UIPL_12-18_Acc.pdf

ETA Advisory File Text

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Washington D.C. 20210 CLASSIFICATION Unemployment Insurance CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL OUI DPM DATE RESCISSIONS None EXPIRATION DATE December 31 2019 ADVISORY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. TO STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES FROM ROSEMARY LAHASKY Deputy Assistant Secretary SUBJECT Additional Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Year FY 2019 Unemployment Insurance UI State Quality Service Plan SQSP 1. Purpose. To initiate the SQSP process provide supplemental instructions and define additional requirements for the FY 2019 SQSP. 2. References. Sections 303 a 1 and 306 of the Social Security Act SSA Government Performance and Results Act GPRA of 1993 Pub. L. 103-62 as amended by GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 Pub. L. 111-352 Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 IPERA Pub. L. 111-204 31 U.S.C. 3301 note and 3321 note Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 IPERIA Pub. L. 112-248 Section 103 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act WIOA Pub. L. 113- 128 20 CFR Parts 601 640 650 652 and 660 Unemployment Insurance Program Letter UIPL No. 14-05 Changes to UI Performs and its Changes 1 2 and 3 UIPL No. 22-05 Unemployment Insurance Data Validation UI DV Program Software and Policy Guidance and its Changes 1 and 2 UIPL No. 3-07 Use of National Directory of New Hires NDNH in Unemployment Insurance UI Benefit Accuracy Measurement BAM Audits and its Change 1 UIPL No. 17-08 The Unemployment Insurance UI Reemployment Rate Core Measure UIPL No. 22-10 Selecting and Monitoring At-Risk States for Continuous Improvement and Compliance with First Payment Timeliness and First Level Appeals Promptness UIPL No. 03-11 Implementation of the Effective Audit Measure UIPL No. 19-11 National Effort to Reduce Improper Payments in the Unemployment Insurance UI Program 2 UIPL No. 34-11 Performance Measure for Unemployment Insurance UI Integrity and its Change 1 and Change 2 UIPL No. 09-13 Integrity Performance Measures for Unemployment Insurance UI and its Change 1 UIPL No. 17-14 Revised Employment and Training ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition Unemployment Insurance UI State Quality Service Plan SQSP Planning and Reporting Guidelines UIPL No. 13-15 Fiscal Year FY 2015 Unemployment Insurance UI Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment RESEA Grants UIPL No. 07-16 Fiscal Year FY 2016 Unemployment Insurance UI Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment RESEA Grants UIPL No. 17-16 Reengineering Unemployment Insurance UI Benefits Program Accountability Process High Priority Designation of States with Sustained Poor Performance UIPL No. 03-17 Fiscal Year FY 2017 Unemployment Insurance UI Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment RESEA Grant and its Change 1 UIPL No. 18-17 Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Tool Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act WIOA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Proposed Rules 80 Fed. Reg. 20573-20687 April 16 2015 Training and Employment Notice TEN No. 08-14 Reengineering Unemployment Insurance UI Benefits Program Accountability Processes TEN No. 03-15 Reengineering Unemployment Insurance UI Benefits Program Accountability Processes Update on Implementation Progress and State Impacts TEN No. 12-16 Unemployment Insurance UI State Information Data Exchange System SIDES ET Handbook No. 336 Unemployment Insurance UI State Quality Service Plan SQSP Planning and Reporting Guidelines 18th Edition Change 3 April 2014 ET Handbook No. 395 Benefit Accuracy Measurement State Operations Handbook 5th Edition November 2009 and ET Handbook No. 401 5th Edition UI Reports Handbook No. 401 7 2017 . 3. Background. The SQSP is the state s UI performance management and service plan. It represents an approach to the UI performance management and planning process that allows for an exchange of information between federal and state partners to enhance the UI program s ability to reflect their joint commitment to performance excellence and client-centered services. As part of UI Performs the comprehensive performance management system for the UI program the SQSP is the principal vehicle that state UI programs use to plan record and manage improvement efforts as they strive for excellence in service. The SSA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to provide funds to administer the UI program and governs the expenditure of those funds. The SQSP is part of the process by which states receive Federal UI administrative grants. 3 ET Handbook No. 336 contains general instructions for the SQSP. This Handbook is designed as a permanent instruction for the planning and budget process and provides states with planning guidelines and instructions for reporting UI financial and staff year information. ET Handbook No. 336 is approved under OMB No. 1205-0132. The Handbook provides that the U.S. Department of Labor s Department Employment and Training Administration ETA will issue a SQSP UIPL each year with additional planning guidance that supplements the Handbook and provides direction and instructions specific to the upcoming FY. This additional planning guidance is similar to the guidance issued in previous years but is updated and must be read carefully by state personnel. 