EconStor >
W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Mich. >
Upjohn Institute Working Papers, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/64337
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorO'Leary, Christopher J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-09en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-26T12:54:58Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-26T12:54:58Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/64337-
dc.description.abstractThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 provided financial incentives for UI modernization. The financial incentive is the state share of $7 billion available nationwide. States can receive one-third of their allocation by having an alternate base period (ABP) for monetary determination of UI eligibility that includes the most recently completed calendar quarter. States can receive the remaining two-thirds of their allocation for having two of four additional program features: 1) UI eligibility while seeking only part-time work, 2) UI eligibility after job separations due to harassment or compelling family reasons, 3) continuation of UI benefits for at least 26 additional weeks after exhaustion of regular benefits while in approved training, and 4) dependents' allowances of at least $15 per dependent up to $50. This paper presents estimates of the UI benefit payment costs of these five program changes based on data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. To date 39 states have received modernization payments for having an ABP, and 32 states have received the remaining two-thirds of funds available. The numbers of states adopting each of these additional features are as follows: 25 for seeking part-time, 18 for family reasons, 14 for exhaustee benefits while in training, and 7 for dependents' allowances. Estimates of the UI benefit payment costs for these features, based on Kentucky data, suggest a pattern of states choosing UI modernization features to minimize the expected benefit payment costs. However, for states broadening UI eligibility through modernization, UI benefit payment costs will be higher for any given level of unemployment. Liberalized eligibility rules must be balanced by structural financing enhancements to ensure long-term fiscal stability of the system.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherW.E. Upjohn Inst. for Employment Research Kalamazoo, Mich.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesUpjohn Institute Working Paper 11-172en_US
dc.subject.jelJ65en_US
dc.subject.jelJ68en_US
dc.subject.jelH83en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordunemployment insuranceen_US
dc.subject.keywordUIen_US
dc.subject.keywordmodernizationen_US
dc.subject.keywordAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Acten_US
dc.subject.keywordbenefit paymentsen_US
dc.subject.keywordKentuckyen_US
dc.subject.keywordadministrative dataen_US
dc.subject.keywordstate expendituresen_US
dc.titleBenefit payment costs of unemployment insurance modernization: Estimates based on Kentucky administrative dataen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn668052686en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen_US
Appears in Collections:Upjohn Institute Working Papers, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
668052686.pdf299.59 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.