Back to Federal guidance
FY 2013 grants for UI integrity and systems
Summary ETA described FY 2013 supplemental funds for states to prevent improper unemployment payments, improve program performance and modernize information systems. The letter sets required strategies, eligibility and application procedures; five attachments provide project and request materials. ETA still lists it as Active, though the grant cycle was for FY 2013.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 24-13
Date issued
July 25, 2013
Status
Unknown
ETA's advisory listing marks this letter Active and its PDF says 'Expiration Date: Continuing,' but the funding opportunity was for FY 2013. Current applicability of its grant instructions is unclear.
Status last verified October 24, 2026
Apply this to your situation
This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION Unemployment Insurance
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OUI
Washington, D.C. 20210 DATE
July 25, 2013
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 24-13
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: ERIC M. SELEZNOW /s/
Acting Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements
1. Purpose. To notify State Workforce Agencies of the availability of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013
funds for activities that support the prevention and detection of UI improper benefit
payments, improve state performance, and address outdated Information Technology (IT)
system infrastructures necessary to improve UI program integrity.
2. References.
• Executive Order (E.O.) 13520, Reducing Improper Payments (November 20, 2009);
• Improper Payment Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), 31 U.S.C. 3321;
• Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), 31 U.S.C. 3301;
• Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA), 31
U.S.C. 3321;
• Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 22-10, Selecting and Monitoring
At-Risk States for Continuous Improvement and Compliance with First Payment
Timeliness and First Level Appeals Promptness;
• 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. 17-12, Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Information Data Exchange
System (SIDES) Messaging and Communications Toolkit Availability;
• UIPL No. 18-12, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity for
Program Integrity and Performance and System Improvements; and
• UIPL No. 09-13, Integrity Performance Measures for Unemployment Insurance.
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
None Continuing
3. Background. On November 20, 2009, President Obama signed E.O. 13520, Reducing
Improper Payments. It emphasized the need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in federally
administered programs while protecting access to these programs by their intended
beneficiaries. In addition, the IPIA, as amended by IPERA and IPERIA, requires Federal
agencies to review their programs annually 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. The UI program is currently out of compliance, as the national UI improper
payment rate was estimated to be 11.42 percent for the 2012 reporting period (10.81 percent
overpayment rate plus a 0.61 percent underpayment rate). This translates to approximately
$10.3 billion in improper payments nationally.
On June 10, 2011, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) issued UIPL No. 19-
11, National Effort to Reduce Improper Payments in the UI Program, to notify stakeholders
that UI integrity is a top priority and to request that they each provide a strategic plan to
aggressively target UI overpayment prevention and detection in their states. UIPL No. 19-11
also requested that all states participate in a federal-state collaboration of cross-functional
task forces to reduce UI improper payments by implementing new strategies aimed at
addressing the root causes of overpayments to significantly reduce the UI improper payment
rate. ETA also issued UIPL No. 28-11, which announced an initiative to support states in
convening cross-functional UI integrity task forces and developing state-specific strategic
plans to reduce UI improper payment rates.
To support states’ efforts in implementing elements of their strategic plans, ETA announced
supplemental funding opportunities with incentives to accelerate state actions to reduce
improper payments for FY 2011 in UIPL No. 26-11, and for FY 2012 in UIPL No. 18-12.
As a condition of eligibility, those funding opportunities required states to implement Core
Integrity Strategies to qualify for additional “Incentive Integrity Activity” funding.
One Core Strategy that ETA funded is the implementation of the State Information Data
Exchange System (SIDES). SIDES is a web-based system that allows electronic
transmission of UI information requests from state agencies to employers and/or Third Party
Administrators, as well as transmission of replies containing the requested information back
to the UI agencies. The National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA)
manages the day-to-day operations and maintenance of SIDES, which is funded through
subscription fees from participating states. States receiving supplemental funds for the
payment of SIDES subscription costs may pay these fees directly to NASWA or ask ETA to
de-obligate the state’s SBR funds to send to the State of Maryland, the lead state for the
SIDES consortium, for payment to NASWA on their behalf.
In FY 2011, ETA provided a total of $192 million in supplemental grant awards to 42 states
for integrity activities, and in FY 2012, a total of $169 million in supplemental grant awards
was provided to 33 states for the prevention, detection, and recovery of improper UI benefit
payments.
2
The FY 2013 funding also provides an opportunity for states to go beyond improper
payments to focus on additional UI IT system improvements for Unemployment
Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX) data exchange enhancements and integration
of state UI, Employment Service (ES), and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) IT systems.
Addressing the reemployment needs of UI claimants through increased UI and workforce
system connectivity has been a key focus of the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for
several years now, and important groundwork has been done by NASWA and the
Information Technology Support Center (ITSC). These supplemental funds will enable
interested states to take the next steps.
