because more current 

data are not available.

More specifically, an estimated 46 percent of UI exhaustees who lost jobs 

in the recession years were unemployed at the time they were surveyed 

in January 2010 (see fig. 7). About a third (35 percent) of the exhaustees 

were re-employed in January, a smaller proportion than in the period 

before the recession (57 percent).

Figure 7: Employment Status of Displaced Workers Who Exhausted UI

Notes: Estimates presented in this figure have margins of error within plus or minus 5 percentage 

points. Differences in the percentages of exhaustees who were employed and unemployed between 

the two time frames are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Percentages may 

not total 100 due to rounding.

Many UI Exhaustees 

Faced Difficult 

Economic 

Circumstances, but 

Few Were Likely to 

Qualify for TANF

18 Percent of Exhaustees 

Were in Poverty in 2009
 

Page 18 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Among the exhaustees who were unemployed in January 2010, about 

half appeared to have worked at some point in the previous year. An 

estimated 50 percent had some earnings in 2009. These workers might 

have done temporary work at some point in 2009, worked in a short-term 

or a seasonal job, or found a new job but then were laid-off again.

Among those UI exhaustees who lost jobs in the recession years and 

were re-employed, 71 percent experienced a reduction in earnings.24

In addition to data on exhaustees’ employment and earnings, information 

on household income provides a broader perspective on how exhaustees 

have fared. These data suggest that some exhaustees may have been 

helped by other sources of income, such as a household member who 

was earning income in 2009, or income from assets, such as interest or 

dividends. About two-thirds of exhaustees had a household member with 

some wage or salary earnings in 2009. About 40 percent of exhaustees’ 

households had some income from assets, namely interest, dividends, 

retirement, or rental income. In total, about 90 percent of UI exhaustees 

had some private income sources within their household during calendar 

year 2009 (table 2).

The 

median earnings replacement ratio was 0.74, meaning that half of reemployed exhaustees experienced a reduction in earnings greater than 

26 percent, while the other half experienced a reduction of less than 26 

percent or an earnings increase.

 

24The high percentage of re-employed exhaustees experiencing earnings reduction likely 

reflects the fact that UI exhaustees were unemployed for long durations. Research has 

found that longer durations of unemployment are associated with reduced earnings levels 

at the workers’ new jobs. There are many possible reasons for this, such as diminished 

job prospects as workers lose job skills or networks during the period of unemployment, a 

possible stigma associated with long-term unemployment, and greater willingness to take 

jobs at reduced wages the longer a worker searches for a job. See Congressional Budget 

Office, Long-Term Unemployment (Washington, D.C.: October 2007); and John T. 

Addison and Pedro Portugal, “Job Displacement, Relative Wage Changes, and Duration 

of Unemployment,” Journal of Labor Economics, 7:3 (July 1989). 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Table 2: Percentage of UI Exhaustees’ Households with Private Income Sources, 

2009 

Private income source

Estimated 

percentage of

UI exhaustees 

with income 

source in 2009 

UI exhaustee’s own wages, salaries, or self-employment income 63%

Wages, salaries, or self-employment income from other household 

members

65

Any earnings, from UI exhaustee or household members 87

Interest income 34 a

Dividends 16 b

Retirement income <11 c

Rental income <9 d

Any income from interest, retirement, dividends, rental 43

Child support <7

Alimony 0 

Any of the above income sources in the household 91

Source: GAO analysis of the CPS, 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement merged with data from the 2010 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement.

Notes: This table presents data on the income sources in 2009 of the 2 million people ages 20 and 

older who lost a job from 2007 to 2009, received UI, and exhausted it as of January 2010, and as 

such, may not reflect the circumstances of individuals directly after exhausting UI. Estimates 

presented in this table have margin of errors within plus or minus 5 percentage points. Point 

estimates are suppressed where the margin of error of the estimate exceeds 30 percent of the point 

estimate. For these estimates, we are reporting the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence 

interval. All estimates in the table are significantly different from zero, with the exception of alimony. 

There were no households who received alimony in the sample.

a

Includes payments received (or have credited to accounts) from bonds, treasury notes, IRAs, 

certificates of deposit, interest-bearing savings and checking accounts, and all other investments that 

pay interest.

b

Includes payments received from stock holdings and mutual fund shares. The CPS does not include 

capital gains from the sale of stock holdings as income.

c

Includes pension or retirement income received from companies or unions, federal government (civil 

service), military, state or local governments, railroad retirement, annuities or paid-up insurance 

policies, individual retirement accounts, Keogh, or 401(k) payments, or other retirement income.

d

Includes net income people received from the rental of a house, store, or other property, receipts 

from boarders or lodgers, net royalty income, and periodic payments from estate or trust funds.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Nevertheless, while the annual income levels of UI exhaustees varied in 

2009, their poverty rate was higher than that of other working-age adults 

(ages 18 to 64).25

Figure 8: Income-to-Poverty Ratios of UI Exhaustees Compared to Working-Age 

Civilian Adults, Based on 2009 Annual Family Incomes

Specifically, 18 percent of UI exhaustees were in 

poverty, in contrast to 13 percent of working-age adults (see fig. 8). 

