Back to Federal guidance
New timeliness and quality measures for UI benefits operations
Summary ETA directed state unemployment agencies to begin reporting new timeliness and quality measures under UI Performs in 1996. The letter set implementation dates, explained changes to first-payment and nonmonetary-determination populations, and attached detailed definitions, a comment-response table, and a measure summary. ETA's current advisory listing labels the letter Canceled.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 10-96
Date issued
February 26, 1996
Status
Withdrawn
ETA's current advisory listing labels this letter Canceled. The letter printed a February 28, 1997 expiration date.
Status last verified October 26, 2026
Is this still the rule?
This document has been withdrawn. Ezel checks what federal law requires today, under current federal labor law, and answers your situation with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D.C. 20210
Classification: UIS/PMR
Correspondence symbol: TEUMC
Issue date: February 26, 1996
Rescissions: None
Expiration date: February 28, 1997
Directive: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 10-96 To: ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES From: MARY ANN WYRSCH Director, Unemployment Insurance Service Subject: Implementation of New Time Lapse and Quality Measures for Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits Operations
Purpose. To issue the new time lapse and quality measures for UI benefits operations to be implemented as a part of UI Performs as described in Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 41-95; to provide a schedule of actions that will occur during implementation of the new measures; and to convey a summary of the comments on the Performance Measurement Review (PMR) Interim Evaluation Report. (See Attachments.)
References. Federal Register Notice (FRN) Vol. 54, No. 12; FRN Vol. 57, No. 126; FRN Vol. 60, No. 11; UIPL No. 10-89; UIPL No. 13-91; UIPL No. 30-92; UIPL No. 13-95; and UIPL No. 41-95.
Background. Beginning in 1993, a team of senior State Employment Security Agency (SESA) managers and Unemployment Insurance Service (UIS) staff known as the Performance Enhancement Work Group (PEWG), developed the outlines of a comprehensive new closed-loop system to help ensure continuous improvement in UI operations performance. This new system, called UI Performs, is described in UIPL No. 41-95, issued August 21, 1995. The UI Performs design is now being refined in the light of responses to UIPL No. 41-95; the system will be phased in over 3-4 years as the various components are completed.
When complete and fully operational, UI Performs will comprise a renewed affirmation of long-standing principles for Federal-State cooperation; a redesigned process for operational planning and the execution of improvement activities; various mechanisms to ensure that performance in key areas at least exceeds certain minimum levels; and the redesign of many performance measurements plus the regular validation of key performance measures. The measures were selected to enable the UI system's success to be judged by how well it serves its ultimate customers - claimants and employers. Most of the data used to construct existing and new UI Performs measures are already in State databases; UI Performs should not appreciably increase measurement effort overall.
The measurement redesign aspect embraces the results of three initiatives which predated UI Performs: Revenue Quality Control (RQC), which developed new measures for tax performance to replace those previously gathered under the Quality Appraisal (QA) system; the PMR project, which updated the QA benefits time lapse and quality measures; and data validation. The team designing UI Performs also proposed substantial changes in the Benefits Quality Control (BQC) system for measuring benefit payment accuracy, including the assessment of the accuracy of decisions to deny eligibility.
This UIPL implements the new benefits time lapse and quality measures of UI Performs, which resulted from the PMR project.
PMR Project. The Department of Labor (DOL) initiated the PMR project in 1988 to examine, evaluate and improve performance measurement in UIS oversight of SESAs. (FRN Vol 54, No. 12; UIPL No. 10-89; and UIPL No. 13-91.) Eligible UI claimants are entitled to receive benefit payments in a timely manner. Claimants also have a right to expeditious consideration of eligibility issues and to fair hearings.
QA, the current performance measurement system for benefits time lapse and quality, as well as certain revenue and cash management measures, had not been subjected to in-depth review since its inception in the mid-1970s. Yet, changing technologies and increasing use of automated systems had transformed the delivery of UI services to the public. At the same time, DOL recognized a need to integrate QA with other components of its oversight system.
PMR was designed for completion in three phases. Phase I consisted of the analysis of existing benefits time lapse and quality measures to determine their legislative basis and to identify gaps or overlaps in measurement areas, the development of new or revised measures, and the design for a field test of selected measures.
With the involvement of State and Federal UI representatives, the project defined time lapse measures and quality measures covering benefit payments, nonmonetary determinations, lower authority appeals, and the Combined Wage Claim (CWC) program. Some of the measures added program categories and reporting intervals to existing reports; some of the measures looked at UI service areas which had not formerly been measured. (FRN Vol. 57, No. 126, which published UIPL No. 30-92 for the general public.)
In Phase II, six States successfully conducted a 15-month field test of reporting data for the proposed PMR measures from July 1993 through September 1994.
A report entitled "Interim Evaluation Report," dated December 5, 1994, contained an analysis of the field test data. It was distributed as an attachment to UIPL No. 13-95, which was published in the Federal Register as Vol. 60, No. 11. The report showed that the new benefits time lapse and quality measures and the software developed for analysis of results could yield meaningful and statistically valid information in a cost-effective manner, with the exception of the CWC quality measures.
This Interim Report showed that five of the six field test States were able to produce the data for the performance measures with little difficulty. This was the result of the fact that the measures were selected with the consideration that most of the required data points for the promptness measures would already be resident in the State claims files, and would require development of minimal new local office procedures. In some of the States the entire reporting change was accomplished in the data processing unit and was transparent to the rest of the agency. The field test State that experienced the most difficulty was in the midst of an automated system change and was not, during the field test period, able to produce nonmonetary time lapse data; it did produce data for the other measures. The nonmonetary promptness measure using detection date as a starting point was not field tested, but was included at the recommendation of the PEWG after completion of the field test. This measure will require some States to change procedures to add detection date to the claimant record.
States were invited to review and comment on the Interim Report. All the comments received regarding the measures were considered in the development of final implementation plans. Attachment B summarizes the comments to UIPL No. 13-95 and DOL responses to them.
The "Final Evaluation Report" has been completed and is available upon request from the National Office.
Phase III encompasses nationwide implementation of the new benefits time lapse and quality measures of UI Performs.
Changes in Benefit Measures. The new benefits time lapse and quality measures are described in Attachment A. In summary, the changes are:
Time lapse
• first payment time lapse will continue to be measured and reported monthly, but at additional intervals;
• time lapse measures for continued payments, partial payments for both first and continued payments, and workshare payments for both first and continued payments are new and will be measured monthly;
• the time lapse measure for nonmonetary determinations that is currently measured annually from sample data will be measured monthly from universe data;
• time lapse for implementing nonmonetary determinations is a new measurement and will be measured quarterly;
• the existing quarterly measurement of wage transfer, billing and reimbursement time lapse will remain the same, with expanded intervals;
• the existing monthly measurement of lower authority appeals time lapse will remain the same, with expanded intervals;
• time lapse associated with lower authority appeals case aging is new and will be measured monthly;
• time lapse for implementing appeals decisions is a new measure and will be measured quarterly;
• the existing monthly measurement of higher authority appeals time lapse will remain the same; and
• time lapse associated with higher authority appeals case aging is new and will be measured monthly.
Quality
• the quality measure of nonmonetary determinations that is currently measured and reported annually will be measured quarterly under UI Performs; the data source will be samples drawn from the nonmonetary determination time lapse universe; and
• the quality measure of lower authority appeals that is currently measured and reported annually will be measured quarterly; the data source will be samples drawn from the lower authority appeals time lapse universe.
The definitions for reporting requirements in ET Handbook No. 401 still apply, with the following exceptions. The population for the measurement of first payment time lapse has been changed to include partial and part-total payments. The definition of nonmonetary determinations has been changed and will result in the inclusion of formerly noncountable determinations. Whether or not a week is claimed, a nonmonetary determination must meet the following criteria to be valid:
(1) An issue was detected which had the potential to affect the claimant's past, present, or future benefit rights; and
(2) A determination of eligibility was made.
Attachment C lists the measures, their reporting frequency, and their data sources and whether they are new or exist in the current performance appraisal system.
Implementation. States should plan to submit their first time lapse reports under UI Performs for the month ending July 31, 1996, by August 20, 1996. These reports include all monthly time lapse reports and lower and higher authority appeals case aging reports.
The quarter ending September 30, 1996, will furnish the universes for the first quality samples for nonmonetary determinations and lower authority appeals. All quarterly quality review data should be data entered by November 20, 1996. The implementation time lapse reports will be calculated from dates recorded during the quality review process.
These instructions will be reissued in a slightly different format as a part of ET Handbook 401, UI Reports Handbook. Attachment A presents the reporting requirements in the format used since the end of the first phase of the project. States should begin necessary programming changes using these instructions and not wait for the changes to Handbook 401, since the reporting requirements will be the same.
