HR Workforce Solutions
By Nonprofits, For Nonprofits
Unemployment Overpayments: Fraud or flawed system?
By Pamela M. Prah, Stateline.org
View article at www.Stateline.org
When the Obama administration revealed that more than $17 billion in jobless benefits had been paid out improperly, a stream of headlines suggested that cheats were bilking the unemployment insurance system.
The reality is a lot more complicated, as the U.S. Department of Labor itself noted when it reported state-by-state numbers last month. While fraud was responsible for a small part of the overall “improper payments” figure, much of the total came from less devilish glitches, such as failing to provide proof that a payment went to the right person. The total also included cases where beneficiaries were underpaid, in addition to the cases where the government paid them too much.
Louisiana is one state that has found itself on the defensive. Federal figures showed that 44 percent of its unemployment insurance payments were “improper.”
“The numbers being reported … for Louisiana are not all overpayments,” Curt Eysink, executive director of the Louisiana Workforce Commission, said in a statement. “Nor should those amounts be collectively viewed as ‘waste, fraud and abuse.’” Eysink notes that what the federal government called “overpayments” largely went to unemployed workers who were eligible to receive unemployment benefits; the problem was that the state couldn’t prove that these people had formally registered with the state to say they have searched for jobs.
Crunch time for unemployment insurance
The issue is a sensitive one for state unemployment offices, which have been crushed by heavy workloads as joblessness remains stuck above 9 percent nationally. In the first year of the recession, states saw a 120 percent increase in claims from unemployed workers.
The program, run jointly by the federal government and the states, provides monthly benefits to workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own. Most states have had to borrow money from the federal government to keep checks going to the jobless; last month, states had to start paying interest on those loans.
The stepped-up scrutiny of jobless benefits is part of the Obama administration’s government-wide effort to reduce the $125 billion in “improper payments” the government made in 2010. Unemployment insurance was named one of the “high-error” programs. That was partly because the error rate of 11 percent was more than double the 5 percent rate that the administration set as a doable goal. The enormous size of the program, which paid out $156 billion in benefits last year, also was a factor.
Nationwide, Indiana and Louisiana had the highest error rates, with improper payments accounting for more than 43 percent of the total amount paid in both states. Others that landed high on the list include Arizona (20 percent), Colorado (17 percent) and Virginia (18 percent). There’s no financial penalty for states with high error rates, but until they get their error rates down below 10 percent, they’re subject to greater federal scrutiny and reporting requirements.
States say the federal campaign has left the perception that fraud is primarily to blame for their error rates. In fact, the federal government’s own estimate says that 2.4 percent of unemployment insurance benefits were overpaid due to fraud in 2010.
By and large, factors other than fraud are driving error rates. For example, many of the states under federal scrutiny are experiencing “work search” errors that they say are a result of dramatic changes in how people today file for unemployment benefits and look for jobs. Gone are the days when people had to step into a state unemployment office to fill out the paperwork and sit down with a case worker to talk about which employers they applied to for jobs. Nowadays, unemployment insurance applications and job searches are done online and employers don’t always save the hundreds of résumés they receive electronically.
Kevan Kaighn, of Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, suggests the reporting mechanisms may not have kept up with the times. “Arizona has historically asked employers to confirm that a claimant did apply,” Kaighn says. “If the employer was not able to provide verification … the Department would count the claim as an error.”
Complaints of unfairness
Some states also say they are being faulted for having stricter standards than the feds. Nearly 80 percent of Indiana’s improper payment problem was due to difficulties tracking things that the state requires but the federal government doesn’t. For instance, the unemployed in Indiana must show they have looked for work with three employers. If a recipient lists only one job or lists incomplete information for the other two, those are counted as errors, explains Valerie Kroeger of the state’s Department of Workforce Development.
The U.S. Department of Labor says it has been working with states since last year on these kinds of issues. The department says it’s only fair to assess states based on their own rules, but agrees that the wide variation in state unemployment systems may make it misleading to compare different states on their payment accuracy rates. “States with stringent or complex provisions tend to have higher improper payment rates than those with simpler, more straightforward provisions,” the department says on its website.
The private sector also has a role in improving the accuracy of payment information. One of five overpayments nationwide occurs because the worker’s last employer didn’t provide the state accurate or timely information about layoffs or hiring. The result can be people receiving benefits that they may not be entitled to. “We are trying to get the message out to employers how important this is,” says Joyce Fogg of Virginia’s Employment Commission.
Nationally, the leading cause of overpayments is when once-unemployed workers find jobs and continue to claim jobless benefits. On this front, the Labor Department encourages states to check the information from unemployment claims against a large national database of all new hires. Washington State, which has been doing this for years but nevertheless posted an error rate of 14 percent, estimates that these matches uncovered half of all its fraud-related claims. According to the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, states typically recover about half of the money lost to improper payments.
James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation says states have a point that the headline numbers would lead people to believe that more fraud occurs than actually does, but says states still need to fix the problems. “The state should not be continuing to send checks to workers after they have returned to work, and it should be verifying the work-search requirements are met,” Sherk says. “Those and other requirements exist for a reason and need to be enforced.”
Outdated technology blamed
What many states say they need most is money to replace outdated computers, which they say account for many of the problems. Arizona and Colorado are part of four-state consortium that was recently awarded $72 million in federal funds to replace archaic systems. “This represents a desperately needed modernization,” says Kaighn of Arizona, who says the state is currently using 1980s mainframe technology.
Washington State estimates it will cost more than $100 million to replace its two main computers involved in processing unemployment claims. The state is spending $54 million to replace the main tax computer and has set side another $30 million for the benefits side. According to Sheryl Hutchison, a spokeswoman for the state’s Employment Security Department, it will probably take up to eight years for those projects to finish.
From the Wall Street Journal
by Sara Murray
Nearly $19 billion in state unemployment benefits were paid in error during the three years that ended in June, new Labor Department data show.
The amount represents more than 10% of the $180 billion in jobless benefits paid nationwide during the period. (See a map of improper payments by state.) The tally covers state programs, which offer benefits for up to 26 weeks, from July 2008 to June 2011. Layers of federal programs that help provide benefits for up to 99 weeks weren’t included.
Sortable Chart of Each State’s Overpayments
The figures were released Wednesday as the Obama administration promotes its bid to reduce waste at federal agencies. The federal government foots the bill for administering the programs, and states are supposed to pay for the benefits. Many states exhausted their unemployment insurance trust funds during the long recession and slow recovery, prompting them to borrow from the federal government to replenish their funds.
Improper payments most often occur when recipients claim benefits even though they have returned to work; employers or their administrators don’t submit timely or accurate information about worker separations; or recipients don’t correctly register with a state’s employment-service organization.
The Labor Department launched a plan to crack down on the improper payments, targeting Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Washington, Louisiana and Arizona in particular for their high error rates. Those states will undergo additional monitoring and technical assistance until their error rates dip below 10% and remain there for at least six months, according to the Labor Department.
“The Unemployment Insurance system is a unique partnership between the federal government and the states. States bear the responsibility of operating an efficient and effective benefits program, but as partners the federal government must be able to hold them accountable for doing so,” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a release.
Indiana had the highest error rate, with improper payments accounting for more than 43% of the total amount paid. But Mark Everson, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, said the differences in error rates stem from variations in state programs.
“To characterize it as waste, fraud and abuse is just manipulative,” Mr. Everson said. “There’s no way in the world you could cut the 43% of people off.”
Mr. Everson pointed out that in Indiana, benefit recipients are required to list three work searches. If a recipient fills out only two of the three searches correctly, there are cases when the recipient can still receive benefits. But that counts as an error.
The Labor Department noted, “it may be misleading to compare one state’s payment accuracy rates with another state’s rates States with stringent or complex provisions tend to have higher improper payment rates than those with simpler, more straightforward provisions.”
UST releases 2018 UI toolkit to help nonprofit organizations better understand unemployment insurance options and claims management best practices.
UST, a program dedicated to providing nonprofits with workforce solutions that reduce costs and strengthen their missions, announces the release of their 2018 UI Toolkit– comprised of UST’s top unemployment guides for managing unemployment. These tools provide valuable information that can help nonprofit organizations better understand the ins and outs of unemployment from the employer’s perspective.
The 2018 UI Toolkit provides exclusive access to unemployment claims management tips, how-to-guides and an informative webinar recording. Plus, it showcases the top 5 things nonprofits must know about unemployment insurance, as well as best practices for protesting claims.
For a limited time, the toolkit is available for a free download, and here are some of the highlights:
“Here at UST, we want to provide nonprofits with the top resources to better manage their unemployment needs,” explains Donna Groh, Executive Director of UST. “This UI Toolkit provides the insight nonprofit organizations need to know when it comes to managing claims and avoiding costly liability.”
Be sure to download your free UI Toolkit today!
Want access to more nonprofit toolkits, checklists and tips? Sign up for UST’s Monthly eNews.
Most nonprofit leaders recognize that employee retention can be a challenge and with limited resources, can lead to a lack of employee recognition. Nonprofit employees tend to have a passion for their organization’s mission—a sense of pride in their work and view their current employment as a career, not just as a job. So how do nonprofit organizations go about best supporting their employee’s goals and achievements?
