Fiscal 2021 state UI quality service plan instructions

CLASSIFICATION
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION                 Unemployment Insurance
               ADVISORY SYSTEM                            CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR                        OUI/DPM
             Washington, D.C. 20210                       DATE
                                                          September 14, 2020

ADVISORY:        UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 29-20

TO:              STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES

FROM:            JOHN PALLASCH
                 Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT:         Additional Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Unemployment
                 Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP)

1. Purpose. To initiate the SQSP process, provide supplemental instructions, and define
   additional requirements for the FY 2021 SQSP.

2. Action Requested. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) requests State
   Administrators to:

       Make this information available to appropriate staff;
       Prepare their state’s SQSP in accordance with instructions in this Unemployment
        Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) and the planning and reporting instructions contained in
        Employment and Training (ET) Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 4;
       Coordinate specifics, as appropriate, with ETA’s Regional Office (RO) for electronic
        submission of the plan; and
       Submit the FY 2021 SQSP to the appropriate RO by the deadline set by the RO.

3. Summary and Background.

   a. Summary. This UIPL provides specific dates relevant to the SQSP process for the FY;
      summarizes National Priorities and Federal Program Emphasis; and identifies special
      planning requirements in effect for the FY.

   b. Background. The SQSP is the state’s UI performance management and service plan. It
      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. 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. Title III of the Social Security Act (SSA) authorizes the Secretary
      of Labor to provide funds to the states to administer the UI program and governs the

 RESCISSIONS                                             EXPIRATION DATE
 None                                                    December 31, 2021

       expenditure of those funds. The SQSP is part of the process by which states receive
       Federal UI administrative grants.

       ET Handbook No. 336 (Handbook) contains general instructions for the SQSP. This
       Handbook is designed as a permanent guide for the planning and budget process, and
       provides states with planning guidelines and instructions for reporting UI financial and
       staff year information. The Handbook notes that ETA will issue a SQSP UIPL each year
       with additional planning guidance that supplements the Handbook and provides direction
       and instructions specific to the upcoming FY. This additional planning guidance is
       similar to the guidance issued in previous years, but is updated and must be read carefully
       by state personnel.

       ET Handbook No. 336 is approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
       No. 1205-0132.

4. UI Technical Assistance Resources. The following resources provide states with
   information and support for UI program activities.

   a. Information Technology Support Center (ITSC).

       ETA created the UI Information Technology Support Center (ITSC) in 1994 through a
       cooperative agreement with the State of Maryland to develop products and services and
       to support state UI agencies in the use of information technology (IT) for efficient
       administration of the UI program. Since 2009, the National Association of State
       Workforce Agencies’ (NASWA’s), Center for Employment Security Education and
       Research (CESER) has operated the ITSC. ITSC’s activities involve providing
       information, technical assistance, products, and services to states or state consortia in
       support of the modernization of IT systems used to administer the UI program.

   b. UI Integrity Center.

       In FY 2012, ETA created the UI Integrity Center of Excellence (UI Integrity Center) to
       support the needs of the fifty-three State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) in implementing
       strategies to ensure program integrity (with the exception of the Benefit Accuracy
       Measurement (BAM) program) to prevent, detect, and recover improper payments, and to
       reduce fraud in the UI program. NASWA’s CESER operates the UI Integrity Center
       through cooperative agreements with the New York State Department of Labor and ETA.

5. National Priorities. ETA is eager to work with states to make the SQSP process a
   meaningful management tool and a strategic road map to improve program administration
   and ensure quality service delivery. The SQSP process focuses on promoting state
   performance and integrity, aligning state UI administration and operations with national
   policies, paying benefits accurately and timely, and connecting UI claimants with needed
   reemployment services. Each year, after consulting with our stakeholders, ETA establishes
   national priorities for the UI program.

   For FY 2021, ETA’s top priorities are intended to guide states in the development of their
   SQSPs and include:

                                                2

      Implementation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
       unemployment compensation (UC) programs and any potential successor enactments
       with integrity to ensure payment to eligible individuals;
      Reducing the UI improper payment rate and the prevention, detection, and recovery
       of improper and fraudulent overpayments;
      Improving state capacity to administer and operate the UI program effectively and
       efficiently;
      Improving program performance; and
      Continuing the implementation of the permanently authorized Reemployment
       Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program (Section 306 of the SSA),
       including its integration with the broader workforce system under the Workforce
       Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).

ETA provides the following information on its national priorities for FY 2021. States should
also establish additional state-level priorities for their UI program in their SQSPs.

Implementation of the CARES Act UI Programs with Integrity to Ensure Payments to
Eligible Individuals

UIPL No. 23-20 discusses program integrity for the UI system and the UC programs
authorized by the CARES Act. Addressing improper payments and fraud is a top priority for
the Department and the entire UI system. States are in the midst of managing extraordinary
workloads due to the effects of the spread of COVID-19. During this time, there is a
heightened need for states to maintain a steadfast focus on UI functions and activities that
ensure program integrity and the prevention and detection of improper payments and fraud
across all programs operated within the UI system.

The programs and provisions within the CARES Act operate in tandem with the fundamental
eligibility requirements of the Federal-State UI program, which remain in place and must be
adhered to in concert with unique provisions governing CARES Act programs. In addition,
some of the CARES Act programs include new eligibility requirements which states will
need to apply.

States play a fundamental role in ensuring the integrity of the UI program. While states have
been provided some flexibilities as a result of COVID-19, those flexibilities are generally
limited to dealing with the effects of COVID-19. States must ensure that individuals receive
benefits only in accordance with these statutory provisions.

As states continue to implement the CARES Act programs, states must implement them in
accordance with Federal law and the Department’s guidance to ensure that payments are
made only to eligible individuals. In addition, because of the significant amount of fraud
being experienced related to these programs, states must have strategies in place to carry out
data analytics to detect and address fraud and processes to verify claimants’ identity (See
Section 4.b. in UIPL No. 23-20 for details.) States are required to add these strategies to
their Integrity Action Plans for the FY 2021 SQSP.