The Department also continues to be committed to supporting states in updating their IT
infrastructures. The ITSC reports that the average age of the states’ UI IT infrastructures is
23 years, with many systems more than 30 years old. These aging “legacy” systems have
poor agility to integrate new technology components, limited capacity to handle increased
claims loads, and inhibit productivity by limiting new technologies that can be added.
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
is employing a consortium strategy to fund system modernization and large technology
projects.
4. Structure of Funding Opportunity. With the goal of providing incentives for all states to
take advantage of this funding opportunity, ETA is structuring the FY 2013 supplemental
funding opportunity to provide states with greater flexibility in developing state-specific
strategies and lessening the burden of the prescribed implementation deadlines included in
the last two solicitations for supplemental budget requests (SBRs). Similar to the SBRs of
the past two years, states must implement a set of Core Strategies, totaling up to $1.75
million per state, designed to expand state efforts to aggressively target UI overpayment
prevention and detection activities to qualify for additional funding for FY 2013. States that
have implemented, or agree to implement, the entire set of Core Strategies may be eligible to
request targeted funding, in an amount ranging from up to $1.15 million to $1.55 million per
state, to support projects in Focus Areas such as program integrity, UI modernization and
automation activities, and state-specific performance improvement.
Section 5 of this UIPL discusses the Core Strategies that all states must implement as part of
their individual integrity strategic plans in order to qualify for Focus Area funding. Included
in Section 5 is a chart depicting the maximum funding amounts available for each Core
Strategy.
Section 6 of this UIPL discusses the Focus Areas identified by ETA for targeted funding in
FY 2013. Included in Section 6 is a chart showing the maximum funding amounts available
for each Focus Area.
3
Section 7 discusses Consortium funding opportunities. States committing to implement all of
the core activities, or that have already implemented the core activities, will be eligible to
submit proposals for UI modernization projects as part of a consortium of states.
All state applications will be evaluated by ETA based on the potential impact of the strategy
on performance outcomes such as the reduction of state improper payment rates (see
Attachment A, Measurable Improvement Expected in UI Operations).
5. Required Core Strategies. States must implement each of the Core Strategies identified in
this section to receive funding through this solicitation. For each strategy, states must either
commit to implementation and recommend a timeline for completion, or attest that the
strategy is already complete and provide the completion date. Funding caps are identified for
each activity in the tables at the end of Section 5 and Section 6. States should propose
realistic timelines and goals for the completion of all Core Strategies. By accepting these
funds, each state agrees to meet the commitment(s) made in its application. A state that fails
to meet the performance requirements and timelines established in the grant(s) statement of
work could have questioned costs that would need to be repaid.
• Business Process Analysis (BPA) for Improper Payments. States with improper
payment rates of 10 percent or higher (refer to Attachment C for rate information to
identify targeted states) must either: conduct a BPA if one has not been performed in the
last four calendar years, or implement at least one recommendation to improve program
integrity as included in a BPA that was performed in the last four calendar years.
• Targeted states that have not conducted a BPA in the last four calendar years must
perform an operational business process review of their benefit systems to
identify areas where changes in business processes could lead to a reduction in the
improper payment rate and overall improvement in program integrity. The review
must be conducted collaboratively by state staff and an 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. Targeted states may request
up to $250,000 for this activity and propose an appropriate timeline for its
completion.
• Targeted states that have conducted a BPA using an independent third party in the
last four calendar years may attest that the BPA is complete and provide the
completion date. However, these states are required to request funding to
implement at least one of the recommendations from the BPA. Targeted states
may request up to $250,000 for this activity and propose an appropriate
timeline for its completion.
• BPA for First Payment and/or First Level Appeals Promptness. States designated as
“At Risk” (refer to UIPL No. 22-10 for guidance) must either: conduct a BPA if one has
not been performed in the last four calendar years, or implement at least one
recommendation to improve program integrity as included in a BPA that was performed
in the last four calendar years.
4
• States designated as “At Risk” that have not conducted a BPA in the last four
calendar years, must perform an operational business process review of their
benefit systems to identify areas where changes in business processes will lead to
performance improvement. The review must be conducted collaboratively by
state staff and an independent third party contracted by the state, and
recommendations from this review should be included in the next State Quality
Service Plan (SQSP) to the extent feasible. “At Risk” states may request up to
$250,000 for this activity and propose an appropriate timeline for its
completion.
• States designated as “At Risk” that have conducted a BPA using an independent
third party in the last four calendar years may attest that the BPA is complete and
provide the completion date. However, these states are required to request
funding to implement at least one of the recommendations from the BPA.
Targeted states may request up to $250,000 for this activity and propose an
appropriate timeline for its completion.
• SIDES Implementation, Expansion, and Messaging.
