4-1 

SECTION 4 - UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

CONTENTS 

Overview 

Benefits 

Coverage 

Number of Covered Workers 

Eligibility 

Amount and Duration of Weekly Benefits 

Extended Benefits 

Benefit Exhaustion 

Supplemental Benefits 

Hypothetical Weekly Benefit Amounts for Various Workers in the Regular 

State Programs 

The Unemployment Trust Fund 

Financial Condition of the Unemployment Trust Fund 

The Federal Unemployment Tax 

State Unemployment Taxes 

Administrative Financing and Allocation 

Legislative History 

References 

OVERVIEW 

 The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the 

Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two 

main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to 

involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help 

stabilize the economy during recessions. The U.S. Department of Labor oversees 

the system, but each State administers its own program. Because Federal law 

defines the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as States for 

the purposes of UC, there are 53 State programs. 

 The Federal Unemployment Tax Act of 1939 (Public Law 76-379) and titles 

III, IX, and XII of the Social Security Act form the framework of the system. The 

Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) imposes a 6.2 percent gross tax rate on 

the first $7,000 paid annually by covered employers to each employee. Employers 

in States with programs approved by the Federal Government and with no 

delinquent Federal loans may credit 5.4 percentage points against the 

6.2 percent tax rate, making the minimum net Federal unemployment tax rate 

0.8 percent. Since all States have approved programs, 0.8 percent is the effective 

Federal tax rate. This Federal revenue finances administration of the system, half of 

the Federal-State Extended Benefits (EB) Program, and a Federal account for State 
4-2 

loans. The individual States finance their own programs, as well as their half of the 

Federal-State Extended Benefits Program. 

 In 1976, Congress passed a surtax of 0.2 percent of taxable wages to be 

added to the permanent FUTA tax rate (Public Law 94-566). Thus, the current 

effective 0.8 percent FUTA tax rate has two components: a permanent tax rate of 

0.6 percent, and a surtax rate of 0.2 percent. The surtax has been extended five 

times, most recently by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) 

through December 31, 2007. 

 FUTA generally determines covered employment. FUTA also imposes 

certain requirements on the State programs, but the States generally determine 

individual qualification requirements, disqualification provisions, eligibility, 

weekly benefit amounts, potential weeks of benefits, and the State tax structure 

used to finance all of the regular State benefits and half of the extended benefits. 

 The Social Security Act provides for the administrative framework: title III 

authorizes Federal grants to the States for administration of the State UC laws; title 

IX authorizes the various components of the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund; 

title XII authorizes advances or loans to insolvent State UC Programs. 

 Table 4-1 provides a statistical overview of the UC Program. 

BENEFITS 

COVERAGE 

 In order to qualify for benefits, an unemployed person usually must have 

worked recently for a covered employer for a specified period of time and earned a 

certain amount of wages. About 128 million individuals were covered by all 

UC Programs in 2001, representing 99.7 percent of all wage and salary workers 

and 89 percent of the civilian labor force. 

 FUTA covers certain employers that State laws also must cover for 

employers in the States to qualify for the 5.4 percent Federal credit. Since 

employers in the States would lose this credit and their employees would not be 

covered if the States did not have this coverage, all States cover the required 

groups: (1) except for nonprofit organizations, State-local governments, certain 

agricultural labor, and certain domestic service, FUTA covers employers who paid 

wages of at least $1,500 during any calendar quarter or who employed at least one 

worker in at least 1 day of each of 20 weeks in the current or prior year; (2) FUTA 

covers agricultural labor for employers who paid cash wages of at least $20,000 for 

agricultural labor in any calendar quarter or who employed 10 or more workers in 

at least 1 day in each of 20 different weeks in the current or prior year; and 

(3) FUTA covers domestic service employers who paid cash wages of $1,000 or 

more for domestic service during any calendar quarter in the current or prior year. 

 FUTA requires coverage of nonprofit organization employers of at least 

four workers for 1 day in each of 20 different weeks in the current or prior year and 

State-local governments without regard to the number of employees. Nonprofit and 
TABLE 4-1--UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM DATA, FISCAL YEARS 1990-2003 

Statistic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2

(

Total Civilian Unemployment Rate (Percent) 5.4 6.5 7.3 7.0 6.3 5.6 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.2 5.8 Insured Unemployment Rate2

(Percent) 2.3 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 3.0 Average Weekly Benefit Amount: 

Current Dollars 154 163 167 172 175 179 182 185 190 202 213 222 246 In 2003 Dollars3 216 220 218 218 217 216 213 212 214 222 227 230 251 

 State Unemployment Compensation 

Beneficiaries (Millions) 8.1 10.2 9.6 7.8 8.2 7.9 8.1 7.5 7.3 7.1 7.2 8.2 11.7 Regular Benefit Exhaustions (Millions) 2.2 3.2 3.9 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 4.0 

Regular Benefits Paid (Billions of Dollars) 16.8 24.4 25.6 21.9 21.7 20.9 22.0 20.3 19.4 20.7 21.3 24.8 43.3 Extended Benefits (State share: Billions of Dollars) 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.01 6 6 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.30 

State Tax Collections (Billions of Dollars) 16.0 15.3 17.6 21.0 22.5 23.2 22.7 22.1 21.0 20.0 21.5 22.4 23.3 State Trust Fund Impact4 

(Income-Outlays: Billions of Dollars) -0.88 -9.13 -8.03 -0.93 0.66 2.24 0.75 1.80 1.60 -0.71 0.19 -2.38 -20.00 -

Federal Unemployment Accounts 

Federal Tax Collections5 (Billions of 

Dollars) 5.36 5.33 5.41 4.237 5.57 5.80 5.96 6.21 6.48 6.65 6.67 7.11 6.93 

Outlays: Federal EB Share Plus Federal Supplemental Benefits (Billions of Dollars) 

0.03 0.01 11.15 13.17 4.37 0.05 -0.01 -0.01 6 6 0.01 0.02 8.00 1

Federal Fund Transfers to States (Reed Act Distributions; Billions of Dollars) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.10 0.10 8.10 
TABLE 4-1--UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM DATA, FISCAL YEARS 1990-2003-continue

Statistic 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2

(

 State Administrative Costs (Billions of Dollars) 

Unemployment Insurance Service 1.74 1.95 2.49 2.52 2.43 2.38 2.31 2.34 2.55 2.41 2.48 2.36 2.79 

Employment Service 1.01 1.05 1.02 0.90 0.90 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.01 1.07 0.99 1.01 1.05 

Total Administrative Costs 2.75 3.00 3.51 3.42 3.33 3.43 3.36 3.36 3.56 3.48 3.46 3.37 3.85 

1 Based on the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget. 2 The average number of workers claiming State unemployment compensation benefits as a percent of all workers covered. 3 Adjusted using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. 4 Excludes interest earned. 5 Net of reduced credits. 6 Less than $5 million. 7 Reflects a book adjustment of minus $967 million. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, UI Outlook, 2003. 
4-5 

State-local government organizations are not required to pay Federal 

unemployment taxes; they may choose instead to reimburse the system for benefits 

paid to their laid-off employees. 

 States may cover certain employment not covered by FUTA, but most 

States have chosen not to expand FUTA coverage significantly. The following 

employment is therefore generally not covered: (1) self-employment; (2) certain 

agricultural labor and domestic service; (3) service for relatives; (4) service of 

patients in hospitals; (5) certain student interns; (6) certain alien farmworkers; 

(7) certain seasonal camp workers; and (8) railroad workers (who have their own 

unemployment program). 

NUMBER OF COVERED WORKERS 

 Although the UC system covers 99.7 percent of all wage and salary workers, 

Table 4-2 shows that on average only 44 percent of unemployed persons were 

receiving UC benefits in 2002. This compares with a peak of 81 percent of the 

unemployed receiving UC benefits in April 1975 and a low point of 26 percent in 

June 1968 and in October 1987. Despite high unemployment during the early 

1980s, there was a downward trend in the proportion of unemployed persons 

receiving regular State benefits until the mid-1980s. The proportion receiving UC 

rose sharply in December 1991 due to the temporary Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation (EUC) Program. 

 In May 1988, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under contract to the 

U.S. Department of Labor, released a study on the decline in the proportion of the 

unemployed receiving benefits during the 1980s. This analysis did not find a single 

predominant cause for the decline but instead found statistical evidence that several 

factors contributed to the decline (the figures in parentheses show the share of the 

decline attributed to each factor): 

1. The decline in the proportion of the unemployed from manufacturing 

industries (4-18 percent); 

2. Geographic shifts in composition of the unemployed among regions of the 

country (16 percent); 

3.Changes in State program characteristics (22-39 percent): 

 Increase in the base period earnings requirements (8-15 percent); 

 Increase in income denials for UC receipt (10 percent); and 

 Tightening up other non-monetary eligibility requirements 

(3-11 percent); 

4.Changes in Federal policy such as partial taxation of UC benefits 

(11-16 percent); and 

5.Changes in unemployment as measured by the Current Population Survey 

(CPS) (1-12 percent). 

 The group of unemployed most likely to be insured are job losers. 

