Back to Federal guidance
FY 2012 supplemental UI integrity funding
Summary ETA invited state unemployment agencies to apply for FY 2012 supplemental funding for improper payment prevention, performance improvements, technology modernization and reemployment assessments. It set core integrity activities as a condition for several funding categories and explained application and project rules. Proposals were due July 6, 2012; the PDF expired in 2016 and ETA now lists it as Canceled.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 18-12
Date issued
May 11, 2012
Status
Withdrawn
ETA’s advisory listing marks this FY 2012 funding letter Canceled as of 2026-10-24. Its PDF lists May 11, 2016 as the expiration date and a July 6, 2012 application deadline.
Status last verified October 24, 2026
Is this still the rule?
This document has been withdrawn. Ezel checks what federal law requires today, under current federal labor law, and answers your situation with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
UIPL 18-12 (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2012/UIPL18-12acc.pdf)
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION Unemployment Insurance
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
OUI
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DATE
Washington, D.C. 20210 May 11, 2012
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 18-12
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: JANE OATES /s/
Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
Program Integrity, Performance, and System Improvements
1. Purpose. To notify State Workforce Agencies of the availability of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
funds for activities that support the integrity of the UI program for the prevention, detection,
and recovery of improper UI benefit payments; improve state performance; address outdated
Information Technology (IT) system infrastructures necessary to improve UI program
integrity; and enable states to expand or implement Reemployment and Eligibility
Assessment (REA) programs.
2. References.
• Improper Payment Information Act of 2002 (IPIA; 31 U.S.C. 3321 note);
• Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA; 31 U.S.C. 3301
note);
• Executive Order (E.O.) 13520, Reducing Improper Payments (November 20, 2009);
• Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 28-06, Unemployment Insurance
(UI) Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Supplemental Funding Opportunities;
• UIPL No. 2-09, Changes 1 and 2, Recovery of Unemployment Compensation Debts Due
to Fraud from Federal Income Tax Refunds;
• UIPL No. 19-11, National Effort to Reduce Improper Payments in the Unemployment
Insurance (UI) Program;
• UIPL No. 26-11, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements;
• UIPL No. 28-11, Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Integrity Task Forces and
Strategic Plans;
• UIPL No 10-12, Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment
and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Grants;
• UIPL No. 11-12, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claimant and Employer Messaging
Toolkit Availability and State Implementation; and
• UIPL No. 12-12, Guidelines for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 State Agency Unemployment
Insurance (UI) Resource Allocations and Above-Base Funding.
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
None May 11, 2016
3. Background. On November 20, 2009, President Obama signed E.O. 13520, Reducing
Improper Payments. The Executive Order emphasized the need to eliminate waste, fraud,
and abuse in federally administered programs while protecting access to these programs by
their intended beneficiaries. Subsequently, the IPIA, as amended by IPERA, required
Federal agencies to review their programs and program activities annually, identify programs
and areas that may be susceptible to significant overpayments, and develop and implement
corrective action plans for any “high-risk” programs. Under the IPIA, an agency which
reports an improper payment rate above 10 percent for a program it administers will be
determined to be out of compliance, which will trigger oversight by Congress, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of the Inspector
General. The UI program is currently out of compliance. The UI Benefit Accuracy
Measurement (BAM) program, which provides the basis for assessing the accuracy of UI
payments, estimated the UI national improper payment rate to be 12.0 percent for the 2011
reporting period (11.35 percent overpayment rate plus a 0.65 percent underpayment rate).
This translates to approximately $15 billion in improper payments nationally.
On June 10, 2011, the Department of Labor (Department) issued UIPL No. 19-11, National
Effort to Reduce Improper Payments in the UI Program, to stress that UI integrity remains a
top priority and to provide a strategic plan to aggressively target UI overpayment prevention
and detection. UIPL No. 19-11 also requested that all states participate in a Federal-state
collaboration to reduce UI improper payments by implementing new strategies aimed at
addressing root causes of overpayments to significantly reduce the UI improper payment
rate. Later, UIPL No. 26-11 announced a supplemental funding opportunity to help the states
develop their own state-specific strategies to reduce the improper payment rate. As a
condition of eligibility, that funding opportunity required states to implement eight Core
Integrity Strategies to qualify for additional Incentive Integrity Activity funding. The
Department ultimately funded Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) grants to 40 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for UI program integrity and technology infrastructure
systems.
