State auditor uncovers $767,677 in faulty
unemployment benefit payments
A new report
issued by the state auditor (SAO) reveals that the Employment Security Department
(ESD) wrote $767,677 worth of unemployment benefit checks in fiscal year
2003 that violated state law or failed to meet department eligibility standards.
This is especially troubling when the Department is raising the unemployment
insurance tax for businesses by an average of 14 percent this year.
Among SAO's concerns regarding these payments:
[ESD] paid several claimants during their first week of unemployment,
which is prohibited by law. [SAO] estimates that $546,000 was paid to
claimants during their first week of unemployment.
Fifteen claimants received benefits while incarcerated, which
makes them ineligible for unemployment benefits. These claimants were
paid $84,062.
Ninety-two claimants who received benefits used invalid Social
Security numbers (SSN) or SSN belonging to deceased individuals. These
claimants are not eligible according to [ESD's] benefit eligibility policies.
These payments totaled $96,352.
Five claimants received both unemployment and worker's compensation
benefits for the same time period. This is a violation of state law. These
payments totaled $35,944.
[ESD] made duplicate benefit payments to claimants on 13 occasions,
resulting in overpayments of $5,319.
SAO noted that the system error responsible for last year's illegal first-week
payments ($546,000) has been a problem since 1997: "Management has
been aware of this error since 1997 but considers the overpayments administrative
errors. [The] claimants have not been asked to return the overpayments."
Overpayments occur when benefits are provided to ineligible claimants.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Washington's
2002 rate for all overpayments was 12.24 percent. The national average
for the same time period was 9.10 percent.
In addition to these findings, SAO reported that ESD has failed to comply
with federal payroll reporting requirements in its UI and Workforce Investment
Act programs. These are repeat findings from last year's audit.
Compounding the problems highlighted by SAO, the Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Committee (JLARC) reported
earlier this year that ESD lacks the tools necessary to evaluate how
well it is performing its activities. These tools are essential for measuring
the effectiveness of the agency's expenditures.
JLARC concluded that the performance measures ESD does have are not useful
in determining how well the agency performs over time, or for comparing
the performance of ESD's various regional offices. The Committee expressed
the following concerns:
ESD does not have performance indicators to track the number of
UI claimants who are not in compliance with the state's job-search requirements.
ESD does not have any efficiency measures related to its service
delivery or outcome measures.
Of those performance measures ESD does have, some are not substantive
and offer little value in making management decisions.
EFF recommendations
Before ESD asks employers to pay higher UI taxes, the department should
resolve the clearly identified problems in its system. The legislature should
require the department to: 1) implement adequate performance measures which
can be utilized in making management and policy decisions, and 2) aggressively
pursue and recover overpayments.
The legislature should also consider petitioning the federal government
to allow the state to explore employee-owned unemployment insurance accounts.
Allowing individuals to own their unemployment insurance accounts all but
eliminates perverse incentives and fraud in the UI system. [See
PH 12-23 for a more detailed description of this recommendation.]
Prepared by: Jason Mercier |
Budget Research Analyst | 360-956-3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"