Earned but Not Easy: Administrative Burden and Stigma in Wisconsin's Unemployment Insurance System

• In Event: Factors Associated with Administrative Burdens and Their Relief

Abstract

Introduction: Unemployment Insurance (UI) is a core component of the U.S. safety net, yet access remains uneven due to challenges in benefit delivery, customer service, and system design. The unprecedented demand for UI benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasized these weaknesses, including in Wisconsin. Research on administrative burden shows how information gaps, complex procedural requirements, and opaque decision-making can discourage participation; less is known about how applicants and claimants themselves interpret eligibility, navigate the system, and assess the fairness and consequences of benefit receipt, delay, denial, or nonapplication. This study addresses that gap using qualitative evidence from Wisconsin.

Methods: This study draws on semi-structured interviews with Wisconsin UI applicants and claimants recruited from a broader study survey sample. We used a two-step sampling approach, first stratifying by eligibility status and then randomly selecting within strata to capture likely differences by UI eligibility status (23 eligible, 18 ineligible). Transcripts were analyzed using a flexible coding approach informed by administrative burden theory combining deductive and inductive coding, and refining the codebook through iterative team-based review.

Results: Respondents frequently described confusion about UI eligibility rules, especially more complex criteria, and often relied on informal networks such as friends, family, coworkers, community groups, and unions to interpret program requirements, to interpret UI rules when employer-provided information was limited. Experiences with the UI system varied with digital literacy and prior exposure to UI; some found the process manageable, while others encountered confusing instructions, repeated documentation requests, or system design issues that contributed to delays, denials, or overpayments. Asked about making ends meet, many described substantial financial precarity during gaps in access, piecing together support from savings, severance, family, partners, or informal work.
Respondents also discussed complex views on deservingness and the UI system’s fairness. Some framed benefits as earned by “paying into” the system, while others expressed discomfort about "using the system" or distinguished between deserving and undeserving recipients. Denial and appeal processes often produced guilt or a sense of being treated as though they had done something wrong. Several respondents indicated that they would likely avoid applying in the future due to the burdensome process. Finally, respondents' experiences were shaped by the circumstances of job loss itself, including employer culture and practices, workplace accommodations, seasonal work, and how job losses were documented, all of which influenced both eligibility and access.

Implications: Beyond formal eligibility rules, UI access is shaped by applicants’ information networks, prior experience, digital capacity, and ability to absorb administrative burdens and delays without immediate financial crisis. These findings complicate the assumption that contributory programs like UI carry less stigma than means-tested benefits: perceptions of deservingness and psychological costs remain salient. Policy efforts to improve UI access should consider simplifying eligibility communication across online and other channels, reducing appeals burdens, and addressing system design features that exacerbate delays and uncertainty. More broadly, improving UI access requires attention to both administrative processes and the employment circumstances structuring benefit access. Ongoing analysis will compare these findings with complementary survey evidence on claimant experiences.

Authors

• Pooja Paode, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  Presenting Author

• Abigayle Brianna Brooks, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Marci Ybarra, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  Non-Presenting Co-Author