• States that have not implemented SIDES, and have not received any supplemental
funds for implementation to date, will fully implement both the SIDES Web
Services and SIDES E-Response components to improve the timeliness and
quality of separation information needed to adjudicate non-monetary
determinations. States may request up to $500,000 for this activity and should
propose realistic timelines and goals to implement SIDES Web Services and
SIDES E-Response as soon as feasible, but not later than March 31, 2015.
States may also request funds for SIDES subscription fees as administered by
NASWA for two years.
Note: States requesting SIDES subscription fees must indicate if their SBR grant
funds need to be de-obligated to the lead state (Maryland) for the payment to
NASWA.
• States that implement SIDES by September 30, 2013, must also commit to expand
the program to a minimum threshold of employer participation for both SIDES
Web Services and SIDES E-Response. Specifically, states must commit to using
SIDES to transmit requests to individual employers not using Third Party
Administrators for information on separations and receive employer responses for
at least 35 percent of all UI initial claims (initial and additional claims as reported
in the ETA 5159). States that have completed this activity must attest that the
strategy is complete and provide the completion date (the month when the 35
percent threshold of all UI initial claims criteria was met). States that have not
achieved this participation rate should propose realistic timelines and goals
to achieve this participation rate as soon as feasible, but not later than March
31, 2015. States may also request funds for SIDES subscription fees as
administered by NASWA for one additional year.
5
Note: States requesting SIDES subscription fees must indicate if their SBR grant
funds need to be de-obligated to the lead state (Maryland) for the payment to
NASWA.
• States that implement SIDES by September 30, 2013, must develop and
implement an outreach plan to increase employer take-up of SIDES, as well as
commit to implement at least one SIDES messaging tool (including use of the
SIDES messaging video) to encourage employers to use the SIDES Web Services
or E-Response services. The SIDES marketing toolkit was released via UIPL No.
17-12, and is available at www.dol.gov/dol/maps/tools.htm. In addition, the
SIDES messaging video developed by ETA is available at info.uisides.org.
States may request up to $100,000 for these messaging activities and should
propose realistic timelines and goals to implement them as soon as feasible,
but not later than March 31, 2015.
Note: In the future, ETA may be interested in states implementing alternative
behavioral approaches that have proven effective in other programs at low cost.
Targeted messaging activities such as this may be one opportunity for states to
participate in this effort.
• State-Identified Prevention Strategy. States must propose the implementation of an
integrity strategy designed to prevent improper payments before they occur. This
proposal may include strategies such as the use of the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH) to flag the next continued claim and require the claimant to file in person (see
description at www.dol.gov/dol/maps/pdf/20111212NewJersey.pdf); technology-based
overpayment prevention and detection; and other state-specific strategies to prevent
improper payments. States that have previously implemented a prevention strategy must
propose the implementation of a separate strategy, or the enhancement of an existing
strategy, to meet this requirement. States must propose an appropriate timeline for
completion of this strategy and project the impact of the strategy on the state’s
improper payment rate. States may request up to $1 million for this activity. In
addition, states may request Focus Area funding of up to $750,000 to supplement
this strategy (see Section 6), providing a total of up to $1.75 million to support this
strategy. Please note that these funds may not be used for staffing of program
operations.
• Cross-Functional Task Force. States must attest that they will continue convening a
cross-functional UI Integrity Task Force (see UIPL No. 19-11 and UIPL No. 28-11) –
including front line claims takers, adjudicators, Benefit Payment Control (BPC) and
Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) staff, IT staff, appeals staff, and tax staff – that is
responsible for updating and submitting a revised integrity strategic plan required as part
of the annual SQSP. ETA requires the continuation of this Task Force, established by all
states in 2011, to cultivate a sense of ownership of program integrity within the entire UI
system. No SBR funding will be provided to support this activity.
6
SUMMARY OF CORE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR EACH STATE
MAXIMUM FUNDS
REQUIRED CORE STRATEGY
AVAILABLE
Business Process Analysis for Improper Payments $250,000
Business Process Analysis for Performance Improvement $250,000
SIDES:
$500,000
• Implementation
*See note
• Expansion
$100,000
• Messaging
State Identified Prevention Strategy $1,000,000
Cross-Functional Task Force $0
*Note: Please contact Mr. Subri Raman ([email protected]) in the National Office to
determine the annual state subscription fee for SIDES, which varies by state.
6. Focus Area Funding. Only those states that have implemented, or commit to implementing,
all of the Core Strategies listed in Section 5 are eligible for additional funds for the following
types of activities: 1) enhanced staffing or contract support to increase the capacity of the
state’s BPC function; and 2) UI IT system improvements or specific types of integrity and
performance improvement projects (see Attachment E). These funding opportunities are
discussed in more detail below.