Furthermore, about 40 percent of UI exhaustees had incomes under 200 

percent of the federal poverty threshold, compared to about 30 percent of 

working-age adults.

Notes: Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding. The top bar on UI exhaustees 

presents 2009 data on the 2.0 million people, ages 20 and older, who lost jobs from 2007 to 2009, 

received UI, and exhausted UI by January 2010. It may not reflect the circumstances of individuals 

directly after exhausting UI. Estimates presented in this figure have margins of error that are within 

plus or minus 6 percentage points. Differences between UI exhaustees and the civilian population 

age 18-64 in the percentage below poverty and the percentage below 200 percent of the federal 

poverty threshold are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

 

25The data we present on poverty rates and income-to-poverty ratios are based on 

Census computations of income-to-poverty ratios in the Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement. The federal poverty threshold varies by family size. For example, in 2009, a 

family of one person under the age of 65 with total income below $11,161 was considered 

to be in poverty, while a family of four (two adults and two children under age 18) with total 

income below $21,756 was in poverty. With regard to the percentage of UI exhaustees in 

poverty, annual income data may not capture families who were in poverty for only part of 

the year. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

In 2009, few UI exhaustees were likely to have received TANF support, 

which is targeted to very low-income families with children. The majority 

of UI exhaustees would not have qualified because they did not have a 

minor child—55 percent of exhaustees did not have a child age 18 or 

younger in their household.26 Among the 18 percent of exhaustees in 

poverty, less than half (48 percent) had minor children. Overall, only 9 

percent of exhaustees had a child age 18 or under, as well as income 

below the federal poverty threshold, two general criteria for TANF 

eligibility though the specific criteria vary by state.27

Data derived from the CPS show that less than 3 percent of UI 

exhaustees’ households received financial assistance from TANF or other 

welfare programs in 2009 (see table 3).28

 

26Nationally, 47 percent of working-age civilian adults (age 18-64) had a child age 18 or 

under in their household.

Overall, about one-third of 

exhaustees’ households received at least one government support in that 

year. Significantly more of the households of UI exhaustees received 

benefits from Social Security programs (18 percent for retirement, 

27Urban Institute, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2009 (August 

2010). Not all households with income below the federal poverty threshold and minor 

children are eligible for TANF. In some states, families with children must have income 

below the federal poverty level to be initially eligible for ongoing TANF cash assistance, 

and in other states, their income must be well below the federal poverty level. There are 

other factors considered in determining a families’ eligibility for TANF benefits, which vary 

by state, such as the family’s assets, immigration status, and whether a family previously 

received TANF cash assistance and reached the time limit on benefits. Different eligibility 

criteria may apply to one-time benefits. In addition, TANF eligibility is established on a 

monthly basis, while the CPS provides data on annual income. As such, families who 

were in poverty for part of 2009 might have been eligible for TANF in some months of 

2009, even though their annual income was above the federal poverty threshold in 2009. 

28These data are derived from a question in the 2010 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the CPS, which asked respondents the following: “At any time during 2009, 

even for one month, did (you/anyone in the household) receive any cash assistance from 

a state or county welfare program such as (name of the program in respondent’s state). 

Include cash payments from: welfare or welfare-to-work programs, state program name 

and/or acronyms, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC), General Assistance/Emergency Assistance program, 

Diversion Payments, Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance program, General Assistance 

from Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Tribal Administered General Assistance.” Many of these 

welfare programs, including Diversion Payments, welfare or welfare-to-work programs, 

and state programs, are within the TANF program. AFDC is the name of the former 

welfare program, which was replaced by TANF in 1996. The CPS data provide information 

on households’ receipt of financial assistance from TANF but do not provide information 

on receipt of non-cash assistance or services from TANF. 

Few UI Exhaustees 

Received Aid from TANF
 

Page 22 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Disability Insurance, and survivors programs) or Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp 

Program)(15 percent) than from TANF.

Table 3: Receipt of Benefits from Government Programs within UI Exhaustee 

Households, 2009

Support programs

Estimated percentage 

receiving benefit 

Social Security retirement, Disability Insurance, or survivors 18%

SNAP 15

Supplemental Security Income <6

Disability benefits, other than Social Security <4 a

TANF or other welfare <3 b

Workers’ compensation <3

Veterans benefits <2

Any of the above government programs 34 c

Source: GAO analysis of the CPS, 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement, merged with data from the 2010 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement.

Notes: This table presents data on government benefits received in 2009 by any household member 

of a UI exhaustee (the 2.0 million people ages 20 and older who lost a job from 2007 to 2009, 

received UI, and exhausted it as of January 2010). For example, a household would be counted as 

receiving Social Security benefits if the spouse of a UI exhaustee received Social Security benefits 

and not the exhaustee himself. The data shown includes all exhaustees, regardless of whether they 

were employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force at the time of the January 2010 survey. The 

data may not reflect the circumstances of individuals directly after exhausting UI. Point estimates are 

suppressed where the margin of error of the estimate exceeds 30 percent of the point estimate. For 

these estimates, we are reporting the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval. All estimates 

in the table are significantly different from zero. For point estimates that we present in the table, the 

95 percent confidence intervals are: 14 to 22 percent for Social Security retirement, Disability 

Insurance, or survivors benefits; 11 to 18 percent for SNAP; and 29 to 39 percent for receipt of any of 

the government programs we included in our analysis.

a

Includes disability benefits provided by workers’ compensation, companies or unions, federal 

government (civil service), military, state or local governments, railroad retirement, accident or 

disability insurance, Black lung payments, state temporary sickness, or other disability payments.

b

Includes any cash assistance, even for one month, from a state or county welfare program including 

welfare or welfare-to-work programs, TANF, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the name of 

the federal welfare program that was replaced by TANF in 1996), General Assistance/Emergency 

Assistance program, Diversion Payments, Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance program, General 

Assistance from Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Tribal Administered General Assistance.

c

Includes programs listed in the table, as well as survivors benefits other than Social Security (from 

pensions, estates, trusts, or annuities, private companies or unions; federal government (civil 

service), military, state or local governments, railroad retirement, workers’ compensation, Black lung 

payments, and other survivor payments). The sample size for survivors benefits other than Social 

Security was too small to present the estimate.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

With regard to Social Security, 21 percent of UI exhaustees’ households 

received benefits from the retirement, Disability Insurance, survivors, or 

Supplemental Security Income programs.29 Other than Supplemental 

Security Income, the CPS data do not distinguish among the types of 

Social Security benefits a household received, but 7 percent of 

exhaustees were age 62 or older in January 2010 and therefore 

potentially eligible for Social Security retirement benefits (see fig. 9).30

Figure 9: Ages of UI Exhaustees, January 2010

Some exhaustees may have received the other types of Social Security 

benefits, or they may have been residing with a household member who 

received Social Security benefits.

Notes: This figure presents the ages in January 2010 of the 2.0 million people ages 20 and over who 

lost a job from 2007 to 2009, received UI, and exhausted it as of January 2010. Estimates presented 

in this figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 4 percentage points.

 

29The Supplemental Security Income program provides benefits to people with low 

incomes who are blind, disabled, or are age 65 and older. 

30The earliest age at which an individual can begin receiving Social Security retirement 

benefits is age 62, though benefits are reduced for those who draw them prior to the full 

retirement age. The full retirement age ranges from 65 to 67, depending upon a person’s 

year of birth.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

The estimated percentage of exhaustee households receiving TANF may 

be slightly higher among those households more closely aligned with the 

TANF target population. Among the households of UI exhaustees that 

had minor children and income below 200 percent of the federal poverty 

threshold, less than 10 percent received TANF or other welfare benefits in 

2009 (see table 4).31

Table 4: Receipt of Benefits from Government Programs within Households of UI 

Exhaustees with Minor Children and Annual Incomes Below 200 Percent of the 

Federal Poverty Threshold, 2009 

More than one-third of these households received 

SNAP benefits.

Support programs

Estimated percentage 

receiving benefit 

SNAP 38%

Social Security retirement, Disability Insurance, or 

survivors

<25

TANF or other welfare <10 a

Supplemental Security Income <10

Any of the above government programs 49 b

Source: GAO analysis of the CPS, 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement, merged with data from the 2010 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement.

 

31This is meant to illustrate receipt of TANF and other government benefits among 

relatively low-income families of UI exhaustees with minor children. Not all families with 

children and incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold are eligible for 

TANF benefits. While families generally must have income below the federal poverty 

threshold to be initially eligible for ongoing TANF cash assistance, in many states, once a 

family has been receiving TANF benefits, income earned from employment may be 

disregarded for some time to compensate for work-related expenses or to serve as an 

incentive to work. This means that a family with income greater than the level for initial 

eligibility may continue to receive TANF. Urban Institute, Welfare Rules Databook. See 

footnote 27 for further information on TANF eligibility criteria. 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Notes: This table presents data on sources of household income in 2009 for the approximately 

460,000 of UI exhaustees with children age 18 or under in the household and incomes below 200 

percent of the federal poverty threshold. UI exhaustees are people ages 20 and older who lost a job 

from 2007 to 2009, received UI, and exhausted it as of January 2010. This includes exhaustees 

regardless of whether they were employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force at the time of the 

survey. The data may not reflect the circumstances of individuals directly after exhausting UI. A 

household is counted as receiving a government benefit if any household member received the 

benefit. For example, a household would be counted as receiving Social Security benefits if the 

spouse of a UI exhaustee received Social Security benefits and not the exhaustee himself. Point 

estimates are suppressed where the margin of error of the estimate exceeds 30 percent of the point 

estimate. For these estimates, we are reporting the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence 

interval. All estimates in the table are significantly different from zero. For point estimates that we 

present in the table, the 95 percent confidence intervals are: 28 to 49 percent for SNAP, and 38 to 60 

percent for receipt of any of the government programs we included in our analysis. The confidence 

interval for Social Security retirement, Disability Insurance, or survivors benefits is 9 to 25 percent.

a

Includes any cash assistance, even for one month, from a state or county welfare program including 

welfare or welfare-to-work programs, TANF, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the name of 

the federal welfare program that was replaced by TANF in 1996), General Assistance/Emergency 

Assistance program, Diversion Payments, Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance program, General 

Assistance from Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Tribal Administered General Assistance.

b

Includes programs listed in the table, as well as veterans’ benefits, disability and survivors benefits 

other than Social Security, and workers’ compensation. Sample sizes for these programs were too 

small to present individual estimates.

