Employment programs for recipients of unemployment insurance

Monthly Labor Review

Volumn 131, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 17-27

  Wandner, Stephen A ^a  

^a United States Department of Labor   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58049097897     PISSN: 00981818     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. For UI statistics, weeks compensated and benefits paid in the SEA program are included among measures of all UI programs, but the STC program has been excluded because it is part of a separate ETA report (no. 5-159) detailing UI claimant activity. This exclusion may have a significant effect on the count of UI claims in States than make greater use of the STC program.
2. The evaluation of the New Jersey experiment was first reported in Walter Corson, Paul T. Decker, Shari Miller Dunstan, and Anne R. Gordon, The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration Project: Final Evaluation Report, Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper 89-3 (U.S. Department of Labor, 1989). Two additional job search assistance experiments were conducted in Florida and the District of Columbia. (See Paul T. Decker, Daniel H. Klepinger, and Robert B. Olsen, Assisting Unemployment Insurance Claimants: The Long-Term Impacts of the Job Search Assistance Demonstration, Office of Workforce Security Occasional Paper 2000-02 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000).)
3. See Ryan Helwig, "Worker displacement in 1999-2000," Monthly Labor Review, June 2004, pp. 54-68.
4. This unpublished data on UI recipiency by duration of unemployment was collected for the displaced worker survey through 1988, but has not been collected since then.
5. Worker profiling is the process that determines which UI claimants are most likely to exhaust their entitlement to regular in compensation.
6. To partially fund job search assistance services to UI claimants participating in the WPRS system, the Federal budget provided approximately $35 million a year to Wagner-Peyser Act programs for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
7. Forty-five States used statistical models for their WPRS programs in 2005. (See William F. Sullivan, Lisa Kolovich, Nicolas Louisos, Charles W. McGlew, and Douglas Sanford, Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services: Evaluation of State Worker Profiling Models, Final Report (unpublished manuscript, 2007).)
8. Another WPRS service is referral of profiled workers to the SEA program, but that program is operative in only seven States.
9. For a more detailed description of the WPRS program, see Stephen A. Wandner, "Early Reemployment for Dislocated Workers in the United States," International Social Security Review, April 1997, pp. 95-112.
10. Profiled UI beneficiaries generally receive a letter requesting them to report to a particular one-stop career center on a particular date. Because not all workers referred to WPRS actually report to receive services, the number referred should exceed the number reporting for services. A State-by-State analysis of WPRS reports, however, shows that 12 States had fewer referrals than those reporting, and 3 States - New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas - accounted for most of the national difference. By 2007, only 4 States showed the number of those reporting greater than the number of those referred, and the differences were small.
11. It is not clear how the number of UI beneficiaries reporting for WPRS services at the one-stop career centers was greater than the number who were referred to those services by the State UI program for the years 1996 through 2001. The number reporting would be expected to be equal to or less than the number referred.
12. UI claimants who remain attached to their former employer, as determined by their having a definite recall date, or who find jobs through a union hiring hall are not subject to the worker profiling process and are not offered reemployment services under WPRS.
13. Katherine P. Dickinson, Paul T. Decker, Suzanne D. Kreutzer, and Richard W. West, Evaluation of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services: Final Report (Employment and Training Administration, 1999).
14. See Early Identification of Jobseekers at Risk of Long-Term Unemployment: The Role of Profiling (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1998).
15. The development of STC is discussed in David E. Balducchi and Stephen A. Wandner, "Work Sharing Policy: Power or Sharing said Stalemate in American Federalism," Publius: The Journal af American Federalism, winter 2008, pp. 111-36.
16. Programs in Illinois and Louisiana have lapsed.
17. The seven States and the number of those participating in work sharing as a percentage of the number of beneficiaries served in the UI program in 2001 were Rhode Island (6.2 percent), Missouri (6.1 percent), Kansas (6.0 percent), Vermont (5.5 percent), Arizona (4.9 percent), Minnesota (3.4 percent), and California (3.2 percent).
18. Steve Walsh, Stuart Kerachsky, Karen Needels, and Walter Corson, Evaluation of Short-Time Compensation Programs: Final Report (Employment and Training Administration, 1997).
19. See Jacob M. Benus, Terry R. Johnson, Michelle Wood, Neelima Grover, and Theodore Shen, Self-Employment Programs: A New Strategy: Final Impact Analysis of the Washington and Massachusetts Self-Employment Demonstrations. (Employment and Training Administration, December 1994).
20. California has a law, but no program. Louisiana's program became effective in January 2005; however, the State does not currently operate its program. Minnesota's program has expired, and Maryland and Pennsylvania have had gaps in their reporting of SEA activity. Pennsylvania's SEA program continues to operate. For the period from January through September 2006, the program had 201 participants who started 113 businesses. Those 113 businesses reported a combined gross income totaling $228,239 and employed 19 workers earning $260,373 in wages during that period (personal communication from Pete Cope, Director, Unemployment Compensation Benefits and Allowances, Pennsylvania, Jan. 25, 2007).
21. See The Small Business Eronomy, for Data Year 2006 (Small Business Administration, 2007).