References. None. Background. a. Grantees attending the conference in Bismarck will be reimbursed for one participant for registration, travel and per diem expenses if they receive less than $200,000 in their Program Year 1994 JTPA section 401 allocation. A list of these grantees is attached. b. Another bulletin, indicating whether additional grantees with Section 401 allocations between $200,000 and $250,000 can be reimbursed, will be issued in January. c. Reimbursement will cover conference registration, travel(including mileage), taxis between residence/airport and hotel/airport, parking and per diem expenses. Expenses for rental cars and telephone calls will not be reimbursed. Federal travel rates in effect at the time of the conference will be used. d. ACKCO will provide travel packets at the conference. There will be a 90-day limit on reimbursement claims in order to get a faster accounting of conference expenses. Action Required. Grantees on the attached list should register immediately for the conference, according to the instructions sent out by the conference planning committee. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative or Barbara Connell at 202/219-5511.

Reference. JTPA Section 165 (a)(2). Background. The Employment and Training Administration conducted an agency-wide review of its reporting systems to assess and improve the quality and usefulness of program information. A Farmworker subcommittee was formed to assist in this effort and met in Washington, D.C. in November, 1993 to work with the Department in redesigning the current MSFW reporting system. On January 11-12, 1994, subcommittee recommendations were introduced and presented to a widely representative group of MIS directors in Tucson, Arizona. The Department outlined its rationale for changing the way grantees now report information and discussed the main features of this new automated system. Also, an ADP contractor participated in the training session to determine potential data collection problems. At the Tucson meeting MIS representatives proposed several recommendations on the SPIR format. Consequently DOL further refined the SPIR format and introduced a draft version at the MSFW Training Conference in San Diego, California in March 1994. Finally, a draft of the Form and Instructions and a draft of the Record Layout Guidelines were presented for discussion and comments at the AFOP TAT Conference held October 17-21, 1994. Important changes are listed below. Many of them were the result of the valuable and informative discussions held with grantees at that Conference and at a December 6, 1994 meeting with representative grantees. Item 2. Field Office Identifier -- There was universal agreement to use the State and County FIPS Codes to designate the Field Office. No one expressed a preference for Names of States/Counties. To facilitate the use of Codes, a few of the grantees expressed a desire to obtain a listing. We will provide a copy of the FIPS Codes along with the final Data Record Format and Coding Instructions. If requested, we can furnish the list on disk. ACTION: Change to FIPS Codes. Item 4. Social Security Numbers of Participant's Family Members Who are Also Enrolled in 402 Program -- Although this item was included at the behest of the grantees, no one present at the Key West conference was in favor. The notion that the SSNs be eliminated in favor of a simple count of Family Members Also Enrolled was unanimously approved. ACTION: Change to Number of Participants... Item 8. Race/Ethnicity -- Concern was expressed that some individuals may not wish to identify themselves as being in any specific racial/ethnic group and that this preference should be accommodated. ACTION: Add option--6. Not Obtained Item 11. Migrant or Seasonal Farmworker -- Grantees pointed out that if the participant is a dependent of a Farmworker (Item 9 = 2), the options given for Item 11 are not appropriate. One grantee suggested that Items 9 and ll could be combined into one item with four options: Migrant Farmworker, Seasonal Farmworker, Dependent of Migrant Farmworker, Dependent of Seasonal Farmworker. This may, in fact, be the best option and will be kept in mind for the final format. This involves renumbering of items, however, which is best to avoid during the pilot year if at all possible. Resolution of the difficulty can be accomplished by changing the instruction for Item 11 as follows: ACTION: Insert (or is a dependent of) as indicated. Item 13. Family Size -- Grantees pointed out that the sum of the options did not equal family size. A change to the instructions was recommended. ACTION: Change to--13a. Number of Dependent Children Under Age 18: 13b. Number of Others in Family: Family Size will be then be equal to 13a plus 13b plus 1. Item 18. Pre-program Earnings During the Most Recent 12 Months from Enrollment -- There was concern that obtaining