                                             3

Improving State Capacity to Administer and Operate the UI Program Effectively

Many states continue to struggle with administrative and operational challenges that impede
their ability to effectively administer and operate the UI program, resulting in some states
providing poor performance and poor customer service. These challenges include, but are
not limited to: changes in program leadership; aging technology systems and/or
implementing new technology solutions; staff turnover requiring ongoing staff training and
increased supervision; reduced staffing levels as workloads and funding decline; managing
the loss of key subject matter expertise due to retirements; and the need to improve overall
program performance. All of this was true prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency
and related massive spike in UC claims; states will likely continue to face these challenges in
addition to pandemic-specific challenges.

In developing their SQSPs, states are strongly encouraged to incorporate administrative
performance improvement strategies such as:

      Using the FY 2019 results from the state’s implementation of the UI State Self-
       Assessment Tool to identify areas for needed changes to operational processes for
       administration of the program;

      Conducting business process analyses in key areas to identify opportunities and
       recommendations for improving program operations and performance, and
       implementing such recommendations;

      Reviewing staff training strategies to support succession planning and ongoing staff
       development;

      Using online training modules available through NASWA, including the UI Learning
       Center on the ITSC website (http://www.itsc.org/Pages/UI-Learning-Center.aspx )
       and the Integrity Center’s Integrity Academy (https://integrity.naswa.org/national-
       integrity-academy/national-integrity-academy-intro);

      Incorporating lessons learned from states’ responses to the COVID-19 surge in UC
       claims and implementation of the CARES Act programs, such as mechanisms to
       rapidly add staff, implement call center expansions and innovations to manage
       customer flow; and technology solutions to increase capacity and detect and prevent
       fraud and other improper payments.

      Using technical assistance opportunities offered by ETA, the UI ITSC, and the UI
       Integrity Center, as well as the many resources available through the UI Community
       of Practice on WorkforceGPS (https://www.workforcegps.org/).

In FY 2019, state UI agencies completed the results of the inaugural state self-assessment
reviews of key operational elements in 15 functional areas within the UI program. States
should use the results compiled by their state reviewers to identify areas in need of process
improvement and to formulate their strategies for addressing these areas, including staff
training as needed.
                                             4

       Improving the Prevention, Detection, and Recovery of UI Improper and Fraudulent
       Payments

       Working with states to address UI improper payments and reducing the improper payment
       rate is one of the U. S. Department of Labor’s (Department’s) top priorities. The President’s
       Management Agenda identifies “Getting Payments Right” as a cross-agency priority goal to
       reduce taxpayer dollars lost to improper payments. As such, the Department has made
       reducing improper payments an agency priority goal in its Strategic Plan. As reported in the
       2019 Agency Financial Report, many states demonstrated significant progress in reducing
       their improper payment rates and the national improper payment rate, which declined to
       10.611 percent. However, the UI program has not met the Federal compliance requirement in
       the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), to report an
       improper payment rate below 10 percent. Achieving the statutory criterion of 10 percent is
       not the ultimate goal but rather our goal is to eliminate as many improper fraudulent and
       improper payments as possible. In light of the current progress and challenges posed to
       program integrity by the dramatic increase in UC claims and proper CARES Act
       implementation, now is the time to continue to enhance our efforts to reduce improper
       payments.

       In order to reduce national and state improper payment rates and address the leading root
       causes of overpayments, including fraud, the Federal-state UI partnership has implemented a
       program integrity strategic plan.2 The strategic plan contains a variety of strategies focused
       on main root cause of improper payments, including fraud, which all states are strongly
       encouraged to adopt. For FY 2021, ETA is highlighting three specific areas for inclusion in
       states’ SQSP Integrity Action Plans:
           1. Strategies designed to facilitate claimants’ compliance with state work search
              requirements while also supporting their reemployment, such as adoption of the work
              search requirements in the Model Work Search Legislation provided to states in
              Training and Employment Notice (TEN) No. 17-19
              (https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=4227);
           2. State use of UI Integrity Center resources, with a particular focus on state connection
              to the Integrity Data Hub and use of its data resources; and
           3. Increased state use and employer take-up of the State Information Data Exchange
              System (SIDES).

       Strategies to Support Claimant Compliance with State Work Search Requirements

       States are strongly encouraged to implement strategies to address work search errors.
       Strategies to consider include:

                   Encouraging states to proactively identify and refer claimants to suitable job
                    openings from the full spectrum of public and private job banks, and requiring
                    claimants apply to all referred suitable job openings (which may be more than the

1
    The improper payment rate is for the 12 months ending June 30, 2019
2
    https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OPA/reports/2019annualreport.pdf. pp. 163-173-169.

                                                          5

           minimum number of required work search activities) and accept employment in
           suitable work if offered;

          As economies re-open and the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, states should make
           every effort to engage employers and supporting them getting their employees
           back to work, including providing them with various options to report when
           employees fail to return to their jobs.

          Requiring work search activities that embrace a wide array of activities that
           support reemployment in today’s labor market and include receiving services
           through American Job Centers;

          Supporting claimant compliance with required work search activities through a
           reemployment service delivery design that includes ensuring that the claimant
           understands work search requirements (both acceptable activities and
           documentation requirements), understands the consequences of failing to comply
           with these requirements, and is provided assistance in developing a reemployment
           and work search plan that meets the requirements, including through customer-
           friendly technology applications that facilitate claimants carrying out their work
           search requirements;

          Documenting these activities through the state’s case management system or other
           information technology systems that support documentation requirements; and

          Providing case management services through American Job Center career
           counselors, which include following up with claimants and employers on the
           results of job referrals in order to inform future job referrals and/or the need for
           additional reemployment services for the claimant.