• Merit staffing and securing contract support through September 30, 2015. States
may request funding for merit staffing or contracting of support activities for their BPC
activities in order to increase prevention, detection, and recovery of improper payments.
States must attest that they will maintain current levels of merit staff and resources
(maintenance of effort) and that the additional merit staff will be used to improve
productivity of their BPC operations.
Contract staff may perform only work that is not inherently governmental; inherently
governmental functions may be performed only by state merit staff. For example,
contract staff may be used to contact claimants when there is an NDNH hit indicating the
claimant may have returned to work, in order to provide instructions about claimant
requirements to report for additional fact finding. Contract staff may not provide any
advice to claimants beyond the approved instructions.
States must develop a detailed budget for these projects and identify projected outcomes.
Total funding for merit staffing and/or contracting support activities will be provided
based on state sizes as provided in Attachment D. Funding amounts available are as
follows:
• Large States: Up to $800,000
• Medium States: Up to $600,000
• Small States: Up to $400,000
7
• UI IT System Improvements or Specific Types of Integrity or Performance
Improvement Strategies. States may request up to $750,000 to support
projects/activities under UI IT, Integrity, or Performance Improvement Focus Areas
discussed in Attachment E. Please note that states submitting more than one proposal
under the State-Specific Integrity and Program Performance Focus Areas should rank the
proposals by priority since ETA may not fund all proposals. In addition, states may
request that this additional funding be used to supplement the State Identified Prevention
Strategy identified in Section 5, providing a total of up to $1.75 million to support that
strategy.
SUMMARY OF FOCUS AREA FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR EACH STATE
MAXIMUM FUNDS
FOCUS AREAS
AVAILABLE
$800,000
Merit Staffing and Contract Support $600,000
$400,000
Other Focus Area Strategies $750,000
7. Consortium Projects for UI Modernization. States committing to implement all of the
core activities, or that have already implemented the core activities, will be eligible to submit
proposals on behalf of a consortium of states for UI modernization projects that will reduce
improper payments, speed reemployment, and/or better integrate UI with other programs.
Proposals submitted will leverage and build on products developed by the existing consortia
or recently modernized UI systems that are mature and stabilized. Consortium proposals
must identify a lead state agency, identify the states participating in the consortium, and
explain the projected allocation of and fiscal responsibility for expenditures. Additionally,
the proposal must include a copy of the signed agreement(s) by all participating states. A
cover letter must be included and signed by the Administrator of the lead state agency and it
must explain the roles of the participating state(s) in the project as described in the
consortium agreement.
A consortium planning to submit a proposal must comply with the requirements provided in
Attachment B of this advisory.
A consortium of states may submit a proposal requesting funding for any of the following UI
IT Modernization purposes:
• Existing consortium with completed business requirements for a UI Benefits and/or Tax
system– an existing consortium may submit a proposal for the design, development and
implementation of a UI Benefits and/or Tax system;
• Expanding an existing consortium – an existing consortium of states may submit a
proposal to add individual state(s) to their consortium for the development of a UI
Benefits and/or Tax system by committing that the new state will conduct a gap analysis
8
of the consortium’s business requirements, revise the existing consortium agreement, and
agree to amend the existing governance structure, operating model, and other decisions
made by the consortium to accommodate the inclusion of the new state agency;
• Leveraging existing consortium business requirements – a new consortium of states
leveraging existing consortium business requirements to define common functional
requirements, analyzing and assessing each existing consortium as a model to adopt a
governance structure, development approaches and operational model, and other factors
to support the joint development of a UI Benefits and/or Tax system;
• Leveraging a state’s modernized UI Benefits and/or Tax system – a consortium of states
may submit a proposal using a gap analysis to modify, configure, implement, and host the
modernized UI IT system of a participating state for multi-state purposes; and
• In very limited circumstances, such as unanticipated costs for additional subject matter
experts to assist with the project, ETA may consider additional funding for consortia that
have already received IT modernization funding under an earlier SBR. The rationale for
a request must be compelling and demonstrate that changes in circumstances or situations
that were unforeseeable are the cause for the need for additional funding.
8. Proposed Data Collection. ETA is developing a data collection request for the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) approval for quarterly state reporting on the
implementation of SBR activities. This request may include reporting information on SBR
project quarterly expenditures, the completion of specific project milestones, and additional
data necessary to assist the National and Regional Offices in monitoring implementation.
ETA will communicate with the UI system to seek comment on the proposed data collection
through the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance process, and will notify states upon OMB
approval of the final data collection. ETA anticipates this data collection will be in place for
states to begin reporting in Quarter 2 of FY 2014.
9. Application and Award of Supplemental Funds. To apply for supplemental funds, a state
must submit an SBR package (see Attachment A) consisting of an individual application for
each of the Core Strategies and, if any, Focus Areas 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 why the funds are
duplicated to ensure that the same costs are not funded twice. States must use the application
document provided in Attachment A to prepare an SBR package. States must also submit a
single form SF-424 (OMB No. 4040-0004) and SF-424A (OMB No. 4040-0006) covering all
projects in the SBR. Applications that do not follow this prescribed format will be returned
to the states for correction without review. States may be required to submit a revised SF-
424 and SF-424A if the final award amount is different from the initial request.
For consortium projects, the lead state agency will be responsible for submitting a joint
application (see Attachment B) on behalf of the participating states. The proposal must
clearly indicate total project costs including a breakdown of individual state costs. We do
9
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.
The one-time funds available for automation acquisitions and competitive grants for
improved operations and improper payment activities must be obligated by states by
September 30, 2015, and liquidated within 90 days of that date. Upon written request, the
Grant Officer may extend the liquidation period. An obligation of the funds by a state by
September 30, 2015, to an outside entity allows for work supported by these funds to
continue for 90 days beyond that date. Any work beyond that date would require an
approved liquidation extension beyond the 90 day period. Funds obligated for state merit
staff and for services related to automation acquisitions/projects such as subject matter
experts, application developers, or project management oversight, may not be expended after
September 30, 2015.
By applying for any of these funds for individual state projects, the state agrees that the
proposed projects will be completed with no additional federal funding. For consortium
projects, ETA may allocate additional funding to ensure successful completion of projects,
on a case-by-case basis if funding is available. When projects have been approved, a Letter
of Award will be issued to the state(s) listing the proposals that are being funded by the SBR.
It will include the funding level for each proposal, the total funding level for the state’s SBR,
and the allocation among states for any consortium projects.
10. 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 is equal to or exceeds 20 percent of any category of the initially awarded amount
for the project. The state must also submit a request for modification of the grant signed 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. For consortium
grants, this request must be provided to the National Office by the lead state.
By accepting these funds, each state agrees to meet the commitment(s) made in its
application. States may not elect to abandon an approved (single) project and move funds to
a different project. A state that fails to meet the performance requirements and timelines
established in the grant(s) statement of work could have questioned costs that would need to
be repaid.
11. Action Requested. We request State Administrators to:
a) Review the funding opportunities and determine whether the state will apply for any
funds under this solicitation;
b) Coordinate with the UI program and Information Technology staff to develop a
10
proposal(s) under this solicitation;
c) Work with the appropriate Regional Office to develop an SBR that will best serve the
needs of the state; and
d) Submit the state SBR application by e-mail to [email protected] by the close
of business on August 26, 2013, with an electronic copy to the appropriate Regional
Office. The subject line of the e-mail should include the name of the state and the
title “Integrity-Related SBR 2013.”
12. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office.
13. Attachments.
Attachment A: 2013 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Application
Attachment B: 2013 Description of Consortium Projects
Attachment C: CY 2012 State Improper Payment Rates
Attachment D: State Size Classifications
Attachment E: Focus Area Project Examples
11
Attachment 1 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_24_13_Att_A.pdf)
Attachment A
2013 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Application
Unemployment Insurance
Supplemental Budget Request Abstract
State Name:
Total Funds Requested for All Projects:
Name, Title, and Address of Grant Notification Contact (Typically the State Workforce
Agency Administrator)
Name:
Title:
Address:
Name, E-Mail Address and Phone Number of SBR Project or Fiscal Manager
Name:
E-Mail Address:
Telephone Number:
Name, E-Mail Address and Phone Number 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 Proposed Completion Date
Instructions: In addition to the SBR Abstract, states must complete a separate document
using the format below for each activity for which the state is seeking funding. 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. Applications that do not follow this prescribed format will be
returned to states for correction without review.
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 (20 percent of total score): Provide a list of the dates and the milestones for
this project. The timeline should include the completion of the work, the designation of specific
tasks to appropriate parties, the issuance of a request for proposal if appropriate, the projected
start date, the proposed dates to begin and complete testing (if necessary), and the proposed date
for full implementation of the project.
Description of Costs (20 percent of total score): 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 Position Total Hours Cost Per Hour Total
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: Consortium project proposals (described under Section 7
of this UIPL) submitted by lead state agencies on behalf of consortia 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 participating states 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(s). If a consortium 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.
Strategic Design (30 percent of total score): 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.
2
For example:
o Identify the data that will be received from the data matching, e.g., wages, start to work
date, name, date of birth, address, etc.
o Estimate the amount of overpayments the system will prevent or detect in a year.
o Estimate the percentage of claimants that will be part of the data matching system.
o Describe the data system(s) that the state will use to match claimant records.
o Indicate how often the data match will be conducted.
o 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.
Measurable Improvements Expected in UI Operations (30 percent of total score): 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 project(s).
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 participating
state for the consortium project. The points will be scaled based on the percentage of leveraged
resources that the participating 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
3
Attachment 2 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_24_13_Att_B.pdf)
Attachment B
2013 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 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.
Consortium proposals must leverage and build on products developed by the existing consortia
or recently modernized UI systems that are mature and stabilized. For more information on
existing consortia activities, please contact Mr. Subri Raman at [email protected].
Additionally, each project planned by the consortia must specifically address the following
requirements:
• Data outputs that meets UI Required Reporting requirements as referenced in ETA
Handbook No. 401;
• UI Data Validation requirements as referenced in ETA Handbook No. 361;
• System interfaces with the Interstate Connection (ICON) network applications;
• System interfaces with the State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES);
• Comply with appropriate assurances as referenced in ETA Handbook No. 336, Chapter VII,
including the requirements for Contingency Planning and Automated Information Systems
Security;
• Comply with any data exchange standards as promulgated by the Department to the extent
applicable and feasible; and
• If the project includes an integrated UI Tax system, must provide for the continued
reporting of wage records, monthly employment, and any other factors required under
the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program.
As stated in Section 7 of this UIPL, all required elements for the consortium’s planned approach
must be included in the consortium agreement that all participating states must sign.
Any new consortium of states must jointly establish a Project Team to develop a planned
approach for the project. The consortium must be administered by a Project Team consisting of
the Project Lead from each of the participating states. One state will be selected as the lead state.
Each state must provide project staff (program and technical) to work with the 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 must seek
input from and provide feedback to other interested state staff as well as to regional and national
office staff. The 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.
The project 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 state will be responsible for developing
and awarding a contract with the support and participation of the other participating states.
Examples of the lead state responsibilities:
• Coordinate all activities related to the project with the other participating states.
• Develop and provide to ETA a detailed project management plan no later than
December 1, 2013.
• Develop, in consultation with participating states, an RFP.
• Host the selected contractor on-site, provide staff for the Project Team, and respond
to requests for information.
• 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:
• Assist with development of the RFP.
• Attend meetings/conferences with lead states and other participating states.
• Host contractor on-site and provide staff to respond to specific requests for
information.
• Assist in developing/presenting deliverables for the project.
• Provide staffing for the Project Team.
2
Attachment 3 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_24_13_Att_C.pdf)
Attachment C
CY 2012 State Improper Payment Rates
Unemployment Insurance Calendar Year 2012 Improper Payment Rate
From: CY 2012 QTR 1 To: CY 2012 QTR 4
*** Please Note: UI improper payment data displayed on this web page are derived from the Benefit
Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program estimates of improper payments and the actual recoveries by state
agencies as recorded on the ETA 227 report.
Beginning in FY 2013, ETA will use an improper payments measure that takes into account the “net” effect
of UI overpayment recoveries. The improper payment rate includes the two components -- total
overpayments plus total underpayments -- and subtracts the amount of overpayments recovered by state
workforce agencies.
Readers are strongly cautioned that it may be misleading to compare one state's payment accuracy rates
with another state's rates. No two states' written laws, regulations, and policies specifying eligibility
conditions are identical, and differences in these conditions influence the potential for error. States have
developed many different ways to determine monetary entitlement to UI. Additionally, nonmonetary
requirements are, in large part, based on how a state interprets its law. Two states may have identical laws,
but may interpret them quite differently. States with stringent or complex provisions tend to have higher
improper payment rates than those with simpler, more straightforward provisions. Finally, legal provisions
for improper payment recovery differ substantially from state to state. (To compare state laws visit
www.oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/[email protected]#Statelaw or contact the state directly.)
Estimated Estimated Total Estimated Amount Net Amount Improper
Amount Amount Improperly Improperly Payment
Amount Paid Overpaid Underpaid Paid Recovered Paid Rate
ST (a) (b)* (c) (d )= [(b)+(c)] (e)**@ (f)=[(d)-(e)] =[(f)/(a)]
AK $164,091,406 $19,656,617 $1,453,006 $21,109,623 $3,787,756 $17,321,867 10.56%
AL $315,513,658 $41,305,965 $1,114,538 $42,420,503 $13,012,550 $29,407,953 9.32%
AR $346,656,741 $39,152,659 $1,184,836 $40,337,495 $7,038,845 $33,298,650 9.61%
AZ $440,416,943 $60,650,279 $780,322 $61,430,601 $22,617,326 $38,813,275 8.81%
CA $6,667,041,695 $394,521,026 $25,273,106 $419,794,132 $54,663,745 $365,130,387 5.48%
CO $589,015,029 $86,895,104 $7,111,101 $94,006,205 $11,291,190 $82,715,015 14.04%
CT $811,780,652 $32,416,319 $2,732,481 $35,148,800 $10,660,596 $24,488,204 3.02%
DC $157,981,458 $41,628,409 $1,440,806 $43,069,215 $3,898,889 $39,170,326 24.79%
DE $117,380,260 $8,661,944 $571,308 $9,233,252 $2,612,285 $6,620,967 5.64%
FL $1,279,157,802 $115,393,762 $3,913,751 $119,307,513 $20,678,515 $98,628,998 7.71%
GA $860,872,016 $69,813,254 $3,448,613 $73,261,867 $7,763,611 $65,498,256 7.61%
HI $254,363,164 $22,685,869 $2,167,344 $24,853,213 $988,080 $23,865,133 9.38%
IA $426,061,272 $50,975,569 $6,630,459 $57,606,028 $7,051,162 $50,554,866 11.87%
ID $180,497,911 $20,967,030 $725,664 $21,692,694 $6,307,219 $15,385,475 8.52%
IL $2,190,973,359 $257,294,323 $16,190,459 $273,484,782 $73,969,539 $199,515,243 9.11%
IN $707,895,562 $132,230,013 $3,237,688 $135,467,701 $16,129,088 $119,338,613 16.86%
KS $381,994,071 $39,407,999 $54,084 $39,462,083 $8,906,896 $30,555,187 8.00%
KY $486,965,108 $29,985,363 $2,826,516 $32,811,879 $5,883,486 $26,928,393 5.53%
LA $249,732,726 $54,232,088 $4,599,391 $58,831,479 $6,635,094 $52,196,385 20.90%
MA $1,698,543,520 $115,872,442 $24,143,213 $140,015,655 $19,732,821 $120,282,834 7.08%
MD $797,851,918 $91,011,161 $2,200,329 $93,211,490 $28,376,965 $64,834,525 8.13%
ME $173,977,066 $27,193,237 $493,883 $27,687,120 $3,787,004 $23,900,116 13.74%
MI $1,269,236,162 $129,919,942 $4,651,869 $134,571,811 $34,702,993 $99,868,818 7.87%
MN $853,210,382 $82,842,375 $5,673,093 $88,515,468 $22,182,604 $66,332,864 7.77%
MO $517,804,920 $42,825,081 $943,837 $43,768,918 $14,625,196 $29,143,722 5.63%
MS $181,000,537 $24,790,814 $482,809 $25,273,623 $15,210,531 $10,063,092 5.56%
MT $129,597,298 $15,821,180 $642,873 $16,464,053 $3,041,785 $13,422,268 10.36%
NC $1,351,692,238 $214,886,510 $2,172,269 $217,058,779 $19,436,724 $197,622,055 14.62%
ND $60,748,037 $8,037,760 $123,136 $8,160,896 $1,568,605 $6,592,291 10.85%
NE $120,682,182 $33,805,972 $206,279 $34,012,251 $4,032,802 $29,979,449 24.84%
NH $102,819,703 $5,208,575 $604,904 $5,813,479 $1,564,622 $4,248,857 4.13%
&NJ $2,401,881,454 $374,403,947 $36,572,658 $410,976,605 $143,345,309 $267,631,296 11.14%
NM $242,450,954 $16,033,507 $1,770,131 $17,803,638 $5,884,178 $11,919,460 4.92%
NV $473,283,447 $70,339,807 $3,316,815 $73,656,622 $8,319,561 $65,337,061 13.81%
NY $3,359,587,310 $249,211,126 $8,584,063 $257,795,189 $62,280,204 $195,514,985 5.82%
OH $1,228,770,625 $221,361,004 $7,076,146 $228,437,150 $30,130,085 $198,307,065 16.14%
OK $271,030,547 $12,774,940 $1,099,327 $13,874,267 $4,113,216 $9,761,051 3.60%
OR $748,370,444 $79,691,776 $1,617,325 $81,309,101 $12,841,548 $68,467,553 9.15%
PA $2,967,456,490 $943,507,978 $18,589,920 $962,097,898 $49,505,463 $912,592,435 30.75%
PR $197,200,034 $17,883,918 $1,881,360 $19,765,278 $2,231,927 $17,533,351 8.89%
RI $253,452,124 $8,414,882 $1,121,681 $9,536,563 $3,884,665 $5,651,898 2.23%
SC $303,274,835 $36,650,905 $1,020,925 $37,671,830 $9,389,665 $28,282,165 9.33%
SD $34,216,467 $4,745,601 $50,365 $4,795,966 $1,172,609 $3,623,357 10.59%
TN $429,353,186 $48,302,760 $1,563,587 $49,866,347 $7,037,483 $42,828,864 9.98%
TX $2,243,289,566 $205,797,578 $11,526,049 $217,323,627 $61,867,475 $155,456,152 6.93%
UT $236,412,858 $30,949,194 $854,419 $31,803,613 $7,454,778 $24,348,835 10.30%
VA $632,093,026 $104,621,422 $4,852,330 $109,473,752 $10,909,336 $98,564,416 15.59%
VT $96,186,764 $4,357,031 $837,928 $5,194,959 $759,136 $4,435,823 4.61%
WA $1,288,591,735 $150,434,357 $2,488,499 $152,922,856 $44,271,937 $108,650,919 8.43%
WI $900,105,934 $127,063,547 $3,550,658 $130,614,205 $34,375,363 $96,238,842 10.69%
WV $226,511,660 $9,727,505 $1,117,635 $10,845,140 $2,406,431 $8,438,709 3.73%
WY $79,530,257 $10,611,005 $124,975 $10,735,980 $1,875,802 $8,860,178 11.14%
Amount paid is total UI benefits paid in population from which BAM samples were selected.
Note: These data are based on a completion rate of 99.95% and are subject to change.
* Includes agency errors by states other than the sampling state.
& Integrity rates estimated due to suspension of BAM.
** Overpayment Recoveries excluding extended benefit amounts (ETA 227)
@ Overpayment recoveries estimated due to missing ETA 227 reports.
2
Attachment 4 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_24_13_Att_D.pdf)
Attachment D
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 2013 Funds
Attachment 5 (official PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2013/UIPL_24_13_Att_E.pdf)
Attachment E
Focus Area Projects
The types of activities for which Focus Area funding may be requested are provided below.
Please note that states submitting more than one proposal under the State-Specific Integrity and
Program Performance Focus Areas should rank the proposals by priority since ETA may not
fund all proposals.
UI IT Systems Improvement Projects
The only UI IT system projects that will be considered include are:
UCX Enhancements to the electronic data exchange for the receipt of DD214s and
DD215s from the military. During the next year, the electronic data exchange with the
military will be expanded to provide the capability to notify the military branches of
claims being filed and allow for the military to electronically provide additional
separation information that could be of value to the states in making eligibility
determinations. In addition, the quarterly billing process will be moved from a paper data
exchange to an electronic data exchange. Implementation of these two initiatives will
require programming and processing changes in the states.
These funds may be used for the following purposes:
1) Dedicating a full-time position for a UI-ICON Programmer;
2) Programming to provide additional information in the Type 2 Request Record
sent to the Federal Claims Control Center (FCCC), such as: changing the Branch
of Service field from optional to required, populating the Maximum Benefit
Amount and Weekly Benefit Amount information in the Type 2 Record, and
adding dependent allowance;
3) Programming to ensure that states can send and receive all six UCX record types;
4) Programming to update the UCX message codes to display new message types for
error handling in the state system;
5) Developing the appropriate interfaces with the state benefits systems to generate
the quarterly billing statement electronically; and
6) Testing the state systems to verify correct display and processing functionality.
Integration of state UI, ES and WIA IT systems to support reemployment of UI
claimants. Some examples of uses include:
o Programming to better direct initial UI claimants to Employment Service
registration or support integrated registration;
o Programming that supports integrated service delivery of UI and
reemployment services for UI claimants;
o Programming that supports pushing jobs from the state’s job bank to UI
claimants;
o Programming to collect more information in the UI and/or ES registration
process, such as past occupations and industries, skills attained, and degrees
earned, that may be useful for targeting reemployment services and
connecting individuals to available employment; and
o Improvement of worker profiling systems to increase the accuracy with
which they predict exhaustion and target services to those who are likely to
have the most difficulty finding a job due to either low experience levels or a
mismatch between the job seeker’s experiences and the local labor market.
UI Information Technology (IT) Security
UI IT Contingency activities such as development/updates to UI IT Contingency
Plans, including obtaining an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
State Integrity and Performance Improvement Projects
States committing to implement the required Core Strategies identified in the UIPL in Section 5
will be permitted to request up to $500,000 in additional funding to address the specific Focus
Area activities listed in Section 6.
The only types of state integrity and performance improvement project that will be considered
are:
States may request that up to $500,000 of these funds be used to supplement the
State-Identified Prevention Strategy identified in Section 5, providing a total of up
to $1.25 million to support that strategy.
UI Data Validation for Benefits/Tax to obtain an independent (third party) validation
and verification (IV&V) that the state’s data validation extract files meet Federal UI data
validation requirements.
Deploying SIDES earnings verification module, and monetary and potential
employer charges data exchanges
Worker Misclassification detection and enforcement activities.
State-Identified Work Search Strategy designed to address improper payments due to
work search. This proposal may include state-specific solutions, such as targeted
claimant messaging (see UIPL No. 11-12).
2
What does federal law require in your situation?
Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace