Appendix C to Part 618 - Standard for Fraud and Overpayment Detection

Appendix C to Part 618 - Standard for Fraud and Overpayment Detection

7510 Federal Law Requirements. Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act requires that a State law include provision for:

“Such methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.”

Section 1603(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 3030(a)(5) of the Social Security Act require that a State law include provision for:

“Expenditure of all money withdrawn from an unemployment fund of such State, in the payment of unemployment compensation . . .”

Section 1607(h) of the Internal Revenue Code defines “compensation” as “cash benefits payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment.”

7511 The Secretary's Interpretation of Federal Law Requirements. The Secretary of Labor interprets the above sections to require that a State law include provision for such methods of administration as are, within reason, calculated (1) to detect benefits paid through error by the agency or through willful misrepresentation or error by the claimant or others, and (2) to deter claimants from obtaining benefits through willful misrepresentation.

7513 Criteria for Review of State Conformity With Federal Requirements. In determining State conformity with the above requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act, as interpreted by the Secretary of Labor, the following criteria will be applied:

A. Are investigations required to be made after the payment of benefits, (or, in the case of interstate claims, are investigations made by the agent State after the processing of claims) as to claimants' entitlement to benefits paid to them in a sufficient proportion of cases to test the effectiveness of the agency's procedures for the prevention of payments which are not due? To carry out investigations, has the agency assigned to some individual or unit, as a basic function, the responsibility of making or functionally directing such investigations?

Explanation: It is not feasible to prescribe the extent to which the above activities are required; however, they should always be carried on to such an extent that they will show whether or not error or willful misrepresentation is increasing or decreasing, and will reveal problem areas. The extent and nature of the above activities should be varied according to the seriousness of the problem in the State. The responsible individual or unit should:

1. Check paid claims for overpayment and investigate for willful misrepresentation or, alternatively, advise and assist the operating units in the performance of such functions, or both;

2. Perform consultative services with respect to methods and procedures for the prevention and detection of fraud; and

3. Perform other services which are closely related to the above.

Although a State agency is expected to make a full-time assignment of responsibility to a unit or individual to carry on the functions described above, a small State agency might make these functions a part-time responsibility of one individual. In connection with the detection of overpayments, such a unit or individual might, for example:

(a) Investigate information on suspected benefit fraud received from any agency personnel, and from sources outside the agency, including anonymous complaints;

(b) Investigate information secured from comparisons of benefit payments with employment records to detect cases of concurrent working (whether in covered or noncovered work) and claiming of benefits (including benefit payments in which the agency acted as agent for another State).

The benefit fraud referred to herein may involve employers, agency employees, and witnesses, as well as claimants.

Comparisons of benefit payments with employment records are comonly made either by post-audit or by industry surveys. The so-called “post-audit” is a matching of central office wage-record files against benefit payments for the same period. “Industry surveys” or “mass audits” are done in some States by going directly to employers for pay-roll information to be checked against concurrent benefit lists. A plan of investigation based on a sample post-audit will be considered as partial fulfillment of the investigation program; it would need to be supplemented by other methods capable of detecting overpayments to persons who have moved into noncovered occupations or are claiming interstate benefits.

B. Are adequate records maintained by which the results of investigations may be evaluated?

Explanation. To meet this criterion, the State agency will be expected to maintain records of all its activities in the detection of overpayments, showing whether attributable to error or willful misrepresentation, measuring the results obtained through various methods, and noting the remedial action taken in each case. The adequacy and effectiveness of various methods of checking for willful misrepresentation can be evaluated only if records are kept of the results obtained. Internal reports on fraudulent and erroneous overpayments are needed by State agencies for self-evaluation. Detailed records should be maintained in order that the State agency may determine, for example, which of several methods of checking currently used are the most productive. Such records also will provide the basis for drawing a clear distinction between fraud and error.

C. Does the agency take adequate action with respect to publicity concerning willful misrepresentation and its legal consequences to deter fraud by claimants?

Explanation. To meet this criterion, the State agency must issue adequate material of claimant eligibility requirements and must take necessary action to obtain publicity on the legal consequences of willful misrepresentation or willful nondisclosure of facts.

Public announcements on convictions and resulting penalties for fraud are generally considered necessary as a deterrent to other persons, and to inform the public that the agency is carrying on an effective program to prevent fraud. This alone is not considered adequate publicity. It is important that information be circulated which will explain clearly and understandably the claimant's rights, and the obligations which he must fulfill to be eligible for benefits. Leaflets for distribution and posters placed in local offices are appropriate media for such information.

*7515 Evaluation of Alternative State Provisions with Respect to Erroneous and Illegal Payments. If the methods of administration provided for by the State law do not conform to the suggested methods of meeting the requirements set forth in section 7511, but a State law does provide for alternative methods of administration designed to accomplish the same results, the Bureau of Employment Security, in collaboration with the State agency, will study the actual or anticipated effect of the alternative methods of administration. If the Bureau concludes that the alternative methods satisfy the criteria in section 7513, it will so notify the State agency. If the Bureau does not so conclude, it will submit to the Secretary the results of the study for his determination of whether the State's alternative methods of administration meet the criteria.

[51 FR 45848, Dec. 22, 1986. Redesignated at 59 FR 943, Jan. 6, 1994. Further redesignated at 85 FR 51972, Aug. 21, 2020.]