Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants
Published: 2005-06-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: With unemployed workers at a greater risk of long-term unemployment than in the past, it is increasingly important to quickly connect Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants with reemployment activities. However, the shift to remote claims filing in many states has raised concerns about maintaining a connection between the UI program and reemployment services. This report examines (1) the extent to which states have shifted to remote claims filing and how they are making claimants aware of program requirements and services, (2) what states are doing to facilitate reemployment of UI claimants, and (3) what is known about the extent to which UI claimants receive reemployment services and about their outcomes.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone, the Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer have face-to-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all states told us they have found ways to provide information on eligibility requirements and reemployment services to individuals filing claims, such as by including this information in the scripts used by claims takers at UI call centers or as documents on Web pages. Officials from most states told us the shift to remote claims has not diminished their ability to provide information or deliver services to claimants. In fact, some report that this shift may have improved their ability to serve their customers. cross states, claimants have access to a variety of reemployment services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect claimants with available services at various points in their claim. All federally approved state UI programs require that claimants be able and available to work, and in many states these requirements also serve to link claimants to reemployment services. States also engage some claimants in reemployment services through programs that identify certain groups for more targeted assistance. States primarily target reemployment services to claimants identified as most likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work, through federally required claimant profiling programs. Little is known about the extent to which claimants receive services from the broad array of programs designed to assist them or about the outcomes they achieve. States must meet a number of federal reporting requirements for their UI and employment and training programs, but none of these reports provides a complete picture of the services received or the outcomes obtained by UI claimants. GAO also found that few states monitor the extent to which claimants are receiving these services, and even fewer monitor outcomes for these claimants, largely due to limited information systems capabilities. Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant services and outcomes, but none will provide a complete picture.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the past several decades, both the U.S. economy and its workforce  have undergone substantial changes. Unemployed workers are now less  likely to be rehired by their previous employers and are at greater risk of  long-term unemployment than in the past. Over the past five decades, the  average duration of unemployment has been gradually increasing, so that  during 2002 periods of unemployment grew to an average of 16.6 weeks,  compared with 11.3 weeks during the 1950s. To assist workers who have  lost their jobs, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program provided about  $35 billion in temporary income support in calendar year 2004. The cost of  providing this income support, coupled with a growing trend toward  longer-term unemployment, increases the importance of quickly linking UI  claimants to the tools they need to become reemployed.
To be eligible for income support under the UI program, claimants must  meet a federal requirement to be able to work and available for work.  Traditionally, claimants were required to apply for benefits in person at an  unemployment office, and information on available jobs and what they  must do to remain eligible for benefits was often given to them as part of  that process. However, over time many states have transitioned to the  remote filing of UI claims—primarily by telephone or the Internet—and  claimants have less face-to-face contact with staff. The shift to remote  claims filing has raised concerns about maintaining a connection between  the UI program and reemployment services.
At the same time, the workforce development system—responsible for  helping these workers become reemployed—has undergone reform. With  the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, services for  over 17 different federally funded programs have been streamlined into a  single service delivery structure, the one-stop system, and a broad range of  services are made available to anyone who walks through the door. To be  able to make these services available to all who seek them, state and local  officials have begun to rely more heavily on self-directed services, such as  allowing job seekers to use available Internet capabilities to conduct  online job searches or to use available computers to develop resumes  without staff assistance. This shift in service delivery strategy has raised  concerns that some UI claimants may not be receiving enough information  on reemployment services or timely assistance to help them find a job, and  little is known about whether states have policies in place to help  unemployed workers quickly become reemployed.
To address these issues, we examined (1) the extent to which states have  shifted to remote methods for filing initial claims and how they are making  claimants aware of their responsibilities to look for work and the services  available to assist them, (2) what states are doing to facilitate the  reemployment of UI claimants, and (3) what is known about the extent to  which UI claimants receive reemployment services and about the  outcomes of claimants who receive these services.
To learn more about the strategies implemented by state and local officials  to promote participation in activities that may assist claimants in getting a  job, we conducted telephone interviews with UI and workforce  development officials in 50 states. For purposes of this review, we defined  reemployment services to mean all reemployment activities funded  through Wagner-Peyser; WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker services; any  other training or job search assistance provided using federal funds, such  as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA); and any state-funded  reemployment or training services. We supplemented the phone interviews  with a follow-up questionnaire to gather information on the strategies  states use to collect data on UI claimants who receive reemployment  services. In addition, we conducted site visits to four states—Georgia,  Maryland, Michigan, and Washington—chosen to give us a range of  unemployment rates, dislocation activity, and experiences implementing  remote claims, and to allow for geographic dispersion. On our site visits,  we interviewed state officials in the workforce development system and UI  programs and visited at least two local areas in each state, selected to  provide a range of urban and rural sites. In addition, we reviewed  documents and interviewed Department of Labor (Labor) officials and  other experts in the area of UI and reemployment services. For details  about our scope and methodology, see appendix I. Our work was  conducted between February 2004 and May 2005, in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The UI program was established by Title III of the Social Security Act in  1935 and is a key component in ensuring the financial security of  America’s workforce. The program, which is administered by the states  with oversight from Labor’s Employment and Training Administration  (ETA), provides temporary cash benefits to workers who lose their jobs  through no fault of their own. Today UI coverage is nearly universal,  extending to almost all wage and salaried workers. To help claimants  become reemployed, employment and training assistance is provided  through a number of federal programs, including Wagner-Peyser  Employment Service, WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and TAA  programs.
subsections: section_title: Unemployment Insurance—Structure of the Program
paragraphs: The UI program is funded by federal and state taxes levied on employers.  The states collect the portion of the tax needed to pay UI benefits, while  the federal tax finances state and federal administrative costs and other  related federal costs. Labor holds these funds in trust on behalf of the  states in the Unemployment Trust Fund. In fiscal year 2004, Congress  authorized about $2.6 billion to states to administer their programs.
Labor is responsible for overseeing the UI program to ensure that the  states operate an effective and efficient UI program. Labor is also  responsible for monitoring state operations and procedures, providing  technical assistance and training, as well as analyzing UI program data to  diagnose potential problems. Although Labor provides oversight and  guidance to ensure that each state operates its program consistent with  federal guidelines, the federal-state structure of UI places primary  responsibility for administering the program on the states. The states have  wide latitude to administer their UI programs in a manner that best suits  their needs within these guidelines.
States establish initial eligibility requirements to determine which  unemployed workers are qualified to start collecting UI benefits. These  requirements seek to ensure that an unemployed worker has had sufficient  employment experience to qualify for UI benefits (known as the monetary  eligibility requirements), and to determine whether the worker lost the job  through no fault of his or her own (the nonmonetary eligibility  requirements). State claims representatives are responsible for  determining each claimant’s initial eligibility for UI benefits by gathering  and (when possible) verifying important information, such as identity,  employment history, why the claimants is no longer working, and other  sources of income the claimant may have. Once the claim has been  submitted for processing, the state sends forms to the claimant’s  employer(s) requesting them to verify the claimant’s wages and the reason  the claimant is no longer working. If the individual’s claim for UI is  approved, the state then determines the amount of UI benefits, depending  on the individual’s earnings during the period upon which the claim is  based and other factors. In general, most states are expected to provide  the first benefits to the claimant within 21 days of the date the state  determined that the claimant was entitled to benefits.
In order to remain eligible for benefits on a continuing basis, claimants  must also demonstrate that they are able to work and available for work  and are still unemployed. Claimants must submit this certification of  continuing eligibility—by mail, telephone, or Internet, depending on the  state—throughout the benefit period. This practice is usually done weekly  or biweekly. States may continue to monitor claimant eligibility through an  eligibility review program, in which certain claimants are periodically  contacted to review their eligibility for benefits, work search activities,  and reemployment needs. Typically, the maximum duration of benefits is  26 weeks.
section_title: Claimant Profiling in the Unemployment Insurance Program
paragraphs: In November 1993, Congress enacted legislation amending the Social  Security Act to require that each state establish a Worker Profiling and  Reemployment Services (WPRS) system and implement a process typically  referred to as claimant profiling. The claimant profiling process uses a  statistical model or characteristics screen to identify claimants who are  likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work. Claimants  identified through this process are then referred to reemployment services  while they are still early in their claim. For profiled claimants,  participation in designated reemployment services becomes an additional  requirement for continuing eligibility for UI benefits.
To assist states in implementing WPRS, Labor developed a prototype  model for determining the probability that claimants will exhaust their  benefits based on a set of five claimant characteristics: education, job  tenure, industry, occupation, and the local unemployment rate. While  some states have included only these five variables in their profiling  models, others have used this prototype as a benchmark and have  included additional variables, such as the claimant’s pre-unemployment  earnings, weekly benefit amount, UI wage replacement rate, potential  duration of UI benefits, delay in filing, and the ratio of quarterly earnings  to earnings in the base year.
section_title: Reemployment Services for Unemployment Insurance Claimants
paragraphs: Reemployment services for UI claimants are usually delivered by a range  of federally funded employment and training programs, often through  consolidated service delivery structures called one-stop centers. When it  was passed in 1998, the WIA began requiring that about 17 federal  employment and training programs, including UI, provide services through  the one-stop system. WIA allows local areas considerable flexibility in how  these programs provide services through the system, so the degree of  connection throughout the one-stop system between UI and other  workforce programs can vary widely by state and local area. Among the  many federal workforce programs that may provide reemployment  services to UI claimants, four programs funded by Labor are most likely to  serve UI claimants: Employment Service, WIA Adult program, WIA  Dislocated Worker program, and TAA. All four of these are required to be  part of the one-stop system, and each has its own performance reporting  requirements.
Employment Service. The Employment Service was created in 1933 by the  Wagner-Peyser Act, making labor exchange services—that link job seekers  with job opportunities—universally available to employers and job seekers  alike without charges or conditions. Historically, many states colocated  local Employment Service and UI offices so that when UI claimants  applied for benefits at Employment Service offices, they would be exposed  to employment services. Today, states’ labor exchanges typically involve  online databases where job seekers can look for work and apply for jobs,  and where employers can post jobs and recruit employees. In addition,  Employment Service offers a range of services to job seekers, including  job search assistance, job referral, placement assistance, assessment,  counseling, and testing. Employment Service also offers a number of  services to employers, including taking job orders, recruitment, screening,  referrals of job seekers, assisting with job restructuring, and helping  employers manage layoffs.
WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs. When WIA was enacted  in 1998, it replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for  economically disadvantaged adults and youth and for dislocated workers  with three new programs—WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth— that provide a broader range of services to the general public, no longer  using income to determine eligibility for all program services. WIA  programs provide for three tiers, or levels, of service for adults and  dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include  basic services such as job searches and labor market information. These  activities may be self-service or require some staff assistance. Intensive  services include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case  management—activities that require greater staff involvement. Training  services include such activities as occupational skills or on-the-job  training. Labor’s guidance provides for monitoring and tracking of  performance for the adult and dislocated worker programs to begin when  job seekers receive core services that require significant staff assistance.  WIA currently excludes job seekers who receive core services that are  self-service and informational in nature from being included in the  performance measures.
Trade Adjustment Assistance. To assist workers who are laid off as a  result of international trade, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 created the  Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Historically, the primary benefits  available through the program have been extended income support and  training. Participants are generally entitled to income support, but the  amount of funds available for training is limited by statute. Congress has  amended the TAA program a number of times since its inception.  Amendments to the TAA program in the TAA Reform Act of 2002 extended  income support to 78 weeks after exhausting UI benefits (plus 26 more  weeks if participating in and completing remedial training) and added new  health coverage assistance and wage insurance benefits for older  workers.
section_title: Other Funds to Support Reemployment Services
paragraphs: To promote reemployment through the one-stop system, Congress  appropriated $35 million a year beginning in 2001 for Reemployment  Services Grants specifically to provide reemployment services for UI  claimants. Each year Labor has provided a minimum of $215,000 to each  state, with the remainder of the $35 million distributed according to the  share of each state’s first payments to UI claimants in the previous fiscal  year. These funds are authorized under Wagner-Peyser, and services are  generally delivered by state Employment Service staff. Labor issued  guidance to the states to use the funds to enhance the quality and quantity  of services that UI claimants receive within the one-stop system,  encouraging states to use the funds to provide direct services to UI  claimants.
section_title: Most States Have Shifted to Taking Claims Remotely, and All States Provide Claimants with Information on Their Obligations and Available Reemployment Services
paragraphs: Nearly all states accept most initial UI claims remotely by telephone,  Internet, or both. Even though claimants filing remotely no longer have  face-to-face contact with UI staff at the time the claim is filed, all states  told us they have found ways to provide information on eligibility  requirements and reemployment services to individuals filing initial  claims, often beginning at the time the claim is filed. Most states told us  that the shift to remote claims did not diminish their ability to provide  information on reemployment services to claimants and, in some cases,  had improved customer service and helped ensure that claimants received  consistent information.
subsections: section_title: Most States Accept Initial UI Claims by Telephone or Internet
paragraphs: Forty-four states accept initial claims for unemployment insurance by  telephone or the Internet, based on our telephone interviews with state  officials. Of these states, 29 use both remote filing methods, while 10  accept claims only over the telephone and 5 take them only by Internet  (see fig. 1). In most states with telephone claims, claimants speak with  customer service representatives, although in 6 states claimants may use  an automated voice response system to complete their claim. In some  states with such automated systems, it is possible for a claimant to file an  initial claim without speaking to anyone. However, if problems occur  during the process, callers can be transferred to remote claims centers  where a service representative works with them to complete the claim. Of  the 6 states that did not accept remote claims, 3 said they plan to begin  accepting initial claims by Internet or telephone in the future. The  remaining 3 states still require claimants to file for unemployment  insurance in person. For example, Georgia officials told us that they do  not currently allow claimants to file initial UI claims remotely, preferring  instead to have claimants file in person at workforce centers, where they  typically file their claims using the state’s private computer network. (See  app. II for more information on which states take initial UI claims  remotely by telephone or Internet.)
In addition to accepting initial claims by telephone or Internet, some states  also reported using other remote filing methods. Officials in several states  told us that they accept claims submitted directly by employers, but the  role of employer-filed claims differs from state to state. For example,  Michigan officials told us they had established an employer-filed claim  process in which employers with more than 1,000 layoffs in 3 consecutive  years must file employee claims electronically. With an employer-filed  claim, the claimant is not involved in filing the initial claim but still must  certify and file for continuing claims. State officials told us that these  claims simplify the filing process in cases of large layoffs and help workers  receive their UI benefit checks more quickly. They said their goal was to  have 20 to 25 percent of all initial claims filed through this method. In  general, however, employer-filed claims are used for mass layoffs or  seasonal shutdowns.
Most states that accept remote claims also allow claimants to file their  initial claims at a one-stop center, either by using available telephones— sometimes with a direct telephone link to a call center— or by using on  site computer resources to access the Internet. In Washington, for  example, individuals who come to the state’s one-stop centers are directed  to file by Internet or by phone at an on site kiosk. These kiosks, which the  state has placed in most of its one-stop centers, provide a direct  connection to a call center and display UI program information to help  claimants understand the process. In addition, at least 8 states told us that  they have staff at the one-stop who can take claims or assist claimants in  filing their claims.
section_title: States Inform Claimants of Their Eligibility Requirements and the Availability of Reemployment Services during the Claim Process
paragraphs: In all states that accept claims remotely, officials told us they have found  ways to provide information during the claims filing process on  requirements that claimants must meet to maintain their eligibility for  unemployment benefits. At the same time, they also told us they provide  information on how to access reemployment services to help claimants get  back to work. Among the 39 states that allow filing by telephone, the  methods they use to notify claimants of their work search requirements  and available services vary.
For eligibility requirements, most of the 39 states explain program  rules over the telephone, most often during the initial call. For  example, UI call center representatives in Washington give initial  claimants information on their responsibility to search for work, the  penalty for failure to do so, the location of the nearest one-stop center,  and the types of services claimants could receive at the one-stop. In  addition, a few states direct telephone claimants to a Web page where  they can find information on work search requirements and how to  certify and file for continuing claims.
For reemployment services, all 39 states that accept initial claims by  telephone reported that all or most of their telephone filers are  provided information about these services, and approximately two- thirds of the states provide some of this information to their claimants  during the initial call. Telephone filers in over 20 states are also  directed to the one-stop system, through information that is either  provided during the telephone call or sent to claimants later by mail. In  Maryland, for example, officials told us that they inform claimants  about reemployment services during the initial call and provide  directions to the one-stop centers or Employment Service offices.  Additionally, a few states have one-stop staff follow up with claimants  to inform them of available services.
The 34 states that allow remote filing by Internet also have a variety of  methods for notifying claimants about their work search requirements and  available services.
For work search requirements, more than three-fourths of these states  reported that such information was available on a Web page that  claimants could access while filing their claims. In over 20 of those  states, individuals were required to go through an Internet page on UI  program rules in order to complete their claims. Some states provided  this information through a link on the Web page but did not require  claimants to access that page at the time they filed their initial claims.
For reemployment services, all 34 states reported that all or most of  their Internet filers are provided information about these services. Over  three-fourths of those states provide some information to their  claimants during the initial online filing process, although claimants  may or may not be required to view this information to complete the  claim. Almost half of the states that take initial claims by Internet told  us they require claimants to access a document with reemployment  services information before their claim is complete. Additionally, many  told us that a link to this information is provided but claimants are not  required to access the document in order to complete the claim. In  some states, call center and one-stop staff may also contact claimants  with information on how they may obtain services. For example,  Virginia officials said the state runs a daily report of Internet claims  filed, and call center representatives then call or e-mail a majority of  those claimants to tell them about job seeker services and work search  requirements.
In addition to the information that remote filers receive over the phone or  on a Web page, most of the 44 states that accept remote claims also mail  claimants information on their responsibilities and available services. In  Maryland, for example, officials told us that, as part of the claims filing  process, claims center staff inform telephone filers of the work search  requirement and the implications for not meeting it as well as the location  of the Employment Service offices. After the claim is filed, all claimants  are sent mailings that address UI and work search requirements and that  provide directions to the one-stops and Employment Service offices. In  Washington, everyone who files a claim receives a copy of the state’s  unemployment claims kit, which contains information on claimant  responsibilities as well as on reemployment services, online resources,  and one-stop and employment services center locations.
Officials in 32 of the 44 states told us that in their opinion the shift to  remote claims did not diminish their ability to provide information on  reemployment services to claimants. Officials in at least 7 of the states that  have established remote filing methods said they had faced challenges in  maintaining the connections between UI claimants and the reemployment  services available to them. For example, some states said that staff  providing reemployment services had less initial contact with job seekers,  who may wait several weeks before seeking out more information about  services available to them. However, officials in almost three-quarters of  the 44 states told us they thought the shift to remote claims either had no  negative impact or had improved their ability to deliver reemployment  services to UI claimants. Officials in some states reported that providing  reemployment services in a remote claims environment proved more  difficult at first. However, once they had completed the transition, they  said they have perceived no negative impact on the linkages between UI  and reemployment services. Officials generally cited benefits that included  improved customer service, more consistent information for claimants,  and the ability of states to focus their resources on providing  reemployment services to claimants.
Several officials told us that they believed one benefit from the shift to  remote claims was improved customer service. Claimants no longer  needed to drive the sometimes great distances or wait around for hours  just to file a claim. In addition, some states reported that it was easier  to get information about services to claimants.
Additionally, some officials told us that they thought the use of remote  claims had helped ensure that claimants received consistent  information. Several states, for example, reported that using scripts for  telephone customer service representatives or screens of information  for Internet filers helps ensure that all claimants are told the same  thing.
Some states said the transition to remote claims had enabled them to  shift their focus from filing claims to providing services, and had  reduced claims processing time. For example, officials in one state told  us that some positive effects of using the Internet were that claims  were processed more quickly, documentation was easily retrieved, and  papers were not moving between offices.
section_title: States Provide Claimants Access to a Range of Reemployment Services and Use UI Program Requirements to Connect Them with Available Services
paragraphs: Across states, UI claimants have access to a variety of reemployment  services, and states make use of UI program requirements to connect  claimants with available services at various points in their claim. All  federally approved state UI programs must include able-to-work and  available-for-work requirements that claimants must meet in order to  receive benefits. In many states, these requirements also serve to link  claimants to reemployment opportunities and services. In addition, states  provide targeted reemployment services to particular groups of UI  claimants. The federal requirement of claimant profiling is typically the  primary mechanism for targeting reemployment services to claimants.
subsections: section_title: Claimants Have Access to a Range of Reemployment Services
paragraphs: UI claimants have access to the range of reemployment services available  to all job seekers through the one-stop system. Officials in all states, for  example, told us that claimants can access job listings and information on  their state’s labor market trends using the Internet, and many said that  claimants have access to online labor exchange, or job matching, services  as well as other self-assisted services such as resume writing assistance,  career guidance, and self-assessment services. Officials in all states also  told us that one-stop centers make computers available on-site, and most  said that claimants have access to self-help software, such as aptitude  tests, computer tutorials, or job search guidance, at the centers. Claimants  also have access to a variety of staff-assisted reemployment services  through the one-stop system. Officials most often mentioned that  claimants were likely to be offered  job search assistance;  resume assistance;  job matching, referral, and placement services;  referral to WIA or other partners;  initial or general needs assessment;  interview assistance.
Some states have also undertaken special initiatives to expand the types of  reemployment services available to claimants. Maryland, for example,  responded to growth in white collar unemployment in the early 1990s with  the establishment of the Professional Outplacement Assistance Center.  This program provides outplacement services for executive, professional,  technical, and managerial workers who are unemployed, and if capacity  allows, those who are underemployed. The program begins with an  interactive three day orientation targeted to the needs of professionals and  then offers participants networking opportunities through occupational  affinity groups that bring together job seekers from similar occupations.  Former participants also forward information on job opportunities to the  program and offer assistance to current participants — a concept the staff  term Pay-It-Forward.
section_title: States Use Compliance with Work Requirements to Connect Claimants with Reemployment Services
paragraphs: UI program requirements often provide the context for states’ efforts to  link claimants to reemployment services. In satisfying the requirement that  claimants be able and available for work, officials in 44 states told us that  claimants are required to register for work with the state’s labor exchange.  In addition, officials in all but one state told us that claimants must meet a  work search requirement in order to remain eligible for benefits. The work  search requirement varies across states but is typically defined in terms of  the number of contacts claimants are required to make with employers. In  about half of the states with a work search requirement, officials told us  claimants subject to this requirement are required to make a specified or  minimum number of job contacts, ranging from one to five contacts per  week. In the rest, the required number of contacts is determined by what  is seen to be reasonable for a particular area or occupation or the  requirement is stated in more general terms.
Claimants document that they are meeting their state’s work search  requirement in a number of ways, most commonly by keeping a log of  work search activities that may be subject to review or by certifying they  are able and available to work through the process of filing for a  continuing claim. Washington, for example, has recently revised its work  search requirement to be more specific, requiring each week that  claimants make three job contacts, participate in three in-person  reemployment services at a one-stop center, or complete some  combination of the two. Claimants keep a log of these contacts and  activities, which is subject to random review. In Michigan, as in many  states, when claimants call in to the state’s automated telephone system  each week to file for their continuing claims, they must also certify that  they are available for and seeking full-time work. In all states with a work  search requirement, officials told us that the primary consequence faced  by claimants who fail to comply is that they could be denied benefits.  However, the length of time for which benefits are denied, and the extent  to which claimants receive a warning prior to being denied benefits, varies  across states.
These work registration and work search requirements often serve to link  claimants to reemployment services. The process of registering for work  with the state’s labor exchange, for example, may bring claimants into an  Employment Service office or one-stop center where reemployment  services are delivered. Officials in nearly two-thirds of the 44 states where  claimants are required to register for work told us that coming into an  Employment Service office or one-stop center is either a required part of  the process or one of the options claimants have for completing their  registration. Officials in close to a third of the states with this requirement  told us claimants are automatically registered with the labor exchange  when they file their initial UI claim. In Michigan, for example, most  claimants file their initial claim remotely and may begin the work  registration process remotely as well by placing their resume on the state’s  public online labor exchange. They must come into a one-stop center,  however, to have their resumes validated by one-stop staff in order to  complete the work registration process. In Washington, on the other hand,  claimants who are required to look for work are automatically registered  for work at the same time they file an initial telephone or Internet claim.  Under this system, claimant information is uploaded into the state’s  workforce development management information system and becomes  available to one-stop center staff.