The Department also remains committed to supporting states in updating their IT
infrastructures. The National Association of State Workforce Agencies’ (NASWA)
Information Technology Support Center reported that the average age of the states’ UI IT
infrastructures is 23 years, with many systems more than 30 years old. States that have
recently modernized their systems have found that the cost to design and develop a new
system is, on average, about $40 to $50 million. The Department’s budget estimates show
that the cost of funding individual customized state systems, even if costs were spread over
multiple years, is unaffordable in the current budget environment and that states must seek
collaborative solutions to address the challenge. Therefore, this solicitation employs a
consortium strategy to fund system modernization and large technology projects.
Finally, the Department supports states in their efforts to reduce improper payments and help
claimants return to work more quickly through Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
(REAs). REAs have been proven effective at reducing UI improper payments and improving
employment outcomes for claimants who participate. This solicitation provides an
opportunity for states to expand their current REA operations or to implement a new REA
program if the state does not currently have one.
4. Goals. The Department strongly encourages states to continue efforts to aggressively target
UI overpayment prevention and detection, and to develop state-specific strategies to reduce
the UI improper payment rate. The funding opportunities explained below are designed to
build from the supplemental funding provided in FY 2011 to assist states in developing their
own state specific strategies to prevent, detect, and recover improper payments. The goals of
the funding for this solicitation are to:
Accelerate significant state actions to reduce improper payment rates;
Provide states the flexibility to design state-specific strategies, modernize their UI
benefits and/or UI tax systems, and implement other integrity-related tools and staff
training activities; and
Provide states the ability to implement or expand their existing REA programs for the
regular state UI program.
5. Structure of Funding Opportunity. Supplemental funds are available for: 1) integrity
activities (required core activities and optional incentive activities); and 2) incentive funding
to initiate and/or accelerate significant actions to reduce improper payments and improve
overall state program performance. States must have implemented, or must agree to
implement, the entire set of Core Integrity Activities by the specified dates, to qualify for any
of the funding discussed in this UIPL.
Section 6 of this UIPL identifies and describes the funding available for the Core Integrity
Activities and the Incentive Integrity Activities. The Department believes all states should
implement the Core Integrity Activities as part of their individual strategic plans to reduce
improper payments attributed to the key root causes of overpayments. These include
improper payments resulting from benefit year earnings, separations, and employment
service registration. Included in Section 6 is a chart showing the maximum funding amounts
available for each Core Integrity Activity. Incentive funds are offered to states to implement
an additional set of integrity activities, in an amount of $1.85 to $2.2 million per state,
contingent upon the state having already implemented, or agreeing to implement, all Core
Integrity Activities by the dates specified in this UIPL.
Section 7 of this UIPL identifies and describes consortium projects that may be funded. As
with the incentive activities, a state may receive these funds only if it has already
implemented, or agrees to implement all the Core Integrity Activities by the dates specified
below.
6. Core Integrity Activities and Incentive Integrity Activities.
Core Integrity Activities. The following are the Core Integrity Activities that must have been
or that must be undertaken for a state to receive funding through this solicitation:
Continued operation of a Cross-Functional Integrity Task Force (see UIPL No. 28-11);
Engaging in a business process analysis to identify areas of weakness and improve
program performance if the state’s improper payment rate is above ten percent;
Activities listed in the Recommended Operating Procedures (ROP) for conducting cross
matching with the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and the State Directory of
New Hires (SDNH) (see UIPL No. 19-11);
Use of the State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES) and SIDES Messaging;
Claimant/Employer messaging about UI program requirements;
Employment Service (ES) Registration as required under state UI law if the state’s ES
Registration error rate is above three percent;
Implementing the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Treasury Offset Program (TOP);
and
Using an automated State Unemployment Tax Act (SUTA) Dumping Detection System
(SDDS) to conduct SUTA dumping investigations to detect employers who may be
engaged in UI tax rate manipulation.
Incentive Integrity Activities. The Incentive Integrity Activities that a state may undertake
are listed below. Only those states that have implemented, or commit to implementing, all of
the Core Integrity Activities listed above will be eligible for these incentive funds. Incentive
Integrity Activity funds may be requested for:
Hiring merit staff to clear workload backlogs in adjudication, appeals, or benefit payment
control units;
Securing contract support to contact claimants when an NDNH or SDNH “hit” indicates
a claimant may have returned to work;
Enhanced NDNH Operating Procedures;
Implementation of state-specific solutions to prevent/reduce improper payments;
Expanded Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) program support;
Payment of the SIDES subscription fees;
Implementing the SIDES earnings verification;
Worker Misclassification detection and enforcement activities;
State-specific UI performance improvement projects designed to help the state achieve
standards of performance under UI Performs;
IT Security and Contingency Planning activities;
Upgrade State SUTA Dumping Detection Systems; and
Programming an agent state database for Interstate claim files.