this information in addition to documenting the earnings used in the eligibility determination was unduly burdensome. In a meeting with representative Section 402 grantees held December 6, 1994, it was agreed that earnings reported for this item do not have to be documented (if it is not the period used to determine eligibility). A Note to that effect has been included in the Instructions. Item 21. Reading Skills Grade Level -- This item was discussed at some length without a clear consensus as to the feeling of the grantees in attendance. There was concern about how to report results given the format of the options, specifically, how to keep grade levels and raw scores and test names differentiated. The following is suggested to help. ACTION: Add 21a. Enter Name of Test (if tested). This would apply in all cases if a test was administered. Grade levels require an explicit decimal, i.e., grade level 6 would be 6.0--a raw score may not have a decimal. Item 22. Math Skills Grade Level -- This item was included by reference during the discussion of Item 21 above. Same recommendation. ACTION: Add 22a. Enter Name of Test (if tested) Item 31. Occupational Skills Training Code/Type and Code -- The options as presented will be awkward to code. ACTION: Change to 31. Occupational Skills Training Code/Type: 31a. Type 31b. Item 32. Stipends -- Stipends were discussed as support services provided. Many grantees wished to report whether or not stipends had been received. This also seems useful in adding to our knowledge base when assessing the duration of training and the impact of that training on later outcomes. ACTION: Insert 32j. Stipend with same options as other services. Change to 32k. Other: Item 34. Category of Termination -- There was considerable discussion about the method which had been proposed for handling the "objective assessment only" type of termination. Grantees were not satisfied that it would be done by looking at Items 34 and 38 in combination. Therefore, the reporting of this item is changed to including the option in Item 34. ACTION: Insert 4. Objective Assessment Only and adjust subsequent number. Remove Objective Assessment Option from Item 38. Item 36c. Fringe Benefits -- Grantees agreed that this item would be more appropriately reported by including a probationary period proviso. ACTION: Change to read 36c. Fringe Benefits Available/Received, or with Fringe Benefits Available/Received Following Successful Completion of Probationary Period. Item 36d. Occupational Code: and Type: The options as presented will be awkward to code. ACTION: Change to 36d. Occupational Code/Type: 36d(1). Type 36d(2). Code The attached final versions of the SPIR Forms and Instructions reflect the recommendations and comments received from the grantee community during the past year. The Forms and Instructions supersede all previous forms. Implementation Schedule. The Department is conducting a pilot of the new reporting system which began on July 1, 1994. All grantees are invited to send in terminee data in the new SPIR format on a quarterly basis throughout PY 1994. Grantees are welcome to participate in the pilot at any point during the pilot period, if they can reconstruct records for those terminees beginning July 1, 1994. Because of the need to provide consistency of reporting for program office and performance standards purposes, all grantees will continue to transmit current quarterly program and financial status reports on their due date during the pilot period. However, to eliminate dual reporting of the same data elements, SPIR pilot grantees should use the modified quarterly Program Status Summary (PSS) forms which only report on participant data. SPIR pilot grantees will likewise report fiscal data using the quarterly Financial Status Report for all four quarters of PY 1994. Non-SPIR grantees will report programmatic and fiscal data for the fourth quarter, as usual, using the Annual Status Report. The Department will evaluate the results from the pilot reporting period with the intention of implementing the new SPIR format for all grantees as early as July 1, 1995. Action. Pilot grantees should replace existing Forms and Instructions with those attached to this Bulletin. Final Record Layout Guidelines will be distributed as soon as possible and should be used as the format for generating SPIR data. Grantees should submit data as soon as it is available in accordance with instructions which will be included in the final Record Layout Guidelines. Comments may be addressed to: Karen Greene U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Office of Policy & Research 200 Constitution Avenue, NW - Room N5637 Washington, DC 20210 ATTENTION: Pat Carroll Inquiries. Contact Pat Carroll on (202) 219-8680, extension 139, or Richard Hoff on (202) 219-6485, extension 113, or the Federal representative assigned to your grant.

