Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
How workforce agencies can make smart investments in digitizing employers’ experiences. Policy Memo from USDR, compiled by Alyssa Levitz based on research with Alissa Rubin and Emily Alter, June 2021
Employers play a key role in the ultimate disbursal of Unemployment Insurance funds; whenever someone files a new application for UI benefits, their former employer is notified and given the opportunity to challenge that claim. The data that employers contribute is assumed to be “more correct” than whatever the employee had originally provided and so has a lot of power in determining whether someone is in fact eligible for benefits, and if so, how much. How effectively employers interact with UI systems has a direct impact on the timeliness of payouts to legitimate claimants and could also indirectly reduce fraud.
In January and March 2021, we conducted 14 one-on-one, hour-long interviews with human resource professionals who handle unemployment claims for their companies. The goal of the interviews was to create a baseline understanding of their experiences in three key areas:
Submitting claims on behalf of their former employees when applicable
Being informed of claims filed by former employees and of any subsequent decisions made
Disputing and/or appealing decisions about a former employee’s claim and providing documentation/keeping up with the adjudication process
The sample was national, with participants based in 10 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington State; however, most participants managed UI claims in multiple states. Interviewees worked for companies that ranged from dozens of employees to over 10,000 employees, in many different sectors: regional public transit, catering, health care, software development and more. Some of the companies experienced regular, seasonal layoffs that resulted in regular and predictable interactions with workforce agencies. A few of the companies whose representatives we interviewed were “reimbursable” employers, who were responsible for covering 100% of the benefits their former employees used; the rest of the employers were “taxable,” meaning that their payroll tax rate was determined by how heavily their former employees used the system.
Paper mail-based systems broke down when people were no longer regularly in the office
Delays occur in benefit disbursal when the claimant files for UI under a different name than the employer has on record, which happens much more frequently for people with non-English name patterns.
HR employees who worked at companies with a presence in multiple states either had to use a Third Party Administrator (like ADP or Equifax) or build their own internal processes to manage claims across the disparate systems.
Even in states where the workforce agency made online claim management possible, employers still encountered challenges in keeping up with new claims and providing the necessary information to respond to a claim.
There is no one way that employers think about their employees receiving UI benefits; some see it as a key part of their business model and thus do their best to help their former employees receive benefits, and on the other end of the spectrum, some employers have an institutionalized antagonistic relationship with former employees over receipt of UI.
Employers dispute initial claims, in particular surrounding reasons for “job separations,” but rarely dispute decisions
In the form or questionnaire provided to employers to respond to a claim, they should be given the ability to mark likely fraud and the space to provide more information about their perspective on a claimant’s situation.
Workforce agencies should all have a digital portal for all employers to at least learn about and respond to new UI claims, if not follow them through any appeals processes. This digital portal should:
Support multiple log-ins for a single employer, with easy and quick processes for creating that new account
Support mass uploads and downloads of many claimants’ information at a time
Let portal users opt into email notifications for new claims and newly scheduled hearings
Let portal users change or update their previously submitted answers to questions when they learn new information.
Increase transparency between employer and claimant so that simpler issues could be resolved more quickly
Have accessible, prompt, and employer-specific customer service options, for example:
Dedicated phone lines with staff knowledgeable about the employer experience, that do not solve claimant issues or even redirect claimants to the correct line (while extreme, some states have found this useful in keeping the phone line as clear as possible)
Creating FAQ and other online support content for employers to self-solve their issues
To see more detail on the findings and key recommendations, read the two research reports: Landscape of the Employer Experience (Jan. 2021) and Employer Experience: Digital Interactions (March 2021).
To see more about the way the current system of interacting with employers affects workforce agency processes staff, see the Employer Interaction section of the UI Journey Map.
Lead User Researcher: Alissa Rubin
We conducted interviews with 6 HR and payroll professions to learn about the way they interact with unemployment insurance agencies and systems; they collectively had experience with 15 states' systems.
All of them had to come up with their own ways to check their company's records with what the UI agency sent them, and they had difficulty at times in most states sending information back to the agency (the form did not meet their needs, or they were unsure if they were filling it out correctly). The amount of paper to track in non-digitized systems is astronomical, but the digitized systems also have their own challenges for responding to and tracking claims.
