Site Visit Data Collection (States)

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

APPENDIX C
MASTER SITE VISIT PROTOCOL

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Module 1: Introduction to the Interview and Background .....................................C.4
Module 2: Extended Benefits/TUR Trigger and EUC08 .........................................C.5
Module 3: UI Modernization Provisions..............................................................C.11
Module 4: Federal Additional Compensation .....................................................C.21
Module 5: Receipt of First $2,400 in Benefits Free of Federal
Income Taxation ...............................................................................................C.22
Module 6: Temporary Suspension of All Interest Payments
on Trust Fund Advances....................................................................................C.23
Module 7: Concluding Questions ......................................................................C.24

C.3

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERVIEW AND BACKGROUND
A. Mathematica and the Urban Institute are conducting an evaluation for the U.S. Department
of Labor (DOL) about the implementation and effectiveness of the Unemployment
Compensation (UC) provisions contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA) legislation. As part of this study, our research team is visiting your state and
19 others to learn about how states decided which optional provisions to adopt and their
experiences implementing all ARRA-related UC provisions. In particular, in our discussion
with you today, we’d like to talk about [list the topic(s) relevant to the particular
respondent(s)].
B. [Depending on the respondent(s), the general introduction continues:]
1. According to responses on the UI administrator survey, your state adopted (total
unemployment rate [TUR] trigger/ alternate base period (ABP)/Modernization
provisions 1–4) and did not adopt (TUR trigger/ABP/Modernization provisions 1–4).
[Can reference other details from the UI administrator survey as appropriate.]
2. During this conversation, we’ll go into more detail about the decision to adopt/not
adopt these provisions.
3. Then we’ll discuss your experiences implementing these provisions, as well as some
other provisions of the Recovery Act, including the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2008 (EUC08) benefits, federal additional compensation (FAC),
suspension of interest payments, and first $2,400 in benefits tax free.
C. Background on State Economic and Political Climate
1. Please briefly describe the broad economic trends your state has experienced from late
2007 through today. [Probes: How did the insured and total unemployment rates change? Were any
industries in your state particularly hard-hit by the recession? Was the state in a relatively sound fiscal
condition before the recession? (That is, was the state facing a budget crisis?)
2. Please briefly describe the broad political trends your state has experienced from late
2007 through today. [Probes: Who was the governor and who controlled the state house and senate in
late 2007? What political parties were they affiliated with? Did the governorship and/or control of state
congress change at any point? How? Did the state secretary of labor and/or deputy in charge of
Unemployment Insurance (UI) change over this period?]
3. Please briefly describe the history of the state’s UI finances starting from late 2007. To
what extent has the state borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund? How
has the level of the trust fund fluctuated?
4. In the several years before ARRA legislation was passed, was your state changing UI
laws in any way, such as to restrict or expand eligibility for benefits, or to increase or
decrease benefit generosity? What political and economic factors were associated with
starting to take these actions?
5. What methods of initial and continued claims were used in the state before the
recession? [Probes: Phone (call center), internet, in-person.] How, if at all, did this change after
the recession began? [Probes: Added some in-person staff at One-Stops, shift from phone filing to
more internet filing.] How many call centers does the state currently have?
C.4

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 2: EXTENDED BENEFITS/TUR TRIGGER AND EUC08
A. Introduction and Background
1. Please describe for me your state’s experience with the Extended Benefits (EB) program
before the 2007 recession. Our notes indicate that your state’s last “off” date was [date].
To what extent has your state taken advantage of the EB program in past economic
downturns? Why or why not? If EB has triggered on in the past, how has it interacted
with emergency benefit programs?
2. Our records indicate that your state triggered on/off EB [describe history during
recession]. Please confirm.
a. Also, our records indicate that your state triggered on using the TUR [or the insured
unemployment rate (IUR)]. If the TUR, our records indicate that your state adopted
the TUR trigger on [date]. Please confirm.
3. Did the state enact the optional three-year look-back provision included in the
December 2010 legislation? If not, are (were) there plans or legislative proposals to do
so?
B. The Decision to Adopt an ARRA-specified TUR Trigger
1. For states that had an ARRA-specified TUR trigger in place before ARRA (if not, skip to
2)
a. What considerations influenced adoption of the TUR trigger? When was it adopted?
b. How has the look-back provision affected the state’s experience triggering on/off
EB?
2. For states that adopted the TUR trigger (if not, skip to 3)
a. Our records show that you did/did not have the TUR trigger before ARRA. Please
confirm.
(1) When was it adopted?
(2) How important has this been to your state’s triggering onto EB?
b. What were the key economic and political considerations favoring adoption of the
TUR trigger in your state? What were the key considerations against adopting it?
(1) Which groups held the different positions? Which particular individuals or
groups were the biggest proponents and opponents of adoption? [Probes:
Particular labor unions or advocacy groups? Particular political leaders?]
(2) How much did the prevailing IUR or TUR (that is, the rates themselves) affect
the state’s decision to adopt the TUR trigger?
(3) How much did the potential for an extra seven weeks of EB factor into the
decision?
c. How much was this policy discussed/debated by the different groups?
(1) In your opinion, was this policy controversial or were parties in general
agreement?
(2) How long did debate/discussion take before agreement was reached to adopt the
TUR trigger?
d. What effect was adopting the TUR trigger predicted to have on the state’s triggering
on to EB?
e. Assuming the likelihood was that the state would trigger on to EB, what was the
predicted effect on the number of EB claimants?
C.5

