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.

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

References: UIPL 30-95, UIPL 30-95, Change 1 and UIPL 30-95, Change 2. Background: There has been considerable interest among State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) in seeing FUTA receipts by State compared to amounts returned to the States in past years. This UIPL provides these data for FY 1995 and includes updated totals for FY 1981-95. The entire series for FY 1981-93 can be found in UIPL 30-95, and the individual State totals for FY 1994 can be found in UIPL 30-95, Change 1. When comparisons are made between FUTA receipts and amounts returned, it is important to recognize that $7.6 billion of the FUTA receipts for FY 1981-87 were used to repay general revenue loans for Federal benefits paid prior to FY 1981. Also, certain items, particularly postage costs and National Activities expenditures, are not reflected in the State data. These items total approximately $2.3 billion for the FY 1981-95 period. Both of these factors serve to reduce the apparent proportion of FUTA receipts returned to States. Action Required: Please distribute to appropriate staff and replace UIPL 30-95, Change 2.

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.

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.