Chart 4-1 shows the number of unemployment compensation claimants measured 

as a percentage of the number of job losers. This coverage ratio remained fairly 
TABLE 4-2--INSURED UNEMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT, 

BY MONTH, 1967-2002 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec A

1967 52 52 54 54 50 30 39 41 33 33 35 47 1968 57 50 52 50 45 26 34 38 33 34 38 48 1969 54 54 52 48 43 27 35 36 31 33 40 51 1970 57 54 52 53 53 36 42 45 42 44 48 53 1971 58 58 61 59 56 42 45 48 44 46 47 55 1972 56 58 56 52 49 36 41 38 33 34 38 47 1973 51 46 46 44 43 31 36 37 34 38 38 48 1974 53 54 57 60 54 40 43 44 39 42 48 60 1975 66 73 77 81 79 72 77 79 73 74 76 80 1976 78 75 76 73 72 58 66 66 60 59 60 63 1977 67 66 66 66 59 45 52 49 47 48 49 57 1978 54 54 50 47 44 36 39 42 35 37 34 43 1979 48 48 47 47 42 33 39 38 36 38 40 49 1980 51 51 53 52 49 45 49 49 54 49 49 54 1981 54 50 49 46 40 35 37 37 36 34 37 41 1982 47 44 48 49 45 40 42 42 43 48 49 47 1983 50 52 50 53 52 40 39 36 34 33 39 41 1984 40 38 38 36 34 30 31 30 30 31 31 38 1985 40 41 41 39 32 28 30 30 28 27 32 37 1986 38 36 37 35 32 29 32 32 29 30 32 37 1987 37 37 38 35 31 28 30 29 28 26 29 34 1988 37 37 37 35 31 28 30 29 27 27 30 34 1989 35 35 40 37 30 29 33 33 29 31 29 38 1990 40 42 44 41 37 33 36 34 32 34 34 40 1991 47 46 48 49 41 37 39 37 35 34 38 51 1992 56 54 59 59 54 46 48 48 49 50 50 51 1993 50 48 51 52 48 43 47 48 47 44 46 49 
1994 43 48 43 38 36 31 33 33 30 32 34 39 

1995 39 41 40 37 35 32 35 34 32 34 31 40 1996 41 43 42 40 34 33 34 34 32 31 33 39 1997 39 39 38 38 33 30 34 33 30 32 35 37 1998 40 41 40 41 35 31 36 34 31 32 36 39 1999 44 43 44 41 38 33 36 35 32 33 35 41 2000 42 43 39 39 34 32 36 35 34 36 35 46 2001 44 47 47 48 45 40 46 42 41 42 42 49 2002 49 49 48 47 43 39 42 41 40 39 41 46 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Actuarial Services. 
4-8 

stable from 1968 through 1979. Over that 12-year span, there were from 

90 to 110 recipients of regular State UC for every 100 job losers. This ratio 

fluctuated somewhat over the business cycle, but it was otherwise quite stable. 

CHART 4-1--RATIO OF INSURED UNEMPLOYMENT TO JOB LOSERS, 

1967-2002 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

Year

 Beginning in 1980, the ratio of UC recipients to job losers fell sharply, 

reaching an all-time low in 1983 when there were fewer than 60 regular 

UC recipients for every 100 job losers. After 1983, the coverage ratio increased 

somewhat, so that there were about 75 regular UC claimants for every 100 job 

losers in 1990. However, the ratio declined again with the 1990-91 recession before 

rising throughout the remainder of the 1990s. The current ratio is higher than it has 

been since the late 1970s. 

ELIGIBILITY 

 States have developed diverse and complex methods for determining UC 

eligibility. In general there are three major factors used by States: (1) the amount of 

recent employment and earnings; (2) demonstrated ability and willingness to seek 

and accept suitable employment; and (3) certain disqualifications related to a 

claimant's most recent job separation or job offer refusal. 

Monetary Qualifications

 Table 4-3 shows the State monetary qualification requirements in the base 

year for the minimum and maximum weekly benefit amounts, and for the 

maximum total potential benefits. The base year is a recent 1-year period that most 

States define as the first 4 of the last 5 completed calendar quarters before the 

unemployed person claims benefits. On average, workers must have worked in two Coverage Rate (percent) 

Regular Sate, EB, UCFE, 

RRB, and UCX Programs 

Regular State Program 
4-9 

quarters and earned $1,770 to qualify for a minimum monthly benefit. Qualifying 

annual wages for the minimum weekly benefit amount vary from $130 in Hawaii to 

$3,586 in North Carolina. For the maximum weekly benefit amount, the range is 

$5,320 in Puerto Rico to $30,888 in Colorado. The range of qualifying wages for 

the maximum total potential benefit, which is the product of the maximum weekly 

benefit amount and the maximum potential weeks of benefits, is from $5,320 in 

Puerto Rico to $44,408 in Minnesota. 

TABLE 4-3--MONETARY QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNTS AND 

MAXIMUM TOTAL POTENTIAL BENEFITS, 20031

Required Total Earnings in Base Year 

State 

For 

Minimum 

Weekly 

Benefit 

For 

Maximum

 Weekly 

Benefit 

For 

Maximum 

Potential 

Benefits2

Minimum Work 

In Base Year 

(Quarters)3

Alabama $2,136 $9,096 $14,818 2Q 

Alaska 1,000 26,750 26,750 2Q 

Arizona 1,500 7,000 15,990 2Q 

Arkansas 1,539 15,667 25,038 2Q 

California 1,125 9,487 11,958 

Colorado 2,500 30,888 10,560 

Connecticut 600 19,864 15,880 2Q 

Delaware 720 13,800 14,490 

District of Columbia 1,950 12,051 16,068 2Q 

Florida 3,400 10,725 28,598 2Q 

Georgia 1,404 9,864 28,496 2Q 

Hawaii 130 9,646 9,646 2Q 

Idaho 1,657 10,238 26,618 2Q 

Illinois 1,600 17,069 15,431 2Q 

Indiana 2,750 29,200 29,200 2Q 

Iowa 1,230 7,956 21,294 2Q 

Kansas 2,490 9,990 25,974 2Q 

Kentucky 1,500 21,561 26,600 2Q 

Louisiana 1,200 8,062 24,843 2Q 

Maine 3,120 17,082 20,670 2Q 

Maryland 864 10,080 10,444 2Q 

Massachusetts 2,700 15,360 42,667 

Michigan 2,997 10,977 19,500 2Q 

Minnesota 1,250 10,757 44,408 2Q 

Mississippi 1,200 7,600 14,820 2Q 

Missouri 1,500 9,375 18,330 2Q 

Montana 1,597 23,700 26,300 2Q 

Nebraska 1,600 7,612 20,436 2Q 

Nevada 600 11,287 23,478 2Q 

New Hampshire 2,800 28,500 29,500 2Q 

New Jersey 2,060 15,833 20,583 2Q 
4-10 

TABLE 4-3--MONETARY QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNTS AND 

MAXIMUM TOTAL POTENTIAL BENEFITS, 20031

- continued 

Required Total Earnings in Base Year 

State 

For 

Minimum 

 Weekly 

Benefit 

For 

Maximum 

Weekly 

Benefit 

For 

Maximum 

Potential 

Benefits2

Minimum Work 

In Base Year 

(Quarters)3

New Mexico 1,716 8,255 11,570 2Q 

New York 2,400 14,235 15,795 2Q 

North Carolina 3,586 14,625 25,116 2Q 

North Dakota 2,795 28,275 29,545 2Q 

Ohio 2,640 10,680 13,884 2Q 

Oklahoma 1,500 10,039 17,128 2Q 

Oregon 1,000 26,320 29,328 2Q 

Pennsylvania 1,320 14,920 17,120 2Q 

Puerto Rico 280 5,320 5,320 2Q 

Rhode Island 2,060 12,900 28,672 2Q 

South Carolina 900 10,101 20,202 2Q 

South Dakota 1,288 10,764 18,252 2Q 

Tennessee 1,560 11,440 26,520 2Q 

Texas 1,887 11,803 30,715 2Q 

Utah 2,300 13,845 34,185 2Q 

Vermont 1,723 12,375 13,410 2Q 

Virginia 2,950 13,400 27,872 2Q 

Virgin Islands 1,287 12,909 25,818 2Q 

Washington 2,200 22,050 39,690 

West Virginia 2,200 31,900 31,900 2Q 

Wisconsin 1,380 9,390 19,305 2Q 

Wyoming 2,100 9,905 24,700 2Q 

1 Based on benefits for total unemployment. Amounts payable can be stretched out over a longer 

period in the case of partial unemployment. 

2 Based on maximum weekly benefit amount paid for maximum number of weeks. Total potential 

benefits equal a worker's weekly benefit amount times this potential duration. 

3 Number of quarters of work in base year required to qualify for minimum benefits. "2Q'' denotes 

that State directly or indirectly requires work in at least two quarters of the base year. States without 

an entry have the minimum work requirement specified as a wage amount. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

 In February 1996, a Federal court in Pennington v. Doherty overturned the 

base year definition in use by most States. The court agreed with the plaintiff's 

contention that Illinois could have used an alternative base period (the last four 

completed quarters) and that this alternative would better carry out Federal law, 

which requires States to use administrative methods that ensure full payment of 

UC “when due.” This alternative method would impose greater costs on the States 

affected. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) revised the 

Federal law that was central to the court's decision so that States have full authority 

to set base periods for determining eligibility. In 2003, 24 States used an 

alternative or extended base period to determine benefit eligibility. 
4-11 

 From 1999 to 2003, 12 States increased the required earnings in the base 

year to qualify for the minimum weekly benefit amount, and 7 States decreased it. 

Thirty States increased, 16 remained the same, and 7decreased the qualification 

requirement for the maximum weekly benefit amount. Forty-two States increased 

and one decreased their qualification requirements for maximum potential benefits. 

Ability to Work and Availability for Work

 All State laws provide that a claimant must be both able to work and 

available for work. A claimant must meet these conditions continually to receive 

benefits. 

 Only minor variations exist in State laws setting forth the requirements 

concerning “ability to work.” A few States specify that a claimant must be 

mentally and physically able to work. 

 “Available for work” is translated to mean being ready, willing, and able to 

work. In addition to registration for work at a local employment office, most State 

laws require that a claimant seek work actively or make a reasonable effort to 

obtain work. Generally, a person may not refuse an offer of, or referral to, “suitable 

work” without good cause. 

 Most State laws list certain criteria by which the “suitability” of a work offer 

is to be tested. The usual criteria include the degree of risk to a claimant's health, 

safety, and morals; the physical fitness and prior training, experience, and earnings 

of the person; the length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in 

a customary occupation; and the distance of the available work from the claimant's 

residence. Generally, as the length of unemployment increases, the claimant is 

required to accept a wider range of jobs. 

 In addition, Federal law requires States to deny benefits provided under the 

Extended Benefits Program (see below) to any individual who fails to accept work 

that is offered in writing or is listed with the State Employment Service, or who 

fails to apply for any work to which he is referred by the State agency, if the work: 

(1) is within the person's capabilities; (2) pays wages equal to the highest of the 

Federal or any State or local minimum wage; (3) pays a gross weekly wage that 

exceeds the person's average weekly unemployment compensation benefits plus 

any supplemental unemployment compensation (usually private) payable to the 

individual; and (4) is consistent with the State definition of “suitable” work in 

other respects. Public Law 102-318 suspended these provisions from 

March 7, 1993, until January 1, 1995. 

 States must refer extended benefits claimants to any job meeting these 

requirements. If the State, based on information provided by the individual, 

determines that the individual's prospects for obtaining work in their customary 

occupation within a reasonably short period are good, the determination of whether 

any work is “suitable work” is made in accordance with State law rather than the 

criteria outlined above. 

 There are certain circumstances under which Federal law provides that State 

and extended benefits may not be denied. A State may not deny benefits to an 
4-12 

otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the 

following conditions: (1) if the position offered is vacant directly due to a strike, 

lockout, or other labor dispute; (2) if the wages, hours, or other conditions of the 

work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing 

for similar work in the locality; or (3) if, as a condition of being employed, the 

individual would be required to join a union or to resign from or refrain from 

joining any bona fide labor organization. Benefits may not be denied solely on the 

grounds of pregnancy. The State is prohibited from canceling wage credits or 

totally denying benefits except in cases of misconduct, fraud, or receipt of 

disqualifying income. 

 There are also certain conditions under which Federal law requires that 

benefits be denied. For example, benefits must be denied to professional and 

administrative employees of educational institutions during summer (and other 

vacation periods) if they have a reasonable assurance of reemployment; to 

professional athletes between sport seasons; and to aliens not permitted to work in 

the United States. 

Disqualifications

 The major causes for disqualification from benefits are not being able to 

work or available for work, voluntary separation from work without good cause, 

discharge for misconduct connected with the work, refusal of suitable work 

without good cause, and unemployment resulting from a labor dispute. 

Disqualification for one of these reasons may result in a postponement of benefits 

for some prescribed period, a cancellation of benefit rights, or a reduction of 

benefits otherwise payable. 

 Of the 20.5 million “monetarily eligible” initial UC claims in 2002, 

24.1 percent were disqualified. This figure subdivides into 4.0 percent not being 

able to work or available for work, 6.4 percent voluntarily leaving a job without 

good cause, 4.8 percent being fired for misconduct on the job, 0.2 percent refusing 

suitable work, and 8.7 percent committing other disqualifying acts. The total 

disqualification rate ranged from a low of 12.0 percent in Tennessee to a high of 

102.0 percent in Nebraska, with Colorado the next highest at 94.1 percent. 

(Note - that a claimant can be disqualified for any week claimed, so it is possible 

for a claimant to be disqualified more times than the total number of that claimant's 

initial claims in the benefit year.) 

 Federal law requires that benefits provided under the Extended Benefits 

Program be denied to an individual for the entire spell of his unemployment if he 

was disqualified from receiving State benefits because of voluntarily leaving 

employment, discharge for misconduct, or refusal of suitable work. These benefits 

will be denied even if the disqualification were subsequently lifted with respect to 

the State benefits prior to reemployment. The person could receive extended 

benefits, however, if the disqualification were lifted because he became reemployed 

and met the work or wage requirement of State law. Public Law 102-318 

suspended the restrictions on extended benefits under Federal law, however, from 
4-13 

March 7, 1993, until January 1, 1995. The Advisory Council on Unemployment 

Compensation was required to study these provisions, and it recommended that the 

Federal rules be eliminated. However, Congress has taken no action on this 

recommendation. 

U.S. Department of Labor Proposal to Use Unemployment Compensation 

Benefits for Family Leave

 On December 3, 1999, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking to create, by regulation, a voluntary experimental program 

that would give States the option of extending UC eligibility to parents who take 

time off from employment after the birth or placement for adoption of a child under 

the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-3). The program is referred 

to as the birth and adoption UC experiment, also known colloquially as “baby UI.” 

The proposal immediately drew criticism from opponents who argued that 

the proposal creates a benefit that the Congress did not intend when it created the 

Family and Medical Leave Act and such benefits would be contrary to the purpose 

of UC benefits as stated in the law. Some opponents argued that the proposal could 

not be implemented without a new law being enacted by the Congress. DOL 

disagreed with this assessment and cited the fact that much of the basic structure of 

the UC system, including the requirement that individuals be able and available for 

work, was established by regulatory guidance, rather than statute. DOL also 

suggested the change was needed to allow the UC system to keep pace with the 

changing nature of the work force, particularly the dramatic increase in the number 

of working mothers. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on 

June 13, 2000. 

 On December 4, 2002, the Bush Administration reviewed the rule. As a 

result of the review, DOL concluded that the BAA-UC experiment was “poor 

policy and a misapplication of federal UC law relating to” the requirements that 

beneficiaries be able and available for work. Since no State had enacted a 

BAA-UC program, DOL determined that terminating the experiment would not 

result in any State withdrawing benefits it had previously granted. According to 

DOL, the only effect of the removal of the regulations would be that would reduce 

State flexibility since a State could no longer elect to use its unemployment fund to 

pay BAA-UC. A final decision by DOL repealing this rule was issued on 

October 9, 2003, and goes into effect November 10, 2003. 

Ex-Service Members

 The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 

102-164) provided that ex-members of the military be treated the same as other 

unemployed workers with respect to the waiting period for benefits and benefit 

duration. Before this 1991 action, Congress had placed restrictions on benefits for 

ex-service members, so that the maximum number of weeks of benefits an 

ex-service member could receive based on employment in the military was 13 (as 

compared with 26 weeks under the regular UC Program for civilian workers). In 
4-14 

addition to a number of restrictive eligibility requirements, ex-service members had 

to wait 4 weeks from the date of their separation from the service before they could 

receive benefits. 

Pension Offset

 The Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976 (Public Law 

94-566) required all States to reduce an individual's UC by the amount of any 

government or private pension or retirement pay received by the individual. 

 Public Law 96-364, enacted in 1980, modified this offset requirement. Under 

the modified provision, States are required to make the offset only in those cases in 

which the work-related pension was maintained or contributed to by a “base 

period” or “chargeable” employer. Entitlement to and the amount and duration of 

unemployment benefits are based on work performed during this State-specified 

base period. A “chargeable” employer is one whose account will be charged for 

UC received by the individual. However, the offset must be applied for Social 

Security benefits without regard to whether base period employment contributed to 

the Social Security entitlement. 

 States are allowed to reduce the amount of these offsets by amounts 

consistent with any contributions the employee made toward the pension. This 

policy allows States to limit the offset to one-half of the amount of a Social 

Security benefit received by an individual who qualifies for unemployment 

benefits. 

Taxation of Unemployment Compensation Benefits

 The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-514) made all UC taxable after 

December 31, 1986. The Revenue Act of 1978 first made a portion of UC benefits 

taxable beginning January 1, 1979. 

 Table 4-4 illustrates the projected effect of taxing all UC benefits for the 

2003 tax law using 2000 population and incomes. This table understates the impact 

of taxation because this analysis uses data collected from a sample of households 

for the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is known to have a problem with 

respondents underestimating their annual income from various sources. In 

particular, total UC benefits reported in the CPS are equal to about two-thirds of 

benefits actually paid out. Because of this underreporting of UC benefits in the 

CPS and, consequently, underestimates of benefits paid in 2003, taxes collected on 

benefits probably will be about twice as high as the $2.0 billion shown in Table 4-4. 

AMOUNT AND DURATION OF WEEKLY BENEFITS 

 In general, the States set weekly benefit amounts as a fraction of the 

individual's average weekly wage up to some State-determined maximum. The 

total maximum duration available nationwide under permanent law is 39 weeks. 

The regular State programs usually provide up to 26 weeks. The permanent 

Federal-State Extended Benefits Program provides up to 13 additional weeks in 
4-15 

States where unemployment rates are relatively high. An additional seven weeks is 

available under a new optional trigger enacted in 1992, but only nine States have 

adopted this trigger as of July 31, 1997. The Temporary Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation (EUC) Program, which operated from November 1991 through 

April 1994, initially provided 26 to 33 weeks of Federal extended benefits and then 

provided 7 to 13 additional weeks of benefits during its final months of operation. 

A State offering this temporary program could not have offered the extended 

benefits simultaneously, however. 

TABLE 4-4--ESTIMATED EFFECT OF TAXING UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION BENEFITS BY INCOME CLASS, 2003 LAW 

(2000 POPULATION AND INCOMES) 

Level of 

Individual 

or Couple 

Income1

Number 

(In Thousands) 

of recipients of 

Unemployment 

Compensation

Number (In 

Thousands) 

Affected by 

Taxation of 

Benefits 

Percent 

Affected 

by 

Taxation

Total Amount of 

Unemployment 

Compensation 

Benefits, In 

Millions of 

Dollars 

Total 

Amount of 

Taxes on 

Benefits, 

In Millions 

of Dollars 

Taxes 

as a 

Percent 

of Total 

Benefits 

Less than $10,000 758 109 14 1,513 10 1 

$10,000 - $15,000 760 332 44 1,750 67 4 

$15,000 - $20,000 741 409 55 1,867 118 6 

$20,000 - $25,000 679 450 66 1,759 145 8 

$25,000 - $30,000 566 384 68 1,444 134 9 

$30,000 - $40,000 874 717 82 2,424 291 12 

$40,000 - $50,000 671 600 90 1,985 297 15 

$50,000 - $100,000 1,369 1,345 98 3,787 688 18 

At Least $100,000 293 293 100 1,040 292 28 

All 6,710 4,639 69 17,569 2,039 12 

1

Cash income (based on income tax filing unit) plus capital gains realizations. 

Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tax simulation model. 

 

 The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 

(TEUC) was signed into law March 9, 2003, as a part of P.L. 107-147. 