References. a. 29 CFR Part 97 (Administrative requirements for Federal grants to State, local, and Indian tribal governments); b. 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative requirements for Federal grants to institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations); c. OMB Circular A-87 (Cost principles for State, local and Indian tribal governments); and d. OMB Circular A-122 (Cost principles for non-profit organizations). Background. Up to the present time, there has been some confusion concerning the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) prior approval requirements applicable to grantee acquisitions of automated data processing equipment (hardware and software), regardless of a dollar limit. This confusion has largely been the result of the prior approval requirement language of the above referenced cost principles coupled with a lack of definition of the term equipment. The Department of Labor's (DOL) publication of the 29 CFR Part 95 regulations on July 27, 1994, to implement the revised OMB Circular A-110 (and transmitted in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-3) provided a definition of the term "equipment" along with other definitions, and revised dollar thresholds such that the previous confusion regarding prior approval requirements can now be dispelled. Information. The DOL regulations at 29 CFR Part 97 includes definitions and regulatory requirements applicable to property acquired by States, local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes with Federal grant funds. The DOL regulations at 29 CFR Part 95 includes definitions and regulatory requirements applicable to property acquired by non-profit organizations with Federal grant funds. While neither the Part 95 nor Part 97 regulations address prior approvals, both of them require adherence to the cost principles applicable to the grantee's type of organization, i.e., OMB Circular A-87 for governments and OMB Circular A-122 for non-profits. Both Circulars specify prior approval requirements. OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, paragraphs C.1. (Automatic data processing) and C.3. (Capital expenditures) stipulates that prior DOL/ETA approval must be obtained for purchases of equipment with Federal DOL/ETA provided funds. OMB Circular A-122, Attachment B, Item 13 (Equipment and other capital expenditures) stipulates at paragraph b)(1) that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment are unallowable as a direct cost except with the prior approval of the awarding agency. (Note: Paragraph b)(2) deals with special purpose equipment which is defined at paragraph a)(3) as equipment being usable only for research, medical, scientific or technical activities. This should not effect Indian and Native American Grantees.) Both 29 CFR 97.3 and 29 CFR 95.2(n) define equipment as "tangible nonexpendable personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit." The definition of "acquisition cost of equipment" as provided in 29 CFR Part 95.2(c) and 29 CFR 97.3 is "the net invoice price of the equipment, including the cost of modifications, attachments, accessories or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make the property usable for the purpose for which it was acquired." Both regulations treat personal property that falls below the $5,000 or one year thresholds as "supplies". Based on these definitions, it is concluded that prior written approval of ETA/DOL is required to acquire equipment at the $5,000 and above level, and is not required to acquire supplies. Guidance. What is a unit? DOL views the term "unit" to be in the broad sense of all of the component parts of a system which are required to enable it to perform the function for which it was acquired. A computer typically used for JTPA purposes with all component parts would cost less than $5,000 and therefore would not require prior Grantor approval. The exception however would be the purchase of specialized equipment that exceeds $5,000 such as computerized assessment testing or Local Area Networks. System design/needs. Grantees should try to purchase the most expandable system appropriate for grant purposes, that is a system that will keep up with new technology. They should also make sure they get good warranties and service. We are providing the following suggested guidance on minimum system configurations: SYSTEM DOS/WINDOWS MAC Computer 486 Power Mac (w/System 7.5)* Memory/Storage 16/500 16/500 Monitor 15" SVGA,NI 15" color Keyboard Regular Enhanced (w/ F keys) Printer Laser Laser Modem or Fax/Modem 14.4bps,V.32bis 14.4bps,V.32bis *Which permits reading/writing DOS/WINDOWS disks. A dedicated telephone line for your system is also desirable. Please note that the minimum system configurations indicated above are provided as a reference for those planning to upgrade or purchase computer equipment. This is not to suggest that grantees currently operating computers with less capability have inadequate systems. Action. Indian and Native American Grantees shall refer to this bulletin when purchasing ADP equipment. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to your DINAP Federal Representative.

References: 5 U.S.C. 8502(b) and 8521; 20 CFR 614.6(c), 614.9(a)(1) and 20 CFR 614.22(d); and UIPL 25-83 and Changes 1-9. Background: UIPL 25-83, Change 10 transmitted a letter to all SESAs that was issued by the Air Force in lieu of reissuing DD Forms 214 or issuing DD Forms 215 to certain Air Force ex-servicemembers separated after November 5, 1991, to correct, for UCX eligibility purposes, the narrative reason for separation reflected in Block 28 of their DD Forms 214. The Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the DOL, determined that one of the unacceptable narrative reasons for separation, "Voluntary - Miscellaneous Reasons" was incorrectly applied to Air Force separatees after November 5, 1991. These separatees were in fact, separated for the convenience of the government under an early release/force reduction program and item (Block) 28 of their DD Forms 214 should have contained the acceptable narrative reason for separation "Early Separation Program - Force Reduction". Instructions: This Department has been informed by the Air Force that the early release program to which the narrative reason for separation "Voluntary - Miscellaneous Reasons" was incorrectly applied ended on October 31, 1992. The Air Force further informed this Department that it would cease issuing letters to the affected Air Force separatees on October 31, 1992. Therefore, the instruction in Section 4. of UIPL 25-83, Change 10 is not applicable to Air Force separations occurring after October 31, 1992. As provided in 5 U.S.C. 8502(b) and 20 CFR 614.9(a)(1), State UI law claims filing provisions are applicable to UCX claims. Furthermore, 20 CFR 614.6(c) provides that any redetermination or reconsideration of previously eligible UCX claims will be undertaken according to State law provisions applicable to UI claims. Action Required: The above information should be provided to appropriate staff.