4. National Priorities. The SQSP process focuses on promoting state performance and integrity aligning state UI administration and operations with national policies paying benefits accurately and timely and connecting UI claimants with needed reemployment services. Each year after consulting with our stakeholders ETA establishes national priorities for the UI program. For FY 2019 ETA s top priorities include a continued focus on the prevention detection and recovery of improper payments improved program performance integrated service delivery under WIOA implementation of the recently enacted amendments to the Social Security Act P.L. 115-123 to make the RESEA program permanently authorized and development of evidence-based robust and innovative reemployment interventions and service delivery strategies for UI claimants to speed their return to work. There is also a continued focus on data validation and improving the quality and accuracy of the ETA required UI reports. ETA provides the following national priorities for FY 2019 to help states develop their SQSP. States should also establish additional state-level priorities for their UI program. Improving State Capacity to Administer and Operate the UI Program Effectively The UI program acts as an important economic stabilizer when areas experience contractions in their labor markets. It is also a critical safety net for eligible American workers who are unemployed and are able to work available to work and actively seeking work. States continue to struggle with administrative and operational challenges including changes in program leadership in many states the need to make program improvements to aging technology systems and or to implement new technology solutions training state staff on newly-implemented state benefits and tax systems the need to reduce staffing levels as workloads and funding decline the loss of key subject matter expertise due to retirements new staff who are still learning the program and overall challenges to improving program performance. In developing their SQSPs states are strongly encouraged to incorporate administrative capacity-building strategies such as 4 use the results from the state s implementation of the UI State Self-Assessment Tool as described below to identify areas for needed changes to operational processes for administration of the program conduct business process analysis in key areas to identify opportunities for improving program operations and implementing recommendations from the analysis to improve performance review staff training strategies to support succession planning and ongoing staff development for new staff and use technical assistance opportunities offered by the Department the UI Information Technology Support Center ITSC and the UI Integrity Center of Excellence as well as the peer-to-peer communication platforms and other information sharing tools available through the UI Community of Practice CoP . In FY 2019 state UI agencies will have received the results of the inaugural state self- assessment reviews of key operational elements in 15 functional areas within the UI program. States should use these results compiled by their state reviewers to identify areas in need of improvements and to formulate their own plans for operational improvements. Additional information about the Self-Assessment Tool is discussed below under Improving Program Performance Nationally. ETA is eager to work with states to make the SQSP process a meaningful management tool to be used by states as a strategic road map to improve program administration and ensure quality service delivery. Improving Prevention Detection and Recovery of UI Improper Payments ETA recognizes that states have made improving program integrity a major priority in recent years. Nevertheless the UI program has not met the targets in the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act IPERA of 2010. The UI program has been out of compliance since 2012. This is a critical issue given the adverse impact that improper payments have on state UI trust funds. Integrity efforts not only help preserve these unemployment funds and control UI tax rates but they also maintain the public trust that the program is protected and operated as intended. As such there will be a continued effort for ETA and the states to work collaboratively to aggressively reduce improper payments. ETA expects states to continue to implement national integrity strategies that focus on the largest root causes where states have the greatest likelihood of being able to prevent improper payments including failure of claimants to comply with state work search requirements Work Search 5 payments to individuals who continue to claim benefits after they have returned to work Benefit Year Earnings and failure of employers or their third-party administrators to provide timely and adequate information on the reason for an individual s separation from employment Separation . ETA strongly encourages states to actively use the resources of the UI Integrity Center operated by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. The UI Integrity Center continues to develop new products and should be considered a technical assistance resource for states in addressing integrity-related matters. Among its offerings to states the Integrity Center compiles best-promising practices and business process analysis services for states through its Integrity Knowledge Exchange provides training curriculum for state integrity staff through its National Integrity Academy and is developing a national repository of suspicious actor information to cross-match with state UI claims as part of its Integrity Data Hub. The Integrity Center also offers on-site assessment of UI integrity business processes to inform new strategies that support improved integrity performance. When identifying potential strategies to address improper payments states are also encouraged to use the Integrity tab on the UI Community of Practice CoP on the WorkforceGPS website which is populated with best-promising practices by the Integrity Center see https ui.workforcegps.org . States should view the State Information Data Exchange System SIDES as a part of its integrity strategy. See TEN No. 12-16. Timely and accurate information from employers and third-party administrators TPAs reduces improper payments. States should consider efforts to encourage employers who do not use TPAs to use SIDES especially those who are frequent users of the UI program. Recently a new SIDES Marketing toolkit was developed and announced see http sidesitk.naswa.org sides. ETA notes that there has been an unfortunate increase in criminal syndicates and organized fraud activities in the UI environment. These groups use stolen identities and create fictitious employers to defraud the UI system. ETA encourages state UI agencies to develop robust identity verification processes that detect fraudulent claims while balancing and protecting the due process requirements of the UI program. ETA is available to work with states to develop these types of processes. States should continuously assess whether there are other state-specific strategies that will improve their capacity to address the root causes of the state s improper payments and include those strategies in the Integrity Action Plan IAP which is a key component of the SQSP submission. For example states should review their current laws regulations policies procedures and practices that may have the unintended consequence of creating improper payments. 6 Improving Program Performance Nationally ETA has embarked on a multi-pronged strategy designed to significantly bolster program accountability and facilitate performance improvement nationally. For FY 2019 ETA will continue the following strategies to meet this objective Provide intensive technical assistance to support performance improvements for states with sustained poor performance Use the UI performance management system UI Performs which includes core measures and Secretary s Standards to monitor state performance and Implement improvements to the SQSP process as part of a broader effort to reengineer UI benefit accountability processes for the program as a whole. States are also expected to implement and use the new UI Benefits Operations State Self- Assessment Tool which reviews benefit operations in the various key functional and program areas. The states should use the tools and the results of its review to identify and address areas that need improvement in their operations. The first self-assessment cycle will be over eighteen months six quarters to enable states to become familiar with the tool and the review process. States must complete the questions for all 15 functional and program areas by March 31 2019 and submit those results to ETA by April 15 2019. In subsequent years the review will be conducted over a one-year twelve months four quarters period with each review being completed by March 31 and the results submitted to ETA by April 15. For more information on the Self-Assessment Tool please see UIPL No. 18-17 https wdr.doleta.gov directives corr doc.cfm DOCN 9282 and the Self- Assessment Tool Featured Resource page on the UI Community of Practice. As states develop their SQSPs they should consider including strategies that will significantly enhance program accountability and performance improvement and seek technical assistance through ETA s regional offices ROs . Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act WIOA The enactment of WIOA on July 22 2014 has a number of impacts for the UI program including but not limited to provisions related to the requirements for mandatory one- stop partners including UI the type of career services that must be provided in one-stop centers and amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act that speak to the types of employment services that must be provided or made available to UI claimants. WIOA seeks to modernize the workforce system to provide comprehensive integrated and streamlined services which require linking and aligning the different one-stop partners. The UI program continues to be a vital program within the workforce system and UI claimants are critical customers for the system. As such UI state agencies play an important role in implementing WIOA and must work collaboratively with other workforce system partners to fully connect UI claimants to the full range of 7 reemployment services delivered through the American Job Centers AJCs online systems and through the states rapid response programs. States are strongly encouraged as they develop their SQSPs to address the WIOA provisions as they relate to the operations of the UI program which include Integrating the delivery of services to UI claimants both online and through AJCs Ensuring meaningful assistance to UI claimants is provided in the AJCs and Partnering with the Wagner-Peyser Act-funded Employment Service ES program and other AJC partner programs to ensure employment services are available to UI claimants. Reemployment of UI Claimants Reemployment of UI claimants remains a top priority for the entire workforce system including UI and as stated above is reinforced by WIOA. During FY 2018 new legislation permanently authorized the RESEA program codifying it in Section 306 of the Social Security Act but also delayed implementation of new program requirements until FY 2019. Among other changes the new RESEA requirements include increasing the use of evidence-based interventions and service delivery strategies. Detailed guidance about new RESEA requirements is forthcoming. Beginning in FY 2019 the new RESEA provisions require states to use evidence-based practices to deliver RESEAs. In light of the new focus on use of evidence-based interventions and service delivery strategies as states develop their SQSPs they should strongly consider implementing innovative and robust reemployment strategies that have been proven to work. They should also consider implementing and evaluating new strategies developed jointly in collaboration with workforce system partners including but not limited to the WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs the Wagner-Peyser Act-funded ES program and the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. ETA recommends that UI program staff collaborate with these partners to ensure the strategies reflect the agreement s made as part of the WIOA state planning process and as part of the local WIOA Memorandum of Understanding process. Strategies