Light bulb with speech bubbles all around it

BI Beat: Keeping Claimants on the Path with Systems Thinking

September 01, 2026

The BI Beat is a monthly column written by the Behavioral Insights unit, featuring insights, examples, and interviews from the field. Behavioral Insights is funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Today’s article expands on our series related to systems thinking for UI programs.

For those designing Unemployment Insurance (UI) systems, the Robert Frosts of the world are a problem.

When Robert Frost found two paths diverging in the woods, he decided to take the “road less travelled by.” It’s a frustrating systemic phenomenon: given enough time, everything that can go wrong will go wrong. If a path is available, someone will take it, no matter how overgrown.

Fewer Paths through Consistent Communication

How can we stop the Robert Frosts of the world? By having one path—the correct one.

Last month, we wrote about the importance of systems thinking. Rather than focusing on why someone makes a mistake, we try to observe how the system makes a mistake more likely. We don’t worry about convincing Robert Frost to take the “road more travelled.” Instead, we get rid of the wrong road.

For UI claimants, inconsistent communications can often create a “too many roads” problem. Subtle differences in language can lead to multiple interpretations, confusion, and inaccurate filings.

As UI systems designers, our role is to block errant paths with consistent and accurate communications.

Inconsistent work search activities

A familiar example comes from work search. Claimants must report their work search activities every week, and states must communicate what activities qualify at various points, such as in a program’s:

Web content
One-pagers
Claimant handbook
Letters (paper or electronic)
Weekly certifications (paper or electronic portal)
State or department policy

Often, the descriptions of states’ work search activities can shift subtly in the different places they appear. Maybe your state’s weekly certification has “interview for a job” as a valid activity, but that’s not an option in the handbook. Or maybe your one-pager lists “applied to a job post,” but your online portal changes it to “submitted a resume.”

These differences can lead to some claimants neglecting to report eligible activities. They could also mistakenly report ineligible work search activities. It’s confusion that can lead to denied claims or improper payments.

Inconsistent separation reasons

Similarly, inconsistent separation reasons can lead to less accurate reporting. In fact, separations are especially tricky, as both employers and claimants must report the same reason. States may describe separation reasons across:

UI initial applications
Web content
Claimant handbooks
Employer letters and reporting portals
Employer handbooks

In these documents, separations could be described in different ways:

an online application could say “Terminated”
online instructions may describe being “Fired”
and an employer form might say “Discharged”

For the UI program, these may all mean the same thing, but the different language opens new paths to misunderstanding and disagreement.

Programs do well to use identical, fact-based language when describing separations. Language should also be carefully developed so as many people as possible can understand it. BI has developed a list of separation reasons that states can adopt that encourage honest, consistent reporting.

Inconsistent staff instruction

Claimants are not the only ones dealing with inconsistency. Adjudicators and call center staff may also rely on information from varying sources:

Training manuals
Desk aids
Supervisory instruction
Communications for claimants, like handbooks and letters

When these materials do not align, claimants may be led off the path. It may also lead to differing determinations. Consistent communication helps reduce confusion.

Systems Thinking to Break Down Silos

For all these inconsistencies, blame can’t usually be assigned to a single person. They are systemic—side-effects of having many staff, teams, and departments working on related issues at the same time.

Fortunately, systems thinking and behavioral science can address exactly these sorts of issues. There’s journey mapping, business process analysis, and communication audits. And our team can help you implement projects to reduce confusion and improper payments.

In the end, we hope your state can rewrite the last lines of Frost’s poem to something like: “For I took the only road available and collected unemployment insurance without issue.” It’s less poetic, but it’s also less of a headache.