Skip to main content
U-M Poverty Solutions Logo U-M Poverty Solutions Logo

Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan

Joan and Sanford Weill hall
Suite 5100
735 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091

Publications

Back to publications

Lessons from a Pandemic: The Need for Statutory Reform to Michigan’s Unemployment System

Download PDF of full working paper

By Rachael Kohl

Executive Summary

Michigan has serious long-term structural issues in terms of its essential factors. These factors include the weekly benefit amount available to claimants, the number of regular weeks of compensation available, the taxable wage base, and rework requirements after a separation. Michigan was the second-worst jurisdiction across these dimensions. Michigan was in the bottom third in the structural issue of how much of the workforce is covered. While Michigan performed well in terms of having a robust workshare program, the UI system is the second-worst jurisdiction in terms of covering low-earning workers. Michigan also performed poorly in terms of covering part-time workers and having a well-functioning employer chargeability system.
Michigan performed poorly in terms of other claimant benefits & protections. This factor
includes medical leave availability, dependent allowances, how the state handles potential fraud,
and how modernized the UI system is. Michigan’s UI system responded well (in the top 3), but with temporary policies, to the COVID-19 crisis. Michigan was among the first states to implement PUA and the state’s governor was proactive in broadening worker protections. For instance, the governor temporarily expanded benefit weeks from 20 to 26 weeks, waived the work-search requirement, and broadened the reasons for refusing work in light of COVID. While infrastructure issues prevented the state from scoring higher, Michigan made the most out of its structurally weakened system.

This report assesses Michigan’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) system compared to the rest of the nation. It concludes that Michigan’s UI responded to the COVID-19 crisis well compared to many other places, but that this response was hampered by long-term structural weaknesses in the state’s system. Many of the changes that helped Michigan weather the worst of the crisis were temporary and highlight a missed opportunity to provide lasting improvements to a flawed system.

This report scores jurisdictions across four broad categories of unemployment insurance
performance: 1) Essential Factors; 2) Workforce Coverage; 3) Claimant Benefits & Protections; 4)
COVID-19 Response and Administration. These factors are chosen to measure various mechanisms through which UI systems can succeed or fail in providing qualified applicants benefits in a timely and fair manner. Higher scores across these measures indicate that a state’s UI system is relatively more claimant-centered, meaning that the system provides meaningful support to the largest possible range of workers who are out of work through no fault of their own.

Michigan’s UI system consistently ranks as one of the weakest UI programs in the country. In reviewing the first 3 categories above about the state’s programmatic variables, Michigan was in the bottom 5 jurisdictions. However, Michigan did very well in response to COVID-19. Because Michigan was a leader to respond and to give out benefits at the beginning of the pandemic, Michigan’s “Overall” score was near that of the average state’s score. However, this masks the fact that Michigan was in the top 3 states in the more temporary policy measure (COVID-19 response) but was second to last in the nation in the longer-term policy measure of essential factors and the bottom third in terms of workforce coverage and claimant benefits and protections.

  • Michigan has serious long-term structural issues in terms of its essential factors. These factors include the weekly benefit amount available to claimants, the number of regular weeks of compensation available, the taxable wage base, and rework requirements after a separation. Michigan was the second-worst jurisdiction across these dimensions.
  • Michigan was in the bottom third in the structural issue of how much of the workforce is covered. While Michigan performed well in terms of having a robust workshare program, the UI system is the second-worst jurisdiction in terms of covering low-earning workers. Michigan also performed poorly in terms of covering part-time workers and having a well-functioning employer chargeability system.
  • Michigan performed poorly in terms of other claimant benefits & protections. This factor includes medical leave availability, dependent allowances, how the state handles potential fraud, and how modernized the UI system is.
  • Michigan’s UI system responded well (in the top 3), but with temporary policies, to the COVID-19 crisis. Michigan was among the first states to implement PUA and the state’s governor was proactive in broadening worker protections. For instance, the governor temporarily expanded benefit weeks from 20 to 26 weeks, waived the work-search requirement, and broadened the reasons for refusing work in light of COVID. While infrastructure issues prevented the state from scoring higher, Michigan made the most out of its structurally-weakened system.

The report provides a brief overview of the economic condition of the various states during the pandemic, highlighting that states that had stronger UI systems handled the crisis better. Next, the report discusses each of the scoring factors in detail, providing additional analysis and explanation of the factors that lead to a well-functioning UI system. The report summarizes these scores in figures and charts throughout, as well as providing a final overview of rankings in the last section. The report concludes with a scorecard grading each state’s UI system and highlighting relative strengths and weaknesses.

Download PDF of full working paper