The feds have issued a report indicating some significant problems with the Department of Workforce Development, its error rate in handling unemployment insurance payments, and its handling of contracts.
I have read several news reports about the report, but I am having trouble getting a grip on how the Department mishandled unemployment insurance payments. In particular, it’s not real clear to me if it was overpaying people who were supposed to get payments, paying people who weren’t supposed to get payments, or not paying people who were supposed to be getting payments.
According to the AP article by Ken Kusmer:
[The report said ] Workforce Development was responsible for 11.2 percent of improper unemployment insurance payments in 2007 – five times the national rate of 2.3 percent – and noted that some managers averaged 250 cases, increasing the risk of poor service.
It also chided the agency for failing to check a database known as the National Directory of New Hires when it calculates unemployment insurance payments to ensure recipients are reporting all of their wages.
A federal mandate required all states to begin using the directory by Jan. 1, 2008.
With the unemployment insurance fund being empty and running on loans from the federal government, every dollar paid in error is kind of a big deal.
The report also found problems with some of the Department of Workforce Development’s contracts, including significantly, a rushed $7 million contract awarded to Ivy Tech last June for vocational and academic training and other services. The contract apparently does not provide for much in the way of accountability. This is probably most significant because of Ivy Tech’s notoriously cozy relationship with a number of lawmakers. There may well be nothing improper about the relationship, but the close relationship means that the interactions between Ivy Tech and the State should undergo a little more scrutiny.
In particular, it’s not real clear to me if it was overpaying people who were supposed to get payments, paying people who weren’t supposed to get payments, or not paying people who were supposed to be getting payments.
Pretty much spot on Doug, all of the above. The current administration has made many changes similar to FSSA. The biggest changes resulting in errors were to implement new software and program changes with ineffective strategic planning and poor training for DWD staff and partners. Line staff workloads have drastically changed and increased. The department is on it’s third commisioner under this administration and the chairs at the top have been subject to a revolving door.