Fiscal year 2009 unemployment overpayment technology grants

UIPL31-09acc.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2009/UIPL31-09acc.pdf)

                                               CLASSIFICATION
 Employment and Training Administration        UI
           Advisory System                     CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
       U.S. Department of Labor
        Washington, D.C. 20210
                                               DATE
                                               July 15, 2009

ADVISORY:       UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 31-09

TO:             STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES

FROM:           JANE OATES /s/
                Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT:        Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplemental Funding
                Opportunity for Automated Integrity Related Systems


1.    Purpose. To notify State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) of the availability of
      Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 funds for technology-based overpayment
      prevention, detection, and collection infrastructure investments to support
      integrity-related activities.

2.    References. ETA Handbook No. 336, 18th Edition, Change 1,
      Unemployment Insurance State Quality Service Plan Planning and
      Reporting Guidelines; and the Improper Payments Act of 2002.

3.    Background. The FY 2009 appropriation provided funds for states to
      conduct in-person Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments for UI
      beneficiaries and directed that a portion of these funds be used for
      technology-based overpayment prevention, detection, and collection
      infrastructure investments in support of these activities. The Employment
      and Training Administration remains committed to the development of
      integrity-related systems focused on the proper payment of UI benefits,
      and states have expressed a need for additional funding to enhance the
      automation of their Benefit Payment Control (BPC) activities. The
      prevention, detection and collection of UI overpayments is an area in
      which the implementation of automated systems can result in significant
      savings of staff costs, increases in the dollar amount of overpayments
      recovered, reduction of the time from establishment to recovery of the
      overpayment, and prevention of future overpayments.


RESCISSIONS                                       EXPIRATION DATE
None                                              July 15, 2010

4.        Use of FY 2009 Integrity-Related Funds. Approximately $9-10 million is
          available. The amounts awarded will be based on the number and types
          of requests submitted. These funds can be used for technology-based
          overpayment prevention, detection, and collection infrastructure
          investments in support of integrity-related activities. All funds are to be
          used for technology investments, and all expenditures must be related to
          automation.

          Use of these one-time funds should be geared toward investments that
          will provide future returns. The use of these funds to add staff needed to
          process workloads will not be funded as a part of this Supplemental
          Budget Request (SBR) opportunity.

          Examples of acceptable projects are located in Attachment A. The
          examples include the Separation Information Data Exchange System
          (SIDES), data matching with other Federal and state agencies, and internal
          data matching. In addition, states may propose other technology-based
          overpayment prevention, detection and collection activities. States may
          also request funds to improve existing integrity systems.

     5.   Consortia Proposals. States may form a consortium to implement a
          technology-based project designed to prevent, detect or recover improper
          UI payments. The proposal must identify the responsible state agency
          and its partners and explain the projected allocation of and fiscal
          responsibility for expenditures. The proposal must include a signed
          agreement to participate in the project from each participating state. The
          letter should be signed by the SWA Administrator and should explain the
          role of the participating state(s) in the project.

6.        SBR Scoring Criteria. The scoring criteria for these proposals are
          explained in Attachment B. The value of each of the scoring elements is
          also provided. States should address each element providing the
          information as it is defined in the guidelines.

          States fully utilizing the National Directory of New Hires in both BPC and
          Benefit Accuracy Measurement operations will be awarded 10 points of
          the possible 100 points. Proposals must meet a minimum score of 80
          points to be funded.

7.        Application and Award of Supplemental Funds. States may submit
          individual proposals for any or all of the purposes described above in one
          SBR package. However, states are requested to prioritize if submitting
          multiple requests. Each proposal will be considered a separate section of




   the state’s SBR, and each proposal will be evaluated individually. When
   the same expenditures are proposed in two different proposals and would
   be duplicated if both were funded, the state must provide a brief
   description in both proposals explaining this duplication to ensure that
   the same costs are not funded twice.

   These one-time funds will be made available through the SBR process and
   must be obligated by states by September 30, 2011, 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 September 30, 2011,
   to an outside contractor (not to another state agency) allows for work
   supported by these funds to continue beyond the cited dates, but only if
   an extension of the liquidation period is approved by the Grant Officer.
   By applying for these funds, states are assuring that these projects will be
   completed with no additional Federal funding.

   When projects have been approved, a Letter of Award will be issued to
   the state(s) listing the proposals that are being funded in the SBR. It will
   include both the funding level for each proposal and the total funding
   level for the state’s entire SBR. States must submit forms SF 424 (OMB No.
   4040-0004) and SF 424A (OMB No. 4040-0006) covering all approved
   projects in the SBR upon receipt of this Letter of Award.

8. Project Management. If, during the performance period, a state wishes to
   move funds among categories within its SBR, a new SF 424A (OMB No.
   4040-0006) must be submitted to the Regional Office for approval, with a
   copy to the National Office if the amount to be moved exceeds 20 percent
   of any category in 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 to reflect the
   requested changes. States may not elect to abandon an approved (single)
   project and move funds to a different project. If a project is not
   undertaken by the state, funds for that project must be returned to the
   Department.

9. Action Requested. SWA Administrators are requested to:

      (a) Review the funding opportunities and determine which activities
          might be appropriate for the state’s current operations,

      (b) Establish any necessary coordination between the UI program staff
          and Information Technology staff to develop a 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 SBRs including Attachment C by email to the
            [email protected] by close of business on August 10, 2009, with
            an electronic copy to the appropriate Regional Office.

10. Inquiries. Inquiries should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office.

11. OMB Approval. These instructions will be submitted to the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB). Therefore, they should be considered
    draft instructions for a proposed data collection. ETA will notify states
    upon OMB approval and communicate any changes deemed necessary
    during the OMB approval process.

12. Attachments.

    Attachment A        Examples of Technology Based Projects to Prevent,
                        Detect, or Collect Overpayments

    Attachment B        2009 Supplemental Budget Request Format for
                        Activities in Support of Technology Based
                        Overpayment Prevention, Detection, and Collection
                        Infrastructure Investments

    Attachment C        Unemployment Insurance Supplemental Budget
                        Request Summary Benefit Payment Control

UIPL31-09a1.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2009/UIPL31-09a1.pdf)

                                                                  Attachment A

    Examples of Technology Based Projects to Prevent, Detect, or Collect
                            Overpayments

Separation Information Data Exchange System (SIDES):

•   The Unemployment Insurance Separation Information Date Exchange
    System (SIDES) is a secure electronic-based system for communication of
    job separation information between the UI agencies and employers.
    SIDES is expected to improve the quality and timeliness of initial
    eligibility determinations which are the second largest cause of improper
    payments.

Data matching with other federal and state agencies:

•   Social Security Administration data matching
       o Verifies the Social Security Number ( SSN)
       o Verifies Social Security benefit information
       o Confirms name, date of birth and gender
•   State Department of Motor Vehicle data matching
       o Provides proof of identity and residence
•   Data Matching with state prisons, Vital Statistics, state payrolls, Workers’
    Compensation
       o Provides information on the legitimacy of the claims, earnings,
           compensation, other issues which affect eligibility

Internal Data Matching Software:

The acquisition/development/implementation of software for purposes such
as:
• Identification of multiple calls coming to a state’s Interactive Voice
    Response System (IVRS) from the same phone number to file claims.
• Identification/detection of multiple checks going to the same address and
    detection of claimants and employers having the same address.
• Utilization of a “security profile” to question callers filing UI claims when
    using IVRS.
• Utilization of stored information such as telephone numbers and
    addresses by state workforce agency staff to question callers filing UI
    claims.
• Utilization of Internet Protocol (IP) address tracking – (every computer on
    the Internet has a unique identifying number, like 191.1.24.2). This
    procedure searches for Internet unemployment claims being accessed at
    the same address.
• Creation of alerts to management on transaction patterns of employees.
                            Attachment A- Page--1

•   Utilization of software (e.g., High Risk Activity Detection (HRAD)), which
    identifies internal high risk factors such as an agency staff member
    making 3 or more changes to a UI claim record in a 4-day period (Personal
    Identification Numbers, SSN, address change).
•   Implementation of data mining software which has the capability to
    analyze large volumes of data, combine information on past
    circumstances, present events and project future actions which are key
    components to effectively combat identity theft.
•   Development of technology based collection activities such as a predictive
    dialer.

Other technology based overpayment prevention, detection, and collection
activities:

•   States should provide a complete description of the proposed project.

Activities to improve systems that are currently operational to make them
more effective:

•   States should provide a complete description of the current system
    identifying how it is used to prevent, detect or collect overpayments, what
    changes are needed and how they will improve the system making it
    more accurate, more cost effective, more expedient, more user friendly, or
    explain other improvements that are expected to occur.




                           Attachment A- Page--2

UIPL31-09a2.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2009/UIPL31-09a2.pdf)

                                                                    Attachment B

             2009 Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) Format for
       Activities in Support of Technology Based Overpayment Prevention,
               Detection, and Collection Infrastructure Investments


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 this proposal.

Project Description: Provide a complete description of the project explaining
what the funds will be used to accomplish.

Project Timeline: Provide a timeline identifying the dates of the milestones in
this project through the expected implementation date. The timeline should
include the development of the scope of work, the designation of specific tasks to
appropriate parties, the issuance of a request for proposal if appropriate, the
projected start date for programming the new system, the proposed dates to
begin and to complete testing and the proposed date for full implementation of
the system.

The weight of this element is 20 percent of the total score.

Description of Costs: Provide an explanation of all costs included in the project.

     Staff Costs for Agency and Contract Staff: States should use the table
     format below to request state or contract staff. The project should clearly
     explain which costs are for state staff and which costs are for contractor
     staff.

      Type of Total Hours       Cost Per       Total
      Position                  Hour


     Hardware, Software, and Telecommunications Equipment: Provide an
     itemized list of hardware, software and telecommunications equipment
     including the cost per item and the number of each item requested. A
     description of each item should provide any information needed to identify
     the specific item and a description of the size and capacity of each item if
     applicable.


                               Attachment B- Page--1

       Other: Identify each item and provide the expected cost per item. The need
       for each item should be explained.

The weight of this element is 10 percent of the total score.

Strategic Design: Include a description of the strategic design of the project
identifying key features. The strategic design should provide evidence of a
thorough analysis of current operations and should 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 automated system is not
operational. The state should explain how they have determined that this system
would be the most beneficial to their operation. This explanation might include
a list of other overpayment systems that are operational such as the National
Directory of New Hires.

For example:

   •    Identify the data that will be received from the data matching, e.g., name,
        date of birth, address etc.
   •    Estimate the amount of overpayments the system will prevent or detect in
        a year.
   •    Estimate the percentage of claimants that will part of the data matching
        system.
   •    Describe the data system(s) that the state will use to match claimant
        records
   •    Indicate how often the data match will be conducted.
   •    Describe the assurance(s) that the state has received from the owner(s) of
        the data which will demonstrate a willingness to participate in the
        proposed data exchange.

The weight of this element is 30 percent of the total score.

Measurable Improvements Expected in UI Operations: Identify the areas in
which overpayment prevention, detection or collection will be improved or on-
going costs reduced through implementation of the proposed project. All
improvements and cost reductions must be quantified rather than generalized.
For example, if it is anticipated that overpayments will be collected more quickly
with the new system the measurable improvements should identify the
anticipated time savings per claimant and the percentage of overpayments that
will be affected by the new system. The narrative should explain what




                               Attachment B- Page--2

measurable improvements are expected to occur and provide a narrative to
quantify the expected improvements.

The weight of this element is 30 percent of the total score.

Current Status of Implementation of the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH) in Benefit Payment Control ( BPC) Operations: Describe the status of
the NDNH in BPC operations. How often does BPC run this matching tool?
What parameters are set for BPC matching?

The weight of this element is 10 percent of the total score.

Attachment C: Attachment C should be completed for the total SBR package.

Supporting Materials: States may attach any additional relevant materials that
support funding for this project.




                               Attachment B- Page--3

UIPL31-09a3.pdf (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2009/UIPL31-09a3.pdf)

                                                                  Attachment C

                           Unemployment Insurance
                     Supplemental Budget Request Summary
                           Benefit Payment Control



State Name:

Name, Title, and Address of Grant Notification Contact (Usually the State
Workforce Agency Administrator):
Name:
Title:
Address:
Name & Email Address of Benefit Payment Control Supervisor:
Name:
E mail address:
Telephone number:
Total SBR Cost:

Total Staff Costs:

Total Contract Costs:

Staff Training Costs:

Projected Implementation Date for Each Project:




                             Attachment C- Page--1