Regarding the use of TANF benefits by UI exhaustees or others who 

have lost jobs, state TANF officials we spoke with offered several reasons 

why they may not have sought or received such assistance. One official 

noted that some may not have sought TANF because they may still have 

some resources or assets that they can rely on. Such assets may also 

make a person ineligible for TANF since nearly all states consider the 

value of a family’s assets when determining their eligibility for ongoing 

TANF cash assistance.32 Other state officials said that some workers who 

recently lost jobs may be reluctant to seek TANF due to its work activity 

or child support requirements, particularly given the fact that the TANF 

benefit is low.33

 

32Urban Institute, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2009. In 2009, 

most states had asset limits ranging from $1,000 to $3,000, with the value of a home and 

the value of at least one vehicle exempted. 

Some officials also noted that the restrictions on work 

activities that limit the amount of time that can be spent on education and 

training may not match the needs of displaced workers, who may require

33TANF cash assistance benefit levels vary by state. In 2009, maximum monthly benefits 

across the states ranged from $170 to $923 for a family of three, with a median benefit of 

$429. Congressional Research Service, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

27, 2011).
 

Page 26 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

more education or retraining to find a new job.34 Finally, several state 

officials told us that some people who recently lost jobs may not apply for 

TANF because they perceive a stigma attached to being a welfare 

recipient.35

In addition, with many states facing budget deficits related to the 

economic recession, several of the state officials discussed with us 

challenges in serving those affected by the recession. Officials we 

interviewed in 7 of the 16 states said that their states have decreased 

funding for the TANF program since the recession began. With regard to 

federal funds, as a block grant, the TANF allocations that states receive 

are not adjusted for caseload size, and the amounts have not been 

adjusted for inflation since 1996. Collectively, states in economic distress 

can access up to $612 million in the TANF Contingency Fund in fiscal 

year 2012, but they must spend more than a specified amount of state 

funds to do so. Other TANF funding sources that states had access to 

during the recession have expired. For example, nearly all 51 states 

accessed TANF Emergency Contingency Funds provided in the Recovery 

Act, but these funds expired at the end of fiscal year 2010. In addition, 

TANF supplemental funds, which had been awarded to 17 states with 

historically low welfare spending per person and high population growth, 

expired in June 2011. In our interviews, officials said that budgetary 

constraints have led to decreased spending on work supports, such as 

employment and training services and childcare, hiring freezes, and, also 

greater enforcement of time limits. States must restrict most families to a 

lifetime limit of 60 months of federally funded TANF cash assistance, but 

they may use state funds to continue benefits for families reaching the 

 

34Federal law limits the number of weekly hours that TANF families can participate in 

three activities and have them count toward their work requirements: education directly 

related to employment (for recipients who have not received a high school diploma or a 

high school equivalency), job skills training directly related to employment, and 

satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate 

of general equivalency. There are also limits on the amount of time states can count each 

family’s participation in two other work activities—job search and job readiness 

assistance, and vocational education. The time limit on job search and job readiness 

assistance is generally 6 weeks, but states can extend this limit to 12 weeks during times 

of economic distress. The time limit on vocational education is 12 months over a person’s 

lifetime. 

35For more information on receipt of TANF among eligible families, see GAO, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have Received Cash Assistance 

Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact on Caseloads Varies by State, GAO-10-164

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2010).
 

Page 27 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

limit. In our interviews, some state officials said that budgetary constraints 

had led their states to discontinue these payments.

While there are no federal requirements to refer UI exhaustees to other 

support programs, most (45) of the state UI agencies we surveyed reported 

providing information or connections to support programs for exhaustees.36

Table 5: Methods Reported by State UI Agencies to Provide Information and/or 

Connect UI Exhaustees with Support Programs

These connections are made in a number of ways, such as through 

websites, mail, staff referrals, and interagency coordination (see table 5).

State UI agency responses by category

Number of 

states

Provides information

Provides information on website 13

Mails information specifically to exhaustees 13

Sends emails to UI exhaustees 3 

Automated phone recordings/messages provide information specifically 

to UI exhaustees

3 

Other 16 a

UI agency refers exhaustees

Agency staff refer UI exhaustees to other support agencies 32

Automated technology refers UI exhaustees to other support agencies 7 

Coordinates with other agencies

Coordinates with one-stops to provide information or connect UI 

exhaustees to other support programs

34

Coordinates with other support program agencies to provide information 

or connect UI exhaustees to other support programs

20

UI agency and other support agencies share data for purposes of 

facilitating enrollments of UI exhaustees in support programs

13

Agencies that do any of the above 45

Source: GAO analysis of survey data

a

Other may include UI staff responding to specific inquiries from exhaustees and local 2-1-1 

telephone numbers to connect people to services.

 

36For the purposes of our survey of the 51 state UI agencies, the UI agencies were 

instructed that support programs included TANF, SNAP, disability benefits (e.g., 

Supplemental Security Income, and Social Security Disability Insurance), state and county 

income support programs, food banks, and other assistance programs. We generally 

asked about groups of programs and not about each program individually. 

