References: UIPL 24-92 (April 23, 1992); UIPL 44-90 (September 21, 1990); UIPL 8-90 (November 15, 1989); UIPL 14-89 (February 8, 1989). Background: As indicated in the above directives, RQC is being developed in four separate components: Core RQC, Benefit Charging, Data Validation, and Employer Compliance. Employer Compliance and Data Validation are still in the developmental stages. A pilot study has been completed on Benefit Charging, and a portion has been incorporated into the Quality Control program. This directive addresses Core RQC. Consultation Process: State employment security agencies (SESAs) have already received for comment the first two Federal Register Notices setting forth RQC design issues, UIPL 44-90 which included proposed design and the draft RQC State Operations Handbook, and UIPL 24-92 which provided summaries of comments on the proposed RQC design as well as the policy and design decisions which reflected those comments. In addition to the changes resulting from feedback to UIPLs and Federal Register Notices, continuous improvements were being made to the design based on meetings with Federal Regional tax specialists. Also, discussions were conducted by the contracting firm of Abt Associates with a panel of State tax experts and Administrators from Connecticut, New York, the District of Columbia, Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, California, and Washington. Testing the Design: In 1990, the core RQC module was pre-tested in seven States (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Colorado, Hawaii, and Alaska), and pilot-tested in eight States from 1991 to 1992 (New York, Maryland, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, Montana, and California). Revisions were made to the design and to the handbook as a result of these studies. The Benefit Charging module was also pilot tested during 1991 in New York, West Virginia, North Carolina, Minnesota, Utah, and Washington, and the results of this pilot study will be released under separate cover. During the four-year development period, the major design and many subsequent improvements were initiated and produced by tax experts serving on assignments from 11 different States (Florida, Alabama, Illinois, Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, California, Oregon, and Washington). The attached RQC Operations Handbook is proposed as the final product. Core RQC Design: The Core RQC design combines three major methodologies: Computed Measures, Program Reviews, and Surveys. a. Computed Measures. Utilizing, for the most part, currently reported data, 14 different indicators of quality will be generated by the SESAs' ongoing quarterly reporting systems. They will continue to be reported and will be used annually by RQC reviewers to prepare their Final Reports on SESA tax operations. b. Program Reviews. Based on the Audit model, Program Reviews consist of Systems Reviews and Acceptance Sampling. Systems Reviews extensively examine the SESA's particular set of internal controls and quality assurance systems. This will be done once every three years unless problems have been discovered in acceptance sampling or in previous reviews, or if major changes have taken place since the previous review. To confirm that the SESA's controls are effective in ensuring accurate outputs, small Acceptance Samples of the tax unit outputs or transactions will be examined yearly (e.g., a sample of 46 completed new employer status determinations will be examined once every year to ensure they are accurate). c. Surveys. Information will be gathered on methods used to: 1) facilitate employer compliance, 2) resolve delinquent reports, and 3) collect accounts receivable. The survey will be completed only once every three years (unless significant changes have occurred in the SESA). By analyzing the findings in conjunction with Program Reviews and Computed Measures, exemplary practices can be identified and shared with all SESAs in compendium format or via electronic bulletin board to provide technical assistance. The attached RQC Handbook dated July 31, 1992, encompasses the Program Reviews for all the major tax functions - and describes the surveys, sampling specifications, and computed measures associated with each. Implementation of RQC: Mandatory implementation of Core RQC is scheduled for fiscal year 1993. A period of transition is offered for SESAs to use as lead time for staffing, preparation, training, familiarization, identification of sampling specifications, installation of sampling extraction systems, and practice prior to the mandatory implementation. It is anticipated that further design modifications will be made as a result of the transition process. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to: a. Make copies of the proposed RQC State Operations Handbook available to appropriate tax staff and b. Comment on the RQC Handbook 45 days from the date of this directive. Comments should be sent to Eve MacDonald, S-4015, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, with a copy to the appropriate Regional Office (RO).

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

Background: For over a year, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Service, with the assistance of a committee appointed by the Interstate Conference of State Employment Security Agencies (ICESA), has been addressing the question of improved UI operational performance, and how its conduct of the Secretary of Labor's legally-mandated oversight of the UI system is related to performance of the UI system. This committee began working in October, 1993. It comprises senior UI national office staff, three senior ETA regional officials, and State officials from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Oregon, and ICESA representatives. The UIS had been planning a review of the UI oversight or performance enhancement system for some time; two recent events gave it impetus and shaped the agenda. First, the new ETA administration emphasized the need for the Department to be customer-oriented and thus appreciate fully what its customers expect of it in its various roles. In the UI context, that applies at two levels: the relationship between the Department and the States, and the joint relationship of DOL and the SESAs to the UI system's ultimate customers, the claimants and employers. Second, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR) completed a searching inquiry into various Departmental operations. The NPR recommended a thorough review of the UI oversight system, with a particular emphasis on how the Benefits Quality Control program might be refocused to make it a more effective vehicle for improving UI benefit payment operations. Consequently, the work group has three goals related to the general question of enhancing the performance of the UI system, i.e., to providing better services to UI claimants and employers. These are (1) to develop the broad framework for SESA-DOL working relationships and the roles for the partners; (2) to develop an outline of a system through which the Unemployment Insurance system can enhance performance; and (3) to apply the framework and performance enhancement principles to a reconsideration of the nature and focus of the Benefits QC program. To date, the work group has met eight times. It has completed work on the agenda related to its first broad goal and is now engaged in the much more detailed discussions concerning a system for enhancing performance. It has circulated its guiding framework paper, "Toward A New System for Enhancing Unemployment Insurance Performance," for comment to both States and UI stakeholders. Its broad overview of the proposed system for enhancing performance was presented at the Gateways ES-UI Conference in St. Louis in June 1994. As a prelude to that meeting, workgroup member Nils Nordberg of Massachusetts asked all SESAs to assist the workgroup's efforts by identifying key performance measures, to which nationally standard criteria should be attached. As background, he attached copies of the Performance Enhancement group's workpaper and draft system for enhancing UI performance. At its next meeting, in September 1994, the committee will continue to refine aspects of the system for enhancing UI performance presented in St. Louis. In preparation for the committee's review of the Benefits QC (BQC) program, a team of Federal and State staff is conducting a policy review of BQC, which will include a survey of all States' experience with BQC. Partnership Principles and State-Federal Roles Papers: In addition to the outline of its proposed plan, the workgroup has developed two products on which it desires comment. These are (1) the "Partnership Principles," a statement of the principles which should characterize the Department of Labor's and States' joint conduct of UI operations; and (2) five "roles papers" which attempt to illustrate how the Partnership Principles would be applied in various operational areas. The outline of the proposed performance enhancement plan, on which work continues, is attached for your information. Action Required: SESA administrators are requested to (a) share these proposed principles with appropriate staff; and (b) offer comments on them. Comments are requested by November 4, 1994, so that the committee may have the advantage of them in its continuing deliberations.

References: UIPL Nos. 32-89 (Coast Guard NAF), 48-89 (Army Corps of Engineers), 46-92 (Federal agencies serviced by Frick, Inc.) and 3-94 (List of Federal agency addresses). Background: As noted at the National UCFE/UCX Training Conference on May 17- 19, a request was made to all Federal agencies to provide this office with current addresses to assist State agency personnel in processing UCFE claims when a claimant does not present an SF-8. These addresses are now available and have been consolidated into a directory. As a result, the above referenced UIPL is now superceded by the new directory of Federal agency addresses. This direc-tory incorporates addresses for Federal agencies that were previously provided to the SESAs in the above referenced program letters and addresses obtained due to our recent request. This directory will be part of the revised UCFE Instructions for State Agencies (ET Handbook No. 391) when it is issued and will be identified as Appendix F. UCFE Directory of Federal Agency Addresses: For simplicity, this directory has been organized into two parts. Part I contains the Federal agencies that use one or two addresses and are somewhat centralized. Part II con-tains separate listings for the Defense agencies and those Federal agencies that are decentralized. The decentalized Federal agency listings are labeled individually, e.g., Section 1, 2, 3, etc. For your information and use, each Federal agency has provided the name of a liaison/contact person and telephone number. A table of contents is provided for ease in locating a particular Federal agency's listing. This directory will be updated on a semi-annual basis or when the need dictates. In addition, this directory is to be used only for claims processing and not for providing Federal agencies with the quarterly claimant detailed data. Action Required: a. SESA administrators are requested to distribute this directory immediately to the appropriate State agency personnel for their use in sending forms and notices or making inquiries pertaining to UCFE claims for former Federal employees when the Federal agency address cannot be obtained from an SF-8; and b. Insert this directory at the end of the UCFE Instructions for State Agencies, ET Handbook No. 391.

References: UIPL's 25-83 and 18-89. Background: The U.S. Army has informed us that some State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) may be experiencing difficulty in making accurate UCX eligibility determinations on former Army members who have completed their first term of enlistment because the SESAs have concluded that all Army terms of enlistment are for 3 years. The U.S. Army has informed us that it has 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year terms of enlistment. The U.S. Army also informed us that it has advised all transition centers to provide information on DD Forms 2l4 concerning if the servicemember completed his/her first term of enlistment. The U.S. Air Force informed us earlier of its terms of enlistment and its advice to all of of its transition centers to provide information on DD Forms 214 concerning if the servicemember completed his/her first term of enlistment. That information was transmitted to all SESAs in UIPL 18-89. Instructions: Guidance in UIPL 25-83 provides that any subsequent period of military service, after a period of active service, may be considered credible Federal service (if honorably separated). The periods together may be considered as construc-tive completion of a first full term of active service. Since the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force have provided information to this Department on how to accurately determine if former Army or Air Force members have completed their first term of enlistment, the guidance provided in UIPL 25-83 no longer applies to Army and Air Force separatees. However, that guidance still applies to U.S. Navy and U.S Marine Corps separatees until further notice. It is possible that a U.S. Army or U.S. Air Force separatee's DD Form 214 will not indicate completion of the first term of enlistment. In such case, the SESA should follow the instruc- tions contained below. SESAs should advise all appropriate staff members engaged in UCX claims activities, that if they have difficulty determining whether a claimant completed his/her first term of enlistment, to contact Ms. Pat Hasler of the U.S. Army Defense Finance and Accounting Center, Indianapolis, Indiana at 317-543-7529 or Ms. Mary Stigers of the U.S. Air Force Finance Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas at 210-652-5747. Action Required: State Administators should provide the above information to appropriate staff.

AWBA Utilization: The attached listing identifies the AWBA which is to be used when computing the weekly amount of disaster unemployment assistance (DUA) for major disasters where the date of the disaster for the individual occurs during the first quarter of FY 1993 (refer to 20 CFR 625.6). The AWBA for each State is based on the total amount of unemployment insurance paid in that State in the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the quarter in which the major disaster began. States shall use the AWBA, rounded to the next higher dollar amount, in the computation of the DUA weekly benefit amount. An updated listing will be provided for each subsequent calendar quarter. Action Required: State Employment Security Agency Administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff.

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.

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.