Background: Section 143(a) of the 1992 Amendments to JTPA provides that "standardized records for all individual participants" shall be maintained by Service Delivery Areas (SDAs). Such records are to be made available to the Secretary "to facilitate the uniform compilation, cross tabulation, and analysis of programmatic, participant, and financial data, on statewide and service delivery area bases," pursuant to Section 143(c) of the Amendments. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has for some time been concerned about the need for more meaningful feedback on whether policies that create changes in program design and client targeting actually result in program improvements. Effective program management is dependent on adequate and timely information on what local JTPA programs are accomplishing and how they are achieving these results. In addition, there has been a need for uniform participant-level data that will address important issues regarding program accountability, such as the scope of services and the nature of employment that JTPA is providing to participants, particularly the hardest-to-serve. These concerns have culminated in the development of the Standardized Program Information Reporting (SPIR) system, which was published in final form in the Federal Register on November 12, 1992. In addition, the Department's Directorate of Civil Rights has issued regulations that may affect reporting and record keeping requirements. To comply with DCR and SPIR requirements, State and SDA management information systems may have to be redesigned. Policy: Section 202(b)(3)(B) provides that funds shall be used "to provide incentive grants . . . If the full amount reserved . . . is not needed to make incentive grants . . . the Governor shall use the amount not so needed for technical assistance . . . ." Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary at Section 701(i) of the Amendments to issue procedures necessary for the orderly implementation of the Amendments, the following policy guidance is provided: a. Technical assistance funds under Section 202(b)(3) of the Amendments may be used if needed for MIS redesign to accommodate the SPIR and DCR data collection requirements. b. Incentive funds awarded to SDAs may be used by the SDAs for local MIS redesign, or they may be returned to the State if SDAs wish to participate in a statewide MIS redesign. c. Subject to a. and b., PY 1992 Section 202(b)(3) "six percent" funds may be used for purposes of MIS redesign. In addition, any unexpended Section 202(b)(3) funds from prior years may be used, if still available. d. PY 1992 funds need not be spent in PY 1992. They may be expended for such purposes next year or even in PY 1994 if not expended earlier. Action If MIS redesign is necessary to meet the new SPIR reporting requirements and the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of the Amendments, States and SDAs may do so immediately, using their "six percent" funds.

References. DINAP Bulletins No.-94-07 and 94-12. Background. Pursuant to the designation instructions published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (59 FR 50001) and transmitted to current JTPA section 401 Indian and Native American grantees in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-07, the Department published a list of those grantees applying for and receiving waivers and tentative waivers of competition for the PY 1995-96 Designation Period (59 FR 60663). These lists were transmitted to section 401 grantees in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-12. Those grantees receiving tentative waivers in that FEDERAL REGISTER notice had ten (10) calendar days to resolve the problems which resulted in their receiving a tentative waiver. This bulletin transmits the final list of section 401 grantees receiving waivers of competition for the PY 1995-96 Designation Period. This final list includes the disposition of those entities originally granted tentative waivers and corrects the previous list. Waivers of competition have been implemented in accordance with the provisions of section 401(l) of the Act, as amended, which states that if a grantee has performed satisfactorily according to plan for the current 2-year grant period, the Department may waive the requirement for competition upon receipt of a satisfactory plan for the succeeding 2-year grant period. To be considered for a waiver, current grantees were required to submit an Advance Notice of Intent in accordance with the instructions contained in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-07. Action Required. a. Grantees receiving waivers must still submit a Final Notice of Intent pursuant to the instructions contained in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-07, except that they need only submit a Standard Form (SF) 424 in lieu of a full Notice of Intent. There will be no competition for their existing service area. b. All grantees not waived for competition and still interested in being designated as a JTPA section 401 grantee should submit an original and two copies of the Final Notice of Intent, along with all appropriate materials, postmarked not later than January 1, 1995, to: Inquiries. Questions should be directed to your Federal representative on (202) 219-5504. Thomas M. Dowd Chief Division of Indian and Native American Programs ATTN: Designation Desk U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room N-4641 Washington, D.C. 20210 Inquiries: Questions should be directed to your Federal representative on (202) 219-5504.