TEUC provides up to 13 weeks of additional federally funded UC benefits to 

individuals in all states who exhaust their regular UC benefits. TEUC also provides 

a second tier of up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits to individuals who exhaust 

their benefits in a high-unemployment State (TEUC-X). The TEUC program has 

been extended through March 31, 2004, by P.L. 108-1 and P.L. 108-26, with a 

phasing-out of benefits after December 31, 2003. On April 16, 2003, P.L. 108-11 

was signed into law, creating a parallel TEUC program called TEUC-A, which 

provides up to 39 weeks of benefits for displaced airline workers, and provides a 

second tier (TEUC-AX) of benefits to individuals exhausting their 

TEUC-A benefits in a high-unemployment State. 
4-16 

 The State-determined weekly benefit amounts generally replace between 

50 and 70 percent of the individual's average weekly pretax wage up to some 

State-determined maximum. The average weekly wage is often calculated only 

from the calendar quarter in the base year in which the claimant's wages were 

highest. Individual wage replacement rates tend to vary inversely with the 

claimant's average weekly pretax wage, with high wage earners receiving lower 

wage replacement rates. Thus, the national average weekly benefit amount as a 

percent of the average weekly covered wage was only 37.5 percent in the quarter 

ending December 31, 2002. 

 Table 4-5 shows the minimum and maximum weekly benefit amounts and 

potential duration for each State program. In 2002, the national average weekly 

benefit amount was $257 and the average duration was 17 weeks, making the 

average total benefits $4,369. The minimum weekly benefit amounts for 2003 vary 

from $1 in Vermont to $107 in Washington. The maximum weekly benefit 

amounts range from $133 in Puerto Rico to $760 in Massachusetts. 

 Most States vary the duration of benefits with the amount of earnings the 

claimant has in the base year. Nine States provide the same duration for all 

claimants. The minimum durations range from 3 weeks in Oregon to 26 weeks in 

9 States. The maximum duration is 26 weeks in 51 States (including the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). Two States have longer maximum 

durations. Massachusetts and Washington both provide up to 30 weeks. 

TABLE 4-5--AMOUNT AND DURATION OF WEEKLY BENEFITS FOR 

TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER THE REGULAR STATE PROGRAMS 

2003 Weekly Benefit 

Amount 

2003 Potential 

State Duration (Weeks) 

2002 Average 

Weekly 

Benefit Minimum Maximum

2002 Average 

Duration 

(Weeks) Minimum Maximum 

Alabama $167 $45 $210 13 15 26 

Alaska 193 44-68 248-320 14 16 26 

Arizona 176 40 205 17 12 26 

Arkansas 223 62 345 14 9 26 

California 217 40 370 18 14 26 

Colorado 313 25 398 15 13 26 

Connecticut 287 15-30 411-486 16 26 26 

Delaware 228 20 320 15 24 26 

District of Columbia 290 50 309 26 20 26 

Florida 225 32 275 15 9 26 

Georgia 239 40 295 13 9 26 

Hawaii 297 5 395 19 26 26 

Idaho 232 51 316 14 10 26 

Illinois 280 51-56 326-438 19 26 26 

Indiana 255 50 336 14 8 26 

Iowa 255 43-52 292-358 13 9 26 

Kansas 276 86 395 16 10 26 

Kentucky 246 39 329 15 15 26 

Louisiana 197 10 258 16 21 26 
4-17 

TABLE 4-5--AMOUNT AND DURATION OF WEEKLY BENEFITS FOR 

TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER THE REGULAR STATE PROGRAMScontinued

2003 Weekly Benefit 

Amount 

2003 Potential 

State Duration (Weeks) 

2002 Average 

Weekly 

Benefit Minimum Maximum

2002 Average 

Duration 

(Weeks) Minimum Maximum 

Maine 224 49-73 283-424 17 14 26 

Maryland 241 25-65 310 16 26 26 

Massachusetts 360 29-43 507-760 19 10 30 

Michigan 276 81-111 362 15 14 26 

Minnesota 318 38 467 17 10 26 

Mississippi 168 30 210 15 13 26 

Missouri 205 40 250 16 12.5 26 

Montana 187 70 297 15 8 26 

Nebraska 212 36 262 14 15 26 

Nevada 232 16 309 17 12 26 

New Hampshire 260 32 372 18 26 26 

New Jersey 331 61-70 475 19 15 26 

New Mexico 207 52 277 17 19 26 

New York 275 40 405 19 26 26 

North Carolina 259 34 408 13 13 26 

North Dakota 219 43 290 12 12 26 

Ohio 251 88 315-424 16 20 26 

Oklahoma 234 16 303 16 20 26 

Oregon 277 93 405 18 3 26 

Pennsylvania 291 43 451-459 17 16 26 

Puerto Rico 107 7 133 20 26 26 

Rhode Island 304 56-106 427-533 16 8 26 

South Carolina 208 20 278 14 15 26 

South Dakota 198 28 241 12 15 26 

Tennessee 210 30 275 14 13 26 

Texas 259 53 328 17 9 26 

Utah 275 23 365 15 10 26 

Vermont 250 1 351 14 26 26 

Virginia 311 59 318 14 12 26 

Virgin Islands 289 32 375 19 13 26 

Washington 329 107 496 20 16 30 

West Virginia 215 24 351 14 26 26 

Wisconsin 247 49 329 13 12 26 

Wyoming 232 21 296 10 12 26 

U.S. Average 257 NA NA 17 NA NA 1 A range of amounts is shown for those States the provide dependents' allowances. 

NA – Not applicable. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

 From 2000 to 2003, 23 States increased and 2 decreased their minimum 

weekly benefit amounts. Forty-seven States raised their maximum weekly benefit 

amounts, while no State decreased them. Seven States lowered their minimum 

potential durations, and 3 States raised their minimum duration. 
4-18 

EXTENDED BENEFITS 

 The Federal-State Extended Benefits Program is available in every State 

and provides one-half of a claimant's total State benefits up to 13 weeks in States 

with an activated program, for a combined maximum of 39 weeks of regular and 

extended benefits. Weekly benefit amounts are identical to the regular State 

UC benefits for each claimant, and Federal funds pay half the cost. The program 

activates in a State under one of two conditions: (1) if the State's 13-week average 

insured unemployment rate (IUR) in the most recent 13 weeks is at least 5.0 percent 

and at least 120 percent of the average of its 13-week IURs in the last 2 years for 

the same 13-week calendar period; or (2) at State option, if its current 13-week 

average IUR is at least 6.0 percent. All but 12 State programs have adopted the 

second, optional condition. The 13-week average IUR is calculated from the ratio 

of the average number of insured unemployed persons under the regular State 

programs in the last 13 weeks to the average covered employment in the first four 

of the last five completed calendar quarters. 

 In addition to the two automatic triggers, States have the option of electing 

an alternative trigger authorized by the Unemployment Compensation Amendments 

of 1992 (Public Law 102-318). This trigger is based on a 3-month average total 

unemployment rate (TUR) using seasonally adjusted data. If this TUR average 

exceeds 6.5 percent and is at least 110 percent of the same measure in either of the 

prior 2 years, a State can offer 13 weeks of EB. If the average TUR exceeds 

8 percent and meets the same 110-percent test, 20 weeks of EB can be offered. 

Analysis of historical data shows that this TUR trigger would have made EB more 

widely available in the past than did the IUR trigger. As of July 5, 2003, the 

TUR trigger had been authorized by nine States (Alaska, Connecticut, Kansas, 

New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Washington). As of July 2003, EB is active in three States. 

BENEFIT EXHAUSTION

 Due to the limited duration of UC benefits, some individuals exhaust their 

benefits. For the regular State programs, 4.4 million individuals exhausted their 

benefits during 12 months ending June 30, 2003, or 43.6 percent of claimants who 

began receiving UC during the 12 months ending December 2002. 

 A study of exhaustees was completed in September 1990 by Corson and 

Dynarski, under contract to the U.S. Department of Labor. The purpose of this 

study was to examine the characteristics and behavior of exhaustees and 

nonexhaustees and to explore the implications of this information. The samples 

were chosen from individuals who began collecting benefits during the period 

October 1987 through September 1988. Overall, 1,920 exhaustees and 

1,009 nonexhaustees were interviewed. 

 The study's authors reached three general conclusions: 
4-19 

1. A large proportion of UC recipients expected to be recalled to their 

previous jobs. The unemployment spells of these job-attached workers 

were considerably shorter than those of workers who suffered permanent 

job losses, and few job-attached workers exhausted their UC benefits. 

Workers who were not job-attached—in particular, workers who were 

dislocated from their previous jobs or who had low skill levels—were 

likely to experience long unemployment spells, and a significant 

proportion of these workers exhausted their UC benefits. 

2. Most workers who exhausted their benefits were still unemployed more 

than a month after receiving their final payment, and a majority were still 

unemployed 2 months after receiving their final payment. Moreover, 

workers who found jobs after exhausting their UC benefits were generally 

receiving lower wages than on their prior jobs. 

3. State exhaustion rate trigger mechanisms would not be clearly superior to 

the State IUR triggers in targeting extended benefits to areas with high 

cyclical unemployment. Substate trigger mechanisms for extended 

benefits would do a poor job of targeting extended benefits to local areas 

with high structural unemployment. 

SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS

 The Extended Benefits (EB) Program was enacted to provide unemployment 

compensation benefits to workers who had exhausted their regular benefits during 

periods of high unemployment. Before enactment of a permanent EB Program, 

Congress authorized two temporary programs, during 1958 and 1959 and again in 

1961 and 1962. The Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 

1970 authorized a permanent mechanism for providing extended benefits. Extended 

benefits rules were amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 

(Public Law 97-35) and the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992 

(Public Law 102-318). 

 During the 1970s and 1980s, temporary programs provided supplemental 

benefits to UC recipients who had exhausted both their regular and extended 

benefits during three periods of high unemployment: (1) the Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 1971, which provided benefits until March 

31, 1973; (2) the Federal Supplemental Benefits Program, first authorized by the 

Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1974, and subsequently extended 

in 1975 (twice) and in 1977; and (3) the Federal Supplemental Compensation 

Program, created by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which 

was subsequently extended and modified six times and finally expired on 

June 30, 1985. 

 In the 1990s, Congress passed the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 

Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-164) authorizing a temporary Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Program. The EUC Program, which was 

extended four times, effectively superseded the EB Program and entitled 
4-20 

individuals whose regular unemployment compensation benefits had run out to 

additional weeks of assistance. At its peak in 1992, the EUC Program provided 

benefits for 26 or 33 weeks, depending on the level of unemployment in the 

respective States. The EUC Program ended on April 30, 1994. 

 Benefits under the EUC Program were originally financed from spending 

authority in the Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA) of the 

Unemployment Trust Fund. However, depletion of EUCA led Congress to fund 

EUC from general revenues from July 1992 to October 1993. States that qualified 

for extended benefits while EUC was in effect could elect to trigger off extended 

benefits. This reduced the State funding burden because 50 percent of extended 

benefit costs are financed from State UC accounts while EUC was entirely federally 

funded. 

 Table 4-6 shows several estimates of the cost of the EUC Program at 

different points in time. A comparison of cost estimates at the time of enactment 

with later reviews shows that actual costs far exceeded anticipated costs due to 

three factors: exhaustions from the regular State program were unexpectedly near 

record levels; claimants were staying on EUC longer than expected; and large 

numbers of claimants eligible for both regular benefits and EUC were choosing 

EUC. As a result, for the periods fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 alone, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost estimates rose from $11.4 billion 

on the dates of enactment to $12.8 billion in July 1992, $18.2 billion in January 

1993, $23.4 billion in April 1993, $23.8 billion in July 1993, and finally 

$24.3 billion in January 1994—113 percent higher than originally estimated. 

Including fiscal year 1994 costs, the Clinton administration's budget released in 

July 1994 estimated the final 3-year cost of EUC benefits to be $28.5 billion, 

$13.7 billion more than OMB and $9.9 billion more than CBO had estimated on the 

date of enactment. 

 Most recently, Congress enacted the Temporary Extended Unemployment 

Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC), signed into law March 9, 2002, as part of 

P.L. 107-147. TEUC provides up to 13 weeks of additional federally funded 

benefits to individuals in all States who exhaust their regular UC benefits. TEUC 

also provides a second tier of 13 weeks of benefits to individuals who exhaust their 

benefits in a high-unemployment state (TEUC-X). On January 8, 2003, Congress 

passed S. 23 (P.L. 108-1) extending the TEUC program through August 30, 2003, 

and phasing-out benefits after May 31, 2003. On April 16, 2003, P.L. 108-11 was 

signed into law, creating a parallel TEUC program called TEUC-A. TEUC-A 

provides up to 39 weeks of benefits for displaced airline and related workers, and 

provides a second tier (TEUC-AX) of benefits to individuals exhausting their 

TEUC-A benefits in a high-unemployment state. The Congress passed H.R. 2185, 

extending the TEUC program through March 31, 2004, and the President signed 

the bill into law on May 28, 2003 (P.L. 108-26). 
4-21 

TABLE 4-6--CHANGES IN EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION OUTLAY ESTIMATES, FISCAL YEARS, 1992-1994

[In Billions of Dollars] 

Fiscal Years 

Source and time of estimate 

1992 1993 1994 

Total 

Estimates at time of enactment 

By OMB: 

Public Law 102-164, Public Law 102-182 3.0 -0.1 0 2.9 

Public Law 102-244 2.5 0.3 0 2.8 

Public Law 102-318 0.6 2.0 0 2.6 

Public Law 103-6 0 3.1 2.3 5.4 

Public Law 103-152 0 0 1.1 1.1 

Total 6.1 5.3 3.4 14.8 

By CBO: 

Public Law 102-164, Public Law 102-182 4.3 1 0 4.3 

Public Law 102-244 2.7 0.6 0 3.3 

Public Law 102-318 1.0 3.4 0 4.4 

Public Law 103-6 0 3.2 2.3 5.5 

Public Law 103-152 0 0 1.1 1.1 

Total 8.0 7.2 3.4 18.6 

OMB fiscal year 1993 Midsession review, July 1992 9.7 3.1 0 12.8 

OMB fiscal year 1994 baseline, January 1993 11.1 7.1 0 18.2 

OMB fiscal year 1994 Clinton Budget, April 1993 11.1 12.3 2.1 25.5 

OMB fiscal year 1994 Midsession review, July 1993 11.1 12.7 1.8 25.6 

OMB fisal year 1995 baseline, January 1994 11.1 13.2 3.7 28.0 

OMB fiscal year 1995 Midsession review, July 1994 11.1 13.2 4.2 28.5 1

 Less than $50,000,000. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office. 

 

HYPOTHETICAL WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNTS FOR VARIOUS 

WORKERS IN THE REGULAR STATE PROGRAMS

 Table 4-7 illustrates benefit amounts for various full-year workers in regular 

State programs for January 2003. These benefit amounts are set by the legislatures 

of the respective States. Column A of the table is for a full-time worker earning the 

minimum wage of $5.15 per hour; column B is for a worker earning $6 per hour; 

column C shows benefit amounts for a worker earning $9 per hour; and column D 

shows a part-time worker earning the minimum wage and working 20 hours per 

week. All four cases are assumed to have a nonworking spouse and column C 

assumes the worker has two children. The weekly benefit amount for the full-time 

minimum wage worker (column A) varies from $82 in North Dakota to $140 in 

Kentucky. The maximum amount a worker earning $9 per hour (column C) can 

receive varies considerably, from $133 per week in Puerto Rico to $256 in Alaska. 
4-22 

TABLE 4-7--WEEKLY STATE BENEFIT AMOUNTS FOR VARIOUS 

 FULL-YEAR WORKERS, JANUARY 2003 

Hypothetical Worker1

State 

A B C D 

Alabama $112 $130 $195 $56 

Alaska 144 158 256 102 

Arizona 107 125 187 54 

Arkansas 103 120 180 62 

California 92 108 161 46 

Colorado 124 144 216 62 

Connecticut 113 130 210 62 

Delaware 116 136 203 58 

District of Columbia 103 120 180 52 

Florida 103 120 180 52 

Georgia 116 136 203 58 

Hawaii 128 149 223 64 

Idaho 103 120 180 52 

Illinois 102 119 178 56 

Indiana 125 142 205 71 

Iowa 116 136 203 58 

Kansas 114 133 199 86 

Kentucky 140 163 245 70 

Louisiana 107 125 187 54 

Maine 132 152 243 73 

Maryland 120 138 219 65 

Massachusetts 128 145 255 77 

Michigan NA NA NA NA

Minnesota 103 120 180 52 

Mississippi 103 120 180 52 

Missouri 107 125 187 54 

Montana 107 125 187 70 

Nebraska 103 120 180 52 

Nevada 107 125 187 54 

New Hampshire 118 137 206 59 

New Jersey 124 144 216 70 

New Mexico 103 120 180 52 

New York 103 120 180 52 

North Carolina 103 120 180 52 

North Dakota 82 96 144 43 

Ohio 103 120 180 0 

Oklahoma 116 136 203 58 

Oregon 134 156 234 93 

Pennsylvania 112 130 202 59 

Puerto Rico 103 120 133 52 

Rhode Island 124 144 216 62 

South Carolina 103 120 180 52 

South Dakota 103 120 180 52 

Tennessee 103 120 180 52 

Texas 107 125 187 54 

Utah 103 120 180 52 
4-23 

TABLE 4-7--WEEKLY STATE BENEFIT AMOUNTS FOR VARIOUS 

FULL-YEAR WORKERS, JANUARY 2003-continued

Hypothetical Worker1

State 

A B C D 

Vermont 119 139 208 60 

Virginia 107 125 187 59 

Virgin Islands 103 120 180 52 

Washington 107 125 187 107 

West Virginia 107 125 187 54 

Wisconsin 107 125 187 54 

Wyoming 107 125 187 54 

1

 Hypothetical worker: 

A. $5.15/hr. wage; 40 hrs./wk; 52 wks./yr.; nonworking spouse; no children; 

B. $6.00/hr. wage; 40 hrs./wk; 52 wks./yr.; nonworking spouse; no children; 

C. $9.00/hr. wage; 40 hrs./wk; 52 wks./yr.; nonworking spouse; two children; 

D. $5.15/hr. wage; 20 hrs./wk; 52 wks./yr.; nonworking spouse; no children. 

NA - Not available. Michigan computes benefits based on after-tax wages. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND 

 The Unemployment Trust Fund has 59 accounts. The accounts consist of 

53 State UC benefit accounts, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account, the 

Railroad Administration Account, and four Federal accounts. (The railroad 

accounts are discussed in section 5 of this volume.) The Federal unified budget 

accounts for all Federal-State UC outlays and taxes in the Federal Unemployment 

Trust Fund. 

 The four Federal accounts in the trust fund are: (1) the Employment Security 

Administration Account (ESAA), which funds administration; (2) the Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA), which funds the Federal half of 

the Federal-State Extended Benefits Program; (3) the Federal Unemployment 

Account (FUA), which funds loans to insolvent State UC Programs; and (4) the 

Federal Employees' Compensation Account (FECA), which funds benefits for 

Federal civilian and military personnel authorized under 5 U.S.C. 85. The 

0.8 percent Federal share of the unemployment tax finances the ESAA, EUCA, and 

FUA, but general revenues finance the FECA. Present law authorizes 

interest-bearing loans to ESAA, EUCA, and FUA from the general fund. The three 

accounts may receive noninterest-bearing advances from one another to avoid 

insufficiencies. 

FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND 

Federal Accounts

 At the end of fiscal year 2003, the Employment Security Administration 

Account (ESAA) exceeded its fiscal year 2003 ceiling of $1.6 billion. The 

Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA) balance was below its 
4-24 

ceiling of $19.2 billion by $11.0 billion at the end of fiscal year 2003; the FUA 

balance was slightly below its $19.2 billion ceiling by $7.8 billion. Under the 

administration's fiscal year 2004 budget assumptions, the EUCA balance will not 

exceed its ceiling until fiscal year 2007, then begin to have end-of-year balances 

which slightly exceed its ceiling. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 

(P.L. 105-33) raised the ceiling on FUA assets from 0.25 to 0.5 percent of wages in 

covered employment for fiscal year 2002 and subsequent years. Like the capping of 

annual distributions at $100 million in the same law, that change was designed to 

limit Reed Act transfers to State accounts in coming years. The reason Congress 

took these actions to increase ceilings and limit outflows from the Federal funds is 

that excess funds in the Unemployment Trust Fund are included in the unified 

Federal budget and offset deficits or increase surpluses. However, in an effort to 

provide States additional resources to assist unemployed workers, 

P.L. 107-147 included a record $8 billion Reed Act transfer of funds from the 

Federal trust fund accounts into the State accounts. In March 2003 the General 

Accounting Office reported that this flexible funding source prevented State 

unemployment taxes from rising in 30 States. The FUA balance is not projected to 

exceed its statutorily set ceiling through fiscal year 2008. 

State Accounts

 The State accounts had recovered substantially from the financial problems 

that began in the 1970s and continued through the early 1980s, but the 1990-91and 

2001 recessions reversed that trend. Table 4-8 shows that the State accounts at the 

end of 2002 held $36.0 billion, which represents a modest decrease from the 

balances of $38.6 billion at the end of 1996. 

 The balances in the State accounts are well below the balances in the early 

1970s (after adjusting for inflation) before serious financial problems began for 

most States. State reserve ratios (trust fund balances divided by total wages paid in 

the respective States during the year) show that a number of State accounts are at 

risk of financial problems in major recessions. The third column from the right 

margin of Table 4-8 shows that these State ratios in 2002 are only 32 percent of 

their levels in 1970. 

 The second-to-last column of Table 4-8 shows for each State the 2002 

average “high-cost multiple, the ratio of the State's reserve ratio to its highest cost 

rate. The highest cost rate is determined by choosing the highest ratio of costs to 

total covered wages paid in a prior year. States with average high-cost multiples of 

at least 1.0 have reserves that could withstand a recession as bad as the worst one 

they have experienced previously. States with average high-cost multiples below 

1.0 may face greater risk of insolvency during recessions. 

 Thirty-one States had average high-cost multiples below 1.0; 26 had average 

high-cost multiples below 0.8; and 11 had average high-cost multiples at or below 

0.5. Based on this measure, States with the highest risk factor were Alabama, 

Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Oregon and Texas. 
4-25 

 Table 4-9 summarizes the beginning balances in the various 

Unemployment Trust Fund accounts for selected fiscal years. At the start of fiscal 

year 2003,the 4 Federal accounts and the 53 State benefit accounts had a total 

balance of $69.3 billion. In real terms this represents a level 20 percent higher 

 than that of 1971. This increase in real dollars does not allow for the erosion 

implied by the large increase in the labor force over this time period. Overall, a 

better measure of readiness for a recession is the ratio of the 2002:1970 reserve 

ratios in Table 4-8, which shows that aggregate reserves in 2002 relative to wages 

were a significantly less than one third the 1970 level. 

 Whether the State trust fund balances are adequate is ultimately a matter 

about which each State must decide. States have a great deal of autonomy in how 

they establish and run their unemployment system. However, the framework 

established by the Federal Government requires States to actually pay the level of 

benefits they determine to be appropriate; in budget terms, unemployment benefits 

are an entitlement (although the program is financed by a dedicated tax imposed on 

employers and employees and not by general revenues). Thus, if a recession hits a 

given State and results in a depletion of that State's trust account, the State is 

legally required to continue paying benefits. To do so, the State will be forced to 

borrow money from the Federal Unemployment Account. As a result, not only will 

the State be required to continue paying benefits, it will also be required to repay 

the funds plus interest it has borrowed from the Federal loan account. 

Such States will probably be forced to raise taxes on their employers, an action 

that dampens economic growth and job creation. In short, States have strong 

incentives to keep adequate funds in their trust fund accounts. 

THE FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 

 FUTA imposes a minimum, net Federal payroll tax on employers of 

0.8 percent on the first $7,000 paid annually to each employee. The current gross 

FUTA tax rate is 6.2 percent, but employers in States meeting certain Federal 

requirements and having no delinquent Federal loans are eligible for a 5.4 percent 

credit, making the current minimum, net Federal tax rate 0.8 percent. Since most 

employees earn more than the $7,000 taxable wage ceiling, the FUTA tax typically 

is $56 per worker ($7,000 X 0.8 percent), or three cents per hour for a full-time 

worker. The 1997 budget bill extended the 0.2 percent surtax through 2007. 

 The wage base for the Federal tax was held constant at $3,000 until 1971, 

and then was increased on three occasions, most recently in 1983. 

 Chart 4-2 depicts the historical trends in the statutory and effective Federal 

unemployment tax rates. The effective tax rate equals FUTA revenue as a percent 

of total covered wages. Although the statutory tax rate doubled from 0.4 percent in 

the late 1960s to 0.8 percent in the late 1980s, the effective tax rate has fluctuated 

between 0.2 and 0.3 percent in most of those years. 
TABLE 4-8--FINANCIAL CONDITION OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 

SELECTED YEARS 1970-2002 

Net Reserves in Millions of Dollars at the end 

of the Calendar Year 

Reserve Ratios 

by Year 

Average hi

State cost multip

1970 1979 1982 1996 2002 1970 1979 1982 1996 2002 

2002 Reserves as 

Percentage of 

1970 Reserves 2002 Ra

Alabama 130 118 9 483 321 2.96 0.98 0.06 1.42 0.73 25 0.49 4Alaska 35 65 134 194 233 5.51 2.78 2.94 3.42 3.12 57 1.00 2

Arizona 119 226 215 627 926 4.25 2.36 1.66 1.64 1.53 36 1.53 8 Arkansas 49 24 -77 203 124 2.26 0.37 -1.00 1.11 0.50 22 0.30 4California 1,219 2,738 2,708 2,877 3,703 2.91 2.51 1.83 0.90 0.78 27 0.52 4

Colorado 910 137 -4 511 472 2.54 1.11 -0.02 1.24 0.72 28 0.65 3Connecticut 252 -267 -252 278 548 0.08 -1.70 -1.21 0.62 0.90 1125 0.64 3

Delaware 22 -30 -35 258 294 1.72 -1.06 -0.96 2.96 2.23 130 1.70 7 

District of Columbia 74 -44 -57 99 290 3.22 -1.05 -1.03 0.80 1.48 46 1.11 2Florida 268 665 865 1,948 1,713 2.60 2.13 1.89 1.59 0.92 35 1.12 1Georgia 340 447 397 1,634 1,245 4.74 2.28 1.49 2.19 1.13 24 1.17 1Hawaii 44 79 108 22 305 2.90 2.24 2.43 2.04 2.45 84 1.45 1

Idaho 46 93 29 266 195 5.16 3.20 0.85 3.06 1.60 31 0.67 3Illinois 401 -460 -2,069 1,639 448 1.55 -0.80 -3.18 1.19 0.24 16 0.10 5

Indiana 326 418 63 1,273 1,125 3.13 1.69 0.23 2.19 1.53 49 1.13 1Iowa 125 155 -63 719 759 3.19 1.45 -0.55 3.00 2.36 74 1.12 1

Kansas 84 238 142 651 416 3.00 2.75 1.29 2.58 1.15 38 0.75 3

Kentucky 175 159 -121 501 488 4.21 1.36 -0.90 1.67 1.19 28 0.53 4Louisiana 146 238 -102 1,131 1,545 2.91 1.51 -0.47 3.45 3.59 123 1.32 1

Maine 39 0 -4 112 455 2.86 0.00 -0.09 1.22 3.56 124 1.84 5 Maryland 213 273 220 691 781 3.26 1.83 1.11 1.52 1.14 35 0.78 2

Massachusetts 378 132 436 915 920 3.04 0.51 1.23 1.17 0.80 26 0.44 4Michigan 491 112 -2,186 1,831 2,076 2.49 0.25 -4.64 1.47 1.58 63 0.53 3

Minnesota. 119 70 -288 513 131 1.76 0.41 -1.36 0.99 0.18 10 0.11 5Mississippi 85 231 257 553 684 3.87 3.47 3.12 3.13 3.02 78 1.92 4 
Missouri 264 296 -64 308 137 3.03 1.47 -0.27 0.61 0.20 7 0.15 4

Montana 26 16 9 126 207 3.33 0.65 0.27 2.10 2.60 78 1.53 9 Nebraska 55 81 72 195 153 2.87 1.58 1.14 1.40 0.79 28 0.82 2Nevada 39 95 122 348 463 3.20 2.31 2.02 1.87 1.57 49 0.93 2

New Hampshire 55 82 75 268 289 4.62 2.42 1.60 2.32 1.68 36 1.79 6 

New Jersey 448 -507 -423 2,029 2,306 2.76 -1.50 -0.97 2.06 1.63 59 0.84 2

New Mexico 40 80 101 386 600 3.45 2.14 1.98 3.46 3.88 112 2.77 1 New York 1,693 403 819 470 1,279 3.76 0.51 0.78 0.23 0.00 0 -0.05 5North Carolina 414 564 400 1,336 189 5.22 2.71 1.52 1.92 0.19 4 0.14 4

North Dakota 13 21 11 50 46 2.53 1.13 0.46 1.20 0.80 32 0.38 4

Ohio 693 513 -1,658 1,751 1,537 3.01 1.02 -3.04 1.56 1.09 36 0.45 4Oklahoma 55 177 108 564 451 1.69 1.56 0.62 2.43 1.39 82 1.10 2

Oregon 122 320 161 941 1,283 3.39 3.00 1.37 3.19 3.22 95 1.28 1

Pennsylvania 852 -1,091 -2,145 2,032 1,710 3.53 -2.18 -3.75 1.85 1.14 32 0.40 4

Puerto Rico 85 -33 -47 596 527 4.90 -0.88 -1.11 5.91 3.96 81 1.23 1Rhode Island 75 -96 -76 116 254 4.34 -2.75 -1.81 1.38 2.20 51 0.75 3South Carolina 166 195 50 603 529 4.61 1.96 0.40 1.95 1.28 28 0.87 2South Dakota 8 16 9 50 52 3.81 0.95 0.43 1.01 0.74 19 0.82 2