Some states also use their processes for monitoring compliance with the  work search requirement to direct claimants to reemployment services.  Officials in 39 of the 49 states that require claimants to actively seek  employment told us that telephone or in-person interviews with claimants  may be used to monitor compliance with this requirement. In over two- thirds of these states, officials told us that some information on job search  strategies or reemployment services is provided during the interview. The  level of information varies from suggestions offered on a case-by-case  basis to a discussion of strategies and services that is a standard part of  the interview. In Georgia, for example, the state’s eligibility review  program is used to determine whether a claimant faces particular  problems in returning to work and if a claimant is making use of available  reemployment services, in addition to determining eligibility and  compliance with state work search rules.
section_title: States Target Reemployment Services to Particular Groups of Claimants
paragraphs: States also engage some claimants in reemployment services directly  through programs that identify certain groups for more targeted  assistance. States primarily target reemployment services to claimants  identified as most likely to exhaust their UI benefits before finding work  through federally required claimant-profiling systems. While claimants  identified and referred to services through profiling can access the  services available to all job seekers through the one-stop system,  participation in the services they are referred to is mandatory for profiled  claimants. Specifically, state officials most often identified orientation and  assessment as services profiled claimants were required to receive. In  addition, many officials told us that the services profiled claimants  received depended on their individual needs following an assessment, the  development of an individual plan, or the guidance of staff at a one-stop  center. While failure to report to required reemployment services can  result in benefits being denied, states vary in the conditions that prompt  denying benefits.
Maryland, for example, targets reemployment services to profiled  claimants through its Early Intervention program. This program, which  began in 1994, offers an interactive, 2-day, 10-hour workshop, addressing  self-assessment, job search resources, resume writing and interviewing  skills, and other community resources available to job seekers. Profiled  claimants selected for the workshop who fail to attend are given one  opportunity to reschedule; after that, their failure to participate is reported  to the UI program and their benefits may be suspended. When claimants  complete the workshop, they are registered with the Maryland Job  Service, they receive an individual employment plan, and the workshop  facilitator may refer them to additional services. Officials told us that  although they currently do not have data to show the impact of this  program, they have received very positive feedback about the quality and  effectiveness of the workshops.
From our site visits we also learned that some states have developed  additional methods to target reemployment services to particular groups  of UI claimants. For example, one-stop staff in Washington have the ability  to identify various subgroups of claimants using a tracking device called  the Claimant Progress Tool. Officials told us that one-stop staff typically  use this tool to identify claimants who are about 100 days into their claim,  and then contact them for targeted job search assistance and job referrals.  This process was developed to help the state achieve a goal of reducing  the portion of their UI benefits that unemployed workers claim. Georgia’s  state-funded Claimant Assistance Program identifies claimants who are  seen to be ready for employment and requires them to participate in the  same services required of profiled claimants. This program is designed to  help the state achieve its goal of generating savings for the UI Trust Fund.  Claimants meeting this program’s eligibility criteria also have the option of  participating in the Georgia Works program, a recent state initiative to  promote on-the-job training opportunities for UI claimants. Through  Georgia Works, claimants receive 20 hours of on-the-job training weekly  for 8 weeks while continuing to receive their UI benefits.
States often make use of Labor’s Reemployment Services Grants —  available since 2001 for direct services to UI claimants — to fund these  services. Officials in the majority of the states we interviewed told us their  states have been using the Reemployment Services Grant funds to hire  staff to provide reemployment services. For example, Maryland state  officials said they use their funds to hire staff for the Early Intervention  program, which has enabled them to run more workshops in areas that  need them and to make further improvements in the program. Some states  have also used these grants to direct reemployment services to claimants  beyond those who have been profiled and to support other enhancements  in the provision of reemployment services to claimants. For example,  Washington state officials told us they used funds from these grants to  support the development of the Claimant Progress Tool.
section_title: Little Information Exists to Provide a Complete Picture of Reemployment Services for Unemployment Insurance Claimants
paragraphs: Despite states’ efforts to design systems that link UI claimants to  reemployment services, little data are available to gauge the extent to  which claimants are receiving these services or the outcomes they  achieve. While states must meet a number of federal reporting  requirements for their UI programs, and for their federally funded  employment and training programs, none of these reports provide a  complete picture of the services received or the outcomes obtained by all  UI claimants. Furthermore, we found that few states currently go beyond  the federal reporting requirements to monitor the extent to which  claimants are receiving services from the range of federally funded  programs that are designed to assist them, and even fewer monitor  outcomes for these claimants, largely because of limited information  systems capabilities. Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed  light on claimant services and outcomes, but some limitations remain.
subsections: section_title: Current Reporting Requirements Do Not Provide a Full Picture of Claimants’ Use of Reemployment Services
paragraphs: UI claimants may access reemployment assistance from a number of  federally-funded programs, most often Wagner-Peyser Employment  Service, WIA Dislocated Worker or WIA Adult, and Trade Adjustment  Assistance (if they are dislocated because of trade). To monitor the  performance of these programs, Labor requires states to meet a number of  reporting requirements, but the reports are submitted on a program-by- program basis. None of the reports provides a complete picture of the  services received or the outcomes obtained by all UI claimants.
UI reporting requirements. States must track and report annually on  several performance measures considered key indicators of UI program  performance—a system named UI Performs—but as currently configured,  the system does not contain any measures related to services or outcomes  for claimants. Instead, the measures focus exclusively on benefit and tax  accuracy, quality, and timeliness. States also must report monthly on their  UI claims and payment activities through form ETA 5159. These reports  provide summary information that can be used to calculate average benefit  duration and exhaustion rates at an aggregate level by state. These data  are useful in following trends over time, but, do not contain information  on those who had received services and those who did not.
In addition, states must also report to Labor on their claimant profiling  process—termed Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services—but  information in these reports represent only a portion of all UI claimants  the state has served. The two profiling reports—ETA 9048 and 9049— require states to provide summary information on the number of claimants  targeted for services through the profiling process, and on the  reemployment services and outcomes for this group of claimants. While  the reports contain information on claimant services and outcomes, the  data represent only the portion of claimants who were identified through  profiling as likely to exhaust their benefits and who were also referred to  services. This proportion can vary from place to place and from month to  month depending on available resources, but may be a small proportion of  all of the state’s claimants.
Wagner-Peyser Employment Service reporting requirements. States must  provide quarterly reports for the Employment Service program, but these  reports do not provide a complete picture of all claimants receiving  reemployment services. The reports consist of summary information on  the numbers of Employment Service participants who received specified  services or who obtained certain outcomes. The report tracks service and  outcome data by several demographic categories, including age grouping,  gender, and whether or not the participant was a UI claimant. However,  the report contains information on only those individuals who are  registered with the Employment Service, and while all who receive  services funded by Wagner-Peyser must be registered with the  Employment Service, not all UI claimants receive Wagner-Peyser-funded  services.
WIA and the TAA programs. WIA and TAA reporting requirements are  similarly limited and do not provide a complete picture of claimant  services and outcomes. WIA tracks several performance measures directly  related to outcomes for Adults and Dislocated Workers, including job  placement, job retention, and wage gain or wage replacement. Labor  requires states to report their performance on these measures in both  quarterly and annual reports. In addition, once each year states submit a  file to Labor, the WIA Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) file, containing  a complete record of demographic, services, and outcome information on  each WIA registrant who has exited the program. While these records  contain information on whether or not the WIA registrant is also a UI  claimant, they do not contain information for those claimants who are not  registered under WIA. We and others have noted that many individuals  served under WIA—particularly those who receive only self-directed  services—are not registered or tracked for performance and are,  therefore, not reflected in any of the WIA data.  Similarly, for the TAA  program Labor requires states to submit participant data files on all who  exit the program each quarter, but the reports are limited to those  claimants served by TAA. Table 1 summarizes these reporting  requirements and their limitations for measuring overall claimant services  and outcomes.
section_title: States Face Challenges in Assessing Claimant Services and Outcomes
paragraphs: Having data that show the degree to which reemployment services are  reaching UI claimants is key to good program management and provides a  first step toward understanding the impact of these programs. However,  knowing how many claimants may be accessing reemployment services  and the type of outcomes they may be achieving has proven difficult for  state and local officials. Only 14 states reported that they go beyond the  federal reporting requirements to routinely track the extent to which  claimants receive services from the broad array of federally funded  programs that are designed to assist them. Of the states that reported that  they did not routinely track claimant services, 4 states told us it would not  be possible to do so. Overall, 37 states told us doing so was somewhat or  very difficult, while 6 states said it was not at all difficult (see fig. 2).
States most often told us that tracking claimant services across multiple  programs was made difficult by the fact that reemployment services and  UI claimant data were maintained in separate data systems—systems that  were either incompatible or difficult to link. (See fig. 3.)
While relatively few states routinely track claimants’ services, even fewer  track outcomes. Only 6 states told us that they go beyond the federal  reporting requirements to routinely monitor any outcomes for the subset  of UI claimants that receives reemployment services—outcomes such as  entered employment rate, average benefit duration, and UI exhaustion  rate. Eleven states told us it would not be possible to calculate any of the  outcomes for these claimants. More states reported difficulty tracking the  entered employment rate than the average benefit duration or UI  exhaustion rate. (See fig. 4).
The issues states cited in tracking outcomes across programs for UI  claimants were similar to those for tracking use of services. Most states  (35) told us that tracking one or more outcome measures was made  difficult by the fact that reemployment services and UI claimant data were  maintained in different systems that were either incompatible or difficult  to link.
Four states said in written comments that our definition of claimants—that they received  a first payment—contributed to the difficulty in performing the calculations.
section_title: Some Federal Initiatives and Research May Help Our Understanding of Services and Outcomes to Claimants, but Limitations Remain
paragraphs: Labor has some initiatives that may begin to shed light on claimant  services and outcomes, but the efforts still fall short of giving us a  nationwide understanding of services and outcomes for UI claimants.
UI performance measures. Labor is modifying its UI performance  measures, and some of the changes will begin to focus attention on  claimant outcomes. Beginning in summer 2005, in addition to reporting on  benefit timeliness and accuracy, states will be required to track a  reemployment rate for their UI claimants—defined as the percentage of UI  claimants who are reemployed within the quarter following their first UI  payment. This change will improve the understanding of how many UI  claimants are quickly reemployed nationwide, but, it will not provide  information on claimants who become reemployed after the first quarter.  Further, it will not allow for an assessment of how many claimants access  reemployment services nor will it allow the outcomes claimants achieve to  be attributed to services.
Employment Service, WIA, and TAA reporting changes. Labor is also  modifying its reporting requirements for Employment Service, WIA, and  TAA programs. With the transition beginning in July 2005, states’  Employment Service, WIA, and TAA programs will be required to report  on their performance using a new set of common measures—measures  that use the same data definitions and data coding across all included  programs. The new measures, focused on job placement, employment  retention, and earnings increase, will help eliminate some of the  definitional difficulties states faced as they tried to measure performance  across multiple programs. In addition, it will require that states begin  counting all job seekers who use the one-stop, including those who only  receive services that are informational or self-service in nature. However,  because the Unemployment Insurance program is not included in these  measures, this change would not allow for a complete assessment of UI  claimants’ use of services.
Future plans for reporting on performance for Labor’s Employment and  Training Administration (ETA) programs include the development of a  system to consolidate reporting. This system—ETA’s Management  Information and Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) system—would  consolidate performance reporting across a range of Labor programs  including WIA, Employment Service, and TAA. Current plans do not  include incorporating UI reporting into EMILE. We recently reported that  implementing a comprehensive reporting system across workforce  programs could provide a better picture of the one-stop system, but  recommended that Labor consider greater ongoing consultation with key  stakeholders, including states, in order to enhance its efforts to implement  it. Labor is currently conducting a feasibility study on implementation  issues associated with EMILE, and, at present, it is unclear how soon such  a system could be implemented.
Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE). Because Labor  lacked the capacity to evaluate services across the broad array of  employment and training programs, it commissioned ADARE to begin to  fill the gap. ADARE is an alliance of 9 state partners—Florida, Georgia,  Maryland, Missouri, Texas, Illinois, Washington, California, and Ohio—that  cover 43 percent of the country’s civilian workforce. ADARE provides  third-party researchers with detailed, longitudinal administrative data  from the 9 states on participants in several programs, including  Employment Service, WIA, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF), and Perkins Vocational Education, as well as UI wage and benefit  records and education records. ADARE efforts so far have focused largely  on evaluating welfare-to-work programs and WIA. Currently under way is  an effort to examine three facets of UI claimant behavior—repeat claims,  benefit exhaustion, and reemployment profiles. Unfortunately, planned  expansions of the data collection have been slower to implement than  originally anticipated, and some of the data used in ADARE, such as the  WIA performance data, are limited. Having the capacity to link data across  multiple programs within a state is a major leap forward in understanding  UI claimants’ participation in a broad array of programs and to measure  some of their outcomes. But, while the participating states represent a  relatively large proportion of the workforce, they don’t provide a  nationwide perspective. In addition, until WIA’s new reporting  requirements go into effect, the WIA data will be limited to those claimants  who are registered under WIA.
Five-Year Evaluation. Labor has also begun a 5-year national study of the  UI benefits program. The evaluation is intended to provide detailed  information on the effectiveness of the UI program in light of its goals and  underlying program design. Researchers hope to enlist up to 25 states  willing to share their data, and the study seeks to identify, in part, changes  in the labor market, population, and economy relative to the UI program,  as well as detailed characteristics of who receives and does not receive UI  benefits. As part of the study, researchers are hoping to learn more about  the extent to which UI claimants are receiving reemployment services in  those states, and about the outcomes they are achieving, including how  long claimants receive benefits. However, at this point, it is too soon to  know how successful they will be in obtaining information on claimants’  use of the broad array of programs designed to serve them. And because it  is limited to states that are willing to participate, it, too, falls short of  providing a nationwide perspective.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: States have increasingly shifted to requiring that most UI claimants file  their claims remotely. To help them get the reemployment services they  need to facilitate their reemployment, states have often designed their  processes to help link claimants to reemployment services. However,  knowing how many claimants are actually accessing reemployment  services has proven difficult for state and local officials. Most states lack  this information, arguably critical for good program management, often  because data reside in separate systems that cannot be easily linked. In the  new environment created by WIA, where claimants may be served by a  range of programs that go beyond Unemployment Insurance and  Employment Service, it becomes increasingly important to find new ways  to link program data across a broader range of programs. Current  reporting requirements are not enough to provide a complete picture.
Labor has some initiatives underway to help fill this gap, but the issue of  collecting complete information on those individuals served by the  nation’s workforce development system—mainly through the one-stops— needs to be viewed in a broader context, not program-by-program. The  nine-state effort under ADARE to link administrative data on participants  in a range of programs is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t include  information on all services claimants receive. The common measures and  EMILE initiative are steps to provide more comprehensive and complete  information on those served by the one-stops, including unemployment  insurance claimants who come in to the one-stops for services. However,  the present EMILE proposal does not include a link to Unemployment  Insurance administrative data, so it will not be able to provide information  on all UI claimants, only those who receive services through a one-stop. As  such, EMILE cannot be used as a source of information on benefit  duration. Taken together, these efforts will not be able to provide all states  with an understanding of services and outcomes for all UI claimants, an  understanding that is critical for assessing the performance of the program  or the potential need for future reforms.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that as Labor develops EMILE, the Secretary of Labor  work with states to develop a plan for considering the feasibility of  requiring states to collect more comprehensive information on UI  claimants’ use of reemployment services and the outcomes achieved by  claimants, including the length of time claimants receive UI before they  are reemployed.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Labor officials for their review and  comment. Labor generally agreed with our findings, but took issue with  our recommendation that it work with states to consider the feasibility of  collecting more comprehensive information on UI claimants' services and  outcomes, saying that its current and planned data gathering and research  efforts would provide adequate information to guide policy making.
Labor noted that, in addition to the efforts acknowledged in our report, a  new initiative will provide additional data on some UI claimants and their  reemployment services in the future.  Labor also said that, given the  burden placed on states to collect and report data, it is important to show  a clear benefit to the system for additional data collection.  Labor  requested that GAO provide additional guidance on how collection of the  data is expected to improve services to UI claimants and hasten their  reemployment.
We continue to assert that comprehensive data on the extent to which UI  claimants receive reemployment services and the outcomes claimants  achieve is important for program management in an environment where  claimants may receive services from a number of different programs.  While Labor's new initiatives, in combination with current reporting  requirements, will provide valuable information on the reemployment  activities of some UI claimants, this information is generally collected on a  program-by-program basis or is focused on a single category of claimants.  Consequently, these efforts will not allow for a comprehensive, nationwide  understanding of claimants' participation in the broad range of  reemployment services provided through federal programs nor do they  move states in the direction of having the data they need to better manage  their systems. In recommending that Labor study the feasibility of a more  comprehensive data collection effort, we acknowledge the challenges  faced by states to collect and track these data and understand that  acquiring a comprehensive picture of UI claimant's participation in  reemployment services will have a cost.  However, having information on  UI claimants who are and are not receiving services is an important step in  the development of reemployment efforts that hasten workers’  reemployment and minimize UI benefit costs.
Labor also provided technical comments which we have incorporated in  our report, as appropriate. A copy of Labor's comments is in appendix III.
We will send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees,  the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We will also make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report,  please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Major contributors to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to provide information on (1) the extent to which states  have shifted to remote methods for filing initial claims and how they are  making claimants aware of their responsibilities to look for work and the  services available to assist them, (2) what states are doing to facilitate the  reemployment of unemployment insurance (UI) claimants, and (3) what is  known about the extent to which unemployment insurance claimants  receive reemployment services and about the outcomes of claimants who  receive these services. To address these questions, we conducted  telephone interviews with unemployment insurance and workforce  development officials in all 50 states. We then used a separate brief e-mail  instrument to gather more specific information on the strategies states use  to collect data on unemployment insurance claimants who receive  reemployment services. Additionally, we conducted site visits to 4 states— Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington—and interviewed state and  local officials in these states. We reviewed data and documents from the  U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) and other sources. We also interviewed  officials from Labor, the National Association of State Workforce  Agencies, and the UI Information Technology Support Center, as well as  researchers from the University of Texas at Austin, the Upjohn Institute,  and the Urban Institute.
For this review, we defined reemployment services to mean all  reemployment activities funded through Wagner-Peyser; Workforce  Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker services; any other  training or job search assistance provided using federal funds, such as  Trade Adjustment Assistance; and any state-funded reemployment or  training services. We defined UI claimants as individuals who have filed an  initial UI claim, been found eligible according to both monetary and  nonmonetary criteria, and received a first payment of UI benefits.
We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Department of Labor  for their review and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We  conducted our work from February 2004 through May 2005 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Telephone Interview and Supplemental Data Collection Instruments
paragraphs: To collect broad information on unemployment insurance claimants’ use  of reemployment services, we conducted telephone interviews with  officials in all 50 states from agencies that oversee the unemployment  insurance and workforce development programs. We designed a  structured computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) instrument that  consisted of closed- and open-ended questions on a range of topics,  including methods used in each state to file initial claims, both outside of  one-stop centers, employment security offices, and unemployment  insurance offices and on site at those locations; work search requirements  and available reemployment services and how states notify claimants of  them; worker profiling; and states’ data collection efforts related to remote  filing, work search requirements, receipt of reemployment services, and  performance outcomes the states may track. For a majority of the  telephone interview questions, we asked state officials to consider the  present status of a topic in their state. We asked them to consider either a  particular program or fiscal year for only a few questions. Telephone  interviews were conducted during October and November 2004.
To better understand states’ issues associated with tracking performance  data, and using results from our CATI as a guide, we supplemented our  telephone interviews with a brief data collection instrument that asked  state officials for greater detail about what states tracked for UI claimants  receiving reemployment services. We also asked them about the specific  challenges they faced in tracking data on reemployment services and  outcomes for all UI claimants. We completed this effort in March 2005.  Officials from all 50 states provided responses about their states’ data  concerns.
Because we surveyed officials from all 50 states, no sampling error is  associated with our work. However, nonsampling error could figure into  any data collection effort and involve a range of issues that could affect  data quality and introduce unwanted variability into the results. We took  several steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, GAO survey  specialists and staff with subject matter expertise collaboratively designed  both instruments. Also, the draft telephone interview instrument was  pretested with officials in 3 states to ensure that the questions were  relevant, clear, and easy to comprehend and that states would have the  capacity to readily respond to them. Similarly, the draft data collection  instrument was pretested with officials from 2 states. During the telephone  interviews, responses were called back to state officials to ensure the data  were being accurately captured. To further minimize errors, programs  used to analyze data collected through both instruments were  independently verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: We selected 4 states for site visits according to several criteria that gave us  a range of state unemployment rates (as of March 2004), amounts of  program year 2004 WIA Dislocated Worker funding, acceptance of initial  UI claims by telephone or Internet, and whether the state had an employer  tax-funded state training or job placement program. States selected for site  visits are shown in table 2. We also sought recommendations from Labor  officials and other experts and considered geographic diversity in our  state selections. In each state, we interviewed officials in the workforce  development system and UI programs on issues such as labor market  information, UI claims filing, worker profiling, work search requirement,  reemployment services offered, and data collection and management.
In coordination with state officials, we selected two local areas in each  state, visiting a mix of urban and rural areas that had been identified by  the state as having taken innovative approaches to providing  reemployment services to UI claimants. Local areas selected for site  visits are shown in table 3. At the local areas, we met with local workforce  officials at one-stop or career centers to collect information on UI claims  filing procedures, reemployment services offered, how these services are  targeted to UI claimants, how UI claimants are linked to services,  enforcement of work search requirements, and data collection and use.  We also talked with officials at state telephone call centers in Maryland,  Michigan, and Washington; a problem resolution office in Lansing,  Michigan; and the Professional Outplacement Assistance Center in  Columbia, Maryland.
We attempted to corroborate the responses collected through the  telephone interview and supplemental data collection instruments. To the  extent possible, for the states we visited we compared responses gathered  through our instruments with information we collected during those visits.  During the time of our work, other sources, such as Administrative Data  Research and Evaluation (ADARE), that could have acted as comparisons  for some items or topics related to unemployment insurance claimants,  were not yet available. Based on the comparisons we made, and  discussions and interviews we held with agency staff and officials and  outside experts, we believe the data are sufficiently reliable to be used in  providing information on UI claims and claimants and reemployment  services.
section_title: Appendix II: States That Accept Telephone and Internet Claims Remotely
paragraphs: At the time of our survey, 39 states reported that they accepted telephone  initial claims, and 34 said they took Internet initial claims (table 4).  Additionally, 29 states reported that they used both remote filing methods,  and 6 states said they did not currently accept initial claims remotely by  either telephone or Internet. Several states that currently use a single  remote filing method—Internet or telephone—indicated to us that they  have plans to begin accepting claims by both methods in the future.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Dianne Blank, Assistant Director   Janice Peterson, Analyst-in-Charge  In addition, the following staff made major contributions to this report:  Karyn Angulo and Andrew Bauck served as team members and assisted  with all phases of the effort; Jennifer Miller, Alison Pan, and Leslie Sarapu  assisted with data collection; Kevin Jackson advised on design and  methodology issues; Erin Daugherty, Theresa Chen, R. Jerry Aiken, and  Catherine Hurley assisted with data analysis; Susan Bernstein and Stan  Stenersen advised on report preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on legal  issues; and Lise Levie and Regina Santucci verified our findings.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative  Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting  Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Unemployment Insurance: Information on Benefit Receipt. GAO-05-291.  Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training  Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012.  Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004  Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed  Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.  GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004  Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement  and Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with  Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13,  2004  Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to  Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and  Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington D.C.: June 18,  2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and  Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington,  D.C.: April 18, 2003  Unemployment Insurance: States’ Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution.  GAO-03-496. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding  Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274.  Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002  Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance  Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness.  GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Unemployment Insurance: Role as Safety Net for Low-Wage Workers Is  Limited. GAO-01-181. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000.