Celebrating an employee’s career achievements by offering service awards is an effective strategy on multiple levels. Here are a few ways your organization can continue acknowledging your employees on a consistent basis:
1. Acknowledging reliability: While it can seem like a huge undertaking to implement a career achievement program, organizations that offer such programs are able to keep employees an average of two years longer than organizations that don’t. If the program proves to be effective, employees plan to stay at their current employer for an additional two years on top of that.
2. Reward accomplished career goals: According TLNT’s research, “81% of employees feel career celebrations help them feel appreciated for their work and found that 19% more employees strongly felt their current company cared about employees. Also, 18% more employees strongly felt they fit in and belonged at their current company if the company offered service awards.”
3. Encourage employee & culture connection: Recognizing an employee’s career milestone can offer an opportunity to connect back to the foundation of the organization. This can help employees feel that they are making an impact and doing their part to benefit the organization as a whole.
The benefits of a career achievement program will not only bring focus to your employees and their accomplishments, it will increase the overall morale of the organization and make your nonprofit a desired place to work at for future employees.
A recent Bridgespan Group survey has revealed that most nonprofits rank their ability to provide development and growth opportunities to employees as their fourth greatest management weakness overall even.*
The same survey went on to explain that a lack of employee development has become the “Achilles heel” of the nonprofit community. Because only 30 percent of nonprofits have created or sustained an agency-wide plan for employee development—and only 23 percent of those track its progress—the large majority of organizations don’t have a clear understanding of what skills they need for each position as their mission evolves. Many more don’t even have an idea of where that talent would come from.
To help you develop a plan to address future leadership gaps, Bridgespan put together a list of 52 free ways that nonprofit agencies can improve their internal employee development. Some of the easiet and most impactful employee development initiatives that they list include:
On its own, on-the-job development isn’t enough though. To foster truly effective options for employee and organization development, get your board involved with individual employees through the agency. And have each person who is involved with your development program—whether that is a board member or a developing leader—regularly assess what works best at getting employees ready so that you are more likely and more able to advance them within your agency.
*Rounding out the top 3 are communication of priorities, coordination across organization boundaries, and performance assessment and consequences.
In California, where a 10.8 percent unemployment rate is reported with general good feelings, unemployment insurance presents more than one challenge to nonprofits as the state’s UI fund continues to fall deeper into insolvency. With plans to borrow more than $312.6 million from the state Disability Insurance Fund, how will nonprofits remaining in the state UI system counter the hefty bill coming at them?
While there is no good answer, nonprofits which have 10 or more employees are urged to consider leaving the state system to become reimbursing employers who only pay for the costs of the claims submitted by their former employees.
Because the financial recovery continues to trudge along for nonprofits, many of which cannot expect to return to pre-Recession levels of funding for 10 or more years, according to a recent study, it is important that nonprofit leadership continue to successfully assess the options available to them.
Nonprofits: What We’ve Learned
When the state UI fund ran out of money in 2009, during the height of the financial crisis, California had an unemployment rate of 11.3 percent—the fourth highest in the country—and about 1.75 million unemployed workers. Today, the rate remains still high at 10.8 percent.
But many nonprofits made it through the Recession relatively unharmed and in fact were able to raise their hiring 5 percent over a three year span as more help was needed by beneficiaries.
Although a high number of small agencies were forced to close, and many medium-sized agencies had to merge with larger organizations, nonprofits are used to tightening up their belt loops and surviving tough financial times to continue providing benefits to their community.
How can this knowledge be used to help California and other states facing high UI costs?
With the largest unemployment insurance deficit in the nation, cash-strapped California has already borrowed from the state Disability Fund once before, but little is being done to systematically change the way that the state releases funds for UI. (Both loans must be repaid within four years of their initial borrowing date, but no way to repay them has been presented.)
Counter-intuitive though it may be, by removing your nonprofit from the state UI tax system and instead paying only for your own UI claims you allow your agency to do more with the money you have and for the mission you’ve committed to. This action, in a small way, also calls for UI reforms across the nation as more nonprofits leave the state system for the cost savings found in self-reimbursing.
To learn more about how you can leave the state system and become a reimbursing employer, visit www.ChooseUST.org/501c3-unemployment-alternatives/ or sign up for an upcoming webinar.
Summary: Partnership creates potential savings for many nonprofits in the state of Maryland, reports the Unemployment Services Trust.
The Unemployment Services Trust (UST) and Maryland Nonprofits are proud to announce that they are joining forces to work with nonprofit organizations in Maryland to help save money on unemployment expenses.
Maryland Nonprofits is the primary source for guidance and assistance on nonprofit management issues for Maryland’s near 1,600-member nonprofit community. Maryland has 255,408 nonprofit employees within all service areas, including: Arts, Culture & Humanities, Education, Environment & Animals, Health, Human Services, and Public & Societal Benefit. Each year, more than 300,000 nonprofit professionals utilize Maryland Nonprofits’ resources, and now Maryland Nonprofits will be better able to assist its members with the help of UST’s cost-saving program.
Donna Groh, Executive Director of UST stated: “We are so pleased to enter into this partnership with Maryland Nonprofits. UST exists to save money for nonprofits so they can use those funds to advance their missions. Now, more than ever, nonprofit organizations need to maximize their resources and UST will work with Maryland Nonprofits’ members to do just that.”
UST, a national unemployment trust, helps organizations opt-out of their state’s unemployment tax system. Permitted by federal regulation, opting-out allows nonprofits to handle their own unemployment claims, and save money. UST members own their own account, which is a pre-paid asset used to cover unemployment expenses that occur when an unemployment claim is filed by a former employee. The nonprofit becomes a “direct reimbursing employer,” meaning they only pay for unemployment collected by former employees, and are sheltered from rising tax rates. UST offers asset-protection and unemployment claims monitoring that many nonprofits need to safeguard their cash flow from volatile or unwarranted unemployment claims. In addition, UST members benefit from conservative asset investment, stop-loss protection, bonding, and professional human resources support.
UST, founded by nonprofits for nonprofits, is the largest of all national unemployment trusts. Consisting of more than 2,100 member organizations from 47 states (and DC), UST has been helping nonprofits reduce expenses since 1983. UST’s long-standing relationship with nonprofit organizations has provided more than $33 million in refunds to trust members; and an additional $35 million in annual unemployment claim savings, presenting organizations with valuable resources to put toward achieving their missions.
For more information about UST, visit http://www.ChooseUST.org or call (888) 249-4788. You can also visit Maryland Nonprofits on the web at http://www.MarylandNonprofits.org.
Knowing exactly what separation details will be needed in response to the state and having the increased lead time needed to gather that information enables nonprofits to win more claims at the initial level of protest. This is especially important to nonprofit employers where winning claims up-front helps lower claim costs by eliminating benefit payments to former employees while waiting for an unemployment hearing to be scheduled.
Electronic receipt of claims notifications through SIDES also helps reduce follow up time, as a complete response is provided as part of each “first response.”
Ultimately, the program reduces improper payments, since the states are provided with all of the details needed to make the correct ruling in the initial determination. As a result, participation in SIDES saves both time and money.
For nonprofit employers, reducing the high costs associated with unproductive former employees helps increase the funds available to help others and attain organizational goals.
Some of the biggest benefits to nonprofits include:
UST’s claims monitor, TALX, has been involved with SIDES from its inception and is one of only two forward-looking unemployment cost control organizations utilizing the program to help 501(c)(3) members reap the benefits of this improved claims process.The program has been successful, thus far, and TALX is now live with SIDES in 10 states (AZ, CO, GA, IA, OH, RI, SC, TX, UT, WI). An additional 10 states are expected to go live by the end of August, with 21 more going live by the end of the year. There are 9 states that have not yet made a commitment to participating in SIDES.
If you are a UST member, please contact your TALX representative to learn more about SIDES.
By categorizing an organized nonprofit sector to include the number of nonprofits per capita in each community and the degree to which nonprofits directly engage local residents, the study, “Civic Health and Unemployment II: The Case Builds,” presented three key findings:
Further emphasizing the importance of an organized nonprofit community that is involved with those in the local area, the study suggests that while nonprofits directly contribute to a lower unemployment rate by creating jobs, there also appears to be a ripple effect in which organizations that engage with local residents create a change in the local unemployment rate.
Released by the National Conference on Citizenship this study may well become highly influential for those who most often are called upon to discuss the importance of establishing strong nonprofit sectors. And although it doesn’t offer all the answers as to why organized, involved nonprofits are able to directly impact unemployment rates, there will undoubtedly be more information to come in the next few months as the unemployment rate continues to trend downward.
UST maintains a secure site. This means that information we obtain from you in the process of enrolling is protected and cannot be viewed by others. Information about your agency is provided to our various service providers once you enroll in UST for the purpose of providing you with the best possible service. Your information will never be sold or rented to other entities that are not affiliated with UST. Agencies that are actively enrolled in UST are listed for review by other agencies, UST’s sponsors and potential participants, but no information specific to your agency can be reviewed by anyone not affiliated with UST and not otherwise engaged in providing services to you except as required by law or valid legal process.