Dealing with the mail is frustrating and slow. Mail can get lost or sit for several days (or weeks during COVID) before getting delivered to the HR rep or being picked up from a closed office. This significantly reduces timeliness to respond to claims, and sometimes deadlines have already passed. HR reps also must manually compare these paper forms to (usually) digital employee records; they might scan all such claims forms for their records as well, and/or undertake other digital processes to keep track of paper claims, such as creating spreadsheets or emailing themselves digital copies of forms.
Challenges range from a frustrating user experience (e.g., a lack of notifications, difficulty navigating the portals to complete tasks) to major functionality issues (e.g., forms that won’t download or open; incompatible data and files that force manual data entry, which is error prone; inability to complete some steps on certain browsers).
Additionally, companies operating in many states had to deal with separate portals for each state, which all function differently and can be hard to manage.
Employees and Employers aren't inherently antagonists within the UI system: Participant 3's employer is already taxed at the highest rate for UI and actively provides advice and support to former employees to help them navigate the UI system; Participant 5 was told by their CEO that the employees should get benefits as much as possible.
On the other hand, Participant 1 was open about wanting to dispute claims, seeing it as his responsibility to the company, and Participant 6's company fires many employees for things that they believe are "cause" and ends up disputing many claims.
When asked, HR reps were interested in preventing fraud, but had few resources to do so other than maintaining solid payroll records and using these to compare accuracy of claims. Many relied on their personal knowledge of current and past employees to spot fraudulent claims. Several participants noted that they don't know how to mark a claim as fraudulent when they see it come through.
Participant 1 in GA hadn't gotten to the adjudication phase of any of the COVID-era contested claims at the time of the interview.
Participant 2's company in MA didn't receive a bill for 4 months last summer
“I decide what I contest, and I know what is and isn’t eligible. I don’t waste my time contesting claims I know I’m going to lose. ... and I’ve been right 100% of the time. It’s a huge error on my part to invest time if we aren’t going to win.” --Participant 1
“I don’t trust that DUA [in MA] is reading all the comments, and I feel like maybe something could slip through the cracks that would negatively impact an employee’s claim.” --Participant 2
“More than 95% [of this job] is just mail. Just paper, hundreds of pages. I’m not being sarcastic. Some of them are multiples of the same exact piece of paper coming in two different days, I’m trying to compare them. And then you have some states like AZ that’ll put three to four people in one envelope.” --Participant 3
“When I look at the website, it’s really hard to answer and get to my open claims. Filling them out with the paper is more effective as far as getting answers. Half the time I can’t see some of the claims that have been filed; I don’t think it’s me, I think it’s the website.” --Participant 4
“I would be grateful to have more resources from states on how to deal with fraudulent claims. I didn't even know how to fill out the form.” --Participant 5
By Emily Alter, User Experience Researcher & USDR Volunteer
Research conducted March - April 2021.
These recommendations are based on 14 hour-long interviews with human resource professionals who handle unemployment claims for their companies. The sample was national, with participants from 10 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington State. Most participants managed UI claims in multiple states.
The first round of interviews, with 6 participants, aimed to understand employer needs and challenges with the UI system as well as their knowledge of the UI process.
The second round of interviews, with 8 participants, focused on employer needs and challenges in relation to the specific tasks involved in the administering UI claims. It also included a prioritization activity in which participants ranked the importance of each UI-related task for their company.
Participants were recruited via UserInterviews.com, a research participant recruitment tool.
The first round of research selected for employers that had laid someone off in the last 12 months.
The second round of research screened for HR professionals who had managed more than 5 unemployment claims. The participant selection process for the second round of research also favored HR professionals who had managed more than 25 unemployment claims prior to March 2020 and who had been involved in disputes or appeals of unemployment claims.
These screening criteria, especially for the second round, favored mid-sized or large employers.
This report describes people claiming UI benefits as claimants rather than former employees because they may be
Former employees entitled to UI benefits;
Former employees not entitled to UI benefits;
Current employees who went on furlow or had their hours cut, now returned to work but mistakenly or knowingly continue to receive UI benefits;
Former contractors not entitled to UI benefits, confused about their benefits; and/or
People committing fraud.
Overall, there is strong support for a digital portal. Right now, employers mostly receive notice that a claim has been made via paper mail.
A digital portal would decrease processing time. Paper mail is particularly difficult during COVID times because mail is slow to arrive at the office and the people in charge of UI claims are rarely at the office. Even outside of COVID times, once a letter reaches an office, the letter may take time to get to the person in charge of processing UI claims, which reduces the time the person has to respond.
Paper mail is inconsistent with modern business processes. Most business is now conducted digitally. Storage of employment records is now often digital, although many companies have paper backups. The state sending letters means that HR folks at employers need to take the time to scan them into their digital systems.
“In this day and age, to not have an electronic system seems crazy to me.” -California reimbursed employer, 1000+ employees, received claims via a TPA that shared claims as a spreadsheet
“We get them all by mail. It goes to the front desk, who takes it to payroll, who scans it. By the time I have to make the response, I’ve just got it because of all the passing around.” -Washington State taxable employer, 1000+ employees
“It would be so much more efficient for all parties if it was sent electronically.” -California taxable employer, 100+ employees
The portal needs to support the UI process for a range of businesses. Employers who participated in the interviews were either small companies that handled their UI processes themselves or larger companies that used a TPA (third party administrator) to handle their processes in bulk.
Learning about new filings was the most important UI task for the majority of employers, with the exception where a TPA handled new filings for them. Learning about new filings was the most frequent UI task. Usually companies had 2 weeks to respond. If they didn’t respond in that time, then they might start getting charged for UI.
Disputing claims and satisfying requests for additional information were the most important UI task for large organizations whose TPAs handled new filings and the second most important task for other organizations.
Most HR professionals had learned through experience which claims they could dispute and win in different states. They prided themselves on only disputing claims they could win. However, a few worked for companies with a policy of disputing all claims.
Satisfying requests for additional information from the state was also one of the most common tasks related to unemployment insurance. HR people wanted to provide that information to the state promptly.
Support employers in accessing information in a timely and secure fashion. Support timely new employer account creation. Organize portals via individual claimant as well as employer. Support multiple log-ins for different HR employees at a single employer.
Support timely new account creation. Right now, creating and verifying a new employer account with a new state can take more than 2 weeks, which is longer than employers may have to respond to a new claim. (Many employers have employees in multiple states.)
“I went to do the registration on the California website [for their only California employee], and I found it very difficult to manage. It says, after two weeks, we'll add you into the platform. I ended up handwriting everything and mailing it in instead of going on the portal. With most states, it's not an easy process to just log on to the website, find your company and find everything to manage.” -Virginia state, 10+ employees, 200+ contractors
Digital portals should be organized by employer and support mass upload and download. Consider also allowing employers to sign in with a unique password and pin to access individual claims. Most digital UI portals are already organized by claimant inside the employer account. This makes sense to employers.
Support mass uploads and downloads for employers. Digital portals should support mass downloads and uploads of information related to UI claims. Larger companies, TPAs, and companies with seasonal businesses and regular or unexpected fluctuations in their workforce size need to be able to handle claims in aggregate. Forcing employers to individually process data for tens, hundreds or thousands of claimants at a time will result in a slower process for claimants.
A Pennsylvania taxable employer with 1000+ employees that used a TPA for most of its operations acquired a new company that did UI claims manually. “It's the same information, but it just takes a lot longer.. to fill out all the information, attach all of the documentation manually, and then copy them all, scan them, and then fax. It's a hassle.”
Support multiple log-ins for a single employer. A log-in for an employer being tied to the personal data of one or two people at an employer is difficult for employers when multiple people at an employer handle UI claims. Support a single employer having multiple log-ins that different individuals at the employer can use.
“We can only have one or two usernames for the portals, and it’s not good practice to share usernames. Even just payroll has 5-6 people. There’s no way to have everyone to log in individually.” -Washington State taxable employer, 1000+ employees, where responsibility for managing UI claims is shared between payroll, the HR person who handles union members and the HR person who handles staff.
“We might need me, the COO/CFO, and CEO to access the (company) account.” -California taxable employer
Consider allowing employers to sign in with a unique password and pin to access an individual claim, without having to create a new account for themselves as an employer. The password and pin should come with the notification that they have received a new claim. This will speed claim processing time by not requiring the creation of a new employer account.
Consider collaborating across state lines to create a portal that can aggregate and simplify processes regardless of state. Most of the HR professionals in this research managed unemployment for their company in multiple states (see “About the research” at the end of this report for how the participant selection process favored mid-size and large employers). They disliked having to learn a new user interface for each new portal. It made them less efficient at processing claims. Having a portal that worked for multiple states would reduce the number of new digital portals that multi-state employers need to learn.
Notify employers about new claims via email and portal. Default to email, but allow companies to specify that they would prefer notifications about new claims to come via portal.
The most convenient notifications from outside a company come via email. These days, emails are a standard form of communication for most external notifications from outside the company. Emails have the advantage that they support asynchronous communication. Someone can get an email and take a few hours to find the requested information and compose an answer. In contrast, someone has to be there at the time to answer the phone. And the person who picks up a phone call may not have the answers at their fingertips.
Some companies and TPAs support a large enough volume of claims that they prefer a portal. For large employers and TPAs, a portal is more convenient than pages of individual emails. One HR person who used a TPA described going into the TPA portal to check on UI claims as part of their morning routine alongside getting coffee and checking her email.
“I would want a file feed to go directly to the benefits portal from payroll, like all our other systems.” -New Mexico taxable employer, 200+ employees
Confirming the details will benefit from some transparency between the employer and claimant. In most states, employers find out about a claim when they receive a letter from the state saying they have a claimant. Then, it is up to the employer to confirm various details, such as the employee’s name, their dates of employment, and the cause of termination.
Suggest transparency between the employer and claimant on easily resolvable details. Easily resolvable details such as claimant name and their end of employment date should be shared between the employer and claimant to speed up claims. The claimant may also not be clear on the employer’s identity when multiple organizations are involved in their employment (ex., as a contractor).
The end of employment date given by the employer is sometimes different from the day of termination provided by the claimant (i.e., one fills out the form with the last day they showed up to work and the other fills out the form with the day after). This can slow down processing. Where employers and claimants have the same interest in speedy processing, transparency on the end of employment date in the best interest of both parties.
The employer’s identity may not be clear to the claimant. For example, employees at a cafeteria on a college campus may not understand they were working for the company that provided catering, not the university itself.
Consider transparency between the employer and claimant on more contentious issues.
“I don’t want this responsibility, but it would be so much easier if I could see what employees are putting in on their UI or talk on their behalf on some point. If you make a call to the cable company, you can do it if you’re verified on the account. I can help interpret because it never comes out in English.” -Illinois taxable employer, 200+ employees
The cause of the employee leaving the company. When they file, the claimant and the employer may provide different reasons the claimant is no longer employed by the company. Sometimes this represents a legitimate disagreement. Other times, the claimant may not understand the categories offered in the form and/or may not be completely fluent in English. If the employer and the claimant are in agreement about the cause of the employee leaving the company, transparency about the other party’s claims may reduce the need for further action.
“A lot of times, not usually on purpose, people get confused and report a different reason. People have been awarded UI when they weren’t supposed to. They go to fill out the form and they’re not sure the difference between layoff and fired.” -Washington State taxable employer, 1000+ employees
The nature of employment. In a world with contractors and agencies, claimants may not be clear on the nature of their employment (ex., a 1099 vs. a W-2). For example, a contractor may claim unemployment benefits to which they are not legally entitled if they were on a 1099.
Accommodate complexity. The circumstances and people involved in an employee leaving a company can be complex. It is useful to accommodate that complexity by providing an “other” option in the reasons for the end of employment and a place for notes. It is also useful to allow employers to change their answers when they learn new information.
"We had someone that was a really volatile person... I knew the hearing was going to be contentious. It was a six hour hearing. That has never happened to me. They're usually under an hour.” -Pennsylvania, 1000+ employees, used a TPA
Provide an “Other” option in reasons for the end of employment and provide a place for notes. Having a place for notes in forms accommodates the complexity of some of these situations.
“Not every situation fits into a questionnaire neatly, and there’s rarely room to add a full story.” -PA taxable employer, 10k+ employees, used a TPA
Allow employers to change or update their previously submitted answers to questions when they learn new information. HR departments may learn new information in the aftermath of an employee’s departure that changes the former employee’s UI eligibility (ex., evidence of stealing on the job). In the case of a senior leader departing a company, there may also be ongoing negotiations between the senior leader and the employer which changes information that may have been initially supplied to the state.
“Sometimes things change. Someone will put in their notice and then get fired, so how do I change that?” -Washington State taxable employer, 1000+ employees.
Design to accommodate data from multiple sources which may be in incompatible formats. Support the combination of multiple records into a single record, and the separation of a single record into multiple records. For example, a father and son may have the same name and address. Design for the flexibility to separate a single record into multiple records if their information was incorrectly combined into a single record.
Support claimants having different names. The system should support the combination of two or more records if the same person appears in UI systems under different names. Sometimes the same person will appear in UI systems under different names, whether that is due to system limitations (i.e., character limits not supporting a long last name), cultural factors (i.e., name changes upon marriage), or human error (a middle name appearing in one form and not another).
“If Jake’s name is really John and he put Jake on his application, he has to update all that, so I have no idea if they’re putting in the right information.” -Illinois taxable employer, 200+ employees
Don’t limit name length. Support diverse names, including both shorter (last names with only two characters, like Li) and longer names. Either have very generous character limits or don’t have character limits. Support apostrophes, hyphens, spaces and special characters (ex. Juan Fernández de Calderón García-Iglesias).
“Certain communities have names that are longer. Hispanic communities, it was a big problem. Names would have a character limit and they would have issues with their claims because of that. The system is not robust enough.” - Georgia taxable company with 10,000+ employees
Support name changes. Sometimes, people change their names (ex., upon marriage). Systems should support name changes and allow two separate records under different names to be combined.
Lack of flexibility in the scheduling of hearings could be a minor frustration for employers. Preparing for hearings usually required research into the history of the case. In most states, employers were not given a choice of when the hearing would be. If they received notice of a hearing with only a few days to prepare, they had to drop other things to focus on preparing for the hearing. Also, one participant reported having to wake up at 5 am one day to attend a hearing in another time zone. Suggest requiring that employers receive at least a week’s notice of a hearing and slightly more flexibility in the scheduling process.
Employers disputed claims, but rarely disputed decisions. The majority only disputed claims they thought they could win, although some had a policy of disputing all claims. The portal user interface can visually emphasize other options than the option to dispute decisions because it is a low frequency occurrence. HR professionals learned through experience that they would rarely win if they disputed a decision, so they disputed decisions infrequently if ever.
States should provide clear options for employers to report UI fraud. They should also consider pro-actively auditing for UI fraud.
Provide a clear place in the forms for employers to report fraudulent claims. Many states don’t currently provide an easy way for employers to report fraud, ex., if they see a claim from someone who has never worked for them or is currently actively employed with them.
“Especially with COVID, there was a huge influx of fraudulent claims that came through, and there is nothing here on this screen that something is fraudulent, so for the first month of COVID, I had to call every time I thought something was fraud.” -Massachusetts taxable employer, 200+ employees
Consider pro-actively auditing for fraud. None of the employers pro-actively audited for UI fraud until it came across their desks. After it came across their desks, they were aware. But if it hadn’t come across their desks, they didn’t check for it.
“The other thing the TPA did during the pandemic that was very helpful was tipping me to places where they thought fraud had occurred.” -California reimbursed employer, 1000+ employees
Have accessible and prompt customer service. Some HR folks did not know how to contact the state if necessary. Others dreaded waiting on hold for extended wait times. Accessible and prompt customer service for employers ensures that states can process claims efficiently and get them out to qualifying claimants. Additionally, sometimes former employees will contact HR for help in getting through extended wait times. Employers couldn’t help and it increased their frustration with state UI systems.
“You should be able to pick up a phone.. It was a lot of red tape from this person to this person (at the state unemployment offices)” -New York State professional, discussing the unemployment claims process at their previous 1000+ employee company
Learn how employers or their representatives interact with the UI system, including understanding employers’ level of knowledge around how their actions affect UI claims or payments, and what impact they aim for in those interactions
Understand the ways in which hiring and termination strategies are impacted by the UI system or vice versa
Based on the goals above, an interview guide was created. First, personal networks were leveraged to reach business owners and HR representatives in California for 3 initial interviews over the phone. This allowed us to test-run the interview guide.
Some additional questions were added to the interview guide at this point, before using the online recruiting tool UserInterviews.com to recruit appropriate participants and schedule further interviews over video conferencing. Interviews were scheduled for hour-long windows, although some were shorter. We used digital research tool Lookback.io to host and record the video sessions and enable screen sharing from participants. In some cases, Zoom was used rather than Lookback due to technical difficulties.
Gender
Race
State
Age
Company info
Participant 1
Male
White
Georgia
32
10,001+, taxable, not seasonal
Participant 2
Female
Hispanic
Massachusetts
40
200-1000, reimbursable, seasonal
Participant 3
Female
White
Illinois, but also deals with UI in: AZ, CA, IN, MA, OR, PA, TN, WA, VA & others
37
200-1000, taxable, seasonal
Participant 4
Female
White
New Mexico
39
200-1000, taxable, not seasonal
Participant 5
Female
White
California, but also deals with UI in MI, NC, WI
27
50-60, taxable, not seasonal
Participant 6
Female
Black
Pennsylvania
59
200-300, taxable, not seasonal