Survey of UI Administrators

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

APPENDIX B
SURVEY OF UI ADMINISTRATORS

06863.430
State: [PRE-FILLED]

OMB Approval No.: XXXX-XXXX
Expiration Date: XX/XX/XXXX

EVALUATION OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROVISIONS OF THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) OF 2009
SURVEY OF UI ADMINISTRATORS
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for your participation. The purpose of this survey is to gather information about your state’s decision to
newly adopt, modify, or not adopt the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that pertain to
the Unemployment Compensation system. This survey is part of an evaluation of these provisions. It is sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Labor.
The questions in this survey relate to the Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) trigger and the Unemployment Insurance
(UI) Modernization provisions. If your state adopted one or more of these provisions, you will also be asked about the
implementation of the provisions. A brief description of each of the provisions follows for reference.
•

The TUR Trigger for Extended Benefits (EB): Upon passage of ARRA legislation on February 19, 2009,
(which was subsequently extended through 2011) states were eligible for 100 percent federal funding of EB,
regardless of whether they had a TUR trigger in place. However, states with a TUR trigger in place might
qualify sooner for EB and/or remain on it longer than states relying on the Insured Unemployment Rate
trigger only. Moreover, claimants in states that adopted the TUR could qualify for an additional 7 weeks of
benefits if the TUR in the state was 8 percent or higher.

• UI Modernization: As part of ARRA, the federal government apportioned $7 billion in incentive funds across
states for the adoption of specific provisions designed to increase access to benefits or the generosity of
benefits for certain segments of the population. In order to receive one-third of the state’s total allocation of
federal incentive funds, the state had to have an Alternate Base Period for computing UI benefits that met the
requirements specified in the legislation. To receive the remaining two-thirds, the state had to have two of the
four remaining provisions, described below.
-

Alternate Base Period (ABP): The benefit amount is calculated using the most recent completed
quarter of earnings, rather than the first four of the last five completed quarters under the traditional
base period.

-

Part-Time Work Provision: UI benefits are expanded to include individuals seeking only part-time
work.

-

Compelling Family Reasons Provision: The definition of “compelling family reasons” is expanded
to include those who voluntarily quit their jobs for specific family-related reasons.

-

Dependents’ Allowance Provision: A dependents’ allowance of at least $15 per week per
dependent with an optional cap of $50 per family, in addition to regular benefits, is provided to eligible
claimants.

-

Training Provision: Benefits are extended for 26 weeks for UI exhaustees who are enrolled in and
making satisfactory progress in either a state-approved training program or a job training program
authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Section A of the survey, on the next page, is a fact sheet. Please review and confirm or correct the data. Then,
please complete the remaining questions in the sections that follow. If you have any questions, you may contact XXXXX
toll free at XXX-XXXX.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is xxxx-xxxx. The time required to complete this information collection is
estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and
complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving
this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Labor, XXXXXXX. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission
of this form, write directly to: XXXXXXX.

A. Fact Sheet

STATE OF: ________[PRE-FILLED]________

The table below presents the information we have regarding your state’s adoption of the ARRA provisions that pertain to
the Unemployment Compensation system. The information is accurate to the best of our knowledge, but please confirm
or correct information for your state.
•

Column 1 lists each provision.

•

Column 2 shows the date the provision was adopted, either through legislative or administrative action, in
your state, if applicable.

•

Column 3 indicates the date the provision became effective.

•

Column 4 indicates, for those states that did adopt a provision, whether the provision was: (1) Newly
adopted: the provision did not exist prior to ARRA, (2) Modified: the provision existed in some form prior to
ARRA, but was modified to meet ARRA requirements (for example, removing a sunset clause), or
(3) Existing: the provision was already in place prior to ARRA and fulfilled ARRA requirements; this includes
administrative and case law precedent, as long as ARRA requirements were met.

Please review the table and make any corrections in Column 5. If the pre-printed information is accurate, please confirm
this by placing a  in the ”Confirm” column for each row.
COLUMN 1

COLUMN 2

COLUMN 3

COLUMN 4

Provision

Adoption
Date

Effective
Date

Adoption
Type

Confirm
()

Not adopted

N/A

N/A



March 15,
2010

June 1, 2010

New

□

May 15, 2010

June 1, 2010

New



Not adopted

N/A

N/A



May 15, 2010

June 1, 2010

New



Not adopted

N/A

N/A



TUR Trigger

Alternate Base Period

Part-time work provision

Compelling family
reasons provision

Dependents’ allowance
provision

Training provision

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.1

COLUMN 5

Corrections

We made only minor changes to an
existing ABP.

B. Decision to Adopt TUR Trigger for EB

B4.

The questions below ask about your state’s decision
to newly adopt, modify, or not adopt a TUR trigger as
specified by ARRA legislation of February 19, 2009,
referred to as an ARRA-specified TUR trigger.
B1.

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.

Which of the following best describes your
state’s action regarding the adoption of a TUR
trigger as specified by ARRA (an ARRA-specified
TUR trigger) between February 19, 2009 and the
present?

____

State would not have triggered onto EB using
a TUR trigger

____

One-time administrative costs to implement it
(e.g., start-up costs) would be prohibitive

 Newly adopted an ARRA-specified TUR trigger

____

Administrative costs that would be incurred on
an ongoing basis would be prohibitive

____

Philosophical objections, such as accepting
federal payment of EB

1
2

3

4

B2.

What were the key factors discussed, if any,
against adopting an ARRA-specified TUR
trigger?

 Already had a TUR trigger in place, but
modified or changed it to meet ARRA
specifications
 Already had a TUR trigger meeting ARRA
specifications and made no
changes
GO TO SECTION C

___ Concern about increased duration of regular
state UI claim spells because of additional
weeks of federal benefits

 Did not adopt an ARRA-specified
TUR trigger
GO TO B3

__ Concern about increased employer costs

Was the ARRA-specified TUR trigger
permanent?
 Yes
2  No, it was set to end when 100%
federal financing of EB ended
3  No, it had a sunset clause

__ Concern about increasing federal deficits
____

Other (Please specify)

1

GO TO B3

B5.
B2a. What was the sunset date?
|

B3.

| |/| | |/|
Month
Day

|

| |
Year

In your state, the discussion about whether to adopt
an ARRA-specified TUR trigger was characterized
by intense debate.

|

In your state, what were the key factors
discussed, if any, in favor of adopting an
ARRA-specified TUR trigger?

MARK ONLY ONE

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.
____

Becoming eligible for EB in general

____

Becoming eligible for EB while EB was
100% federally financed

____

Extending customer eligibility for an additional
seven weeks of EB

____

Maintaining eligibility for EB (for example, if
expected to trigger off if using only the IUR)

____

Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?

B.2

1

 Strongly agree

2

 Somewhat agree

3

 Somewhat disagree

4

 Strongly disagree

B6.

C. Alternate Base Period (ABP)

What were the biggest challenges your state
faced in implementing the ARRA-specified TUR
trigger?


The questions below ask about your state’s decision
to newly adopt, modify, or not adopt an ABP as
specified by ARRA legislation of February 19, 2009,
referred to as an ARRA-specified ABP.

CHECK HERE IF YOU DID NOT ADOPT AN ARRASPECIFIED TUR TRIGGER, THEN GO TO B7

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.

C1.

____

Reprogramming data systems

Which of the following best describes your
state’s action regarding the adoption of an ABP
as specified by ARRA (an ARRA-specified ABP)?

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

MARK ONLY ONE

____

Communicating the changes to eligible claimants

1

____

Processing EB benefits payments

2

____

Increased volume of claimants
Keeping track of claimants’ job search activities
as required by EB

3

____

____

Other (Please specify)

4

C2.

 Newly adopted an ARRA-specified ABP
 Already had an ABP in place, but
modified or changed it to meet ARRA
specifications
 Already had an ARRA-specified ABP and
made no changes
 Did not have and did not adopt an
ARRA-specified ABP
GO TO C3

Which version of an ARRA-specified ABP does
your state have?

GO TO SECTION C
MARK ONLY ONE

If your state did not adopt an ARRA-specified TUR
trigger, please answer question B7.
B7.

1

How far did your state get in the discussion of
whether to adopt an ARRA-specified TUR
trigger?

2

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2

3

4

5

 Not far; there was little discussion of adopting it
 It was considered, but no legislation was
introduced

 An ABP that includes the most recently
completed calendar quarter, when the claimant
cannot meet monetary qualifying requirements
using a “regular” base period that excludes this
quarter.

IF YOU HAD AN ARRA-SPECIFIED ABP AND MADE
NO CHANGES, GO TO SECTION D ON PAGE 6.