Most State UI 

Agencies Reported 

Efforts to Provide UI 

Exhaustees with 

Information about 

Other Support 

Programs
 

Page 28 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

States’ efforts to provide information or connect exhaustees to other 

resources varied. For example:

• Colorado’s UI website contains a list of resources for people who are 

exhausting benefits, including TANF and programs that provide 

assistance with foreclosure prevention, health insurance, and food 

aid.

• In Ohio, the UI agency mails letters to people who may be nearing the 

exhaustion of their UI benefits. The letter provides websites and 

phone numbers for programs that provide food assistance, cash 

assistance, Medicaid, and help with foreclosure prevention, child 

support payments, and job search.

• In Washington state, a multiagency working group created a detailed 

demographic analysis of potential exhaustees, shared data on 

exhaustees across agencies, developed a resource guide that was 

mailed to exhaustees and posted online, and established a new unit 

of employees and a phone number to handle questions from 

individuals about to exhaust UI. This working group includes 

representatives from social and health services, veterans, commerce, 

higher education, and workforce agencies. These stakeholders 

continue to meet and share ideas regarding the coordination of 

outreach activities to the growing population of exhaustees, according 

to Washington officials.

• According to Pennsylvania officials, UI exhaustees were one of the 

populations Pennsylvania targeted for its subsidized employment 

program that was funded by TANF Recovery Act funds. Using data 

from the UI program, the workforce agency mailed UI exhaustees 

information on the subsidized employment program.

State UI agencies we surveyed reported limitations associated with any 

efforts to connect UI exhaustees with TANF, SNAP, and other support 

programs. State UI agencies’ greatest barriers were limited UI agency 

resources or staff, along with a restriction on spending UI administrative 

funds (see fig. 10).37

 

3742 U.S.C. § 502(a).

These funds are provided by the federal government 

and can only be used for administering the UI program. Other limitations 

cited by state UI agencies include the lack of requirement for UI agencies 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

to refer exhaustees to support programs, confidentiality laws, and the 

knowledge and training needed for UI staff to provide referrals to specific 

programs. In addition, one state UI agency noted that automation has 

been beneficial for reducing costs, but the corresponding reduction in inperson contact reduced the ability of the UI agency to refer people to 

other programs. In many states, UI claims are filed remotely, primarily by 

telephone or the Internet.

Figure 10: Most Commonly Reported Limitations Associated with Connecting UI 

Exhaustees with TANF, SNAP, and Other Support Programs

Note: Totals do not add to 51 states because some states responded “don’t know” or did not respond 

to this question.

As the U.S. has faced the worst economic conditions since the 1930s, the 

UI program has played a critical role in helping millions of displaced 

workers through job losses. Despite the temporary benefit extensions, 

however, some individuals have exhausted UI benefits without a job, and 

a significant percentage have low incomes. As for the programs UI 

exhaustees and their households have turned to for additional assistance, 

few have received TANF as of 2009 in part because most do not match 

the target population of TANF. As currently financed and structured at the 

federal and state levels TANF does not appear to provide many of those 

we studied income support to help them weather the bad economic times. 

Some households have also turned to SNAP, whose financing and design 

Conclusions 
 

Page 30 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

may have helped it to expand with the poor economic conditions. Those 

eligible for Social Security retirement, disability, or survivors programs 

appear to have turned to those programs. While most state UI agencies 

already had efforts in place to help direct exhaustees to support 

programs, continued attention to outreach may help ensure that eligible 

people are connected to aid.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Labor and Health 

and Human Services for review and comment. Labor provided written 

comments, which are reproduced in appendix II. Labor said that our 

report will help policymakers understand the economic circumstances of a 

large percentage of unemployed workers and that it highlights the role the 

UI program has played in helping unemployed workers, as well as the 

role states have played in referring UI exhaustees to other support 

programs. Labor and HHS provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. We also provided a draft of this report to 

Census Bureau officials for a technical review; we incorporated their 

comments as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, and other interested parties. The report is also available at no 

charge on the GAO website at www.gao.gov. 

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

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Staff members who made key contributions 

in this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Kay E. Brown

Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

To address the objectives of this request, we used a variety of methods. 

Specifically, we

• analyzed pertinent data from two supplements to the Current 

Population Survey (CPS): the Displaced Worker Supplement and the 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement;

• conducted a web-based survey with Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia;

• conducted structured phone interviews with officials from 16 state 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies;

• analyzed data on the UI program from the Department of Labor 

(Labor), on the TANF program from the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), and on the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA); and

• conducted interviews with officials from Labor and HHS, as well as 

researchers, and reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations, 

studies, and policy documents.

To identify the number of workers who received and exhausted UI, we 

used data from the biennial Displaced Worker Supplement to the Census 

Bureau’s CPS. The CPS is the nation’s source of official government 

statistics on employment and unemployment, and it is conducted on a 

monthly basis with about 60,000 households. Every 2 years with the 

January CPS, Census asks respondents 20 years or older whether they 

or someone in their household have experienced a job loss within the 

previous three years due to a plant or company closing or moving, 

insufficient work, or their position or shift being abolished. If a respondent 

answers yes, he or she is asked the questions in the Displaced Worker 

Supplement.1

 

1

Respondents who said they or a household member were no longer working due to other 

reasons, such as a seasonal job being completed or failure of a self-operated business, 

are not classified as displaced workers and are not asked the questions in the Displaced 

Worker Supplement. 

As such, for purposes of our review, a displaced worker is 

defined as a person who has experienced a job loss within the previous 3 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Analysis of Displaced 

Worker Supplement Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

years due to a plant or company closing or moving, insufficient work, or 

their position or shift being abolished. A person of any current 

employment status (employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force) may 

be classified as a displaced worker. For this review, we used data from 

the 2010 Displaced Worker Supplement (the most recent available), 

conducted in January 2010 with households in which someone lost a job 

from 2007 to 2009—the years of the recent recession.2

We chose to use the Displaced Worker Supplement over other possible 

data sources, such as the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

because the Displaced Worker Supplement contains questions to identify 

whether an individual who lost a job received and exhausted UI. For 

purposes of our review, we defined a UI exhaustee as a displaced worker 

with “yes” responses to the following two questions in the Displaced 

Workers Survey:

For some of our 

analyses, we also compared the 2010 data to data from the 2008 

Displaced Worker Supplement, conducted with households in which 

someone lost a job from 2005 to 2007, so that we could compare workers 

displaced during the recession to those displaced prior to the recession. 

Results of our review are as of January 2010 and January 2008, when 

the Displaced Worker Supplements were conducted.

• “Did you receive unemployment insurance after that job (the job from 

which the worker was displaced) ended?” and

• “Did you exhaust your eligibility for unemployment benefits?” 

We analyzed data from the Displaced Worker Supplement to estimate the 

percentage of displaced workers who received UI and the percentage 

who exhausted UI. We also used the data to examine the characteristics 

and labor force statuses of UI exhaustees specifically, in particular their 

ages, employment status at the time they were surveyed, and for those 

employed, their earnings at their new job compared to their previous job.

Given the structure of the Displaced Worker Supplement, the survey 

captures the experiences of workers who lose jobs earlier in the 3-year 

period of the survey more fully than those who lost jobs later in the period, 

since more time would have elapsed between when they lost their job and 

 

2

The National Bureau of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating Committee 

announced the official beginning of the recession as December 2007 and the official end 

as June 2009.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

when the survey was conducted. More specifically, the estimate of the 

number of displaced workers who exhausted UI does not include workers 

who may have exhausted UI at some point after January 2010.

In comparing UI receipt among higher-wage and lower-wage workers in 

the 2005-2007 and 2007-2009 time periods (using the 2008 and 2010 

Displaced Worker Supplements, respectively), we conducted the analysis 

in two different ways and obtained virtually identical results. In the first 

approach, for each of the time periods, we compared displaced workers 

in the bottom 30 percent in average weekly wages with displaced workers 

in the top 70 percent, for the respondents with wage data available. 

Conducting the analysis in this way, displaced workers in the bottom 30 

percent had average wages of $380 per week or less in the 2005-2007 

time frame and average wages of $418 per week or less in the 2007-2009 

time frame. In our second approach, we used the same average weekly 

wage as the cut-off point for defining the lower-wage worker group in the 

two time frames, adjusting for inflation. Specifically, lower-wage workers 

were still defined as those with average wages of $380 per week or less 

in 2005-2007. However, for 2007-2009, we used the $380 value to define 

the lower-wage group, but adjusted it for inflation. As such, displaced 

workers in the 2007-2009 time period were in the lower-wage group if 

they had average weekly wages of $400 or less. These two methods 

yielded results that were nearly identical. We presented the results of the 

first approach in figure 3.

To examine the incomes of UI exhaustees and their receipt of benefits 

from government programs, we merged data from the Displaced Worker 

Supplement with data from the CPS’ Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (ASEC). Census conducts the ASEC annually to provide the 

usual monthly labor force data, as well as additional national data on work 

experience, income, and use of government benefits, among other topics.

Due to the rotation structure of the CPS, approximately half of the 

households who were administered the Displaced Worker Supplement in 

Analysis of Displaced 

Worker Supplement 

Merged with the Annual 

Social and Economic 

Supplement 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

January 2010 were also interviewed for the ASEC in March 2010.3

Because the merged sample contains approximately half the number of 

observations as the full Displaced Worker Supplement sample, we 

inflated the population weights so that the weighted population counts 

from the merged sample would reflect the full displaced worker 

population. In addition, following the guidance of staff at the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau, we constructed raking factors to 

rebalance the merged sample by the race and ethnicity of the 

householder, the presence of children in the household, and the gender 

of the displaced worker.

Merging data from the two surveys allowed us to identify UI exhaustees 

(from the Displaced Worker Supplement) and examine their incomes 

(from the ASEC). Specifically, we used the merged data to examine UI 

exhaustees’ private income sources, their family incomes relative to the 

federal poverty threshold, the presence of a child under the age of 18 in 

the household, and the benefits received from government programs. 

Data we report from the 2010 ASEC on the income status and receipt of 

benefits of UI exhaustees is for calendar year 2009. As such, our results 

may not necessarily reflect individuals’ circumstances directly after 

exhausting their UI benefits, as we included all individuals who lost jobs 

from 2007 to 2009 and who then received and exhausted UI during that 

period and through January 2010, when the Displaced Worker 

Supplement was conducted.

