Job Service registration in UI benefit accuracy reviews

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D.C. 20210
Classification: UI
Correspondence symbol: OWS
Date: January 18, 2001
Rescissions: None
Expiration date: January 31, 2002

DIRECTIVE: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 8-87, CHANGE 4

TO: STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES

FROM: GRACE A. KILBANE
Administrator
Office of Workforce Security

SUBJECT: Answers to Questions and Comments Raised Concerning the Unemployment Insurance Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) Program.

1. Purpose. To transmit information to the State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) concerning coding of Job Service registration for BAM investigations.

2. Reference. ET Handbook No. 395; UIPL No. 8-87.

3. Background. Since the beginning of the BAM program, staff have had difficulty coding findings relating to Job Service registration. Some States require claimants to register with the Job Service to establish Unemployment Insurance (UI) eligibility, but appear to lack a clear operational definition of what constitutes Job Service registration, and clear procedures to administer the requirement. For example, the automated system in some States may deactivate a registration without the claimant’s knowledge. Confusion results if by custom the State does not view such de-registration as a disqualifying issue, and the BAM investigators code the week as an improper payment. Telephone and electronic claims filing methods have also affected registration requirements. Some States consider UI claimants registered with Job Service upon completion of the UI initial claim form by telephone or other remote means; others require in-person Job Service interviews to be considered registered. In many cases, the introduction of remote claims filing methods coincided with restructuring of the way in which SESAs provide employment services to the public, such as, access to electronic jobs data bases and self-help training resources. State law and policy in some instances may not have been revised to reflect these new environments.

Use of remote claims filing methods and/or change in Job Service registration behavior requires additional guidance on coding Job Service registration. Inconsistent interpretations by the States of their own Job Service registration policies and procedures sometimes lead to improper coding of BAM cases. The attached questions and answers are intended to promote uniformity in this area.

4. BAM Program Policy Concerning Job Service Registration. State written law, policy, and procedures govern whether claimants are required to be registered with the Job Service and what constitutes registration. BAM coding should be consistent with such law, policy, and procedures.

5. Recoding of BAM Data Fields. States should consider re-coding the BAM data collection instrument (DCI) data fields on a case-by-case basis for calendar year 2000 forward, in accordance with the interpretation reflected in the attached Questions and Answers. Any re-coding may impact the key week action code (h1), the dollar amounts in fields (h2) through (h6), and the following error issue (ei) codes:

ei-1 - dollar amount of key week error
ei-2 - key week action
ei-3 - error cause (code 460)
ei-4 - Error responsibility
ei-5 - QC/BAM detection point (code 60)

States must coordinate re-coding efforts through the Regional Offices. Cases may be reopened using the Federal monitoring review code 5, in order to avoid adversely affecting time lapse.

6. Action Required.

a. Administrators are requested to share the attached information with appropriate staff.

b. Ensure BAM staff have current, accurate information on State law, policy and procedures relative to UI claimant Job Service registration requirements; and

c. Consider re-coding data fields as provided in 5. above if warranted to ensure accuracy of data.

7. Inquiries. Direct questions to your Regional Office.

8. Attachment. Copy of questions and answers.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Q. Element g2, Job Service Registration required for the Key Week (KW); g3, Actively/Currently Registered with JS as of KW

If (g2) is coded “yes” and (g3) is coded “no”, must an improper payment be coded in (h1)?

A. Yes. If g2 is coded as “yes” and g3 is coded “no”, an improper payment must be recorded in h1. However, both g2 and g3 are entirely matters of State law. Federal law does not require a claimant to be registered with JS in order to be eligible for benefits. In fact, the language of the Secretary’s standard for Claim Filing, Claimant Reporting, Job Finding, and Employment Services (Part V of the ES Manual, Sections 5000-5004) emphasizes the service to the claimant aspect of JS, rather than an obligation imposed upon the claimant. Thus, the BAM investigator must determine whether State law and policy require a claimant to be registered with the JS (g2), and if so, whether the claimant met the requirement (g3), and code h1 accordingly. BAM staff should work with State benefits staff to clarify policies and interpretations and eliminate any inconsistencies which might have resulted from new claims taking and JS technologies.

2. Q. Element g3 - Actively/Currently Registered with Job Service as of KW

Some States’ laws say that if a claimant files a UI claim, he is considered automatically registered with the Job Service, even if he never steps into a Job Service office or completes any Job Service forms. What is “registered” for purposes of BAM?

A. State written law, policy, and procedures govern the response to this question. If the State policy is that claimants are considered registered when they file a UI claim, even if they have little or no additional contact with the Job Service, then the BAM unit should also consider them registered and code them accordingly. However, if the State requires claimants to register in-person with the Job Service, separate from filing a claim for UI, then the BAM staff should continue to ensure that claimants in the BAM sample meet this requirement.

These questions and answers first appeared in UIPL No. 8-87, dated February 11, 1987. The answer to both questions have changed to more clearly state the Federal position.