Your use of this site and the provision of basic information constitute your consent for UST to use the information supplied.
UST may collect generic information about overall website traffic, and use other analytical information and tools to help us improve our website and provide the best possible information and service. As you browse UST’s website, cookies may also be placed on your computer so that we can better understand what information our visitors are most interested in, and to help direct you to other relevant information. These cookies do not collect personal information such as your name, email, postal address or phone number. To opt out of some of these cookies, click here. If you are a Twitter user, and prefer not to have Twitter ad content tailored to you, learn more here.
Further, our website may contain links to other sites. Anytime you connect to another website, their respective privacy policy will apply and UST is not responsible for the privacy practices of others.
This Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use for our site is subject to change.
UST maintains a secure site. This means that information we obtain from you in the process of enrolling is protected and cannot be viewed by others. Information about your agency is provided to our various service providers once you enroll in UST for the purpose of providing you with the best possible service. Your information will never be sold or rented to other entities that are not affiliated with UST. Agencies that are actively enrolled in UST are listed for review by other agencies, UST’s sponsors and potential participants, but no information specific to your agency can be reviewed by anyone not affiliated with UST and not otherwise engaged in providing services to you except as required by law or valid legal process.
Your use of this site and the provision of basic information constitute your consent for UST to use the information supplied.
UST may collect generic information about overall website traffic, and use other analytical information and tools to help us improve our website and provide the best possible information and service. As you browse UST’s website, cookies may also be placed on your computer so that we can better understand what information our visitors are most interested in, and to help direct you to other relevant information. These cookies do not collect personal information such as your name, email, postal address or phone number. To opt out of some of these cookies, click here. If you are a Twitter user, and prefer not to have Twitter ad content tailored to you, learn more here.
Further, our website may contain links to other sites. Anytime you connect to another website, their respective privacy policy will apply and UST is not responsible for the privacy practices of others.
This Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use for our site is subject to change.
The US Department of Labor has released instructions to states in response to the federal sequester that became effective March 1, 2013.
Changes to UI, as announced in the recent UI program letter, could affect your organization. Have you read the full letter yet?
Regular state unemployment compensation amounts are not directly impacted by the sequester. However, the details of the impact on funding for UI administration at the federal and state level and in sorting out the reduction amounts for individual weekly Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and Extended Benefit (EB) claims will be confusing for claimants, state agencies and employers and will likely result in higher error rates due to the short time to respond with programming, lack of training for staff, and misunderstanding of changes.
Sequestration specifically applies to
The DOL has asked that states make adjustments necessary to implement the reductions as soon as possible, and that EUC weekly benefit amounts and total EUC benefits payable be reduced by 10.7% effective with the week of March 31, 2013. However, recognizing that there may be some states that are not able to implement the reductions on March 31, 2013, states may delay implementation but the applicable percentage reduction will increase with later implementation.
The DOL has prescribed a notice to be sent to claimants explaining the reason for the reduction in EUC payments.
Impact on charges to state UI trust fund and employers in federal share of Extended Benefits
Of particular concern to employers in states that have triggered regular Extended Benefits (EB) is that the federal share of the EB payment will be reduced from the temporary 100% federal reimbursement, increasing the share to be paid through charges to employers and the state unemployment trust fund. Alaska is currently the only state triggered, but this cut in reimbursement should be noted as a concern in other states as well. A state may pass legislation detailed in the DOL program letter to reduce the EB Weekly Benefit Amount by the percentage of the cut.
A number of states enacted optional EB trigger provisions due to or conditioned on there being 100% federal reimbursement for the payments. The federally promised 100% reimbursement is now being cut, raising the policy and legislative issue as to the impact on laws requiring 100% reimbursement and states that assumed 100% federal reimbursement when enacting the optional triggers.
State administrative complexity will cause overpayments
Instead of simply reducing the total amount payable in EUC, the Office of Management and Budget and DOL have decided to implement the reductions with respect to individual weekly claims as well as in reduction of the total. The result of this decision will be difficult programming and administration by states with very little additional administrative funding ($40,000 per state). The determination of the amount of the reduction on a weekly basis, the relationship to state weekly benefit amounts, overpayments and a host of other issues are likely to result in significant numbers of overpayments and confusion on the part of claimants.
Employers and states should review the program letter (linked below), specifically with reference to EB considering measures to avoid increased charges to state unemployment trust funds resulting from a reduced federal share reimbursement.
The full program letter may be viewed at http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=4985.