4

 

3

Households interviewed for the CPS are administered the survey for 4 consecutive 

months, then are not interviewed for 8 months, and then are interviewed for an additional 

4 months. Each month, one-eighth of households are being surveyed for the first time, 

one-eighth for the second time, one-eighth for the third time, etc. With this rotation,

approximately half of the households interviewed in January 2010 were also interviewed in 

March 2010, and therefore were administered both the Displaced Worker Supplement if 

they were eligible and the ASEC. 

4

Specifically, the ASEC oversamples a group referred to as the “Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP) expansion sample.” This is defined as any households where 

the householder is minority (either non-White or Hispanic), and/or any household that 

contains at least one child (18 years or under). Because the merged sample included 

members of the “CHIP expansion sample,” we raked the weights so observations in the 

“CHIP expansion sample” are not over-represented in the data. A raking factor is a 

number multiplied by the population weight to rebalance the sample. We also raked the 

weights by gender of the displaced worker and race/ethnicity of the householder, to 

control for any sample attrition along these variables. Following the guidance of the 

Census Bureau, we restricted our raking factors to cells with a minimum of 30 

observations, and to factors that met Census Bureau guidelines for size.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

We used data in the ASEC to examine the incomes of UI exhaustees’ 

households from both private and government sources. For each person 

in the sample 15 years old and over, the ASEC asks questions on the 

amount of money income received in the preceding calendar year from 

each of the following sources: earnings; unemployment compensation; 

workers’ compensation; Social Security; Supplemental Security Income; 

public assistance; veterans’ payments; survivors benefits; disability 

benefits; pension or retirement income; interest; dividends; rents, 

royalties, and estates and trusts; educational assistance; alimony; child 

support; regular financial assistance from outside of the household; and 

other periodic income. The income statistics in the ASEC refer to receipt 

of income during the preceding calendar year, in contrast to the 

demographic characteristics, such as age, labor force status, and family 

or household composition, which are as of the survey date. The income of 

the family/household does not include amounts received by people who 

were members during all or part of the income year if these people no 

longer resided in the family/household at the time of interview. However, 

the ASEC collects income data for people who are current residents but 

did not reside in the household during the income year.

Data on consumer income collected in the ASEC by the Census Bureau 

cover money income received (exclusive of certain money receipts such 

as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, Social 

Security, union dues, Medicare deductions, etc. Therefore, money income 

does not reflect the fact that some households receive part of their 

income in the form of noncash benefits, such as food stamps, health 

benefits, rent-free housing, and goods produced and consumed on the 

farm. In addition, money income does not reflect the fact that noncash 

benefits are also received by some nonfarm residents which often take 

the form of the use of business transportation and facilities, full or partial 

payments by business for retirement programs, medical and educational 

expenses, etc. Moreover, readers should be aware that for many different 

reasons there is a tendency in household surveys for respondents to 

underreport their income. Based on an analysis of independently derived 

income estimates, the Census Bureau determined that respondents 

report income earned from wages or salaries much better than other 

sources of income and that the reported wage and salary income is 

nearly equal to independent estimates of aggregate income.

We determined exhaustees’ income-to-poverty ratios using Census 

computations. The Census classifies the income-to-poverty ratio of each 

family and unrelated individual using a poverty index adopted by the 

Federal Interagency Committee. The index provides a range of income 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” adjusted to take into account family size, 

number of children, and age of the family householder or unrelated 

individual. If a family’s total money income is less than the applicable 

threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered in 

poverty. The official poverty thresholds are updated annually for inflation 

using the Consumer Price Index. The official poverty definition uses 

money income before taxes and excludes capital gains and noncash 

benefits (such as SNAP benefits and housing assistance). The thresholds 

do not vary geographically.

We calculated standard errors for our estimates using the Census 

generalized variance functions, as published in the CPS January 2010 

Displaced Worker, Employee Tenure, and Occupational Mobility 

Technical Documentation. However, we adjusted these standard error 

calculations to take account of the larger sampling interval of the merged 

sample, following guidance from staff at the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

and the Census Bureau.

We assessed the reliability of the CPS generally and of data elements 

that were critical to our analyses and determined that, despite the 

limitations outlined below, they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses.

Specifically, we:

• reviewed documentation on the general design and methods of the 

CPS Displaced Worker Supplement and the CPS ASEC, and on the 

specific elements of the CPS data that were used in our analysis;

• interviewed Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics officials 

knowledgeable about the CPS data and consulted with these officials 

periodically throughout the course of our study; and

• completed our own electronic data testing to assess the accuracy and 

completeness of the data used in our analyses. To the extent 

possible, we compared our estimates against published reports using 

the CPS. 

As a result of these efforts, we identified the following limitations with the 

data:

• The Census Bureau determined that respondents report income 

earned from wages or salaries much better than other sources of 

income. Therefore, estimates of receipt of government assistance 

may be underestimated.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

• Due to the small sample sizes in our merged sample, confidence 

intervals around some of our estimates are wide. For these results, 

we report the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval.

To determine the extent to which UI agencies refer exhaustees to other 

programs, we conducted a web-based survey of state UI administrators in 

all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted from 

August to November 2011, with administrators from every state and the 

District of Columbia responding. The survey included questions about 

providing information to UI exhaustees about other support programs, 

coordinating or working with one-stops and/or workforce agencies, data 

on UI exhaustees, and changes states are making that may affect UI 

coverage.

