References: UIPL 15-96 (April 2, 1996), "Proposal to Modify the Benefits Quality Control Program;" UIPL 19-96 (April 24, 1996), "Procedures for Release of Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) (formerly Benefits Quality Control (BQC)) Data for Calendar Year (CY) 1995. Background: Through UIPL 15-96, the Department solicited comments on a series of modifications to the Benefits Quality Control program (renamed Benefit Accuracy Measurement). The changes were proposed as part of the move to the UI Performs system and were consistent with recommendations by the Vice President's National Performance Review. Comments were sought on the following proposed changes: (1) elimination of the requirement that States publish BAM data findings annually; (2) more elaborate data breakdowns for publications of BAM data; (3) a review of the present BAM data record (Data Collection Instrument or DCI); (4) eventual measurement of the accuracy of decisions denying benefit claims; (5) reductions in required sample sizes to 360 cases per year in the 10 smallest States and 480 in the remainder of the States (the 10 smallest, defined operationally as those with fewest average weeks compensated during each of the past five years, are Delaware, District of Columbia, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming); (6) greater flexibility in choosing methods for verifying claims data; and (7) making resources freed up by lower measurement demands available for other UI Performs activities. Four main themes characterized the responses to the UIPL. These were: (1) overall acceptance of the proposed changes; (2) concern that integrity would be diminished because of the smaller samples and less in-person verification; (3) uncertainty about the implications of freeing up BAM resources for other uses; and (4) the belief that it was timely to begin examining the accuracy of denials decisions. In response to the concerns expressed in the responses, the Department informed the OMB in the clearance process of its intent to emphasize that the new sample sizes are to be understood as minimum sampling levels. States should not feel constrained to those levels if they believe they need larger ones. In turn, OMB required the Department to clarify this as a condition of its approval. In addition, the Department wishes to stress that, for most States, allocations remain sufficient to verify the 1996 sample sizes using the mix of in-person and telephone contacts instituted in 1993. Status of BAM Program Changes: (a) Publication: Through UIPL 19-96, the Department announced the removal of the requirement that States release their BAM findings in a public forum. (b) Building Block Rates: The Department has developed some preliminary approaches to a building block report format which provides alternative breakouts of the BAM data. Two are used to display each State's 1995 data in the 1995 BAM Annual Report. (c) DCI Review: Because of other priorities in rolling out the UI Performs system, and because the size of the data record has little effect on BAM costs, the Department has decided to delay the review of the BAM DCI for the time being. (d) Denials Accuracy: After soliciting volunteers through UIPL 27-96, the Department selected Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wisconsin as pilot States. The pilot is expected to involve 12 months of sampling, beginning in Spring 1997. (e) Other: The Department published a preclearance notice in the February 5, 1996, Federal Register at 4291 indicating its intention to reauthorize the BAM program under the Paperwork Reduction Act. It proposed sample size reductions, flexibility in investigative methods, and releasing freed-up BAM resources for other UI Performs activities, all of which required OMB approval. On September 15, 1996, OMB approved collection of BAM data through September 30, 1999, with the proposed changes. States should note that the new lower sampling rates are to be understood as minimum sampling levels. They may draw larger BAM samples if their needs would be served by samples larger than the new minimum levels. In addition, under the terms of the approval, States have flexibility in investigative methods and may use resources not needed for BAM investigations for other UI Performs activities. The additional investigative flexibility eliminates the requirement that States make in-person contacts the lead method for obtaining claimant information and verifying worksearch. Implementation of OMB-Approved Changes: The OMB approval of BAM sample reductions and changes in procedures came too late to enable their implementation on October 1, 1996, as originally intended. States will therefore shift to the new sampling rates and more flexible methodology beginning with batch 9701 (week of December 29, 1996 - January 4, 1997). States must complete investigation of all sampled cases in a timely manner. Therefore they should not plan to shift BAM resources immediately, but allow a phasedown period to complete all investigations of cases in the pipeline from previous higher sampling levels. Cases sampled before batch 9701 should be completed using the present "mixed mode" methodology. Budget detail for FY 1997 reflects the phasedown period. The length of this period will depend on the size of the backlog, but should average approximately 2 months; it may also be influenced by the Handbook 395 requirement that 98 percent of calendar year cases be completed within 120 days of the ending date of the calendar year. The specifications of the new investigative procedures will be made available soon through issuance of a revision of the affected sections of Handbook 395. Action Required: The SESA Administrators are requested to share this information with appropriate staff, and plan accordingly for the changeover date.

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

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

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference: TEIN 7-88 Information: The attached checklists are issued to notify the JTPA and ES systems of those TEINs and TEGLs that have been rescinded during the last program year. There are also checklists of all TEINs and TEGLs remaining active.

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

References. DINAP Bulletin No 95-15. Background. Prior to the issuance of PY 1996 title IV-A grant allocations, the Department of Labor (DOL) sought input from the grantees on the use of program funds for technical assistance and training purposes. Following are the results of the last year's comments: Program Year 1995 - 189 grantees - 110 (58%) grantee responses received - 79 (42%) no response submitted TAT Preference Results - 110 responses - 68 (62%) favored using less than 1% for TAT in PY 1996 - 30 (27%) favored using 1% for TAT in PY 1996 - 12 (11%) did not favor using any program funds for TAT purposes in PY 1996 Almost ninety percent of the grantees that responded favored using program funds for TAT purposes in PY 1996; however, because an overwhelming mandate was not established as sought by the Department, a decision was made to not use any PY 1996 program funds for TAT purposes. New Survey. The Council along with many grantees have asked the Department to once again seek broad input regarding the use of PY 1997 program funds for TAT purposes. As stated in DINAP Bulletin 95-15, the section 401 program regulations at 20 CFR 632.171(b) give the Department authority to reserve up to one percent (1%) of the title IV-A allocation for TAT purposes. However, even though the Department has never exercised this authority, it is the desire of the Department and the Council to once again seek broad grantee input prior to any decision regarding the use of program funds for TAT purposes. A few basic facts should be clearly understood by all grantees prior to informing the Department of your position on this important issue: a. The hold harmless factor used in calculating the last three PY allocations will not be used for PY 1997. Once the hold harmless factor is removed, a few grantees will receive slightly smaller allocations for PY 97 while some grantees will get a slightly larger allocation. This occurs each time the hold harmless factor is finally removed to adjust for the exact allocations based on the actual results of 1990 Census data. b. The FY 1997 title IV-A appropriation for the 401 program in PY 1997 is the same as for the current PY 1996--$52.5 million. c. This issue was discussed at the October 1996 meeting of the Council, and it was agreed that the Department would once again seek input from all grantees on this important issue prior to any final decision. Options. The following describes the options each grantee should consider prior to submitting their input to the Department: Option 1 - use one percent (1% of $52.5 million equals $520,000) of PY 1997 program funds as allowed by the regulations for TAT activities. Example: If grantee A's title IV-A allocation for PY 97 is $400,000, their grant would be reduced by $4,000. Option 2 - use half a percent (.5% of $52.5 million equals $262,500) of PY 1997 program funds for TAT activities. Example: If grantee B's title IV-A allocation for PY 97 is $65,000, their grant would be reduced by $325. Option 3 - do not use any PY 1997 program funds for TAT purposes. Any title IV-A program funds used for TAT purposes by law, can only be used to directly benefit grantees. These funds cannot be used by Federal staff for any purposes, i.e., travel, lodging, salaries, etc. As in the past, some of the activities engaged in under the TAT contract would include peer-to-peer on-site technical assistance, logistical support of the national and multi-regional TAT conferences, payment of travel costs for smaller grantees to attend these TAT sessions, and the hiring of outside (i.e., non-governmental) consultants to provide specialized training, as in computer and/or electronic communications classes. Any other suggested options regarding either the funding or the nature of TAT to be provided are welcome. Action Required. All JTPA section 401 grantees are encouraged to voice their opinions on these options and to submit them in writing to the Department. Because of the requirement to publish preliminary allocation figures for grantee planning purposes in a timely manner, the deadline for receiving these comments is relatively short. Grantees and the public are therefore encouraged to submit their comments by December 20, 1996. Grantees and the public are hereby notified that any reduction of grantees' PY 1997 title IV-A allocations for TAT will not decrease the dollar amounts available from allocations for administrative costs. Questions. Questions should be addressed to Mr. Thomas Dowd at (202) 219- 8502 or to Greg Gross at (202) 219-7509.