ETA emphasizes that there are other strategies states should consider in developing their
work search laws and designing reemployment service delivery strategies that support a
claimant’s ability to comply with a state’s work search requirements. These strategies
include:

          Designing the state RESEA program to support the development of an individual
           reemployment plan that can help each claimant effectively plan their work search
           activities;

          Encouraging RESEA and other workforce career counselors to take advantage of
           the My Reemployment Plan tools that are designed to support development of
           individualized reemployment plans and connect claimants to effective
           reemployment resources (see
           https://rc.workforcegps.org/resources/2016/10/03/05/36/Pathway_to_Reemploym
           ent_Framework), with an automated version now available from the UI
           Information Technology Support Center; and

          Reinforcing the requirement to complete work search activities throughout the
           claims cycle through the use of electronic communications, either in an online
                                              6

           technology application or through emails or texts, to “nudge” claimants to comply
           with work search requirements. For example, in 2016, New Mexico implemented
           messaging and communication nudges in its online application forms that led to a
           reduction in the state’s UI improper payment rate (see
           https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-
           briefs/2016/10/behavioral-analytics-help-save-unemployment-insurance-funds).

State Use of UI Integrity Center Resources

The UI Integrity Center is a unique and extremely valuable resource available to states to
support the reduction of state improper payment rates and the prevention, detection, and
recovery of UI improper payments. States are strongly encouraged to access these resources
on a regular basis to inform and support state strategies to address improper payments.
Below are key resources that states should connect to and build into their Integrity Action
Plans as part of the SQSP.

      Integrity Data Hub (IDH). The IDH is a secure, robust, centralized, multi-State
       data system that allows participating State UI agencies to submit UI claims for cross-
       matching and analysis to support the detection and prevention of UI fraud and
       improper payments. The IDH is continuing to evolve as new data sources have been
       added and more states are both contributing data and accessing the available data
       sources. Data sources currently available include the Suspicious Actor Repository;
       centralized foreign IP address detection; and multi-states claims data cross match. In
       FY 2020, the IDH is adding an identity verification solution, a fraud alert portal, and
       centralized cross matching with incarceration data from the Social Security
       Administration’s Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS).

      State Services. Among the most valuable assets that the Integrity Center has are its
       state subject matter experts. These experts can be deployed to support states
       assessing their business processes and providing recommendations for adoption of
       effective strategies – all with the goal of reducing a state’s improper payment rate and
       improving program integrity. These services are now available to support states to
       address program integrity issues and combatting fraud related also to the CARES Act
       programs. Over the last year, the Center engaged intensively with 10 High Rate/High
       Impact states, which provided the opportunity to support state implementation of new
       strategies and to capture and evaluate their impact. This work now positions the
       Center to improve services to all states, including providing customized on-site
       services.

      Capturing and Disseminating State Integrity Best Practices. The UI Integrity
       Knowledge Exchange (which is accessed through the UI Community of Practice
       Integrity tab on WorkforceGPS) contains a wealth of information with over 1,500
       resources. It also includes a State Practices Portal with over 90 proven integrity
       practices. The Knowledge Exchange also includes tools and products such as the
       Model Blueprint for Benefit Payment Control Units. In FY 2021, the Integrity Center
       will add a new collection of practices and messaging techniques using behavioral
       science to improve their impact; new original content; and a series of webinars
       featuring state practices.
                                             7

              UI National Integrity Training Academy. The Academy currently has four online
               certificate programs with more than 120 lessons available for state staff in the areas of
               Program Leadership, UI Operations Integrity, Fraud Investigations, and Tax Integrity.
               The Integrity Center will soon add modules on data analytics and BAM sub-coding
               that will provide states with greater capacity to analyze their integrity challenges.

       Increased State and Employer Use of SIDES

       State implementation and employers’ use of SIDES should be an integral part of the state’s
       integrity strategy. See TEN No. 12-16. States should view SIDES as a critical part of their
       UI integrity efforts. The Department’s Inspector General found that states’ use of SIDES
       contributed to reduced improper payments.3 Below are key SIDES-related resources that
       states should connect to and build into their Integrity Action Plans as part of the SQSP.

              SIDES Separation Information Exchange. The SIDES Separation Information
               Exchange is composed of Web Services for third-party administrators (TPAs) and
               large employers and E-Response for smaller employers. The exchange supports
               timely and accurate information from employers and TPAs, which aids in reducing
               separation errors. As set out in UIPL No. 19-16, ETA has expectations for the overall
               state usage of SIDES (Web Services and E-Response) with a goal for states to receive
               employer responses through SIDES Web Services and SIDES E-Response for at least
               50 percent of all UI initial claims processed and, separately, a goal of at least 35
               percent of all UI initial claims processed through the SIDES E-Response. ETA
               encourages states to increase employer usage of SIDES for separation exchanges by
               pursuing the following strategies:
                   o Each state should strive to have all TPAs operating within the state to be live
                     and using Web Services.
                   o States that have been successful in obtaining greater employer use have
                     SIDES as the default method of exchanging information unless employers
                     “opt-out” of this approach.
                   o States that have been successful in obtaining greater employer use have a
                     single sign-on for SIDES and the state’s employer portal. The NASWA
                     SIDES Team can provide technical assistance to states on implementing a
                     single sign-on option, if the state is not currently using a single sign-on for
                     employers.
                   o States also should consider efforts to promote SIDES E-Response and to
                     encourage employers who do not use TPAs to use SIDES, especially those
                     employers who are frequent users of the UI program. In marketing SIDES,
                     states are encouraged to use resources like the SIDES toolkit found at
                     http://sidesitk.naswa.org/sides. Also, as recommended in the OIG report,
                     states can use their data to identify employers who have frequent claims

3
    https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2017/04-17-003-03-315.pdf

                                                         8

               activity and directly market and promote the use of SIDES to these more
               frequent users of the UI program.

      SIDES Additional Fact-Finding Exchange. The NASWA SIDES team recently
       developed a new exchange to facilitate and support the exchange of information when
       additional fact-finding with employers is needed to determine a claimant’s eligibility.
       Again, this exchange allows for quicker and more accurate information from
       employers and will lead to reduced errors. States are encouraged to implement the
       use of this new SIDES exchange as part of their integrity efforts.

      SIDES Earnings Verification Exchange. States use various methods of fact finding
       when verifying a claimant’s wages or earnings. Some states have manual operations
       using paper requests and responses. Other states have integrated various levels of
       automation, which may include electronic requests and/or electronic responses.
       Fifteen states have implemented the SIDES Earnings Verification application, which
       electronically sends wage verification requests to employers through a state-specific
       employer portal. The SIDES Earnings Verification exchange is recommended if a
       state does not have an automated web-based system for requesting employers to
       verify earnings. States are encouraged to implement the use of this SIDES exchange
       as part of their integrity efforts.

