Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-vh8gq Total loading time: 0.288 Render date: 2022-09-28T23:10:15.254Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Identifying Key Barriers to Unemployment Insurance for Disadvantaged Workers in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2010

H. LUKE SHAEFER*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work email: lshaefer@umich.edu

Abstract

This article seeks to identify key programmatic barriers to access to Unemployment Insurance (UI) faced by two groups of disadvantaged workers in the United States: those in the lowest wage quintile, and part-time workers who are primary wage earners. Analyses use the 2001 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a nationally representative, longitudinal survey administered by the United States Census Bureau. Estimates of UI eligibility and receipt are presented for those who enter a spell of unemployment during the panel. Results suggest that a large majority of disadvantaged workers in the United States already meet UI earnings (monetary) requirements, and that barriers to access are more often the result of disadvantaged workers (1) assuming they are ineligible, or (2) not meeting non-monetary eligibility requirements because they voluntarily quit their job or were terminated for cause. Much of the focus in policy debates in the United States remains on reforming UI earnings requirements. If results presented in this article are correct, increasing UI access among disadvantaged workers will further require increasing rates of application through expanded knowledge about the programme among disadvantaged workers, and expanding (non-monetary) eligibility for job leavers.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bassi, L. J. and McMurrer, D. P. (1997), ‘Coverage and recipiency: trends and effects’, in O'Leary, C. J. and Wandner, S. A. (eds.), Unemployment Insurance in the United States: Analysis of Policy Issues, Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute, pp. 5190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boushey, H. and Wenger, J. B. (2006), ‘Unemployment insurance eligibility before and after welfare reform’, Journal of Poverty, 10: 3, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), ‘Bureau of Labor Statistics Handbook of Methods 2007’, Publication of the US Department of Labor, available at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch1.pdf.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. C. and Trivedi, P. K. (2005), Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Economic and Policy Research [CEPR] (2006), ‘SIPP Uniform Extracts, Version 2.0’, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Coven, M. and Stone, C. (2009), ‘Unemployment insurance reforms should be part of economic recovery package: McConnell criticism of part-time worker proposal is misplaced’, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Brief, Washington, DC, available at: http://www.cbpp.org/1-6-09ui.htm.Google Scholar
Decker, C. K. G. and Levine, P. B. (2001), ‘Less skilled workers, welfare reform, and the unemployment insurance system’, Research in Labor Economics, 20: 395432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Accounting Office (2000), ‘Unemployment insurance: role as safety net for low-wage workers is limited’, United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office (2007), ‘Unemployment insurance: low-wage and part-time workers continue to experience low rates of receipt’, GAO report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Community on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Holzer, H. J. (2000), ‘Unemployment insurance and welfare recipients: what happens when the recession comes?’, Assessing the New Federalism, Series A, No. A-46, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Isaacs, J. B. (2005), ‘Receipt of unemployment insurance among low-income single mothers’, ASPE Issue Brief, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F. and Hudson, K. (2000) ‘Bad jobs in America: standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States’, American Sociological Review, 65: 256–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. J. (2008), ‘Passing the buck: labor flexibility practices that transfer risk onto hourly workers’, Human Relations, 61: 9, 1203–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, P. B. (2006), ‘Unemployment insurance over the business cycle: does it meet the needs of less-skilled workers?’, in Blank, R. M., Danziger, S. H. and Schoeni, R. F. (eds.), Working and Poor: How Economic and Policy Changes Are Affecting Low-Wage Workers, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 366–95.Google Scholar
National Employment Law Project (n.d.), ‘What is an alternative base period and why does my state need one?’, NELP Briefing Paper, New York, available at: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/Alternative%20Base%20Period.pdf.Google Scholar
O'Leary, C. J. and Kline, K. J. (2008), ‘UI as a safety net for former TANF recipients’, ASPE Project: HS-05-001, submitted to the US Department of Health and Human Services ASPE.Google Scholar
Polivka, A. E., Cohany, S. R. and Hipple, S. (2000), ‘Definition, composition, and economic consequences of the nonstandard workforce’, in Carré, F., Ferber, M. A., Golden, L. and Herzenberg, S. A. (eds.), Nonstandard Work: The Nature and Challenges of Changing Employment Arrangements, Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 4194.Google Scholar
Rangarajan, A. and Razafindrakoto, C. (2004), Unemployment Insurance as a Potential Safety Net for TANF Leavers: Evidence from Five States, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Rangarajan, A., Razafindrakoto, C. and Corson, W. (2002), Study to Examine UI Eligibility among Former TANF Recipients: Evidence from New Jersey, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Stettner, A., Boushey, H. and Wenger, J. (2005), ‘Clearing the path to unemployment insurance for low-wage workers: an analysis of alternative base period implementation’, National Employment Law Project and Center for Economic and Policy Research Report.Google Scholar
Storey, J. R. and Neisner, J. A. (1997), ‘Unemployment compensation in the Group of Seven nations’, in O'Leary, C. J. and Wandner, S. A. (eds.), Unemployment Insurance in the United States: Analysis of Policy Issues, Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute, pp. 599667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor (2003), ‘Comparison of State Unemployment Laws’, available at: http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uilawcompar/2003/comparison2003.asp.Google Scholar
Vroman, W. (1991), ‘The decline in unemployment insurance claims activity in the 1980s’, Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper, 91–2, US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Division, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Vroman, W. (1998), ‘Effects of welfare reform on unemployment insurance’, Assessing the New Federalism, No. A-22, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Vroman, W. (2008), ‘Analysis of UI benefits in Ohio’, Report for the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services.Google Scholar
Vroman, W. and Brusentsev, V. (2005), Unemployment Compensation throughout the World: A Comparative Analysis, Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wandner, S. A. and Stettner, A. (2000), ‘Why are many jobless workers not applying for benefits?’, Monthly Labor Review, June: 21–33.Google Scholar
Wenger, J. B. (2006), ‘Public policy and contingent workers’, in Gleason, S. E. (ed.), The Shadow Workforce: Perspectives on Contingent Work in the United States, Japan, and Europe, Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.Google Scholar
17
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Identifying Key Barriers to Unemployment Insurance for Disadvantaged Workers in the United States
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Identifying Key Barriers to Unemployment Insurance for Disadvantaged Workers in the United States
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Identifying Key Barriers to Unemployment Insurance for Disadvantaged Workers in the United States
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *