[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63544-63550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30366]
[[Page 63543]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Employment And Training Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Invitation To Comment on Proposed Minimum Performance Criteria for UI
PERFORMS Tier I Measures; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 63544]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment And Training Administration
Invitation to Comment on Proposed Minimum Performance Criteria
for UI PERFORMS Tier I Measures
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice and opportunity to comment on proposed minimum
performance criteria for UI PERFORMS Tier I measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to explain and invite comment on
the proposed minimum performance criteria for nine UI PERFORMS Tier I
measures. UI PERFORMS is the Department's management system for
promoting continuous improvement in Unemployment Insurance performance.
DATES: Written comments must be received by the close of business
January 12, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Ms. Grace A. Kilbane,
Director, Unemployment Insurance Service, U. S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Room S-4231, Washington, D.C. 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra King, Director, Division of
Performance Review, Unemployment Insurance Service, U. S. Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue,
N.W, Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210, 202-219-5223, extension 160, or
Andrew Spisak, who can be contacted at the same address or at 202-219-
5223, extension 157. (These are not toll free numbers.) Workgroup
papers are available upon request.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
When the State-Federal Performance Enhancement Work Group (PEWG)
established the outlines of the UI PERFORMS system for promoting
continuous improvement in UI operational performance, it identified 10
key measures for which uniform national criteria would be set. It
called these ``Tier I'' measures. The criteria for these measures were
to be interpreted as minimum levels which States would always be
expected to meet or exceed, similar to the criteria which implement the
current Secretary's Standards for first payment and lower authority
appeals promptness.
The PEWG's successor, the Performance Enhancement Group (PEG),
ratified the meaning of the performance criteria and established three
workgroups--Appeals, Benefits, and Tax--to develop recommendations for
the criteria. Each group included Federal staff from the National and
Regional Offices, and at least two State representatives. The PEG
developed guidelines for the workgroups to follow in developing their
recommendations. The PEG also deferred setting a criterion for
cashiering timeliness until that measure can be applied more uniformly.
PEG materials related to the establishment of performance criteria
were provided in UIPL No. 19-98. UIPL No. 34-98 described the process
for establishing the performance criteria. The workgroup members are
identified in Appendix A, and PEG members are identified in Appendix B.
The workgroups' reports were presented to the PEG at its meeting in
Washington, DC, on September 28-30, 1998. The PEG reviewed the
workgroups' recommendations, both in terms of the individual Tier I
measures and in light of their cumulative burden, and recommended
appropriate adjustments. The PEG's decisions were reported in UIPL 4-99
(October 20, 1998), which solicited the comments of the State
Employment Security Agencies on the proposed performance criteria.
Performance Criteria Principles
a. PEWG Guidance. The PEWG originally addressed the subject of
developing performance criteria at its meetings in April and October
1994 and recommended the following principles:
Criteria should be set for only a few elements.
Measures would have agreed-on validity.
Validity would include the attribute that the measures
would have the same meaning in all States so that inter-State
comparisons are valid.
The criteria would be interpreted as performance floors,
similar to the criteria for the current Secretary's Standards, which
the criteria will replace.
States would be expected to meet or exceed the criteria,
unless attaining the established levels was not ``administratively
feasible'' for the period measured.
Through their annual State Quality Service Plans (SQSP),
States would be encouraged to establish their own targets above these
minimum levels.
Regarding the levels selected:
The implications for customer service should be considered.
They should be no lower than existing criteria for
Secretary's Standards or Desired Levels of Achievement, if set for
measures which remain the same as Quality Appraisal measures.
Face validity is important. The measures should balance
levels necessary to sustain quality customer service with the
administrative feasibility of attaining and exceeding those levels.
Levels should take into account recession impacts on
performance.
In the application of these standards:
Missing a criterion will require corrective action; a State
that does not want to undertake a Corrective Action Plan will have to
demonstrate that either (a) the measurement of its performance was
incorrect and the criterion was really attained, or (b) attaining the
criterion at the time was not administratively feasible.
Persistent performance below the established criterion would
be required before the Department of Labor would initiate stronger
action. The Department of Labor would have to ensure that the State was
not treated differently than other States and that the Department's
judgments were as free as possible of subjective considerations. The
Department of Labor must conclude that the performance deficiencies
reflected systemic, not random or temporary (such as recessionary),
causes.
b. PEG Guidance. More recently, the PEG addressed the subject of
benchmarks at its first two meetings and set down the following
guidelines for performance criteria:
The criteria should be minimum or floor values which every
State is expected to meet or exceed.
They should reflect levels which are administratively
feasible.
The levels chosen should reflect good customer service.
They should reflect actual State experience using three
years of data, if available.
Where there is a current and/or similar criterion, a
replacement should not be set lower unless there is a justification.
The criteria should be set on validated data, if
available.
They should have ``face validity'' to the public.
One objective of the criteria is to facilitate continuous
improvement for the system as a whole, specifically by encouraging
States to perform at levels above the minimum and by helping to raise
the performance of States not meeting the criteria. The proposed
criteria include the notion that minimum performance levels need to be
set at levels which are both
[[Page 63545]]
administratively feasible and high enough to convince the public that
UI is serious about conducting a quality program.
Periodic Review and Affirmation or Revision
The PEWG and PEG stressed that the system is committed to reviewing
measures and performance criteria periodically, so setting criteria is
not a one-time event. The first set of UI PERFORMS criteria will be
reviewed five years from the date of issuance, with the exception of
the criteria for nonmonetary determinations timeliness, nonmonetary
determinations quality, and new status determinations accuracy, which
will be reviewed after two years. Additional performance data will have
been collected for the measures, and States will have had their first
opportunity to validate the data prior to the reviews. Subsequent
reviews will occur at approximately five-year intervals.
Effective Date
Except as noted below, these criteria will be used to assess SESA
performance effective with the fiscal year (FY) 2000 planning cycle.
Because the FY 2000 planning cycle will use performance data which in
part predate the issuance of this directive, States whose performance
for one or more of the Tier I measures does not meet or exceed the
criteria will be required to submit ``transition plans'', in lieu of
corrective action plans, identifying the steps the State will take to
achieve the minimum performance criteria. Performance assessment in
subsequent SQSP cycles is described in section, ``Performance
Assessment'', below.
Summary of Minimum Performance Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria effective Criteria effective
Measure FY 2000 FY 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Payment Timeliness.... 1. 87% within 14/21 1. 90% within 14/21
days. days.
2. 93% within 35 2. 95% within 35
days. days.
Nonmonetary Determinations .................... 1. 80% of separation
Timeliness. determinations
within 21 days.
2. 80% of
nonseparation
determinations
within 14 days.
Nonmonetary Determinations .................... 75% of all
Quality. determinations with
passing scores (>
80 points)--all
programs,
separation and
nonseparation
combined.
Lower Authority Appeals 1. 60% of decisions 1. 60% of decisions
Timeliness. within 30 days. within 30 days.
2. 80% of decisions 2. 85% of decisions
within 45 days. within 45 days.
3. 95% of decisions 3. 95% of decisions
within 75 days. within 75 days
Higher Authority Appeals 1. 50% of decisions No change.
Timeliness. within 45 days.
2. 80% of decisions
within 75 days.
3. 95% of decisions
within 120 days.
Lower Authority Appeals 80% of all benefit No change.
Quality. appeals with
combined scores
equal to at least
85% of potential
points.
Timeliness of New Status 1. 60% of No change.
Determinations. determinations made
within 90 days of
quarter ending date
(QED).
2. 80% of
determinations made
within 180 days of
QED.
New Status Determinations .................... No more than six
Accuracy. cases from an
acceptance sample
of 60 cases can
fail the
evaluation.
Timeliness of Transfer from Maximum of two days Maintenance of an
Clearing Account to Trust to transfer funds annual ratio* 1.75.
clearing account to
the UI trust fund.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ratio of the monthly average daily available balance (line 10, ETA
8414 report) to the average daily transfer to the trust fund (line 3,
ETA 8405 report, divided by the number of days in the month).
Tier I Measures: Definitions and Recommended Criteria
First Payment Timeliness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of days elapsed from week-ending 1. 87 percent within 14/21
date of the first compensable week in days.
benefit year to date payment is 2. 93 percent within 35 days.
mailed, made in person, or offset or In conjunction with
intercept is applied. Universe of implementation of the
first full and partial payments from consolidated UI PERFORMS
ETA 9050 report. One aggregate measure regulation:
including intrastate and interstate 1. 90 percent within 14/21
for State UI, UCFE, and UCX. days.
2. 95 percent within 35 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PEG balanced the positive impact of new technologies, such as
telephone certification, on first payment time lapse, against
countervailing factors such as alternative base year legislation. The
consensus was to use the existing Secretary's Standards criteria (87
percent timely for 14/21 days and 93 percent timely for 35 days) for
intrastate UI first payments and apply them to a combined first payment
measure (intrastate UI + interstate UI + UCFE + UCX). Based on calendar
year (CY) 1997 data, which are available for 51 of the 53 agencies, 49
States meet both the 14/21-day and 35-day proposed criteria, and the
performance of two States is within five percentage points of both of
the proposed criteria.
In concert with the incorporation of the regulation defining the
current criteria (20 CFR 640) into the single UI PERFORMS regulation,
the percentages will be raised to 90 percent within 14/
[[Page 63546]]
21 days and 95 percent within 35 days. It is anticipated that the
revised criteria will be effective with the FY 2002 SQSP. Current data
suggest that most States could reasonably be expected to meet the
higher standards.
In addition, the PEG agreed that it is necessary to maintain a
monitoring mechanism for the first payment promptness of the individual
programs included in the aggregate Tier I measure--UI intrastate, UI
interstate, UCFE, and UCX--by including separate measures for each
program in Tier II. Data collected in the ETA 9050 report will be used
to monitor 14/21-day and 35-day first payment promptness for these
programs. A complete list of Tier II measures is provided in Appendix
C.
Nonmonetary Determinations Timeliness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of days elapsed from date of 1. 80 percent of separation
detection of any issue potentially determinations within 21 days.
affecting the claimant's benefit 2. 80 percent of nonseparation
rights to date of the determination. determinations within 14 days.
Measure includes intrastate and (Implementation postponed until
interstate for State UI, UCFE, and UCX FY 2002 SQSP.)
(ETA 9052 report).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PEG took into consideration the significant changes in the way
nonmonetary timeliness data are collected. Time lapse is measured from
date of detection to date of determination; universe data, not sample
data, are reported; and separations include issues arising from both
new and additional initial claims. The PEG agreed that in order to
assure an acceptable level of customer service, the criteria should be
set at levels no lower than 80 percent of separation determinations
made within 21 days of the detection date and 80 percent of
nonseparation determinations made within 14 days from the date of
detection.
Because the majority of States are performing below the proposed
minimum criteria, the PEG postponed their implementation until the FY
2002 SQSP. Until the implementation of these criteria, States may be
required to develop or revise transition plans to raise performance,
but will not be subject to any sanctions initiated by the Department of
Labor.
The Department of Labor, in consultation and cooperation with the
States, will analyze the nonmonetary timeliness data in order to
identify the causes of performance that is below the minimum levels.
The results of this analysis and State performance data collected in
the ETA 9052 report will be used to review the minimum performance
criteria after two years.
Although States have adopted new technologies and procedures that
have significantly reduced differences in the adjudicatory processes
for intrastate and interstate claims, the PEG agreed that measures for
both intrastate and interstate separation determinations (21 days), and
intrastate and interstate nonseparation determinations (14 days) should
be established under Tier II to monitor performance for these
components of the aggregate Tier I measure.
Nonmonetary Determination Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of Quality Performance 75 percent of all
Instrument to quarterly samples of determinations with passing
nonmonetary determinations selected scores (> 80 points)--all
from the universe of determinations programs, separation and
reported on ETA 9052 (time lapse) nonseparation combined.
report; quality scores reported on ETA (Implementation postponed until
9056 report. FY 2002 SQSP.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In setting minimum performance levels for this measure, the PEG
took into consideration the changes in the way in which nonmonetary
adjudication quality data are collected: quarterly samples, versus
annual samples, are selected from universes that include all
adjudications, not only determinations for which a week was claimed.
The PEG decided that in order to assure an acceptable minimum level of
customer service and take into account the administrative feasibility
of meeting the criterion (face validity), the criterion should be set
no lower than 75 percent of the separation and nonseparation
determinations receiving a score of more than 80 points, based on the
weighted aggregate scores from four quarterly samples.
However, because the majority of States are performing below the
proposed minimum criterion, the PEG postponed its implementation until
the FY 2002 SQSP. Until the implementation of this criterion, States
may be required to develop or revise transition plans to raise
performance, but will not be subject to any sanctions initiated by the
Department of Labor.
The Department of Labor, in consultation and cooperation with the
States, will analyze the nonmonetary quality data in order to identify
the causes of performance that is below the minimum levels. The results
of this analysis and State performance data collected in the ETA 9056
report will be used to review the minimum performance criterion after
two years.
[[Page 63547]]
Lower Authority Appeals Timeliness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of days from date of request for 1. 60 percent of decisions
hearing to date of decision (ETA 9054 within 30 days.
report); includes State UI, UCFE, and 2. 80% of decisions within 45
UCX, intrastate and interstate. days; increase to 85% of
decisions within 45 days in
conjunction with
implementation of the
consolidated UI PERFORMS
regulation.
3. 95% of decisions within 75
days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PEG decided that the first criterion of 60 percent in 30 days
is adequate and should remain the same. The current Secretary's
Standard criterion of 80 percent of the decisions within 45 days will
remain the minimum criterion for the FY 2000 and FY 2001 planning
cycles. In concert with the incorporation of the regulation defining
the current criteria (20 CFR part 650) into the single UI PERFORMS
regulation, the criterion will be raised to 85 percent, effective with
the FY 2002 SQSP. This will help ensure that a greater percentage of
the cases are disposed of as efficiently as possible, that cases are
not allowed to accumulate for long periods of time, and that parties to
an appeal receive a hearing and decision in a reasonable amount of
time.
The PEG established a third criterion of 95 percent within 75 days
to provide an impetus for States to reduce the time taken to address
cases that have not been decided within 45 days.
Higher Authority Appeals Timeliness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of days from date of request for 1. 50 percent of decisions
hearing to date of decision (ETA 9054 within 45 days.
report); includes State UI, UCFE, and 2. 80 percent of decisions
UCX, intrastate and interstate. within 75 days.
3. 95 percent of decisions
within 120 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To encourage improved performance, the PEG increased the 45-day
timeliness criterion from 40 percent to 50 percent. Forty percent does
not reflect an adequate level of customer service, and most States far
exceed the 40 percent level. Based on CY 1997 data, only a few States
would not meet a 50 percent standard.
The 75-day timeliness standard remains the same at 80 percent, and
a third criterion of 95 percent in 120 days is established. The third
criterion is important because there should remain some incentive for
States to decide cases over 75 days, and there should be some
accountability for older cases. Simply because a case is over the 75-
day limit, it should not receive less consideration than a newer case.
The absence of a third level can create an incentive for a State to
take care of its new cases, thereby improving its overall reported
performance, rather than attending to older cases.
Lower Authority Appeals Quality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of lower authority benefit 80 percent of all benefit
appeals based on application of a appeals with combined scores
standard review instrument to equal to at least 85% of
quarterly samples of appeals (ETA 9057 potential points.
report).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PEG agreed to change the criterion from 80 percent of cases
scoring 80 percent or more of the potential evaluation points to 80
percent of cases scoring 85 percent or more of the potential evaluation
points.
This criterion is intended to make sure that both States and
individual Hearing Officers provide a quality product. A quality
product is one where, in the view of the State's customers and the
various review bodies, the customer is receiving a considered, due-
process product, both when attending the hearing and when reading the
decision. This standard reflects the goals of UI PERFORMS by seeking to
raise the individual Hearing Officer's scores, while maintaining a high
level of performance for the State.
Timeliness of New Status Determinations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of days from last day of the 1. 60 percent of determinations
quarter (Quarter Ending Date--QED) in made within 90 days of QED.
which liability occurred to date of 2. 80 percent of determinations
determination (ETA 581 report). made within 180 days of QED.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old measure combined performance for both new and successor
employers, and the desired level of achievement was 80 percent of
determinations made within 180 days from the date of liability. The new
180-day measure applies to status determinations for new employers.
Timeliness is measured from the ending
[[Page 63548]]
date of the quarter in which liability was incurred and is based on
universe data, as opposed to sample data. The PEG set the minimum
performance criterion at 80 percent of new employer status
determinations completed within 180 days of the QED.
For the new 90-day measure, the PEG set a criterion of 60 percent
of new employer status determinations completed within 90 days of the
QED. This standard balances State performance against maintaining an
acceptable level of customer service. In CY 1997, only four States
would have failed to meet the criterion of 60 percent, with scores of
57.9%, 51.8%, 50.9%, and 40.5%.
New Status Determinations Accuracy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of new status determinations No more than six cases from an
from an annual tax performance acceptance sample of 60 cases
acceptance sample drawn from all new can fail the evaluation.
status determinations.. New standard implies:
1. At least 95 percent of the
samples will pass if State
accuracy rate is
94.5%.
