References: Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992, Section 401; An Evaluation of Short-Time Compensation Programs, Unemployment Insurance Service Occasional Paper 86-4, 1986. Background: Seventeen State unemployment compensation laws contain provisions for STC programs (also known as work-sharing). The U. S. Department of Labor has contracted to conduct a study that will gather the data and conduct the analyses necessary for the fuller development of the Department's workforce development strategy. It will also provide input to a report to Congress on the implementation of STC as required under Section 401 of the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992. STC is an alternative to employee lay-offs, in which designated employees work shorter hours instead of being laid off. These employees are compensated for their lost work time with partial unemployment benefits. STC programs offer benefits to both employers and employees. For employers, STC can reduce work hours while maintaining the existing workforce and avoiding the costs of hiring and training new employees during economic recovery. For employees, STC protects against the financial burden of job loss, preserves job-specific skills and may assist certain workers experiencing impending permanent dislocation by allowing them to participate in retraining or look for a new position while still employed. The Department has funded a two year, $550,000 study of STC. The study, which began on July 1, will provide a comprehensive program evaluation. Data will be gathered through a survey of State and regional officials to determine the level of interest in the program, administrative practices and associated costs, and why States have or have not chosen to participate. A subset of 4 or 5 States will be requested to provide administrative data on STC and unemployment insurance (UI) claims for a random sample of employers. A survey of these employers will then gather information on why they have chosen to participate or not participate, the extent to which participation has prevented layoffs, and the effect of STC on employment and employee benefits. Action Required: All 53 States are requested to participate in the telephone survey on STC when contacted by staff of the prime contractor, Berkeley Planning Associates of Oakland, California or the sub-contractor Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey. This survey will take place in the summer of 1995. In the next few months, 4 or 5 States will be requested to cooperate with the contractors by providing the administrative data needed to draw random samples for the employer surveys. The contractors will be acting as agents of the Department of Labor in receiving and analyzing these data and will be subject to both Federal and State confidentiality requirements. National and/or regional office staff will assist the contractors' in requesting this information.

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

Attached is a check list of all active UIPLs as of July 31, 1994.

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.

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.