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References: UIPL No. 16-94 (3/15/94), UIPL No 31-94 (6/24/94), UIPL No. 7-95 (12/20/94), UIPL 21-95 (4/20/95), UIPL NO. 6-96 (12/31/95) and ET Handbook No. 401, 2nd Edition, Change 5 (10/11/94). Background: Previous segments of this series answered questions about the design of RQC and about items State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) report on Form ETA 581. These items provide many of the data elements used in the calculation of TPS Computed Measures. Previous Q&As were arranged in two sections: 1) Items SESAs report on the Form ETA 581 and 2) Tax functions assessed by the RQC review, now TPS. Compilation of Questions and Answers: The Tax staff has reviewed the previously issued Q&As and determined which ones are still applicable. Those that have become obsolete have been deleted. The two sections have been merged into one compilation. Where applicable, each tax function has sections for questions in the various categories. For example, Report Delinquency has a section for Form ETA 581, Computed Measures, System Reviews, Acceptance Sampling and Methods Survey. The numbering of questions in each category is continuous. This format provides the flexibility to allow periodic Q&A updates to be inserted in the appropriate section. For example, the last question in the Q&A compilation Collections-Acceptance Sampling is number 13. The first question in the newly issued Q&A's Collections-Acceptance Sampling is number 14. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to distribute the three Q&A attachments to State RQC Reviewers, SESA Tax staff and appropriate Data Processing staff as well as the staff responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the ETA 581 report. Five copies are attached for your convenience. The five old segments of the Q&A series should be replaced by the compilation in attachment 1. A crosswalk has been included which indicates the number of each question in the original segment and the new number of the question in the compilation.

References: Section 1137, Social Security Act (SSA); Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act; ETA Handbooks Nos. 384, 392 and 399; 20 CFR 614; 20 CFR 616; and Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 35-95. Background: The Department's interpretation of several Federal requirements in a remote claimstaking environment was issued in UIPL No. 35-95, dated June 28, 1995. However, additional questions have been raised about the impact of remote initial claimstaking procedures on claims filed under the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages (Combined Wage Claims), the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) program and the Extended Benefits program. Questions also have been raised regarding how States can comply with the requirement that non-citizen claimants present documentation of a satisfactory immigration status in a remote claimstaking environment. This directive includes information on each of these areas. Presentation of Alien Documentation: Section 1137(d)(2), SSA, provides the following: If such an individual is not a citizen or national of the United States, there must be presented either-- (A) alien registration documentation or other proof of immigration registration from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that contains the individual's alien admission number or alien file number ..., or (B) such other documents as the State determines constitutes reasonable evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status. UIPL No. 35-95, Section 3.A.(5) stated that "neither sections 1137(d)(2)(A) or (B), SSA, may be satisfied by information obtained by telephone (orally or IVR/VRS) or entry via a computer keyboard or touchscreen." Upon reconsideration, the Department concludes that the requirement to present documentation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), under Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA, can be satisfied by having the claimant "present" the documentation over the telephone by either using the keypad to enter data, or by reading the admission or file number from the document. This conclusion was made because it is unnecessary for a claims taker/examiner to personally inspect the INS documentation in order to obtain from the document the alien admission or file number for verification through the INS. This change only affects how the claimant is allowed to present INS alien documentation in accordance with Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA. It does not otherwise affect the requirement that the SESA must require that each claimant, who has indicated noncitizenship status, establish a satisfactory immigration status in accordance with Section 1137(d)(2), SSA. This change does not affect the Department's interpretation of Section 1137(d)(2)(A), SSA, as permitting a State to allow a claimant to submit a photostatic copy of the INS document(s) (containing the alien admission or file number) by mail or facsimile (FAX) transmission in lieu of viewing the original INS document(s). A photocopy or FAX of documentation not containing the alien admission or file number will not satisfy the requirements of Section 1137(d)(2)(B), SSA, because such documents cannot be verified through the INS. Such documents must be presented in person. Thus, there are three ways for a non-citizen claimant to "present" alien documentation: (1) by personally bringing to the claims office the original of the INS document containing the alien or admission number or other documents that the State determines constitutes reasonable evidence of a satisfactory immigration status; (2) by mailing a photocopy of, or FAXING, the INS document containing the admission or file number to the claims office; or (3) by telephoning the claims office and using the keypad to enter (or reading) the admission or file number from the INS document. Combined Wage Claim (CWC) Paying State/ UCX Wage Assignment: Under 20 CFR 616.6(e), the paying State for a CWC is required to be the State "in which" the claim is filed, unless the claimant is ineligible on the basis of combining, in which case the paying State is the State in which the claimant was last employed in covered employment and qualifies for benefits. This provision was promulgated in 1974, 39 Federal Register 45214 (December 31, 1974), in order to change the definition of the paying State to require that most CWC claims be filed under the intrastate program. Among other reasons, this change was intended to result in greater promptness in the payment of benefits, and cost savings (because it costs more to file through the Interstate Benefit Payment Plan (IBPP) rather than intrastate), while not adversely affecting the amount of benefits for which combined wage claimants qualify. Under 20 CFR 614.8(b)(1), UCX wages are required to be assigned to the State "in which" a first claim is filed. This UCX requirement is derived from 5 U.S.C. Section 8522, and, as noted in the legislative history to Public Law No. 85-848 (H.R. Rep. No. 1887, 85th Congress, 2nd Session 7; S. Rep. No. 2375, 85th Congress, 2nd Session 15), is designed to keep interstate claims to a minimum. This assures that such claims are filed as intrastate claims under the law of the State in which the claimant is filing. This prevents claimants, in an attempt to qualify for greater benefit amounts or avoid potential disqualifications, from filing their claims under the IBPP and having wages assigned or transferred to any State of their choice. In developing remote claimstaking procedures, States have requested an interpretation of the phrase "in which", for purposes of establishing the "paying State" for CWC claims and in determining the State of UCX wage assignment, when intrastate initial claims are allowed to be filed remotely by commuters from locations outside the State. (An intrastate claim is a claim filed in a State under the law of that State.) The issue, with regard to remote intrastate claims, is whether a remote CWC or UCX claim filed by a commuter is filed in the State in which the claimant is physically present or the State in which the claims office is located. Historically, intrastate CWC and UCX claims have been only those claims filed by individuals filing in-person in a facility in the liable/paying State. Generally, these claims are filed by individuals who reside, and have worked, in the State, and by individuals who, while residing in another State, have established a pattern of regularly commuting to work in the State. This latter category of individuals is precluded from filing against the liable State under the IBPP, except in cases where the State of residence finds that requiring such claimants to file intrastate claims in the State to which they normally commute to work would cause an undue hardship. (The use of remote claimstaking removes the hardship and allows all commuters to file directly with the State to which they normally commute.) Additionally, there are cases where some intrastate CWC and UCX claims are filed by individuals who neither reside, nor have worked, in the liable/paying State, but file their claims in-person in a facility in that State. It is the Department's position that the procedural change from in-person to remote claimstaking should have no effect on the historical treatment of intrastate claims in the determination of benefit eligibility or for reporting purposes. Thus, where intrastate claimstaking procedures require or permit a commuter to remotely file a CWC claim, and/or a "first claim" for UCX wage assignment purposes, with a State to which (s)he commuted, that State is the State in which the claim is filed. Further, an intrastate CWC, or intrastate "first claim," that causes UCX wages to be assigned to the liable/paying State, may only be filed remotely from another State by individuals who have established a pattern of commuting to work in the liable/paying State. Additionally, to ensure that remote claimstaking procedures do not adversely affect other non-resident claimants who may wish to file a claim while in another State, UCX wages are to be assigned in accordance with 20 CFR 614.8(b)(1) for UCX, and the paying State determined in accordance with 20 CFR 616.6(e) for CWC, for any claimant who is physically present in the filing State at the time the claim is filed, without regard to the claimant's State of residence or mailing address. States are not authorized to impose a residency requirement in the application of the above- referenced regulations. Application of Extended Benefits (EB) Two-Week Denial Provision: Except for the first two weeks for which benefits are otherwise payable, 20 CFR 615.9(c) prohibits the payment of benefits pursuant to a claim filed under the IBPP from a State that is not in an EB period. Since this provision applies to interstate claims filed by individuals who reside outside the liable State, a question has been raised about whether or not the prohibition also applies to intrastate claims filed under remote claimstaking procedures by individuals residing outside the liable State. This prohibition is specific to interstate claims filed under the IBPP. It does not apply to any intrastate claims whether the claimant is a resident or non-resident of the State. Thus, a claimant who remotely files an intrastate claim in a State that is in an EB period, regardless of whether he or she resides in that State, is not limited to two weeks of EB under 20 CFR 615.9(c). Action Required: SESA administrators should inform appropriate staff of the Department's position as set forth in this program letter and ensure that the handling of claims filed under remote claimstaking procedures is consistent with this position.