Calendar Year 2002 Benefit Accuracy Measurement Data Summary
The Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program is designed to determine the accuracy of paid and denied claims in
three major Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs: State UI, Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE),
and Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX). State Workforce Agencies select weekly random samples of
UI payments and denied claims. BAM investigators audit these paid and denied claims to determine if the claimant was
properly paid or denied eligibility. Because BAM is based on a statistical sample, BAM program results are used to
estimate accuracy rates for the populations of paid and denied claims.
I. Paid Claims Accuracy
Calendar year (CY) 2002 BAM paid claims results are based on the 23,868 sample cases completed by April 30, 2003,
the date by which states were required to complete all CY 2002 BAM cases. This represents a completion rate of nearly
99 percent. UI benefit payments included in BAM in CY 2002 increased to $40.4 billion, compared with $29.9 billion in
CY 2001.
No single measure can reflect all aspects of UI benefit payment integrity. Four analytical measures are summarized
in the following chart.
BAM Annual Report Rate (9.1%) - The Annual Report rate includes fraud, nonfraud recoverable
overpayments, nonfraud nonrecoverable overpayments, official action taken to reduce future benefits, and payments that
are technically proper due to finality or other rules. All causes and responsible parties and are included in this rate.
BAM GPRA Operational Rate (5.0%) - For Fiscal Year 2002, the Employment and Training Administration
defined four UI goals for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) that reflect the UI programs benefit
payment, tax, and reemployment facilitation responsibilities. The measure for one of the goals, Improve Payment
Accuracy for Unemployed Workers, is the amount of overpayments actually established through state Benefit Payment
Control (BPC) operations as a percent of the amount the BAM program estimates states can detect and establish for
recovery through BPC operations. The BAM estimate is an "operational overpayment rate", which includes those
overpayments that the states can be reasonably expected to detect and establish for recovery -- fraud and nonfraud
recoverable overpayments, excluding work search, employment service registration, base period wage issues and
miscellaneous causes, such as benefits paid during a period of disqualification, redeterminations, and back pay awards.
Agency Responsibility (2.8%) - This rate includes overpayments for which the state agency was either
solely responsible or shared responsibility with claimants, employers, or third parties, such as labor unions or private
employment referral agencies. The rate includes fraud, nonfraud recoverable overpayments, nonfraud nonrecoverable
overpayments, official action taken to reduce future benefits, and payments that are technically proper due to finality
or other rules.
Fraud (2.2%) - The definition of unemployment compensation fraud varies from state to state. The
rate includes all causes and responsible parties.
BAM Annual Report Rate In Detail
The following sections discuss the Annual Report overpayment rate in detail, including overpayment causes,
responsibility, state agency action, and rate changes. The Annual Report rate has been published since the beginning
of the program in CY 1988. These estimated overpayment rates are summarized in the following chart.
State Annual Report Overpayment Rates
Highest State Overpayment Error Rates
| State |
CY 2002 Overpayment Rate |
Change From CY 2001 (Percentage Pts.) |
Leading Cause (Percent of UI Benefits Paid) |
| Virginia |
23.51% |
+1.33 |
Work Search (12.15%) |
| Texas |
20.71% |
+6.37 |
Work Search (7.72%) |
| Louisiana |
20.43% |
+9.10 |
Benefit Year Earnings (6.11%) |
| Montana |
19.35% |
+4.86 |
ES Registration (8.82%) |
| Nebraska |
17.68% |
+5.72 |
ES Registration (8.53%) |
Lowest State Overpayment Error Rates
| State |
CY 2002 Overpayment Rate |
Change From CY 2001 (Percentage Pts.) |
Leading Cause (Percent of UI Benefits Paid) |
| Vermont |
1.71% |
-3.84 |
Benefit Year Earnings (0.72%) |
| Massachusetts |
2.40% |
-0.53 |
Benefit Year Earnings (1.62%) |
| Oklahoma |
2.91% |
-1.52 |
Work Search (1.78%) |
| West Virginia |
3.21% |
+0.38 |
Benefit Year Earnings (2.12%) |
| North Dakota |
3.25% |
+1.30 |
Separation Issues (1.59%) |
Note: Rates are the percentage of UI benefits that were overpaid.
Overpayment Rates in the Ten Largest States
| State |
Amount Paid (in millions) |
OP Rate (Percentage Pt. Change from CY 2001) |
State |
Amount Paid (in millions) |
OP Rate (Percentage Pt. Change from CY 2001) |
| California |
$5,451.4 |
7.25% (+1.61) |
New Jersey
| $2,081.5 |
8.20% (-3.40) |
| New York |
$3,204.1 |
8.11% (+3.32) |
Massachusetts
| $1,920.7 |
2.40% (-0.53) |
| Illinois |
$2,516.7 |
7.82% (-3.67) |
Michigan
| $1,778.3 |
8.17% (+0.16) |
| Pennsylvania |
$2,209.5 |
8.15% (-1.44) |
Washington
| $1,693.1 |
12.24% (+1.34) |
| Texas |
$2,200.0 |
20.71% (+6.37) |
Ohio
| $1,423.8 |
6.93% (-0.76) |
Readers are strongly cautioned that it
may be misleading to compare one state's payment accuracy rates with another states rates. No two states' written
laws, regulations, and policies specifying eligibility conditions are identical, and differences in these conditions
influence the potential for error. States with stringent or complex provisions tend to have higher improper payment
rates than those with simpler, more straightforward provisions.
Changes in Annual Report Overpayment Rates
The estimated CY 2002 overpayment rate of 9.10 percent of benefits paid in the State UI, UCFE, and UCX
programs is an increase of 0.91 percentage points from CY 2001. An estimated $3.68 billion of benefits were
overpaid in CY 2002, compared with $2.45 billion overpaid in CY 2001. Most of the national increase in the
overpayment rate is attributable to increases in the percentages of UI benefits that were overpaid due to
separation, able and available, and other eligibility issues, which include work refusals, self-employment,
and illegal alien status.
Cause of CY 2002 Overpayments and Change from CY 2001
| Overpayment Cause |
CY 2002 Percentage of UI Benefits Paid |
Percentage Point Change From CY 2001 |
| Benefit Year Earnings |
2.48% |
-0.08 |
| Separation Issues |
1.98% |
+0.25 |
| Work Search |
1.43% |
+0.18 |
| ES Registration Issues |
0.83% |
+0.13 |
| Able & Available |
0.78% |
+0.22 |
| Base Period Wage Issues |
0.65% |
-0.02 |
| Other Eligibility Issues* |
0.61% |
+0.26 |
| Dependents and Other Issues |
0.34% |
-0.03 |
*Includes work refusals, self-employment, and illegal alien status.
In CY 2002, 29 State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) reported increases in their overpayment rates from the
previous year, and 21 SWAs reported decreases in their overpayment rates. (Colorado and Puerto Rico did
not complete a sufficient number of cases in CY 2001 to produce statistically reliable estimates and are
excluded from the CY 2001 - 2002 comparison.)
Largest Overpayment Error Rate Increases
| State |
Percentage Point Increase From CY 2001 |
Leading Cause of Increase (Percentage Point Increase) |
| Louisiana |
9.10 |
ES Registration (+3.66) |
| Texas |
6.37 |
Work Search (+3.67) |
| Nebraska |
5.72 |
ES Registration (+7.17) |
| Montana |
4.86 |
Work Search (+2.80) |
| Iowa |
4.15 |
Separation Issues (+2.70) |
Largest Overpayment Error Rate Decreases
| State |
Percentage Point Decrease From CY 2001 |
Leading Cause of Decrease (Percentage Point Decrease) |
| Mississippi |
-8.65 |
ES Registration (-10.74) |
| Maine |
-6.55 |
Other Eligibility Issues (-4.08) |
| Utah |
-4.41 |
Benefit Year Earnings (-3.83) |
| Vermont |
-3.84 |
Separation Issues (-1.30) |
| Illinois |
-3.67 |
Work Search (-1.64) |
Overpayment Cause Trends
Over the last ten years, benefit year earnings (unreported or erroneously reported benefit year earnings, plus
social security, pension, or severance/vacation pay) have accounted for the largest portion of overpayments. In
recent years, separation issues have been the second leading cause of overpayments, followed by work search
issues. The percentage of UI benefits that were overpaid because of errors in reporting or recording base period
wage issues has decreased slightly in recent years as the automation of wage reporting has improved.
Causes of Overpayments in CY 2002
The leading cause of overpayment errors in CY 2002 was unreported or erroneously reported benefit year
earnings and income, including social security, pension, severance or vacation pay, which accounted for over
one-fourth of the $3.68 billion overpaid and 2.5 percent of the $40.4 billion in UI benefits paid in CY 2002.
Separation issues were the second leading cause of overpayments, accounting for 22 percent of the amount
overpaid and 2.0 percent of benefits paid.
Leading Cause of Overpayments by State
Unreported or erroneously reported benefit year earnings and income, including social security, pension,
severance, or vacation pay were the leading cause of overpayment errors in nearly half of the states. Work
search issues were the leading cause in 11 states, and separation issues were the principal cause of
overpayment errors in 10 states. Employment service registration issues were the leading cause of overpayments
in eight states.
Benefit Year Earnings and Income
The leading cause of UI overpayments, benefit year earnings and income, comprises several issues. The
adjacent chart summarizes the distribution of the $1 billion of overpayments attributable to benefit year
earnings and income issues. The largest component by far (64 percent) is unreported earnings by UI claimants
who have returned to work but continue to collect UI benefits. Incorrectly reported earnings or time worked
account for 21 percent of the total.
Responsibility for Overpayments in CY 2002
Claimants alone were responsible for nearly 60 percent of the dollars overpaid; claimant responsibility
accounted for overpayments representing 5.4 percent of total UI benefits paid in CY 2002. Errors resulting
in overpayments that were attributed exclusively to the state agency accounted for 15 percent of the amount
overpaid and represented 1.3 percent of the UI benefits paid. The category All Other includes overpayments
for which more than one party has responsibility, such as claimants and employers or agency and employers,
as well as third parties.
Recoverable and Detectable Overpayments
In addition to cause and responsibility, BAM classifies all UI payment errors according to type of
error (fraud, nonfraud recoverable, and nonfraud nonrecoverable) and agency action prior to the date that
BAM selects the UI payment for investigation. For many errors, such as work search and able and available
issues, the disqualifying issue was not detectable through the normal claims processing procedures. In the
case of work search, for example, it is not cost effective for the agency to verify the work search efforts
of all claimants. The adjacent chart displays the distribution of the $3.68 billion of UI overpayments
classified by four characteristics -- recoverable and detectable, recoverable and nondetectable,
nonrecoverable and detectable, and nonrecoverable and nondetectable.
While over three-fourths of the amount of benefits
that were overpaid is recoverable, over 70 percent
of all UI overpayments are not detectable through normal agency procedures. For nearly one-fourth of the
overpayments, the agency had sufficient information to identify the overpayment issue but did not resolve
the issue (12 percent), did not follow procedures (6 percent), or took the incorrect action (6 percent).
The agency had resolved or was in the process of resolving only 3 percent of the overpayments at the time
BAM selected the sample.
Cause By Type of Overpayment
The distribution of overpayment cause varies considerably by type of error. Nearly half of the $872 million
in overpayments classified as fraud are due to benefit year earnings and income. Nearly a quarter of the fraud
overpayments are attributable to separation issues. Able and available (A & A) issues are the third largest
component (12 percent).
Nonfraud overpayments that are recoverable totaled nearly $1.9 billion. Work search issues, benefit year
earnings, and separation issues collectively account for nearly three-fourths of the nonfraud recoverable
overpayments.
Employment service registration issues make up 35 percent of the $903 million in nonfraud nonrecoverable
overpayments. Separation issues account for a little over 25 percent of the total. Many of these overpayments
are unrecoverable because the claimant was not responsible for the error. For example, the agency failed to
enter or maintain the claimants registration in the employment service records system or, in the case of
separation errors, the employer did not provide information requested by the agency concerning the claimants
separation when the claim was filed. Other overpayments cannot be recovered because of finality rules, which
preclude recovery of erroneous payments after a specified period of time.
Average Amount Overpaid
Another approach to measuring UI benefit payment integrity is to examine the average amount overpaid.
The following chart displays the average overpayments per erroneous payment and per an appropriate workload
measure. Overpayment errors are classified by cause: monetary (base period wage and dependents allowance
issues), separation (voluntary quit and discharge), and nonmonetary / nonseparation (benefit year earnings
and income, able and available, work search, ES registration, refusal of work, alien status, and other
continuing eligibility issues). The workload measures used in computing the average overpayments are
summarized in the following table.
| Cause |
Workload Measure |
CY 2002 |
| Monetary |
Number of first payments |
10,179,839 |
| Separation |
Number of first payments + Number of additional claims, excluding ACs
for which a nonmonetary determination resulted in a denial |
16,917,263 |
| Nonseparation |
Number of UI weeks paid |
168,581,824 |
Monetary overpayments average approximately $35 per erroneous payment. These errors generally represent a
reduction of the claimants weekly benefit amount due to erroneously reported or recorded base period wages.
However, most of these claimants remain eligible for some UI benefits. In contrast, separation overpayments
often involve complete disqualification (due mostly to voluntary quits and discharges), resulting in an average
overpayment of nearly $220 per erroneous payment. Nonseparation errors average $160 per overpayment and encompass
several issues. Some of these, such as able and available and work search violations, result in total
disqualification for the compensated week of unemployment, whereas other issues, such as earnings from part-time
employment or income from social security or pensions result in a partial reduction of benefits for the week of
unemployment that is affected.
The average overpayments per workload are computed by dividing the amount of benefits overpaid in each cause
category by the appropriate workload measure. For example, BAM estimates that approximately $287 million were
overpaid due to monetary issues. Dividing this amount by the 10,179,839 first payments results in an average
overpayment of approximately $28. Average overpayments per workload for separation and nonseparation errors are
significantly smaller than the average amount per overpayment. For example, dividing total overpayments due to
separation issues ($798 million) by the nearly 17 million first payments and eligible additional claims* produces
an average overpayment of $47. Nonseparation overpayments, which comprise issues related to the claimants
continued eligibility during his or her benefit year (for example, benefit year earnings, able and available, and
work search issues) totaled $2.6 billion, an average of $15 per UI week paid. These workload averages place
overpayments in the context of the number of transactions and eligibility determinations made in the UI system.
* Additional claims are filed when a claimant returns to work during the benefit year
before exhausting the maximum amount of UI benefits to which he or she is entitled, is separated from that
employment, and files a claim for additional weeks of unemployment. The agency determines eligibility based
on the circumstances of the claimants separation from the intervening employment.
Underpayment Rates
BAM estimates that $268.5 million were underpaid in CY 2002, compared with $184.4 million in CY 2001. As a
percentage of UI benefits paid, the CY 2002 national underpayment rate of 0.66 percent is essentially unchanged
from CY 2001. The underpayment rate decreased in 25 of the SWAs in CY 2002, and increased in 25 SWAs.
Highest and Lowest Underpayment Rates
States With Highest UP Rates |
CY 2002 UP Rate (Percentage Point Change from 2001) |
States With Lowest UP Rates |
CY 2002 UP Rate (Percentage Point Change from 2001) |
| Massachusetts |
1.92% (+0.51) |
Idaho |
0.11% (-0.55) |
| Puerto Rico |
1.88% (*) |
Indiana |
0.11% (-0.15) |
| Iowa |
1.45% (+0.29) |
North Dakota |
0.13%(-0.23) |
| Louisiana |
1.26% (-0.33) |
Nevada |
0.14% (-0.08) |
| New Jersey |
1.01% (-1.10) |
Maryland Texas |
0.15% (-0.12) 0.15%(+0.02) |
*CY 2001 BAM data for Puerto Rico were not published
because the agency completed an insufficient number of sample cases.
Errors in reporting or recording base period wages accounted for nearly two-thirds of the
amount underpaid and represented 0.44 percent of the amount of UI benefits paid in CY 2002.
Employers alone were responsible for 40 percent of the amount underpaid, which
represented 0.26 percent of the amount of UI benefits paid. Claimants alone were responsible
for an additional 23 percent of the amount underpaid, which represented 0.16 percent of the
amount of UI benefits paid.
II. Denied Claims Accuracy (DCA)
The underpayments estimated from BAM paid claims samples represent underpayments only for those claimants eligible
for unemployment compensation (UC). Underpayments also result when claims for UC are erroneously denied. BAM units in
the State Workforce Agencies began selecting samples of denied UC claims in August 2001. CY 2002 is the first complete
year for which BAM DCA data are available.
CY 2002 DCA cases have not yet been reviewed by Regional and National Office monitors to verify the accuracy of the
state audits. Monitoring will begin in CY 2003. If DCA data are revised as a result of the case reviews, the
Department of Labor will publish the revised results. In addition, in several states the population from which the
BAM DCA samples were selected may not include all of the determinations that meet the definition for inclusion in the
DCA population. This limits the degree to which inferences about the population can be made from BAM DCA data.
States are in the process of resolving these population issues.
National Denied Claims Accuracy Rates
| Denial Type |
Population |
Sample |
CY 2002 Improper Rate * |
CY 2002 Adjusted Improper
Rate # |
| Monetary |
833,863 |
6,917 |
14.69% |
9.38% |
| Separation |
1,588,829 |
7,034 |
7.62% |
5.71% |
| Nonseparation |
1,503,906 |
6,980 |
11.79% |
9.23% |
Responsibility
The party responsible for erroneous denials varies by type of determination. Employers are solely responsible for
45 percent of the erroneous monetary denials due to misreporting or underreporting employees wages. Employers
together with claimants or the state agencies are responsible for 15 percent of the erroneous monetary denials.
The state agencies are responsible for the 54 percent of the incorrect separation denials and 46 percent of the
improper nonseparation denials. Employers and the state agencies are jointly responsible for 16 percent of the
erroneous separation denials. Claimants are responsible for approximately 22 percent of the erroneous nonseparation
denials.
Prior Agency Action
Because the state agencies are responsible for the majority of the erroneous nonmonetary denials and for a
significant proportion of the monetary denials, it is instructive to examine agency action prior to the DCA
investigation. Agencies had resolved or were in the process of resolving nearly 35 percent of the erroneous
monetary denials. For nearly the same percentage of the improper monetary denials, the agency could not detect
the cause of the erroneous denial through its normal procedures. Typically, these are claims for which the wages
were incorrectly reported by the employer.
For improper nonmonetary denials, the agency identified the issue but took the incorrect action for a little
over half of the improper separation determinations and over 40 percent of the erroneous nonsepartion determinations.
Although the agency followed its procedures, the issue or information was undetectable for 16 percent of the
improper separation determinations and one-fourth of the erroneous nonsepartion determinations. That is, the agency
issued its determination to deny eligibility based on inadequate information that was the best available under normal
procedures at the time of its decision.
Separation Issues
A little over half of the separation denials concerned voluntary quits, while discharges accounted for most of
the balance. "Other" includes a small number of labor disputes, military separations, or claimants who were still
job attached (partial unemployment).
Error rates varied little between the two major separation issues. Eight percent of the denials concerning
discharge issues were incorrect, compared with seven percent of the denials related to voluntary quit issues. The
large error rate for "Other" separation issues has little impact on the overall separation error rate because of
the small size of this subgroup.
Nonseparation Issues
Nonseparation denials are distributed among several issues, with reporting and registration issues, disqualifying
or unreported income issues, and able / available issues collectively comprising the majority.
Eligibility that was denied because the agency determined the claimant was not able to work had the lowest error
rate (9.7 percent). The highest error rate occurred in the relatively small category of denials related to work
search issues (19.8 percent).
Detailed BAM Paid and Denied Claims Data and BAM Methodology
BAM Payment Accuracy Rates By State for CY 2002 and CY 2001
BAM Payment Integrity Measures By State for CY 2002
BAM Denied Claims Accuracy Rates By State for CY 2002
BAM State Contacts
BAM Background and Methodology