Back to Federal guidance
Revisions to unemployment benefit data validation handbook
Summary ETA revised the benefits portion of its unemployment insurance Data Validation Handbook. It changed how states build the Population 5 file for nonmonetary determinations and made technical corrections, with replacement pages attached. ETA lists this change as Active.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 17-10, Change 1
Date issued
July 29, 2011
Status
Active
ETA lists this change Active as of 2026-10-24, and the PDF prints “Continuing” in its expiration field.
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.
UIPL17-10_Chg1acc.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2011/UIPL17-10_Chg1acc.pdf)
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION Unemployment Insurance
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
OUI/DPM
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DATE
Washington, D.C. 20210 July 29, 2011
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 17-10
Change 1
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: JANE OATES /s/
Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Revisions to the State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Data Validation (DV)
Handbook, Benefits
1. Purpose. To transmit a revision of the Benefits portion of the UI DV Handbook, Employment
and Training (ET) Handbook No. 361.
2. References. ET Handbook No. 361, “UI Data Validation Handbook” (Benefits, July 11,
2008); Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 17-10, “Revisions to the State
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Data Validation (DV) Handbook, Benefits,” March 8, 2010;
UIPL No. 1-11, “Issuance of State Unemployment Insurance Data Validation Operations Guide
(ET Operations Guide 411),” October 22, 2010.
3. Background. UI DV is necessary to ensure that data reported by states and used for
measuring performance, for administrative funding allocations, for economic analysis, and for
other purposes, are accurate and comparable across states. A revised version of the UI DV
Benefits Handbook was issued in March 2010 and the Tax Handbook in June 2011. Portions of
the 2008 editions of the Benefits and Tax Handbooks were moved to the DV Operations Guide
issued in October 2010.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved ET Handbook No. 361, “UI Data
Validation Handbook” (OMB control No. 1205-0431), for use through July 31, 2011. The
public reporting burden for the collection of information has not changed, and a three-year
extension of this collection is pending.
4. Handbook Modification Summary. The Benefits portion of the Handbook has been revised
to change the procedures to be used when building the Population 5 extract file and to make
technical corrections to the handbook. The changes are summarized below:
Population 5, Nonmonetary Determinations. When building the Population 5 extract file,
the state must build either: (a) a record for each claimant denied in a multiclaimant
nonmonetary determination or (b) a record for each denial determination. If (a) is
chosen, the number of claimants denied in nonmonetary determinations will be properly
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
None Continuing
validated but not the count of determinations; if (b) is chosen, the number of
determinations will be validated properly. Existing notes to Population 5 instruct states
to build a record for each denied claimant. With this change, states are now being
instructed to build a record for each denial determination. This will allow the counts of
determinations on both the ETA 207 (Group 5.04) and on the ETA 9052 (Group 5.10)
reports to be validated properly. The determination counts are part of the nonmonetary
determinations workload counts, and the 9052 counts are used as benchmark counts for
one of the Module 4 universes. Thus, it is more important to validate those counts.
Technical corrections have been made to an Appendix A note for Population 3; to
Appendix A tables for Population 5 and 12; to the cut-off value for errors to pass a
random sample of size 60/200 in Appendix B; and to a template in Module 4 to make it
clearer that the Separations and Nonseparations quality sample reviews are separate.
The technical corrections to the Handbook are effective immediately; the procedure change
should be made for any Population 5 extract files built for Validation Year 2012 and subsequent
validations.
5. Action Requested. Distribute attached pages (4.6, A.18, A.42, A.44, A.71, and B.2) to all
holders of ET Handbook No. 361, “UI Data Validation Handbook, Benefits,” dated November
2009. Users should remove existing pages and replace them with the attached. States should
review these changes and adjust their procedures, as necessary.
6. Inquiries. All questions should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office.
7. Attachments. ET Handbook No. 361, “UI Data Validation Handbook,” Benefits, page 4.6;
Appendix A, pages A.18, A.42, A.44, and A.71; and Appendix B, page B.2.
UIPL17-10_Chg1a.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2011/UIPL17-10_Chg1a.pdf)
Attachment
SUBPOPULATION SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A
in which the new claim was filed, the claim will be reported on the ETA 5159, but
there will be no monetary status reported on the ETA 218 for the quarter being
validated. These claims are assigned to subpopulations 3.7 (new intrastate), 3.14
(new interstate), and 3.31 (transitional).
B) When the original monetary determination was sent during the quarter being
validated but the claim was filed during the previous quarter, the monetary status
will be reported on the ETA 218, but there will be no claim reported on the ETA
5159 for the quarter being validated. These monetary determinations are assigned
to subpopulations 3.40 through 3.45, depending on their monetary status.