Description of Core Integrity Activities Requirements
To qualify for any supplemental funding a state must have already implemented, or must
agree to implement, all of the Core Integrity Activities listed above and must adhere to the
time frames identified for each activity. (States that have implemented all of the Core
Integrity Activities must document this using Attachment C and would thus be able to apply
for incentive funding). Funding caps are identified for each activity, where appropriate.
Each state must meet its commitment(s) in accepting these funds. A state that does not meet
the conditions of the SBR grant(s) will be penalized for failing to meet agreed-upon goals or
performance requirements and the costs associated with these conditions would need to be
repaid.
The Core Integrity Activities include:
Cross-Functional Task Force. Continuing to convene and enhance the state’s cross-
functional UI Integrity Task Force to assess the state’s UI integrity functions and make
recommendations for continuous improvement (see UIPL No. 28-11). States must
commit to completing a revised integrity strategic plan as part of their annual State
Quality Service Plan by September 30, 2012. The updated strategic plan must address
state-specific root causes and strategies. We require continuation of the task force that all
states established in 2011 to cultivate a sense of ownership for program integrity within
the entire UI system. We will provide states with up to $80,000 in funding for a
dedicated senior staff person devoted solely to leading and coordinating the state’s
improper payment strategies and supporting the state’s task force activities.
Business Process Analysis. Engage in a business process analysis to identify areas of
weakness and to set the stage for reengineering processes that will improve program
integrity performance. The review must be conducted collaboratively by state staff and a
qualified independent third party contracted by the state, and recommendations from this
review should be included in the state’s strategic plan to the extent feasible.
o States with an estimated improper payment rate (overpayment rate +
underpayment rate) of 10 percent or higher as reported in the calendar year (CY)
2011 Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) report must conduct an operational
business process review of their benefit systems to identify areas where changes in
business processes will lead to a reduction in the improper payment rate and
overall improvement in program integrity. States that have already planned or
conducted a business process analysis must provide evidence of this effort as well
as an assurance that the recommendations from this review will be included in the
state’s strategic plan to the extent feasible in Attachment C;
o States with an estimated improper payment rate under 10% may also request
funding for this review; and
o States must commit to completing this activity by June 30, 2013 (up to $250,000
per state is available for this activity).
National Directory of New Hires Recommended Operating Procedures. Implement
the ROP (see the attachment to UIPL No. 19-11) in conducting cross-matches with the
NDNH (and with the SDNH). This includes sending automated notices to claimants and,
as appropriate, to employers no later than the next business day after a cross-match
identifies the possibility that a claimant was working during a week claimed and did not
report earnings. Alerting claimants that the agency has information indicating they may
have returned to work and that they may be overpaid is a successful practice in reducing
and preventing overpayments.
o States that received SBR funding in FY 2011 must provide an attestation that
NDNH ROPs have been implemented to meet this requirement in Attachment C;
no additional funding will be provided for this activity; and
o States that did not receive SBR funding for FY 2011 must commit to completing
this activity by December 31, 2012 (up to $250,000 per state is available for
this activity).
State Information Data Exchange System Implementation. Implementing SIDES to
improve the timeliness and quality of separation information needed to adjudicate non-
monetary determinations:
o States that currently have not implemented SIDES, and have not received any
supplemental to do so, will be required to fully complete the implementation of
both the SIDES Web Services and SIDES E-Response components by September
30, 2013 (up to $500,000 per state to support this implementation);
o States that received SBR funding previously for SIDES implementation must
provide evidence of their progress in implementing SIDES and an assurance of
their ability to complete implementation by the established deadline in
Attachment C. No additional funding will be provided to these states for this
activity; and
o States that have implemented SIDES must begin implementing the SIDES
marketing tools that were released to the states in March 2012 to encourage
employers to use the SIDES Web Services or E-Response services (see
http://info.uisides.org). These states must complete the implementation of at least
one product from this toolkit no later than December 31, 2012 (up to $100,000
per state for these messaging and outreach activities).
Claimant/Employer Messaging. Implementing a statewide claimant and employer
messaging campaign designed to: 1) improve claimant awareness of the responsibility to
report any work and earnings when claiming benefits; 2) improve claimant understanding
of work search requirements as a condition of eligibility for benefits; and 3) improve
employer awareness of the responsibility to respond to state requests for separation
information and/or earnings/wage verifications. The state’s campaign must incorporate
at least one product from the Department’s messaging toolkit (see UIPL No. 11-12).
o States that received SBR funding for FY 2011 must provide evidence of their
progress in implementing their messaging campaign products and tools in
Attachment C; and
o States that did not receive SBR funding for FY 2011 must complete the
implementation of this campaign no later than December 31, 2012 (up to
$100,000 per state for these messaging activities).
Employment Service Registration. Implementing technology or other solutions
designed to address improper payments resulting from a claimant’s failure to register
with the state’s ES or job bank in accordance with the state’s UI law.
o States with CY 2011 BAM employer service registration error rates above 3
percent must implement these solutions. States may contact the appropriate
regional office to confirm the state rate for CY 2011;
o States with CY 2011 BAM employer service registration error rates below 3
percent may also request funding for this review; and
o These changes must be completed by April 30, 2013 (up to $100,000 is available
per state).
Treasury Offset Program. Implementing the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s TOP to
recover certain unemployment debts from Federal income tax refunds (see UIPL No. 2-
09, Changes 1 and 2).
o States that received incentive SBR funding in FY 2011 for TOP implementation
must provide evidence of their progress in implementing TOP and an assurance of
their ability to complete implementation by the established deadline in
Attachment C; no additional funding will be provided for this activity; and
o States that did not receive incentive SBR funding in FY 2011 for TOP
implementation must commit to completing this activity by March 31, 2013 (up
to $400,000 per state is available for this activity).
SUTA Dumping Detection/Investigation Systems. Conducting, or providing an
assurance in Attachment C that they have already begun doing so, SUTA Dumping
investigations by using an SDDS to detect employers who may be engaged in UI tax rate
manipulation. ETA provided states funds in FY 2006 to implement systems to detect
SUTA Dumping and began requiring states to report SUTA Dumping activities in 2011.
States must be conducting investigations, or commit to conducting SUTA Dumping
investigations by December 31, 2012 (up to $100,000 per state is available for this
activity).
Description of Incentive Integrity Activities Requirements
States that commit to implementation of all of the core activities above, and/or have already
implemented the core activities, qualify to request additional incentive funds as described in
this section. These funds may be used for any of the activities listed below. States must
develop a detailed budget for these projects and identify projected outcomes. Activities may
include:
Merit staffing and securing contract support through September 30, 2014.
o States may hire merit staff to eliminate workload backlogs in adjudication,
appeals, Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), Federal Additional
Compensation (FAC), or benefit payment control units in support of state
integrity and performance improvement efforts. States must agree that they will
maintain current levels of staff and resources (maintenance of effort), that the
additional staff will be limited to eliminating backlogs, and that automation and/or
streamlined work processes already in place will eliminate the ongoing need for
this staff;
o States may secure contract support to contact claimants when an SDNH or NDNH
“hit” indicates a claimant may have returned to work and provide instructions to
the claimant on his/her responsibility to report his/her current employment status.
(NOTE: Contract staff may perform only work that is not inherently
governmental, because inherently governmental functions may be performed only
by state merit staff). States must agree that they will maintain current levels of
staff and resources (maintenance of effort) and that the additional staff will be
limited to this activity; and
o Total funding for staffing and support activities will be provided based on
state size (See Attachment E):
Large States: Up to $700,000
Medium States: Up to $500,000
Small States: Up to $350,000
In addition, states qualify to request additional incentive funds in the amount of $1,500,000
per state, to support any of the other incentive activities listed below.
Enhanced NDNH operating procedures. When an NDNH or SDNH cross-match
results in a “hit,” implement a process to set a flag in the state’s weekly claims processing
system requiring the claimant to speak to a state claims representative when attempting to
file the next continued claim over the internet or by phone. New Jersey successfully
implemented a similar solution in FY 2011 (see description at:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/pdf/20111212NewJersey.pdf).
Implement state-specific solutions to prevent/reduce improper payments. States must
identify the return on investment expected for each solution implemented and project the
extent to which the state will reduce its improper payment rate as a result of each
solution.
Expanded Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment program automation support to
continue an REA program funded by a UI REA grant, or to support implementation of a
new REA program in a state. Funding may not be used to support REA or
Reemployment Services (RES) activities included as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act.
Payment of the SIDES subscription fees as administered by NASWA for up to 2 years,
for states that have not previously received funding for SIDES subscription fees.
Implement the SIDES earnings verification and monetary and potential employer
charges data exchanges.
Detection and enforcement activities to address worker misclassification
State-specific UI performance improvement projects designed to help the state achieve
standards of performance under UI Performs.
IT security and contingency planning activities.
Upgrade State SUTA Dumping Detection Systems to the latest ITSC version. Recent
improvements to the SDDS significantly improved administration, security, audit trail
logging, and migrated SDDS to Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008.
Program a database to develop and maintain agent state files for Interstate
claimants to ensure these individuals receive the same level of services as individuals
filing Intrastate claims (see UIPL No. 28-06).
SUMMARY OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR EACH STATE
STATE INTEGRITY ACTIVITY MAXIMUM FUNDS MUST BE
AVAILABLE COMPLETED BY
Core Integrity Activities
Cross-Functional Task Force (available to $80,000 September 30, 2012
all states)
Business Process Analysis (required for $250,000 June 30, 2013
states with improper payment rates of 10
percent or higher; available for states with
improper payment rates under 10 percent)
NDNH Cross-match and Recommended $250,000 December 31, 2012
Operating Procedures (available only to those
states that did not receive core SBR funding in
FY 2011 for NDNH implementation)
SIDES Implementation and SIDES $500,000 /$100,000 Implementation:
Marketing (Implementation funding available September 30, 2013
only to those states that have not previously
received SBR funding for SIDES Marketing:
Implementation; marketing funding available December 31, 2012
only to those states that have implemented
SIDES)
Claimant/Employer Messaging (available $100,000 December 31, 2012
to all states)
ES Registration (required for states with ES $100,000 April 30, 2013
registration rates of 3 percent or higher;
available for states with ES registration rates
under 3 percent)
TOP (available only to those states that did $400,000 March 31, 2013
not receive incentive SBR funding in FY 2011
for TOP implementation)
SUTA Dumping Detection/Investigation $100,000 December 31, 2012
(available to all states)
Incentive Integrity Activities – Only those states that have completed, or that commit to
complete, all Core Integrity Activities by dates specified may apply
Merit Staff and Contract Support $350,000 /$500,000 /$700,000
Other Incentive Activities $1,500,000
7. Consortium Projects. Based on positive outcomes from previous consortia investments,
states that commit to implementation of all of the core activities, or have already
implemented the core activities, will be eligible to submit proposals for consortium projects.
Consortium proposals must identify a lead state agency that will be the “responsible state
agency,” identify the partner states, and explain the projected allocation of and fiscal
responsibility for expenditures. Additionally, the proposal must include a copy of signed
agreement(s) by all participating states. A cover letter must be included and signed by the
Administrator of the responsible state agency and it must explain the roles of the
participating state(s) in the project.
A consortium of states may submit a proposal for any of the following three purposes:
UI IT Modernization.
o Develop and/or modify either of the core UI Benefits or Tax and Benefit system
designs, which have been recently developed (or join one of the existing
consortia);
o Develop and/or modify core UI Benefits or Tax and Benefits systems using open
source components that are also exportable to other states; and
o Implementation of UI Benefits and/or Tax systems designed and developed by a
state consortium.
Tools to reduce and recover improper payments.
o Design and implement technology-based tools designed to prevent, detect, or
recover improper UI payments.
Training Center.
o Develop and host a platform/infrastructure to support technical and program-
related training. The training center should have the capability of developing and
delivering core program training in areas such as adjudication, appeals, etc., as
well as a platform for partner/other states to develop, host, and provide state-
specific training.
8. Expansion of State Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Programs.
States currently participating in the REA program may request funds to enhance and/or
expand their ongoing program. States may elect to increase the number of participants by
selecting additional claimants in current REA offices and/or add additional offices. In
addition, states that do not have a current REA program may elect to implement a program.
Expansions should be submitted at the cost rate that was funded for the 2012 REA project.
9. Application Instructions. To apply for supplemental funds, a state must submit an SBR
package including an individual application for each of the core integrity activities and for
each of the incentive integrity activities (see Section 6) for which the state seeks funding.
Each activity application will be evaluated separately. When the same expenditures are
referred to in two different individual applications and would be duplicated if both were
funded, the state must provide a brief description in both applications explaining this
duplication to ensure that the same costs are not funded twice. The SBR package must
address the status of all the Core Integrity Activities (see Attachment C).
For consortium projects, the lead state will submit a joint application (see Section 7) on
behalf of the partner states. The proposal must clearly indicate total project costs including a
breakdown of individual state costs. We do not anticipate that we will have adequate
resources to fully fund all consortium project proposals. Therefore, states must indicate the
minimum funds necessary to complete the proposed project(s) and must also include in their
cost summary the cash or in-kind resources they are prepared to commit to the project(s).
Depending on the availability of funding and number of proposals deemed eligible for
funding, it may be necessary to negotiate project funding.
States proposing to expand their regular state REA program or to implement a new REA
program should follow the current REA guidelines in UIPL 10-12. States electing to expand
should update Attachment B from UIPL 10-12 and identify the total number of additional
REAs to be completed and the location of the expansion. If the request is solely to add
additional REAs the state may substitute Attachment B from UIPL 10-12 for Attachment A
of this UIPL for the REA portion of their request. States wishing to implement a new REA
program should submit a proposal as defined in UIPL 10-12 rather than completing
Attachment A of this UIPL for the REA project.
10. Availability of Funds. All funds awarded for Core Integrity Activities should be properly
obligated by the completion date assigned to that activity. For Incentive Integrity awards and
Consortium awards, the FY 2012 appropriation allows for funds used for automation
acquisitions or competitive grants awarded to states for improved operations, or
reemployment and eligibility assessments and improper payments to be available for
obligation by the states through September 30, 2014. All funds should be expended and
liquidated within 90 days of the obligation. Upon written request, the Grant Officer may
extend the liquidation period. An obligation of funds by a state by September 30, 2014, to an
outside contractor (not to another state agency) allows for work supported by these funds to
continue for 90 days beyond that date (but any work beyond that date would require an
approved extension).
By applying for any of these funds, the state is agreeing that the proposed projects will be
completed with no additional Federal funding. When projects have been approved, a Letter
of Award will be issued to the state(s) listing the proposals that are being funded in the SBR.
It will include both the funding level for each proposal and the total funding level for the
state’s entire SBR. States must submit forms SF-424 (OMB No. 4040-0004) and SF-424A
(OMB No. 4040-0006) covering all approved projects in the grant upon receipt of the Letter
of Award.
11. Project Modifications. If, during the performance period, a state wishes to reallocate funds
among categories/projects within its SBR, it must submit a new SF-424A (OMB No. 4040-
0006) to the regional office for approval, with a copy to the national office, if the amount to
be moved exceeds 20 percent of any category of the initially awarded amount for the grant.
The state must also submit a request for modification of the grant signed and dated by the
state’s signatory authority. This information will be submitted to the Grant Officer with a
request for modification of the SBR grant to reflect the requested changes. States may not
elect to abandon an approved (single) project and move funds to a different project. If a state
fails to complete a project, funds for that project must be returned to the Department.
12. Action Requested. We request State Administrators to:
a) Review the funding opportunities and determine whether the state will apply for funds
under this solicitation;
b) Determine/Implement coordination needed between the UI program and Information
Technology staff to develop a proposal under this solicitation;
c) Work with the appropriate regional office to develop an SBR that will best serve the
needs of the state in enhancing program integrity;
d) Submit the state SBR by e-mail to [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. ET on July
6, 2012. The subject line of the e-mail should include the name of the state and the
title “Integrity-Related SBR 2012;” and
e) Submit an electronic copy of the state SBR to the appropriate regional office.
13. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate regional office.
14. Attachments.
Attachment A: 2012 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Application Guidelines
Attachment B: Unemployment Insurance Supplemental Budget Request Abstract
Attachment C: Core Integrity Initiatives, State Status Summary
Attachment D: Description of Consortium Projects
Attachment E: State Size Classifications
Attachment A (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2012/UIPL18-12aA.pdf)
Attachment A
2012 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Application Guidelines
Instructions: States must complete a separate document using this format for each activity
for which the state is seeking funding with the exception of the REA implementation or
expansion requests which should utilize the REA Attachments from UIPL 10-12. These
documents are to be combined in a single SBR with a SF-424 and an SF-424A combining
all projects. The lead state in a consortium must submit a separate application for a
Consortium Project.
Name of Project:
Amount of Funding Request for this Project: Provide the total amount of funds requested in
this individual project.
State Contact: Provide name, telephone number, and e-mail address of the individual who can
answer any questions relating to the proposal.
Project Description: Provide a brief description of the activity/project for which the state is
seeking funding and explain how the project will improve prevention, detection, or collection of
overpayments; or improve performance in other UI activities.
Project Timeline: Provide a list of the dates and the milestones for this project. The timeline
should include the completion of the scope of work, the designation of specific tasks to
appropriate parties, the issuance of a request for proposal if appropriate, the projected start date
for programming the new system, the proposed dates to begin and complete testing, and the
proposed date for full implementation of the system.
The weight of this element is 20 percent of the total score.
Description of Costs: Provide an explanation of all costs included in the project.
Staff Costs for Agency and Contract Staff: Use the table format below to request state
or contract staff. The project must clearly explain which costs are for state staff and which
costs are for contract staff.
Type of Total Hours Cost Per Total
Position Hour
Hardware, Software, and Telecommunications Equipment: Provide an itemized list of
hardware, software, and telecommunications equipment including the cost per item and the
number of each item requested. A description of each item must provide any information
needed to identify the specific item and a description of the size and capacity of each item
if applicable.
State Leveraged Resources: For consortium project proposals (described under Section 7
of this UIPL), states must indicate the minimum funding necessary to accomplish the
proposed project(s) and may also include in this section any cash or in-kind resources they
are prepared to commit to the project(s). We will award bonus points, as described below,
for leveraged resources that a consortium agrees to provide to the project. If an applicant
proposes to provide additional resources, those funds will be included in the award
agreement and we will hold the recipient responsible for providing the agreed-upon
resources.
Other: Identify each item and provide the expected cost per item. The need for each item
must be explained.
The weight of this element is 20 percent of the total score.
Strategic Design: The strategic design should provide evidence of a thorough analysis of
current operations and show that the design will meet the needs of the state. For example, the
description could include an explanation of the overpayments that are currently not being
addressed or the collections that are not accomplished because the proposed automated system is
not operational. The state must explain how it has determined that this system would be the most
beneficial to its operation. This explanation might include a list of other overpayment systems
that are operational such as the National Directory of New Hires.
For example:
Identify the data that will be received from the data matching, e.g., wages, start to work
date, name, date of birth, address, etc.
Estimate the amount of overpayments the system will prevent or detect in a year.
Estimate the percentage of claimants that will be part of the data matching system.
Describe the data system(s) that the state will use to match claimant records.
Indicate how often the data match will be conducted.
Describe the assurance(s) that the state has received from the owner(s) of the data, which
will demonstrate a willingness to participate in the proposed data exchange.
The weight of this element is 30 percent of the total score.
Measurable Improvements Expected in UI Operations: Identify the areas in which
overpayment prevention, detection, or collection will be improved or on-going costs reduced
through implementation of the proposed project. All improvements and cost reductions must be
quantified rather than generalized. For example, if it is anticipated that overpayments will be
collected more quickly with the new system, the measurable improvements must identify the
anticipated time savings per overpayment and the percentage of overpayments that will be
affected by the new system.
The weight of this element is 30 percent of the total score.
Bonus Points for projects described in Section 7 of this UIPL related to Consortium
Projects:
Additional points will be awarded based on leveraged resources provided by the state for
the project. The points will be scaled based on the percentage of leveraged resources that
the state proposes to commit to the project. Points will be awarded as follows:
o 10% 2 points
o 11% to 20% 4 points
o 21% to 30% 6 points
o 31% to 40% 8 points
o 41% or greater 10 points
Attachment B (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2012/UIPL18-12aB.pdf)
Attachment B
Unemployment Insurance
Supplemental Budget Request Abstract
State Name:
Total Funds Requested for All Projects:
Name, Title, and Address of Grant Notification Contact (Usually the State Workforce
Agency Administrator):
Name:
Title:
Address:
Name and E-mail Address of SBR Project or Fiscal Manager:
Name:
E-mail address:
Telephone number:
Name and E-mail Address of Benefit Payment Control Supervisor:
Name:
E-mail address:
Telephone number:
Provide the following information for each project:
Individual Project Name Total Cost of Project Implementation Date
Attachment C (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2012/UIPL18-12aC.pdf)
Attachment C
Core Integrity Activities
State Status Summary
This summary document must accompany any Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) for
either core or incentive funds.
STATE: ____________________________
State Contact Name ____________________________
State Contact Phone No. ____________________________
State Contact Email ____________________________
Status of Core Integrity Activities: States must provide the status of each of the core integrity
initiatives by providing the information requested below. The State Workforce Agency must
provide a projected completion date for any initiative(s) that are under development.