RESEA and the Reemployment of UI Claimants

Reemployment of UI claimants remains a top priority for the entire workforce system,
including UI, and, as stated below, is reinforced by WIOA. RESEA is now codified in
Section 306 of the SSA and permanently authorizes the RESEA program. Among other
changes, the new RESEA requirements include increasing the use of evaluations that expand
the availability of evidence-based interventions and service delivery strategies. The FY 2020
RESEA operating guidance is in UIPL No. 08-20 and includes instructions for the
implementation of new program requirements, such as submission of a RESEA state plan.
States have also submitted their WIOA state plans, which should reference the integration of
RESEA into the broader workforce system.

It is acceptable for states to reference their RESEA state plans and WIOA state plans rather
than replicate strategies and approaches in the SQSP. However, states should discuss how
their RESEA strategies support reducing improper payments as discussed above. RESEA
has the potential to address UI improper payments in multiple ways including the review of
the claimant’s eligibility and providing services to claimants that help them comply with
work search requirements.

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) UI Performance Measures
(Federal Emphasis)

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.

                                            9

   ETA recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted states’ program performance in
   FY 2020. As the pandemic subsides, it will be important for states to refocus on meeting the
   performance measures that ensure the UI program is achieving its mission-critical goals.
   In FY 2021, ETA will work with states to refocus attention on the following GPRA goals for
   FY 2021, 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. See
   https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/GPRA_Summary_Report.asp for the FY 2021 GPRA
   goals and targets.

                Percent of Intrastate Payments Made Timely (Make Timely Benefit Payments)
                  o Target: 87.0 percent of intrastate first payments for full weeks of UC will be
                    made within 14/21 days from the week ending date of the first compensable
                    week.

                Detection of Recoverable Overpayments (Detect Benefit Overpayments)
                 o Target: Overpayments established will be at least 57.5 percent of the
                   estimated detectable, recoverable overpayments.

                Percent of Employer Tax Liability Determinations Made Timely (Establish Tax
                 Accounts Promptly)
                 o Target: 90.0 percent of status determinations for new employers will be made
                    within 90 days of the end of the first quarter in which liability occurred.

6. WIOA Combined State Plans. WIOA provides the option for states to submit a Combined
   State Plan that includes program plans for mandatory one-stop partners and other programs.
   Given that the UI program is a mandatory one-stop partner under WIOA, states have the
   option of including the UI program as part of the Combined State Plan. However, each state
   must participate in the UI Performs SQSP process whether or not the state decides to include
   the UI program as part of its Combined State Plan.

   States electing to include UI in a Combined State Plan must incorporate the SQSP in its
   entirety into the Combined State Plan through the Combined State Plan process via the online
   WIOA State Plan Portal at https://wioaplans.ed.gov/. Those states must incorporate the FY
   2021 SQSP into the Combined State Plan upon ETA’s approval of the SQSP, but no later
   than October 31, 2020.

7. UI Program Performance and Criteria for FY 2021. The attachment to this UIPL lists the
   performance criteria for the Core Measures, Secretary’s Standards, and other program
   requirements where Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) and/or Narratives may be expected if
   annual performance is not acceptable.

   a. Core Measures. Performance below the acceptable levels of performance (ALP) for
      Core Measures is expected to be addressed in a CAP unless otherwise indicated.

       Additional instructions for Core Measures are as follows:

                The Detection of Overpayments Measure. This measure is the percentage of
                 detectable/recoverable overpayments estimated by the Benefit Accuracy
                                                  10

                   Measurement (BAM) survey that was established for recovery through regular UI
                   Benefit Payment Control (BPC) program operations. States reporting an
                   overpayment detection rate below 50 percent are required to address the
                   deficiency in a CAP. In addition, because most states 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. Additionally, the state is expected to submit a
                   CAP (for BAM/Overpayment Detection or BPC/Overpayment Detection) if an
                   overpayment detection rate above 95 percent is the result of improper
                   administration of BAM or BPC activities or misreporting of data on the ETA 227
                   (Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities) report4. The CAP is to be
                   designed to produce valid data for the Overpayment Detection Measure. The
                   performance period for the BPC component is the three-year period ending March
                   31, 2020; the performance period for the BAM component is the three-year period
                   ending September 30, 2019.

                  Effective Audit Measure. The Effective Audit Measure, as noted in UIPL No.
                   03-11, is a blended measure of the following four factors: 1) Percentage of
                   Contributory Employers Audited Annually; 2) Percentage of Total Wage Changed
                   as a Result of Audit; 3) Percentage 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. States that do
                   not meet this measure will be required to develop a CAP based on Calendar Year
                   (CY) 2019 data.

                  Facilitate Reemployment. This core measure was discontinued beginning
                   with the FY 2020 SQSP cycle. There is no additional reporting or administrative
                   burden on states as a result of this change in the performance evaluation period.
                   No action is required by states to implement this change and states are no longer
                   required to report on this measure. No prior corrective actions on this measure
                   will be enforced.

                   In FY 2020, ETA will be announcing, in a separate guidance, the following two
                   reemployment measures:
                       o Reemployment rate in the 2nd Quarter after Program Exit for RESEA
                         Participants – this core measure aligns with the performance standards
                         required by WIOA and is effective in the FY 2021 SQSP cycle. It
                         measures the percentage of RESEA participants who are in unsubsidized
                         employment during the second quarter after exit from the Wagner-Peyser
                         Act-funded Employment Service (ES) program.

4
    The ETA 227 report is included in ET Handbook No. 401.

                                                       11

       o Median Earnings in the 2nd Quarter after Program Exit for RESEA
         Participants – This management information measure also aligns with the
         performance standards of WIOA, however, no targets will be established.
         This measure captures the wage amount that is at the midpoint of all the
         wages between the highest and lowest wage earned in the second quarter
         after exit for all RESEA participants who exited the ES program.

   Improper Payments Measure. The Improper Payments Measure is defined as UI
    benefits overpaid plus UI benefits underpaid divided by the total amount of UI
    benefits paid. It is based on estimates 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-Servicemembers (UCX)
    programs.

    The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012
    (IPERIA) requires agencies to include all identified improper payments in the
    reported estimate, regardless of whether the improper payment in question has
    been or is being recovered. ETA’s approved improper payment rate computation
    methodology can be found in UIPL No. 09-13, Change 1 (January 27, 2015).
    Corrective action and integrity plans for FY 2021 are based on this computation
    methodology.

    In line with section 3(a)(3)(F), IPERIA, ETA has established an ALP of less than
    10 percent for the improper payment measure. States are expected to maintain an
    improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for covered programs. The
    performance period for the improper payments measure is aligned with the
    Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) reporting period. This ALP is
    applicable to the IPIA 2019 performance period (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019).
    States failing to meet the ALP for the 2019 IPIA performance period will be
    required to develop a CAP as part of the FY 2021 SQSP.

   UI Overpayment Recovery Measure. As explained in UIPL No. 09-13, the
    recovery rate is “the amount of improper overpayments recovered divided by the
    amount of improper overpayments identified.” The ALP for the recovery rate
    measure is 68 percent for the 2019 IPIA performance period. The Department
    will compute future recovery targets based on the most recent recovery and other
    performance data available.

    The performance period will be based on data from Forms ETA 227,
    Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activity (Regular), and ETA 227,
    Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activity (Emergency Unemployment
    Compensation) (EUC), for the IPIA period (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 of the
    IPIA reporting year). Pursuant to the UI Reports Handbook (ET Handbook No.
    401, 5th edition), the June quarter ETA 227 reports are due August 1. States
    failing to meet the ALP for the 2019 IPIA performance period will be required to
    develop a CAP as part of the FY 2021 SQSP.

                                    12

      b.    Secretary’s Standards.

            States experiencing performance below the criteria for the Secretary’s Standards
            established in regulations at 20 CFR Parts 640 and 650 must address the performance
            issues in a CAP. The Secretary’s Standards are listed in the attachment to this UIPL.

      c.    UI Programs.

            States must address the following UI Programs as described below:

                  State Directory of New Hires (SDNH)/National Directory of New Hires
                   (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 No. 03-07, and UIPL No. 03-07, Change 1, must be
                   addressed in a CAP for FY 2021.

                   State BPC operations that have not implemented the guidelines in UIPL No. 13-
                   19 and the enhanced Recommended Operating Procedures (ROPs) for NDNH and
                   SDNH Cross-matching Activity must be addressed in a CAP for FY 2021. Based
                   on the OIG audit report, Improved Oversight of States’ Use of New Hire Tools
                   Would Help Reduce Improper Payments, published September 27, 2018, that
                   identified weaknesses in New Hires operations, and a review of NDNH and
                   SDNH data, ETA concluded that states were underutilizing New Hires cross-
                   matches.5

                  Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM)

                   State BAM operations or operational components are based on the BAM
                   Administrative Determination. Components that are identified as not compliant
                   with investigative and/or method and procedure requirements established in ET
                   Handbook No. 395, 5th Edition, and through findings established through ET
                   Handbook No. 396, 4th Edition monitoring reviews (based on the annual
                   determination letter issued on or before May 1, 2020), must be addressed in a
                   CAP. This includes paid and denied claim population variances outside
                   established control limits.

                  Tax Performance System (TPS)

                   To ensure that UI tax operations are in compliance with Federal reporting and
                   oversight requirements, a state’s failure to conduct one or more 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 three tax functions may fail TPS review) and Part B

5
    See https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2018/04-18-003-03-315.pdf

                                                        13

    (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, 2020. DV items that fail to
    pass validation, or that are due but not submitted, are expected to be addressed in
    the state’s FY 2021 SQSP. Non-submitted items include failure to certify that
    Module 3 of the DV Benefits and Tax Handbooks are up-to-date during the
    April 1 – June 10, 2020, certification window.

    Any DV items due for Validation Year (VY) 2020 that did not pass or were not
    submitted by the June 10, 2020, deadline, must be addressed in a CAP for FY
    2021.

    ROs will monitor states every three years on cycles coinciding with the DVVY.
    They will assess the accuracy of the state’s DV results considered passing or not
    due as of the time of the monitoring review to verify that the states are properly
    implementing the DV program. DV items submitted as passing but which a
    monitoring review determined to have failed must also be addressed in the SQSP.

    The FY 2021 SQSP CAP will include DV items failing after review in the VY
    2020 monitoring cycle (monitored between June 11, 2019 and June 10, 2020).
    All subsequent SQSP cycles will address items changed from pass to fail in the
    previous year’s monitoring review.

   UI Program Integrity

    States are required to report their planned activities to prevent, detect, reduce, and
    recover improper UI payments in their Integrity Action Plan (IAP), which should
    be submitted as part of their SQSP submission (IAP format and instructions are
    provided in Chapter 1, Section VI and Appendix V of ET Handbook No. 336, 18th
    Edition, Change 4). States should convene their previously established cross-
    functional integrity task force to update their IAP. States must analyze their 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 is available at the Department’s website at
    https://www.dol.gov/general/maps/data.

    For this SQSP cycle, states are asked to include in their Integrity Action Plans
    specific strategies to address prevention and detection of fraud and other improper
    payments in the CARES Act programs and recovery methods, including working
    directly with financial institutions to recover these payments.

                                     14

           ETA tracks and considers the impact of overpayments established by states that
           are in excess of $25,000 as required by Executive Order 13520. Overpayments
           that are in excess of $25,000 are reported quarterly on the ETA 227, Overpayment
           Detection and Recovery Activities report, as High Dollar Overpayments. UIPL
           No. 8-12, Change 1, provided further instructions for the ETA 227 report that
           High Dollar overpayments “may be a single overpayment or multiple
           overpayments established during or prior to the reporting quarter…” and states
           are required to report this data for fraud and non-fraud overpayments.

           For the performance period April 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020, states will need to
           explain in their IAP, High Dollar Overpayment causes and develop strategies to
           prevent these large overpayments, if they report High Dollar Overpayments, in
           more than one quarter, on the ETA 227 report. Additionally, ETA may request
           additional information from states reporting High Dollar Overpayments, on the
           ETA 227 report, in any quarter.

           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. States are strongly encouraged to review
           and consider the use of the Integrity Center’s products and tools as part of their
           own state-specific work search strategies. These products and tools are posted on
           the “Integrity” tab at https://ui.workforcegps.org/. In addition, ETA will work
           with states to expand participation in TOP for the recovery of overpayments, to
           implement and use SIDES for obtaining timely and complete separation
           information, and to more effectively use the SDNH, NDNH, and other
           overpayment prevention tools for BPC.

d.   Other UI Performance.

     States are expected to address the following performance deficiencies in the SQSP
     Narrative, unless otherwise indicated:

          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 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.
                                            15

   e.   Single Audits.

        States are subject to a Single Audit for the regulations outlined in 2 CFR Part 200,
        Subpart F. Any unresolved program compliance or performance deficiencies identified
        by a single audit must be addressed in a CAP for FY 2021. However, if a state is
        developing a CAP for a performance measure associated with the unresolved program
        compliance or performance deficiencies from the single audit, the corrective actions for
        both items may be addressed in a single CAP. Information on the program and audit
        objectives for the UI program is available as part of the FY 2019 Compliance
        Supplement at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2-CFR_Part-
        200_Appendix-XI_Compliance-Supplement_2019_FINAL_07.01.19.pdf

8. SQSP Planning Guidance and Requirements. ET Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition,
   Change 4, and this UIPL, provide guidelines for the completion and submission of the SQSP
   for FY 2021. The Handbook can be found on the OUI website at:
   https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/ETAHandbook/ET_Handbook_No.336_18th_Edition
   _Change_4_acc.pdf.

   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. To that end, CAPs and/or Narratives are expected whenever a state’s
   performance does not meet established criteria for the SQSP measurement period and
   remains uncorrected before the preparation of the SQSP.

   The measurement period for the FY 2021 SQSP is April 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020, unless
   otherwise indicated (see attachment). CAPs and Narratives addressing performance
   deficiencies are components of the state’s formal plan and schedule for improving
   performance; therefore, the causes of performance shortfalls should be thoroughly analyzed
   before the development of the state’s SQSP.

   a.   SQSP Submittal Cycle.

        The SQSP process provides a 24-month window for states to adequately plan and
        implement performance improvement efforts. The process provides for two types of
        submittals: a Formal two-year (Biennial) plan and an Alternate Year plan. Descriptions
        of the Biennial and Alternate Year SQSP submittals, significant activities, and dates
        relating to the submittal and approval of the SQSP are outlined in ET Handbook No.
        336, 18th Edition, Change 4.

        As described in UIPL No. 9-20, ETA has implemented a new schedule for SQSP
        submittals. Beginning with the FY 2021 SQSP cycle, all states will submit a complete
        Biennial SQSP. In FY 2022, all states will submit an Alternate Year SQSP. This
        submittal schedule will continue on a recurring basis for all future SQSP cycles.

   b. SQSP Preparation.

        States must use the Excel CAP Workbook to develop their CAPs and IAPs for the SQSP
        submissions. States must use the Workbook also for reporting updates to the specific

                                               16

        milestones and performance each quarter. The RO will provide states with the Workbook
        and specific instructions at the beginning of the SQSP planning cycle.

     c. 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 4, and institute plans or
        measures to comply with the requirements for each of the assurances.

        States will continue to provide information for the Assurance of Contingency Planning
        and the Assurance of Automated Information Systems Security. In the State Plan
        Narrative, Section H, 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.

        Each state must:

                  Review and, if necessary, update, and test its IT Contingency Plan annually;

                  Review and/or update its System Security Plan annually; and

                  Conduct a Risk Assessment once every three 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
        required to address the actions it plans to take to meet these requirements in a CAP.
        These plans and procedures must meet the minimum controls listed in the Chapter I,
        Section VIII-H and Section VIII-J of ET Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 4.

9.    Performance Improvement Efforts.

      The “At-Risk” Process

      ETA had previously identified persistently low-performing states as "At-Risk" since
      FY 2011, because of consistently significant low performance for the first payment and
      appeals timeliness measures. States that have been identified as “At-Risk” in previous
      years will continue to work collaboratively with ETA to achieve performance
      improvement. The action strategies and technical assistance activities are to be included in
      the state’s SQSP CAP for those measures that have caused the state to be designated “At-
      Risk.”

      The “At-Risk” designation will continue until each of the remaining states designated as
      “At-Risk” meets the ALP for the identified performance measure for six consecutive
      months, and is likely to continue to sustain this performance improvement. These states
      will also continue to receive enhanced technical assistance as needed.

      The ROs must schedule and conduct quarterly status calls with each “At-Risk” state to
      discuss the state’s progress in implementing the activities and strategies identified in the
                                                 17

SQSP, and the state’s progress towards achieving the performance standards. The
quarterly calls will include the “At-Risk” state, the RO, and the National Office.

The “High Priority” States Process

As part of the reengineering of its program oversight and accountability processes, ETA
identifies states that are considered to be “High Priority” and in need of more intensive
technical assistance. The “High Priority” model is designed to use a variety of important
program performance measures relating to UI benefit payment performance, integrity, and
operations, to produce a score for each state. The methodology was developed to include
integral parts of UI Performs core measures, DV results, and program integrity-related data.
Please refer to TEN Nos. 08-14 and 03-15 for details.

The selected “High Priority” state(s) will be formally notified by ETA with information on
the specific focus areas that caused their selection under this initiative. One of the key
aspects of this process is an onsite review with each “High Priority” state by a select expert
team of program specialists. The expert team will include National, Regional, and state
subject matter experts on the issue areas identified as needing improvement. ETA will
work collaboratively with each state to identify strategies and action steps to enable the
state to improve its performance in the areas identified by the onsite review. The “High
Priority” designation framework and process are outlined in UIPL No. 17-16.

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 ROs. Also, those states that have been designated as
“High Priority” must address review findings as part of the SQSP process.