3. Reporting Criteria
The ETA 5159 report criteria and procedures for building claims extract files are as follows:
The date the claim was filed or processed determines the reporting on the 5159.
Assign a claim type category (new, transitional, or additional) and sort into the
categories in Column 4.
Assign an intrastate or interstate category based on the liable and agent state(s) and
sort into the categories in Column 7.
Assign a program type (UI, UCFE, or UCX) based on the wages present on the most
recent monetary determination at the time the report program is run and sort into
the categories in Column 6. If no wages were found, assign the program type based
on the type of claim filed. Follow the current program type hierarchy (any UI
wages are UI; any UCFE wages without UI are UCFE; and UCX wages are only
UCX).
The following table shows how various types of claims are assigned to the reporting
categories on the 5159 report based on the type of claim and the intra/interstate type.
Table A.3.5
Mapping of Claim Types to ETA 5159 Report Items
New
Intrastate Interstate Interstate Interstate
Excluding Additional Filed from Taken as Received as
Transitional Intrastate Agent State Agent State Transitional Liable State
Type of
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Claim
New X X X X
Transitional X X X
Additional X X X X
Reopen X X
UI DV HANDBOOK, BENEFITS A.18 JULY 2011
SUBPOPULATION SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A
Table A.5.2
Relationship between ETA 207Reporting Cells and Subpopulations in Population 5
Total
207 SECTION A Determinations and
Redeterminations Determinations Redeterminations Multi-labor Multi-other
(1) (2) (3) (5) (6)
UI Dets 101 1-36 65-66 61-62 63-64
UI Denials 102 19-36 66 62 64
37-52
UCFE Dets 103
67-68
45-52
UCFE Denials 104
68
53-60
UCX Dets 105
69-70
57-60
UCX Denials 106
70
Total Seps VL MC Other Separations
207 SECTION B (7) (8) (9) (10)
1, 10 2, 11 3, 12
UI Dets 201
19, 28 20, 29 21, 30
UI Denials 202 19, 28 20, 29 21, 30
37, 41 38, 42 39, 43
UCFE Dets 203
45, 49 46, 50 47, 51
UCFE Denials 204 45, 49 46, 50 47, 51
207 SECTION C Total Nonseps A&A Ded. Income Suit. Work Reporting Profiling Other
(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
UI Dets 301 4, 13, 22, 31 5, 14, 23, 32 6, 15, 24, 33 7, 16, 25, 34 8, 17, 26, 35 9, 18, 27, 36
UI Denials 302 22, 31 23, 32 24, 33 25, 34 26, 35 27, 36
UI DV HANDBOOK, BENEFITS A.42 JULY 2011
SUBPOPULATION SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A
Population 5 Notes
1. For states that require a week to be claimed in order to count non-monetary
determinations, use the transaction date of the non-monetary determination when the
mail date precedes the week claimed date. For example, if a determination is mailed in
December and the week is claimed in January, the state enters the transaction (or
countable) date in January to signify that this non-monetary determination is countable
for Federal reporting purposes.
2. This population includes non-monetary determinations for Short Time Compensation
(STC) Program (workshare) claims. These records should be labeled as “Workshare”
for “Type of UI Program.” See the software record layouts for more details.
3. Multiclaimant Nonmonetary Determinations are counted in two ways on the ETA 207
report. Section A 101(6) counts the number of multiclaimant determinations (affirmed
plus denied). Section A 102(6) counts the number of claimants affected by denial
determinations. Currently the software can not distinguish between the number of
claimants affected and the number of denial determinations because the Population 5
record lacks a key field. If a single record for each denial determination is created, the
count of determinations will be correct; however, the count of claimants involved in
denials will be understated. Alternatively, if a record for each denied claimant is
created, the count of claimants involved in denials will be correct; however, but the
count of determinations will be overstated.
The extract file and software will be revised in the future so that both the number of
multiclaimant determinations and the number of claimants denied will be captured in
the same way that is currently done for all multiclaimant appeal decisions reported on
the ETA 5130 (Populations 8 and 9).
In the meantime, when building the Population 5 extract file create a record for each
multiclaimant determination to deny benefits as well as to affirm benefits. The
validation count for the number of multiclaimant determinations thus will be correct,
and the reported counts of the UI multiclaimant determinations on the ETA 207 (Group
5.04) and on the ETA 9052 reports (Group 5.10) will be properly validated. These are
Pass/Fail groups because they are part of important workload items. However, the
number of claimants denied on line 102 of the ETA 207 will be incorrect. (These are
not Pass/Fail items.) Indicate in the comments field of the RV screen that the
discrepancy is due to a software limitation and is not a state error.
UI DV HANDBOOK, BENEFITS A.44 JULY 2011
SUBPOPULATION SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A
Table A.12.2
Relationship between ETA 227 Report Cells and Subpopulations in Population 12
A. PAGE 1 OF FORM
A. OVERPAYMENT ESTABLISHED CAUSES
No. Number of Cases Dollar Amounts
Line
Cause Schemes UI UCFE/UCX UI UCFE/UCX
No.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fraud Total 101 1 9 1 1 and 9
Multi Claimant
102 2 10 2 2 and 10
Schemes
Nonfraud Total 103
Reversals 104 3 11 3 3 and 11
SESA Errors 105 4 12 4 4 and 12
Employer
106 5 13 5 5 and 13
Errors
Claimant Errors 107 6 14 6 6 and 14
Other 108 7 15 7 7 and 15
Penalty 109 8 8 and 16
Population 12 Notes
1. Subpopulations 12.1 – 12.8: Enter the federal amount in Column 10 for joint claims.
2. Do not include revisions to overpayment amounts made in subsequent quarters. For
example, if an overpayment was established in March and a revision to the amount was
made in April, these revisions are reported in Population 13 as additions and
subtractions but not reported in Population 12.
3. The “cause” of fraud overpayments must be either “multiclaimant schemes” or “other.”
The software will reject records for fraud overpayments where the cause is not
“multiclaimant schemes” or “other.” States that use multiple codes for types of fraud
should code these as “other.”
UI DV HANDBOOK, BENEFITS A.71 JULY 2011
SAMPLE SPECIFCATIONS APPENDIX A
method the software uses to determine pass/fail scores follows. Specifications for each type
of random sample are found in Table B.1 on page B.7.
Procedures for reviewing 30/100 samples:
Step 1: Review the 30 cases in the first tier.
0 errors: the error rate is considered to be below 5%, and it is not necessary
to review the remaining cases in the sample. The sample passes validation.
5 or more errors: the error rate is considered to be above 5%, and it is not
necessary to review the remaining cases in the sample. The sample fails
validation.
1 - 4 errors: the error rate is inconclusive, and the remaining 70 cases in the
second tier of the sample must be reviewed (proceed to step 2)
Step 2: Review the remaining 70 cases in the second tier.
9 or fewer errors (out of 100): the error rate is considered to be below 5%,
and hence the sample passes the validation.
10 or more errors (out of 100): the error rate is considered to be above 5%,
and hence the sample fails the validation.
Procedures for reviewing 60/200 samples:
Step 1: Review the 60 cases in the first tier.
0 errors: the error rate is considered to be below 5%, and it is not necessary
to review the remaining cases in the sample. The sample passes validation.
7 or more errors: the error rate is considered to be above 5%, and it is not
necessary to review the remaining cases in the sample. The sample fails
validation.
1 - 6 errors: the error rate is inconclusive, and the remaining 140 cases in the
second tier of the sample must be reviewed (proceed to step 2).
Step 2: Review of the remaining 140 cases in the second tier:
16 or fewer errors (out of 200): the error rate is considered to be below 5%,
and hence the sample passes the validation.
17 or more errors (out of 200): the error rate is considered to be 5%, and
hence the sample fails validation.
UI DV HANDBOOK, BENEFITS B.2 JULY 2011
QUALITY SAMPLE VALIDATION MODULE 4
F. Results
The software does not include a screen for forwarding the results of the quality reviews to
the National Office. These should be documented in a Microsoft Word® file using the
format below and sent via email to the National Office to [email protected]. The
template can be downloaded from the DV website at http://www.ows.doleta.gov/dv/. You
can document any validation problems in the Problems/Comments field.
Template 4.1
Nonmonetary Determinations Quality Sample
Benefits Population 5
STATE: VY:
Nonmonetary Determinations Quality Sample (Benefits Population 5)
Pass/ Non- Pass/
Step Validation Item Separations Fail Separations Fail
1 Reporting period (Year: Quarter)
2 Sample size
Universe:
(a) Number of records in universe
(b) ETA 9052 Counts
(c) Difference: |(a) - (b)|
3 (d) % Difference: [(c) ÷ (b)] x 100
4 Random sampling method
Score: Score:
Problems/Comments:
Template 4.1
Nonmonetary Determinations Quality Sample
Benefits Population 5
STATE: VY:
Lower Authority Appeals Quality Sample (Benefits Population 8)
Pass/
Step Validation Item Appeals Fail
1 Reporting period (Year:Quarter)
2 Sample size
Universe:
(a) Number of records in universe
(b) ETA 9054L Counts
(c) Difference: |(a) - (b)|
3 (d) % Difference: [(c) ÷ (b)] x 100
4 Random sampling method
Score:
Problems/Comments:
UI DV HANDBOOK, BENEFITS 4.6 JULY 2011
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