Back to Federal guidance
Planning the FY 2014 state UI service plan
Summary ETA gave state unemployment agencies supplemental instructions for their FY 2014 State Quality Service Plans. The letter identifies national priorities, performance measures and planning requirements, including the possible impact of sequestration; three attachments contain measures and plan materials. ETA now lists it as Canceled.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 22-13
Date issued
July 2, 2013
Status
Withdrawn
ETA's advisory listing marks this letter Canceled as of 2026-10-24; its PDF prints an expiration date of September 30, 2014.
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This document has been withdrawn.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.
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION Unemployment Insurance
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OUI/DPM
Washington, D.C. 20210 DATE
July 2, 2013
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 22-13
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: GERRI FIALA /s/
Acting Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Additional Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Unemployment
Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP)
1. Purpose. To initiate the process, provide supplemental instructions, and define additional
requirements for the FY 2014 SQSP.
2. References.
• Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act;
• 20 CFR Parts 640, 650, 652, and 660;
• Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 14-05, Changes to UI Performs,
and its Changes 1, 2, and 3;
• UIPL No. 22-05, Unemployment Insurance Data Validation (UI DV) Program Software
and Policy Guidance, and its Changes 1 and 2;
• UIPL No. 3-07, Use of National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) in Unemployment
Insurance (UI) Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) Audits, and its Change 1;
• UIPL No. 12-08, Establishing an Acceptable Level of Performance (ALP) for the
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment Rate Measure;
• UIPL No. 3-10, Revisions to Employment and Training (ET) Handbook 336, 18th
Edition: “Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) Planning
and Reporting Guidelines”;
• UIPL 22-10, Selecting and Monitoring At-Risk States for Continuous Improvement and
Compliance with First Payment Timeliness and First Level Appeals Promptness;
• UIPL No. 03-11, Implementation of the Effective Audit Measure;
• UIPL No. 19-11, National Effort to Reduce Improper Payments in the Unemployment
Insurance (UI) Program;
• UIPL No. 34-11, Performance Measure for Unemployment Insurance (UI) Integrity;
• UIPL No. 24-12, Additional Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013
Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP);
• UIPL No. 09-13, Integrity Performance Measures for Unemployment Insurance (UI);
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
None September 30, 2014
• ET Handbook No. 336, Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP)
Planning and Reporting Guidelines, 18th Edition, Change 2 (December 2009)
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL3-10.pdf); and
• ET Handbook 395, State Operations Handbook for the Unemployment Insurance (UI)
Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) Program, 5th Edition (November 2009)
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/ETHandbook_395_Ch5.pdf).
3. Background. The SQSP represents an approach to the UI performance management and
planning process that allows for an exchange of information between Federal and state
partners to enhance the UI program’s ability to reflect their joint commitment to performance
excellence and client-centered services. The Social Security Act (SSA) authorizes the
Secretary of Labor to provide funds to administer the UI program and governs the
expenditure of those funds. Therefore, the SQSP operationally serves as the grant document
through which states receive Federal UI Administrative Funding.
As part of UI Performs, the comprehensive performance management system for the UI
program, the SQSP is the principal vehicle that state UI programs use to plan, record, and
manage improvement efforts as they strive for excellence in service. ET Handbook No. 336,
18th Edition, contains general instructions for the SQSP. The Handbook is designed as a
permanent instruction for the annual planning and budget process and provides states with
planning guidelines and instructions for reporting UI financial and staff year information.
Annually, we issue additional planning guidance that supplements the Handbook and
provides direction and instructions specific to the upcoming FY.
States must participate in the annual UI Performs SQSP process whether or not they opt to
include the UI program as part of their Strategic Unified State Plan submitted under Section
501 of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998.
4. National Priorities. The SQSP process addresses current state service delivery
performance. It also aligns state procedures with national policies and priorities for paying
benefits accurately and timely and providing reemployment assistance.
Each year, after consulting with our stakeholders, we establish national priorities for the UI
program. For FY 2014, our top priority continues to be the prevention, detection, and
recovery of improper payments. Additionally, we will continue to work to improve program
performance nationally; emphasize better service delivery for the UI program by improving
reemployment services to UI recipients; and improve the process for detecting misclassified
workers.
We provide the following national priorities for FY 2014 to help states develop their SQSP,
including the establishment of state-level priorities for the UI program.
Improved Prevention, Detection, and Recovery of UI Improper Payments
The President issued Executive Order 13520 on November 20, 2009, which articulates
the Administration’s focus on reducing improper payments government-wide. Under the
2
criteria established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the UI program is
considered a “high priority” program. For the FY 2012 reporting period UI was one of
the top five Federal programs based on the dollar amount of improper payments. In
addition, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (Department) Office of Inspector General has
determined that the UI program is out of compliance with the Improper Payment
Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) of 2010 because the 2011 and 2012 improper
payment rates do not meet reduction targets as well as the criterion in IPERA that Federal
agencies report an improper payment rate of less than 10 percent. The improper payment
reduction targets for the UI program were established by the Department with approval
by OMB. This is a critical issue given the impact that improper payments have on state
UI trust funds. Integrity efforts not only help preserve these unemployment funds and
control UI tax rates, but they also maintain the public trust that the program is protected
and operated as intended. As such, there will be a continued, intensified effort for the
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the states to work collaboratively to
aggressively reduce improper payments.
Improving Program Performance Nationally
ETA has embarked on a multi-pronged strategy designed to significantly bolster program
accountability and facilitate performance improvement nationally. Strategies to meet this
objective include:
• Providing high-emphasis technical assistance to support performance improvements
for “At-Risk” states (states with sustained and extremely poor performance);
• Continuing to use the UI performance management system, UI Performs, which
includes core measures and Secretary’s Standards to monitor state performance; and
• Reviewing and improving the annual SQSP process, including helping states to
develop more effective corrective action plans (CAPs) that help them meet or exceed
performance targets.
As states develop their SQSPs, they should consider including strategies that will
significantly enhance program accountability and performance improvement and seek
technical assistance through ETA’s Regional Offices (ROs).
Reemployment of UI Claimants
Reemployment of UI claimants remains a top priority for the entire workforce system,
including UI. The UI program is a required partner in the one-stop delivery system under
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and must work collaboratively with workforce
system programs and partners to fully connect UI claimants to the full range of
reemployment services delivered through American Job Centers, on-line, and through
rapid response. Through initiatives such as Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
and ETA’s more recent work with five-pilot states implementing strategies to achieve
improved UI connectivity with the rest of the workforce system and improved
3
reemployment service delivery strategies, states are making progress in this area and need
to make more. ETA will focus significant technical assistance resources this year to
leverage the work of the five pilot states and to support the next wave of states to
implement enhanced reemployment strategies for UI claimants. ETA will also continue
to work with states that have Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment grants to identify
and share “best practices” and develop a more uniform national assessment program.
ETA is particularly interested in strategies to use data to better target reemployment
services and more quickly and precisely connect UI beneficiaries to job opportunities
and/or services that will speed their return to employment.
As states develop their SQSPs, they should consider including innovative and robust
reemployment strategies that are jointly developed in collaboration with workforce
system partners, including the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and Wagner-
Peyser funded employment services program. These strategies may include:
• Developing intake processes that produce a more complete profile on UI claimants so
that they can be targeted more efficiently with reemployment services and job
referrals.
• Connecting UI claimants as quickly as possible to the public labor exchange systems
so that they can start receiving job referrals immediately
• Utilizing ongoing risk assessment to determine if UI claimants are having a difficult
time finding a job and require additional services
We recommend that UI program staff collaborate with these partners to ensure the
strategies reflect the agreement(s) made and are documented in each partner’s strategic
plan.
Addressing Worker Misclassification
The President’s FY 2014 budget request includes a multi-agency initiative to dramatically
strengthen and coordinate Federal and state efforts to address employer misclassification
of workers. The goals are to:
• Improve Federal and state agency capacity to identify potential violators through
improved information sharing and targeted audits in high-risk industry sectors;
• Provide outreach to employers to educate them about worker classification and,
thereby, prevent misclassification;
• Increase statutory enforcement; and
• Enable the collection of payroll taxes previously lost due to misclassification.
As this Federal collaboration unfolds, we will make states aware of new opportunities and
strategies that may be available to address this problem.
4
The President’s budget request also includes $10 million for an initiative to increase state
capacity to address misclassification within the UI program. This initiative would provide
competitive grants for states to increase their data sharing activities with the Internal
Revenue Service and other Federal and state agencies to implement targeted audit
strategies, establish a cross-state agency task force to target egregious employer schemes
to avoid taxation through misclassification, and develop education and outreach programs.
ETA will provide states with additional guidance for this initiative when the FY 2014
budget is enacted.
States may deploy a wide array of other strategies in addition to these Federal strategies.
We encourage states to develop and implement state-driven strategies to address the
misclassification of workers and to include those strategies in the state’s SQSP. We will
identify state “best practices” in this area and share them broadly.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires a commitment from
all Department programs to attain expressed goals and objectives. Achieving these
objectives requires the combined efforts of the Federal and state partners.
In recognition of the national priorities, attention continues to be focused on the following
GPRA goals for FY 2014, with targets that the system as a whole is expected to meet. States
should continue to strive to reach or exceed these GPRA goals and targets.
Strategic Goal 4: Secure retirement, health, and other employee benefits and, for
those working, provide income security.
Strategic Objective 4.1: Provide income support when work is impossible or
unavailable and facilitate return to work.
• Make Timely Benefit Payments
o Target: 87.1 percent of intrastate first payments for full weeks of unemployment
will be made within 14/21 days from the week ending date of the first
compensable week.
• Detect Benefit Overpayments
o Target: Overpayments established will be at least 54.2 percent of the estimated
detectable, recoverable overpayments.
• Establish Tax Accounts Promptly
o Target: 88.9 percent of status determinations for new employers will be made
within 90 days of the end of the first quarter in which liability occurred.
• Facilitate the Reemployment of Claimant
o Target: 64.7 percent of UI claimants will be reemployed by the end of the first
quarter after the quarter in which they received their first payment.
5
5. SQSP Planning Requirements and Guidance. ET Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition,
Change 2, and this UIPL provide guidelines for the completion and submission of the SQSP
and should be used when preparing the FY 2014 State Plans.
The Department’s strategic approach to UI Performs is to focus efforts on improving the
performance of states where performance is below minimum criteria, while promoting
overall excellence. CAPs are expected whenever a state’s performance does not meet
established criteria for the SQSP measurement period (or performance year) and remains
uncorrected before the preparation of the SQSP. The measurement period for the FY 2014
SQSP is April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013, unless otherwise indicated.
CAPs and Narratives addressing performance deficiencies are the components of the state’s
formal plan and schedule for improving performance. To that end, the causes of performance
shortfalls should be thoroughly analyzed before the development of the state’s plan. Sample
formats for CAPs and Narratives are in the SQSP Handbook.
Multi-year CAPs continue to be an option for states so that efforts which must extend beyond
a FY due to their size, scope, or complexity can be realistically portrayed. Out-year portions
of such multi-year plans do not need to provide quarterly targets or milestones (as required
for the SQSP year) but should provide enough information to explain anticipated progress
and results.
"At-Risk" Process
ETA’s goal is to ensure that states are implementing “methods of administration …
reasonably calculated to ensure full payment of unemployment compensation when due,” in
accordance with section 303(a)(1), SSA. To that end, ETA has identified persistently low
performing states as "At-Risk," requiring high emphasis for technical assistance and
monitoring. This collaborative process is expected to identify impediments to achieving
performance standards; action steps designed to improve performance; and technical
assistance strategies. The action strategies and technical assistance activities will become
part of the state’s SQSP CAP for those measures that have caused the state to be considered
“At-Risk.” States selected to participate in the process will be notified by ETA.
States selected because of consistently significant low performance for the first payment and
appeals timeliness measures will work collaboratively with ETA to achieve performance
improvement. For a state to have the “At-Risk” designation removed, it must achieve six
months of meeting the standard and be likely to continue sustained improvement.
SQSP Assurances
By signing the SQSP Signature Page, a state certifies that it will comply with the assurances
listed in ET Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 2 (OMB No. 1205-0132), and that the
state will institute plans or measures to comply with the requirements for each of the
assurances.
6
States will continue to provide information for Assurances H, Assurance of Contingency
Planning and J, Assurance of Automated Information Systems Security. In the State Plan
Narrative Outline, Section H, Assurances, states are expected to provide the dates that their
Information Technology (IT) Contingency Plan, System Security Plan, and Risk Assessment
were implemented, tested, and reviewed/updated.
States must:
• Review and/or update, and test the IT Contingency Plan annually;
• Review and/or update the System Security Plan annually; and
• Conduct a Risk Assessment once every 3 years.
If a state does not have an IT Contingency Plan, System Security Plan, and Risk Assessment
procedures in place or if these documents are incomplete, then the state is expected to
address the actions it plans to take to meet these requirements in the SQSP Narrative. These
plans and procedures must meet the minimum controls listed in the Chapter I, Section VII-H
and Section VII-J of the ET Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 2.
6. SQSP Program Performance and Criteria for FY 2014.
CAPs are expected for:
• Performance below the acceptable levels of performance (ALPs) for Core Measures.
• Performance below the criteria for the Secretary’s Standards established in regulation at
20 CFR Parts 640 and 650.
• The Detection of Overpayments Measure.
This measure is the percentage of detectable/recoverable overpayments established for
recovery. States reporting an overpayment detection rate below 50 percent are expected
to address the deficiency in a CAP. Also, because states generally cannot cost-effectively
detect and establish more than 90 percent of estimated overpayments, an upper limit of
95 percent has been established for monitoring purposes. States reporting ratios over 95
percent are expected to explain in the Narrative section the reasons for the higher-than-
expected ratios. If an overpayment rate above 95 percent is the result of improper
administration of BAM or Benefit Payment Control (BPC) activities or misreporting of
data on the ETA 227 (Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities) report, the state
is expected to submit a CAP (for BAM/Overpayment Detection or BPC/Overpayment
Detection). The CAP should be designed to produce valid data for the Overpayment
Detection Measure. The performance period for the BPC component is the 3-year period
ending March 31, 2013; the performance period for the BAM component is the 3-year
period ending September 30, 2012.
7
• NDNH
State BAM operations that, based on the BAM Administrative Determination, are not
compliant with the NDNH matching requirements in ET Handbook No. 395, 5th Edition,
chapter VI, UIPL 3-07 and UIPL 3-07, Change 1.
• BAM
State BAM operations or operational components that, based on the BAM Administrative
Determination, are not compliant with investigative and/or method and procedure
requirements established in ET Handbook No. 395, 5th Edition. This includes paid and
denied claim population variances outside established control limits.
• UI Integrity Measure- Benefit Year Earnings (BYE)
The UI Integrity Measure for BYE addresses the leading cause of UI improper payments
– claimants who return to work, fail to report earnings, and who continue to claim and
collect UI benefits. Performance will be measured by the state’s BYE overpayment rate,
estimated by the BAM survey, rather than the amount overpaid to control for year-to-year
changes in benefit outlays. Per UIPL No. 34-11, the ALP for the first performance period
– calendar year (CY) 2012 – is a 30 percent reduction in the state’s three-year baseline
BYE rate. A state will meet the ALP if: 1) its BYE overpayment rate decreases during
the performance period by the percentage decrease specified for the period; or 2) its BYE
overpayment rate decreases during the performance period and the rate is below the
national BYE overpayment rate by the target percentage decrease. States failing to meet
the ALP for the UI Integrity Measure for BYE will be expected to develop a CAP as part
of the FY 2014 SQSP. The CAP will address performance for CY 2012.
• UI Program Integrity
IPERA requires agencies to ensure that their managers and accountable officers
(including the agency head), programs, and, where applicable, states and localities, are
held accountable for reducing improper payments. For FY 2014, states are required to
report their planned activities to prevent, detect, reduce, and recover improper UI
payments in their Program Integrity Action Plan which should be submitted as part of
their annual SQSP submission.
To update their Program Integrity Action Plan, states must analyze their Benefit
Accuracy Measurement (BAM) data to identify the top root causes for improper
payments and develop strategies that will be effective in reducing or recovering improper
payments. The most recent state data are available at the Department’s Web site at
http://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/map-ipia.htm. ETA will continue to provide technical
assistance to states to support their integrity activities through webinars, individual state
technical assistance, and in partnership with the UI Integrity Center of Excellence. In
addition, we will work with states to expand participation in the Treasury Offset Program
for the recovery of overpayments, to implement the State Information Data Exchange
8
System for obtaining timely and complete separation information, and to more effectively
use the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and other overpayment prevention
tools for BPC.
The UI Program Integrity Action Plan and instructions are included as Attachment C.
• Tax Performance System
To ensure that UI tax operations are also in compliance with Federal reporting and
oversight requirements, failure to conduct one or more Tax Performance System (TPS)
sample reviews will be subject to a CAP. Additionally, a tax function that is not sampled
will be included in the number of total failing functions as measured by Tax Quality Part
A (no more than 3 tax functions may fail TPS review), and Part B (a tax function cannot
fail for three consecutive years). Exceptions include universes that are too small to
support a sample (“S”), an Experience Rate sample that was not scheduled for review
during the performance year (“E”), or the granting of a temporary waiver by the RO
(“W”). Program Review Findings Charts should be noted accordingly.
• Data Validation (DV)
The deadline for submitting DV results is June 10, 2013. DV items that failed to pass
validation or that were not submitted are expected to be addressed in the state’s FY 2014
SQSP. Non-submitted items include failures to certify that Module 3 of the DV Benefits
and Tax Handbooks are up-to-date during the April 1 – June 11 certification window.
If a state had DV items due for validation year (VY) 2013 and submitted all the
items, but did not pass all items, it may address those that did not pass in the
SQSP Narrative, explaining the cause of the failure and the actions the state will
take to correct the failure during FY 2014.
Any DV items due for VY 2013, but not submitted by the June 10, 2013,
deadline, must be addressed in a CAP for FY 2014.
If a state has a combination of non-submitted and submitted-but-failing items in
VY 2013, the state must do a DV CAP encompassing both the non-submitted and
the submitted-but-failing items. In this case, the submitted-but-failing items may
not be addressed in the Narrative.
ROs will verify that states are properly implementing the DV program by assessing the
accuracy of states’ DV results during a DV monitoring activity. States will be monitored
on a 3-year cycle. After a state participates in the monitoring activity, the items that
passed DV, but failed as a result of the monitoring activity will be addressed in the SQSP
process according to the following schedule:
DV items due to be monitored by June 2013 will be included in the FY 2014
SQSP
9
DV items due to be monitored by June 2012 will also be included in the FY 2014
SQSP
DV items due to be monitored by June 2014 will be included in the FY 2015
SQSP
Based on the plan described, the DV Monitoring schedule and the SQSP schedule should
align beginning with the FY 2015 SQSP.
• Effective Audit Measure
The Effective Audit Measure, as noted in UIPL No. 03-11, is a new UI Performs Core
Measure. It is a blended measure of the following four factors: 1) Percent of
Contributory Employers Audited Annually, 2) Percent of Total Wage Change From
Audit, 3) Percent of Total Wages Audited, and 4) Average Number of Misclassifications
Detected Per Audit. Each of the four factors has a minimum standard score that states
must attain to pass the Effective Audit Measure, as well as an overall combined score that
must be met. The measure also requires states to direct additional emphasis to the
factor(s) that they deem important to their state. An additional two points must be earned
among any of the four factors to attain the overall passing score of at least 7.0.
Beginning with the FY 2015 SQSP, states that do not meet this measure will be expected
to complete a CAP based on CY 2013 data.
States are not expected to submit a CAP for the Effective Audit Measure with the FY
2014 SQSP submission. However, if a state did not attain a passing score for the
Effective Audit Measure for the CY 2012 computed measure period, it is expected to
describe its plan to attain a passing score in the SQSP Narrative. The state should
address the specific factor(s) that are the cause of the failure, and describe the strategies
that will be employed to achieve a passing score for the CY 2014 computed measure
period.
States are expected to address all other performance deficiencies in the SQSP Narrative.
These include:
• Failure to conduct required program reviews;
• Deficiencies identified during required program reviews;
• Failure to meet reporting requirements; and
• Invalid recording of the Issue Detection Date (IDD) and Determination Date (DD).
The validity of the UI Performs nonmonetary determination timeliness measure depends
on the accuracy of the state’s IDD and DD data. IDD and DD data are considered
accurate if dates were correct in at least 95 percent of the nonmonetary determinations
evaluated in the quarterly quality samples (obtained from the ETA 9056 report). Since
the accuracy of IDD and DD data is based on sample results, sampling variation will be
10
taken into account in setting the percentage below which a state’s data will be considered
inaccurate. States with invalid IDD or DD data are expected to address the steps they
will take to record the IDD and DD correctly in the SQSP Narrative.
Attachment A lists the performance criteria for the Core Measures, Secretary’s Standards and
other program requirements where CAPs and/or Narratives may be required if annual
performance is not acceptable. Attachment B lists the preliminary state-specific ALPs for the
UI Reemployment measure. Final state-specific ALPs for the UI Reemployment measure
will be forwarded to the ROs for transmittal to the states as soon as they become available in
early June.
7. Additional SQSP Program Performance and Criteria. The following measures will be
implemented with the FY 2015 SQSP.
• Improper Payments Measure
The Improper Payments Measure is a new UI Performs Core Measure established by
UIPL No. 09-13. It is defined as UI benefits overpaid and underpaid, estimated from the
results of the BAM survey of paid UI claims in the State UI, Unemployment
Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE), and Unemployment Compensation for
Ex-Service Members (UCX) programs minus the amount of state UI, UCFE, and UCX
program overpayments recovered (reported on the ETA 227 Overpayment Detection and
Recovery Report). This net amount is expressed as a percentage of the amount of UI,
UCFE, and UCX benefits paid.
In accordance with Section 3(a)(3)(F) of IPERA requirements, the Department has
established an ALP of less than 10 percent for the improper payment measure. That is,
states must maintain a net improper payment rate of less than10 percent for covered
programs. This new ALP will be first applicable to the 2013 IPIA performance period
(BAM sampling weeks 201227 through 201326, which coincide with the period July 1,
2012, to June 29, 2013).
States failing to meet the ALP for the 2013 IPIA performance period will be expected to
develop a CAP as part of the FY 2015 SQSP.
• UI Overpayment Recovery Measure
Pursuant to Section 3(a)(3)(F) and in UIPL No. 09-13, the recovery rate is “the amount of
improper overpayments recovered divided by the amount of improper overpayments
identified.” To establish the ALP for the proposed measure, the Department conducted
an analysis of the UI payment, overpayment detection, and recovery data and proposed to
establish recovery targets of 55 percent for the 2013 IPIA reporting period, and 58
percent for the 2014 IPIA reporting period. The Department will compute future
recovery targets based on the most recent recovery and other performance data available.
11
The performance period will be based on the ETA 227 and ETA 227 Emergency
Unemployment Compensation (EUC) data for the IPIA period (July 1 to June 30 of the
IPIA reporting year). Pursuant to the UI Reports Handbook (ET Handbook No. 401, 4th
edition), the June quarter ETA 227 reports are due August 1st. The first measurement
period will be July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
States failing to meet the ALP for the 2013 IPIA performance period will be expected to
develop a CAP as part of the FY 2015 SQSP.
8. Impact of Sequestration on UI Program Performance. FY 2014 funding for
administration of state UI programs may be impacted due to sequestration reductions. The
Department will provide notification to states regarding any reductions to their FY 2014
administrative funding allocation so that states can plan operational activities to minimize
impacts on program performance. States are encouraged to take into consideration possible
effects on program operations and work with their RO to adjust the milestones/timeframes
for strategies included in their corrective action plans.
9. Funding Period. Appropriations language proposed by the Department provides for
obligation of FY 2014 UI allocations by states through December 31, 2014, with 90 additional
days to liquidate the obligations and complete the expenditure of funds. Under our proposed
appropriations language, states may obligate FY 2014 UI funds through September 30, 2016, if
such obligations are for automation acquisitions or competitive grants awarded to states for
improved operations; reemployment and eligibility assessments and improper payments; or
activities to address worker misclassification. Therefore, if Congress adopts the proposed
appropriations language, the end of the FY 2014 obligation period for regular state UI
administrative funds will be December 31, 2014, for all funds except automation acquisitions,
improved operations, reemployment and eligibility assessments, and improper payments or
misclassification activities, which have an obligation deadline of September 30, 2016. The
Department will notify you if Congress adopts this language.
10. Data Availability. ROs will provide states with reports showing their performance against
the Core Measures, Secretary’s Standards and other information relevant to the SQSP (e.g.,
reporting deficiencies).
11. Deadline for State SQSP Submittal. Each RO will set a deadline for states to submit their
SQSPs for FY 2014.
12. Electronic Submission of the SQSP. States must submit the SQSP electronically and
should contact their RO SQSP Coordinator before submittal to coordinate specific details.
Standard forms required as part of the budget reporting process (Chapter II of ET Handbook
No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 2) are available in PDF format and may be downloaded from
the OMB Web site at: http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/FormLinks?family=15. States may
submit the SQSP signature page electronically if the state law permits. States that do not
submit an electronic signature page must submit the signature page via fax, scan or mail by
the deadline set by the RO.
12
13. Action Requested. State Administrators are requested to:
• Make this information available to appropriate staff;
• Prepare their SQSPs in accordance with instructions in this UIPL and the planning and
reporting instructions contained in ET Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 2;
• Coordinate specifics, as appropriate, with the RO for electronic submission of the plan;
and
• Submit the FY 2014 SQSP by the dates specified to the appropriate RO.
14. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate RO.
15. Attachments.
A. Measures/Programs to be addressed in the FY 2014 SQSP
B. Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment Preliminary Acceptable Levels of
Performance (ALPs)
C. Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program Integrity Action Plan
13
Attachment 1 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_22_13_Att_A.pdf)
Attachment A
Measures/Programs to be Addressed in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014
State Quality Service Plan (SQSP)
Core Measures Measurement Period Criteria CAP Narrative
First Payment Promptness Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 87% √
Nonmonetary Determination Time Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 80% √
Lapse (combined score)
Nonmonetary Determination Quality Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 75% √
– Nonseparations
Nonmonetary Determination Quality Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 75% √
– Separations
Detection of Overpayments BPC: Apr 1, 2010 – Mar 31, <50% √
2013; >95% √
BAM: Oct. 1, 2009 –
Sept. 30,2012
If the rate is a result of
improper administration of >95% √
BAM and/or BPC
Average Age of Pending Lower Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 30 days √
Authority Appeals
Average Age of Pending Higher Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 40 days √
Authority Appeals
Lower Authority Appeals Quality Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 80% √
New Employer Status Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 70% √
Determinations Time Lapse
Tax Quality (Part A: No more than Jan 1, 2012– Dec 31, 2012 ← √
3 tax functions failing Tax
Performance System (TPS) in a year)
Tax Quality (Part B: The same tax Jan 1, 2012 – Dec 31, 2012 ← √
function cannot fail for 3 consecutive
years)
Facilitate Reemployment 1st Payments: October 1, Varies by State √
2011 to September 30, 2012 See Attached Table
Reemployment: January 1,
2012 to December 31, 2012
UI Integrity Measure – Benefit Year BAM batches 201201 to Varies by State √
Earnings (BYE) 201252 (Jan 1, 2012 – Dec
29, 2012)
Effective Audit Measure Jan 1, 2012 – Dec 31, 2012 Score >=7;and exceed No CAP √
all 4 factors until
FY 2015
Improper Payments Measure BAM: Batches 201227 to < 10%
201326 (July 1, 2012 to June No CAP
29, 2013) until
BPC: July 1, 2012 – June 30, FY 2015
2013
UI Overpayment Recovery Measure July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013 55% No CAP
(Increases to 58% in until
2014) FY 2015
Measures/Programs to be Addressed in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014
State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) (cont’d)
Measurement Period Criteria CAP Narrative
Secretary’s Standards in
Regulation
First Payment Promptness Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 87% √
(IntraState 14/21 Days)
First Payment Promptness Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 93% √
(IntraState 35 Days)
First Payment Promptness Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 70% √
(InterState 14/21 Days)
First Payment Promptness Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 78% √
(InterState 35 Days)
Lower Authority Appeals (30 Days) Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 60% √
Lower Authority Appeals (45 Days) Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 80% √
UI Programs, etc. Measurement Period CAP Narrative
Data Validation Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013
Results not submitted by June √
10, 2013
_________________________
Failing/incomplete submission Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 √
by June 10, 2013
Compliance with National Status as of March 31, 2013 √
Directory of New Hires matching
requirements for BAM
BAM operations not compliant with Jan 1, 2012 – Dec 31, 2012 √
investigative and /or method and
procedure requirements
Incorrect recording of the Issue Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 √
Detection Date and/or
Determination Date
TPS Sample Reviews Apr 1, 2012 – Mar 31, 2013 √
UI Program Integrity To be
addressed
in the UI
Integrity
Action Plan
2
Attachment 2 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_22_13_Att_B.pdf)
Attachment B
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment
Preliminary Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALPs)
Reemployment During 4 Quarters Ending 09/30/2012
%
FY 2012 Nonexempt FY 2012 Reemployment
State TUR (%) Y/E 6/30/2012 ALP 2012 Difference
AK 7.2 66.6% 61% 61.4% 0.4%
AL 7.5 70.2% 58% 61.1% 3.1%
AR 7.4 91.4% 54% 65.6% 11.6%
AZ 8.5 88.4% 54% 57.9% 3.9%
CA 10.8 86.7% 51% 68.2% 17.2%
CO 8.2 80.5% 54% 52.8% -1.2%
CT 8.4 88.1% 54% 47.8% -6.2%
DC 9.3 98.3% 51% 52.0% 1.0%
DE 7.2 71.8% 58% 60.1% 2.1%
FL 9 95.4% 53% 50.7% -2.3%
GA 9.3 74.5% 55% 55.7% 0.6%
HI 6.1 57.0% 66% 63.8% -2.2%
IA 5.4 44.5% 70% 70.4% 0.4%
ID 7.4 59.6% 64% 86.8% 22.8%
IL 9.1 73.4% 55% 56.4% 1.4%
IN 8.5 64.0% 60% 64.3% 4.3%
KS 5.9 69.5% 64% 59.9% -4.1%
KY 8.5 56.6% 62% 65.3% 3.3%
LA 6.8 90.5% 56% 56.6% 0.6%
MA 6.8 90.3% 56% 59.6% 3.6%
MD 6.9 87.3% 57% 54.4% -2.6%
ME 7.4 95.3% 54% 61.9% 7.9%
MI 9.3 78.4% 55% 82.5% 27.5%
MN 5.8 50.7% 67% 74.3% 7.3%
MO 7.2 86.0% 56% 61.3% 5.3%
MS 9.4 99.4% 51% 61.6% 10.6%
MT 6.2 40.6% 68% 71.4% 3.4%
NC 9.6 76.6% 55% 58.5% 3.5%
ND 3.2 28.4% 73% 78.7% 5.7%
NE 4.1 68.0% 66% 60.2% -5.8%
NH 5.5 81.8% 59% 62.5% 3.5%
NJ 9.4 82.3% 52% 57.2% 5.2%
NM 7 93.1% 56% 50.1% -5.9%
NV 11.7 75.6% 52% 56.8% 4.8%
NY 8.5 81.1% 54% 56.5% 2.5%
OH 7.5 87.0% 56% 61.6% 5.6%
OK 5.4 93.4% 58% 52.6% -5.4%
OR 8.9 71.9% 57% 62.9% 5.9%
PA 7.9 48.3% 67% 66.6% -0.4%
PR 14.8 79.6% 47% 41.9% -5.1%
RI 10.7 66.9% 56% 55.3% -0.7%
SC 9.4 89.8% 52% 58.5% 6.5%
SD 4.4 66.3% 66% 69.5% 3.5%
TN 8.2 71.7% 57% 59.6% 2.6%
TX 7.1 92.8% 54% 58.6% 4.6%
UT 5.9 83.0% 59% 61.8% 2.8%
VA 6 89.9% 59% 57.6% -1.4%
VI 10.6 100.0% 50% 32.1% -17.9%
VT 5.1 65.7% 64% 71.4% 7.4%
WA 8.5 79.7% 57% 74.8% 17.8%
WI 7 34.2% 68% 74.3% 6.3%
WV 7.3 62.9% 61% 64.4% 3.4%
WY 5.6 67.0% 64% 56.7% -7.4%
Note: States failing to attain ALP are highlighted. 15
Total Unemployment Rates (TUR) are for FY 2012
% nonexempt for year ending 6/30/2012
% reemployed for year ending 09/30/2012.
2
ALPs for Reemployment of UI Beneficiaries
for the FY 2014 SQSP Based on FY2007-12 Regression
FY 2012 Percent of Claimants Not on Temporary Layoff;
TUR (%) (% of Non-Exempt Claimants in YE 6/30/2012)
>90 >80 -90 >70 -80 >60 - 70 >50 - 60 ≤50
≤2 64% 65% 68% 71% 74% 77%
>2 to 3 63% 64% 66% 69% 72% 75%
>3 to 4 61% 62% 65% 68% 70% 73%
>4 to 5 59% 60% 63% 66% 69% 72%
>5 to 6 58% 59% 62% 64% 67% 70%
>6 to 7 56% 57% 60% 63% 66% 68%
>7 to 8 54% 56% 58% 61% 64% 67%
>8 to 9 53% 54% 57% 60% 62% 65%
>9 to 10 51% 52% 55% 58% 61% 64%
>10 to 11 50% 51% 53% 56% 59% 62%
>11 to 12 48% 49% 52% 55% 57% 60%
>12 to 13 46% 47% 50% 53% 56% 59%
>13 43% 44% 47% 50% 53% 55%
3
Attachment 3 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_22_13_Att_C.pdf)
Attachment C
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program Integrity Action Plan
State: (Name of state) Federal Fiscal Year: (SQSP Planning Year)
Root Causes:
(List the top three root causes of improper payments in the state for the most recent IPIA period, and
percentage change for each cause compared to the prior year’s IPIA rate.
Accountable Agency Official(s): (List the person accountable for reducing UI improper payments)
Summary: (Provide a summary of the plan that the state has designed. The summary should include
outreach efforts planned by the agency to inform all UI and workforce staff, and employers of the strategic
plan to ensure everyone understands the importance of maintaining program integrity.)
Strategies Actions/ Targets and Milestones Resources
This section should be
List the specific action
divided into target and
steps for each strategy Provide a description of the
milestones. Specific
List the strategies that that the state is taking. type resource e.g. human
milestones should be set
the state is taking to If a Plan is already in capital, technology and other
for each of the actions. It
address UI improper place, list continuing tools that have been designated
is suggested that the
payments. actions/activities first to address the state’s UI
milestones be set
and then any new improper payments.
quarterly under each
actions/activities.
target.
4
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program Integrity Action Plan
Background
On July 22, 2010, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) of 2010
(P.L. 111-204) was enacted. IPERA requires Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal
funding to ensure that their managers and accountable officers (including the agency head),
programs, and, where applicable, states and localities, are held accountable for reducing
improper payments.
To implement IPERA, we are requiring State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) to report their
planned activities to prevent, detect, reduce, and recover improper UI payments in a UI Program
Integrity Action Plan. A recommended template for the plan has been developed and is
included. The action plan should provide:
• Strategies and associated actions to reduce root causes, including the recovery of
improper payments;
• Timeline, expected targets and measures;
• Type and source of resources dedicated to accomplish the action plan; and
• Outcomes from the previous year’s strategies to address root causes of improper
payments.
To help the SWAs plan, we will provide each state with state-specific Benefit Accuracy
Measurement (BAM) improper payment estimates, with data and the annual trend for the top
root causes of overpayments. SWAs are strongly encouraged to implement new strategies to
address root causes with negative trends in improper payments.
Program Integrity Action Plan Specifics
The plan must identify the SWA officer(s) accountable for reducing improper payments,
summarize the SWA’s assessment of whether it has the internal controls, human capital, and
information systems and other infrastructure needed to reduce improper payments to minimal
cost-effective levels, and identify any statutory or regulatory barriers which may limit the
agency’s corrective actions in reducing improper payments. Additionally, the plan must discuss
the root causes of improper payments and present the state’s strategies to address these causes.
A. Strategies to address Root Causes and Recovery of Improper Payments. The SWA must use
the BAM improper payment estimates we provide to describe their strategies to prevent,
detect, and/or reduce each root cause. Additionally, the strategies must include actions to
improve the recovery of these improper payments.
To determine the root causes for improper payments, each SWA needs to conduct an analysis
of improper payments by reviewing:
• Cause and responsible party;
• Cause and prior actions by the agency, employer and claimant; and
5
• Cause and BAM error detection points.
Other analysis may include SWA staffing issues, technology tools used, etc.
i) Prevention. Prevention activities are by definition proactive. These are actions
performed before payment issuance to assure that the payment is accurate when
made. Examples of this type of activity include:
(1) Expanding the methods for communicating Benefit Rights and Responsibility
Information (BRI), reviewing information layout and reading level, and testing
claimant understanding;
(2) Training employers and claimants on separation information requirements;
(3) Implementing the State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES) designed to
improve the quality and timeliness of separation information;
(4) Reviewing state law, rules and regulations, business processes, and goals that are
concerned with employment service (ES) registration and aligning these elements
to eliminate overpayments. Several business models exist which may help to
eliminate ES Registration errors. Two of the most successful are outlined below:
(a) Claimant responsible for ES registration – SWA stops payment if the claimant
is not registered within 14 days of the initial claim. Weeks claimed or
additional claims automatically maintain registration as active.
(b) Agency responsible for ES registration – SWA collects enough information
during the initial claims process to register the claimant for services. This
information is transmitted to ES and the system shows an active registration.
(5) Using of Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) and Social
Security Administration Crossmatching;
(6) Working with a consortium of states, improve the continued claims-taking
process (Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and Internet) design and flow logic to
better detect changes in employment status between weekly certifications. To
prevent benefit year earnings reporting errors, SWAs should ensure that the IVR
or internet process clearly focuses first on employment status and then earnings in
its series of questions asked – for example, “Did you work during the week of
mm/dd/yyyy? How many hours did you work? How much do you earn per
hour?”;
(7) Focusing on the claimant’s return to work date and earnings verification. If a
claimant does not report work or hours after the return to work date, create a call-
in reporting requirement where the claimant has claimed a week after the return to
work date and has not reported earnings;
(8) Staff evaluation and training (such as an Expanded Benefit Timeliness and
Quality adjudication evaluation program and issue training); and
6
(9) Assuring standardized fact-finding questions are used and completed for each
issue type.
ii) Detection. Detection activities occur after the payment. These are actions that the
state controls and usually involve crossmatch activities such as:
(1) National Directory of New Hire Crossmatching – check crossmatch time
parameters and agency filters, and use mandatory call-ins if a week is claimed and
no earnings are reported;
(2) Implement the recommended operating procedures for Crossmatching Activity:
National and State Directories of New Hires as outlined in the Unemployment
Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 19-11, National Effort to Reduce Improper
Payments in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program;
(3) Wage Record Crossmatching – check the index calculation to ensure that it
reflects current earnings-disregard standards, run the wage record crossmatch for
nine consecutive weeks after the end of a quarter to distribute workload and detect
issues as soon as information is available;
(4) Implementation of SIDES to improve the quality and timeliness of separation and
benefit year earnings information and to receive employer-reported information in
electronic format so earnings comparisons can be completed by the computer
instead of Benefit Payment Control (BPC) personnel;
(5) Use of data mining to detect such disqualifying issues as multiple claimants at
single address or phone number; and
(6) Use of predictive analysis to identify claims at high risk for overpayments.
iii) Reduction. Reduction activities are those actions which reduce the amount overpaid
or the number of weeks overpaid and involve activities such as:
(1) Redesign of BPC workflow to reduce administrative activities;
(2) Using call-in and/or automated “required to report” notices (mail, IVR, email, and
Internet) to raise BPC earnings issues quickly;
(3) Use of weighting strategies to prioritize detection workload; and
(4) Automating certain overpayment establishment decisions, where the business
process only requires earning adjustment notices.
iv) Recovery. SWAs must specify the actions they plan to take to recover overpayments
and plans to improve the recovery of overpayments. (See UIPL No. 33-99,
Overpayment Recovery Technical Assistance Guide, available at
http://www.oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl99/3399att/3399toc.htm ). Examples of
this would be:
7
(1) Redesign of the BPC overpayment recovery workflow process;
(2) Streamline administrative activities and/or automation of skip tracing and
collection notices to claimants;
(3) Implementation of the Federal Tax Offset Program (TOP) with the
Department of the Treasury; and
(4) Implementation of a state Income Tax Offset program.
B. Targets and Timeline. When designing strategies to address improper payments, agencies
must set targets for future improper payment levels and a timeline when the proposed
strategies will be completed and within which the expected targets will be reached. We
encourage states to develop realistic multi-year initiatives.
C. Resource Allocation. The plan must include a description of the type of resources such as
human capital, technology and other tools that will be used to prevent, detect, reduce and
recover improper payments.
D. Outcomes from Last Year’s Strategies. Agencies must include a brief summary discussion of
the implementation outcomes from the previous year’s integrity strategic plan, noting
whether the strategy implementation was completed, indicating known results, and/or
discussing delays or barriers that prevented completion of the strategy implementation.
8
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