to consider include Developing integrated registration processes that produce a more complete profile of UI claimants so that AJCs may better serve them by more efficiently targeting reemployment services and job referrals Implementing strategies that have been shown to increase the show rate of RESEA participants 8 Connecting claimants as quickly as possible to the public labor exchange systems so that they may start receiving job referrals immediately and consider periodically pushing jobs to claimants throughout the claim cycle Integrating information technology systems to support improved reemployment service delivery and Using ongoing assessments to determine whether UI claimants are having a difficult time finding a job and need additional services. This may include periodic reviews and adjustments to the state s worker profiling model to ensure it is still properly identifying claimants most likely to exhaust and be in need of reemployment services. Research and information about evidence-based strategies that can support reemployment is available on the Department s Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research CLEAR . CLEAR s mission is to make research on labor topics more accessible to practitioners policymakers researchers and the public more broadly so that it can inform their decisions about labor policies and programs. CLEAR identifies and summarizes many types of research including descriptive statistical studies and outcome analyses implementation and causal impact studies https clear.dol.gov . Additional resources including an ETA research publication database annotated bibliography of selected research and collection of workforce system strategies are maintained and published by ETA s Office of Policy Development and Research https www.doleta.gov research . Improving Data Validation and Federal Reporting Data Validation DV is a systematic procedure for assessing the accuracy of UI reports required by ETA and is a critical part of guaranteeing the integrity of the UI program as a whole. DV impacts several essential government functions including performance assessment budget formulation and economic management. By ensuring states are reporting accurate counts and storing key data points correctly the performance and workload of a state UI program is more accurate. The Department uses UI DV results to evaluate the accuracy of the data states report on selected UI required reports. Accurately reported data are essential for properly assessing state performance for ensuring that states are treated equitably when administrative funds are distributed and for providing a basis for many statistical research analyses. Because performance measures are intended to guide and assist states in improving their performance and service to their ultimate customers workers and employers states also have an interest in ensuring that the data from reports upon which these measures are based are correct. The DV system includes detailed guidance to state programmers for correctly constructing various report elements. This not only ensures they will construct the DV extract files accurately but also will simplify their tasks when new tax or benefit system software is installed. 9 Addressing Worker Misclassification States should monitor their performance under the Effective Audit Measure See UIPL No. 03-11 https wdr.doleta.gov directives corr doc.cfm DOCN 2971 to determine whether they are effectively detecting and preventing worker misclassification. States may deploy a wide array of strategies to address worker misclassification. ETA encourages states to develop and implement strategies to address the misclassification of workers and to include those strategies in the state s SQSP. ETA will continue to identify state best-promising practices in this area and share them broadly. The UI CoP provides states the ability to review and select best promising practices from other states that they can implement to address the issue of worker misclassification. Government Performance and Results Act GPRA UI Performance Measures Federal Emphasis The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires a commitment from all Department programs to attain expressed goals and objectives. Achieving these objectives requires the combined efforts of the federal and state partners. In recognition of the national priorities attention continues to be focused on the following GPRA goals for FY 2019 with targets that the system as a whole is expected to meet. States should continue to strive to reach or exceed these GPRA goals and targets. See https oui.doleta.gov unemploy docs GPRA Summary Report.asp for the FY 2019 GPRA goals and targets. Percent of Intrastate Payments Made Timely Make Timely Benefit Payments o Target 87.0 percent of intrastate first payments for full weeks of unemployment compensation will be made within 14 21 days from the week ending date of the first compensable week. Detection of Recoverable Overpayments Detect Benefit Overpayments o Target Overpayments established will be at least 54.5 percent of the estimated detectable recoverable overpayments. Percent of Employer Tax Liability Determinations Made Timely Establish Tax Accounts Promptly o Target 89.0 percent of status determinations for new employers will be made within 90 days of the end of the first quarter in which liability occurred. UI Re-employment Rate. This measure is currently in development and is a measure of the reemployment rate at the second quarter after exit for all UI claimants registered with the Wagner-Peyser Act-funded ES system. This includes all participants receiving UI benefits regardless of whether or not they 10 came into the program employed for example a claimant with part-time employment and earnings below the state s earning allowance . The data for the implementation of this UI measure requires new reporting by the states. The new data collection process began in November 2016 and the first full performance year of data was received October 2017. States continue to submit quarterly updates and an annual national target will be established after statistical analysis of this data. ETA expects to establish the national target for this measure in FY 2020. 