Back to Federal guidance
Changes to UI Performs unemployment insurance measures
Summary ETA revised the UI Performs system for measuring state unemployment insurance administration. It reduced the measures with performance targets to a smaller group of core measures, kept other data for management use, and changed state planning and corrective action requirements. Its attachments compare old and new measures and reproduce agency responses to comments. ETA currently lists the letter as Active, but its printed expiration date was February 18, 2007 and later changes revised several measures, so its current applicability is unclear.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 14-05
Date issued
February 18, 2005
Status
Unknown
ETA lists the letter Active as of October 25, 2026, but its printed expiration date was February 18, 2007. Changes 1, 2, and 3 later revised or clarified several measures; current applicability of the original letter is unclear.
Status last verified October 25, 2026
Apply this to your situation
This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, 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.
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Washington, D.C. 20210
Classification: UI Performs
Correspondence symbol: OWS/DPM
Date: February 18, 2005
Rescissions: None
Expiration date: February 18, 2007
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 14-05
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: CHERYL ATKINSON /s/
Administrator
Office of Workforce Security
SUBJECT: Changes to UI Performs
1. Purpose. To inform State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) of changes made to the
unemployment insurance (UI) performance management system “UI Performs” as a
result of a five-year review; to convey a summary of the comments received in response
to the Federal Register Notice (FRN) containing Unemployment Insurance Program
Letter (UIPL) 21-04 “Proposed Changes to UI Performs”; and to provide effective dates
for implementing changes.
2. References. Federal Unemployment Tax Act; Title III of the Social Security Act; 20
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 640 (Standard for Benefit Payment Promptness)
and 650 (Standard for Appeals Promptness); 69 Fed. Reg. 33669 (2004); Employment
and Training (ET) Handbook No. 336, 17th Edition, “Unemployment Insurance State
Quality Service Plan Planning and Reporting Guidelines” (June 18, 2002); ET Handbook
No. 401, 3rd Edition, “Unemployment Insurance Reports Handbook” and subsequent
changes; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) 41-95, “Draft Narrative
Describing the System for Enhancing Unemployment Insurance (UI) Performance: The
‘UI Performs’ System” (August 24, 1995); UIPL 37-99, “UI Performs Tier I and Tier II
Performance Measures, and Minimum Performance Criteria for Tier I Measures” (July
31, 1999); UIPL 06-03, “Review of UI Performs” (November 25, 2002); UIPL No. 21-
04, “Proposed Changes to UI Performs” (May 18, 2004); and UIPL 29-04, “Study of the
Measure of Nonmonetary Determination Quality” (July 20, 2004).
3. Background. In December 2002, the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) began a review of UI Performs, the
performance management system for the UI program. The review addressed: (a) the
performance measures; (b) the criteria used to gauge success against the measures; and
(c) the administration of UI Performs. The review included substantial consultation
directly with SWAs and indirectly through the National Association of State Workforce
Agencies’ (NASWA) Subcommittee for UI Performs. Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc., provided data analyses.
Two overarching themes emerged during the review: (1) the large number of measures to
which the SWAs are held accountable diffuses management attention and (2) the
administration of UI Performs is too complex and burdensome on the SWAs. The review
resulted in a DOL proposal to streamline UI Performs in three ways:
a) Reduce the number of measures for which performance goals are set to a few
“core” measures.
b) Recognize remaining measures as management information for which no
performance goals will be set.
c) Streamline the State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) narrative.
The proposed changes were issued for state comment in UIPL No. 21-04, “Proposed
Changes to UI Performs,” and in 69 Fed. Reg. 33669 (2004), which published the UIPL
for public comment.
4. Highlights of Comments. The American Federation of Labor - Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and
34 SWAs responded to DOL’s request for comments to the proposed changes to UI
Performs. Both the AFL-CIO and NELP expressed general concern that the proposed
changes would adversely affect unemployed workers and provided comments on specific
changes. Although comments from all commentators about specific areas of the
proposed changes were mixed, SWA comments were generally favorable to the overall
proposed streamlining efforts.
The proposed changes that generated the most comments are discussed briefly below
along with DOL’s responses to them. See Attachment D, Parts 1 and 2, for specific
comments and DOL’s responses. All comments were taken into account in making the
final changes to UI Performs.
Number of Measures. Comments from SWAs were very favorable regarding the
proposal to reduce the number of measures to which they would be held accountable.
NELP and the AFL-CIO, on the other hand, expressed concern that the changes would
erode the “safety net” that UI provides to unemployed workers.
DOL Response: DOL believes that reducing the number of measures to Core Measures
will promote the SWAs’ focus on the most critical program areas. All performance
measures not designated as “core” will be available to State and Federal partners as
management information and will continue to be monitored as a means to alert both
Federal and State staff of potential problems.
Administration of Measures.
Compliance. In its comments, NELP expressed concern that the changes in the
timeliness measures will not help resolve the problem of noncompliance that has been
demonstrated by some SWAs. NELP points out that regulations at 20 CFR Section 640.8
outline a number of steps that can be taken by DOL to address performance issues.
DOL Response: DOL follows these steps as appropriate and constantly monitors SWAs’
performance.
Effective Dates. Several SWAs asked that the changes not be put into effect when their
performance year is already underway because they felt that could reduce their ability to
perform to new standards. The SQSP for the 2005 fiscal year has been submitted, and the
performance year for 2005-2006 has already begun.
DOL Response: DOL agrees that the cycle of the UI Performs management system
requires planning ahead, and the implementation of the changes in the measures should
be done in a systematic way so that the state partners know in advance what will be
expected of them. Therefore, although the data used in the first payment aggregate
measure and the new tax quality measure are currently available, SWAs will not be
expected to prepare Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) in the fiscal year (FY) 2006 SQSP
for failure to meet the Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALPs). Rather, SWAs must
assure DOL that they acknowledge the need to meet the ALPs during the next SQSP
period. See Section 8 of this UIPL for effective dates for implementing changes.
Tax Measures. The Tax Performance System (TPS) has been operating as a series of 13
sample measures performed annually, and combining the sample reviews into a single
Core Measure is a new concept. All of the TPS measures except two, New Employer
Status Determinations Timeliness and Quality, have been operating as “Tier II”
measures. Consequently, comments were mixed—about half of the comments were
supportive and the others expressed varying concerns. Several of the comments centered
on concerns about the stringency of the measure.
DOL Response: DOL considers the new measure a good indicator of overall tax quality.
There was a strong feeling among some of the NASWA Subcommittee members that the
Tier 1 measure of new employer status determination alone was not a sufficient measure
of overall tax quality. As a result, a workgroup of NASWA UI Performs Subcommittee
members and DOL staff recommended the new tax quality measure, which consists of the
combined results of all the TPS sample reviews. To meet the acceptable level of
performance for tax quality, a state can have no more than 3 failures out of the 13 tax
functions reviewed under TPS in a year nor any single tax function failing the TPS
review for three consecutive years. This level of stringency, as one state pointed out,
equates to about a 75% passing rate. SWAs that do not meet this minimum level of
performance will be expected to submit CAPs for improvement. The criterion for New
Employer Status Determinations Timeliness will be raised from 60% to 70% completed
within 90 days of the quarter ending date.
SWAs that do not meet the ALP in calendar year 2004 will acknowledge the need for
improvement in the 2006 SQSP narrative.
Benefits Measures.
First Payment Timeliness. Comments from SWAs were generally supportive of the
aggregate first payment timeliness measure; however, a few SWAs commented that the
time required for processing interstate and federal military and civilian claims will cause
them to have difficulty meeting the criterion. NELP and the AFL-CIO viewed the
change as a weakening of the first payment standard because the SWAs would no longer
be held accountable for performance at multiple intervals.
DOL Response: The Core Measure, which was formerly a Tier 1 measure, is a
comprehensive measure that includes intrastate and interstate UI as well as UCFE and
UCX for both full and partial weeks. Only Workshare programs, episodic claims such as
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), Extended Benefits (EB), Trade Readjustment
Allowances (TRA), and retroactive payments for a compensable waiting period are
excluded from the measure.
The Core Measure for first payment criterion of 87% applies to the aggregate of all first
payments including interstate, UCFE and UCX claims; the criterion of 87% for the
current standard applies only to intrastate claims for regular UI. Even with the added
claims types, advances in automation and much quicker access to wage data make it
likely that SWAs will be able to meet or exceed the criterion.
DOL plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the current
regulations in 20 CFR part 640 to reflect the Core Measure; however, the current
regulatory measures and criteria will remain in effect unless and until regulations are
amended.
Nonmonetary Determinations Timeliness. Most SWAs and NELP expressed concerns
about the proposed change to the nonmonetary determinations time lapse parameters
from the issue detection date to the week-ending date of the first week affected by the
determination. Most of the SWA comments indicated that issue detection date is the
better date because it marks the time at which the SWA has control of disposal of the
issue. Comments also expressed concern that using the “first week affected” date could
seemingly penalize SWAs that have liberal claims backdating policies.
DOL Response: DOL proposed changing the starting date of the measure to the week-
ending date of the first week affected because SWAs have consistently been unable to
accurately report the issue detection date. Validation of both data points, accomplished
through reviews of sampled nonmonetary determinations, indicate that SWAs generally
have better success in reporting the “first week affected,” also a pertinent date from the
customer (UI claimants and employers) perspective. However, DOL agrees that issue
detection date is a good measurement parameter from an administrative perspective and
will defer the decision to change the reporting parameters until an analysis can be
conducted to determine whether reporting of issue detection date can be substantially
improved. DOL expects to conduct the analysis over the course of the next performance
year, which begins April 1, 2005, and ends March 31, 2006. Until then, the existing
measure remains in place.
Nonmonetary Determinations Quality. A number of SWAs commented about
nonmonetary determination quality, particularly expressing concerns about the scoring
system.
DOL Response: As part of the UI Performs five-year review, DOL convened a
federal/state workgroup of nonmonetary determination experts to study and recommend
changes to the Benefits Timeliness and Quality (BTQ) Nonmonetary Determinations
Quality Review. The workgroup reviewed the data collection instrument and the
instructions used in the quality review of nonmonetary determinations, operational
guidance that DOL gives the SWAs regarding claim determination requirements, and
other matters concerning the adjudication process. Particular effort went toward
exploring ways to refine the measurement instrument, how determinations are scored,
and instructions to the reviewers to ensure consistent and accurate review results. The
workgroup’s recommendations were issued for comment in UIPL No. 29-04, “Study of
the Measure of Nonmonetary Determination Quality.” Comments about the scoring
method received in response to UIPL No. 21-04 will be considered along with comments
received in response to UIPL No. 29-04 in making decisions for changes to the BTQ
Nonmonetary Determination Quality Review.
Overpayment Detection Measure. The AFL-CIO, NELP and SWAs commented on the
proposed overpayment detection measure. The AFL-CIO and NELP generally think the
focus on UI overpayments should be balanced with attention to UI underpayments and
unpaid/underpaid employer taxes. SWA comments were mixed.
DOL Response: DOL believes that overpayment prevention and detection are central to
good UI administration and has made reducing overpayments a priority. DOL is
currently scrutinizing the measurement data - and, in some cases, methods used to create
the data - to assure data quality. Because this is a new measure, DOL will assess the data
for a year and explore possible adjustments to the measure before setting a performance
level.
DOL agrees that payment accuracy is essential and tracks UI underpayments and denied
payments through its Benefits Accuracy Measurement (BAM) quality control program.
In addition, the integrity of wage reporting and proper tax payments is of great concern to
DOL. Consequently, SWA employer audits are subject to review through TPS.
Appeals Measures. The proposal of a new timeliness Core Measure for Lower and
Higher Authority Appeals was met with mixed reactions from SWAs; some commented
that the proposed new measure would provide a better incentive for deciding appeals
promptly and others saw no benefit to the change in measurement. Some SWAs, NELP,
and the AFL-CIO were concerned that the current timeliness measures would no longer
be available for use in making operational decisions.
DOL Response: The new Core Measure would be a different approach to timeliness
measurement; however, it is one which NELP agreed would provide information relevant
to the question of how many unresolved cases are pending in the state. Under the new
measure, SWAs would review all of their unresolved appeals, adding up the number of
days each has been pending. Then the total number of days would be divided by the
number of unresolved cases, to yield an average case age. For example, if a state had 500
cases unresolved on the last day of this month, and 150 were five days old, 200 were 20
days old, 50 were 35 days old, and 100 were 210 days old, the sum of the number of days
pending would be 750 + 4000 + 1750 + 21,000 for a total of 27,500 days. 27,500/500 =
55 days “average age.”
The current timeliness measures (20 CFR part 650) lack such a simple way to evaluate
the real condition of the pending cases in a state because as cases age, they simply fall off
the end of the measurement scale (at, for example, “greater than 360 days”) and are no
longer seen in the performance measurement. Under this type of measure, a state can
meet all standards of timeliness even though some appeals remain pending for an
inordinately long period. Under the average age measure, it is to the advantage of a state
to hear appeals as quickly as possible. The current timeliness measures will continue to
be reported as management information. The new appeals timeliness measures are
contingent upon Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to collect the data.
Reemployment Measure. SWAs generally commented that UI beneficiaries’
reemployment is not a function of the UI program and is beyond the control of the UI
system. The AFL-CIO and NELP expressed concerns that beneficiaries would be
compelled to accept work that would be unsuitable.
DOL Response: The new measure is intended to establish the effectiveness of the UI
program to facilitate the reemployment of UI beneficiaries. State UI agencies perform
many functions designed to help beneficiaries become reemployed, including referral to
employment services, benefits rights interviews that help beneficiaries understand their
responsibilities in making job search contacts, and reviews of job search activities for
appropriateness and methods being used. DOL feels that as a result of these activities,
beneficiaries become reemployed more quickly than they would without such assistance.
Further, because benefits rights are preserved in law, this measure will in no way
diminish those rights by compelling beneficiaries to accept unsuitable work.
Acceptable performance levels will be deferred until data have been collected from all
SWAs for four quarters. The measure is contingent upon OMB approval to collect the
data, which includes a solicitation for public comment in the Federal Register. The
comments received in response to UIPL No. 21-04 will be combined with the comments
received in response to the Federal Register solicitation. All comments will be
considered.
5. Revised UI Performs Measures and Criteria.
Measures.
The streamlined UI Performs will include two measurement categories: 1) Core
Measures and 2) Management Information Measures. The Tier I and Tier II
nomenclature will no longer be used.
• Core Measures are the 11 measures that replace the 19 Tier I measures. These
measures are indicators of how well SWAs perform critical activities. Core Measures
are comparable among SWAs and will be assigned ALP criteria. SWAs are expected
to submit CAPs when their performance falls below acceptable levels. The Core
Measures and performance criteria are:
Tax Measures Acceptable Levels of Performance
¾ New Employer Status 70 percent within 90 days of quarter ending
Determinations Timeliness (Q/E) date.
¾ Measure of Tax Quality No more than three failures out of the 13 tax
functions reviewed under TPS in a year nor
any single function failing the TPS review
for three consecutive years.
Benefits Measures Acceptable Levels of Performance
¾ First Payment Promptness 87 percent of all first payments made within
14/21 days (14 days if a waiting week is
required and 21 days if no waiting week is
required) after the compensable week.
¾ Nonmonetary Determination Issue detection date will continue to be the
Time Lapse beginning parameter for timeliness for the
next year while DOL evaluates the causes of
errors in detection date reporting. If
detection date reporting can be improved to
pass measures of data validity, it will be
retained.
¾ Nonmonetary Determination 75 percent of nonseparation determinations
Quality: Nonseparation sampled will meet quality standards.
Issues
¾ Nonmonetary Determination 75 percent of separation determinations
Quality: Separation Issues sampled will meet quality standards.
¾ Detection of Overpayments Percent of detectable/recoverable
overpayments established for recovery.
ALP will be set after a review of the data
over one year.
Appeals Measures Acceptable Levels of Performance
¾ Average Age of Pending ALP deferred until state performance using
Lower Authority Appeals the new parameters has been recorded for
(Contingent upon OMB four quarters.
approval to collect the data)
¾ Average Age of Pending
ALP deferred until state performance using
Higher Authority Appeals
the new parameters has been recorded for
(Contingent upon OMB
four quarters.
approval to collect the data)
¾ Lower Authority Appeals 80 percent of lower authority appeals have
Quality quality scores of at least 85 percent of
potential points.
Reemployment Measure Acceptable Levels of Performance
¾ Facilitate Reemployment Percent of UI claimants who are
(Contingent upon OMB reemployed within the quarter following
approval to collect the data) their first UI payment. ALP deferred until
data have been collected from all SWAs for
four quarters.
• Management Information Measures consist of currently collected performance data
that provide additional insight into UI program operations. Some Management
Information Measures are subsets or components of data included in Core Measures,
such as timeliness of UCX benefit payments, those claiming benefits on an interstate
basis, or the individual TPS components of the tax quality measure. These data alert
state and Federal managers to performance issues that could result in lower
performance on Core Measure goals and are useful for performance analysis. DOL
will continue to collect all of the Management Information with the exception of the
TPS “turnover ratio” measure, which will be discontinued because the information is
being captured in another report.
No performance criteria are assigned to Management Information Measures.
However, several measures’ criteria are currently in regulation and will remain in
effect until the regulation is replaced. Descriptions of the Management Information
Measures can be reviewed in Handbook 401, 3rd Edition, Change 9. The
Management Information Measures are listed in Attachment B.
Regulations. Secretary’s Standards for benefit payment promptness and lower authority
appeals promptness are found in 20 CFR Parts 640 and 650, respectively. Changes to the
regulations will be proposed to reflect the measures and criteria noted above for first
payment promptness and average age of pending appeals. Until the regulations are
changed, the current measures and criteria will remain in force. Failure to meet criteria
established in regulation will require corrective action.
Program Reviews and Reporting Requirements. SWAs perform a variety of reviews
and submit required reports as part of the overall performance management system. For
example, SWAs conduct tripartite reviews for nonmonetary determination quality and
reviews of lower authority appeals quality. They also conduct Benefits Accuracy
Measurement (BAM) investigations and meet the requirements for reviews under the
Data Validation program and TPS. They administer Benefit Payment Control programs
and Internal Security programs. SWAs will address failure to administer these programs
in the SQSP narrative rather than in CAPs.
6. Administering UI Performs. The SQSP, which each state negotiates annually with
the Federal partner, will continue to be central to the administration of UI Performs. The
SQSP will include narratives and CAPs.
• Narratives. Unlike the current SQSP format that requires a “Summary” narrative
and “Focus” narratives, SWAs will describe in a single narrative:
¾ State performance in comparison to the Government Performance Results
Act (GPRA) goals;
¾ Results of customer satisfaction surveys (optional);
¾ Actions planned to correct deficiencies regarding program reviews and
reporting requirements described in Section 5.
SWAs will no longer be required to address environmental factors, such as
economic conditions, political climate, labor/business relationships, or state
legislative issues in the SQSP. They may continue to provide this information to
the degree they consider it important to explain performance and CAPs.
• CAPs. SWAs will be expected to submit CAPs as a part of the SQSP when their
annual performance on Core Measures does not meet the ALPs. No CAPs will be
required based on Management Information Measures. However, if a state’s
performance in one or more Management Information Measures is so
conspicuously poor that a state’s compliance with Federal law requirements is in
question, DOL would require corrective action. SWAs will provide quarterly
updates for each CAP. DOL will strive to attain uniform administration of CAP
requirements among the SWAs and regions.
• Continuous Improvement Plans (CIPs). Under the current UI Performs
structure, SWAs prepare CIPS to improve Tier II performance or Tier I
performance that is above the established criteria. However, CIPs proved to be
administratively burdensome without demonstrating improved performance.
Therefore, SWAs will no longer be asked to develop CIPs under UI Performs.
7. Publishing Data. Three categories of performance data will be published each year:
• The GPRA goals and national aggregate data;
• Core Measures with state-specific data;
• Management Information will be published in a format that does not compare
SWAs’ performance.
8. Effective Dates for Implementing Changes. DOL will begin implementing the
changes in UI Performs with the SQSP for FY 2006 that SWAs will prepare during the
summer of 2005. UI Performs will use data from the Performance Year that extends
from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005, for the FY 2006 SQSP with the exception of TPS,
which will use data from the calendar year ending December 31, 2004. As previously
mentioned, for the FY 2006 SQSP, CAPs will not be required for failure to meet the
ALPs for the first payment aggregate measure and the Tax Quality measure. CAPs will
be expected for failure to meet the ALPs for these measures in subsequent years.
Implementation of the measures for which data are not currently available will be phased
in upon approval from OMB to collect the data, the measures are finalized and the
requisite programming is completed.
9. Action. Distribute this document to all appropriate SWA staff.
10. Inquiries. Direct inquiries to your regional office.
11. Attachments. Attachment A: Comparison of Previous Tier 1 to Core Measures
Attachment B: Management Information Measures
Attachment C: Core Measures
Attachment D: Comments on FRN: Proposed Changes to UI
Performs Part 1 (Benefits) and Part 2 (Tax)
Attachment A (official PDF): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2005/UIPL14-05_AttachA.pdf
Attachment A
Comparison of Previous Tier I to Core Measures
Previous Tier I Measures Core Measures
New Employer Status Determinations: % of new status New Employer Status Determinations: % of new status
determinations within 90/180 days of Q/E date. determinations within 90 days of Q/E date.
¾ 60% within 90 days of Q/E date ¾ 70% within 90 days of Q/E date
¾ 80% within 180 days of Q/E date
Acceptance Sample for Accuracy: 60 New Status Tax Quality: New measure using data currently
Determinations--Pass with no more than 6 Failed Cases collected under TPS as sample scores for the tax
functions.
¾ No more than 3 failures out of the 13 tax
functions reviewed under TPS in a year nor
any single function failing the TPS review for
3 consecutive years.
Timeliness of Transfer to the UTF:
Ratio of the monthly average daily loanable balance to
the average daily transfer to the Trust Fund divided by
the number of days in the month. (No criterion set)
Timeliness of deposit into state’s clearing account: (Included in the Tax Quality Core Measure above.)
¾ % of employer contributions deposited into the ¾ 90% of employer contributions deposited into
state’s clearing account within three days of the state’s clearing account within 3 days.
receipt. (Criterion not set)
First Payment Timeliness: Number of days elapsed from First Payment Timeliness: Number of days elapsed
week-ending date of the first compensable week in from week-ending date of the first compensable week
benefit year to date payment is made in person, mailed, in benefit year to date payment is made in person,
or offset/intercept is applied on the claim. mailed, or offset/intercept is applied on the claim.
¾
87% of first payments within 14/211 days: ¾ 87% of all first payments including Intra +
Intrastate UI, full weeks 2 Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX, full & partial
weeks, made within 14/211 days. Excludes
Workshare, episodic claims such as DUA, and
retroactive payments for a compensable
waiting period.
¾ 93% of 1st Payments within 35 days: Intrastate
UI, full weeks 2
¾ 70% of 1st Payments within 14/211 days:
Interstate UI, full weeks 2
¾ 78% of 1st Payments within 35 days: Interstate
UI, full weeks 2
“14/21” days: SWAs requiring a waiting week before the payment of a week of benefits must make the first payment within
14 days of the week-ending date of the first compensable week claimed. SWAs with no waiting week requirement must make
the first payment within 21 days of the week-ending date of the first compensable week claimed.
2 Current measurement for Secretary’s Standards.
¾ 90% of all first payments, including Intra +
Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX, full & partial weeks,
within 14/21 days
¾ 95% of all first payments, including Intra +
Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX, full & partial weeks,
within 35 days
Nonmonetary Determinations Timeliness: Number of Nonmonetary Determinations Timeliness: Number of
days elapsed from date of detection by the state of any days elapsed from date of detection by the state of any
nonmonetary issue that had the potential to affect the nonmonetary issue that had the potential to affect the
claimant’s past, present or future benefit rights to the claimant’s past, present or future benefit rights to the
date on the determination. date on the determination: a study of errors in reporting
will be done this performance year to find whether
¾ 80% of Separation Determinations within 21 SWAs can report detection date correctly within
days of Detection Date: Intra + Interstate UI, standards of validity.
UCFE, UCX Programs, full + partial weeks
¾ 80% of Nonseparation Determinations within 14 ¾ 80% of All Determinations within 21 days of
days of Detection Date: Intra + Interstate UI, Detection Date: Intra + Interstate UI, UCFE,
UCFE, UCX Programs, full + partial weeks UCX Programs, full + partial weeks
Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Evaluation Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Evaluation
results of quarterly samples of nonmonetary results of quarterly samples of nonmonetary
determinations selected from the universe of determinations selected from the universe of
nonmonetary determinations reported by the 9052 report. nonmonetary determinations reported on the 9052
Intra + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX. report. Intra + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX.
¾ 75% of Separation and Nonseparation Separation and nonseparation samples must each meet
Determinations with Quality Scores >80 points: the threshold criteria for case material found and issue
Score weighted by universe population size. validity without reference to the validity of the other.
Results will be reported separately for separation and
nonseparation issues. Scores weighted by universe
population size for annual report only.
¾ 75% of separations scoring >80 points.
¾ 75% of nonseparations scoring >80 points.
Detection of Overpayments: Overpayments (dollars)
established for recovery as a percent of the overpaid
amount estimated through BAM that the state can
detect and recover. (Categories of overpayments that
vary greatly from state to state or may be “technical”
overpayments – failure to meet work search
requirements and be registered with ES – are excluded
from the measure.)
¾ % of all detectable/recoverable overpayments
established for recovery: ALP will be set after
a 1-year review of the data.
Lower Authority Appeals Timeliness: Number of days Average Age of Pending Lower Authority Appeals: a
elapsed from the date the request for a lower authority count of all pending Lower Authority Appeals divided
appeals hearing is filed to the date of the decision. into the sum of their age in days. (Contingent upon
OMB approval to collect the data.)
¾ 60% of Lower Authority Appeals Decided
within 30 days of filing: Intra + Interstate UI, ¾ Performance goal deferred until state
UCFE, UCX 2 performance using the new parameters has
been recorded for four quarters.
¾ 80% of Lower Authority Appeals Decided
within 45 days of filing: Intra + Interstate UI,
UCFE, UCX 2
¾ 95% of Lower Authority Appeals Decided
within 90 days of filing: Intra + Interstate UI,
UCFE, UCX (no criterion set)
Higher Authority Appeals Timeliness: Number of days Average Age of Pending Higher Authority Appeals: a
elapsed from the date a higher authority appeal is filed to count of all pending Higher Authority Appeals divided
date of the decision. into the sum of their age in days. (Contingent upon
OMB approval to collect the data.)
¾ 50% of Higher Authority Appeals Decided
within 45 Days of filing: Intra + Interstate UI, ¾ Performance goal deferred until state
UCFE, UCX performance using the new parameters has
been recorded for four quarters.
¾ 80% of Higher Authority Appeals Decided
within 75 Days of filing: Intra + Interstate UI,
UCFE, UCX
¾ 95% of Higher Authority Appeals Decided
within 150 Days of filing: Intra + Interstate UI,
UCFE, UCX
Lower Authority Appeals Quality: Evaluation results of Lower Authority Appeals Quality: Evaluation results
quarterly samples of lower authority benefit appeals of quarterly samples of lower authority benefit appeals
hearings selected and evaluated as instructed in ET hearings selected and evaluated as instructed in ET
Handbook #382 (2nd edition). Intra + Interstate UI, Handbook #382 (2nd edition). Intra + Interstate UI,
UCFE, UCX. UCFE, UCX. (No change from Tier I measure.)
¾ 80% of Lower Authority Appeals with quality ¾ 80% of Lower Authority Appeals with quality
scores at least 85% of potential points. scores at least 85% of potential points.
Facilitate Reemployment: The percent of UI claimants
who become reemployed within the quarter following
their first UI payment. (Contingent upon OMB
approval to collect the data.)
¾ Performance goal deferred until data have been
collected from all SWAs for four quarters.
Attachment B (official PDF): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2005/UIPL14-05_AttachB.pdf
Attachment B
Management Information Measures
A. Secretary’s Standards
1. First Payments Intrastate full weeks, within 14/21 days
2. First Payments Intrastate full weeks, within 35 days
3. First Payments Interstate full weeks, within 14/21 days
4. First Payments Interstate full weeks, within 35 days
5. Lower Authority Appeals Timeliness – 30 Days
6. Lower Authority Appeals Timeliness – 45 Days
B. Tax Measures
1. New Status Determination Timeliness (within 180 days of Quarter Ending Date)
2. Successor Status Determination Timeliness (within 90 days of Quarter Ending Date)
3. Successor Status Determination Timeliness (within 180 days of Quarter Ending Date)
4. Contributory Employer Report Filing Timeliness
5. Reimbursing Employer Report Filing Timeliness
6. Secured Delinquent Contributory Reports Timeliness
7. Secured Delinquent Reimbursing Reports Timeliness
8. Resolved Delinquent Contributory Reports Timeliness
9. Resolved Delinquent Reimbursing Reports Timeliness
10. Contributory Employer Payments Timeliness
11. Reimbursing Employer Payments Timeliness
12. Percent of Contributory Employer Tax Due Declared Uncollectible
13. Percent of Reimbursing Employer Receivables Due Declared Uncollectible
14. Percent of Contributory Employer Accounts Receivable At End of Report Period to Tax Due
15. Percent of Reimbursing Employer Accounts Receivable At End of Report Period to Tax Due
16. Percent of Change in Total Wages Resulting from Audit
17. Percent of Contributory Employers Audited
18. Percent of Total Wages Audited (Annualized)
19. Accuracy of New Status Determination
20. Accuracy of Successor Determination
21. Accuracy of Status Inactivations
22. Timeliness of Cashiering
23. Accurate Identification and Resolution of Report Delinquency
24. Accurate Identification and Resolution of Accounts Receivable
25. Audits to Meet ESM Requirements
26. Accuracy of Contribution Report Processing
27. Accuracy of Debits and Billings of Contributory Employers
28. Accuracy of Debits and Billings of Reimbursing Employers
29. Accuracy of Credits and Refunds
30. Accuracy of Benefit Charging
31. Accuracy of Experience Rating
C. Cash Management Measures
1. Average Days on Deposit
2. Timeliness of transfer from clearing account to Trust Fund
D. Benefits Measures
Timeliness of Payments and Nonmonetary Determinations
1. First Payments Intrastate full weeks
2. First Payments Interstate full weeks
3. First Payments Intrastate, all weeks
4. First Payments Interstate, all weeks
5. First Payments, partial weeks
6. First Payments, UCFE
7. First Payments, UCX
8. First Payments, workshare
9. Continued Weeks Payment, all weeks
10. Continued Weeks Payment, partial weeks
11. Continued Weeks Payments, workshare
12. Intrastate Separation Determinations
13. Intrastate Nonseparation Determinations
14. Interstate Separation Determinations
15. Interstate Nonseparation Determinations
Combined Wage Claims Timeliness Measures
1. Combined Wage Claim Wage Transfer
2. Combined Wage Claim Billing
3. Combined Wage Claim Reimbursements
Benefits Accuracy Measures
1. Paid Claim Accuracy
2. Denied Claim Accuracy
3. Operational Overpayment Rates
Benefit Payment Control Measures
1. Fraud Overpayment Recovery Rate
2. Nonfraud Overpayment Recovery Rate
E. Appeals Measures
Appeals Timeliness Measures and Case Aging Measures
1. Lower Authority Appeals Timeliness
2. Higher Authority Appeals Timeliness
3. Lower Authority Appeals, Case Aging
4. Higher Authority Appeals, Case Aging
Appeals Quality Measure
Lower Authority Appeals Quality - Due Process
F. Macroeconomic Stabilization Measures
1. Recipiency Rates
2. Exhaustion Rates
Attachment C (official PDF): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2005/UIPL14-05_AttachC.pdf
Attachment C
Core Measures
1. New Employer Status Determinations
Measure: Percentage of employer status determinations made within 90
days from the last day of the quarter in which the business first
became liable (for newly established employers) or re-established
liability (for previously terminated accounts) or was reactivated
(for previously inactivated accounts).
Change: Criterion
.
Data Source: Quarterly ETA 581 Contributions Operations Report.
Computation The sum of Item 15 (number of determinations made within the
and 90 day period) from the ETA 581 for four consecutive report
Criterion: quarters divided by the sum of all new status determinations
(Item 14) made during the same four quarters. The result is
multiplied by 100 to convert the decimal to a percentage.
Criterion goes up from 60% to 70%.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
2. Tax Quality
Measure: Assessment of the accuracy and completeness of the tax program.
Change: This is a new measure.
Data Source: The annual TPS Review report including Acceptance Sample
scores for the following tax functions:
• Status Determinations Accuracy
o New Status Determinations
o Successor Status Determinations
o Inactivations/Terminations
• Cashiering
• Report Delinquency
• Collections
• Field Audit
• Contribution Report Processing
• Debits/Billings
o Contributory Employers
o Reimbursing Employers
• Credits/Refunds
• Benefit Charging
• Tax Rates (usually sampled once every four years unless the
previous year’s sample of Tax Rates, Contribution Report
Processing or Benefit Charging failed review or there have
been changes to the state’s tax rating system that could
impact tax rate accuracy)
Computation and Each of the 13 Acceptance Samples is scored as pass/fail. For
Criterion: each of the samples (with the exception of Cashiering) 3 or more
case failures will cause the sample to fail the TPS review.
For tax quality, if 4 or more of the 13 samples fail the annual TPS
review, a CAP will be required.
Additionally, if any Acceptance Sample fails for three (3)
consecutive years, a CAP will be required regardless of whether
the state passes the Tax Quality measure.
Reporting Results for each of the Acceptance Samples will be reported: the
Categories: format for the data entry screen will be programmed for the state
SUN systems, and a table in UIDB will be designed to capture the
reports.
Reporting
Frequency: Annually.
3. First Payment Time Lapse
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, transferred electronically, or offset or
intercept is 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.
¾ Includes intrastate and interstate total weeks,
partial/part-total weeks and transitional payments.
¾ Includes UCFE and UCX claims.
¾ Includes Combined Wage Claim payments reported in
the appropriate category determined by the nature of
the base period wages.
¾ Includes offsets and intercepts.
¾ Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
¾ Excludes workshare claims.
¾ Excludes retroactive payment for compensable waiting
period.
Change: The Core Measure of First Payment Time Lapse differs
from the Secretary’s Standard in that it is all inclusive with
the exceptions listed above. The Secretary’s Standard for
First Payment Time Lapse applies to intrastate total
weeks only. The Tier I measure definition is unchanged.
Data Source: Universe of first payments currently reported on ETA
9050.
Computation and Start date: week ending date of first compensable week.
Criterion: End date: date check was mailed or electronic transfer
made or offset or intercept applied.
The criterion will be set at 87% of first payments made
within 14 days for states requiring a waiting week and 21
days for states not requiring a waiting week.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly.
4. Nonmonetary Determinations Time Lapse
Measure: Number of days elapsed from date of detection by the
state of any nonmonetary issue that had the potential to
affect the claimant’s past, present or future benefit rights
to the date on the determination which resolves the issue.
¾ Includes the universe of nonmonetary determinations
made during the month.
¾ Includes BAM and BPC-generated nonmonetary
determinations.
¾ Excludes episodic claims such as EB, DUA and TRA.
¾ Excludes BPC crossmatch and overpayment
(monetary) notices.
Change: The criterion for both separations and nonseparations will
be 80% within 21 days.
Confidence in reporting of issue detection date will be
studied for four quarters to determine causes of error.
Data Source: Universe of nonmonetary determinations.
Note: The population identified for this measure must be
identical with the population from which the samples for
nonmonetary determinations quality are drawn.
Computation and Start date: the date on which the agency detected an
Criterion: issue on a claim which could affect past, present, or future
benefit rights.
End date: the date on the determination which resolves
the issue.
Percent of separation and nonseparation nonmonetary
determinations completed in 21 days.
Reporting
Categories: Report Management Information separately for:
¾ Intrastate UI, UCFE, UCX – Seps and Nonseps.
¾ Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX – Seps and Nonseps.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly
5. Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Separation Issues
Measure: Assessment of the quality of nonmonetary determinations
dealing with separation issues.
Change: Separation issue samples must meet the threshold criteria
for “case material found” and issue validity to be
considered valid. The separation issue sample must be
able to pass the criteria on its own, without reference to
the validity of the nonseparation issue sample, and the
score will be reported separately.
Data Source: Universe of nonmonetary determinations completed on
separation issues within the calendar quarter being
reviewed.
Computation and Quarterly random sample of 30 or 50 separation
Criterion: determinations drawn from the universe. Sample size is
determined by the number of nonmonetary determinations
completed in the previous calendar year.
75% of the cases must score more than 80 points.
Invalid cases, those out of scope of the review, and those
for which no documentation is found are not scored, and
must not exceed set thresholds for scores to be
considered representative of the quality of the state’s
nonmonetary determinations.
Reporting: Scoring uses a data collection instrument; the elements
are entered into the ETA 9056 report for each scored
case. The ETA 9056 transmission report will
automatically apply the sample validity tests and produce
the unweighted quality score when the state transmits the
sample results to the National Office. Annually, the
National Office will report a quality score weighted by the
numbers of separation and nonseparation determinations
in the sample universe for each state.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly
6. Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Nonseparation Issues
Measure: Assessment of the quality of nonmonetary determinations
dealing with nonseparation issues.
Change: Nonseparation issue samples must meet the threshold
criteria for “case material found” and issue validity to be
considered valid samples. The nonseparation issue
sample must be able to pass the criteria on its own,
without reference to the validity of the separation issue
sample, and the score will be reported separately.
Data Source: Universe of nonmonetary determinations completed on
nonseparation issues within the calendar quarter being
reviewed.
Computation and Quarterly random sample of 30 or 50 determinations
Criterion: drawn from the universe. Sample size is determined by
the number of nonmonetary determinations completed in
the previous calendar year.
75% of the cases must score more than 80 points.
Invalid cases, those out of scope of the review, and those
for which no documentation is found are not scored, and
must not exceed set thresholds for scores to be
considered representative of the quality of the state’s
nonmonetary determinations.
Reporting: Scoring uses a data collection instrument; the elements
are entered into the ETA 9056 report for each scored
case. The ETA 9056 transmission report will
automatically apply the sample validity tests and produce
the unweighted quality score when the state transmits the
sample results to the National Office. Annually, the
National Office will report a quality score weighted by the
numbers of separation and nonseparation determinations
in the sample universe for each state.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
7. Detection of Overpayments
Measure: Percent of estimated detectable, recoverable
overpayments (dollars) established for recovery.
Change: This measure is new in UI Performs.
Data Source: BAM and BPC reports.
Computation and BAM reports of recoverable overpayments (dollars)
Criterion: divided by BPC reports of overpayments established for
recovery. An interactive report will be available on the
OWS web site for SWA and Regional Offices to use to
find SWA performance.
The criterion will be a percentage (to be determined after
a year of data collection) of estimated detectable,
recoverable overpayments (dollars) established for
recovery.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
8. Average Age of Pending Lower Authority Appeals
Measure: A count of all pending Lower Authority Appeals divided
into the sum of their actual age in days to produce an
average age.
Change: This measure is new in UI Performs. It takes the age of
all pending appeals into account and allows prediction of
and planning for future performance.
The measure is contingent upon OMB approval for the
data collection.
Data Source: Universe of pending Lower Authority Appeals.
Computation and At the close of business on the last day of each month,
Criterion: access the universe of pending Lower Authority Appeals.
Determine actual age of each pending Appeal by counting
days elapsed from the date of filing to the date of count.
Sum actual age in days of all pending Lower Authority
Appeals and divide by the total number of pending Lower
Authority Appeals to arrive at the average age.
The criterion will be determined when twelve months of
data have been recorded.
Reporting: Report the dividend, divisor, and average age as
determined by the computation.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly
9. Average Age of Pending Higher Authority Appeals.
Measure: A count of all pending Higher Authority Appeals divided
into the sum of their actual age in days to produce an
average age.
Change: This measure is new in UI Performs. It takes the age of
all pending appeals into account and allows prediction of
and planning for future performance.
The measure is contingent upon OMB approval for the
data collection.
Data Source: Universe of Higher Authority Appeals.
Computation and At the close of business on the last day of each month,
Criterion: access the universe of pending Higher Authority Appeals.
Determine actual age of each pending Appeal by counting
days elapsed from the date of filing to the date of count.
Sum actual age in days of all pending Higher Authority
Appeals and divide by the total number of pending Higher
Authority Appeals to arrive at the average age.
The criterion will be determined when twelve months of
data have been recorded.
Reporting: Report the dividend, divisor, and average age as
determined by the computation.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly
10. Lower Authority Appeals Quality
Measure: Assessment of the quality of Lower Authority Appeals by
scoring a random sample of Lower Authority Appeals
decisions completed in the calendar quarter being
reviewed.
Change: None.
Data Source: Universe of Lower Authority Appeals.
Computation and Scores recorded on the data collection instrument for
Criterion: each case will be entered into the UI data base using the
ETA 9057.
The criterion is 80% of cases scoring 85% or more.
Reporting
Intervals: None.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
11. Facilitate Reemployment
Measure: Percent of UI claimants who become reemployed within
the quarter following their first UI payment.
Change: This is a new measure in UI Performs.
The measure is contingent upon OMB approval for the
data collection.
Data Source: ETA 5159 and state UI wage records.
Computation and State UI wage records will be accessed and a cross-
Criterion: match run against claimant benefits records for the
previous calendar quarter to determine the percent of
claimants who have been reemployed.
A performance goal will be deferred until data have been
collected from all states for four quarters.
Reporting
Intervals: None.
Reporting
Categories: None.
Reporting
Frequency: Quarterly.
Attachment D, Part 1 (official PDF): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2005/UIPL14-05_AttachD_Part1.pdf
Attachment D, Part 1
Comments on FRN: Proposed Changes to UI Performs
# Issue Comment DOL Response
1 Result of Changes 15 states commented on
expected results of the 5-year
review of performance
measures, as did NELP &
AFL/CIO.
Increased Focus 11 states approved of increased
focus on critical measures.
Management 5 states were glad to see that
Information Management Information would
be collected for their use,
although 1 suggested evaluating
these reports to reduce their
number.
1 state mentioned favoring
consolidation of benefits
payment time lapse.
1 state mentioned its approval of
the 21 day time lapse for all
nonmonetary determinations.
Both NELP & AFL/CIO
commented in opposition to the
changes as detrimental to the
jobless, and called attention to
reductions in funding of state
employment service operations
since 2001.
2 states agreed that further
reviews such as this one should
be planned for the future.
Regarding GPRA 2 states said that the GPRA
goals should not become
performance measures for Core (formerly “Tier I”) measures
individual states, and another are assigned a criterion that is
state questioned the logic of intended to be a floor below which
differing standards for Tier I performance must not fall, while
versus GPRA. GPRA measures set performance
goals every state should try to
SQSP 7 states favored the streamlining achieve.
of the SQSP narrative; 4 states
specifically stated that they DOL hopes to see the narratives in
disliked being required to the SQSP as concentrated
describe prevailing economic or commentary on performance
political conditions as a part of issues; however, states can
the SQSP. choose to include information on
other factors if they are contributing
CAPs 5 states and NELP addressed to performance problems.
the subject of CAPs:
# Issue Comment DOL Response
CAPs are Corrective Action Plans
1 state commented that the – they should be written to produce
cycle of UI Performs evaluation effective and appropriate actions.
does not allow sufficient time for DOL encourages states to do long-
corrective action plans to work range (multi-year) planning and to
before they are changed or include requests for technical
dropped; assistance or analysis of
operations in order to boost
1 state asked “What efforts will performance. Milestones can be
USDOL make to enforce the redesigned annually to reflect
correction of deficiencies changing performance. In many
regarding ALPs that are cases, a one-year cycle is not long
habitually covered in the SQSP enough for results to become
narratives & by CAPs but remain apparent as either successful or
below the required thresholds?” unsatisfactory.
2 states were comfortable with The proposed changes in
the plan as outlined; 1 state performance measures are in no
suggested that other approaches way a lowering or lessening of
to corrective action (including standards, and in no way will be
doing nothing) could be detrimental to jobless workers. To
considered besides CAPs. the contrary, the changes will allow
states to better focus on the most
NELP is concerned that DOL critical program areas that will
“only requires a ‘corrective promote better customer service.
action plan’ after the state has
failed to meet the criteria and DOL consistently monitors state
workers have lost out on benefits performance and works
for a substantial period. . . DOL cooperatively with the state
must do much more to fulfill its agencies to help improve
role in ensuring that workers performance. DOL takes all the
receive benefits when due . . .” steps outlined in 20 CFR Section
640.8 as needed, and will continue
to do so.
2 Nonmonetary 23 states commented on the DOL agrees that calculating time
Determinations proposed change to the lapse from the date an issue is
Timeliness measure, as did NELP. detected is the most valid measure
of state operational efficiency. (For
Issue Detection 16 states agreed that the claimants and employers, the
Date beginning parameter of detection week-ending date of the first
date makes a better measure of affected week is arguably more
nonmonetary determinations pertinent.)
timeliness than the week-ending States have been reporting time
date of the first affected week, lapse from issue detection date to
largely because issue detection determination date since January
date marks the time at which the 1997, but errors in reporting the
state has control of the disposal issue detection date remain
of the issue. unacceptably high, as verified
SWAs also feel timeliness [using through data validation carried out
w/e date] would be adversely during the nonmonetary quality
affected by backdating of claims reviews.
and other issues.
# Issue Comment DOL Response
Week-ending Date 10 states felt the change to w/e
of First Affected date of the first affected week Because commenting states
Week would penalize states for not clearly prefer to retain the
detecting issues over which they timeliness measure using detection
had no control. date, DOL will extend the use of
4 states felt they would need to this measure for a period of one
know the new criterion before performance year.
judging the measure.
3 states support combining time During that year DOL will examine
lapse measures; 1 wishes to the causes of the inaccurate
retain separate measures. reporting and determine whether
2 states felt that w/e date could reporting can be improved to an
prove a disincentive to detecting acceptable level.
potential issues.
2 states cited concerns over If issue detection date reporting
Java. accuracy cannot be improved, DOL
1 state said the proposed will revisit the issue.
measure would be an
improvement but would like
“uncontrollably” undetected
issues tracked separately under
a different standard.
1 state said it would be
negatively impacted due to
liberal backdating of claims.
1 stated that, since w/e date
requires programming changes
and training, it would be costly to
implement.* *States currently report the week-
NELP said that, in view of the ending date of the first affected
many states failing the current week on the ETA 9053.
benchmark, the current
standards should remain in
place, and more demanding
benchmarks should be adopted
to ensure timely determinations
of eligibility for benefits.
3 Nonmonetary
Determinations
Quality
On scoring 3 states concur with the proposal Scoring the samples separately
separate samples of scoring the samples and requiring that both samples
for separations & separately. independently pass validity tests
nonseparations: 2 states say the change will will result in a clearer picture of the
have no effect on them. quality of nonmonetary
2 states would prefer to continue determinations and help pinpoint
using a single weighted score. areas that require additional
1 state said the measure should attention.
match the time lapse measure,
either combined or separate.
# Issue Comment DOL Response
10 states feel that change is
On quality scoring needed in the scoring method; As part of the UI Performs review,
method: most of these states make the a state/federal nonmonetary
point that the current pass/fail determinations workgroup studied
system causes too many states the quality review system, including
to fail the quality measure the scoring system. The
because of over-emphasis on workgroup’s recommendations
detail. were issued for comment in UIPL
1 state submitted a proposal for 29-04. Changes to the review and
a revised scoring method, which scoring systems will be issued
DOL is reviewing. separately.
1 state felt that the Handbook on
Nonmonetary Quality [HB 301] All comments received related to
should be revised and that the quality review and scoring
written clarifications should be systems will be considered.
provided to questions brought up
during tripartite reviews.
On cross-regional 1 state does not see any need
reviews: for cross-regional reviews to
overcome localized bias;
1 state favors cross-regional
reviews to develop national
consistency in scoring.
On ALPs: 1 state proposed that the ALP
for nonmonetary determination
quality be adjusted annually to
reflect funding levels.
On automation: 1 state proposed increased
levels of automation in
nonmonetary determinations.
4 Lower & Higher 20 states and NELP commented The proposed measure of average
Authority Appeals on the proposed measure. age of pending appeals provides a
Timeliness more comprehensive view of
9 states commented that the states’ appeals programs. The
Average age: new measure provides better current time lapse measure
incentive for deciding all appeals provides information only on
promptly, but 1 suggested the decisions that have been made but
use of the median age rather no information about the number of
than average, and 3 requested remaining appeals nor how old
that multi-claimant appeals be those cases may be.
removed from the time lapse
universe. The measure of average age of
pending cases would create a
Need for change: 7 states felt there was no need single measure for promptness
for a change in the measure or performance and the age of the
felt the reasons for the change inventory of pending cases. While
were not convincing. it is important to know the percent
1 state did not wish to comment of cases decided within certain
without knowing the new time intervals, in the interest of
# Issue Comment DOL Response
standard. good customer service it is more
1 state felt that either the current important to know how long
or the new measure would be individuals must wait to be served.
acceptable.
AFL/CIO said that current The new measure is contingent
standards that apply to appeals upon OMB approval to collect the
timeliness should be data.
strengthened.
NELP commented that using the DOL will continue to collect and
age of pending decisions will monitor appeals time lapse data
provide information that is more currently collected.
relevant to the question of the
volume of undecided cases.
5 Detection of 14 comments on the proposed DOL will be examining the data for
Overpayments overpayment detection measure the next year to determine whether
were received from states and the proposed measure can be
from the AFL/CIO and NELP. refined. Due to anomalies found in
current data, careful scrutiny will be
Variation: 5 states commented that there is maintained to assure the
too much variation among states correctness of BAM data.
in the BAM & BPC programs for
the measure to be comparable; Also being considered is the
1 felt that the difference in possibility of applying this measure
measurement periods for the two to a rolling three-year performance
programs will make it impractical period, to bring BAM and BPC data
to implement. into focus for the same time frame.
Need for testing: 6 states suggested that the
measure needs extensive testing
and much more information
before it is implemented.
2 states were opposed to the
measure because of the
unknown degree of confidence
in reporting and an unpredictable
range of error in calculating
results .
2 states said they approve the
measure, and 1 other would
approve if it were expanded to
include underpayments and
wrongful denials
2 states would attempt to apply
the measure if they were given
adequate budgetary allotments
to do so.
1 state withheld comment
because the measurement
criterion is unknown.
# Issue Comment DOL Response
1 state is uncertain what
corrective action could be taken
should their performance be
judged inadequate.
1 state feels it should be allowed
to use collection agencies to The proposed measure is the
pursue overpayments. detection, not the collection, of
1 state suggests that the overpayments. The first step
emphasis should be much more toward prevention is detection.
on prevention of overpayments.
1 state recommends that the DOL is in the process of making
measure not be enacted until performance data available on the
software is available to track ETA Web site.
performance in a timely manner.
Employer audit: AFL/CIO feels DOL has not Employer integrity is of great
focused sufficiently on employer concern to DOL.
fraud as a cause of OP and that Employers are subject to audit
DOL should do more to establish through the Tax Performance
standards related to System; approximately 110,000
underpayments due to misclassified employees are
improperly denied benefits. discovered and corrected through
NELP feels that the “Proposed the states’ audit program annually.
Program Integrity Standards Are
Unbalanced Against Workers. . . BAM currently tracks and reports
DOL [should] require states to underpayments and also samples
do a better job reducing the denied claims for correctness.
hundreds of millions of dollars in
benefits that are underpaid
today’s worker, and more
aggressively address the
problem of program integrity as
applied to employers who fail to
pay their fair share of
unemployment taxes. . . “
6 Facilitate 25 states commented, plus
Reemployment NELP & AFL/CIO.
1 state was in favor of the
proposed measure.
24 states, NELP and AFL/CIO
were against the proposed
measure.
Role of economy, 13 states commented In addition to providing benefits to
seasonality extensively regarding the large unemployed workers, the UI
role of the economy and of system has a responsibility to
seasonality adjustments with facilitate worker reemployment.
respect to the proposed This is evidenced in states’ “able
measure, saying that even ES and available” requirements that UI
# Issue Comment DOL Response
can’t get claimants reemployed beneficiaries be both able to work
when there are no jobs and available to work; the worker
available. profiling requirement; and the
requirement in the Social Security
A new focus for UI 10 states responded that the UI Act that UI benefits be paid
role is to pay benefits when due through public employment offices.
and to collect employer The UI system is uniquely situated
contributions; that the monies to facilitate reemployment by
funding UI are expressly devoted conducting eligibility reviews and
to those purposes and cannot be enforcing state requirements that
legally used to fund ES UI beneficiaries seek and accept
functions. suitable work.
ES registration 9 states felt that claimants DOL plans to continue to seek
should be registered with ES required approvals to collect
and that there are measures of reemployment data.
reemployment funded there.
Outside UI 8 states expressed the opinion
Control that reemployment is an activity
which is totally outside UI
control.
How to measure 4 states inquired about what UI The reemployment measure will
function or action would be take into account economic
measured with reference to conditions when setting criteria.
claimants’ reemployment.
4 states added that if
reemployment is to be measured
with respect to UI, it should at
most be a Management
Information measure.
3 states asked what research
information was used in the
development of the proposed
measurement.
1 state suggested that the
measure should use the
unemployment rate as a
measure.
Effect on NELP expressed concern that DOL disagrees that the measure
claimants claimants will be forced to will force claimants to accept
accept unsuitable work because unsuitable work. The measure in
of the new measure; longer no way lessens claimants’ benefits
unemployment is a product of rights which protect claimants from
the labor market and not the losing benefits for not accepting
fault of the jobless. unsuitable employment.
AFL/CIO commented similarly,
that claimants would be forced
into unsuitable work in a weak
economy and that providing
# Issue Comment DOL Response
temporary replacement income
is the core purpose of UI.
7 First Payment 13 states and NELP commented DOL acknowledges that conditions
Promptness on the measure. exist which make some first
payments take longer than others;
13 states support the proposed that is why the criterion is set at
measure, less than 100%.
Interstate causes 5 with the caveat that interstate
problems and intrastate should be
measured separately due to
problems with CWC and IB
claims.
Multi-claimant 2 states feel that Labor Disputes
issues and other multi-claimant issues
cause negative effects on first
payments and should be
excluded from the measure.
1 state explained that high levels
of UCFE & UCX claims as well
as interstate negatively affect
time lapse.
NELP commented that claimants The proposed measure does not
often have need for immediate reduce incentives to pay claims
wage replacement or they may quickly – it broadens the scope of
face extreme hardship, and the the existing first payment
first payment timeliness timeliness measure to include
requirement forces SWAs to pay every type of claim but workshare.
quickly.
8 Effective Date for 2 states asked that The first SQSP affected will be for
Implementing implementation of the proposed FY 2006 that states will complete
Changes measures not begin until all during the summer of 2005.
states are reporting with
knowledge of the proposed
standards.
Attachment D, Part 2 (official PDF): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2005/UIPL14-05_AttachD_Part2.pdf
Attachment D, Part 2
Comments on FRN: Proposed Changes to UI Performs
Issue Comment DOL Response
Tax A total of 34 states provided comments regarding
Performance proposed changes to UI Performs. Of those, 24
Measures had comments relating to tax performance
measures: 9 were supportive of the tax
performance measures; 2 were supportive but
questioned the Tax Performance Systems’ Posting
sections (which have been removed); 1 requested
more information; and 12 had varying concerns
which are listed below.
Overarching 4 states supported the new measure of tax quality, Agree. These measures of tax
Comments overall. 1 said, “We believe that these standards quality are the product of
are reasonable measures of the timeliness and due extensive state and Federal
processes of the program’s employer accounts interaction.
function.”
General 1 state urged DOL to “sync up the program A decision was made to continue
Concerns re: performance timeframes of UI Performs to TPS. A measuring TPS by CY (January
Implementation similar measure with differing timelines would be through December) due to the
inefficient.” Another state added: “We would like to program’s structure and sampling
see that UI Performs and TPS operate on the same frames. The SQSP measurement
performance year…calendar years are easiest, but period must remain on an April
a consistent period would be better…” through March timeframe due to
its relationship to the Federal
funding process.
2 other states raised concerns that measurement The decision was made to have
should only begin “after sufficient time has been states address failures in the
provided to implement the changes…until after the narrative for the FY ’06 SQSP.
beginning of the next measurement period.” The
other state said, “We request that the date of
implementation be pushed back to FY 2007.”
1 state was in general agreement with the new tax
TPS Sample: measure but strongly objected if three or more There is little subjectivity in
Stringency of failures out of a total of 60 cases cause failure of deciding whether a status
pass/fail (3 or + that tax function. It wanted to allow up to 5 failures determination or tax rate is
fails out of 60 before the tax function fails because it saw TPS as accurate or not. In addition, TPS
cases = failure) subjective, open to interpretation. Another state accuracy levels were set by state
said that a stringency level of 3 failures combined Tax Administrators, in the early
with having to focus on all samples would be unduly 90’s, who wanted to be made
burdensome. aware whenever any major tax
outputs were processed
inaccurately. The emphasis was
on identifying problems before
they became too large.
Issue Comment DOL Response
3 respondents were concerned that non-substantive
TPS Sample: posting errors such as misspellings could cause Agree. These sections have
Accuracy in failure. 1 asked that posting sections of New Status, been removed from TPS. Only a
posting non- Successorship and Inactivation be removed from few, material posting questions
substantive Tier I. “Either allow 4 or 5 samples to fail or make it remain. All non substantive
data. less restrictive.” questions have been removed
and will not be used in UI
Performs measures.
3 states agreed with stringency level of no more
Tax Accuracy than 3 failures out of 13 tax functions/ samples. Agree.
Measure: One said this “…calculates to be approx. a 25%
Stringency of level of failure, which would equate to a 75%
allowing 3 passing rate…in alignment with other UI Performs
failures out of quality standards such as BTQ.”
13 samples
However, 1 state said it was too rigid because there
are a “maximum of 16 different samples reviewed.” Only 13 samples are reviewed,
Another state said that the number of samples and one, (Experience Rate) is
allowed to fail should be raised from two to four in only sampled once every 4
“consideration of the high number of sampling years. The number of sampling
categories…” categories should have little
bearing on the level of accuracy
expected.
Another respondent noted that with the Cashiering
tax function blended in as one of the 13 samples, This is true unless or until the
the states could pass the tax quality measure while Cashiering function failed three
failing to meet Cashiering timeliness requirement, consecutive years.
as long as less than three tax functions out of 13
passed TPS review.
2 states agreed with this standard. However,
another state said that only if two or more tax A state will have two years to
functions failed for three consecutive years should a correct a process problem that
CAP apply. caused the particular tax sample
to fail in both years. Therefore, it
seems reasonable to expect a
Corrective Action Plan if the
sample fails for 3 consecutive
years.
2 states said that not all 13 tax functions should be
Tax Accuracy considered Tier I. 1 state said that only 4 of the 13 The 13 samples represent the 13
Measure: samples were important enough to warrant Tier I major UI tax functions. They are
Stringency of status (Status, New and Successor, Report interrelated and operate together
not allowing a Processing, and Cashiering) and that the rest as a fully functioning UI tax
sample to fail should be Management Information (MI). Another system. Attempts have been
for 3 noted that tax functions previously identified as MI made, but no particular tax
consecutive or Core measure should remain as such and not be function/s could be extracted as
years lumped together. One state recommended the 70% being more significant than the
timeliness measure and Status accuracy measure others (and consistently so,
as the only Core measures. between states). The proposal is
to compute one single measure
Issue Comment DOL Response
of Tax Accuracy from these 13
tax functions. They will still be
used as Management
Information on an individual
basis.
3 states supported the combining of all 13 TPS tax
Tax Accuracy functions into one measure of Tax performance: Agree. Data on all 13 tax
Measure: “This measure is an improvement over the current functions is already being
Which Tax measure. It raises the overall quality measure to a gathered. For purposes of UI
Functions to Tier I measure without increasing the number of Performs, only ONE number will
Include as Core measures & reporting burden” and it “…agrees with represent the Tax Accuracy
Measures the consideration of quality measures and not just Measure, not 13.
timeliness values…Incorporating TPS into the mix
is a good idea.”
However, 1 respondent thought that the same
measures will be applied to Core measures and to The measures will still be used
MI measures, “Either measure Tax Quality as Management Information but
collectively as a Core Measure…or use the will also be combined into one
acceptance sample results as a Management Core measure of Tax Accuracy.
Information Measure. They should not be used for
both.”
Another state indicated that it is too stringent, “while
Tax Accuracy being substantially broadened from 1 to 11 tax All major tax functions are
Measure: functions…the proposed measure will subject the currently subject to a yearly
Number of ALP to 11 areas of the TPS review…” 2 other review. It is proposed that they
Measures states said that the net effect will be to increase the are now each 1/13th of one total
number of Core Measures - in contradiction to the score that represents the
goal of reducing the number of performance Accuracy side of a state’s Tax
measures. Another had concerns about having to Performance, and as a “Core”
write a separate CAP for each failed sample since measure, more important. The 3
one all-encompassing CAP “is unrealistic.” It fails allowed out of 13 samples is
suggested that CAPs only be required for samples very permissive; CAPs should be
that fail 3 years in a row. expected if a state can’t meet a
75% passing rate.
Finally, 1 state, while agreeing with combining 13
tax functions into one measure, had concerns that a Oversight of UI tax is vital, no
separate department of state government controlled matter what entity is responsible
data entry and that the tax unit had no control over for the actual process.
their rate of error.
Cashiering 2 states agreed with the 90% deposited within three This measures the time it takes
Measure days criterion. A state reminded that, at one time, to deposit received funds into the
there was support for compensating balances and state clearing account. It has
that these arrangements have become attractive to been in place for many years and
states. the vast majority of states have
little difficulty in passing the
Cashiering measure.
Issue Comment DOL Response
1 state noted that the next two measures The Trust Fund measures are in
(transferred into the Trust Fund and drawdown from place but are not Core measures.
the TF), were important and now appear to be If DOL found that a state was
missing. failing to meet the requirements
for transfer to the Trust Fund,
DOL would work with the state to
remedy the problem.
Tax Timeliness 4 states agreed with the 70% level. 1 added that “by This measure was carefully
Measure: focusing on just the 90 day level, states may tend reviewed, and it was found that
Timeliness of not to place emphasis on those that are beyond the the national average has held
Status 90 days…continue to monitor the 70% level to see steady from 1998 (78%) to 2002
Determinations if the rating was set high enough…” Another state (81%). It appears that a vast
thought that a focus on timeliness and reduction of majority of states would have
status determination accuracy to 1/13 its value little difficulty passing this
would drive down the accuracy levels. A different measure at a criterion of 70%.
state said, “Leave the percentage at 60%!” Zero (0) states scored below
60% in 2002 and only seven (7)
scored below 70% in that year.
In addition, the 60% benchmark
was 20% less than the GPRA
goal. It now remains 10% below
the GPRA goal. Regarding
determinations made beyond 90
days – this data is still captured
as part of the MI system.
Another state added that the time should begin from This could discourage states
the date notice is filed by an employer and from the from being proactive in searching
date the agency detects employer liability. out and identifying new
employers.
What does federal law require in your situation?
Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers 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