Tennessee 212 264 15 827 592 3.57 1.63 0.08 1.63 0.87 24 0.60 3

Texas 337 396 142 642 153 1.90 0.65 -0.16 0.36 0.00 0 -0.04 5

Utah 51 67 10 524 482 3.55 1.43 0.16 3.12 1.97 55 1.22 1Vermont 26 -21 -27 218 290 3.72 -1.30 -1.29 4.63 4.42 119 2.34 3

Virginia 218 103 14 897 580 3.41 0.56 0.06 1.40 0.59 17 0.69 3Virgin Islands NA -7 -3 42 53 NA -2.96 -0.55 7.42 6.26 NA 2.49 2 

Washington 226 297 150 1,333 1,320 3.73 1.66 0.70 2.66 1.74 47 0.73 3West Virginia 108 39 -145 157 257 4.07 0.56 -1.85 1.36 1.81 44 0.57 3Wisconsin 322 465 -413 1,557 1,328 4.29 2.37 -1.53 3.10 1.96 46 0.77 2Wyoming 19 69 46 147 198 4.29 3.15 1.51 4.32 3.87 90 1.52 1

Total 11,903 8,583 -2,645 38,632 36,031 3.11 0.91 -0.24 1.48 0.98 32 0.61 -

NA - Not available. Source: U.S. Department of Labor (April 2003). Fourth Quarter CY 2002 UI Data Summary. Washington, D.C. 
4-28 

TABLE 4-9--BEGINNING-OF-YEAR BALANCES IN UNEMPLOYMENT 

TRUST FUND ACCOUNTS, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1971-2003 

[In Millions of Dollars]

Account 1971 1976 1980 1983 1997 2000 2003 

Employment Security Administration $65 $365 $572 $545 $2,899 $3,066 $3,518 

Extended Unemployment 

Compensation 0 116 764 483 9,466 13,147 12,865 

Federal Unemployment 

(Reserve for State loans) 575 9 567 599 6,747 7,216 11,442 

Federal Employees' Compensation 1 1 1

 24 262 297 90 

State Unemployment Compensation 2 12,409 6,145 8,272 720 43,657 48,290 41,366 

Total: Nominal Dollars 13,049 6,635 10,175 2,371 63,031 72,013 69,281 

Total: Real Dollars 3 57,970 20,978 20,150 4,283 70,650 75,230 69,281 

1

 There was no separate account for Federal Employees' Compensation for this year. 

2

 Figures are net of loans from Federal funds. $8 Billion in Reed Act distributions authorized in 

March 2002 under P.L. 107-147 are included. 3 Real dollars are obtained using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the 

preceding fiscal years. 

Source: U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt. 

CHART 4-2--HISTORY OF FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX RATE, 

1954-2002

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES 

 The States finance their programs and half of the permanent Extended 

Benefits Program with employer payroll taxes imposed on at least the first 

$7,000 paid annually to each employee.1

 States have adopted taxable wage bases 

Tax Rates in Percent

Year 

Statutory 

Effective 
4-29 

at least as high as the Federal level because they otherwise would lose the 

5.4 percent credit to employers on the difference between the Federal and State 

taxable wage bases. Table 4-10 shows that, as of January 2003, 42 States had 

taxable wage bases higher than the Federal taxable wage base, ranging up to 

$30,200 in Hawaii. 

 In most States the standard tax rate for employers is 5.4 percent. However, 

State employer taxes are based on employers experience with the unemployment 

compensation system. This experience rated State tax can range from zero on some 

employers in 13 States up to a maximum as high as 10 percent in 4 States 

and over 10 percent in 3 States. 

 Estimated national average State tax rates on taxable wages and total wages 

for 2003 were 2.1 and 0.6 percent, respectively. Estimated average State tax rates 

on taxable wages ranged from 0.3 percent in Virginia to 4.2 percent in New York 

and Pennsylvania. Estimated average State tax rates on total wages varied from 

0.1 percent in Virginia to 1.5 percent in Washington. 

1

 Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also tax employees directly. 

TABLE 4-10--STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 

BASES AND RATES, 2003 

Estimated 2003 Average Tax 

Rate as a Percent of 2003 Experience Rates 1

State 

Taxable wages All wages 

2003 

Tax Base 

Minimum Maximum 

Alabama 1.4 0.5 $8,000 0.20 6.80 

Alaska 1.9 1.2 26,700 1.00 5.40 

Arizona 0.8 0.2 7,000 0.50 5.40 

Arkansas 2.5 0.9 9,000 0.10 6.80 

California 3.1 0.6 7,000 0.10 5.40 

Colorado 1.1 0.3 10,000 0.00 5.40 

Connecticut 2.4 0.7 15,000 0.50 6.90 

Delaware 2.3 0.6 8,500 0.10 9.50 

District of Columbia 2.1 0.4 9,000 0.10 7.40 

Florida 1.4 0.4 7,000 0.00 6.40 

Georgia 0.5 0.2 8,500 0.13 10.80 

Hawaii 1.7 1.2 30,200 0.00 5.40 

Idaho 1.2 0.8 27,600 0.10 6.80 

Illinois 2.8 0.7 9,000 0.20 9.00 

Indiana 1.8 0.5 7,000 0.10 5.60 

Iowa 1.5 0.8 18,600 0.00 9.00 

Kansas 2.5 0.7 8,000 0.01 7.40 

Kentucky 2.4 0.7 8,000 0.30 10.00 

Louisiana 1.7 0.5 7,000 0.90 6.00 

Maine 1.4 0.6 12,000 0.50 7.50 

Maryland 1.6 0.4 8,500 0.10 9.50 

Massachusetts 2.6 0.8 10,800 0.60 9.30 

Michigan 3.5 0.9 9,000 0.00 10.00 
4-30 

TABLE 4-10--STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 

BASES AND RATES, 2003-continued

Estimated 2003 Average Tax 

Rate as a Percent of 

2003 

Experience Rates 1 State 

Taxable wages All wages 

2003 

Tax Base Minimum Maximum 

Minnesota 1.4 0.7 22,000 0.10 9.50 

Mississippi 1.8 0.6 7,000 0.10 5.40 

Missouri 1.9 0.2 7,500 0.00 8.70 

Montana 1.1 0.7 19,700 0.00 6.37 

Nebraska 2.0 0.4 7,000 NA 5.40 

Nevada 1.3 0.8 21,500 0.25 5.40 

New Hampshire 0.8 0.2 8,000 0.05 6.50 

New Jersey 1.7 0.7 23,900 0.30 7.00 

New Mexico 0.9 0.5 16,000 0.05 5.40 

New York 4.2 0.9 8,500 2.40 8.90 

North Carolina 1.7 0.8 15,900 0.00 5.40 

North Dakota 1.6 0.9 18,000 0.10 5.4 

Ohio 1.6 0.5 9,000 0.10 6.70 

Oklahoma 1.1 0.4 11,700 0.10 5.50 

Oregon 2.3 1.4 26,000 0.50 5.40 

Pennsylvania 4.2 1.0 8,000 0.30 10.59 

Puerto Rico 3.4 1.3 7,000 1.00 5.40 

Rhode Island 2.8 1.1 12,000 0.60 10.00 

South Carolina 1.9 0.5 7,000 0.54 6.10 

South Dakota 0.6 0.2 7,000 0.00 10.50 

Tennessee 2.4 0.6 7,000 0.00 10.00 

Texas 1.3 0.4 9,000 0.00 6.00 

Utah 0.5 0.3 22,000 0.10 8.10 

Vermont 2.0 0.6 8,000 0.40 8.40 

Virginia 0.2 0.1 8,000 0.00 6.40 

Virgin Islands 1.0 0.3 18,000 0.10 9.50 

Washington 2.5 1.5 28,500 0.47 5.40 

West Virginia 2.8 0.9 8,000 0.00 8.50 

Wisconsin 1.9 0.6 10,500 0.00 8.90 

Wyoming 0.8 0.4 14,700 0.00 8.50 

U.S. Average 2.1 0.6 NA NA NA 

1

 Actual rates could be higher if State has an additional tax. 

2

 Rate not specified. 

NA - Not applicable. 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

 Table 4-11 shows recent State data on unemployment compensation covered 

employment, wages, taxable wages, the ratio of taxable to total wages, and average 

weekly wages. The ratio of taxable wages to total wages varied from 0.16 in New 

York and the District of Columbia to 0.57 in Montana. 
4-31 

TABLE 4-11--TWELVE-MONTH AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES 

COVERED BY STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAXATION FOR PERIOD 

ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 

State 

Covered 

Employment 

(Thousands) 

Total 

Wages 

(Millions) 

Taxable 

Wages 

(Millions) 

Ratio of 

Taxable Wages 

to Total Wages

Average 

Weekly Total 

Wages 

Alabama 1,782 $53,871 $13,119 0.24 $581 

Alaska 270 9,660 4,700 0.49 688 

Arizona 2,187 73,266 15,624 0.21 644 

Arkansas 1,099 30,231 8,915 0.30 529 

California 14,598 600,068 99,732 0.17 791 

Colorado 2,108 79,154 20,686 0.26 722 

Connecticut 1,633 76,384 19,483 0.26 899 

Delaware 397 15,726 3,095 0.20 762 

District of Columbia 456 24,270 3,831 0.16 1,023 

Florida 7,033 223,911 49,672 0.22 612 

Georgia 3,733 131,504 30,647 0.23 677 

Hawaii 524 16,397 8,557 0.52 602 

Idaho 556 15,383 8,410 0.55 532 

Illinois 5,696 244,143 46,015 0.21 757 

Indiana 2,796 89,850 18,551 0.21 618 

Iowa 1,394 40,825 17,346 0.43 563 

Kansas 1,282 38,928 13,187 0.34 584 

Kentucky 1,682 51,078 12,214 0.24 584 

Louisiana 1,817 53,689 11,596 0.22 568 

Maine 577 16,756 5,353 0.32 559 

Maryland 2,299 86,782 17,706 0.20 726 

Massachusetts 3,160 141,559 33,822 0.24 862 

Michigan 4,352 164,264 36,087 0.22 726 

Minnesota. 2,550 94,533 36,608 0.39 713 

Mississippi 1,079 28,068 7,037 0.25 500 

Missouri 2,573 84,272 16,593 0.20 630 

Montana 373 9,371 5,326 0.57 484 

Nebraska 860 24,867 5,305 0.21 556 

Nevada 1,024 34,199 17,197 0.50 643 

New Hampshire 595 21,330 4,356 0.21 689 

New Jersey 3,795 170,565 64,728 0.38 864 

New Mexico 705 20,054 7,990 0.40 547 

New York 8,146 375,843 58,081 0.16 887 

North Carolina 3,693 119,515 44,109 0.37 622 

North Dakota 302 7,816 3,193 0.41 499 

Ohio 5,268 177,515 40,812 0.23 648 

Oklahoma 1,400 39,050 12,583 0.32 536 

Oregon 1,544 51,267 24,646 0.48 639 

Pennsylvania 5,403 190,665 37,685 0.20 679 

Puerto Rico 979 19,558 5,205 0.27 384 

Rhode Island 458 15,547 4,380 0.28 653 

South Carolina 1,736 51,319 11,458 0.22 569 

South Dakota 352 9,041 2,153 0.24 494 
4-32 

TABLE 4-11--TWELVE-MONTH AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES 