5. WIOA Combined State Plans. WIOA provides the option for states to include program plans for mandatory one-stop partners and other programs to submit a Combined Plan. Given that the UI program is a mandatory one-stop partner states have the option of including the UI program as part of the WIOA Combined State Plan. However each state must participate in the UI Performs SQSP process whether or not the state decides to include UI as part of its WIOA Combined State Plan. States electing to include UI in a Combined Plan must incorporate the SQSP in its entirety into the Combined Plan through the Combined State Plan process. The FY 2019 SQSP is to be incorporated into the Combined Plan upon approval of the SQSP but no later than October 31 2018. Attachment A has specific instructions for including SQSP documents into the WIOA State Plan Portal. 6. UI Program Performance and Criteria for FY 2019. Attachment B lists the performance criteria for the Core Measures Secretary s Standards and other program requirements where Corrective Action Plans CAPs and or Narratives may be expected if annual performance is not acceptable. A. Core Measures. Performance below the acceptable levels of performance ALPs for Core Measures is expected to be addressed in a CAP unless otherwise indicated. Additional instructions for Core Measures are as follows UI Re-employment Rate. This measure is currently in development and is a measure of the reemployment rate at the second quarter after exit for all UI claimants registered with the Wagner-Peyser Act-funded ES system. This includes all participants receiving UI benefits regardless of whether or not they came into the program employed for example a claimant with part-time employment and earnings below the state s earning allowance . The data for the implementation of this UI measure requires new reporting by the states. The new data collection process began in November 2016 and the first full performance year of data was received October 2017. States continue to submit quarterly updates and an annual national target will be established after statistical analysis 11 of this data. ETA expects to establish the national target for this measure in FY 2020. The Detection of Overpayments Measure. This measure is the percentage of detectable recoverable overpayments established for recovery. States reporting an overpayment detection rate below 50 percent are expected to address the deficiency in a CAP. Also because most states cannot cost-effectively detect and establish more than 90 percent of estimated overpayments an upper limit of 95 percent has been established for monitoring purposes. States reporting ratios over 95 percent are expected to explain in the Narrative section the reasons for the higher-than-expected ratios. If an overpayment rate above 95 percent is the result of improper administration of Benefit Accuracy Measurement BAM or Benefit Payment Control BPC activities or misreporting of data on the ETA 227 Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities report the state is expected to submit a CAP for BAM Overpayment Detection or BPC Overpayment Detection . The CAP is to be designed to produce valid data for the Overpayment Detection Measure. The performance period for the BPC component is the three- year period ending March 31 2018 the performance period for the BAM component is the three-year period ending September 30 2017. UI Integrity Measure - Benefit Year Earnings BYE . This measure has been discontinued. Effective Audit Measure. The Effective Audit Measure as noted in UIPL No. 03-11 is a blended measure of the following four factors 1 Percent of Contributory Employers Audited Annually 2 Percent of Total Wage Change From Audit 3 Percent of Total Wages Audited and 4 Average Number of Misclassifications Detected Per Audit. Each of the four factors has a minimum standard score that states must attain to pass the Effective Audit Measure as well as an overall combined score that must be met. The measure also requires states to direct additional emphasis to the factor s that they deem important to their state. An additional two points must be earned among any of the four factors to attain the overall passing score of at least 7.0. States that do not meet this measure will be expected to develop a CAP based on Calendar Year CY 2017 data. Improper Payments Measure. The Improper Payments Measure is defined as UI benefits overpaid and underpaid estimated from the results of the BAM survey of paid UI claims in the State UI Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees UCFE and UCX programs. Before the enactment of IPERIA ETA used a methodology which subtracted UI overpayment recoveries for the computation of the estimated improper payment rate. However IPERIA requires agencies to include all identified improper payments in the reported estimate regardless of whether the improper payment in question has been or is being recovered. ETA s revised methodology consistent 12 with IPERIA no longer nets out recoveries for the computation of the improper payment rate. Please refer to UIPL No. 09-13 Change 1 for a detailed discussion on the changed methodology. In accordance with requirements in section 3 a 3 F IPERA an ALP of less than 10 percent has been established for the improper payment measure. That is states must maintain an improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for covered programs. This ALP is applicable to the 2017 Improper Payments Information Act IPIA performance period July 1 2016 to June 30 2017 . States failing to meet the ALP for the 2017 IPIA performance period will be expected to develop a CAP as part of the FY 2019 SQSP. UI Overpayment Recovery Measure. As explained in UIPL No. 09-13 the recovery rate is the amount of improper overpayments