We requested records of all complaints received during the audit period to understand how DUA manages complaints from claimants regarding UI benefits, but DUA officials stated that they could not provide this information because the request was too broad in scope. They stated that every contact by a claimant, whether by telephone, text, email, DUA’s online portal, or mail, could indicate a potential problem with a claim but is treated as generic correspondence by default. DUA claimed that attempting to collect all such contacts would result in millions of records, making it impractical to identify actual complaints.
We found that claimant contacts are recorded across multiple channels, and there is no centralized complaint-tracking system to monitor or consolidate these interactions. Because DUA did not have a readily available method to identify and provide documentation supporting claimant complaints, the audit process was constrained by delays. DUA officials repeatedly informed us that our request for all claim-related complaints received during the audit period was too broad in scope, requiring multiple rounds of discussions and refinements over approximately five months to determine what information could be provided. These delays significantly affected the timing of our audit procedures related to claimant complaints and extended the overall audit timeline.
Potential complaints could arise through a variety of sources, including telephone calls to DUA’s call center, feedback submissions via DUA’s website, communications (usually emails) routed through the Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development’s office, or contacts from external stakeholders, such as the Legislature, via DUA’s Constituent Services Unit. While DUA officials noted that some of this data could potentially be extracted and tracked, it was evident to us that doing so would be a cumbersome process and is not routinely performed by DUA. Most contacts are not categorized and/or monitored, limiting DUA’s ability to identify and resolve issues quickly, efficiently, or at all.
Although DUA initially told us that identifying claimant complaints would be impractical because of the large volume of correspondence it receives, we were ultimately able to work with DUA officials to narrow the scope of our request and obtain a sample of records involving DUA’s Constituent Services Unit. Specifically, we limited our request to emails involving DUA’s director of constituent services unit, covering the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024, that were sent from or received by state senators, state representatives, or officials in their offices and contained terms such as “Claim #,” “Claim no.,” “Claim number,” or “Complaint(s).” We requested emails from these sources to evaluate the agency’s response to escalated complaints, under the assumption that these cases would represent examples of the most urgent complaints and allow us to assess both (1) how DUA responded to escalated cases and (2) how those responses compared to non-escalated cases. Using these criteria, DUA provided us with approximately 33,000 emails for review. This process demonstrated that, while extracting and reviewing complaint-related correspondence is possible, doing so required significant manual narrowing that was not supported by a centralized complaint-tracking system. As detailed below, we found that DUA did not sufficiently track either standard or escalated complaints, making it impossible for us to evaluate how effectively cases were managed, whether escalation improved outcomes, or what improvements could be made by comparing escalated and non-escalated processes.
In reviewing these emails, we observed that many involved legislative aides from state senators’ and representatives’ offices contacting DUA on behalf of constituents. Common themes were claimants experiencing issues with their UI claims and claimants being unable to reach DUA directly. Many individuals turned to their state senators and representatives, who then rightly contacted DUA’s Constituent Services Unit to help resolve the issues on their behalf.
The emails also highlighted several types of issues that were raised by claimants and employers. These issues included business owners questioning the contribution rates they were required to pay DUA; claimants reporting difficulty submitting claim information or navigating the claims process; and claimants who were disqualified from unemployment benefits without understanding the reason, experienced delays with their claims, and were unable to reach anyone at DUA for assistance or clarification. We also observed multiple instances involving suspected fraud and identity theft, where individuals discovered that someone had attempted to file an unemployment claim using their personal information. In some cases, this resulted in claimants being unable to access the Commonwealth’s legacy UI system. In another instance, an individual reported that when attempting to register online, they found that someone with a different Social Security number was already receiving benefits under their information. The individual further stated that they had been trying to report the fraud for several weeks but had been unsuccessful in reaching anyone at DUA to assist with resolving the issue.
DUA’s inability to distinguish complaints from general correspondence significantly limits its ability to monitor, report, and respond to claimant issues. This situation makes it difficult to identify recurring issues, track resolution statuses, follow up on actions, analyze trends, or measure performance. As a result, claimants may experience delays in having their issues addressed or receiving necessary benefits. It also hampers efforts to identify and improve problems that people experience with DUA’s systems and processes. Combined with the long call center wait times identified in Finding 1, these delays may also affect the timely delivery of UI benefits and increase the risk that important issues remain unresolved or overlooked, requiring DUA employees to repeatedly solve the same problem, rather than helping identify repeated issues and supporting their timely resolution. Complaints can become difficult to distinguish among millions of routine contacts, reducing oversight and limiting DUA’s ability to effectively address claimant concerns in a timely manner.
We do not dispute the intent or purpose of DUA’s Constituent Services Unit. On the contrary, we fully recognize the important role that state officials play in advocating on behalf of their constituents. However, the volume of inquiries from state officials and the apparent need for their intervention raises concerns and suggests underlying challenges in DUA’s ability to directly address claimant issues through its primary service channels. In a more effective DUA system, fewer claimants would need to rely on legislative offices to resolve routine problems with their claims, and complaints would be tracked and would serve as an important source of information for DUA to improve its services.
There is also a potential equity concern in how this process operates in practice. Claimants who are not aware of the Constituent Services Unit, or who do not have established connections to their elected officials, may be at a disadvantage in resolving issues with their claims. As a result, access to assistance may vary depending on a claimant’s awareness of, or ability to access, alternative support channels rather than being consistently supported by DUA itself.
We recommend that DUA implement a centralized complaint-tracking system to record all contacts by claimants. The system should allow contacts to be classified (e.g., complaint, question, request for information), track resolution statuses and follow-up actions, and enable reporting and trend analyses. DUA should regularly review the consolidated data to identify trends, recurring issues, and opportunities for process improvement, ensuring that claimant concerns are addressed promptly and consistently. In addition, DUA should assess opportunities to improve direct claimant support and issue resolution. Finally, DUA should regularly review inquiries coming through its Constituent Services Unit to spot recurring problems and use that information to fix issues in its frontline processes.
Auditee’s Response
DUA is committed to providing world class customer service for its constituents and routinely corresponds with claimants in various ways. As the Audit notes, a centralized complaint-tracking system would be unduly burdensome for DUA because there are so many mechanisms through which the agency can be contacted (e.g., call, email, web submission, legislative request, mail, direct message, social media post, etc.). Not all inquiries require follow up nor does each rise to the level of a formal complaint. DUA does track formal complaints about agency determinations in the form of appeals of agency decisions. “Complaint” does not have a formal definition in unemployment insurance outside of an adjudicatory context and tracking all general inquiries to the agency would be incredibly cumbersome. DUA routinely assesses opportunities to improve direct claimant support and issue resolution.
Auditor’s Reply
We acknowledge that not every claimant contact constitutes a formal complaint or requires follow-up. Our recommendation is not intended to require DUA to treat every communication as a complaint, but rather for DUA to honor the time and effort expended by the public to provide it with important feedback regarding its services. We recommend that DUA implement a process to identify, classify, and monitor claimant contacts that do represent complaints or indicate potential service issues. To clarify, when we pointed to statements of alleged impracticality, we were referring to DUA’s rationalization to our audit team about why it believed it couldn’t implement our recommendations. It was a restatement of DUA’s opinion and rationale, not our team’s opinion. We reiterate our recommendation to implement a centralized complaint tracking system.
DUA’s assertion that the term complaint does not have a formal definition in the context of UI does not change the issue and ignores the fact that government agencies routinely establish their own definitions or criteria for terms, such as complaint, when necessary to assist in the management and operation of public services. Regardless of what DUA chooses to call these contacts, DUA should be able to distinguish expressions of dissatisfaction and service-related problems from routine inquiries so it can better monitor performance and improve customer service. As noted above, DUA’s inability to do so has significantly limited its ability to identify recurring problems, analyze underlying causes of claimant concerns, monitor the status and resolution of claimant concerns, and use this information to improve service delivery. It also prevented us from fully evaluating how DUA managed claimant complaints during the audit period and raises reasonable questions as to why it would not seek to track complaints itself.
We recognize that DUA tracks formal appeals of its determinations. However, appeals represent only one category of claimant concern and do not capture many of the service-related issues identified during our review, including a claimant’s inability to reach DUA, delays in processing claims, difficulty navigating the claims process, and reports of suspected fraud and identity theft. These issues may not result in appeals but nevertheless affect a claimant’s ability to receive timely assistance and benefits. The April 30, 2026 Commonwealth Beacon article, titled “One year after implementing new system, Mass. continues to struggle in issuing unemployment benefits,” reported that nearly a year after the launch of the Employment Modernization and Transformation (EMT) system, claimants continued to face prolonged delays, confusion, and unresolved issues related to their UI claims. The article also noted a significant surge in pending appeals; and it reported nearly 13,000 cases with pending appeals in March 2026. The article also included statements from two state representatives who said that their offices received many complaints from constituents related to access to UI benefits. These statements match our review of DUA’s correspondence with legislative offices during the audit period.
DUA’s response does not address the central issue identified in this matter: The agency lacks a documented process to identify, classify, and monitor claimant complaints across its various communication channels. Until such a process is implemented, DUA will remain limited in its ability to effectively manage claimant concerns and improve service to the public. We strongly urge DUA to fully implement our recommendations. As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.
| Date published: | September 21, 2026 |
|---|