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References: Section 4 of P.L. 103-152; Titles III and IX of the Social Security Act (SSA); P.L. 103-6; P.L. 102- 318; UI Occasional Papers 89-3 and 91-1; and UIPL 45-93, dated September 23, 1993. Background: On November 24, 1993, the President signed into law the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993, P.L. 103-152. P.L. 103-152 extended the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program, and amended the SSA to require States, as a condition of receiving administrative grants, to establish and utilize a system of profiling all new claimants for regular UC for purposes of identifying claimants who are likely to exhaust UC and will need job search assistance to make a successful transition to new employment. The SSA was further amended to require States to disqualify an individual identified pursuant this profiling system if the individual fails to participate in reemployment services. In addition, P.L. 103-152 made a technical change to Title IX of the SSA. States have already been advised of those provisions affecting the EUC program in GAL 12-92, Change 6. This issuance is limited to those amendments to the SSA affecting the Federal-State UC program. These amendments are as follows: (a) a new requirement that States establish and utilize a system of profiling all new claimants for regular UC; (b) a new requirement that State law require claimants identified as most likely to exhaust regular UC to participate in reemployment services as condition of UC eligibility; and (c) a technical amendment to Title IX of the SSA pertaining to the Unemployment Trust Fund. Action Required: SESAs are requested to take the action necessary to assure consistency with Federal requirements as amended by P.L. 103-152. The effective dates for implementation of these amendments are found in Attachment III.

References: ETA Handbook No. 365, Second Edition and ETA Handbook No. 361, Revised October 1, 1986. Background: UIPL No. 10-93 provided answers to questions that had arisen at a training session held at the Latham Hotel in Georgetown in August. The information given in the second answer in the attachment to UIPL No. 10-93 was inadvertently given and is incorrect. Correct Answer: ETA Handbook No. 365, Second Edition, Page 9, states, "If a potential issue arises and is detected prior to the claimant certifying for the week which would be affected, it is not to be considered an issue (detected) until the week is claimed." To further clarify, the start date for timeliness is the week ending date of the week in which the affected week is certified. Action Required: Line out the second answer in the attachment to UIPL No. 10-93, write in the correct answer, and provide this change to UIPL No. 10-93 to all Quality Appraisal staff.

References: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 7-92, "Eagle Pass Task Force - Recommended Actions for Deterring and Detecting Fraud Activity in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program." Background: The validity of UI claims filed by claimants who use a third party to assist in filing has long been a concern of Federal and State UI administrators. Increased attention was focused on this concern in the early 1990's by the results of the Texas Employment Commission (TEC), the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) investigation of a third party fraud scheme in Eagle Pass, Texas. A similar third party fraud scheme was subsequently uncovered in the Roma/McAllen, Texas, area. The Dallas OIG, with the cooperation of ETA and the SESAs, has successfully pursued prosecution and conviction of several individuals involved in these fraud schemes. Additional information concerning these operations can be found in UIPL No. 7-92. Further investigations have uncovered a total of fourteen third party fraud schemes along the Texas/Mexico border to date. These investigations disclosed that the third party filed weeks claimed on behalf of claimants, certified to false work search contacts, and perhaps falsified answers to other eligibility questions in the claimants' absence. The third party also forged the claimants' signatures and cashed UI benefit checks. The majority of the claimants identified during the third party investigations were filing interstate claims. These claims involved a total of thirty-three States, although most of the claims involved the States of California and Texas. Normally, after claimants file an interstate initial claim through an agent State local office, they correspond directly with the liable State by mail or telephone and only report again to the agent State local office if directed to report for eligibility review interview (ERI) purposes by the liable State. UIPL No. 7-92 indicated the actions that had been initiated in response to the Eagle Pass fraud scheme which included the establishment of a Task Force to look into the issues involved in the scheme with the goal of identifying lessons to be learned for the prevention of such occurrences in the future. Also included in UIPL No. 7-92 were numerous Task Force recommendations for SESA administrators to consider for use in their own systems and procedures for deterrence and detection of fraud activity. In addition to States taking specific actions to attempt to address the potential of fraud in the individual claims associated with cases in the Eagle Pass and Roma/McAllen fraud schemes, other significant activities that have been initiated since the issuance of UIPL No. 7-92 include: - In September 1993, UIS signed a Cooperative Agreement with the State of California to conduct a study to develop a prototype third party fraud profile system. The profile system will be directed toward early detection of potential third party UI benefit fraud. - A claimant benefit rights interview video and an informational booklet have been produced in both English and Spanish for use with interstate claimants in response to one of the Task Force's recommendations. UIPL No. 21-94, announcing the development of these materials and making them available to each of the States, was issued in April 1994. - A comprehensive Benefit Payment Control (BPC) Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) containing guidance on fraud detection and prevention was developed through a Cooperative Agreement between UIS and the State of Maryland. During 1994, three training sessions were held for State BPC staff in conjunction with the issuance of the BPC TAG to all States. - ETA Regional Offices hosted Regional and Multi-Regional BPC Conferences which have included information regarding third party fraud activity as well as other types of fraud activity. Additionally, State agency officials from California and Texas and ETA and OIG officials from the Regional and National Offices have met on several occasions to discuss efforts toward detection and deterrence of third party fraud. During one of these meetings, it was agreed that in- depth ERIs and investigations could be conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of these actions in addressing the problems of third party fraud. TEC developed and submitted a proposal, with input from ETA and OIG officials, to provide an analysis of third party involvement in the UI process and related integrity issues and to attempt to quantify the detection/deterrence effect of in-depth ERIs and investigations. This project was approved by ETA. Project Objectives: This project will extend for a 3-year period from October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1997, to allow for sufficient annual workload cycles to be able to accurately evaluate the effectiveness and determine the cost of the in-depth ERIs and investigations. The objectives of the project include: - Ascertaining the nature of third party involvement and the factors contributing to their use in the UI process. - Measuring the impact of increased investigative efforts and claimant interviews on third party fraud incidence. - Estimating the cost effectiveness of in-depth ERIs and investigations in detection and deterrence of improper payments. - Documenting the types of issues resulting in disqualifications and/or overpayments (e.g., able and available issues, and/or work search issues). - Developing recommendations for procedures designed to detect and deter third party fraud. - Ascertaining how agent and liable States may better coordinate efforts in detecting and deterring third party fraud. Project Design: Six local offices will be selected based on an analysis of claimant addresses, historical significance in prior investigations, and other local area characteristics and demographics. Three local offices will be "test" offices and three will be "control" offices. In each of these local offices, the project population will be: a. All claimants who are utilizing a single address used by multiple claimants as determined by a review of Texas files; and b. Any claimants with prior third party involvement who have active claims with Texas addresses associated with the six selected local offices. In the three "test" offices, such intrastate and interstate claimants will be called in for in-depth ERIs and all potential issues detected will be investigated. To ensure that all "test" offices are asking claimants the same questions, TEC will develop a comprehensive questionnaire. This questionnaire will provide for obtaining specific information such as residence address, labor market area attachment, work search activities, intervening/casual employment, etc. Fact-finding results from the ERIs and investigations will be provided to the appropriate TEC adjudication unit or liable State for determination and appropriate action. In the three "control" offices, ERIs for intrastate and interstate claimants will continue to be scheduled and conducted based on current policy and procedures. Comparable data will be accumulated at all phases to compare activity and results in the "test" and "control" offices. TEC Activities: TEC will perform all the following activities under this project: a. Utilize the Interstate Benefit Rights Interview (BRI) in the agent State claims process. b. Identify project population, e.g., multiple claimants utilizing a single address, OIG list of claimants with prior third party involvement. c. Call in all selected claimants in the "test" offices for in-depth ERIs that will focus on able and available issues, such as labor market attachment, work search, method(s) of seeking work, and other potential issues. d. Thoroughly investigate all potential issues identified including: (1) visiting, inspecting, or investigating single addresses used by multiple claimants and/or contacting third parties, as appropriate. (2) establishing contact sources for information at utility companies, law enforcement authorities, postal service, and State and Federal Courts, as needed. e. Refer potential issues and investigative results to appropriate adjudication units (TEC or liable State). f. Conduct special supplemental interviews/ investigations as requested by adjudication or prosecution units and/or liable States. g. Coordinate assistance from DOL-OIG regarding fraud cases as appropriate. h. Document the cost of conducting the in-depth ERIs and investigations (e.g., staff time, travel dollars, etc.). i. Collect and compile project data with respect to "test" and "control" offices for reporting purposes. j. Request liable States to provide information pertaining to the disposition of each case investigated and referred by TEC. k. Develop a follow-up form for use by liable States to provide the requested information on the disposition of each case to TEC. Data Analysis and Reports: Efforts are being made to ensure that data captured with respect to the "test" and "control" offices will provide sufficient information to address the project objectives so that meaningful conclusions can be reached and fraud detection and deterrent procedures for the UI system can be recommended. The identification of all data collection elements has not been completed. However, some of the information that will be compiled and separately arrayed by interstate and intrastate program for analysis with respect to claimants and third parties in the "test" and "control" offices is as follows: Claimant Information - Number of identified claimants; - Characteristics of claimants filing from suspect addresses-- - Occupation - Age - Sex - Mailing address - Residence address (if available) - Distance of residence from labor market area - Work history - Claim history; - Number of ERIs scheduled, conducted and results; - Number of claimant investigations conducted; - Number of determinations (fraud/non-fraud); - Amount of fraudulent and non-fraudulent overpayments established; - Number of claimants living outside the local labor market area while filing a UI claim; - Number of claimants working while filing a UI claim; - Number of claimants identified in prior investigations; - Number of claimants referred for prosecution; - Number of claimants convicted; and - Number of claimants prosecuted under Federal mail fraud statutes. Third Party Information - Number of third party interviews/contacts conducted; - Number of third party fraud investigations initiated; - Number of third party cases referred for criminal prosecution; - Number of third parties convicted; - Number of third parties referred to OIG for prosecution; and - Number of third parties contacted/investigated that were involved in prior OIG investigations. Liable State Assistance: As mentioned above, this project will be on-going through September 30, 1997. Each State, therefore, is requested to designate a contact person to coordinate interstate communications for this project during this period. Although TEC and the Dallas OIG will identify potential claimant fraud cases involving interstate and third parties and will be able to collect information regarding the issue, this project will be successful only with each liable State's assistance and cooperation. The TEC Project Director, Mr. Ken Helm, will be sending a letter to all SESAS informing them of the selected local offices and providing additional information regarding the project. Mr. Ken Helm will also be transmitting to SESAs a State specific OIG list of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and addresses utilized by claimants with prior third party involvement. SESAs will be requested to conduct file searches of the information on the list against their active claim files in order to identify any active claims with Texas zip code addresses associated with the selected local offices. This will allow TEC to include in the project population, claimants with prior third party involvement who are not in TEC's agent State files but who are in an active claim filing status. To attempt to facilitate the use of the OIG information lists, these lists are being made available on floppy disks using Lotus spreadsheets. SESAs can use the OIG lists for their own integrity related purposes as they may deem appropriate. OIG Assistance Available: The Dallas OIG has agreed to work with TEC and the Dallas ETA Regional Office in order to ensure a comprehensive approach. The Dallas OIG will assist TEC in investigating the interstate cases and in preparing cases for prosecution. In addition, in order to assist liable States in prosecuting cases related to these interstate and third party cases, the Dallas OIG has agreed to assist liable States by providing testimony as to the OIG investigation of the third party, including evidence obtained. In some cases, as appropriate, the OIG will pursue Federal prosecution via the mail fraud statutes. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to: a. Ensure all appropriate SESA staff are aware of and familiar with the material in this UIPL and UIPL No. 7-92. b. Designate a contact person to coordinate interstate communications for this project and provide the name, telephone number, and address by December 30, 1994, to: Texas Employment Commission Kenneth Helm, Director Benefit Payment Control Department 101 East 15th Street Travis Building, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78731 Phone Number - (512) 502-3701 Fax Number - (512) 502-3704 c. Establish a means to provide follow-up data to TEC pertaining to the disposition of each case referred by TEC utilizing the form which TEC develops. Information requested will include: - Disposition of issue. - Determination (fraud/non-fraud). - Overpayment (fraud/non-fraud). - Amount of overpayment. - Prosecution pursued. - Results of prosecution. d. Provide TEC with the PS/NPS cost of providing the follow-up information requested.