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

(1) On what basis were these predictions made?
(2) Did different groups have different predictions?
(3) Was a reconciliation reached?
f. What is the likelihood that the state will retain the TUR trigger for EB when the
federal government ceases to pay 100 percent of EB? Why?
(1) Was the legislation written to sunset the TUR? How was this structured?
(2) Why is the state opposed to retaining the TUR trigger?
3. For States that Did Not Adopt the TUR
a. Our records indicate that you currently have the [optional 6 percent IUR or regular
IUR] trigger. Please confirm. [If the state has the optional 6 percent IUR, continue;
else skip to 3.b.]
(1) When was it adopted? What were the main reasons for adopting it?
(2) How important has this been to your state’s triggering onto EB?
b. What were the key economic and political considerations favoring adoption of the
TUR trigger in your state? What were the key considerations against adopting it?
(1) Which particular groups or individuals held these positions? [Probes: Particular
labor unions or advocacy groups? Particular political leaders?]
(2) How much did the IUR or TUR (that is, the actual rate) affect the state’s
decision not to adopt the TUR trigger?
(3) What was the prediction of the likelihood of triggering on to EB with the TUR
trigger? On what were these predictions based?
c. How much was this policy discussed/debated by these different groups? Please
explain the history.
(1) In your opinion, was this policy controversial or were parties in general
agreement?
(2) How long did debate/discussion take before agreement was reached to not
adopt the TUR trigger?
(3) Has adoption of the TUR trigger been discussed at more than one point in time,
or was the decision not to adopt more or less final?
C. Implementation of EB/TUR Trigger (skip if TUR not adopted and EB not triggered on)
1. TUR trigger implementation (if TUR trigger adopted post-ARRA)
a. When was the TUR trigger first made effective?
b. What influenced the timing of implementation (for example, need to update
computer/accounting systems to process EB)? Was there a delay in putting the TUR
trigger in place? If so, why?
c. With the adoption of the TUR trigger, what changes to IT systems had to be made?
How were these changes accomplished, and in what time frame?
2. EB implementation (if triggered on during recession, whether through TUR or IUR
trigger)
a. In what ways did the state prepare for the implementation of the EB?
(1) Were any staff retrained or were there new hires? If so, please explain the need
for retrained or new staff, and the extent of the need.
(2) What computer changes had to be made, if any?

C.6

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Mathematica Policy Research

(3) What processes were developed to monitor EB claimants’ job search activities?
Does your state accept electronic declarations of work search? How are
declarations verified?
(4) How was information on EB distributed to claimants who had already exhausted
other benefit entitlements but were eligible for benefits under EB?
(a) Which staff were responsible for this?
How did use of EB change or affect the administration of eligibility reviews and
reemployment services, including reemployment eligibility assessments, if at all?
(1) How were eligibility reviews administered after the state triggered onto EB? [Note
that several states no longer report conducting eligibility reviews.]
(2) How was this different from how they were administered before the state
triggered onto EB? [Probes: Were resources shifted away from administering these to
handling the increased flow of claimants, or was there basically no change?]
(3) How were services to connect customers with available reemployment services,
including reemployment eligibility assessments, administered after the state
triggered onto EB?
(4) How was this different from how they were administered before the state
triggered onto EB? [Probes: Were resources shifted away from administering these to
handling the increased flow of claimants, or was there basically no change? Did the state have a
Reemployment Eligibility Assessment (REA) grant that made it unnecessary to transfer
resources away from conducting them?]
How did triggering on to EB affect referrals to reemployment services under
Wagner-Peyser and referrals to training under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)?
(1) How were referrals handled under EB?
(2) How is this different from how referrals were handled before implementation of
EB? [Probes: Were they “soft” referrals given out by call-center staff as part of their script?
Was information sent to claimants’ homes? Did One-Stop or other workforce staff directly
contact claimants?]
In general, how were front-line staff affected by the EB program?
(1) Did they have to be trained on the EB program? If so, which staff were trained,
and how was the training accomplished? [Probes: a single training for state-wide staff,
on-site training in call centers] In what time frame was training conducted?
(2) To what extent were staff overburdened by the number of claims/claimants or
the need to process paperwork?
(3) What strategies were used to alleviate the extra workload caused by administering
EB?
Was there an increase in overpayments as a result of EB? If so, please explain why.
(1) What was the extent of the problem?
(2) What were common ways by which overpayments arose?
(3) How was that money recouped?
Did the implementation of EB affect staff’s ability to meet other performance
targets? If so, please describe.

3. Assessment
a. In the end, to what extent had the state foreseen the various implementation issues
and how prepared were administrators and staff?
(1) What issues were unexpected?
(2) How were they resolved?
b. What were the key challenges to triggering on and off EB?
C.7

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

c. In general, what is the state’s assessment on whether the benefits of triggering on to
EB outweighed the challenges/costs?
(1) What were the key benefits of triggering on to EB? [Probe: additional UI benefits]
(2) What were the key challenges? [Probes: Strain on staff, processing paperwork, information
technology (IT) changes.]
(3) How did the state/staff overcome any challenges?
D. Implementation of EUC08
1. Introduction
a. Our records indicate that [insert general description of which tiers the state has
triggered on/off since EUC08 was enacted].
2. General implementation issues
a. The initial EUC08 legislation was authorized in July 2008. How long did it take your
state to implement EUC08?
b. What influenced this timing? What did the state have to do to prepare?
(1) What changes to IT systems had to be made in order to implement EUC08?
How were these changes accomplished and in what time frame?
(2) Did existing front-line staff have to be retrained? If so, which staff? On what?
How was the training accomplished and in what time frame? [Probes: a single
training for state-wide staff, on-site training in call centers]
(3) Were new staff hired? If so, please explain the extent of the new hires and their
roles.
c. How was information distributed to claimants who had already exhausted regular UI
but were eligible for additional benefits under EUC08? To what extent did the
information reach the claimants affected?
d. How did the triggering on and off of various EUC08 tiers as additional legislation
was passed and claimants in the state became eligible for additional benefits affect
the state’s implementation of EUC08?
(1) What challenges did the state encounter?
(2) How did the changes enacted by the successive federal legislative actions affect
the state’s implementation of EUC08? For instance, in periods when new
EUC08 claims were not accepted (April, June–July, and November–December
2010), were claimants encouraged to continue filing so that retroactive payments
could be made easily? Were claimants encouraged to file for EB during these
periods?
e. How did use of EUC08 change or affect the administration of eligibility reviews and
reemployment eligibility assessments, if at all?
(1) How were eligibility reviews administered after EUC08 began? [Note that several
states no longer report conducting eligibility reviews.]
(2) How was this different from how they were administered before EUC08 began?
(3) How were reemployment eligibility assessments administered after EUC08
began?
(4) How was this different from how they were administered before EUC08 began?
f. How did use of EUC08 affect referrals to reemployment services under WagnerPeyser and referrals to training under WIA?
(1) How were referrals handled after EUC08 began?
(2) How was this different from how referrals to reemployment services under
Wagner-Peyser and to training under WIA were handled before implementation of
C.8

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

EUC08? [Probes: Were they “soft” referrals given out by call-center staff as part of their
script? Was information sent to claimants’ homes? Did One-Stop or other workforce staff
directly contact claimants?]
g. How did the implementation of EB affect staff’s ability to meet performance targets?
Please describe.
h. Was there an increase in overpayments as a result of EUC08? If so, please explain
why.
(1) What was the extent of the problem?
(2) What were the main reasons why overpayments were made?
(3) How was that money recouped?
i. How effective was the “EUC fix” in keeping claimants at the higher federal benefits?
j. We understand that your state received $[insert amount] from USDOL for
implementation of EUC08. Did your state use all these funds? Why or why not?
3. Assessment
a. In the end, to what extent had the state foreseen the various implementation issues?
How prepared were administrators and staff?
(1) What issues were unexpected?
(2) How were they resolved?
(3) To what extent were these issues compounded/affected by the exclusive use of
Call Centers and the Internet to communicate with claimants?
b. What, if any, particular plans or activities were delayed or cancelled to handle EUC08
and the extra volume of claims?
c. What other, if any, implementation and administrative issues did the state encounter?
Please explain.
d. In general, what were the key benefits of triggering on to EUC08? What were the key
challenges? How were staff able to overcome these challenges?
e. [If state triggered onto Tier III or IV at any point] What were the key benefits of
triggering onto Tier III [and IV] of EUC08? Were there additional challenges
associated with this? How were staff able to overcome these challenges?
E. Interplay between EUC08 and EB (Skip if did not trigger on to EB)
1. Many states had not paid EB for many years. What, if any, additional implementation or
operational issues arose with implementing EB because of the EUC08 program?
a. Were technical issues, such as making changes to IT systems, made more challenging
by implementing both EB and EUC08? If so, how?
b. Was the training of staff made more challenging? How so?
c. Were there difficulties informing regular UI exhaustees about their eligibility for the
various types of benefits? If so, please describe.
d. What, if any, were the additional challenges in the flow and processing of claims?
2. What were the operational advantages to implementing both EB and EUC08? [Probes:
Technical issues easier to resolve/staff retrained using existing materials/easier to inform exhaustees
about their eligibility for benefits/less challenging to handle the increased flow of claimants through EB
since EUC08 had already been in place.] Please explain.
3. What were the disadvantages? Please explain.

C.9

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

4. How did the state triggering on and off various EUC08 Tiers affect the interplay
between EUC08 and EB? [Probes: did it make it more challenging?]
5. What recommendations, if any, would you have for improving the reporting mechanisms
for EUC and EB? What suggestions would you have for coordinating the data reporting
between different EUC tiers, as well as EUC and EB?
6. What lessons can be learned for the future from the interactions between the two federal
extension programs?

C.10

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 3: UI MODERNIZATION PROVISIONS
A. Introduction: According to our records, your state adopted or already had [note whether
ABP adopted and which modernization provisions, if any].
B. Decision to Adopt Alternate Base Period
1. States that had an existing ARRA-specified ABP (and did not have to make any changes
(if not, skip to 2)
a. Our records indicate that your state adopted [a regular base period that includes the
most recently completed calendar quarter before the start of the benefit year/ 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], and that this ABP was adopted in [year]. Is that correct?
b. To your knowledge, why did the state adopt the ABP?
(1) What were the key considerations supporting adoption of the ABP at that time?
Who were the key supporters of this legislation? Who were the detractors? What
were their objections?
(2) How would you describe the process of adopting the legislation at that time (for
example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or widespread agreement)?
c. Our records show that your state’s application for one-third funds was submitted on
[date].
(1) Was there any discussion of not applying for one-third incentive funds, even
though the state already had a required ARRA-specified ABP in place? If so,
what were the key reasons to consider not applying? What particular groups or
individuals held these views?
(2) Were there any problems gathering the information necessary to submit an
application to DOL for approval?
(3) Were there any problems acquiring DOL approval of the application (for
example, additional supporting documentation had to be submitted)?
2. States that made changes to an existing ABP in order to meet ARRA requirements (if
not, skip to 3)
a. What ABP did your state use before ARRA? Why was your state already using an
ABP?
b. What changes had to be made to the existing ABP in order to qualify for the first
one-third of UI Modernization incentive funds?
c. Our records indicate that your state adopted [a regular base period that includes the
most recently completed calendar quarter before the start of the benefit year/ 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], and that this ARRA-specified ABP was adopted [year]. Is that
correct?
d. How would you describe the process of adopting the legislation (for example,
contentious debate, little discussion at all, or widespread agreement)?
(1) What were the key economic and political considerations in favor of making
these changes to existing legislation? Which groups supported the revisions?
Why?
(2) What were the key economic and political considerations against making these
changes? Which groups opposed the changes? Why?
C.11

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

e.
f.
g.
h.

Mathematica Policy Research

(3) How did the offer of modernization incentive funds figure into the state’s
decision to adopt? Would other incentives have been more persuasive? If so,
how and which ones?
About how long did this decision process take?
How was the adoption of an ARRA-specified ABP predicted to change the number of
individuals meeting the monetary eligibility condition? On what were these
predictions based?
How was the adoption of an ARRA-specified ABP predicted to affect nonmonetary
determinations? [Probes: Why was it expected to increase/decrease?] On what were these
predictions based?
Our records show that your state’s application for one-third funds was submitted on
[date].
(1) Were there any problems gathering the information necessary to submit an
application to DOL for approval?
(2) Were there any problems acquiring DOL approval of the application (for
example, additional supporting documentation had to be submitted)?

3. States that enacted new legislation to adopt an ARRA-specified ABP (if not, skip to 4)
a. Our records indicate that your state adopted [a regular base period that includes the
most recently completed calendar quarter before the start of the benefit year/ 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], and that this ARRA-specified ABP was adopted [year]. Is that
correct?
b. To what extent had adopting an ABP been discussed by the state before the ARRA
modernization provisions? In your opinion, why or why not has it been part of the
discussion of the state’s UC program?
c. How would you describe the process of adopting the legislation following ARRA
(for example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or widespread agreement)?
(1) What were the key economic and political considerations in favor of adopting
new legislation so that the state would be eligible for one-third modernization
incentive payments? Which groups supported these positions? Why?
(2) What were the key economic and political considerations against adopting new
legislation? Which groups held these positions? Why?
(3) How did the offer of modernization incentive funds figure into the state’s
decision to adopt? Would other incentives have been more persuasive? If so,
how and which ones?
d. About how long did this decision process take?
e. How was the adoption of an ARRA-specified ABP predicted to change the number of
individuals meeting the monetary eligibility condition? On what were these
predictions based?
f. How was the adoption of an ARRA-specified ABP predicted to affect nonmonetary
determinations? [Probes: Why was it expected to increase/decrease?] On what were these
predictions based?
g. Our records show that your state’s application for one-third funds was submitted on
[date].
(1) Were there any problems gathering the information necessary to submit an
application to DOL for approval?
C.12

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

(2) Were there any problems acquiring DOL approval of the application (for
example, additional supporting documentation had to be submitted)?
4. States that did not adopt an ARRA-specified ABP
a. To what extent had adopting an ABP been discussed by the state before the ARRA
modernization provisions? In your opinion, why or why not has it been part of the
discussion of the state’s UC program?
b. Why did your state decide not to adopt an ARRA-specified ABP?
(1) What were the key economic and political considerations against adopting new
legislation to make the state eligible for the first one-third modernization
incentive payments? Which groups opposed adoption? Why?
(2) Were there any economic and political considerations in favor of adopting the
ABP? If so, what were they? Who supported adopting the ABP? Why?
c. Was an attempt made to introduce new legislation? If so, how did that effort fare? If
it died in the legislature, how far did it make it (for example, never made it out of
committee, made it to the floor but was not put for a vote, was put to a vote and
failed)? What was the key reason it failed?
d. In general, how would you describe the debate/discussion in the state about the
ABP following ARRA (for example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or
widespread agreement)?
e. How did the offer of modernization incentive funds figure into the state’s decision
to adopt? Would other incentives have been more persuasive? If so, how and which
ones?
C. Implementation of the ABP (If received one-third funds, continue. Else, skip.)
1. What were the one-third share modernization incentive payments used for (for example,
replenish trust fund, IT upgrades, retrain staff)?
a. To what extent did the one-third funds affect the state’s UI trust fund borrowing?
2. What changes to IT and data systems had to be made in order to implement the ABP?
How long did that take?
3. Did front-line staff have to be retrained? If so, which staff were trained, on what, and
how was the training accomplished? How long did the training take?
4. How, if at all, was information on the ABP distributed to claimants whose monetary
eligibility was affected under the ABP?
5. What was the effect on claims processing?
a. How was the flow and processing of initial claims affected? How did the number of
claimants eligible as a result of adopting the ABP change?
b. Was this change expected? Why or why not?
c. Was there an increase in the rate of denial of benefits based on nonmonetary
eligibility? [Probes: With additional claimants meeting monetary eligibility requirements under the
ABP, was there a corresponding increase in denials based on nonmonetary eligibility, or was it more
or less the same?]
d. How did the ABP affect the flow and processing of continued claims?
C.13

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

6. Did challenges by employers to workers’ eligibility for benefits increase? Please explain.
7. Your state’s responses on the UI administrator survey indicated that the estimated costs
were [insert response] and that factors [insert factors] went into that calculation.
a. What were the key cost factors associated with the implementation of the
new/revised ABP provision? [Probes: Costs for IT upgrades, staff retraining, administrative
costs, additional benefits paid out for those eligible under the ABP]
b. How did actual costs compare with estimated or predicted costs? If there was a
discrepancy between the two, what accounts for this?
How much of the costs were offset by the incentive payments?
8. About how long did it take to implement the ABP? How much time elapsed between
when the state enacted the ABP legislation and when it was implemented? What factors
caused the delay in implementation? Why?
9. What is the likelihood that your state will eventually revise or repeal the ABP? Why? Is
there discussion about this already? If so, who is leading this effort and what are the key
reasons for doing so?
D. Decision to Adopt Other ARRA-specified UI Modernization Provisions
1. States that did not ever adopt the other modernization provisions (If adopted, skip to
2)
a. To what extent had adopting any of the four provisions been discussed by the state
before the ARRA modernization provisions? In your opinion, why or why not has it
been part of the discussion of the state’s UC program?
b. Why did your state elect not to adopt two of the four UI modernization provisions?
(1) What were the key economic and political considerations against adopting
legislation to make the state eligible for the additional two-thirds of UI
modernization incentive payments? Which groups opposed the change? Why?
(2) Were there any economic and political considerations in favor of adopting the
provisions? If so, what were they? Who supported adopting the provisions?
Why?
(3) How did the offer of modernization incentive funds figure into the state’s
decision to adopt? Would other incentives have been more persuasive? If so,
which ones and how?
c. Was an attempt made to introduce legislation to adopt modernization provisions or
change existing provisions to meet ARRA requirements? If so, why was the effort
unsuccessful? If legislation died in the legislature, how far did it advance (for
example, never made it out of committee, made it to the floor but was not put for a
vote, was put to a vote and failed)? What was the key reason it failed?
d. In general, how would you describe the debate/discussion in the state about the
adoption of the 2-of-4 provisions following ARRA (for example, contentious debate,
little discussion at all, or widespread agreement)?
2. States that already had one or both ARRA-specified provisions in place (no
modifications) (if not, skip to 3)
a. Our understanding is that your state had in place (part-time/training/dependent
allowance/compelling family reason) [and (part-time/training/dependent allowance/
compelling family reason)]
C.14

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

b. Our records indicate that your state’s [Provision 1] was adopted in [year]. [To
interviewer: Note that the date might not be definite in the minds of the state interviewees. There
might not have been a state law but an administrative directive or a court decision.]
(1) What were the key considerations supporting adoption of [Provision 1] at that
time? Who were the key supporters of this legislation (or administrative change)?
(2) How would you describe the process of adopting the legislation (or
administrative change) at that time (for example, contentious debate, little
discussion at all, or widespread agreement)? [If state already had [Provision 2],
continue. Else, skip to 3.]
c. Our records indicate that your state’s [Provision 2] was adopted in [year].
(1) What were the key considerations supporting adoption of [Provision 2] at that
time? Who were the key supporters of this legislation (or administrative change)?
(2) How would you describe the process of adopting the legislation (or
administrative change) (for example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or
widespread agreement)?
d. Was there any discussion of not applying for the additional two-thirds incentive
funds, even though at least one of the provisions was already in place? If so, what
were the reasons for not applying? (If already had adopted both provisions, continue.
Else, skip to 3.)
e. Our records show that your state’s application for two-thirds funds was submitted
on [date].
(1) Were there any problems gathering the information necessary to submit a
complete application to DOL for approval?
(2) Were there any problems acquiring DOL approval of the application (for
example, additional supporting documentation had to be submitted)?
3. States that newly adopted or modified at least one ARRA-specified modernization
provision (complete 3 through 5)
a. Our understanding is that your state adopted (part-time/training/dependent
allowance/compelling family reason) [and (part-time/training/dependent
allowance/compelling family reason)]. Although we will talk more specifically about
these provisions in a moment, we would first like to discuss the joint decision to
adopt 2-of-4 modernization provisions and apply for the two-thirds share of
modernization incentive payments.
b. What were the general considerations in favor of pursuing two-thirds incentive
payments, knowing that new legislation would have to be enacted in order to obtain
the funds (for example, desire to replenish UI trust fund, expand pool of eligible
claimants during recession)?
(1) Which groups supported pursuing two-thirds incentive payments? Which
opposed it? What were their objections?
(2) Would other incentives have been more persuasive? If so, which ones and how?
c. How would you describe the debate/discussion about pursuing two-thirds incentive
payments (for example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or widespread
agreement)?
d. Why did your state pursue adoption of (part-time/training/dependent
allowance/compelling family reason) and not (part-time/training/dependent
allowance/compelling family reason)? In general, what calculations were made to
determine which provisions to adopt over others? Who made these calculations?
C.15

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

(1) Were some provisions easier to adopt than others? (That is, did some require
only slight modifications to existing law, such as a revision to your state’s
definition of part-time work?) Which ones?
(2) Were some provisions determined to be too difficult to adopt? Which ones?
Why?
(3) Were some provisions determined more expensive to adopt than others? Which
ones? Please explain.
e. How would you describe the process of selecting which provisions to adopt?
(1) Were discussions/debates about certain provisions more contentious than
others? Why?
(2) Did different groups/stakeholders have different opinions about which
provisions to adopt than others? Please describe.
(3) How were the issues resolved?
f. Were there any problems gathering the information necessary to submit a complete
application to DOL for approval?
g. Were there any problems acquiring DOL approval of the application (for example,
additional supporting documentation had to be submitted)?
4. Provision 1 (part-time/training/dependent allowance/compelling family reason)
a. Made change to existing legislation (if not, skip to b)
(1) What was your existing legislation (with regard to this provision)? Why did you
already have this provision in your UI laws? When was it enacted?
(2) What revisions had to be made to the existing [Provision 1] in order to qualify
for the two-thirds share of UI modernization incentive funds? (For example, did
you have to change your state’s definition of part-time work slightly?)
(3) What were the key economic and political considerations in favor of making the
changes to existing [Provision 1] legislation necessary so that the state would be
eligible for two-thirds incentive payments? Which groups held these positions?
Why?
(4) What were the economic and political considerations against making this change?
Which groups held these positions? Why?
(5) [If Provision 1 is part-time, family reasons, or training] What effects were the
changes to [Provision 1] predicted to have on the number of eligible claimants? On
what were these predictions based? What was that predicted to translate into in
terms of additional benefit dollars paid out?
(6) [If Provision 1 is dependency allowance] What percentage of UI claimants did
the state predict [Provision 1] would affect? On what were these predictions
based? What was that predicted to translate into in terms of additional benefit
dollars paid out?
b. Adopted new legislation
(1) What were the key economic and political considerations in favor of adopting
new [Provision 1] legislation so that the state would be eligible for the two-thirds
incentive payments? Which groups held these positions?
(2) What were the key economic and political considerations against adopting
[Provision 1] legislation? Which groups held these positions?
(3) How would you describe the process of adopting the [Provision 1] legislation
(for example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or widespread
agreement)?
C.16

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

(4) [If Provision 1 is part-time, family reasons, or training] What effects were the
changes to [Provision 1] predicted to have on the number of eligible claimants? On
what were these predictions based? What was that predicted to translate into in
terms of additional benefit dollars paid out?
(5) [If Provision 1 is dependency allowance] What percentage of UI claimants did
the state predict this provision would affect? On what were these predictions
based? What was that predicted to translate into in terms of additional benefit
dollars paid out?
5. Provision 2 (part-time/training/dependent allowance/compelling family reason)
a. Made change to existing legislation (if not, skip to b)
(1) What was your existing legislation (with regard to this provision)? Why did you
already have this provision in your UI laws? When was it enacted?
(2) What revisions had to be made to the existing [Provision 2] in order to qualify
for the two-thirds share of UI modernization incentive funds?
(3) What were the key economic and political considerations in favor of making the
changes to existing legislation necessary so that the state would be eligible for
two-thirds incentive payments? Which groups held these positions? Why?
(4) What were the key economic and political considerations against making this
change? Which groups held these positions? Why?
(5) [If Provision 2 is part-time, family reasons, or training] What effects were the
changes to [Provision 2] predicted to have on the number of eligible claimants? On
what were these predictions based? What was that predicted to translate into in
terms of additional benefit dollars paid out?
(6) [If Provision 2 is dependency allowance] What percentage of UI claimants did
the state predict this provision would affect? On what were these predictions
based? What was that predicted to translate into in terms of additional benefit
dollars paid out?
b. Adopted new legislation
(1) What were the key economic and political considerations in favor adopting
[Provision 2] legislation so that the state would be eligible for the two-thirds
share of incentive payments? Which groups held these positions?
(2) What were the key economic and political considerations against adopting
[Provision 2] legislation? Which groups held these positions?
(3) How would you describe the process of adopting the [Provision 2] legislation
(for example, contentious debate, little discussion at all, or widespread
agreement)?
(4) [If Provision 2 is part-time, family reasons, or training] What effects were the
changes to [Provision 2] predicted to have on the number of eligible claimants? On
what were these predictions based? What was that predicted to translate into in
terms of additional benefit dollars paid out?
(5) [If Provision 2 is dependency allowance] What percentage of UI claimants did
the state predict this provision would affect? On what were these predictions
based? What was that predicted to translate into in terms of additional benefit
dollars paid out?
E. Implementation of the ARRA-specified UI Modernization Provisions (parttime/training/dependent allowance/compelling family reason) (Skip if none were adopted)
1. General questions
C.17

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

a. What were two-thirds incentive payments used for? [Probes: For example, replenish trust
fund, IT upgrades, retrain staff, hire additional staff, expand call centers, other UI administrative
uses, Employment Services (ES) administration, labor market services such as training and
assessment? How was the use of the two-thirds funds different, if at all, from how the
state spent the one-third funds?
b. To what extent did the two-thirds incentive funds affect the state’s UI trust fund
borrowing? Please explain.
c. As a result of Provision 1 or Provision 2, was there an increase in challenges by
employers to workers’ eligibility for benefits? [Probe particularly for the part-time and
compelling family reasons provisions.] How did these provisions affect employers’
challenges?
d. As a result of Provision 1 or Provision 2, was there any increase in fraud?
(1) If so, please explain how the particular provision(s) affected fraud cases.
(2) If so, please describe the types of fraud detected, quantify them, and describe
how they were detected.
(3) Differentiate the effect on fraud of the two provisions implemented.
2. Provision 1: (for those states that did not already have an ARRA-specified Provision 1)
a. What changes to IT and data systems had to be made in order to implement the
provision? Why? How long did that take?
b. Did front-line staff have to be retrained? If so, which staff were trained, on what,
and how was the training accomplished? How long did it take?
c. How was information distributed to claimants who were newly eligible or eligible for
higher weekly benefits under [Provision 1]? How effective was the distribution of
the information in reaching affected claimants? Why?
d. What was the effect on claims processing?
(1) How was the flow and processing of initial claims affected? How many
additional claimants became eligible as a result of adopting [provision 1]?
(2) How was this different from what had been predicted? Why?
(3) Was there an increase in the rate of denial of benefits or was it more or less the
same?
e. What was the effect on the total amount of benefit dollars paid out?
(1) How was this different from what had been predicted? Why?
f. Your state’s responses on the UI administrator survey indicated that the estimated
costs were [insert response] and that factors [insert factors] went into that
calculation.
(1) What were the key cost factors associated with the implementation of [Provision
1]? (2.5) [Probes: Costs for IT upgrades, staff retraining, administrative costs, additional
benefits paid out for those eligible under the provision.]
(2) How did actual costs compare with estimated or predicted costs? If there was a
discrepancy between the two, what accounts for this?
(3) How much of the costs were offset by the incentive payments?
g. About how long did it take to implement the provision? What was involved in
implementation?
(1) [For states that set an implementation date in the future:] Did the state plan to
delay implementation of the provision for [x] months following enactment of the
legislation? Why?
(2) Did implementation take more or less time than anticipated? Why? What factors
led to the faster or slower implementation?
C.18

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

h. What is the likelihood that your state will repeal this provision? Why? [Probes: Staff or
financial burden too high; not efficient use of funds; political sentiment; other.] Has there been
discussion about this already? If so, who is leading this effort and what are the key
reasons for doing so?
3. Provision 2: [for those states that did not already have an ARRA-specified Provision 2]
a. What changes to IT and data systems had to be made in order to implement the
provision? Why? How long did that take?
b. Did staff have to be retrained? If so, which staff and how was the training
accomplished? How long did it take?
c. How was information distributed to claimants who were newly eligible or eligible for
higher weekly benefits under [Provision 2]? How effective was the distribution of
information in reaching affected claimants? Why?
d. What was the effect on claims processing?
(1) How was the flow and processing of initial claims affected? How many
additional claimants became eligible as a result of adopting [provision 2]?
(2) How was this different from what had been predicted? Why?
(3) Was there an increase in the rate of denial of benefits or was it more or less the
same?
e. What was the effect on the total amount of benefit dollars paid out?
(1) How was this different from what had been predicted? Why?
f. Your state’s responses on the UI administrator survey indicated that the estimated
costs were [insert response] and that factors [insert factors] went into that
calculation.
(1) What were the key cost factors associated with the implementation of [Provision
2]? [Probes: Costs for IT upgrades, staff retraining, administrative costs, additional benefits
paid out for those eligible under the provision.]
(2) How did actual costs compare with estimated or predicted costs? If there was a
discrepancy between the two, what accounts for this?
(3) How much of the costs were offset by the incentive payments?
g. About how long did it take to implement the provision? What was involved in
implementation?
(1) [For states that set an implementation date in the future:] Why did the state plan
to delay implementation of the provision for [x] months following enactment of
the legislation? Why?
(2) Did implementation take more or less time than anticipated? Why? What factors
led to the faster or slower implementation?
h. What is the likelihood that your state will repeal this provision? Why? [Probes: Staff or
financial burden too high; not efficient use of funds; political sentiment; other.] Has there been
discussion about this already? If so, who is leading this effort and what are the key
reasons for doing so?
4. Assessment
a. In the end, to what extent had the state foreseen the various implementation issues
surrounding the modernization provisions adopted, and how prepared were
administrators and staff?
(1) What issues were unexpected?
(2) How were they resolved?
C.19

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

b. To what extent did the modernization provisions adopted effectively reach the target
populations and expand eligibility (as appropriate)?
c. What were the key challenges to adopting the modernization provisions? Did certain
provisions have specific challenges? If so, please describe.
d. In general, what is the state’s assessment on whether the benefits of adopting the
provisions outweighed the challenges/costs?
(1) What were the key benefits? [Probe: Additional UI benefits, more workers eligible, fairer
system.]
(2) What were the key challenges? [Probes: Strain on staff, processing paperwork, IT
changes.]
(3) How did the state/staff overcome any challenges?

C.20

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 4: FEDERAL ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (FAC)
A. General Implementation Issues
1. How long did it take the state to provide the additional compensation to UI recipients
after the FAC was established through legislation? What factors influenced timing of
implementation?
2. What were the implementation and administrative issues encountered? Which issues
were expected and which were unexpected?
a. What changes, if any, had to be made to IT systems?
b. Did staff have to be retrained? If so, which staff, on what, and how was that
accomplished?
c. How was information on the FAC distributed to claimants?
d. How was the flow and processing of claims affected?
3. How was implementation of the FAC affected by the different types of benefits (regular
UI, EUC08 tiers, EB) being paid out to claimants? What differences, if any, were there
by benefit type?
B. Program-Specific Questions
1. Did the state withhold taxes from FAC payments if the claimant requested it? If so, how
was that accomplished from a technical standpoint?
2. Were there issues of overpayments as a result of FAC? How widespread was this and
how was that money recouped?
3. We understand that your state requested $[insert amount] from USDOL for
implementation of the FAC. What cost assumptions factors went into that budget
estimate? In the end, were implementation costs above or below your estimated budget?
Please explain. Did your state use all these funds? Why or why not?
4. What were the major challenges in implementing the FAC? [Probe: Monitor/increase in
fraud, timing of implementation, IT changes and so on.]

C.21

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 5: RECEIPT OF FIRST $2,400 IN BENEFITS FREE OF FEDERAL
INCOME TAXATION
A. General Background
1. Before ARRA, how did the state notify claimants of the option of having income tax
withheld from their payments? [Probe for customers being notified: during initial phone or internet
claim filing; other written materials.]
2. What percentage of claimants typically opted to have income tax withheld before
ARRA?
3. How did this change for year 2009?
B. Implementation Issues
1. What changes, if any, had to be made to IT systems to accommodate this policy? To set
it up? To end it?
2. What existing materials had to be modified to explain this policy? [Probe: Paper materials,
internet sites, mailings.]
3. How were new claimants notified of the provision that the first $2,400 of unemployment
benefits received in 2009 were tax free? How were existing claimants informed? How did
notification methods change as a result of this policy?
4. To what extent did staff have to be trained on this policy? Which staff? On what? How
was this accomplished?
5. How did the state deal with any money that had already been withheld from claimants’
benefits? Was it refunded to claimants? How?
6. Was there an increase in fraud? If so, why and how widespread was the problem?
7. Were there any other reporting or technical challenges encountered by enacting this
policy? Please describe.

C.22

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 6: TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF INTEREST PAYMENTS ON ALL
STATE TRUST FUND ADVANCES
A. State Trust Fund Advances
1. Did the state have any interest payments due on previous advances during the period
starting February 17, 2009, and ending on December 31, 2010? If so, when were these
advances taken? How much interest was suspended on these advances during this
period? [Probe: How much money did the state save by not having to pay this interest over the time
period?]
2. Did the state apply for a trust fund advance(s) from February 17, 2009 to December 31,
2010? If so, when was the application(s) made?
3. What loan balance was outstanding as of January 1, 2011 (i.e., the expiration of the
interest free period)? How much was principal and how much was interest?
B. State Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) Activity
1. If an application for a trust fund advance was made, what were the key reasons the state
applied for it? What influenced the timing of the application(s)?
2. If the state did not apply for a trust fund advance during this period, why not?
3. How did the suspension of interest on advances taken during this period affect the
state’s repayment of trust fund advances?
a. Did the state delay repaying loans during the interest-free period? Please provide
details.
(1) If so, was it because of the temporary elimination of interest payments? Was it
because the state was unable to repay the advance? Were there other reasons?
4. Did the interest provision result in the state delaying making amendments to its laws to
qualify for modernization incentive payments? [Probes: Did it discourage the state from
adopting modernization provisions because, at least in the short term, the state had available the money it
would otherwise have had to use for interest payments, and did not therefore need the modernization
incentive funds?]
5. What effect did the interest provision have on any actions the state considered taking to
keep the UTF solvent? [Probes for actions that could have been considered: hiking taxes, reducing
benefit amounts, enacting modernization provisions.]
6. Where there any administrative/accounting/IT issues encountered by the suspension of
interest payments? Please explain.

C.23

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

MODULE 7: CONCLUDING QUESTIONS
A. In what ways do you feel that the ARRA provisions will affect your state’s UC program
following the recession? [Probes: TUR trigger for EB, modernization provisions (including ABP),
FAC, interest-free loans.]
1. To what extent do you think the state will retain any or all of the newly adopted
modernization provisions? Why?
2. To what extent will the state revert to its previous provisions? Why?
B. In your estimation, have the benefits of the various ARRA provisions outweighed the costs?
Please explain.
C. What was the overall impact of the ARRA provisions on the state’s UC staff? Overall how
did the provisions affect call-center staff? Reemployment assessment staff? Administrative
and state office staff?
D. Overall, what is your estimation of the effects that the ARRA provisions had on your IT
systems? Were there ways that any particular strains or challenges could have been averted?
Please describe.
E. Overall, what have been the implications of the ARRA provisions on the state’s
performance measures? Please describe. To what extent has the state had to focus on
particular measures at the expense of others? Again, please explain.
F. Were there any other challenges or issues that you believe could have been lessened or
averted by different federal or state policies? Please explain.
G. Are there particular provisions you would have preferred not to have been included in
ARRA? Which ones and why? Are there others you would have preferred? Which ones and
why?
H. Overall, do you believe the ARRA provisions benefited the state? Why or why not?

C.24