ROs must schedule and conduct quarterly status calls with each “High Priority” state to
discuss the state’s progress in implementing the activities and strategies identified during
the onsite review and address those items in the state’s SQSP. The quarterly calls will
include the “High Priority” state, the RO, and the National Office.

The “High Priority” designation will continue until the state: (1) completes corrective
actions resulting from the state’s onsite review; (2) meets the standards for the core
measures related to the areas of concern during the initial designation process for six
consecutive months, and is likely to continue to sustain this performance improvement; and
(3) maintains performance in other program areas without any diminution of performance.

The “High-Rate/High-Impact” States Process

Starting in FY 2019, the Department has been identifying states with high UI improper
payment rates (based on the three-year average for the period from July 1, 2015, through
June 30, 2018) that also significantly contribute to the national UI improper payment rate.
These “High-Rate/High-Impact” states will be expected to take actions to address
improper payments in their states.

The selected “High-Rate/High-Impact” states will be formally notified by the Department
with information on the specific focus areas that caused their selection under this

                                           18

       initiative. ETA will establish connections between these states and UI subject matter
       experts from the UI Integrity Center, and work with the state to:

              Identify action steps designed to reduce improper payments with a particular
               focus on prevention, establish a target reduction for the state’s improper payment
               rate, and provide technical assistance strategies to support the successful
               implementation of action strategies and the achievement of improved
               performance;

              Modify the state’s IAP to include the newly-identified action steps and improper
               payment rate reduction targets; and

              Monitor the state’s performance and conduct quarterly conference calls to assess
               progress and identify ongoing technical assistance needs.

       All “High-Rate/High-Impact” states will remain subject to additional monitoring and
       technical assistance until they achieve an improper payment rate under 10 percent and
       sustain that performance for at least two quarters.

       ROs must schedule and conduct quarterly status calls with each “High-Rate/High-Impact”
       state to discuss the state’s progress in implementing the activities and strategies identified
       to address improper payments in the state. The quarterly calls will include the “High-
       Rate/High-Impact” state, the RO, and the National Office.

9. Funding Period. The Department’s proposed FY 2021 appropriation language for State UI
   and Employment Service Operations allows for obligation of UI allocations by states through
   December 31, 2021, with 90 additional days to liquidate the obligations and complete the
   expenditure of funds. Under this proposed language, states would be able to obligate FY 2021
   UI funds through September 30, 2023, if such obligations are for automation, competitive
   grants awarded to states for improved operations, or for conducting in-person reemployment
   and eligibility assessments and improper payment reviews, and providing reemployment
   services and referrals to training, as appropriate. However, if such funds were obligated to
   states for automation being carried out through a consortium of states, states would have
   through September 30, 2027 to obligate and September 30, 2028 to expend FY 2021 funds.
   ETA will notify state agencies of the language that Congress ultimately adopts. ETA will
   notify state agencies on what language Congress adopts. The grant management resources and
   information including grant terms and conditions are available at
   https://www.doleta.gov/grants/resources.cfm. Please note that FY 2021 grant terms and
   conditions are not available at this time. This information will be provided through ROs at a
   later date and also posted at the webpage indicated above.

10. Data Availability. The ROs will provide states with data showing their performance measured
    against the Core Measures, Secretary’s Standards, and other information relevant to the SQSP
    (e.g., reporting deficiencies).

11. SQSP Submittal Deadlines. Each RO will set a date and inform states of the deadline to
    submit their SQSPs for FY 2021.

                                                 19

    States electing to include UI in a Combined State Plan must incorporate the FY 2021 SQSP
    into the Combined State Plan upon approval of the SQSP, but no later than October 31, 2020.

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 4) are available in PDF and may be downloaded from the
    OMB website at: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1.

    States may submit the SQSP Signature Page electronically if the state law permits. States
    that do not submit the signature page electronically (which includes by fax or scan) must
    submit the signature page by mail by the deadline set by the RO.

13. Inquiries. Please direct inquiries to the appropriate ETA Regional Office.

14. References.

           Social Security Act (SSA), sections 303(a)(1) and 306 (42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1) and 506);
           Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Pub. L. 103-62, as
            amended by GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-352;
           Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), Pub. L. 111-204
            (31 U.S.C. 3301 note and 3321 note);
           Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA),
            Pub. L. 112-248;
           Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Pub. L. 113-128, 29 USC 3101
            note and Title I;
           Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 49 et seq., as amended by Title III of WIOA;
           Trade Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-618, as amended;
           The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Pub. L. 113-67;
           Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-123;
           Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
            Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. 116-94;
           20 CFR Parts 601, 640, 650, 652, and 660;
           20 CFR Part 200, Subpart F;
           The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
            for Federal Awards at 2 CFR Parts 200 and 2900;
           Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 14-05 (February 18, 2005),
            Changes to UI Performs, and its Changes 1 (October 12, 2005), 2 (December 13,
            2006), and 3 (April 16, 2008);
           UIPL No. 22-05, Unemployment Insurance Data Validation (UI DV) Program
            Software and Policy Guidance (April 28, 2005), and its Changes 1 (July 21, 2006)
            and 2 (March 14, 2008);

                                               20

   UIPL No. 03-07, Use of National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) in Unemployment
    Insurance (UI) Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) Audits (October 31, 2006), and
    its Change 1 (February 27, 2008);
   UIPL No. 17-08, The Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment Rate Core
    Measure (May 14, 2008);
   UIPL No. 22-10, Selecting and Monitoring At-Risk States for Continuous
    Improvement and Compliance with First Payment Timeliness and First Level Appeals
    Promptness (April 23, 2010);
   UIPL No. 03-11, Implementation of the Effective Audit Measure (December 30,
    2010);
   UIPL No. 34-11, Performance Measure for Unemployment Insurance (UI) Integrity
    (September 28, 2011), and its Changes 1 (May 28, 2014) and 2 (July 20, 2016);
   UIPL No. 05-13, Work Search and Overpayment Offset Provisions Added to
    Permanent Federal Unemployment Compensation Law by Title II, Subtitle A of the
    Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (January 10, 2013);
   UIPL No. 09-13, Integrity Performance Measures for Unemployment Insurance (UI
    (January 29, 2013), and its Change 1 (January 27, 2015);
   UIPL No. 17-14, Revised Employment and Training (ET) Handbook No. 336, 18th
    Edition: “Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) Planning
    and Reporting Guidelines” (July 7, 2014);
   UIPL No. 17-16, Reengineering Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits Program
    Accountability Process: High Priority Designation of States with Sustained Poor
    Performance (July 13, 2016);
   UIPL No. 19-16, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding Opportunity
    for Improved Operations (August 2, 2016);
   UIPL No. 03-17, Fiscal Year (FY)2017 Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment
    Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) Grants (December 8, 2016), and its
    Change 1 (September 22, 2017);
   UIPL No. 18-17, Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Tool
    (July 28, 2017);
   UIPL No. 07-19, Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Funding Allotments and Operating Guidance
    for Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment
    (RESEA) Grants (January 11, 2019);
   UIPL No. 13-19, National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and State Directory of
    New Hires (SDNH) Guidance and Best Practices (June 7, 2019);
   UIPL No. 08-20, Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Funding Allotments and Operating Guidance
    for Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments
    (RESEA) Grants (January 20, 2020);
   UIPL No. 09-20, Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan (SQSP)
    Submittal Schedule (February 6, 2020);
   UIPL No. 23-20, Program Integrity for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program
    and the UI Programs Authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
    Security (CARES) Act of 2020 - Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation

                                     21

           (FPUC), Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), and Pandemic Emergency
           Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) Programs (May 11, 2020);
          Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Pub. L. No. 113–128, 29 U.S.C.
           3101 et seq.;
          Training and Employment Notice (TEN) No. 08-14, Reengineering Unemployment
           Insurance (UI) Benefits Program Accountability Processes (September 2, 2014);
          TEN No. 03-15, Reengineering Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits Program
           Accountability Processes: Update on Implementation Progress and State Impacts
           (July 27, 2015);
          TEN No. 12-16, Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Information Data Exchange
           System (SIDES) (September 27, 2016);
          ET Handbook No. 336, Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Quality Service Plan
           (SQSP) Planning and Reporting Guidelines, 18th Edition, Change 4 (March 2019);
          ET Handbook No. 361, Unemployment Insurance Data Validation Handbook,
           Benefits (September 2019);
          ET Handbook No. 361, Unemployment Insurance Data Validation Handbook, Tax
           (September 2019);
          ET Handbook No. 395, Benefit Accuracy Measurement State Operations Handbook,
           5th Edition (November 2009);
          ET Handbook No. 396, Unemployment Insurance Benefit Accuracy Measurement
           Monitoring Handbook, 4th Edition (November 2009); and
          ET Handbook No. 401, 5th Edition, UI Report Handbook No. 401 (July 2017).

15. Attachment.

       Measures/Programs to be Addressed in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 State Quality Service
       Plan (SQSP)

                                             22

                                                                               Attachment

                Measures/Programs to be Addressed in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021
                              State Quality Service Plan (SQSP)
Core Measures                   Measurement Period              Criteria     CAP   Narrative
First Payment Promptness   Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020             87%         √
Nonmonetary                                                       80%
                           Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020                         √
Determination Time Lapse                                  (combined score)
Nonmonetary
Determination Quality –    Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020             75%         √
Nonseparations
Nonmonetary
Determination Quality –    Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020             75%         √
Separations
                           BPC: Apr 1, 2017 – Mar 31,            >50%         √
                           2020;                                 <95%                  √
                           BAM: Oct. 1, 2016 –
Detection of Overpayments Sept. 30, 2019
                           If the rate is a result of
                           improper administration of
                           BAM and/or BPC                        >95%         √
Average Age of Pending
                           Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020           30 days       √
Lower Authority Appeals
Average Age of Pending
                           Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020           40 days       √
Higher Authority Appeals
Lower Authority Appeals
                           Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020             80%         √
Quality
New Employer Status
                           Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2019             70%         √
Determinations Time Lapse
                                                          No more than 3
                                                          tax functions
                                                          failing Tax
Tax Quality – Part A       Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2019                         √
                                                          Performance
                                                          System (TPS) in
                                                          a year
                                                          The same tax
                                                          function cannot
Tax Quality – Part B       Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2019     fail for 3          √
                                                          consecutive
                                                          years
                                                          Score >7;and
Effective Audit Measure    Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2019                         √
                                                          pass all 4 factors
                           BAM batches 201827 to
Improper Payments
                           201926 (July 1, 2018 to June                       √
Measure                                                          < 10%
                           29, 2018)
UI Overpayment Recovery
                           July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019           68%         √
Measure

                                             I-1

                    Measures/Programs to be Addressed in the UI (FY) 2021
                               State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) (cont’d)

Secretary’s Standards in
                                    Measurement Period             Criteria       CAP     Narrative
Regulation
First Payment Promptness
                                  Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020         87%            √
(Intrastate 14/21 Days)
First Payment Promptness
                                  Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020         93%            √
(Intrastate 35 Days)
First Payment Promptness
                                  Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020         70%            √
(Interstate 14/21 Days)
First Payment Promptness
                                  Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020         78%            √
(Interstate 35 Days)
Lower Authority Appeals (30
                                  Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020         60%            √
Days)
Lower Authority Appeals (45
                                  Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020         80%            √
Days)
UI Programs, etc.                Measurement Period                               CAP     Narrative
                                                               Results not
                                                               submitted by         √
Data Validation –                                              June 10, 2020
                                 Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020    Failing/incomple
Populations & Modules
                                                               te submission by     √
                                                               June 10, 2020
Compliance with NDNH
matching requirements for        Status as of March 31, 2020                        √
BAM
BAM operations not
compliant with investigative
and/or method and                Based on the annual
procedure requirements           determination letter issued                        √
including construction of        by May 1, 2020
valid samples and sample
populations
Incorrect recording of the
Issue Detection Date and/or      Apr 1, 2019 – Mar 31, 2020                                   √
Determination Date
TPS Sample Reviews               Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2019                         √
UI Program Integrity                                           To be addressed in the UI Integrity
                                                               Action Plan

                                                    I-2