Monitoring states with delayed unemployment payments and appeals

UIPL22-10acc.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2010/UIPL22-10acc.pdf)

                                                                 CLASSIFICATION
      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION                     UI/SQSP
                   ADVISORY SYSTEM                               CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
             U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR                            OUI/DPM
                  Washington, D.C. 20210                         DATE
                                                                 April 23, 2010


ADVISORY:          UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 22-10

TO:                STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES

FROM:              JANE OATES /s/
                   Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT:           Selecting and Monitoring At-Risk States for Continuous Improvement and
                   Compliance with First Payment Timeliness and First Level Appeals
                   Promptness


1. Purpose. To provide information on the "high emphasis" that selected states will receive
   through the State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) process to improve first payment time lapse
   and first level appeals promptness, and to outline the process that will be followed beginning
   with the 2011 SQSP.


2. References. Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (SSA); Section 303(a)(3), SSA;
   Section 303(b)(2), SSA; 20 CFR Part 640 “Standard for Benefit Payment Promptness –
   Unemployment Compensation”; 20 CFR Part 650 “Standard for Appeals Promptness -
   Unemployment Compensation”; ETA Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 2
   (December 2009).


3. Background. Monitoring state performance and ensuring compliance with Federal
   unemployment compensation (UC) law is one of the Department of Labor’s ( The
   Department) responsibilities. Section 303(a)(1), SSA, requires state law to provide “such
   methods of administration … as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably
   calculated to insure the full payment of [UC] when due.” Section 303(a)(3), SSA, requires
   that state law must provide “an opportunity for a fair hearing … for all individuals whose
   claims for [UC] are denied.”



  RECISSIONS                                               EXPIRATION DATE
  None                                                     April 23, 2011

                                           -2-


   The Department has long interpreted the above provisions to require state UC agencies to
   make timely payments on UC claims and to dispose of UC appeals promptly. The
   Department published regulations setting forth minimum standards of performance to
   achieve compliance in these two areas.


   20 CFR 640 contains the criteria for timely processing of claims. In 20 CFR 640.3(a), the
   Secretary interpreted the requirement that UC be paid “when due” to require the state agency
   to “make full payment of unemployment benefits to eligible claimants with the greatest
   promptness that is administratively feasible.” The regulation sets forth specific numeric
   criteria for first payment time lapse.


   Similarly, 20 CFR Part 650 contains the standard for prompt disposition of UC appeals. In
   20 CFR 650.3(a), the Secretary of Labor interpreted the payment when due provision with
   respect to UC appeals to require that “all administrative appeals affecting benefit rights are
   heard and decided with the greatest promptness that is administratively feasible.” The
   regulation sets forth specific numeric criteria for promptness in disposing first level appeals.


   The Department monitors state performance in meeting the compliance criteria and has noted
   some states with chronic underperformance in meeting the criteria. States that consistently
   did not meet these minimum performance standards are classified as potentially “at-risk” for
   loss of certification. The Department has addressed these deficiencies with each individual
   state through the SQSP process. While some states have tended to show improvement using
   that process, the underperformance of others requires greater action.


   The Department will address this concern through a more intensive approach. It will identify
   states with chronic underperformance issues and require each such state’s SQSP to adopt
   recommended process improvements, or to develop others, beginning with the 2011 SQSP.


4. State Selection. State selection will be based on detailed performance data over the last five
   calendar years. Examination of the data will include an analysis of quarterly patterns relative
   to national averages and workload. Consideration will be given to particular state conditions
   and results achieved through corrective action plans. After evaluating the data, states with
   chronic underperformance issues over the last five years, corrected for the abnormalities of
   the current recession, and which have shown no significant recent performance improvement,
   will be targeted for high emphasis.

                                          -3-




5. High Emphasis Process. Beginning with the 2011 SQSP, the Department will engage at-risk
   states to improve performance through multi-year planning which will be integrated with the
   standard SQSP process. The Department anticipates a collaborative process with the state to
   identify impediments to achieving performance standards; to identify action steps designed to
   improve performance; and to identify technical assistance strategies to support the states'
   successful implementation of the action strategies and achieve an outcome of improved
   performance. The action strategies and technical assistance activities will become part of the
   state’s SQSP corrective action plan for those measures that have caused the state to be
   considered “at risk.” Each such plan is expected to include some of the following steps:


           a. Data Analysis. Each state and ETA may review time lapse and appeals
              promptness data from the state and other states of similar size and program
              characteristics where higher performance is achieved. The analysis will also
              include any data validation concerns of the at-risk state.


           b. Process Review. States may be encouraged to engage in business process
              analysis to identify areas of weakness and to set the stage for reengineering
              processes that will improve performance. To support the state in these efforts,
              ETA may deploy a team of experts to conduct a thorough review of the state’s
              administrative and business processes related to time lapse and appeals
              promptness. The review team may consist of ETA staff and other state experts,
              and may include contractor support. The team will use all tools available to
              assess state performance including state-of-the-art business process analysis and
              process mapping. Any resulting recommendations for improving performance
              must guide the state in developing or modifying its Corrective Action Plan. If the
              Plan is not based on these recommendations, the state must develop some other
              comparable plan in collaboration with the review team that is expected to show
              immediate improvement toward meeting compliance criteria.


           c. Technical Assistance. ETA may provide technical assistance, including funding
              to support a mentoring relationship between an at-risk state and states that are
              strong performers; funding for targeted training of state staff; and/or other
              strategies identified in collaboration with the state.

                                           -4-




           d. High-level Engagement. ETA leadership, including the Office of the Assistant
              Secretary and the Regional Administrators, may engage in discussions with
              agency heads and the Governor’s office to focus on chronic underperformance
              and to reinforce the need for performance improvement.


           e. Enhanced Monitoring and Follow-up. ETA may ask the state to provide detailed
              reports in area(s) of performance deficiency. ETA staff and other experts may
              conduct on-site visits to assess process changes, and whether these changes are
              improving performance.


           f. Enhanced Resources. ETA may solicit and approve, subject to fund availability,
              Supplemental Budget Requests for performance improvement in targeted areas,
              which may include procuring contractor support for process analysis and
              mapping, or require a state use a portion of its administrative grant for targeted
              performance improvement activities. State may direct its own resources towards
              performance improvement efforts.


           g. Grant Funds. If the above efforts in the High Emphasis Process fail to produce
              improvement, ETA will recommend that the Secretary commence proceedings
              under Section 303(b)(2), SSA, to withhold grant funds if the at-risk state is clearly
              not making sufficient efforts to utilize methods of administration designed to
              ensure payment of UC when due.

6. Action. State Administrators are requested to:


           a. Make this information available to appropriate staff;


           b. Prepare to participate in the high-emphasis process if selected as an at-risk state;
              and


           c. Share expertise about successful state performance in meeting the compliance
              standards if requested.


7. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office.