Other issues associated with implementation which States should be aware of include:
QA. QA currently provides the annual results of State performance. UIS will publish a report on the current benefit measures for the last time based on results compiled in May 1996. After that date, the PMR-developed measures will replace the benefits time lapse and quality measures administered under QA. UIS will publish a report on State performance using available data reported under the new benefits measures in 1997. It is a goal of the UIS that reporting of results under the new measures will be combined with other results in a new comprehensive report. The relationship of this new report to corrective action planning is still under analysis in the UIS. Planning and reporting issues will be presented in greater detail in a later directive.
Tripartite Quality Reviews of Nonmonetary Determinations; Lower Authority Appeals Review. UIS will implement a tripartite review of nonmonetary determinations to reduce nonsampling error and to increase consistency among reviewers. SESA staff will review quarterly samples. If possible, the host State will be joined by a visiting State reviewer or a regional representative. The two reviewers will score each sample case independently. When two reviewers agree as to whether a case passes or fails, the case data can be entered into the database. When the two reviewers do not agree, a third reviewer will score the case and make the final ruling. The host State will have another State in the Region participate with reviews, with Regional Office staff also participating, whenever possible. However, during some quarters, a State may accomplish its review exclusively with its own staff or with the help of another State reviewing records sent by mail. Regional Office staff will participate at least one quarter annually.
For lower authority appeals, SESA staff will review quarterly samples and enter the case data into the database. To reduce nonsampling error, annually, the National Office will invite SESA staff to participate in reviews as is currently done for QA.
UIS will provide new handbooks for nonmonetary determinations quality review and lower authority appeals quality review in July 1996 and will hold training sessions in August and September 1996.
Performance Measurement Tiers. Attachment A lists the new benefits time lapse and quality measures with designations as Tier I or Tier II. These designations are recommended under UI Performs and are described in UIPL No. 41-95.
Data collection under the new measures may reveal a need for revisions to current national performance standards, but review of national performance standards can begin only after States begin to report data under the new measures. When sufficient data are available for performance analysis, UIS will ask State program administrators to contribute to discussions regarding benchmarking.
In the interim, the existing Secretary's Standards relating to first payment and lower authority appeals time lapse used in conjunction with the analysis of QA results, will continue to apply. In addition, for Tier I measures, because the new measures are substantially the same as the QA measures, the existing Desired Levels of Achievement (DLAs) that apply to current measures under QA will continue in the interim. However, because of the increased statistical rigor and more inclusive universes used in reporting nonmonetary determinations time lapse and quality measures, performance in those areas may differ significantly from prior performance in some States, and during the interim reporting period, UIS will make allowances in the analysis of results.
Tier II measures, while important indicators of program performance, will not be benchmarked with national performance standards.
Schedule of Actions. The following events are expected to occur during implementation of the new benefits time lapse and quality measures.
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| July 1996 | New handbooks issued for nonmonetary determinations and lower authority appeals quality review. |
| July 1, 1996 | States begin data collection for the new measures. |
| Aug 20, 1996 | Data for all monthly reports to be entered into the electronic reporting system. |
| Aug-Sept 1996 | Training sessions in quality review of nonmonetary determinations and in quality review for lower authority appeals. |
| Sept 30, 1996 | End of first quarter to be sampled for nonmonetary determinations and lower authority appeals quality. As soon as possible after Oct 1, draw the samples for quality review. |
| Oct 15, 1996 | Deadline for entry of "skeleton fields" for nonmonetary determination and lower authority appeals quality samples, so that edits can be run to check the validity of the samples. |
| Nov 20, 1996 | Deadline for quality evaluation data for the sampled nonmonetary determinations and lower authority appeals to be entered into UIDB. Hereafter, quality data will be due the 20th day of the second month following the end of each quarter. |
OMB Approval. These reporting requirements are approved by the Office of Management and Budget according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. OMB Approval No. 1205-0359, Expiration Date: September 30, 1998.
Action Required. SESA Administrators are requested to:
Provide copies of this UIPL and Attachments to appropriate staff.
Implement the necessary changes in State automated systems to report as required by the schedule above.
Direct any questions to the appropriate Regional Office.
Attachments.
Attachment A - "UI PERFORMS: Time Lapse and Quality Measures for Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations"
Attachment B - Comments on Performance Measurement Review Interim Evaluation Report
Attachment C - Table: Unemployment Insurance Performance Measures
Attachment A — UI PERFORMS: Time Lapse and Quality Measures for Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Official attachment: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl96/uipl_1096a.pdf
Time Lapse and Quality Measures
for
Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations
United States Department of Labor
Unemployment Insurance Service
OMB Approval No. 1205-0359
Exp. Date: 09/30/98
Table of Contents
Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter II UNIVERSE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. First Payment Time Lapse, Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. First Payment Time Lapse, Partial/Part Total Claims, Tier II . . . . . . . 6
2.3. First Payment Time Lapse, Workshare Claims, Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Continued Weeks Compensated Time Lapse, Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. Continued Weeks Compensated Time Lapse, Partial Part/Total,
Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. Continued Weeks Compensated Time Lapse, Workshare, Tier II . . 14
2.7. Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse, Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.8. Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse, Report Only . . . . . . . . . 20
2.9. Lower Authority Appeals Time Lapse, Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.10. Lower Authority Appeals Case Aging, Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.11. Higher Authority Appeals Time Lapse, Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.12. Higher Authority Appeals Case Aging, Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.13. Combined Wage Claims - Wage Transfer Time Lapse, Tier II . . . . . 32
2.14. Combined Wage Claims - Billing Time Lapse, Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.15. Combined Wage Claims - Reimbursement Time Lapse Tier II . . . . 34
Chapter III SAMPLE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1. Nonmonetary Determination Quality, Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2. Lower Authority Appeals Quality, Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3. Lower Authority Appeals Quality, Due Process, Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.4. Nonmonetary Determination Implementation Time Lapse, Tier II . . . 51
3.5. Lower Authority Decision Implementation Time Lapse A. (Reversals or
modifications from deny to pay). Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.6. Lower Authority Decision Implementation Time Lapse B (Reversals or
modifications from pay to deny). Tier II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
This document presents the performance measures selected by the Unemployment
Insurance Service for implementation as a part of UI Performs, a comprehensive
quality and performance oversight system. The UI Performs system will track program
operations information through UI required reports (UIRR), benefits accuracy and tax
performance measures, (BQC and RQC), and new UI Time Lapse and Quality
Measures for UI Benefits Operation, which will replace the Quality Appraisal (QA). The
new measures are designated as Tier I (measures which may be benchmarked with
national standards) and Tier II (measures of performance which will not be
benchmarked with national standards, but will be used in State continuous
improvement planning).
Various provisions of Federal law require that certain UI activities be performed
promptly and accurately. Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (SSA) requires,
as a condition of a State's receiving UI administrative grants, "[s]uch methods of
administration...as are reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment
compensation when due." The new measures improve the performance measurement
system in several ways. First, all of the time lapse measures are based on universe
data from automated records rather than on samples, except for the implementation
time lapse measurements for nonmonetary determinations and lower authority appeals.
Second, definitions include a wider universe for measurement. Moreover, the additional
measures provide information about performance not previously reviewed, including
continued weeks time lapse and the age of pending appeals cases.
All of the new time lapse measures call for reporting of extended intervals to allow
analysis of the distribution of benefit activities. States will report time lapse data
monthly to the National Office, where it will be maintained as part of the Unemployment
Insurance Required Reports system. SESAs will be able to use the new range of data
for internal program assessment and to monitor their continuous performance
improvement programs.
Two measures based on samples track the quality of SESA claims activity. The
samples are drawn from the time lapse universes of nonmonetary determinations and
lower authority appeals. The State automated system furnishes information about the
records selected for review, including the date of the nonmonetary determination, the
program, and the issue. Then, the quality reviewer adds information during the review
process, including scores for quality criteria and the date that the result of the
nonmonetary determination or appeal decision was applied to the claim. When the
review data is complete, State staff will enter it into UIRR, and the automated system
will generate scores for individual records and overall scores for quarterly State
performance.
Quality scores for nonmonetary determinations will closely resemble those reported
through the QA process, with additional weight given to the quality of the written
determination. For lower authority appeals, the automated system will generate two
quality scores for each record. The first will be the score for the overall process, as
reported through QA, and the second will focus on those elements of the process which
are required to afford the claimant due process.
Implementation time lapse is important because SESA activity is not complete until the
State acts to apply the results of decisions to claims. Implementation time lapse will be
measured for nonmonetary determinations and lower authority appeals.
The following table lists the benefits time lapse and quality measures with their
designations as Tier I or Tier II.
Table I
Performance Measurement Tiers
Tier I Tier II
First Payment Time Lapse First Payment Time Lapse, Partial/ Part Total
First Payment Time Lapse, Workshare
Continued Claims Time Lapse
Continued Claims Time Lapse, Partial/Part Total
Continued Claims Time Lapse, Workshare
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse, Detection
Nonmonetary Determination Implementation Time
Lower Authority Appeals Case Aging
Lower Authority Appeals Time Lapse Lower Authority Appeals Implementation Time
Lower Authority Appeals Implementation Time
Higher Authority Appeals Time Lapse
Higher Authority Appeals Case Aging
Combined Wage Time Lapse - Wage Transfer
Combined Wage Time Lapse - Billing
Combined Wage Time Lapse - Reimbursement
Nonmonetary Determination Quality
Lower Authority Appeals Quality Lower Authority Appeals Quality, Due Process
Chapter II UNIVERSE MEASURES
This Chapter provides data reporting requirements for time lapse and case aging
measures based on universe data. This information is derived from computer
transactions reflecting agency activity during the specified reporting period. Program
managers will find exact descriptions of all measures in the following pages, and data
processing experts will find appropriate maps to the new reporting requirements in the
matrices accompanying each measure description.
The Tier I nonmonetary time lapse measure reflects the promptness of that part of the
nonmonetary process which is most within the control of the State agency, by
measuring the time between issue detection and the date on a nonmonetary
determination. It eliminates the need to identify controllable and uncontrollable
elements in the process by focussing on the controllable elements. An additional report
of time lapse from the week ending date of the first week affected by a determination to
the detection of the issue addresses a difficulty of the nonmonetary time lapse
measure. The difficulty is the precise identification in an automated system of the exact
point when the agency identified an issue. Very long time lapse results in this data
might indicate that a State agency should examine its methods for detecting issues.
The definitions for reporting requirements in ETA Handbook No. 401 apply in this
document with two exceptions. The population for the measurement of first payment
time lapse is changed to include partial and part-total payments. The definition of
nonmonetary determinations has been changed and will result in the inclusion of
formerly noncountable determinations.
Whether or not a week is claimed, a nonmonetary determination must meet the
following criteria to be valid:
1. An issue was detected which had the potential to affect the claimant's
past, present, or future benefit rights, and
2. A determination of eligibility was made.
These instructions will be reissued in a slightly different format as a part of ET
Handbook 401, UI Reports Handbook. This document presents the reporting
requirements in the format used since the end of the first phase of the project. States
should begin necessary programming changes using these instructions and not wait for
the changes to Handbook 401, since the reporting requirements will be the same.
Benefits Time Lapse Measures
First Payment Time Lapse, Tier I
Measure: The number of days from the week ending date of the first
compensable week in the benefit year to the date the
payment is mailed or offset or intercept applied on a claim.
States determine mail date and provide DOL with the
procedure used to derive it. When multiple weeks are paid
at the same time, the earliest week should be reported as
the first payment.
Includes total, partial/part-total and transitional payments.
Includes Combined Wage Claim payments reported in the
appropriate category determined by the nature of the base
period wages.
Includes offsets and intercepts.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes Workshare claims.
Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Data Source: Universe of first payments.
Computation: Start date: week ending date of first compensable week.
End date: date check was mailed or offset or intercept
applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX.
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.1
Time Lapse of all First Payments Except Workshare
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
<= 7 C C C C C C C C
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8-14 C C C C C C C C
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15-21 C C C C C C C C
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
22-28 C C C C C C C C
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
29-35 C C C C C C C C
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36-42 C C C C C C C C
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
43-49 C C C C C C C C
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
50-56 C C C C C C C C
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
57-63 C C C C C C C C
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
64-70 C C C C C C C C
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
> 70 C C C C C C C C
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
First Payment Time Lapse, Partial/Part Total Claims, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the week ending date of the first
compensable week in the benefit year to the date the
payment is mailed or offset or intercept applied on a claim in
which the weekly benefit amount has been reduced by
wages applied.
Partial/part total first payments is a sub-set of the first
payments reported in Matrix 2.1, above.
Includes transitional claim payments.
Includes Combined Wage Claim payments reported in the
appropriate category determined by the nature of the base
period wages.
Includes offsets and intercepts.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes Workshare claims.
Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Data Source: Universe of first payments.
Computation: Start date: week ending date of first compensable week.
End date: date check was mailed or offset or intercept
applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX.
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.2
Time Lapse of Partial and Part Total First Payments
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
<=7 C C C C C C C C
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8-14 C C C C C C C C
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15-21 C C C C C C C C
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
22-28 C C C C C C C C
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
29-35 C C C C C C C C
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36-42 C C C C C C C C
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
43-49 C C C C C C C C
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
50-56 C C C C C C C C
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
57-63 C C C C C C C C
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
64-70 C C C C C C C C
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
> 70 C C C C C C C C
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
First Payment Time Lapse, Workshare Claims, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the week ending date of the first
compensable week in the benefit year to the date the
payment is mailed or offset or intercept applied on a claim
identified as Workshare.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Data Source: Universe of first payments.
Computation: Start date: week ending date of first compensable week.
End date: date check was mailed or offset or intercept
applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.3
First Payment Time Lapse, Workshare Claims
Workshare Claims
Total C1
0-7 C2
8 - 14 C3
15 - 21 C4
22 - 28 C5
29 - 35 C6
36 - 42 C7
43 - 49 C8
50 - 56 C9
57 - 63 C10
64 - 70 C11
> 70 C12
Continued Weeks Compensated Time Lapse, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the end of the continued week to
the date the payment is mailed or offset or intercept applied
on a claim.
Applies to weeks compensated subsequent to the first
compensable week in the benefit year.
Includes total, partial/part total claims.
Includes Combined Wage Claims reported in the appropriate
category determined by the nature of the base period
wages.
Includes offsets and intercepts.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes adjusted payments.
Excludes Workshare claims.
Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Data Source: Universe of continued weeks paid
Computation: Start date: week ending date of each week for which a
claim was filed.
End date: date payment was mailed or offset or intercept
applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX.
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.4
Time Lapse Counts for All Continued Weeks Compensated
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
<=7 C C C C C C C C
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8-14 C C C C C C C C
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15-21 C C C C C C C C
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
22-28 C C C C C C C C
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
29-35 C C C C C C C C
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36-42 C C C C C C C C
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
43-49 C C C C C C C C
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
50-56 C C C C C C C C
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
57-63 C C C C C C C C
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
64-70 C C C C C C C C
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
> 70 C C C C C C C C
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Continued Weeks Compensated Time Lapse, Partial Part/Total, Tier
II
Measure: The number of days from the end of the continued week to
the date the payment is mailed or offset or intercept applied
on a claim in which the weekly benefit amount has been
reduced by wages applied.
Applies to weeks compensated subsequent to the first
compensable week in the benefit year.
Excludes payments on episodic claims such as EB, DUA
and TRA.
Excludes workshare.
Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Excludes adjusted payments.
Data Source: Universe of payments.
Computation: Start date: week ending date of each week for which claim
was filed.
End date: date payment was mailed or offset or intercept
applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX.
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.5
Time Lapse for Continued Weeks: Partial/Part Total Payments
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
<=7 C C C C C C C C
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8-14 C C C C C C C C
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15-21 C C C C C C C C
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
22-28 C C C C C C C C
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
29-35 C C C C C C C C
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36-42 C C C C C C C C
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
43-49 C C C C C C C C
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
50-56 C C C C C C C C
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
57-63 C C C C C C C C
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
64-70 C C C C C C C C
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
> 70 C C C C C C C C
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Continued Weeks Compensated Time Lapse, Workshare, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the end of the continued week to
the date the payment is mailed or offset or intercept applied
on a claim identified as Workshare.
Applies to weeks compensated subsequent to the first
compensable week in the benefit year.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Data Source: Universe of payments.
Computation: Start date: week ending date of each week for which claim
was filed.
End date: date payment was mailed or offset or intercept
applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.6
Continued Weeks Time Lapse for Workshare Payments
Workshare Claims
Total C1
0-7 C2
8 - 14 C3
15 - 21 C4
22 - 28 C5
29 - 35 C6
36 - 42 C7
43 - 49 C8
50 - 56 C9
57 - 63 C10
64 - 70 C11
> 70 C12
Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse, Tier I
Measure: The number of days from the date an issue is first detected
on a claim to the date on the determination.
Includes the universe of nonmonetary determinations made
during the month.
Includes BPC-generated nonmonetary determinations.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes BPC crossmatch.
Data Source: Universe of nonmonetary determinations.
Note: The population identified for this measure must be
identical with the population used in Matrix 2.8.
Computation: Start date: date the issue was first detected by the agency.
End date: date on the determination, or, if no written
determination is required, the date payment is authorized or
the claimant's record is updated with the outcome, waiting
week credit is given, or an offset is applied.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX - Seps & Nonseps
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX - Seps & Nonseps
- Multi-Claimant: Labor Dispute and "Other"
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.7 (a)
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse from
Detection Date to Determination Date
SEPARATION ISSUES
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
<=7 C C C C C C C C
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8-14 C C C C C C C C
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15-21 C C C C C C C C
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
22-28 C C C C C C C C
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
29-35 C C C C C C C C
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36-42 C C C C C C C C
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
43-49 C C C C C C C C
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
50-56 C C C C C C C C
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
57-63 C C C C C C C C
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
64-70 C C C C C C C C
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
> 70 C C C C C C C C
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Matrix 2.7 (b)
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse from
Detection Date to Determination Date
NON-SEPARATION ISSUES
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
<=7 C C C C C C C C
105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
8-14 C C C C C C C C
113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
15-21 C C C C C C C C
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
22-28 C C C C C C C C
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136
29-35 C C C C C C C C
137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
36-42 C C C C C C C C
145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152
43-49 C C C C C C C C
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
50-56 C C C C C C C C
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168
57-63 C C C C C C C C
169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
64-70 C C C C C C C C
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
> 70 C C C C C C C C
185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192
Matrix 2.7 (c)
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse from
Week Ending Date to Detection Date
MULTI-CLAIMANTS
MULTI-CLAIMANT MULTI-CLAIMANT
TOTAL LABOR DISPUTES "OTHER"
Total C C C
193 194 195
<=7 C C C
196 197 198
8 - 14 C C C
199 200 201
15 - 21 C C C
202 203 204
22 - 28 C C C
205 206 207
29 - 35 C C C
208 209 210
36 - 42 C C C
211 212 213
43 - 49 C C C
214 215 216
50 - 56 C C C
217 218 219
57 - 63 C C C
220 221 222
64 - 70 C C C
223 224 225
> 70 C C C
226 227 228
Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse, Report Only
Measure: The days from the week ending date of the first affected
week to the date on which the agency first detects an issue.
Includes the universe of nonmonetary determinations made
during the month.
Includes BPC-generated nonmonetary determinations.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Excludes BPC crossmatch.
Data Source: Universe of nonmonetary determinations mailed in the
reporting month.
Note: The population identified for this measure must be
identical with the population used in Matrix 2.7.
Computation: Start date: the week ending date of the first week of the
claim which is potentially affected by the determination.
End date: the date the issue was first detected by the
agency.
Reporting
Intervals: <=7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX - Seps & Nonseps
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX - Seps & Nonseps
- Multi-Claimant: Labor Dispute and "Other"
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.8 (a)
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse from
Week Ending Date to Detection Date
SEPARATION ISSUES
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
<=7 C C C C C C C C
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8-14 C C C C C C C C
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15-21 C C C C C C C C
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
22-28 C C C C C C C C
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
29-35 C C C C C C C C
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
36-42 C C C C C C C C
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
43-49 C C C C C C C C
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
50-56 C C C C C C C C
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
57-63 C C C C C C C C
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
64-70 C C C C C C C C
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
> 70 C C C C C C C C
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Matrix 2.8 (b)
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse from
Week Ending Date to Detection Date
NON-SEPARATION ISSUES
INTRA-STATE INTER-STATE
Total UI UCFE UCX Total UI UCFE UCX
Totals C C C C C C C C
97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
<=7 C C C C C C C C
105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
8-14 C C C C C C C C
113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
15-21 C C C C C C C C
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
22-28 C C C C C C C C
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136
29-35 C C C C C C C C
137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
36-42 C C C C C C C C
145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152
43-49 C C C C C C C C
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
50-56 C C C C C C C C
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168
57-63 C C C C C C C C
169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
64-70 C C C C C C C C
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
> 70 C C C C C C C C
185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192
Matrix 2.8 (c)
Nonmonetary Determination Time Lapse from
Week Ending Date to Detection Date
MULTI-CLAIMANTS
MULTI-CLAIMANT MULTI-CLAIMANT
TOTAL LABOR DISPUTES "OTHER"
Total C C C
193 194 195
<=7 C C C
196 197 198
8 - 14 C C C
199 200 201
15 - 21 C C C
202 203 204
22 - 28 C C C
205 206 207
29 - 35 C C C
208 209 210
36 - 42 C C C
211 212 213
43 - 49 C C C
214 215 216
50 - 56 C C C
217 218 219
57 - 63 C C C
220 221 222
64 - 70 C C C
223 224 225
> 70 C C C
226 227 228
Lower Authority Appeals Time Lapse, Tier I
Measure: The number of days from the date the request for hearing is
filed to the date on the decision.
Includes remanded and reopened cases. If a case is
remanded from higher authority appeals for a new hearing
and decision by the lower authority, time lapse begins on the
date the case is remanded from the higher authority .
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Data Source: Universe of lower authority appeals decisions.
Computation: Start date: date the appeal is filed.
End date: date on the decision.
Reporting
Intervals: <=30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120, >120 days.
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate
- Interstate
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.9
Lower Authority Appeals Time Lapse
Intra- Inter-State
TOTAL State
TOTAL C C C
1 2 3
<= C C C
30 4 5 6
31- C C C
45 7 8 9
46- C C C
60 10 11 12
61- C C C
75 13 14 15
76- C C C
90 16 17 18
91-120 C C C
19 20 21
> C C C
120 22 23 24
Lower Authority Appeals Case Aging, Tier II
Measure: This measure provides an inventory of lower authority
appeals which have been filed but not resolved. The
universe of appeals included in this measure is all lower
authority appeals which are not resolved at the end of the
month covered by the report.
Case aging provides information about the number of days
from the time an appeal is filed and the end of the month
covered by the report.
Includes all appeals filed and not decided at the end of the
month.
Includes cases remanded by higher authority for a new
hearing and decision.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Data Source: Universe of lower authority appeals.
Computation: Start date: the date the appeal is filed.
End date: the end of the month being reported.
Reporting
Intervals: <=25, 40, 90, 120, 180, 360, >360
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.10
Lower Authority Appeals Case Aging
Appeals
Total C1
0 - 25 C2
26 - 40 C3
41 - 90 C4
91 - 120 C5
121 - 180 C6
181 - 360 C7
> 360 C8
Higher Authority Appeals Time Lapse, Tier I
Measure: The number of days from the date the request for a higher
authority appeal is filed to the date on the decision.
Include remanded and reopened cases.
If a case is remanded to the lower authority for additional
evidence and then the case is returned, higher authority time
lapse measurement continues without interruption.
If a case is remanded to the lower authority for a new
hearing and decision, higher authority time lapse stops at
that point.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Data Source: Universe of higher authority appeals decisions
Computation: Start date: date the appeal is filed.
End date: date notice of decision is issued
Reporting
Intervals: <=45, 60, 75, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300, 330,
360, >360 days
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate
- Interstate
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.11
Higher Authority Appeals Time Lapse
TOTAL Intra-State Inter-State
TOTAL C1 C2 C3
< = 45 C4 C5 C6
46 - 60 C7 C8 C9
61 - 75 C 10 C 11 C 12
76 - 90 C 13 C 14 C 15
91 - 120 C 16 C 17 C 18
121 - 150 C 19 C 20 C 21
151 - 180 C 22 C 23 C 24
181 - 210 C 25 C 26 C 27
211 - 240 C 28 C 29 C 30
241 - 270 C 31 C 32 C 33
271 - 300 C 34 C 35 C 36
301 - 330 C 37 C 38 C 39
331 - 360 C 40 C 41 C 42
> 360 C 43 C 44 C 45
Higher Authority Appeals Case Aging, Tier II
Measure: This measure provides an inventory of higher authority
appeals which have been filed but not resolved. The
universe of appeals included in this measure is all higher
authority appeals which are not resolved at the end of the
month covered by the report.
Case aging provides information about the number of days
from the time an appeal is filed and the end of the month
covered by the report.
Includes all appeals filed and not resolved at the end of the
month.
Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
Data Source: Universe of higher authority appeals.
Start date: the date the appeal is filed.
Computation: End date: the end of the month being reported.
Reporting
Intervals: <=40, 70, 120, 180, 360, >360
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
Matrix 2.12
Higher Authority Appeals Case Aging
Appeals
Total C1
0 - 40 C2
41 - 70 C3
71 - 120 C4
121 - 180 C5
181 - 360 C6
> 360 C7
Combined Wage Claims - Wage Transfer Time Lapse, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the date that the transfer request
is received to the date that the data which completes the
transfer is sent to the paying State.
Note: The data for this measure is collected on the ETA 586
report. The interval information is provided here for the
convenience of SESA programmers.
Data Source: Universe of transfers completed during the quarter from the
transferring State's files.
Computation: Start date: date the transfer request is received by the
transferring State.
End date: date that the data which completes the transfer is
sent to the paying State.
Reporting
Intervals: <=3, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, >70 days
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Combined Wage Claims - Billing Time Lapse, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the end of the calendar quarter to
the date that reimbursement requests (billings) were mailed
by the paying State to the transferring States.
Note: The data for this measure is collected on the ETA 586
report. The interval information is provided here for the
convenience of SESA programmers.
Data Source: Universe of billings by the paying State for benefits paid
during a given quarter.
Computation: Start date - end of calendar quarter
End date - date that reimbursement requests were mailed by
the paying State to transferring States.
Reporting
Intervals: <=14, 30, 45, 60, 90, >90 days
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Combined Wage Claims - Reimbursement Time Lapse Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the date that the transferring State
receives the reimbursement request to the date that
payment is mailed to the paying State.
Note: The data for this measure is collected on the ETA 586
report. The interval information is provided here for the
convenience of SESA programmers.
Data Source: Universe of reimbursements made by the transferring State.
Computation: Start date - date the transferring State receives the
reimbursement request.
End date - date payment is mailed to the paying state.
Reporting
Intervals: 14, 30, 45, 60, 90, 90+ days.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Benefits Quality Measures
Chapter III SAMPLE MEASURES
This chapter provides data reporting requirements for quality measures which derive
data from samples.
PMR will implement varying sample sizes for both nonmonetary determinations and
lower authority appeals quality reviews based on the size of activity in each State.
For States where the total population of nonmonetary determinations exceeded
100,000 in the prior fiscal year, the quarterly sample size will be 50 separation issues
and 50 nonseparation issues. For States where the population was less than 100,000,
the quarterly sample size will be 30 separation issues and 30 nonseparation issues.
For all States that maintain single computer files containing all nonmonetary
determinations, stratifying the samples by separation and nonseparation issues is done
on the basis of the nonmonetary issue code which is stored with each nonmonetary
determination record. States should extract two files containing all separation and
nonseparation adjudications where the notice date falls into the quarter being sampled.
States may then either randomize the files using a mainframe program and select the
first 30 (or 50) determinations or draw a systematic sample by calculating sampling
interval (universe divided by desired sample size), selecting a random number between
1 and the interval number and selecting every nth record to achieve a random sample.
States that do not maintain automated records of nonmonetary determinations must
use a manual systematic sampling approach by counting the total number of
nonmonetary determinations for the quarter, calculating the sampling interval and
manually selecting the appropriate nonmonetary determinations for review.
For States where the total population of lower authority appeals exceeded 40,000 in the
prior fiscal year, the quarterly sample size will be 40 appeals. For States where the
total population was less than 40,000, sample size will be 20 appeals. Lower authority
appeals quality samples are not stratified.
States which maintain automated records of appeals decisions will draw the quarterly
sample using the procedures (random file or systematic sampling method) described
above for nonmonetary determinations. States which do not maintain automated
records of appeals decisions must use a manual systematic sampling approach by
counting the total number of appeals decisions for the quarter, calculating the sampling
interval and manually selecting the appropriate appeals decisions for review.
Nonmonetary Determination Quality, Tier I
Measure: Assessment of the adequacy of nonmonetary
determinations.
Data Source: Sample from the nonmonetary determinations time lapse
universe for the preceding quarter.
Includes BPC-generated nonmonetary determinations.
Excludes BPC crossmatch.
Computation: Each element scored numerically.
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
- Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX - Seps, Nonseps, & Others.
- Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX - Seps, Nonseps, & Others.
- Multi-claimant: Labor dispute and Others.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
The data for the nonmonetary determinations quality review are arranged as
listed below. Data items to be downloaded from the automated system at
the time the sample is drawn are in Bold and accompanied by a sequentially
numbered "S," for skeleton. The remaining fields are completed during the
quality evaluation and are entered manually.
Name Explanation
(label)
C1 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER -- unique sequential
S1 number assigned automatically by the system to
identify the nonmonetary determinations selected
for review by State random selection software.
This number consists of a 5-digit sample sequence
# beginning with 00001.
C2 ISSUE CODE
S2 Values:
SEPARATION
10 - Quit
20 - Discharge for Misconduct
29 - Other Separation Issue
NON-SEPARATION
30 - Able and Available
40 - Work Search
50 - Disqualifying/Deductible Income
60 - Suitable Work
70 - Job Service Registration
71 - Failure to Apply/Accept Job Referral
72 - Training
73 - Profiling: Refusal of Referral
80 - School Employee
81 - Alien
82 - Athlete
83 - Unemployed Status
84 - Seasonality
85 - Removal of Disqualification
86 - Crossmatch
89 - Other Nonseparation Issues
90 - MultiClaimant Labor Dispute
99 - MultiClaimant Other
CORRECT ISSUE?
C3 Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
C4 CORRECTED ISSUE CODE
Values:
(see C2 for list)
C5 INTERSTATE INDICATOR
Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
NONMONETARY DETERMINATION OUTCOME
C6 Values:
A - Benefits Allowed
D - Benefits Denied
C7 OUTCOME REPORTED CORRECTLY?
Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
C8 ADJUDICATOR
(4-character code assigned by the State to identify
Adjudicator)
C9 WEEK CLAIMED
S3 Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
C10 WEEK ENDING DATE of First Week Affected by
S4 Determination
Format: mmddyyyy
C11 CORRECT WEEK ENDING DATE OF FIRST WEEK
AFFECTED?
Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
C12 CORRECTED WEEK ENDING DATE OF FIRST
WEEK AFFECTED
Format: mmddyyyy
Null if C11 = Y
C13
ISSUE DETECTION DATE
Format: mmddyyyy
CORRECT ISSUE DETECTION DATE?
C14 Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
C15 CORRECTED ISSUE DETECTION DATE
Format: mmddyyyy
Null if C14 = Y
C16 CLAIMANT INFORMATION
Values:
(A)dequate = 10
(I)nadequate = 5
(N)ot Obtained = 0
(X) Not Applicable = 10
C17 EMPLOYER INFORMATION
Values:
(A)dequate = 10
(I)nadequate = 5
(N)ot Obtained = 0
(X) Not Applicable = 10
INFORMATION FROM OTHERS
C18 Values:
(A)dequate = 10
(I)nadequate = 5
(N)ot Obtained = 0
(X) Not Applicable = 10
C19 REBUTTAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED
Value:
(A)dequate = 10
(N)ot Obtained = 0
(X) Not Applicable = 10
C20
LAW/POLICY
Values:
(A) Meets Law & Policy = 50
(Q)uestionable = 30
(X) Does Not Meet = 0
WRITTEN DETERMINATION
C21 Values:
(A)dequate = 10
(I)nadequate = 5
(X) Completely Wrong = 0
(If "X", C20 cannot be = "A")
C22 APPEAL INFORMATION PROVIDED
Values:
S - Sufficient
I - Insufficient
C23 DETERMINATION IMPLEMENTED?
Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
C24 DATE DETERMINATION ISSUED
S5 Format: mmddyyyy
C25 DATE DETERMINATION IMPLEMENTED
Format: mmddyyyy
C26 CASE MATERIAL FOUND
Values:
Y - Yes
N - No
Lower Authority Appeals Quality, Tier I
Measure: Assessment of the quality of lower authority appeals
hearings and decisions.
Includes single and two party appeal hearings.
Excludes withdrawals, dismissals, and episodic claims such
as EB, DUA and TRA.
Data Source: Universe of lower authority appeals.
Computation: Numeric scoring will measure the quality in which the
hearing was conducted.
Reporting
Categories: Report separately for:
-Intrastate
-Interstate
-Multiclaimant, Labor Dispute
-Multiclaimant, other
The data for the lower authority appeals quality review are arranged as listed
below. Data items to be downloaded from the automated system at the time
the sample is drawn are in Bold and accompanied by a sequentially
numbered 'S,' for skeleton. The remaining fields are completed during the
quality evaluation and are entered manually.
Name Explanation
C1 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER -- unique
S1 number assigned automatically by the
system to identify the appeals
selected for review by State random
selection software. This number
consists of a 5-digit sample sequence
# beginning with 00001.
C2 INTENT OF DECISION
Values:
A - Benefits Allowed
D - Benefits Denied
C3 EFFECT ON PRIOR STATUS
Values:
A - Affirm
R - Reverse
M - Modify
C4 EXPLANATION
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
C5
OPENING STATEMENT
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
EXHIBITS
C6 Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
C7 WITNESS ORDER
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
C8 ORDER OF TESTIMONY OF EACH
WITNESS
Values:
G - Good (3)
F - Fair (1)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C9 QUESTION OWN WITNESS
Values:
G - Good (9)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (9)
C10 CLEAR LANGUAGE by Hearing Officer
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C11 COMPOUND QUESTIONS
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
CLARIFIED TESTIMONY
C12 Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
C13 CONFRONTATION
Values:
G - Good (9)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (9)
C14 CROSS-EXAMINATION
Values:
G - Good (9)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (9)
C15 REPETITIVE TESTIMONY
Values:
G - Good (3)
F - Fair (1)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (3)
C16 LEADING QUESTIONS
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C17
INTERRUPTIONS
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
"OFF THE RECORD"
C18 Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
C19 INTERPRETERS
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (6)
C20 CONTINUANCE
Values:
G - Good (3)
F - Fair (1)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
D - Did Not Occur (3)
C21 CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C22 WITHIN SCOPE OF NOTICE
Values:
G - Good (9)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C23 GRATUITOUS COMMENTS
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
ATTITUDE
C24 Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C25 BIAS AND PREJUDICE
Values:
G - Good (9)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C26 OBTAIN AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Values:
G - Good (9)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C27 ISSUE STATEMENT
Values:
G - Good (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C28 FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE
Values:
G - Good (9)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C29
FINDINGS OF FACT
Values:
G - Good (9)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C30 NECESSARY CONCLUSIONS
Values:
G - Good (6)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
LOGICAL REASONING
C31 Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C32 FORM AND STYLE
Values:
G - Good (3)
F - Fair (1)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C33 DECISION STATES LEGAL EFFECT
Values:
G - Good (3)
F - Fair (1)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C34 UNDERSTANDABLE DECISION
Values:
G - Good (6)
F - Fair (3)
U - Unsatisfactory (0)
C35 NOTICE OF HEARING
Values:
G - Good
F - Fair
U - Unsatisfactory
C36
FURTHER APPEAL RIGHTS
Values:
G - Good
U - Unsatisfactory
C37 DATE DECISION ISSUED
S2 Format: mmddyyyy
C38 DATE DECISION IMPLEMENTED
Format: mmddyyyy
TIME REQUIRED FOR EVALUATION
C39 Values: (Hours & Minutes, hhmm
where hh = 00-24 and
where mm = 00-60)
S3 State case docket number
5-digit field
S4 Sample Date
Format: mmddyyyy
Lower Authority Appeals Quality, Due Process, Tier II
Measure: Assessment of whether or not the quality of due process
was provided in lower authority appeals hearings. The score
is derived from the pass/fail rating of eight criteria.
Excludes withdrawals, dismissals, and episodic claims such
as EB, DUA and TRA.
Data Source: Sample of appeal decisions (single and two party) issued in
a quarter. (Identical to 3.2 lower authority appeals quality.)
Computation: Pass/fail scoring of the eight due process elements to
determine fair and impartial hearing. A case which fails any
one element fails due process. The due process elements
are:
1. Question own witness
2. Confrontation
3. Cross-examination
4. Within scope of notice
5. Bias and prejudice
6. Obtain available evidence
7. Findings supported by evidence, and
8. Findings of fact.
Reporting
Intervals Uses data reported in 3.2
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Nonmonetary Determination Implementation Time Lapse, Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the determination date to the date
the outcome is applied to the claim record.
Data Source: Nonmonetary determinations quality sample; Measure 3.1.
Computation: Start date: the date on the determination.
End date: date the determination is implemented by
applying the outcome to the claim record.
Reporting
Categories: None. Output reports will be generated using the start and
ending dates, will include intervals of 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9,
10->10, and may include instances of "negative"
implementation time lapse, in which the reported ending
date is earlier than the reported start date.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Lower Authority Decision Implementation Time Lapse A. (Reversals
or modifications from deny to pay.) Tier II
Measure: The number of days from the date on a decision which
reverses or modifies a disqualifying determination to date
the payment is mailed. The time lapse is not complete until
all weeks affected by the lower authority decision are paid.
If the lower authority reversal does not result in payment
because another disqualification remains, time lapse ends
when the claimant record is updated to reflect a decision.
Data Source: Lower authority appeals quality sample
Computation: Start date: the date on the decision.
End date: the date payment is issued for all affected weeks.
The implementation time lapse is calculated using four data
elements in the sampled lower authority appeals quality
record:
1. C2 - INTENT OF DECISION
2. C3 - REVERSAL OF PRIOR STATUS
3. C37 - DATE DECISION ISSUED
4. C38 - DATE DECISION IMPLEMENTED
Reporting
Intervals: The start and ending dates include intervals of 0-1, 2-3, 4-5,
6-7, 8-9, 10->10. Reports will be designed to indicate
instances of "negative" implementation time lapse, in which
the reported implementation date is earlier than the reported
decision date.
Reporting
Categories: None. Output reports will be generated to show
performance using time lapse measures derived only from
appeal decisions included in the sample.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Lower Authority Decision Implementation Time Lapse B (Reversals
or modifications from pay to deny). Tier II.
Measure: The number of days from the date a decision is mailed which
reverses or modifies a paying determination to the date the
automated claimant file is updated to record the stop
payment.
Data Source: Lower authority appeals quality sample.
Computation: Start date: the date the decision is issued
End date: the date the claimant file is updated to record the
stop payment.
The implementation time lapse is calculated using four data
elements in the sampled lower authority appeals Quality
record:
1. C2 - INTENT OF DECISION
2. C3 - REVERSAL OF PRIOR STATUS
3. C37 - DATE DECISION ISSUED
4. C38 - DATE DECISION IMPLEMENTED
Reporting
Intervals: The start and ending dates and including intervals of 0-1, 2-
3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10->10. Reports will be designed to indicate
instances of "negative" implementation time lapse, in which
the reported implementation date is earlier than the reported
decision date.
Reporting
Categories: None. Output reports will be generated to show
performance using time lapse measures derived only from
appeal decisions included in the sample.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Attachment B — Comments on Performance Measurement Review Interim Evaluation Report Official attachment: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl96/uipl_1096b.pdf
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
1 First Payment ! One comment: transitional first payments are ! DOL will include transitional first
Time Lapse identical in process to initial claims, and need no payments in first payment time lapse;
Program Types separate breakout. they will not be broken out as a
separate category. (Transitional claims
are reported separately for economic
purposes.)
! One State commented that including partial ! During the field test, DOL did not find
payments in first week promptness will not be cost a significant difference in time lapse
effective because of the small numbers involved and between partial and total first payments.
the probability that stressing promptness in this The separate category will be retained
category will lead to shortcuts in fact finding and a to demonstrate performance.
degradation of quality in order to improve speed.
! Why is CWC eliminated from the first pay and !CWC has been eliminated as a
continued weeks time lapse measures but included in separate reporting category from all
the adjudication time lapse and quality measures? time lapse and quality measures.
2 First Payment ! One State recommended that workshare claims ! Workshare will remain a separate
Time Lapse - remain a separate measure for first payment time measure.
Workshare lapse.
3 Parameters for ! One State would prefer to use payment
Time Lapse authorization date as the ending parameter for time
lapse on first payments.
! Two favor use of mail date as the ending
parameter.
! One would prefer to use system date.
! Post-test meeting participants agreed that mail ! DOL will accept "mail date" as the
date should be used, with an explanation of how the ending parameter for time lapse;
State derives it. States will be required to explain how
the date is derived from their automated
systems.
4 Continued Claims ! One State sees no reason to have a measure of ! Continued claims time lapse showed
Time Lapse continued claims time lapse. large variations during the field test and
should be measured.
! One feels the measure will be beneficial and is
long overdue.
! One wishes to exclude subsequently paid waiting ! Payment of subsequently paid
weeks from the continued claims time lapse universe. waiting weeks will be excluded from the
time lapse measure.
! Post-test meeting presentations and the MPR final
report on the Field Test revealed uneven
performance, which indicates a need for analysis.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
5.1 Adjudications* ! One question received was, "If no week is claimed, ! The requirement of DOL's
Universe for Time how can we say an adjudication affects past, present, adjudication validation is that 1) an
Lapse and Quality or future benefit rights?" issue existed, and 2) a determination
was made. DOL does not recommend
*"Adjudications" that States adjudicate issues with no
was used in the week claimed, but will measure the
field test to refer adjudications that are done for time
to nonmonetary lapse and quality.
determinations.
5.2 Adjudications ! One State recommended excluding all straight ! Straight overpayment notices will be
Universe overpayment determinations from the time lapse excluded from the adjudications time
universe. (These are notices of overpayment lapse/quality universe.
obligation sent as a result of but separately from a
nonmonetary determination of eligibility.)
5.3 Adjudications ! One State felt that BPC crossmatch cases should ! Benefit Payment Control Crossmatch
Universe be included for time lapse. determinations will not be included in
the adjudications universe. BPC issues
are currently under review and will be
treated separately.
5.4 Adjudications ! One stated that BPC crossmatch and ! Benefit Payment Control Crossmatch
Universe overpayments should be excluded from the determinations will not be included in
adjudications quality universe and reviewed as a the adjudications universe. BPC issues
separate category. are currently under review and will be
treated separately.
5.5 Adjudications ! Two feel that misrepresentation determinations
Universe should be included in the adjudications quality
universe.
! Two field test States reported that ! Misrepresentation determinations are
misrepresentation determinations are not currently to be included in universes for time
included in the adjudications quality/time lapse lapse and quality.
universe.