 Legislation was introduced, but died in state
legislature
 Legislation was passed, but the governor did
not sign it
 Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

 An ABP that includes the most recently
completed calendar quarter before the start
of the benefit year.

B.3

C3.

In your state, what were the key factors
discussed, if any, in favor of adopting an
ARRA-specified ABP?

C5a. What was the rough cost estimate, and over
what time period was it estimated?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.
____

Sustained high unemployment rate

____

Desire to increase access to the program by
workers with low earnings

____

Desire to increase access to the program by
workers who are new to the labor force

____

The most recent quarter of employment is more
relevant for determining UI eligibility than is
employment in the distant past

____

Desire to access UI Modernization incentive
funds

____

Other (Please specify)

$|
d

1

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.

____

One-time administrative costs to implement it
(e.g., start-up costs) would be prohibitive

Costs of the benefits paid out to claimants
using the ABP

____

Philosophical objections to adopting an
ARRA-specified ABP, such as accepting
federal incentive funds

GO TO C5a

0

 No

GO TO C5c

d

 Don’t know

|

| years

 One-time administrative costs (e.g., start-up
costs)
 Labor costs (e.g., hiring additional personnel,
re-training staff)

4

 Expanded eligibility/benefits payments

5

 Costs to update data systems

6

 Other capital improvements

7

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know

C5c. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
an ARRA-specified ABP?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY
1

3

GO TO C6

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

| over |

GO TO C6

Did your state develop cost estimates when
deciding whether to adopt an ARRA-specified
ABP?
 Yes

|

 Other long-term administrative costs

Other (Please specify)

1

|

3

2

C5.

|,|

 Don’t know

Administrative costs that would be incurred on
an ongoing basis (e.g., higher rates of monetary
and nonmonetary determinations) would be
prohibitive

____

____

|

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

What were the key factors discussed, if any,
against adopting an ARRA-specified ABP?

____

|

C5b. What factors went into this cost estimate?

2

C4.

|,|

B.4

 Political and/or philosophical considerations
made adoption infeasible, no matter the costs
 Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates
 Already had an ABP that required only a minor
revision

3

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know

C6.

Did your state estimate the number of claimants
who would be affected by an ARRA-specified
ABP?

C8a. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been greater than estimated costs?
MARK ONLY ONE

1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

1

GO TO C7
2

3

C6a. What was the estimated number of claimants,
and over what period?

4

Note: Your best estimate is fine.
|
d

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

5

 Don’t know
6

C7.

 One-time administrative costs have been higher
than expected
 Labor costs have been higher than estimated
 Other long-term administrative costs have been
higher than expected
 Benefits payments have been higher than
estimated
 Technological upgrades have been more
expensive than estimated
 Other (Please specify)

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
GO TO C9

In your state, the discussion about whether to adopt
an ARRA-specified ABP was characterized by intense
debate.

C8b. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been less than estimated costs?

MARK ONLY ONE
1

 Strongly agree

2

 Somewhat agree

3

 Somewhat disagree

4

 Strongly disagree

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2

3

IF YOUR STATE DID NOT ADOPT AN ARRASPECIFIED ABP, GO TO C11, NEXT PAGE.

4

C8.

How have your state’s actual costs compared
with the cost estimates?

5

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2

3

4
5

d

 Actual costs have been greater than estimated
costs
GO TO C8a
 Actual costs have been less than estimated
costs
GO TO C8b
 Actual costs have been roughly
in line with estimated costs

6

C9.

GO TO
C9

 Don’t know

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

 Labor costs have been lower than estimated
 Other long-term administrative costs have been
lower than expected
 Benefits payments have been lower than
estimated
 Technological upgrades have been less
expensive than estimated
 Other (Please specify)

What is the likelihood that your state will repeal
the ARRA-specified ABP?
MARK ONLY ONE

 State did not estimate costs
 Not enough time has passed to
determine how actual costs will
compare to estimates

 One-time administrative costs have been lower
than expected

B.5

1

 Very likely

2

 Somewhat likely

3

 Not likely

D. Other UI Modernization Provisions

C10. What were the biggest challenges your state
faced in implementing the ARRA-specified ABP?
Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.
____

Reprogramming data systems

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

____

Redistributing staff to cover needed areas
temporarily

____

The questions below ask about the decision to newly
adopt, modify, or not adopt two of the four other
modernization provisions as specified by ARRA
legislation of February 19, 2009, referred to as
ARRA-specified provisions.
The four provisions are:
a. Part-time work provision

Communicating the changes to eligible
claimants

b. Compelling family reasons provision
c. Dependents’ allowance provision

__ Communicating the changes to employers
____

Processing the increased volume of claims

____

Getting timely information to determine
monetary eligibility from employers, including
alternative documentation such as affidavits
when necessary

____

Other (Please specify)

d. Training provision

D1.

Which of the following best describes your
state’s action regarding the adoption of all or
parts of any of the four non-ABP provisions
specified by ARRA (ARRA-specified provisions)?
1

2

GO TO SECTION D

3

If your state did not adopt an ARRA-specified ABP,
please answer question C11.
4

C11. How far did your state get in the discussion of
whether to adopt an ARRA-specified ABP?
MARK ONLY ONE
1

2

3

4

5

5

 Not far; there was little discussion of it
 It was considered, but no legislation was
introduced
 Legislation modifying the existing ABP or
putting in a new ABP was introduced, but
died in state legislature
 Legislation was passed, but it was not signed
by the governor
 Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.6

 Already had two ARRA-specified
provisions and made
no changes
GO TO D33, PAGE 13
 Newly adopted two ARRA-specified provisions
 Already had all or parts of one or two provisions
in place, but modified or changed one or both to
meet ARRA specifications
 Already had all or parts of one or two provisions
in place, and did not modify or change one or
both to meet ARRA specifications
 Did not have and did not adopt any of the four
ARRA-specified provisions

D2.

In your state, what were the key factors
discussed, if any, in favor of fully adopting two
ARRA-specified modernization provisions?

Part-Time Work Provision
D4.

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.
____

Already had all or parts of one or two provisions
in place

____

Would offer increased access to the program
by certain segments of the population

____

Would provide additional financial support to
unemployed workers with dependents

____

Would provide additional financial support
to unemployed workers participating in
approved training

____

D5.

Did your state develop cost estimates in
deciding whether to adopt an ARRA-specified
part-time work provision?
1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

GO TO D7

What was the rough cost estimate for the parttime work provision, and over what time period
was it estimated?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.
$|

Desire to access UI Modernization incentive
funds

d
____

GO TO D6

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

 Don’t know

Other (Please specify)
D5a. What factors went into this cost estimate?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY

D3.

What were the key factors discussed, if any,
against fully adopting two ARRA-specified
modernization provisions?

1

2

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.
____

____

____

One-time administrative costs to implement
them (e.g., start-up costs)
Administrative costs that would be incurred
on an ongoing basis (e.g., higher rates of
monetary and nonmonetary determinations)

Did not want to accept federal incentive funds

____

Philosophical objections to adopting
ARRA-specified provisions, such as
accepting federal incentive funds

____

 Other long-term administrative costs

4

 Increased benefits payments

5

 Costs to update data systems

6

 Other capital improvements

7

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know
GO TO D7

Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

 Labor costs (e.g., hiring additional personnel,
re-training staff)

3

Costs of the benefits paid out to claimants

____

 One-time administrative costs (e.g., start-up
costs)

B.7

D6.

Compelling Fa mily Reasons Provision

Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the part-time work provision?
D8.
MARK ALL THAT APPLY
1

2

3

 Political and/or philosophical considerations
made adoption infeasible, no matter the costs
 Already had a part-time work provision
 Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates

4

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know

D9.

Did your state develop cost estimates in
deciding whether to adopt an ARRA-specified
compelling family reasons provision?
1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

GO TO D12

What was the rough cost estimate for the
compelling family reasons provision, and over
what time period was it estimated?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.
$|

D7.

GO TO D11

Did your state estimate the number of claimants
who would be affected by the part-time work
provision?

d

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

 Don’t know

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

GO TO D8

1

2

D7a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants, and over what period?

 One-time administrative costs (e.g., start-up
costs)
 Labor costs (e.g., hiring additional personnel,
re-training staff)

3

 Other long-term administrative costs

4

 Increased benefits payments

5

 Costs to update data systems

6

 Other capital improvements

7

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know

Note: Your best estimate is fine.

d

|,|

| years

D10. What factors went into this cost estimate?

1

|

|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

 Don’t know

GO TO D12

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.8

Dependents’ Allowance Provision

D11. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the compelling family reasons provision?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY
1

2

3

4

 Political and/or philosophical considerations
made adoption infeasible, no matter the costs

D13. Did your state develop cost estimates in
deciding whether to adopt an ARRA-specified
dependents’ allowance provision?

 Already had a compelling family reasons
provision
 Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates
 Other (Please specify)

1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

GO TO D16
GO TO D17

D14. What was the rough cost estimate for the
dependents’ allowance provision and over what
time period was it estimated?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.

d

 Don’t know

$|
d

D12. Did your state estimate the number of claimants
who would be affected by the compelling family
reasons provision?
1

 Yes

0

 No

d

1

GO TO D13

D12a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants, and over what period?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.

d

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

 Don’t know

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

 Don’t know

|,|

|

D15. What factors went into this cost estimate?

2

|

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

 Don’t know

 One-time administrative costs (e.g., start-up
costs)
 Labor costs (e.g., hiring additional personnel,
re-training staff)

3

 Other long-term administrative costs

4

 Increased benefits payments

5

 Costs to update data systems

6

 Other capital improvements

7

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know
GO TO D17

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.9

Training Provision

D16. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the dependents’ allowance provision?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY
1

2

3

4

 Political and/or philosophical considerations
made adoption infeasible, no matter the costs

D18. Did your state develop cost estimates in
deciding whether to adopt an ARRA-specified
training provision?

 Already had a dependents’ allowance provision
 Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates
 Other (Please specify)

1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

GO TO D21
GO TO D22

D19. What was the rough cost estimate for the
training provision, and over what time period
was it estimated?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.

d

 Don’t know

$|
d

D17. Did your state estimate the number of claimants
who would be affected by the dependents’
allowance provision?

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

 Don’t know

D20. What factors went into this cost estimate?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY

1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

 One-time administrative costs (e.g., start-up
costs)
2  Labor costs (e.g., hiring additional personnel,
re-training staff)
3  Other long-term administrative costs
4  Increased benefits payments
5  Costs to update data systems
6  Other capital improvements
7  Other (Please specify)
1

GO TO D18

D17a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants, and over what period?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.
|
d

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

d

 Don’t know

 Don’t know

GO TO D22
D21. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the training provision?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY
1

2
3

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.10

 Political and/or philosophical considerations
made adoption infeasible, no matter the costs
 Already had a training provision
 Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates

4

 Other (Please specify)

d

 Don’t know

D22. Did your state estimate the number of claimants
who would be affected by the training provision?
1

 Yes

0

 No

d

 Don’t know

D25. Why did your state adopt these two particular
provisions, out of the four possible?
Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.

GO TO D23

D22a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants, and over what period?
Note: Your best estimate is fine.
|
d

|,|

|

|

|,|

|

|

| over |

|

| years

 Don’t know

D23. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the
following statement.
In your state, the discussion about whether to fully
adopt two ARRA-specified provisions was
characterized by intense debate.

____

The state already had all or parts of two
provisions in place

____

Costs were expected to be lowest for the
two adopted

____

Implementation was expected to be easiest
for the two adopted

____

The two provisions adopted required the
least staff re-training

____

The two provisions adopted required the
fewest upgrades to data systems

____

The two provisions fit together the best

____

The two provisions expanded eligibility

____

The fixed incentive payment outweighed
estimated costs of adopting the two provisions

____

The provisions increased the weekly benefit
amount

____

Other (Please specify)

MARK ONLY ONE
1

 Strongly agree

2

 Somewhat agree

3

 Somewhat disagree

4

 Strongly disagree

D24. Which two ARRA-specified provisions did your
state newly adopt, modify, or already have in
place?

Please answer questions D26 to D28 about the
provision you designated as Provision 1.
D26. What were the challenges your state faced in
implementing Provision 1?
Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.

If more than two, please indicate the two included in
the application for modernization incentive funds.
Designate one provision with a number 1 and the
other with the number 2 (number does not indicate
ranking; it is used in responding to later questions).

____

Reprogramming data systems

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

____

Redistributing staff to cover needed areas
temporarily

____

Communicating the changes to eligible
claimants

MARK TWO

__ Part-time work provision
__ Compelling family reasons provision

__ Communicating the changes to employers

__ Dependents’ allowance provision
__ Training provision

____

Processing the increased volume of claims

__ Did not adopt or have these provisions
in place
GO TO D32, PAGE 13

____

Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.11

D27.

How have your state’s actual costs of
implementing Provision 1 compared with
the cost estimates?

D28. What is the likelihood that your state will repeal
Provision 1?
MARK ONLY ONE

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2

3

4
5

d

 Actual costs have been greater than
estimated costs
 Actual costs have been less than estimated
costs
GO TO D27b

 Not enough time has passed to
determine how actual costs will
compare to estimates

GO TO
D28

3

4

5

6

 Somewhat likely

3

 Not likely

Rank in order the three most important, with 1
being the most important.

 Don’t know

MARK ONLY ONE

2

2

D29. What were the biggest challenges your state
faced in implementing Provision 2?

D27a. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been greater than estimated costs?

1

 Very likely

Please answer questions D29 to D31 about the
provision you designated as Provision 2.

 Actual costs have been roughly in
line with estimated costs
 State did not estimate costs

1

____

Reprogramming data systems

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

____

Redistributing staff to cover needed areas
temporarily

____

Communicating the changes to eligible
claimants

 One-time administrative costs have been
higher than expected
 Labor costs have been higher than estimated
 Other long-term administrative costs have
been higher than expected

__ Communicating the changes to employers

 Benefits payments have been higher than
estimated
 Technological upgrades have been more
expensive than estimated

____

Processing the increased volume of claims

____

Other (Please specify)

 Other (Please specify)

GO TO D28

D30. How have your state’s actual costs of
implementing Provision 2 compared with the
cost estimates?
MARK ONLY ONE

D27b. What was the main reason the actual costs have
been less than estimated costs?

1

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2
3

4

5

6

 One-time administrative costs have been lower
than expected

2

 Labor costs have been lower than estimated

3

 Other long-term administrative costs have
been lower than expected

4

 Benefits payments have been lower than
estimated

5

 Technological upgrades have been less
expensive than estimated
 Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

d

B.12

 Actual costs have been greater than
estimated costs
GO TO D30a
 Actual costs have been less than estimated
costs
GO TO D30b
 Actual costs have been roughly
in line with estimated costs
 State did not estimate costs
 Not enough time has passed to
determine how actual costs will
compare to estimates
 Don’t know

GO TO
D31

D30a. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been greater than estimated costs?

If your state did not adopt two ARRA-specified
UI Modernization provisions, please answer
question D32.

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2
3

4

5

6

 One-time administrative costs have been
higher than expected
 Labor costs have been higher than estimated

D32. How far did your state get in the discussion of
whether to fully adopt two modernization
provisions?

 Other long-term administrative costs have
been higher than expected

MARK ONLY ONE

 Benefits payments have been higher than
estimated

1

 Technological upgrades have been more
expensive than estimated

2

 Other (Please specify)
3

4

GO TO D31

5

D30b. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been less than estimated costs?

 Not far; there was little discussion of adopting
either provision
 Adopting one or two was considered, but no
legislation was introduced
 Legislation was introduced, but died in state
legislature
 Legislation was passed, but the governor did
not sign it
 Other (Please specify)

MARK ONLY ONE
1

2
3

4

5

6

D31.

 One-time administrative costs have been lower
than expected
 Labor costs have been lower than estimated
 Other long-term administrative costs have
been lower than expected

D33. Thank you for participating in this important
study! Your input is very important and much
appreciated. Please use the space below to
share any comments related to the adoption of
ARRA provisions as they pertain to the
Unemployment Compensation system.

 Benefits payments have been lower than
estimated
 Technological upgrades have been less
expensive than estimated
 Other (Please specify)

What is the likelihood that your state will repeal
Provision 2?
MARK ONLY ONE
1

 Very likely

2

 Somewhat likely

3

 Not likely
GO TO D33

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.13

RESPONDENT INFORMATION
Please print your contact information below.
Your Name:

Telephone Number: (________) Area Code

(PRINT)
Title:

Today’s Date:

Email Address:
If anyone else on your staff helped complete this survey, or collaborated with you, please provide a name, title,
and telephone number for them.
Colleague #1

(
Name

Title

Name

Title

Name

Title

)

Phone #

Colleague #2

(

)

Phone #

Colleague #3

(

)

Phone #

Thank you very much. We appreciate your participation in this survey.

RETURN INSTRUCTIONS
Please mail your completed survey in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you have
misplaced your envelope, please mail your completed survey to:
Pat Nemeth, Survey Director
UCP Project
Mathematica Policy Research
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

B.14