recovered divided by the amount of improper overpayments identified. The ALP for the recovery rate measure is 68 percent for the 2017 IPIA performance period. The Department will compute future recovery targets based on the most recent recovery and other performance data available. The performance period will be based on data from the ETA 227 Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activity Regular and ETA 227 Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activity Emergency Unemployment Compensation EUC for the IPIA period July 1 2016 to June 30 2017 of the IPIA reporting year . Pursuant to the UI Reports Handbook ET Handbook No. 401 5th edition the June quarter ETA 227 reports are due August 1st. States failing to meet the ALP for the 2017 IPIA performance period will be expected to develop a CAP as part of the FY 2019 SQSP. B. Secretary s Standards Performance below the criteria for the Secretary s Standards established in regulation at 20 CFR Parts 640 and 650 is expected to be addressed in a CAP. The Secretary s Standards are listed in Attachment B. C. UI Programs The following UI Programs must be addressed as described below National Directory of New Hires NDNH State BAM operations that based on the BAM Administrative Determination are not compliant with the NDNH matching requirements in ET Handbook No. 395 5th Edition chapter VI UIPL No. 03-07 and UIPL No. 03-07 Change 1 must be addressed in a CAP for FY 2019. 13 Benefit Accuracy Measurement BAM State BAM operations or operational components that based on the BAM Administrative Determination are not compliant with investigative and or method and procedure requirements established in ET Handbook No. 395 5th Edition and through findings established through ET Handbook No. 396 4th Edition monitoring reviews based on the annual determination letter issued on or before May 1 2018 must be addressed in a CAP. This includes paid and denied claim population variances outside established control limits. Tax Performance System TPS To ensure that UI tax operations are in compliance with Federal reporting and oversight requirements failure to conduct one or more TPS sample reviews will be subject to a CAP. Additionally a tax function that is not sampled will be included in the number of total failing functions as measured by Tax Quality Part A no more than three tax functions may fail TPS review and Part B a tax function cannot fail for three consecutive years . Exceptions include universes that are too small to support a sample S an Experience Rate sample that was not scheduled for review during the performance year E or the granting of a temporary waiver by the RO W . Program Review Findings Charts should be noted accordingly. Data Validation DV The deadline for submitting DV results was June 10 2018. DV items that fail to pass validation or that are due but not submitted are expected to be addressed in the state s FY 2019 SQSP. Non-submitted items include failure to certify that Module 3 of the DV Benefits and Tax Handbooks are up-to-date during the April 1 June 10 2018 certification window. Any DV items due for Validation Year VY 2018 that did not pass or were not submitted by the June 10 2018 deadline must be addressed in a CAP for FY 2019. ROs will monitor states every three years on cycles coinciding with the DV validation year. They will assess the accuracy of the state s DV results considered passing or not due as of the time of the monitoring review to verify that the states are properly implementing the DV program. DV items submitted as passing but which a monitoring review determined to have failed must also be addressed in the SQSP. The FY 2019 SQSP CAP will include DV items failing after review in the VY 2018 monitoring cycle monitored between June 11 2017 and June 10 2018 . All subsequent SQSP cycles will address items changed from pass to fail in the previous year s monitoring review. 14 UI Program Integrity States are required to report their planned activities to prevent detect reduce and recover improper UI payments in their IAP which should be submitted as part of their SQSP submission. States should convene their previously established cross- functional integrity task force to update their IAP. States must analyze their BAM data to identify the top root causes for improper payments and develop strategies that will be effective in reducing or recovering improper payments. The most recent state data are available at the Department s website at https www.dol.gov general maps data. ETA will continue to provide technical assistance to states to support their integrity activities through webinars individual state technical assistance and in partnership with the UI Integrity Center. States are strongly encouraged to review and consider the use of the Integrity Center s products and tools as part of their own state-specific work search strategies. These products and tools are posted on the Integrity tab at https ui.workforcegps.org . In addition ETA will work with states to expand participation in the Treasury Offset Program for the recovery of overpayments to implement and use the State Information Data Exchange System for obtaining timely and complete separation information and to more effectively use the NDNH and other overpayment prevention tools for BPC. D. Other UI Performance States are expected to address the following performance deficiencies in the SQSP Narrative unless otherwise indicated Failure to conduct required program reviews Deficiencies identified during required program reviews Failure to meet reporting requirements and Invalid recording of the Issue Detection Date IDD and Determination Date DD . The validity of the UI Performs nonmonetary determination timeliness measure depends on the accuracy of the state s IDD and DD data. IDD and DD data are considered accurate if dates were correct in at least 95 percent of the nonmonetary determinations evaluated in the quarterly quality samples obtained from the ETA 9056 report . Since the accuracy of IDD and DD data is based on sample results sampling variation will be taken into account in setting the percentage below which a state s data will be considered inaccurate. States with invalid IDD or DD data are expected to address the steps they will take to record the IDD and DD correctly in the SQSP Narrative. 