Survey of UI Administrators

Evaluation of the UC Provisions of ARRA

Mathematica Policy Research

APPENDIX B
SURVEY OF UI ADMINISTRATORS

OMB Approval No.: 1225-0089
Expiration Date: 09/30/2015

State: ________

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 and detailed in UIPL 14-09. This survey is part of an evaluation of these
provisions. It is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor. Responses from the survey will be used for research
purposes and, after your name and contact information is removed, be provided in a public use data file to DOL.
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. Please refer to
UIPL 14-09 (February 26, 2009) and related updates for a more detailed description of each provision.
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) Provision: 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 to care for an ill family member, to follow a spouse, or
because of domestic violence.

-

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, confirm, correct, or fill in the data. Then,
please complete the remaining questions in the sections that follow. If you have any questions, you may contact
Pat Nemeth, Survey Director, at (609) 275-2294 or Annalisa Mastri, Deputy Task Leader at (609) 275-2390.
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 1225-0089. The time required to complete this information collection is
estimated to average 40 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, Rm. S2312, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210. If you have comments or
concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: The UCP Project.

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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,
correct, or fill in 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) New: the
provision, or any parts thereof, did not exist prior to ARRA, (2) Modified: the provision (or parts of it) 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 no changes were needed to fulfill
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

COLUMN 5
Confirm
()

Existing

□

1/1/2010

New

□

Not adopted

n/a

n/a

□

Compelling family
reasons provision (family
illness, trailing spouse,
domestic violence)

3/24/2010

4/24/2010

Existing

□

Dependents’ allowance
provision

Fill in:

Fill in:

Existing

□

____________

___________

Not adopted

n/a

n/a

□

TUR Trigger (permanent)

Fill in:

Fill in:

____________

___________

Alternate Base Period

5/25/2009

Part-time work provision

Training provision

Corrections

NOTE: n/a = not applicable

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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 an ARRAspecified TUR trigger as required by ARRA legislation
of February 19, 2009.
B1.

B2.

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 an
ARRA-specified TUR trigger between
February 19, 2009 and the present?


Newly adopted 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, PAGE 2



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

____

____

____

____

____

Was the ARRA-specified TUR trigger
permanent?


Yes



No, it was set to end when 100%
federal financing of EB ended



No, it had a sunset clause

GO TO B3

B2a. What was the sunset date?
|
B3.

| |/| | |/|
Month
Day

|

| |
Year

B5.

|

____

____

____

One-time administrative costs to implement it
(e.g., start-up costs) would be prohibitive
Administrative costs that would be incurred on
an ongoing basis would be prohibitive while EB
was active
Philosophical objections, such as accepting
federal payment of EB
Concern about lengthening the duration of
UI claims because of additional weeks of
federal benefits

____

Concern about increased employer costs

____

Concern about increasing federal deficits

____

Other (Please specify)

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

MARK ONLY ONE

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

____

State would not have triggered onto EB using
a TUR trigger

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?

____

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



Strongly agree

Becoming eligible for EB in general



Somewhat agree

Becoming eligible for EB while EB was
100% federally financed



Somewhat disagree



Strongly disagree

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

1

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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 ARRAspecified ABP as required by ARRA legislation of
February 19, 2009.

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.
____

Reprogramming data systems

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

____

Communicating the changes to eligible claimants

____

Processing EB benefits payments

____

Increased volume of claimants

____

____

C1.

Which of the following best describes your
state’s action regarding the adoption of an
ARRA-specified ABP?
MARK ONLY ONE

Keeping track of claimants’ job search activities
as required by EB
Other (Please specify)

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?
MARK ONLY ONE

GO TO SECTION C



An ABP 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.



Other (Please specify)

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

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



Not far; there was little discussion of adopting it



It 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)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

IF YOU HAD AN ARRA-SPECIFIED ABP AND MADE
NO CHANGES, GO TO SECTION D ON PAGE 5.

2

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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 per year?
$____________ per year

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

____

____

OR
What was the estimated total cost and over what
period of time was it estimated?

Sustained high unemployment rate
Desire to increase access to the program by
workers with low earnings

$__________________ over _____________ Years

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



Number of Years

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

C5b. What factors went into this cost estimate?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY



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



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



Other long-term administrative costs



Expanded eligibility/benefits payments



Costs to update data systems



Other capital improvements

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



Other (Please specify)

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



Don’t know

____

Desire to access UI Modernization incentive
Funds

___ A significant number of claimants would
become eligible anyway
____

C4.

