To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout.

References: ET Handbooks Nos. 392 and 399; Interstate Connection (ICON) User Guide. Background: Prior to implementation of the interstate weeks claimed by-pass procedures in 1983, the Interstate Continued Claim, Form IB-2, was the only method used to certify for a week claimed under the Interstate Benefit Payment Plan. During those earlier years, most States operated under local office in-person reporting procedures that accommodated the use of this form. When the by-pass procedures were implemented, interstate claimants began filing for weeks claimed directly with their liable States, using certification forms provided by the liable State, thereby eliminating the major use of the Form IB-2. For the most part, the Form IB-2 has continued to be issued to claimants only: (1) at the time of an initial claim filed against some (currently 18) liable States; (2) as a replacement for missing certification forms, except in those instances when the liable State has requested that it not be issued for this purpose; and (3) for weeks claimed certifications on backdated interstate initial claims. As of January 1998, eight States were operational for remote interstate agent initial claimstaking. These agent States must mail the Form IB-2 to claimants filing against liable States that continue to request the issuance of these forms at the time of the initial claim. This is a manual operation. There are 10 additional States with remote initial claimstaking partially implemented or in pilot test status (an additional 27 States are in the planning stage). The 18 States (AK, CA, CO, FL, ID, MD, MA, ME, MO, MT, NY, OH, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, WI) that have fully implemented, partially implemented, or are testing remote initial claimstaking represent 48.5 percent of the total agent and 44.4 percent of the total liable claims filed. By the end of 1998, it is likely that most of these States will be fully operational Statewide for interstate agent and remote liable initial claimstaking. This changing claimstaking environment will further diminish the use of the Form IB-2. Its continued use at the point of the initial claim, including backdated claims, will be cumbersome under remote initial claimstaking procedures. Therefore, the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies' Interstate Benefit Committee has considered the cost and benefit of maintaining the Form IB-2. States have been advised of the various considerations addressed by the Committee pertaining to the use of the Form IB-2 through the distribution of the minutes from Committee meetings, discussions at the National Interstate Meeting, the National UI Directors and Legal Affairs Meeting, and a letter from the Chairman of the Committee to each State Director dated January 23, 1998. The Committee has reached a final decision to eliminate the Form IB-2. The decision is effective for claims filed on and after July 6, 1998. This means liable States will be responsible for providing interstate claimants with a method to file for all weeks claimed, including backdated claims, filed July 6, 1998, and thereafter. Few States objected to the elimination of the Form IB-2. The general concerns expressed were: (1) equal treatment of interstate claimants; (2) the effect on a State's ability to meet the First Payment Promptness Standard; and (3) the effect on customer service since agent States use the form to provide assistance to claimants who are missing liable State claim forms. Discussion: Before April 1983, interstate claimants followed agent State reporting requirements and used standard interstate forms different from intrastate forms. Since 1983, interstate claimants have reported directly to liable States under liable State reporting requirements using forms or electronic methods of the liable States' choice. The elimination of the Form IB-2 is another means of streamlining the interstate system as it moves in the direction of using the ICON for all data exchanges between States. It does not raise an equal treatment issue. Nor does it affect the liable State's ability to treat interstate and intrastate claimants equally. With respect to the affect on first payment promptness, all States should be generating informational packets and reporting instructions, including certification forms if necessary, to each claimant upon the receipt of a telecommunicated interstate initial claim. If each State follows this procedure, it is believed that the elimination of the Form IB-2 will have no effect on the State's ability to comply with the First Payment Promptness Standard. Currently, 35 liable States follow procedures that provide interstate claimants with the necessary forms or an electronic filing method that begins with the first week claimed. With the elimination of the Form IB-2, the additional 17 States (AR, CT, DE, LA, MA, MI, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, SD, VT, WA, WY) that currently request the issuance of forms by the agent State must implement such procedures. There is no apparent reason why following such procedures would affect a liable State's ability to obtain timely certifications from interstate claimants. Six of these 17 States (CT, LA, MT, NJ, VT, WA,) are already handling interstate weeks claimed certifications electronically. The use of the Form IB-2 for customer service purposes has been helpful to some claimants. However, as more and more States move to call centers, the question is raised whether agent offices will continue to be conveniently located or accessible to provide this service. If they are not, the agent State would have to mail the form to the claimant. That being the case, it is best for the claimant to contact the liable State to request a form. Additionally, 36 States have already implemented electronic weeks claimed certifications, with 25 States using them for interstate claimants. Liable States that are still using paper forms should already have procedures in place to replace missing certification forms. Therefore, maintaining a standard form nationally for this purpose is not warranted. Procedures: Effective with claims filed on and after July 6, 1998, the following procedures should be implemented: -- (a) Interstate Initial Claims Effective the Week of Filing. The agent State is not responsible for issuing any certification forms to the claimant. The agent State should provide the claimant with any information that has been provided in the liable State's automated Handbook instructions and advise the claimant that the liable State will provide further information and reporting instructions. -- (b) Backdated Interstate Initial Claims. -- (1) Initial Claims Filed Through (Taken by) the Agent State. The agent State will not issue any certification forms to the claimant. In cases where a backdated claim is being substituted for a prior ineligible or canceled claim (ineligible monetary; combined wage claim withdrawn; etc.) against the agent State, the weekending dates of the weeks claimed prior to the date the claim is taken should be posted in the "remarks" section of the Form IB-1 with a notation of whether the claimant met the reporting requirements for the weeks claimed. When the "substitute' claim results from an ineligible or withdrawn combined wage claim, the date any transferred wages are being returned should also be shown. When there is an overpayment resulting from the withdrawal of the combined wage claim, the agent State must provide the new liable State with the amount of the overpayment and a certification from the claimant authorizing the new liable State to recover the overpayment. If the substitute claim is being taken by telephone, the agent State must certify that the claimant has authorized the new liable State to recover the overpayment (repayment of the combined wage claim overpayment or the authorization to recover is a condition of withdrawal). -- (2) Initial Claims Taken by Liable State Under Remote Initial Claimstaking Procedures. When the liable State against which the claimant will be filing a substitute claim has implemented remote interstate initial claimstaking procedures, the agent State will provide the claimant with the liable State's instructions from the automated Handbook. The agent State must also simultaneously provide the liable State with immediate access to information pertaining to the prior claim by completing the ICON Withdrawal/Invalid Claim (WIC) screen with the information required. Model Code for the ICON WIC application has been provided to the IBM States, and a Non-Model Code Guide has been provided to the non-IBM States, by Lockheed Martin Integrated Business Solutions under separate cover on May 1, 1998. More information about the WIC application is being issued in a separate UIPL. Action Required: SESA administrators are requested to: -- (a) Make this directive available to all appropriate management, technical, agent and liable operations staff; and, -- (b) Ensure that the procedures provided in the directive are implemented effective July 6, 1998.