15 7. SQSP Planning Guidance and Requirements. ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition Change 3 and this UIPL provide guidelines for the completion and submission of the SQSP for FY 2019. The Department s strategic approach to UI Performs is to focus efforts on improving the performance of states where performance is below minimum criteria while promoting overall excellence. To that end CAPs and or Narratives are expected whenever a state s performance does not meet established criteria for the SQSP measurement period and remains uncorrected before the preparation of the SQSP. The measurement period for the FY 2019 SQSP is April 1 2017 March 31 2018 unless otherwise indicated see Attachment B . CAPs and Narratives addressing performance deficiencies are components of the state s formal plan and schedule for improving performance therefore the causes of performance shortfalls should be thoroughly analyzed before the development of the state s SQSP. A. SQSP Submittal The SQSP process provides a 24-month window for states to adequately plan and implement performance improvement efforts. The process provides for two types of submittals a Formal two-year biennial plan and an Alternate year plan. 1 SQSP Formal Submittal The Formal submittal consists of a complete SQSP package. It must contain a transmittal letter the State Plan Narrative including Assurances CAPs the IAP budget worksheets forms organizational charts a Signature Page and other required administrative documents as requested. For the two-year planning cycle states must submit quarterly targets and milestones for both years. States may also develop extended multi-year CAPs so that efforts that must extend beyond the two-year planning cycle due to their size scope or complexity can be realistically portrayed. Out-year portions of such multi-year plans do not need to provide quarterly targets or milestones as required for the two-year SQSP planning cycle but should provide enough information to explain anticipated progress and results. 2 SQSP Alternate Year Submittal The SQSP Alternate year submittal consists of items included in the state s request for Federal UI administrative funding as well as modifications to SQSPs. It must contain at the least a transmittal letter modifications to the State Plan Narrative including Assurances CAPs for new performance deficiencies required modifications to existing CAPs modifications updates to the IAP budget worksheets forms organizational chart if changed and SQSP Signature Page. Since states and ROs will continue to review reported performance data monitor program performance and initiate corrective actions when warranted the SQSP 16 Alternate year submittal will require states to submit new CAPs to describe for example Corrective actions the state will take based on findings made in RO performance reviews and New performance deficiencies identified in RO reviews of state performance data during the most recent performance year. States will be informed by their RO if modifications are required to the State Plan Narrative existing CAPs and IAPs to include for example Missed milestones and New strategies for performance improvement. Budget worksheets and various assurances will continue to be submitted annually since funds for UI operations are appropriated each FY. These and other required documents related to the federal UI administrative funding process are to be submitted with both the Formal biennial SQSP and the Alternate year submittals. Additional descriptions of the Formal and Alternate year submittal SQSP cycle schedule significant activities and dates relating to the submittal and approval of the SQSP are outlined in ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition Change 3. B. SQSP Preparation States must use the Excel CAP Workbook to develop their CAPs and IAPs for the SQSP submissions. States must use the Workbook also for reporting updates to the specific milestones and performance each quarter. The RO will provide states with the Workbook and specific instructions at the beginning of the SQSP planning cycle. C. The At-Risk Process ETA had previously identified persistently low performing states as At-Risk since FY 2011 because of consistently significant low performance for the first payment and appeals timeliness measures. States that have been identified as At-Risk in previous years will continue to work collaboratively with ETA to achieve performance improvement. The action strategies and technical assistance activities are to be included in the state s SQSP CAP for those measures that have caused the state to be designated At-Risk. The At-Risk designation will continue until each of the remaining states designated as At-Risk meets the ALP for the identified performance measure for six consecutive months and is likely to continue to sustain this performance improvement. These states will also continue to receive enhanced technical assistance as needed. 17 The ROs must schedule and conduct quarterly status calls with each At-Risk state to discuss the state s progress in implementing the activities and strategies identified in the SQSP and the state s progress towards achieving the performance standards. D. The High Priority States Process As part of the reengineering of its program oversight and accountability processes ETA identifies states that are considered to be High Priority and in need of more intensive technical assistance. The High Priority model is designed to use a variety of important program performance measures relating to UI benefit payment performance integrity and operations to produce a score for each state. The methodology was developed to include integral parts of UI Performs core measures DV results and program integrity- related data. Please refer to TEN Nos. 08-14 and 3-15 for details. The selected High Priority state s will be formally notified by ETA with information on the specific focus areas that caused their selection under this initiative. One of the key aspects of this process is an on-site review with each High Priority state by a select expert team of program specialists. The expert team will include National Regional and state subject matter experts on the issue areas identified as needing improvement. ETA will work collaboratively with each state to identify strategies and action steps to enable the state to improve its performance in the areas identified by the on-site review. The High Priority designation framework and process are outlined in UIPL No. 17-16. As states develop their SQSPs they should consider including strategies that will significantly enhance program accountability and performance improvement and seek technical assistance through ETA s ROs. Also those states that have been designated as High Priority must address review findings as part of the SQSP process. ROs must schedule and conduct quarterly status calls with each High Priority state to discuss the state s progress in implementing the activities and strategies identified during the on-site review and address those items in the state s SQSP. The quarterly calls will include the High Priority state the RO and the National Office. The High Priority designation will continue until the state completes corrective actions resulting from the state s on-site review meets the standards for the core measures related to the areas of concern during the initial designation process for six consecutive months and is likely to continue to sustain this performance improvement and maintains performance in other program areas without any diminution of performance. E. SQSP Assurances By signing the SQSP Signature Page a state certifies that it will comply with the assurances listed in ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition and institute plans or measures to comply with the requirements for each of the assurances. 18 States will continue to provide information for the Assurance of Contingency Planning and the Assurance of Automated Information Systems Security. In the State Plan Narrative Section H states are expected to provide the dates that their Information Technology IT Contingency Plan System Security Plan and Risk Assessment were implemented tested and reviewed updated. Each state must 1 Review and if necessary update and test its IT Contingency Plan annually 2 Review and or update its System Security Plan annually and 3 Conduct a Risk Assessment once every three years. If a state does not have an IT Contingency Plan System Security Plan and Risk Assessment procedures in place or if these documents are incomplete then the state is expected to address the actions it plans to take to meet these requirements in a CAP. These plans and procedures must meet the minimum controls listed in the Chapter I Section VII-H and Section VII-J of the ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition Change 3. 8. Funding Period. The Department s proposed FY 2019 appropriation language for State UI and Employment Service Operations allows for obligation of UI allocations by states through December 31 2019 with 90 additional days to liquidate the obligations and complete the expenditure of funds. Under this proposed language states would be able to obligate FY 2019 UI funds through September 30 2021 if such obligations are for automation competitive grants awarded to states for improved operations or for conducting reemployment and eligibility assessments and improper payment reviews and providing reemployment services and referrals to training as appropriate. Under this proposed language states would have through September 30 2027 to obligate and expend FY 2019 funds if such funds were obligated to states for automation being carried out through a consortium of states. ETA will notify state agencies on what language Congress adopts. 9. Data Availability. The ROs will provide states with data showing their performance measured against the Core Measures Secretary s Standards and other information relevant to the SQSP e.g. reporting deficiencies . 10. Deadline for State SQSP Submittal. Each RO will set a deadline for states to submit their SQSPs for FY 2019. States electing to include UI in a Combined Plan must incorporate the SQSP into the Combined Plan upon approval of the SQSP but no later than October 31 2018. 11. Electronic Submission of the SQSP. States must submit the SQSP electronically and should contact their RO SQSP Coordinator before submittal to coordinate specific details. Standard forms required as part of the budget reporting process Chapter II of ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition Change 3 are available in PDF and may be 19 downloaded from the OMB Web site at https www.grants.gov web grants forms sf- 424-family.html sortby 1. States may submit the SQSP signature page electronically if the state law permits. States that do not submit the signature page electronically which includes by fax or scan must submit the signature page by mail by the deadline set by the RO. 12. Action Requested. State Administrators are requested to Make this information available to appropriate staff Prepare their SQSPs in accordance with instructions in this UIPL and the planning and reporting instructions contained in ET Handbook No. 336 18th Edition Change 3 Coordinate specifics as appropriate with the RO for electronic submission of the plan and Submit the FY 2019 SQSP to the appropriate RO by the deadline set by that RO. 13. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate RO. 14. Attachments. A. Instructions for State Quality Service Plan SQSP Submittal to the WIOA State Plan Portal B. Measures Programs to be addressed in the Fiscal Year FY 2019 State Quality Service Plan SQSP