Back to Federal guidance
Appeals case age and determination quality performance criteria
Summary ETA set performance criteria for the average age of pending unemployment appeals: 30 days for lower authority and 40 days for higher authority, measured at the performance year end. It also clarified nonmonetary determination quality review and reminded states that existing appeals promptness regulations still apply. ETA lists the change as Active.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 14-05, Change 3
Date issued
April 16, 2008
Status
Active
ETA lists this change Active as of 2026-10-24 and its PDF prints “Continuing.” Its attachments include updated measures; the linked Attachment B PDF states that no Attachment B exists.
Status last verified October 24, 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.
UIPL14-05_Ch3_508.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2008/UIPL14-05_Ch3_508.pdf)
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING UI Performs
ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OWS/DPM
Washington, D.C. 20210 DATE
April 16, 2008
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 14-05,
CHANGE 3
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: BRENT R. ORRELL /s/
Acting Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALP) Criteria for Appeals Case Aging
Measures and Nonmonetary Determination Quality Review
1. Purpose. To inform states of the acceptable levels of performance criteria for the
average age of pending lower and higher authority appeals core measures, to
update the current minimum passing score for nonmonetary cases and the sampling
rules for the measure of nonmonetary determinations quality. This is also to remind
states that the regulatory requirements remain in effect for lower authority appeals
promptness.
2. References. 20 CFR 650.4(b); UIPL No. 14-05, Changes to UI Performs, dated
February 18, 2005; UIPL No. 14-05, Change 1, Performance Criterion for the
Overpayment Detection Method; Clarification of Appeals Timeliness Measures; and
Implementation of Tax Quality Measure Corrective Action Plans (CAPs), dated
October 12, 2005; UIPL No. 14-05, Change 2, Performance Criteria for Appeals Case
Aging Measures and the Starting Date for Measuring Nonmonetary Determinations
Time Lapse; Handbook 301, 5th Edition – UI Performs: Benefits Timeliness and
Quality (BTQ) Nonmonetary Determinations Quality Review, Revised July, 2005;
and ET Handbook 401, 4th Edition.
3. Background. UIPL No. 14-05 and UIPL 14-05, Changes 1 and 2, described changes
to the UI Performs performance management system, some of which required
additional data collection and analysis. At the time of these issuances, the ALPs for
the average age of pending appeals for both lower authority appeals and higher
authority appeals were deferred until sufficient data had been collected. States were
advised of the instructions for the data collection in Handbook 401, Change 13,
dated April 18, 2005. States were also advised to begin reporting the new data
elements for the month of June 2005. In UIPL No. 14-05, Change 2, states were
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
None Continuing
requested to review and comment on the proposed case aging ALPs for lower
authority and higher authority appeals. All states have successfully reported data
on the average age of both lower and higher authority appeals for at least 12
months.
4. Highlights of the Comments. Sixteen states responded, and most addressed both
lower authority and higher authority appeals in their comments. The comments fell
into several categories: overall support or opposition, the level of performance that
has been proposed, the measurement itself, effective date, quality concerns, and
alternative measures. Although comments received about specific aspects were
mixed, states’ comments were generally favorable regarding a case aging measure
for lower authority and higher authority appeals. Overall nine states support the
measure, and two states oppose it. One state offered support for the measure for
lower authority and opposition for higher authority; support or opposition was not
expressed by four states.
The proposals that generated the most comments are discussed briefly below along
with the Department of Labor’s (DOL) responses. See Attachment A, for specific
comments and DOL’s response. All comments were considered in making the final
changes to the case aging ALP.
a. Acceptable Average Age. Of the 16 states responding, eight states commented on
the 30 day ALP for lower authority appeals case aging. Four states generally
regarded the proposed criterion as achievable; three states wanted an increase in
the number of days for lower authority. One state suggested setting the criterion
at fewer than 30 days.
The proposed 40 day average age criterion for higher authority appeals was of
more concern to the commentators. Eight states believe that the higher authority
appeals case aging ALP should be less stringent. Suggestions for a change to the
number of days ranged from “greater than 40” to a maximum of 60 days.
DOL Response: One of the cornerstones of the unemployment insurance system
is promptness. Appeals should be scheduled as quickly as administratively
possible. Delays in processing appeals may cause hardship for the parties and
can lead to overpayments.
The data indicate that most states can meet the ALPs that have been set. For
calendar year 2007, the national average age for pending lower authority cases
was 39.4 days. This national average age is inflated by four states where the
average age exceeds 50 days. Most states, however, dispose of appeals more
quickly. The average age of pending lower authority appeals in 36 states was 30
or fewer days, and the average age in 15 of those states was fewer than 20 days.
Processing time for higher authority appeals is longer than for lower authority
appeals. For calendar year 2007, the national average age for pending cases was
61.4 days. This reflects very high average ages in three states. However, in 30
states the average age of higher authority appeals was 38 or fewer days, and the
average age of appeals in 11 of those states was under 20 days.
To view the state rankings of core measures, visit DOL’s Web site at:
http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/ranking.asp
b. Alternative Measure. Six states commented that there should be an alternative
measure. Some suggested that a sliding scale be developed taking into account
caseload, resource limitations and economic conditions. Other states wanted
these variables as part of the measurement, with one state calling for a multiple
regression model. Another state suggested a two-step measure, with two
standards being established depending on the administrative rules of the state.
DOL Response: In order to ensure comparability across states and to afford
claimants in all states the same expectation of timely disposition of their appeals,
a single ALP for case aging has been implemented for this measure.
c. Effective Date. Two states wanted the effective date of the measure
reconsidered. Both states thought that April 1, 2007, was too soon and more
discussion on the proposed measurement was necessary.
DOL Response: The effective date of the measure was changed to April 1, 2008, to
provide states more time to develop the necessary systems for collecting and
reporting the required data.
5. Average Age of Pending Lower Authority and Higher Authority Appeals. UIPL
No. 14-05, defines the new Core Measure for lower and higher authority appeals --
Average Age of Pending Appeals, as the average number of days unresolved single
claimant cases are pending. Because the measurement methodology was new, ETA
deferred setting acceptable levels of performance until data for the measure could be
assessed. The full definition and the ALPs for the measure are presented below:
a. Measurement. The measure is the average age of all pending single-claimant
appeals at the end of the measurement period. Lower authority appeals and
higher authority appeals are each measured using the following methodology.
• The average age of unresolved cases is calculated by first determining
the number of days each unresolved appeals case has been pending.
• Next, the total number of days for all unresolved cases is obtained by
summing the ages of the pending cases.
• Finally, the total number of days is divided by the number of unresolved
cases to produce the average case age.
For example, if a state had 500 cases unresolved on the last day of the
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+4,000+1,750+21,000 for a total of 27,500 days. 27,500/500 =55
days average age.
b. Acceptable Level of Performance. The ALPs for the average age of appeals are:
• Lower Authority Appeals: 30 days
• Higher Authority Appeals: 40 days
To determine whether the ALPs have been met, the average age of pending
appeals will be measured as of March 31, the last day of the performance year.
Using the average as of March 31, avoids the possibility of good performance in
the early part of the twelve month period masking poor performance late in the
period. It also avoids the need for corrective action plans (CAPs) if poor
performance in the early part of the year has been remedied by the end of the
period.
c. Implementation Date. The ALPs for the lower authority appeals and higher
authority appeals case aging measures are effective for Performance Year 2009
(April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009) and thereafter. States that do not meet the ALPs
for this period will be expected to submit CAPs with their Performance Year 2010
State Quality Service Plan (SQSP).
6. Regulatory Requirements for Appeals Promptness. The regulatory requirements
for lower authority appeals promptness are found in 20 CFR Part 650.4(b). These
requirements remain in effect, and failure to meet them will require corrective
action. These requirements are:
60% of Lower Authority Appeals decided within 30 Days of Filing
80% of Lower Authority Appeals decided within 45 Days of Filing
7. Nonmonetary Determination Quality Review. As part of the review of UI
Performs, DOL convened a federal/state workgroup to study and recommend
changes to the Benefits Timeliness and Quality (BTQ) nonmonetary determination
quality review. DOL issued a revised BTQ nonmonetary determinations review
handbook (Handbook 301, 5th Edition) July 29, 2005, to include changes resulting
from the study. To assure consistency, the descriptions of Core Measure No. 5,
“Nonmonetary Determination Quality: Separation Issues” and Core Measure No 6,
“Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Nonseparation Issues” in attachment C to
UIPL No. 14-05 have been modified to clarify the minimum passing score for each
case in the quality review, and provide instructions for assuring an adequate sample
size when case materials cannot be found.
8. Action. State Administrators are requested to:
a. Distribute this document to all appropriate SWA staff.
b. In UIPL No. 14-05, replace Core Measures: Page 5 “Nonmonetary
Determinations Quality: Separation Issues,” Core Measures: Page 6
“Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Nonseparation Issues,” Core Measures:
Page 8 “Average Age of Pending Lower Authority Appeals,” and Page 9
“Average Age of Pending Higher Authority Appeals” in Attachment C with the
attached Core Measures pages.
9. Inquiries. Direct inquiries to the appropriate regional office.
10. Attachments.
Attachment A - Comments on the Proposed Acceptable Level of Performance for
Appeals Case Aging Measures.
Note - There is no attachment B to this UIPL No 14-05, Change 3
Attachment C - UIPL No. 14-05 contained an Attachment C, Core Measures. Below
are replacement pages to Attachment C of UIPL No. 14-05, dated February 15, 2005:
- Page 5 Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Separation Issues
- Page 6 Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Nonseparation Issues
- Page 8 Average Age of Pending Lower Authority Appeals
- Page 9 Average Age of Pending Higher Authority Appeals
UIPL14-05_ch3_attachA.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2008/UIPL14-05_ch3_attachA.pdf)
Attachment A
Comments on the Proposed Acceptable Level of Performance for Appeals Case Aging Measures
# Issue Comment DOL Response
1 Acceptable Several states commented on the level of One of the hallmarks of the
Average Age the acceptable average age, for both lower unemployment insurance system
authority appeals and higher authority is timeliness. Parties deserve
appeals. Regarding the measure for timely determinations and
lower authority appeals the comments appeals. Delays in processing
ranged from being achievable but claims or appeals may cause
difficult, to too high and too low. hardships for the parties when
they are most in need.
Three states wanted the measure for
lower authority changed. One state A review of states statistics show
suggested 35 or 40 days as acceptable, 38 states achieving the measure
while another recommended 40 days. for lower authority and 34 states
One state wanted a change on the upper for higher authority in April, 2007.
limits of acceptable, while another
thought that the level was too low.
Similar comments were made regarding
the level of acceptable average age in
higher authority. The acceptable average
age for higher authority appeals was a
greater concern than for lower authority.
One state proposed 50 days, while
another thought 58 days was more
appropriate. Two states suggested a 60
day acceptable average age; while two
others thought that the average age
needed to be raised but did not offer a
suggestion.
2 Measure Three states suggested that quantifiers be There has been concern for several
used with the measure. One state years that the timeliness measure
proposed additional variables including was not adequately addressed in
population, economic base, annual the Secretary’s standards for time
caseload, unemployment rate, decision- lapse.
making tribunals and other procedural
safeguards be part of the measure. States need to move towards the
first in, first out concept regarding
Another state suggested a sliding scale the appeals caseload.
based on UI rate, number of annual
dispositions, or some other figure that
would determine the relative capacity of
the state’s ability to hear the cases.
Attachment A
Comments on the Proposed Acceptable Level of Performance for Appeals Case Aging Measures
# Issue Comment DOL Response
2 Measure One state commented that a multiple Allowing more than age in the
regression model should be developed formula for the measure would
for the measure. lead to confounding the data and
more errors regarding the
One state advocated for a flexible measurement.
measure that would consider workload
fluctuations. Additional variables could
confound the measure with
Another state suggested that the measure extraneous information that does
be developed to take into account for the not impact the ability to hear cases
time that the appeals authority actually timely.
has to hear a case.
Multiple variables in the measure
Three states commented that the would also hinder the analysis
proposed measure disadvantages states that could be performed.
with high workloads.
The simplicity of the proposed
Five states expressed concern that measure allows a common ground
meeting the measure would be difficult for all states and allows for better
because of the state’s criteria set in law or comparisons across regions and
statute that require cases to be held for a states.
given number of days, or require a certain
number of days before a response may be
given.
Three states were concerned that the
measure was developed in good
economic times.
3 Effective Date Two states requested a reconsideration of The formal implementation of the
of Measure the April 1, 2007 effective date for the measure will occur on April 1,
measure. The states thought that more 2008.
discussion on the proposed measurement
was necessary.
4 Quality Two states are concerned about the It has been established that
Concerns quality of the process. The states believe backlog of cases not the time to
if the effort is centered on doing cases hear them impacts the quality of
fast, the integrity of the system would be the hearing. States that have case
compromised and quality would suffer. backlogs are more likely to have
dips in quality than those states
that do not have sizeable backlogs.
Attachment A
Comments on the Proposed Acceptable Level of Performance for Appeals Case Aging Measures
# Issue Comment DOL Response
4 Quality Another state commented that due It is important to preserve the due
Concerns process would be compromised if there process of the parties within the
was not sufficient time to follow the confines of the measures. States
procedures in regulation in some states to consistently apply due process to
ensure due process protections. the appeals procedures.
5 Alternative Two states were concerned that the A median is a measure of the
Measure measurement was not correct. One state midpoint of data, while a mean is
commented that the median rather than the average of the data. A median
the mean should be used. measure does not capture the data
that is necessary to determine the
One state proposed a two-tier measure length of time cases are pending.
because of their regulatory requirement
for a hearing of right. It would be difficult to compare
states and regions with the
additional factors to be
considered.
6 One Time One state was concerned that a one-time A point in time measurement
Measurement only measurement taken in the last day of gives the snapshot of where the
the performance year would not yield an state is on timeliness. This does
accurate measure of the state’s not preclude the SWA from taking
performance. The state suggested that additional measures to determine
the measurement be taken periodically where they are in their timeliness.
(e.g. monthly or quarterly) and the An average of several measures is
measure becomes the average of these less reliable for how timely the
multiple measurements. hearing process is.
7 Other Two states were concerned about how the The measure has been introduced
measure had been vetted. and discussed in various formats
on many occasions since the mid-
One state commented that the 1990s.
requirement to submit a corrective action
plan for failure to meet the ALP may be
compromised by the provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code and the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which
expressly provide for a stay of
proceedings, such as unemployment
appeals under certain circumstances.
UIPL14-05_ch3_attachB.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2008/UIPL14-05_ch3_attachB.pdf)
There is no attachment B to UIPL 14-05, Change 3.
UIPL14-05_ch3_attachC.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2008/UIPL14-05_ch3_attachC.pdf)
Attachment C
Core Measures
5. Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Separation Issues
Measure: Assessment of the quality of nonmonetary determinations
dealing with separation issues.
Change: The passing score for each case must be 95 points or higher.
States must increase the sample size in subsequent quarters to
make up for instances of “case material not found.”
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. Sample size is
increased in the subsequent quarter by the same number of any
instances of “case material not found.” 75% of the cases must
score 95 points or higher. Invalid cases, those out of the 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
Revised 2007
Attachment C
Core Measures
6. Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Nonseparation Issues
Measure: Assessment of the quality of nonmonetary determinations
dealing with nonseparation issues.
Change: The passing score for each case must be 95 points or higher.
States must increase the sample size in subsequent quarters to
make up for instances of “case material not found.”
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 nonseparation
Criterion: determinations drawn from the universe. Sample size is
determined by the number of nonmonetary determinations
completed in the previous calendar year. Sample size is
increased in the subsequent quarter by the same number of any
instances of “case material not found.” 75% of the cases must
score 95 points or higher. Invalid cases, those out of the 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
Revised 2007
Attachment C
Core Measures
8. Average Age of Pending Lower Authority Appeals
Measure: The mean and median of all pending single-claimant Lower
Authority Appeals.
Change: This measure is new in UI Performs. It takes the age of all
pending single-claimant appeals into account and allows
prediction of and planning for future performance.
Data Source: Universe of pending single-claimant Lower Authority Appeals,
ETA 9055.
Computation and At the close of business on the last day of each month, access
Criterion: the universe of pending single-claimant Lower Authority
Appeals. Determine actual age of each pending single-
claimant Lower Authority Appeal by counting days elapsed
from the date of filing to the date of count. Sum actual age in
days of all pending single-claimant Lower Authority Appeals
and divide by the total number of pending Lower Authority
Appeals to arrive at the average age.
Determine the median age of all pending single-claimant lower
authority appeals using the following formula.
If all of the pending appeals cases (lower or higher authority)
are ranked from the lowest to the highest age, the median is the
age of the case at the midpoint of the ranked cases. If there is
an odd number of cases (n), the median is the age of the
[(n+1)/2] th case. If there is an even number of cases (n), the
median is the value midway between the age of the (n/2) th case
and the [(n/2)+1] th case.
The ALP for the Average Age of Pending Lower Authority
Appeals will be based on the mean measure and is set at 30 or
fewer days. State Workforce Agencies are to continue to
submit median data to assist in the data analysis. The ALP will
be measured on March 31 of the Performance Year.
Reporting: Report the average age and median age as determined by the
above computations.
Reporting
Categories: None
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly
Revised 2007
Attachment C
Core Measures
9. Average Age of Pending Higher Authority Appeals.
Measure: The mean and median of all pending single-claimant Higher
Authority Appeals.
Change: This measure is new in UI Performs. It takes the age of all
single-claimant pending appeals into account and allows
prediction of and planning for future performance.
Data Source: Universe of pending single-claimant Higher Authority
Appeals, ETA 9055.
Computation and At the close of business on the last day of each month, access
Criterion: the universe of pending single-claimant Higher Authority
Appeals. Determine actual age of each pending single-
claimant Higher Authority Appeal by counting days elapsed
from the date of filing to the date of count.
Sum actual age in days of all pending single-claimant Higher
Authority Appeals and divide by the total number of pending
single-claimant Higher Authority Appeals to arrive at the
average age.
Determine the median age of all pending single-claimant
higher authority appeals using the following formula.
If all of the pending appeals cases (lower or higher authority)
are ranked from the lowest to the highest age, the median is the
age of the case at the midpoint of the ranked cases. If there is
an odd number of cases (n), the median is the age of the
[(n+1)/2] th case. If there is an even number of cases (n), the
median is the value midway between the age of the (n/2) th case
and the [(n/2)+1]th case.
The ALP for the Average Age of Pending Higher Authority
Appeals will be based on the mean measure and is set at 40 or
fewer days. State Workforce Agencies are to continue to
submit median data to assist in the data analysis. The ALP will
be measured on March 31 of the Performance Year.
Reporting: Report the average age and median age as determined by the
above computations.
Reporting
Categories: None
Reporting
Frequency: Monthly
Revised 2007
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