1). UI Claimant Profiling Requirements

Since 1994, states have been required by law to develop and use  profiling systems to identify UI claimants who are likely to exhaust their  benefits, and to refer such claimants to reemployment services. Selected States Provide Services to Help UI Claimants Find Work Using a Variety of Key Approaches Selected States All Provide Reemployment Services to Connect UI Claimants to Jobs Quickly

Officials from all six of our selected states said they provide  reemployment services designed to help UI claimants get back to work  quickly. These services include assessing claimant skills and service  needs, providing job search assistance and referrals, and conducting  interviewing and resume workshops, among others. In contrast, officials in three other selected states emphasized the  benefits of in-person service provision. States Served UI Claimants through Four Key Federally Funded Workforce Programs, but Data on Reemployment Service Expenditures Are Not Available States Report that They Most Often Served UI Claimants through the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service

In program year 2015 (July 2015 through June 2016), states reported  providing services to UI claimants through four key federally funded  workforce programs, most often the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service,  followed by RESEA, the WIOA Dislocated Worker program, and the  WIOA Adult program (see fig. 2). 3). States Use Different Profiling Systems to Target UI Claimants for Services, but DOL Has Not Collected Needed Information or Fully Advised States about Profiling Options States Use a Range of Practices to Profile UI Claimants for Reemployment Services

Past national studies and our review of information from nine selected  states indicate that the practices used by states to profile, or identify, UI  claimants who are most likely to exhaust their benefits and need  assistance returning to work differ. A 2007 DOL-sponsored study and a  2014 follow-up questionnaire to states found that, nationally, a large  majority of states reported using statistical profiling systems, while a few  states used a type of non-statistical profiling system known as a  characteristic screen. The six states with statistical systems have varying levels of  system sophistication, and different system assessment and updating  practices. However,  DOL has not taken key steps to help states effectively identify and select  such claimants for the program. Further, DOL  does not have a process for how it can use information on state risks of  poor profiling system performance to guide its oversight and technical  assistance efforts, choosing largely to assist individual states only when  asked. Some states may not be equipped to identify weaknesses in their  profiling systems, and as a result may not request the assistance they  need. In addition, DOL encourages all states to use statistical profiling  systems despite acknowledging that some states’ statistical systems,  particularly outdated ones, may not perform well in practice. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following three recommendations to the Department  of Labor:
The Secretary of Labor should systematically collect sufficient  information on state profiling systems, possibly through DOL’s  new UI state self-assessment process, to identify states at risk of  poor profiling system performance. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of Labor should develop a process to use  information on state risks of poor profiling system performance to  provide technical assistance to states that need to improve their  systems. DOL may also wish to tailor its technical assistance  based on state service delivery goals and technical capacity. (Recommendation 2)
The Secretary of Labor should update agency guidance to ensure  that it clearly informs states about the range of allowable profiling  approaches. These six selected states all served  unemployment insurance (UI) claimants through several key federally  funded workforce programs in program year 2015 (July 2015 through  June 2016).
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2017, the UI program provided about $30 billion in temporary income support to 5.7 million claimants who became unemployed through no fault of their own. The federal government provides various resources states can use to help UI claimants achieve reemployment. GAO was asked to review how states identify and serve claimants who need such assistance.
This report examines, among other things, (1) what key federal programs and approaches states used to help UI claimants return to work, and (2) how states used profiling systems to identify claimants who are most likely to exhaust their benefits and need assistance returning to work. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and guidance; analyzed the most recent available national data on UI claimant participation in key workforce programs, from July 2015 through June 2016; interviewed officials from DOL, six states with key reemployment practices, and three additional states with a variety of profiling practices; and reviewed national studies examining state profiling systems.

What GAO Found

Nationwide, four key federally funded workforce programs helped states provide reemployment services, such as career counseling and job search assistance, to millions of unemployment insurance (UI) claimants, according to data from July 2015 through June 2016, the most recent period available (see table). The six selected states GAO reviewed in-depth reported using these key programs to support their efforts to help claimants return to work. Selected state officials described skills assessments, job search assistance, and interview and resume workshops as the types of services they use to connect UI claimants to jobs quickly. Officials also described varying service delivery approaches, with some of the selected states emphasizing the use of online services, while others relied to a greater extent on in-person services.
According to a 2014 national questionnaire to states, most states used a statistical system to identify UI claimants who are most likely to exhaust their benefits and need assistance returning to work (known as profiling). Six of the nine states GAO reviewed used statistical systems and three used non-statistical approaches. GAO identified several concerns with the Department of Labor's (DOL) oversight and support of state UI profiling systems:
Although a 2007 DOL-commissioned study found that some statistical systems may not perform well, DOL has not collected the information needed to identify states at risk of poor profiling system performance.
Some selected states have faced technical challenges in implementing and updating their statistical systems. However, DOL does not have a process for identifying and providing technical assistance to states at risk of poor system performance or those facing technical challenges. Instead, it only provides assistance to those states that request it.
While states have latitude to choose their preferred profiling approach, DOL's 1994 guidance encourages all states to use statistical systems. Because DOL has not updated this guidance to ensure that it clearly communicates all available profiling system options, some states may not be aware that they have greater flexibility in choosing an option that best suits their needs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOL (1) systematically collect sufficient information to identify states at risk of poor profiling system performance, (2) develop a process for providing risk-based technical assistance to such states, and (3) update guidance to clarify state profiling options. DOL agreed with these recommendations.