COVERED BY STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAXATION FOR PERIOD 

ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002-continued

State 

Covered 

Employment 

(Thousands) 

Total 

Wages 

(Millions) 

Taxable 

Wages 

(Millions) 

Ratio of 

Taxable Wages 

to Total Wages

Average 

Weekly Total 

Wages 

Tennessee 2,548 81,445 17,426 0.21 615 

Texas 9,090 326,430 76,338 0.23 691 

Utah 1,007 30,213 14,392 0.48 577 

Vermont 290 8,828 1,955 0.22 586 

Virginia 3,261 117,953 24,881 0.21 696 

Virgin Islands 42 1,257 485 0.39 570 

Washington 2,578 97,081 44,935 0.46 724 

West Virginia 662 18,448 4,525 0.25 536 

Wisconsin 2,660 85,445 22,533 0.26 618 

Wyoming 232 6,579 2,452 0.37 546 

Total 126,633 4,575,723 1,117,233 0.24 695 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. 

ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCING AND ALLOCATION

 State unemployment compensation administrative expenses are federally 

financed. A portion of revenue raised by FUTA is designated for administration and 

for maintaining a system of public employment offices. As explained above, 

FUTA revenue flows into three Federal accounts in the Unemployment Trust Fund. 

One of these accounts, the Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA), 

finances administrative costs associated with Federal and State unemployment 

compensation and employment services. 

 Under current law, 80 percent of FUTA revenue is allocated to ESAA and 

20 percent to another Federal account (Chart 4-3). Funds for administration are 

limited to 95 percent of the estimated annual revenue that is expected to flow to 

ESAA from the FUTA tax. However, funds for administration may be augmented 

by three-eighths of the amount in ESAA at the beginning of the fiscal year, or 

$150 million, whichever is less, if the rate of insured unemployment is at least 

15 percent higher than it was over the corresponding calendar quarter in the 

immediately preceding year. 

 Title III of the Social Security Act authorizes payment to each State with an 

approved unemployment compensation law of such amounts as are deemed 

necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the UC Program during the 

fiscal year. Allocations are based on: (1) the population of the State; (2) an estimate 

of the number of persons covered by the State unemployment insurance law; (3) an 

estimate of the cost of proper and efficient administration of such law; and (4) such 

other factors as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) finds 

relevant.

 Subject to the limit of available resources, the allocation of State grants for 

administration is the sum of resources made available for two major areas, the 
4-33 

CHART 4-3--FLOW OF FUTA FUNDS UNDER EXISTING 

 FEDERAL STATUTES 

0.8% Employer Tax1

p

Monthly Transfer of All Net Collections 

p

 

Monthly transfers = 

20% of net 

collections unless 

statutory limit is 

reached 

Excess if (2) 

is over 

statutory 

limit on 

September 

30 of any 

year 

Excess if (1) is 

over statutory 

limit on 

October 1 of 

any year and (2) 

is not over its 

statutory limit 

Excess if (3) is 

over statutory 

limit on 

September 30 

of any year 

Excess if 

(1) and (2) 

are over 

statutory 

limit on 

October 1 

of any year 

and (3) is 

not 

p p p

(2) EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION ACCOUNT 

(EUCA) – for financing FederalState EB Programs 

 (3) FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT 

ACCOUNT (FUA) – for repayable 

advances to States with depleted 

reserves 

Statutory limit: 0.5% of total wages in 

covered employment in preceding 

calendar year. 

 Statutory limit: 0.5% of total wages in 

covered employment in preceding 

calendar year. 

If (1), (2), and (3) are over statutory limit on October 1 of any year, excess funds are distributed 

to State trust fund accounts if there are no outstanding advances from General Revenue to 

either FUA or EUCA. 

1

 Effective tax, after 5.4 is offset against 6.2 percent Federal unemployment tax. Effective 

rate is scheduled to drop to 0.6 percent on January 1, 2008. 

Source: Chart prepared by the Nation Foundation for Unemployment Compensation & 

Workers’ Compensation. 

(1) EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT (ESAA) – for financing 

administrative costs of the employment security program. Monthly 0.64% of the 0.8% 

employer tax is to be retained in the ESAA account while 0.16% is to be transferred to (2). Up 

to 95% after transfers to (2) may be appropriated to finance State administrative costs; balance 

available to meet Federal administrative costs. 

Statutory limit retained in this account at the beginning of a fiscal year is 40% of the 

appropriation for the prior fiscal year. 

 
4-34 

Unemployment Insurance Service (UI) and the Employment Service (ES). Each 

area has its own allocation methodology subject to general constraints set forth in 

the Social Security Act and the Wagner-Peyser Act. 

 Each year, as part of the development of the President's budget, the DOL, in 

conjunction with the Department of Treasury, estimates revenue expected from 

FUTA and the appropriate amount to be available for administration. The estimate 

of FUTA revenues is based on several factors: (1) a wage base of $7,000 per 

employee; (2) a tax rate of 0.8 percent (0.64 percentage points for administration 

and 0.16 percentage points for extended benefits); (3) the administration's 

projection of the level of unemployment and the growth in wages; and (4) the level 

of covered employment subject to FUTA. In addition, a determination is made 

based on the administration's forecast for unemployment as to whether the rate will 

increase by at least 15 percent. 

 Each year the President's budget sets forth an estimate of national 

unemployment in terms of the volume of unemployment claims per week. This is 

characterized as average weekly insured unemployment (AWIU). A portion of 

AWIU is expressed as “base” and the remainder as “contingency.” At the present 

time, the base is set at the level of resources required to process an average weekly 

volume of 2.0 million weeks of unemployment. 

 Resources available to each State to administer its UC Program (i.e., process 

claims and pay benefits) are provided from either “base” funds or “contingency” 

funds. At the beginning of the fiscal year, only the base funds are allocated, while 

contingency funds are allocated on a needs basis as workload materializes. Base 

funds are distributed to the State for use throughout the fiscal year and are available 

regardless of the level of unemployment (workload) realized. If a State processes 

workloads in excess of the base level, it receives contingency funds determined by 

the extent of the resources required to process the additional workload. 

 The allocation of the base UC grant funds to each State is made by: 

1. Projecting the workloads that each State is expected to process; 

2. Determining the staff required to process each State's projected workload; 

3. Multiplying the final staff-year allocations for each State by the cost per 

staff year (i.e., State salary and benefit level) to determine dollar funding 

levels; and 

4. Allocating overhead resources (administrative and management staff and 

nonpersonal services). 

 Each DOL regional office may redistribute resources among the States in its 

area with national office approval. The 1997 budget bill authorized funds over 

5 years specifically for program integrity activities such as claims review and 

employer tax audits to assist the States in strengthening their efforts to reduce 

administrative error and fraud. 

 In Public Law 102-164, Congress required the DOL to study the allocation 

process and recommend improvements. Public Law 102-318 extended the 

study deadline to December 31, 1994. The Department has not yet submitted the 

report to Congress. 
4-35 

 Total grants to States for administrative costs represent about 53 percent of 

total FUTA tax collections in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the Reed Act transfer of 

$8 billion provided to states under P.L. 107-147 could be used by states for 

administrative purposes. There continues to be considerable interest among State 

Employment Security Agencies in recent years in having more of the FUTA 

revenue returned to the States for administrative expenses. In the 108th Congress, 

legislation has been introduced which would change the administrative financing of 

the UC Program. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

 Major Federal laws passed by Congress since 1990 and their key provisions 

are as follows: 

 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) 

extended the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax for 5 years through 1995. 

 The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 

102-164) established temporary emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) 

benefits through July 4, 1992. It returned to States the option of covering 

nonprofessional school employees between school terms and restored benefits for 

ex-military members to the same duration and waiting period applicable to other 

unemployed workers. It extended the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax for 1 year through 

1996. 

 The Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 

102-318) extended EUC for claims filed through March 6, 1993, and reduced the 

benefit periods to 20 and 26 weeks. The law also gave claimants eligible for both 

EUC and regular benefits the right to choose the more favorable of the two. States 

were authorized, effective March 7, 1993, to adopt an alternative trigger for the 

Federal-State EB Program. This trigger is based on a 3-month average total 

unemployment rate and can activate either a 13- or a 20-week benefit period 

depending on the rate. 

 The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 

(Public Law 103-6) extended EUC for claims filed through October 2, 1993. The 

law also authorized funds for automated State systems to identify permanently 

displaced workers for early intervention with reemployment services. 

 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66) 

extended the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax for 2 years through 1998. 

 The Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 (Public Law 

103-152) extended EUC for claims filed through February 5, 1994, and set the 

benefit periods at 7 and 13 weeks. It repealed a provision passed in 1992 that 

allowed claimants to choose between EUC and regular State benefits. It required 

States to implement a “profiling” system to identify UI claimants most likely to 

need job search assistance to avoid long-term unemployment. 

 The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 

103-182) gave States the option of continuing UC benefits for claimants who elect