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret 

questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took 

steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting draft 

instruments and using a Web-based administration system. Specifically, 

during survey development, we pretested draft instruments with UI 

administrators from three states (Alabama, Arizona, and Pennsylvania) 

and a representative from the National Association of State Workforce 

Agencies in July 2011. We selected the pretest states to provide variation 

in selected state UI program characteristics and geographic location. In 

the pretests, we were generally interested in the clarity, precision, and 

objectivity of the questions, as well as the flow and layout of the survey. 

For example, we wanted to ensure definitions used in the surveys were 

clear and known to the respondents, categories provided in closed-ended 

questions were complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey 

sections and the questions within each section was appropriate. We 

revised the final survey based on pretest results. Another step we took to 

minimize nonsampling errors was using a web-based survey. Allowing 

respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic instrument 

created a record for each respondent in a data file and eliminated the 

need for and the errors associated with a manual data entry process. To 

further minimize errors, programs used to analyze the survey data and 

make estimations were independently verified to ensure the accuracy of 

this work.

While we did not fully validate specific information that states reported 

through our survey, we took several steps to ensure that the information 

Survey of State UI 

Agencies
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For example, we 

reviewed the responses and identified those that required further 

clarification and, subsequently, conducted follow-up research to ensure 

the information they provided was reasonable and reliable. In our review 

of the data, we also identified and logically fixed skip pattern errors for 

questions that respondents should have skipped but did not. On the basis 

of these checks, we believe our survey data are sufficiently reliable for 

purposes of our work.

To examine the role TANF played for individuals who lost jobs during the 

recession and its aftermath, we conducted semi-structured telephone 

interviews with TANF officials in 16 states. We pretested our questions 

with California and Pennsylvania. In our interviews we asked questions 

about the types of people seeking TANF, the types of services being 

provided, whether the state received TANF Emergency Contingency or 

TANF Contingency funds, challenges they faced in providing assistance 

to those in need, and their knowledge of whether a relationship exists 

between their agency and the state’s UI program.

The 16 states we selected to interview were chosen to represent a range 

of unemployment rates and TANF cash assistance caseloads and to 

achieve geographic diversity. The 16 states included in our analysis were: 

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington state. Collectively these states 

represent more than half the families receiving ongoing TANF cash 

assistance nationally.

We analyzed relevant data from Labor to supplement our analysis of CPS 

data. Specifically, we analyzed Labor’s data on UI claims to determine the 

number of people claiming UI benefits since 2007. We assessed the 

reliability of the data by interviewing Labor officials knowledgeable about 

the data, conducting electronic testing, and reviewing relevant 

documents. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes.

We also analyzed data on TANF and SNAP from HHS and USDA, 

respectively, for our background sections and text boxes.

Interviews with State 

TANF Officials

Analysis of Labor, HHS, 

and USDA Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

We interviewed officials from HHS and Labor about their UI and TANF 

programs and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, as well as 

guidance and other agency documentation. Additionally, we interviewed 

researchers and professionals from a variety of national organizations, 

including workforce and unemployment organizations, and reviewed 

available literature from these groups. These included the American 

Public Human Services Association, National Employment Law Project, 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the Urban 

Institute, among others.

Interviews with Agencies, 

Researchers, and Others
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 40 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov

Gale Harris (Assistant Director), Yunsian Tai (Analyst-in-Charge), Keira 

Dembowski, Rosemary Torres Lerma, Rhiannon Patterson, Stuart 

Kaufman, Monique Williams, and Hiwotte Amare made significant 

contributions to all aspects of this report. Also contributing to this report 

were Susan Bernstein, Nancy Cosentino, Stanley Czerwinski, Julianne 

Hartman Cutts, Alex Galuten, Thomas James, Sarah McGrath, Mimi 

Nguyen, Jeremy Sebest, and Almeta Spencer.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 42 GAO-12-408 Unemployment Insurance

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Served 

and Work Participation. GAO-11-880T. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 

2011.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Caseload and 

Program Changes for Families and Program Monitoring. GAO-10-815T. 

Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2010.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent 

Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work 

Participation Rates. GAO-10-525. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010.

Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds: Long-standing State Financing 

Policies Have Increased Risk of Solvency. GAO-10-440. Washington, 

D.C.: April 14, 2010.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have 

Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact 

on Caseloads Varies by State. GAO-10-164. Washington, D.C.: February 

23, 2010.

Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families: A Review of Recent 

GAO Work. GAO-10-342R. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2010.

Unemployment Insurance: Low-Wage and Part-Time Workers Continue 

to Experience Low Rates of Receipt. GAO-07-1147. Washington, D.C.: 

September 7, 2007.

Unemployment Insurance: More Guidance and Evaluation of WorkerProfiling Initiative Could Help Improve State Efforts. GAO-07-680. 

Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.

Unemployment Insurance: Factors Associated with Benefit Receipt. 

GAO-06-341. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2006.

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 

Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.

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

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

Related GAO Products

(131061)
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 (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 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. 

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

Contact:

Website: 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.