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.

References: a. ETA Handbook No. 376, Guidelines for Internal Security in UI Operations. b. Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 08-97, Risk Analysis Training. c. UIPL No. 12-95, Risk Analysis Project. d. UIPL No. 34-87, Unemployment Insurance (UI) Internal Security Risk Analysis (Vulnerability Assessment). Background: Since fiscal year 1982, the Department of Labor (DOL) has allocated resources for the Internal Security (IS) program. In concert with the IS program, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) required through UIPLs that State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) complete a risk analysis of the UI program covering the vulnerability of all UI program operations whenever major system changes occur but not less than once every three years. Risk Analysis is a specific activity to be performed by the Internal Security Unit(ISU). Along with its other IS activities, the ISU is required to perform a risk analysis to determine an economic balance between the impact of risks and the costs of protective measures. In performing a risk analysis, the ISU must identify assets, threats to the system (both program and computer related), vulnerabilities, and cost effective safeguards. Risk Analysis Training: Six UI Risk Analysis training classes have been held. These training classes were attended by National Office and Regional Office personnel, and SESA staff including, internal auditors, information security officers, investigators, and other internal security personnel responsible for risk analysis. User Group Forums: Four two-day risk analysis forums have been scheduled to follow-up and continue the discussions of the risk analysis process, methodology, and RiskWatch software training that began during the fundamental, intermediate and advanced Risk Analysis Training courses. Personnel from SESAs and DOL, who have knowledge of and/or experience conducting risk analyses will participate in round table discussions regarding SESA specific risk analysis issues and concerns. Forum participants will establish the agenda for each forum. Possible discussion topics include: Getting Started -- Development of a Risk Analysis Team -- Risk analysis process and methodology -- RiskWatch software problems and questions -- SESAs who have conducted a risk analysis Forum participants will establish the specific agenda for each forum. -- San Diego, CA - August 17-18, 1998 -- Denver, CO - August 20-21, 1998 -- Atlanta, GA - August 24-25, 1998 -- Boston, MA - August 27-28, 1998 Action Required: All SESA Administrators are requested to: -- a. Consider who will be attending the usergroup forums based on their understanding of the risk analysis process and methodology and participation in completing a risk analysis (full and or partial). -- b. Provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers and which forum the nominee (first and second choice) wishes to attend to: Elaine Shock, 800 Capitol Mall, MIC 78, PO BOX 826880, Sacramento, California 94280, by COB July 10, 1998. -- c. Provide copies of this UIPL to appropriate IS staff and other appropriate personnel.

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.