6 Starting ! Four States favor use of the week-ending date of ! Days elapsed between the week
parameter for first week affected by the decision for adjudication ending date of the first week affected
Adjudication Time time lapse. and the date an issue is detected will be
Lapse tracked as a non-tiered performance
measure.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
6 Starting ! Nine favor use of issue detection date as the ! The issue detection date will be used
parameter for beginning parameter. as the beginning parameter for
Adjudication Time adjudication time lapse, a Tier I UI
Lapse (Cont.) Performance Measure. Days elapsed
from the issue detection date to the
determination date will be a
benchmarked measure, as specified by
the Performance Enhancement
Workgroup (PEWG).
! Two said Performance Measurement Review
(PMR) should not hold States to performance
standards for activities beyond their control as when
an issue is revealed only very late in the claims
series.
! One alternative solution was suggested: retain
week-ending date of first week affected, but review a
sample to determine controllable/uncontrollable
nature of any delayed payments.
! Post test meeting participants voted: ! There will be no element to track
2 States in favor of using the week ending date of failure to meet time lapse as
the first week affected by decision; controllable or uncontrollable. Use of
2 States favored use of issue detection date for the detection date addresses the element
beginning parameter; of controllable/uncontrollable.
1 State abstained from the vote because it favored
including both dates with a controllable/uncontrollable
element added.
! With the new Tier I measure, the beginning ! That is correct; time lapse may
parameter is the date the issue is detected. When a lengthen in such cases.
new, additional, or reopened claim is filed, issues are
identified before the first week ending date occurs.
This will result in increasing the number of days in
our adjudications time lapse.
! The adjudications time lapse measure will result in ! There should be no "negative" time
a negative number of time lapse days for issues lapse when detection date is used as
detected when a new claim, additional claim, or the beginning parameter for time lapse
reopened claim is filed. The reporting intervals as could occur when the week ending
indicate the lowest reporting interval is <=7 days. date of the first week affected was
Should States report negative days in this category? used.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
7 Adjudications ! One State commented that there is no need for ! CWC will not be retained as a
Program Type CWC as a separate reporting category, as these separate adjudications time lapse
claims are only differentiated by the nature of the report. No significant difference was
base period wages and are not treated differently found during the field test between time
from UI claims. lapse for adjudications on combined
wage claims and other UI claims.
8 Redetermination ! Two States felt that redetermination time lapse ! The redetermination time lapse
Time Lapse should be included in PMR, after modifications. measure will not be implemented. DOL
found during the field test that SESA
definitions for redeterminations vary too
widely to use for performance
measurement at this time. Further
study of the problem is warranted.
! Six felt that the redetermination measures should
be excluded from PMR.
! Three stipulated that if the measure is included in
the new reporting requirements, request/detection
date should be used as the beginning parameter for
time lapse.
9 CWC Time Lapse ! Five States felt that CWC time lapse measures ! The CWC time lapse measures will
• Wage Transfer should not be implemented before further review. be implemented. The field test
• Billing revealed significantly varied results
• Reimbursement from six States, and analysis of reports
allowed States to begin program
improvements where deficiencies were
detected.
! One stated that wage transfer time lapse only
should be implemented.
! One suggested retaining the time lapse measures
only in non-automated States.
! One felt that the ending parameter for CWC ! The ending parameter for CWC
reimbursement time lapse should be the date a reimbursement will be the date a
payment is made on the outstanding bill, not the date payment is made on the current bill.
of final resolution of disputed amounts.
10 Reporting ! Two States felt that there are too many reporting ! The reporting intervals are useful for
Intervals intervals and a disproportionate emphasis on time analysis. Multiple reporting intervals
lapse under this review system, and that reporting allow analysts to measure continuous
category breakouts are excessive. improvement and identify outliers.
! One recommended a 35-day cut-off for first
payment time lapse.
! One noted that LAA implementation time lapse will
require additional intervals.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
11 Scoring ! Four opposed the pass/fail nature of the ! The PEWG has recommended that
Questions and adjudication quality scoring, commenting that this PMR use the QPI numerical scoring
Pass/Fail in Non- approach will result in very low scores. methods and procedures. This change
Mon Quality has been made, and scores will be
figured automatically when quality
evaluations are data-entered.
! Seven felt that the DCI puts too much emphasis on ! DOL agrees with the need to
the written determination, while four others opined emphasize the quality of written
that the DCI should emphasize the written determinations.
determination elements. (Most of the latter noted that
the emphasis would lead to improvement, especially
in canned determinations.) One recommended
canned paragraphs which include more specificity.
! Two opposed use of more individualized
determinations, stating that they tend to reduce
consistency Statewide.
! Two proposed a new method of scoring to
incorporate discrete scoring for each element.
Another agreed that separate scoring for each
element is of benefit, and states that "in PMR the
whole claim does not fail when only one piece is not
properly done."
! Four asked that the measures be rewritten to
reduce subjectivity in scoring by providing clear
guidance.
! Three commented that "reasonable effort" to obtain ! DOL will take under advisement the
rebuttal should be defined by the NO to achieve need to define a minimum "reasonable
consistency. effort."
!Two felt that the multiple elements involved in
scoring the quality of the written determination lead to
double penalties in this category; one mentioned
specifically that Correct Eligibility Outcome Stated
and Material Facts Cited seem to duplicate what
other categories are designed to assess. One
commented that the quality of the written
determination should be scored separately from the
quality of otherwise acceptable fact finding.
! One stated that the inclusion of several new
categories not currently part of QPI may have been
responsible for the greater failure rate seen in the
Field Test States.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
! One felt the rebuttal element ought to be logically
linked to the information elements.
11 Scoring !What, exactly, will equal "sufficient facts" to qualify !The phrase "insufficient facts have
Questions and a case to pass? Will, for example, a canned written been presented. . ." implies that some
Pass/Fail in Non- determination citing "insufficient facts have been facts have been presented, but these
Mon Quality presented to demonstrate misconduct" be sufficient were not of sufficient weight to establish
(Cont.) where an employer refused to provide details on the misconduct. This phrase
reason for discharge? Should the specific reason be should not be used in the case
cited, for example? described; the specific reason should
be cited, along with the fact that the
employer provided no information.
! Will "insufficient facts" language be adequate for ! Not unless specific circumstances
justifying a credibility ruling against one party or the such as refusal to give information are
other? cited.
12 Adjudication ! Nine States were concerned with issues of scoring ! The method of checking scoring
Quality review consistency. One stated: ". . .it is disturbing that in consistency used during the Field Test
consistency so many instances federal and regional reviews did not reflect the final scoring results
resulted in different conclusions than those reached after the State, Regional, and National
at State level. This points up the need to provide office reviewers conferred regarding
clearer definitions, and, perhaps, to redefine certain issues on which they initially disagreed.
categories." Therefore, the high rate of differences
in scoring represents the worst possible
scenario.
! Five said they would not recommend
implementation until issues of scoring inconsistency
can be cleared up.
! Five commented that the PMR system is not ! In order to reduce nonsampling error
objective enough. in adjudications quality review, DOL will
implement a tripartite review process
involving reviewers from the the host
and visiting States and from the
Regional Office. Each will review 2/3 of
the sample so that all cases are
reviewed twice. When any two
outcomes conflict on whether a case
should pass or fail, the third reviewer
will independently score the case. After
discussion of the case among the three
reviewers, the majority score will decide
the outcome.
! One said the method of checking for consistency is
cumbersome.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
! One said the PMR results are not indicative of true
quality of nonmonetaries.
13 Data Collection ! Entries not included on the revised adjudications ! The Adjudications Quality DCI used
Instruments quality DCI are: SSN, Claimant Name, Reviewer in the PMR Field Test has been
(DCIs) Name, Date Reviewed, Claim Type, Multi-claimant revised. Actual SSN will not be used on
indicator, Labor Dispute Indicator, Local Office, Valid reports because these reports become
Adjudication, and Total time to review case. If part of a public record. The case
identifying characteristics are not entered into the sequence number will be assigned
Sun system, how will DOL identify cases for regional when the sample is pulled, and the
and national review? How will the State retrieve data case will be filed by that number in
on individual cases? State review files. Tracking from actual
SSN to case sequence number will be
available on the sample printout, which
will be the responsibility of the State
Agency to maintain in a secure file.
Claimant Name, Reviewer Name, and
Total time have been omitted, but the
remaining items are on the DCI in a
slightly different format.
! One State felt that the DCIs contain too many fields ! PMR is not collecting any
for what appears to be statistical purposes only, and demographic information.
asked "What will all this information be used for?"
! One asked that a field be added to the ! DOL will include a field for more
adjudications quality DCI for coding types of specific issue identification on
separation and nonseparation issues -- broadening adjudications quality cases.
the DCI to distinguish among issues.
14 Comments on ! Element # 20: Law & Policy: Where canned ! Only the section of the law
Specific Data statements include language that broadens the specifically applying to the claimant's
Elements on options for an examiner, will all those statements circumstances should be included.
Adjudication result in failing cases? For example, the SESA's
Quality statue cites misconduct penalties can result from
"discharge. . .or suspension" as a result of "a willful
disregard of standards. . .or a series of repeated
instances"; if the canned language includes all these
options, but the discharge is the result of only one,
will including all the statutory language instead of
pinpointing it result in case failure?
! What became of the "Appeal Information" item on !During the Field Test, reviewers found
the revised DCI? If it was a pass/fail item, why was that the appeal rights information is
so critical a portion of the DCI omitted? consistent on all (written)
determinations, and therefore, all either
pass or fail this element. In the future,
this element will not be included in the
quality score, but will be a part of an
annual program review.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
14 Comments on ! When a case fails as a result of poor fact finding, ! This comment no longer applies.
Specific Data how is this reflected in the written determination Please see DOL Response in #11.
Elements on components, i.e., material facts supported, law &
Adjudication policy correctly applied, correct eligibility outcome
Quality (Cont.) stated, and determination clearly written and
understandable?
15 Sample Selection ! One State said that using a random sample for ! Size or complexity of cases cannot
LAA review is a good idea, but is concerned about be a selection criteria.
there being no limit on the length of cases reviewed.
16 Sample Size ! One State suggested that it is essential for sample ! NO will require a minimum sample of
size to bear a reasonable relationship to the size of twenty cases per quarter. In order to
the State's LAA caseload; ". . .it is illogical to suggest provide a differential for sample size to
that 20 cases from CA and from NH is a reasonable relate to case load, States with a high
sample for either..." case load will be required to pull a
larger sample.
! One asked: "If more than the minimum sample are ! Yes: if the State chooses to draw a
scored by the State, are all the [cases] scored larger sample than required, all
entered into the system?" sampled cases must be entered.
! Another stated: "The PMR suggests that the ! States are funded based on
number of cases to be reviewed would vary workload: part of workload involves
depending upon the size of the State," adding that review of work.
such a requirement could definitely impact a State's
resources.
17 Adjudication ! The measure states "The number of days elapsed ! "Outcome" in this measure is defined
Implementation from the determination date to the date the outcome two ways: 1) in decisions which pay
Time Lapse is applied to the claim record." (1) Is the "outcome" benefits, outcome is the date the
the date of the decision -- the date the adjudication payment authorized by the decision is
interviewer issues a written decision? (2) If the mailed to the claimant or offset is
decision is appealed, is the outcome the date the applied to an existing overpayment; (2)
appealed decision is rendered? in decisions which deny benefits,
outcome is the date the decision is
entered into the automated system with
a disqualification code which prevents
payment as specified in the decision.
18 LAA Case Aging ! One State was in favor of a case aging measure. ! DOL will implement a case aging
measure for Lower Authority Appeals,
which is a new measure and will require
additional programming.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
18 LAA Case Aging ! Two consider Lower Authority Case Aging a better
(Cont.) criteria for management purposes than "time lapse,"
going on to state that extending the old time lapse
system ". . .amounts to micromanagement."
! One states that "We currently monitor the age of
open cases and would not be opposed to such a
measure, assuming an appropriate standard is set;
however, our concern is having too many measures
being monitored. . .Increasing the number of
measures to the level suggested in the PMR. . .will
increase the red tape without making a significant
impact on the detection role of the standards."
! This is a new reporting category and will require
additional programming.
19 LAA ! One State supports the idea of a standard for ! The PEWG has established this as a
Implementation implementation, although not necessarily the 4-day Tier II measure which will not be
Time Lapse period used in the Field Test. The implementation nationally benchmarked, but which will
standard should take into account working days as track both pay and deny reversals.
opposed to calendar days, and should measure Implementation will be broken out in
reversals to deny and reversals to pay, separately. intervals up to 10+ days.
! Another said the tentative four day standard should !DOL is not going to establish a
be revised to reflect cases where weekends and standard for implementation timelapse.
holidays affect the outcome. Another suggested that During the field test 4 days was used
more study is needed to determine a reasonable for purposes of analysis only.
measurement period.
20 LAA Quality ! One State supports identification of critical due ! There will be two quality measures: a
process elements but is unclear on how cases failing measure of due process and a measure
one or more critical elements factor in the score -- will of overall quality. The measure of
there be two standards --one for missed due process quality includes the due process
elements and one for overall case score? elements as well, combining all
elements to produce an over-all quality
score. The due process elements are:
#6, 10, 11, 19, 22, 23, 25, and 26. A
failure in any of these causes the case
to fail due process.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
! In the PMR instrument there is no provision for ! This appears to be an operational
identifying remanded cases, which may present issue and does not preclude the need
special problems or which may reflect faulty to evaluate the quality of such cases.
administrative procedures. In [State], rescheduling is
discouraged and failure to appear at LAA hearing
(even though the SESA has information that a party
was unable to attend) results in a LAA decision which
must be appealed to HAA. HAA must then remand
the case for another hearing at LAA so that double
counts are taken at both levels, delaying due process
and masking accountability.
20 LAA Quality !Was the omission of UI, UCFE, UCX, and CWC,
(Cont.) separations and nonseparations deliberate? If so, it ! All programs will be included in LAA
should be made clear that the universe includes all Quality reviews.
these, since these cases are not presently included in
time lapse reporting.
21 CWC Quality ! Six States felt that CWC quality measures should ! DOL will not implement CWC quality
not be implemented, and one went on to caution measures because the field tested
against implementing other CWC quality measures measures were not successful in
without field testing them first. discriminating among States'
performance.
22 Implementation ! Nine States expressed concern about the cost of ! DOL has provided funding to assist
Concerns implementing PMR measures. States with implementation.
! Six noted that the changes would require more ! We anticipate States will have five
time than is allowed in the implementation plan. months to implement PMR measures.
! Two commented on the necessity of thorough ! DOL plans to begin training in 1996.
training on the adjudication quality scoring instrument
before implementation.
! One suggested that PMR be made a part of the ! State agencies can choose to
QC program so that staffing can be adequate. incorporate the new quality measures
into their operations however they
choose.
! One suggested that standardized computer ! It would be impractical for DOL to
programming be provided to all States for PMR provide extract routines for States. Our
reporting. data validation initiative is geared to
ensure data accuracy for conformity to
federal reporting requirements by all
States.
! One comment mentioned that the UIRR should be ! The UIRR will be revised to include
revised to include PMR measures. PMR measures.
! One recommended that all State QPI staff test the ! No longer applicable; see DOL
new pass/fail approach before implementation. Response in #11.
# ISSUE COMMENT DOL RESPONSE
23 Data Validation ! The three comments received were emphatic ! DOL will validate benefits data.
regarding the need for validation to ensure quality
data.
24 Benchmarking ! Seven comments were received. Four commented ! DOL is reviewing methods for
that DOL should review standards in light of the more establishing national standards.
stringent review criteria. Another stated that there is
a limit to performance obtainable with current
resources. Benchmarks should not be set at
unattainable levels.
! One noted a need for uniform minimum national
levels.
24 Benchmarking ! One asked that special consideration be given to
(Cont.) the effects of automated systems on many features of
the UI program.
! One State feels that weekly filing and biweekly
filing States should have the same opportunity to
achieve high scores.
! One felt that intra- and interstate payments should
be benchmarked separately.
25 Sanctions ! Two of the four comments received on sanctions, ! The topic of sanctions is currently
asked that real (effective) sanctions be defined and under review by DOL.
employed.
! One said that continuous improvement should
preclude the imposition of sanctions.
! One said the threat of sanctions based on actions
which the agency cannot control is hardly a desired
result.
Attachment C — Unemployment Insurance Benefits Performance Measures Official attachment: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl96/uipl_1096c.pdf
Unemployment Insurance Benefits Performance
Measures
Measure Status Frequency Data Source
I. Initial Eligibility
Decisions
A. Benefit payment time lapse
1. First payments existing monthly automated
system
2. Continued weeks new monthly automated
system
3. Partial weeks - both initial new monthly automated
and continued payments system
4. Workshare - both initial and new monthly automated
continued payments system
B. Nonmonetary determinations
1. Time lapse existing annually file
samples
new quarterly automated
system
2. Quality of nonmonetary existing annually file
determinations samples
new quarterly automated
system
3. Implementation time lapse new quarterly quality
sample
C. Time lapse of Combined Wage existing quarterly automated
Claim Wage Transfer, Billing, system
and Reimbursement.
II. Appeals
A. Lower authority appeals
1. Time lapse existing monthly automated
system
2. Case aging new monthly automated
system
3. Quality of lower authority existing annually files
appeals
new quarterly automated
system
4. Implementation time lapse new quarterly automated
system
B. Higher authority appeals
1. Time lapse existing monthly files
2. Case aging new monthly files
What does federal law require today?
This guidance has been withdrawn. Ezel checks current federal labor law as it stands now and answers your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace