Home > Personal Finance > 10 States That Gouge the Unemployed (and the Existing Solution)

Comments 1 Comment

The Unemployment Benefit Solution So Simple the Government's Already Doing ItRight now more than 5 million Americans receive unemployment benefits. And right now, in many states a big chunk of those unemployment benefits are going straight to the bottom line profits of the nation’s biggest banks because of junk fees tied to the prepaid cards used to distribute these funds.

While we can’t take banks entirely out of the process, it’s critical they get a smaller piece of the pie. We can certainly provide a more direct conduit from our tax dollars to get into the pockets of the unemployed without such a huge vig. It would be one thing if banks were mandated to use the profits from junk fees to hire more people, but they aren’t. As much money as possible should go to regular people so they can spend it, putting the American economy back on track.

Most states now provide unemployment benefits to workers using prepaid debit cards. While some states are much worse than others, most states allow banks to load these cards with hidden junk fees, according to a recent study by the National Consumer Law Center. In California alone — one of the better states — unemployed workers lose $1.8 million every year on their state-issued prepaid debit cards. That’s $1.8 million more in Bank of America’s profit column, and $1.8 million less for families to cover necessities like rent, gasoline and food.

[Free Resource: Check your credit score and report card for free before applying for a credit card]

If you take a look at the way the following states allow unemployment benefits to be nickeled and dimed by megabank prepaid card programs you will see why it’s time to change the system:

Free Tool: Credit Report CardAlaska: JPMorgan Chase charges $5 every time cardholders talk to a teller, $1.50 to withdraw money from an ATM more than once week, and 35 cents just to call the automated customer service line. Chase even charges 40 cents to check the card balance from the bank’s own ATM.

Minnesota: U.S. Bank gets $3 every time someone calls the bank’s customer service department, after one free call per month.

Iowa: Wells Fargo charges unemployment recipients 50 cents every time they check their balance, plus another 50 cents every time a transaction is denied for insufficient funds.

Maine: Chase charges 25 cents every time an unemployment benefits recipient uses his or her debit card to make a purchase at a store using a PIN.

Ohio: U.S. Bank’s 750 in-network ATMs charge no fees, but 16 counties in that state don’t have a single U.S. Bank ATM. Vinton and Clinton Counties, in the southern part of the state, have some of the highest jobless rates in Ohio, lingering at between 12.6% and 15%. Neither county has an ATM those unemployed people can use for free.

It gets worse. The Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) mandates that consumers must have the choice between a check, direct deposit or a prepaid debit card.

Five states may currently be in violation of that law: California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, and Nevada. These states force unemployed workers into debit card programs, according to the National Consumer Law Center study. Three of those states — California, Kansas and Maryland — allow workers to set up automatic transfers from prepaid cards to their own bank accounts. In practice, less than 25% of unemployment benefits recipients take advantage of this feature. Perhaps that’s because these transfers can take up to four days, enough time to cause a crisis for families already trying to subsist on a fraction of their former wages.

[Related Article: Are Prepaid Cards a Smart Way to Get Your Tax Refund?]

Nevada and Indiana offer a prepaid debit card with all the hidden fees. No direct deposit. No paper checks. No fee-less transfer into your bank account.

It almost feels like the states are shilling for the banks. Regardless of intent, these state-mandated arrangements force people (who already don’t have enough to get by) to pay those hidden fees with little guidance on the matter. But riddle me this: Why should states allow banks to treat the prepaid cards issued to the unemployed like their own personal piggy banks?

We must do better. In its report, the National Consumer Law Center recommends many different ways that government could make unemployment benefits more efficient and less costly for recipients. Their suggestions include making direct deposits into workers’ bank accounts the first option for delivering unemployment benefits, mandating that all banks allow at least one free ATM withdrawal and teller withdrawal per pay period, and eliminating fees for balance inquiries and customer service. These are good ideas, and unemployed families would be well served if states implemented them.

The good news is that we already know how to help families while wasting very little money on junk fees and drastically reducing the role of banks in the process. The Food Stamp program, now officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has been transitioning from coupons to prepaid debit cards in recent years. Nearly $73 billion worth of food aid was delivered to needy families using such cards in 2011, according to a study by the Federal Reserve.

Banks are involved in the process because they issue the cards, but under the SNAP program, which accounts for 73 percent of all government funds disbursed by prepaid cards, issuers are prohibited from charging fees to cardholders. Other federal programs also disburse benefits using prepaid cards, including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. For these programs, banks are allowed to charge fees, but they are modest. On average, ATM withdrawals and card purchases cost about 1.1 percent of each transaction’s value. State-run prepaid debit card programs take a similarly small slice of each transaction, and ATM fees associated are even lower, totaling .3 percent of the average transaction’s value.

This makes sense. Banks have costs. ATMs and in-store payment machines require constant maintenance, and each transaction costs banks a small amount to process. Federal and state programs that use those networks should contribute their fair share. No one gets a free ride, and no one gets ripped off. Unlike the current situation with unemployment benefits, the cooperation between government programs and bank-run infrastructure should not be an excuse to gouge.

[Credit Cards: Research and compare credit cards at Credit.com]

We should extend the model of SNAP and other successful, low-cost debit card programs to unemployment benefits. Using its giant purchasing power as a bargaining chip, the federal government should negotiate with banks to set a ceiling for fees on unemployment benefit prepaid cards, even as states remain responsible for making the actual payments. These limits should be akin to the fees already in place for SNAP, averaging about one percent of each transaction’s value.

This approach would give banks steady, predictable and fair compensation for use of their systems. And it would protect jobless workers from high fees, unexpected traps and hidden tricks that currently bleed millions of dollars every year from their already depleted finances.

We can make unemployment benefits fairer for everyone, and we can do it without reinventing the wheel. Let’s use the tools we already have to put more money back into jobless workers’ pockets, and back into the economy.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Infinite Guest

    Whoa, whoa, whoa – banks are charging fees for the services they provide? The nerve.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team