Other (Please specify)

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

____

____

____

____

____

____

C5.

Don’t know

GO TO C6

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

C5c. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
an ARRA-specified ABP?

Costs of the benefits paid out to claimants
using the ABP

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

Philosophical objections to adopting an
ARRA-specified ABP, such as accepting
federal incentive funds
Most claimants’ would become eligible when
next quarter begins so no need to legislate ABP
Other (Please specify)

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

Yes

GO TO C5a



No

GO TO C5c



Don’t know



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



Other (Please specify)



Don’t know

GO TO C6

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

3

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

C6.

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

Yes



No



Don’t know

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



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

What was the estimated total of claimants and
over what period of time was it estimated?



Technological upgrades have been more
expensive than estimated

Claimants __________ over _____________ Years



Other (Please specify)

GO TO C7

C6a. What was the estimated number of claimants per
year?
Claimants __________ per year
OR

Number of Years


C7.

Don’t know
GO TO C9

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

MARK ONLY ONE



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



Benefits payments have been lower than
estimated

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



Technological upgrades have been less
expensive than estimated

MARK ONLY ONE



Other (Please specify)






Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

IF YOUR STATE DID NOT ADOPT AN ARRASPECIFIED ABP, GO TO C11, PAGE 5.
C8.



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



State did not estimate costs



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



C9.

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

GO TO
C9



Very likely



Somewhat likely



Not likely

Don’t know

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

4

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

D. Other UI Modernization Provisions

C10. What were the biggest challenges your state
faced in implementing the ARRA-specified ABP?

The questions below ask about your state’s decision
to newly adopt, modify, or not adopt two of the four
ARRA-specified modernization provisions included in
the ARRA legislation of February 19, 2009.

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

Reprogramming data systems

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

____

____

The four ARRA-specified modernization provisions
are:

Redistributing staff to cover needed areas
temporarily

a. Part-time work provision
b. Compelling family reasons provision (family
illness, trailing spouse, domestic violence)

Communicating the changes to eligible
claimants

c. Dependents’ allowance provision

__ Communicating the changes to employers
____
____

____

d. Training provision

Processing the increased volume of claims
Getting timely information to determine
monetary eligibility from employers, including
alternative documentation such as affidavits
when necessary

D1.

Other (Please specify)

GO TO SECTION D

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)?


Already had two ARRA-specified
provisions and made
no changes
GO TO D35, PAGE 12



Newly adopted two ARRA-specified provisions



Had some but not all of the requirements for
two provisions in place and modified and/or
adopted one to meet ARRA specifications



Had some but not all of the requirements for
two provisions in place and did NOT modify
and/or adopt one to meet ARRA specifications



Did not have and did not adopt any of the four
ARRA-specified provisions

If your state did not adopt an ARRA-specified ABP,
please answer question C11.
C11. How far did your state get in the discussion of
whether to adopt an ARRA-specified ABP?
MARK ONLY ONE



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

5

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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

C5.

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

Yes



No



Don’t know

GO TO D6
GO TO D7

What was the rough cost estimate for part-time
work provisions per year?

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

$____________ per year

Desire to access UI Modernization incentive
funds

What was the rough cost estimate for part-time
work provisions and over what period of time
was it estimated?

A significant number of claimants would
become eligible anyway

$__________________ over _____________ Years

Other (Please specify)



OR

Number of Years

Don’t know

D5a. What factors went into this cost estimate?
D3.

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

MARK ALL THAT APPLY



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



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



Other long-term administrative costs



Increased benefits payments



Costs to update data systems

Costs of the benefits paid out to claimants



Other capital improvements

Philosophical objections to accepting federal
incentive funds



Other (Please specify)

Other philosophical objections to adopting
ARRA-specified provisions (e.g., considering
them an inappropriate expansion of the UI
program



Don’t know

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)

GO TO D7

Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

6

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

D6.

Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the part-time work provision?

Compelling Family Reasons Provision
D8.

MARK ALL THAT APPLY





D7.

Expected that making changes to other
provisions to qualify for modernization funds
would be easier and/or cheaper
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

D9.

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

Yes



No



Don’t know

GO TO D11
GO TO D12

What was the rough cost estimate for the
compelling family reasons provision per year?
$____________ per year



Changes were expected to be cost neutral



Other (Please specify)

What was the rough cost estimate for the
compelling family reasons provision and over
what period of time was it estimated?



Don’t know

$__________________ over _____________ Years

OR

Number of Years



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

Yes



No



Don’t know

Don’t know

D10. What factors went into this cost estimate?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY



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



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



Other long-term administrative costs



Increased benefits payments



Costs to update data systems



Other capital improvements



Other (Please specify)



Don’t know

GO TO D8

D7a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants per year?
Affected Claimants __________ per year
OR
What was the estimated total of affected
claimants and over what period of time was it
estimated?
Affected Claimants ________ over ________ Years
Number of Years



Don’t know

GO TO D12

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

7

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

D11. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the compelling family reasons provision?

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

MARK ALL THAT APPLY



Expected that making changes to other
provisions to qualify for modernization funds
would be easier and/or cheaper



Yes



No



Don’t know

GO TO D16



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



Already had a compelling family reasons
provision



Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates

$____________ per year



Changes were expected to be cost neutral



Other (Please specify)

What was the rough cost estimate for the
dependents’ allowance provision and over what
period of time was it estimated?

GO TO D17

D14. What was the rough cost estimate for the
dependents’ allowance provision per year?

OR

$__________________ over _____________ Years


Number of Years

Don’t know



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

Yes



No



Don’t know

Don’t know

D15. What factors went into this cost estimate?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY

GO TO D13

D12a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants per year?
Affected Claimants __________ per year
OR
What was the estimated total of affected
claimants and over what period of time was it
estimated?



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



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



Other long-term administrative costs



Increased benefits payments



Costs to update data systems



Other capital improvements



Other (Please specify)



Don’t know

Affected Claimants ________ over ________ Years
Number of Years



Don’t know

GO TO D17

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

8

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

D16. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the dependents’ allowance provision?

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

MARK ALL THAT APPLY



Expected that making changes to other
provisions to qualify for modernization funds
would be easier and/or cheaper



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



Already had a dependents’ allowance provision



Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates



Changes were expected to be cost neutral



Other (Please specify)



Yes



No



Don’t know

$____________ per year
OR
What was the rough cost estimate for the
training provision and over what period of time
was it estimated?
$__________________ over _____________ Years
Number of Years

MARK ALL THAT APPLY



No



Don’t know







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



Don’t know



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

Don’t know

D20. What factors went into this cost estimate?

Don’t know





GO TO D18

D17a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants per year?

GO TO D22

Affected Claimants __________ per year

D21. Why didn’t your state estimate costs of adopting
the training provision?

OR
What was the estimated total of affected
claimants and over what period of time was it
estimated?

MARK ALL THAT APPLY



Don’t know



Number of Years

Don’t know

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research




Expected that making changes to other
provisions to qualify for modernization funds
would be easier and/or cheaper
Political and/or philosophical considerations
made adoption infeasible, no matter the costs
Already had a training provision
Lacked an appropriate methodology for
computing estimates
Changes were expected to be cost neutral
Other (Please specify)



Affected Claimants ________ over ________ Years


GO TO D22

D19. What was the rough cost estimate for the
training provision per year?




GO TO D21




9

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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

Yes



No



Don’t know

D25a. Why did your state adopt Provision 1?
Rank in order the three most important reasons,
with 1 being the most important.
____ The state already had all or parts of
Provision 1 in place

GO TO D23

____ Extra costs of benefits to be paid out were
expected to be low for this provision

D22a. What was the estimated number of affected
claimants per year?

____ The provision required little staff re-training
____ The provision required few changes to
data systems

Affected Claimants __________ per year
OR

____ The provision expanded eligibility for benefits

What was the estimated total of affected
claimants and over what period of time was it
estimated?

____ The provision increased the weekly benefit
amount
____ Considering Provisions 1 and 2 together, the
modernization incentive payment outweighed
the estimated costs of the provisions

Affected Claimants ________ over ________ Years
Number of Years



Don’t know

D23. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the
following statement.

____ Other (Please specify)

D25b. Why did your state adopt Provision 2?

In your state, the discussion about whether to fully
adopt two ARRA-specified provisions was
characterized by intense debate.

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

MARK ONLY ONE

____ The state already had all or parts of
Provision 2 in place



Strongly agree



Somewhat agree

____ Extra costs of benefits to be paid out were
expected to be low for this provision



Somewhat disagree

____ The provision required little staff re-training



Strongly disagree

____ The provision required few changes to data
systems
____ The provision expanded eligibility for benefits

D24. Which two ARRA-specified provisions did your
state include in its application for modernization
incentive funds?

____ The provision increased the weekly benefit
amount

 Check here if your state did not adopt or have
these provisions in place
GO TO D34,
PAGE 12

____ Considering Provisions 1 and 2 together, the
modernization incentive payment outweighed
the estimated costs of the provisions

Please 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).

____ Other (Please specify)

MARK TWO

__ Part-time work provision
__ Compelling family reasons provision

Please answer questions D26 to D28 about the
provision you designated as Provision 1 in D24.
D26. Did Provision 1 already conform to ARRA
specifications, with no changes necessary?

__ Dependents’ allowance provision



Yes

GO TO D30

__ Training provision



No

GO TO D27

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

10

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

D27. What were the challenges your state faced in
implementing Provision 1?


D28b. What was the main reason the actual costs have
been less than estimated costs?

Check here if there were no challenges.
GO TO D30

MARK ONLY ONE

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

____

____
____
____

Reprogramming data systems
Hiring/retraining additional staff
Redistributing staff to cover needed areas
temporarily
Communicating the changes to eligible
claimants
Communicating the changes to employers
Processing the increased volume of claims
Other (Please specify)
D29.

D28.

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



Actual costs have been greater than
estimated costs



Actual costs have been less than estimated
costs
GO TO D28b



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





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
Provision 1?

GO TO
D29

Don’t know



Very likely



Somewhat likely



Not likely

D30. Did Provision 2 already conform to ARRA
specifications, with no changes necessary?


Yes



No

GO TO D35

D31. What were the biggest challenges your state
faced in implementing Provision 2?


Check here if there were no challenges.
GO TO D35

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

MARK ONLY ONE






Please answer questions D30 to D33 about the
provision you designated as Provision 2 in D24.

D28a. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been greater than estimated costs?


One-time administrative costs have been lower
than expected

MARK ONLY ONE

MARK ONLY ONE





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)

____

Reprogramming data systems

____

Hiring/retraining additional staff

____

____

Redistributing staff to cover needed areas
temporarily
Communicating the changes to eligible
claimants

__ Communicating the changes to employers
____

Processing the increased volume of claims

____

Other (Please specify)

GO TO D29

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

11

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

D32. How have your state’s actual costs of
implementing Provision 2 compared with the
cost estimates?

D33.

MARK ONLY ONE

MARK ONLY ONE







Actual costs have been greater than
estimated costs
GO TO D32a



Actual costs have been less than estimated
costs
GO TO D32b



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

What is the likelihood that your state will repeal
Provision 2?

GO TO D33

Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not likely
GO TO D35

If your state did not adopt two ARRA-specified
UI Modernization provisions, please answer
question D34.
D34. How far did your state get in the discussion of
whether to fully adopt two modernization
provisions?
MARK ONLY ONE

D32a. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been greater than estimated costs?
MARK ONLY ONE



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)

GO TO D33
D32b. What is the main reason the actual costs have
been less than estimated costs?
MARK ONLY ONE



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



Benefits payments have been lower than
estimated



Technological upgrades have been less
expensive than estimated



Other (Please specify)

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research



Not far; there was little discussion of adopting
any of the UI modernization provisions



Adopting one or two was considered, but no
legislation was introduced (Please specify
provisions)



Legislation was introduced, but died in state
legislature (Please specify provisions)



Legislation was passed, but the governor did
not sign it (Please specify provisions)



Other (Please specify)

D35. 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.

12

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx

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

Telephone Number: (________) -

(PRINT)

Area Code

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
Colleague #2
Colleague #3

Name

Title

Name

Title

Name

Title

(

)

(

)

(

)

Phone #
Phone #
Phone #

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

RETURN INSTRUCTIONS
Please fax or mail your completed survey to:
Pat Nemeth, Survey Director
UCP Project
Mathematica Policy Research
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
Fax #: (609) 799-0005
Email: [email protected]

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research

13

APPENDIX B_UCP Survey of UI Adm_OMB (Oct-2012).docx