Michigan unemployment: when losing your job isn't enough

[CountDeMoney]

I was going to post this in the Detroit Kwame thread, but that can stay reserved for the "hey-let's-goof-on-negroes-that-run-city-government" stories, and keep this for the "because-poisoning-the-negros-isn't-enough-let's-take-their-money-too" articles. 



So you lose your job, you apply for unemployment, and since the automated system accuses 93% of fraudulent filing, you get hit with fines, garnishes your tax refunds.  And that money?  Give it back?  Nooooo....the GOP legislature is going to take that money and balance the budget with it.

And people are surprised it turned red this year.  Michigan might as well join the Confederacy as another Carolina.

Michigan unemployment agency made 20,000 false fraud accusations – report
Automated system erroneously accused claimants in 93% of cases, state review finds: 'It's balancing the books on the backs of the poorest,' lawyer says

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/18/michigan-unemployment-agency-fraud-accusations

A Michigan government agency wrongly accused individuals in at least 20,000 cases of fraudulently seeking unemployment payments, according to a review by the state.

The review released this week found that an automated system had erroneously accused claimants in 93% of cases – a rate that stunned even lawyers suing the state over the computer system and faulty fraud claims.

"It's literally balancing the books on the backs of Michigan's poorest and jobless," attorney David Blanchard, who is pursuing a class action in federal court on behalf of several claimants, told the Guardian on Friday.

The Michigan unemployment insurance agency (UIA) reviewed 22,427 cases in which an automated computer system determined a claimant had committed insurance fraud, after federal officials, including the Michigan congressman Sander Levin, raised concerns with the system.

The review found that the overwhelming majority of claims over a two-year period between October 2013 and August 2015 were in error.

In 2015, the state revised its policy and required fraud determinations to be reviewed and issued by employees. But the new data is the first indication of just how widespread the improper accusations were during that period.

The people accused lost access to unemployment payments, and reported facing fines as high as $100,000. Those who appealed against the fines fought the claims in lengthy administrative hearings. And some had their federal and state taxes garnished.

Kevin Grifka, an electrician who lives in metro Detroit, had his entire federal income tax garnished by the UIA, after it accused him of fraudulently collecting $12,000 in unemployment benefits.

The notice came just weeks before Christmas in 2014.

"To be honest with you, it was really hard to see your wife in tears around Christmas time, when all of this went on for me," Grifka said.

The computer system claimed that he had failed to accurately represent his income over a 13-week period. But the system was wrong: Grifka, 39, had not committed insurance fraud.

In a statement issued on Friday, Levin called on state officials to review the remaining fraud cases that were generated by the system before the policy revision.

"While I'm pleased that a small subset of the cases has been reviewed, the state has a responsibility to look at the additional 30,000 fraud determinations made during this same time period," he said.

Figures released by the state show 2,571 individuals have been repaid a total of $5.4m. It's unclear if multiple cases were filed against the same claimants.

The findings come as Michigan's Republican-led legislature passed a bill this week to use $10m from the unemployment agency's contingent fund – which is composed mostly of fines generated by fraud claims – to balance the state's budget. Since 2011, the balance of the contingent fund has jumped from $3.1m to $155m, according to a report from a Michigan house agency.

The system, known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (Midas), caused an immediate spike in claims of fraud when it was implemented in October 2013 under the state's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, at a cost of $47m.

In the run-up to a scathing report on the system issued last year by Michigan's auditor general, the UIA began requiring employees to review the fraud determinations before they were issued.

The fraud accusations can carry an emotional burden for claimants.

"These accusations [have] a pretty big burden on people," Grifka said. While he said the new findings were validating and his own case had been resolved, he called for state accountability.

"There's no recourse from the state on what they're doing to people's lives. That's my biggest problem with all of this."

Steve Gray, director of the University of Michigan law school's unemployment insurance clinic, told the Guardian earlier this year that he routinely came across claimants facing a significant emotional toll. As a result, he said, the clinic added the number for a suicide hotline to a referral resource page on the program's website.

"We had just a number of clients who were so desperate, saying that they were going to lose their house ... they've never been unemployed before, they didn't know," said Gray, who filed a complaint with the US labor department in 2015 about the Midas system.

The fines can be enormous. Residents interviewed by local news outlets have highlighted fraud penalties from the UIA upwards of $100,000. Bankruptcy petitions filed as a result of unemployment insurance fraud also increased during the timeframe when Midas was in use.

One bankruptcy attorney told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits.

A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system "resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong".

Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again.

A spokesman for the unemployment insurance agency, Dave Murray, said it appreciated Levin's work on the issue and said it was continuing "to study fraud determinations".

The agency had already made changes to the fraud determination process, he said, and "we appreciate that the state legislature this week approved a bill that codifies the reforms we've set in place".

Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund.

"While I am pleased that $5m has been repaid, it strikes me as small compared to the amount of money that was collected at the time," he said. "Only a full audit will ensure the public that the problem has been fully rectified."

[DGuller]

To accuse people of fraud without human review is just unfathomable breach of ethics.

[CountDeMoney]

Who cares.  They're unemployed.  Takers shouldn't have lost their jobs.

[Admiral Yi]

To accuse people of fraud without human review is just unfathomable breach of ethics.

Disagree.  There is a lot of information related to UI claims that can be checked by computer.

[DGuller]

To accuse people of fraud without human review is just unfathomable breach of ethics.

Disagree.  There is a lot of information related to UI claims that can be checked by computer.

Yes, it can be.  But you double check the computer afterwards before you accuse someone and assess penalties to them, hence the human review.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, it can be.  But you double check the computer afterwards before you accuse someone and assess penalties to them, hence the human review.

Thanks for repeating your position.  It was very clarifying.

[garbon]

Yes, it can be.  But you double check the computer afterwards before you accuse someone and assess penalties to them, hence the human review.

Thanks for repeating your position.  It was very clarifying.

I have to agree with him that it sounds like a bad idea to have such an exacting system like a computer making decisions without human oversight.

[dps]

Yes, it can be.  But you double check the computer afterwards before you accuse someone and assess penalties to them, hence the human review.

Thanks for repeating your position.  It was very clarifying.

I have to agree with him that it sounds like a bad idea to have such an exacting system like a computer making decisions without human oversight.

Yes, though I'd consider it less a breach of ethics and more just a lack of common sense.

[garbon]

Yes, it can be.  But you double check the computer afterwards before you accuse someone and assess penalties to them, hence the human review.

Thanks for repeating your position.  It was very clarifying.

I have to agree with him that it sounds like a bad idea to have such an exacting system like a computer making decisions without human oversight.

Yes, though I'd consider it less a breach of ethics and more just a lack of common sense.

Fair point.

[DGuller]

Yes, it can be.  But you double check the computer afterwards before you accuse someone and assess penalties to them, hence the human review.

Thanks for repeating your position.  It was very clarifying.

I assumed you didn't understand my position the first time, because otherwise your disagreement simply didn't follow.  I say that computer flags should be reviewed by humans, and you disagree because computers can actually generate flags?  That only makes any sense at all if you thought I meant that computers should not be involved at all in the process.

[Tonitrus]

According to Yi, ED-209 wouldn't need human oversight/review before enacting punishment.

[Monoriu]

I have to wonder if the system is deliberately designed to make these false accusations.

[Admiral Yi]

I assumed you didn't understand my position the first time, because otherwise your disagreement simply didn't follow.  I say that computer flags should be reviewed by humans, and you disagree because computers can actually generate flags?  That only makes any sense at all if you thought I meant that computers should not be involved at all in the process.

A flag by definition is a warning that more attention is required.  That's not what I said. 

[viper37]

I have to wonder if the system is deliberately designed to make these false accusations.

I was thinking the same thing.  At 93%, it's a goddam huge error rate to have been missed during the beta testing phase.

[11B4V]

I have to wonder if the system is deliberately designed to make these false accusations.

I was thinking the same thing.  At 93%, it's a goddam huge error rate to have been missed during the beta testing phase.

It's govmint. They only alpha and excuse away what's not on their agenda.