Please indicate the status of these priority initiatives below:
1. Cross-Functional Task Force (see UIPL No. 28-11)
Date Implemented _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned activity must be included in the SBR application)
2. Business Process Analysis
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned activity must be included in the SBR application)
3. NDNH Recommended Operating Procedure (see UIPL No. 19-11)
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned or completed activity must be included in the SBR application)
4. SIDES Implementation
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned or completed activity must be included in the SBR application)
5. Claimant and Employer Messaging (see UIPL No. 11-12)
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned or completed activity must be included in the SBR application)
6. Employment Service Registration
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned or completed activity must be included in the SBR application
7. Treasury Offset Program (see UIPL No. 02-09, Changes 1 and 2)
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned or completed activity must be included in the SBR application)
8. SUTA Dumping Detection/Investigation Systems
Date Implemented _________
Under Development, Projected Completion Date _________
Funds Requested with this Submission _________
(Description of planned or completed activity must be included in the SBR application)
Attachment D (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2012/UIPL18-12aD.pdf)
Attachment D
DESCRIPTION OF CONSORTIUM PROJECTS
Purpose: To provide funds for multi-state consortia for Information Technology (IT)
Modernization projects, implementation of other integrity-related tools and staff training
activities. The technology tools developed should use open source components to the extent
feasible, be transferable, and should be available to be shared by multiple state workforce
agencies without the need to significantly customize the system, and/or be hosted in one state,
which will provide automated services to other states. The goal is for multiple states to share
common systems/tools that accommodate each state’s individual needs.
The states must jointly establish a project team to develop a planned approach for the project.
The system development as well as the implementation planning process may require the
assistance of one or more contractors. One state must be willing to act as the lead contracting
party for the consortium for a given contract. The lead contracting state will be responsible for
developing and awarding a contract with the support and participation of the other consortium
states.
The consortium will be administered by a Steering Committee consisting of the Project Lead
from each of the participating states. Each state will provide project staff (program and
technical) to work as a Project Team. The Project Team will carry out the work of the
consortium based on the direction of the Steering Committee. The Project Team will work with
the other state consortium staff and contractor staff, as necessary, to provide information that the
contractor needs to develop and plan an approach to implement to the proposed project design.
The Project Team will seek input from and provide feedback to other interested state staff as well
as to regional and national office staff. The consortium Project Team will be responsible for
providing input for and reviewing the Request for Proposal(s) (RFP) for any contract(s) and
participating in or providing input on the vendor selection, helping to define appropriate
activities for the contractor(s), and providing UI program and technical experts to support the
feasibility study.
Examples of the lead state responsibilities:
1. Coordinate all activities related to this effort with the other participating states.
2. Develop and provide to the Department a detailed project management plan no later
than October 1, 2012.
3. Develop, in consultation with participating states, an RFP.
4. Host the selected contractor on-site, provide staff for the project management team,
provide staff to support the overall effort and respond to requests for information.
5. Develop system(s), share products, and provide technical assistance, as appropriate,
working together with other members of the consortium upon completion of the
project.
Examples of the participating state responsibilities:
1. Assist with development of the RFP.
2. Attend meetings/conferences with lead and participating states.
3. Host contractor on site and provide staff to respond to specific requests for
information.
4. Assist in developing/presenting deliverables for the project.
5. Provide staffing for the project management team.
Attachment E (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2012/UIPL18-12aE.pdf)
Attachment E
State Size Classifications *
Alabama Medium
Alaska Small
Arizona Medium
Arkansas Medium
California Large
Colorado Medium
Connecticut Medium
Delaware Small
District of Columbia Small
Florida Large
Georgia Medium
Hawaii Medium
Idaho Medium
Illinois Large
Indiana Medium
Iowa Medium
Kansas Medium
Kentucky Medium
Louisiana Medium
Maine Medium
Maryland Medium
Massachusetts Medium
Michigan Large
Minnesota Medium
Mississippi Medium
Missouri Medium
Montana Small
Nebraska Medium
Nevada Medium
New Hampshire Medium
New Jersey Medium
New Mexico Medium
New York Large
North Carolina Medium
North Dakota Small
Ohio Large
Oklahoma Medium
Oregon Medium
Pennsylvania Large
Puerto Rico Medium
Rhode Island Small
South Carolina Medium
South Dakota Small
Tennessee Medium
Texas Large
Utah Medium
Vermont Small
Virgin Islands Small
Virginia Medium
Washington Medium
West Virginia Medium
Wisconsin Medium
Wyoming Small
* Based upon State Population for FY 2012 Funds
What does federal law require today?
This guidance has been withdrawn. Ezel checks current federal labor law as it stands now and answers your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace