Bill Overview
Title: Guaranteeing Unemployment Assistance and Reducing Deception Act
Description: This bill addresses state unemployment insurance programs. Among other provisions, the bill directs the Department of Labor to establish new program performance standards (including measures that address equity and assistance in fraud recovery) and award performance bonuses to states for their excellent performance or substantial improvement with respect to these performance standards.
Sponsors: Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who receive or seek unemployment benefits
Estimated Size: 6000000
- State unemployment insurance programs are used by people who are unemployed and seeking work, thus susceptible to changes enacted by this bill.
- Enhancing program performance standards will directly influence how these individuals receive their unemployment benefits.
- Implementing measures to address equity in unemployment insurance will affect vulnerable and marginalized groups more significantly than others.
- Improved fraud recovery can prevent the misuse of unemployment benefits, ensuring rightful beneficiaries are not deprived of assistance.
- Globally, unemployment insurance programs can vary, but the principles of the bill can inspire similar actions in other countries.
Reasoning
- The policy targets individuals relying on state unemployment insurance programs, directly affecting those currently unemployed.
- Given the population size of 6 million unemployed individuals, I will include a mix of impacted and non-impacted individuals to reflect diverse perspectives.
- Budget constraints mean not every unemployed person will see immediate benefits; therefore, gradual or partial impacts on some individuals are considered.
- I will consider different levels of impact assessing performance improvements and fraud reduction in state unemployment programs.
- As the policy emphasizes equity, I will include interviews from underrepresented groups who may benefit from improved fairness in unemployment assistance.
Simulated Interviews
software engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will make the unemployment benefits process more transparent and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that helps reduce fraud is good. More honest benefits distribution is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
marketing specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Equity in unemployment benefits is critical. I hope the policy addresses this need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
construction worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical that these changes will reach someone about to retire like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
barista (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial that support systems adapt to the gig economy and part-time workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
nurse (Memphis, TN)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am retired, but I see how this policy could help those still in the workforce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
restaurant manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficiency in processing claims would greatly help people like me relying on partial benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
caretaker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that improve fairness and reduce fraud ensure those truly in need get help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
student (Boulder, CO)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly unaffected for now but might rely on such programs in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
mechanic (Rural Alabama)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Real change would mean getting timely assistance, especially in rural areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $650000000)
Year 5: $580000000 (Low: $460000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $650000000 (Low: $520000000, High: $750000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The administrative capability of the Department of Labor to implement and manage new performance standards.
- Variation in state-level compliance and capability to meet proposed performance standards.
- Reaction and adaptation of states to pursue performance bonuses.
- Potential resistance from states with constrained budgets for initial implementations.
- Importance of addressing equity to improve trust and efficiency in the unemployment insurance system.