2. At least 90 percent of the
samples will fail if State
accuracy rate is
82.4%.
(Implementation postponed until
FY 2002 SQSP.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PEG believes the current standard, that no more than two of the
60 sample cases can fail the evaluation and still pass the acceptance
sample, is too rigid. New Status Determinations Accuracy data for CY
1996 shows that 24 of the 46 States reporting data failed. In CY 1997,
22 of the 47 States reporting data failed.
Acceptance sample results are affected to some extent by the
subjectivity of the reviewer, which can vary from State to State. If
there are ten evaluative areas in the case, with a review of 60 cases,
there are actually 600 evaluative questions. A failure in any one of
the ten evaluative areas fails the case. Under the current criterion,
if more than two cases in the SESA's sample fails, the entire
acceptance sample fails. States can actually have good tax measures but
appear to have failing programs based on the acceptance sample results.
One of the purposes of the performance measures is to provide
information to SESA managers on the quality of the tax functions within
their State so they can strive to improve processes where warranted.
Setting the standard at six or fewer failed cases enables States to
accomplish this goal and takes into account the subjectivity of the
review from State to State.
Because many States do not meet the current standard, the PEG
postponed the implementation of the revised minimum performance levels
until the FY 2002 SQSP. Until the implementation of these criteria,
States may be required to develop or revise transition plans to raise
performance, but will not be subject to any sanctions initiated by the
Department of Labor.
The Department of Labor, in consultation and cooperation with the
States, will analyze the new status determinations accuracy data in
order to identify the causes of performance that is below the minimum
levels and identify ways to reduce variation in the application of the
accuracy evaluation. The results of this analysis and State acceptance
sample data will be used to review the minimum performance criteria
after two years.
Timeliness of Transfer from Clearing Account to Trust Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition Recommended criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective for the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Maximum of two days to transfer
SQSP: Average number of days funds are funds from the State clearing
on deposit in the Clearing Account account to the UI trust fund
before transfer to Trust Fund (8414 for two years until reporting
report). consistency issues are
resolved.
Effective with the FY 2002 SQSP: Ratio Maintenance of an annual ratio
of the monthly average daily available 1.75.
balance (line 10, ETA 8414 report) to After 5 years, maintenance of
the average daily transfer to the an annual ratio 1.0.
divided by the number of days in the
month).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current measure--the number of days funds are on deposit in the
clearing account before transfer to the State account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF)--is over fifteen years old. Substantial
changes in banking law (especially deregulation and Federal Reserve
policy--e.g. elimination of float in the banking system) and technology
have combined to make the current criterion obsolete. More expeditious
check clearing, the proliferation of electronic payments, and the
growth of check clearinghouses independent of the Federal Reserve
system all work to expedite cash flow.
The purpose of the immediate deposit requirements (Section
3304(a)(3), FUTA and Section 303(a)(4), SSA) is to ensure that
unemployment funds are deposited to the credit of the State account in
the UTF as soon as possible. The UTF offers greater safety and a higher
historical return than State bank accounts, while providing similar
liquidity. The law is also concerned about the loss of interest to the
UTF from delays in transfer.
A better focus of State compliance with the immediate deposit
requirement is the actual transfer of funds from the clearing account
to the UTF rather than the amount of time funds remain in the clearing
account before transfer. A time-based measure is arbitrary because
checks clear at different rates between States and banks. The proposed
balance ratio eliminates the arbitrary factors because it measures only
available balances, that is, funds available after checks have cleared
and reserve requirements have been met.
[[Page 63549]]
Some consistency issues have been identified in the data reported
in the ETA 8414 and ETA 8405 reports. Because the proposed ratio is
based on these data, the PEG agreed that the current desired level of
achievement of a maximum of two days to transfer funds from the State
clearing account to the UI trust fund should be maintained for a period
of two years, during which States and the Department of Labor will
resolve the reporting issues.
Performance Assessment
a. Continuous Assessment. In a continuous improvement environment,
both the Federal partner and the SESA will routinely access performance
data to monitor program performance and initiate corrective action
whenever it appears to be warranted. Therefore, under UI PERFORMS, the
SESAs will develop Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) alone, or in
collaboration with their Regional Office, whenever a serious
performance issue is detected based on cumulative performance data.
CAPs will also result from Program Reviews conducted during the year by
the Federal partner.
b. Annual Assessment. Continuous assessment will be augmented with
an annual assessment of program performance which will occur in
conjunction with the SQSP process, and will form the basis for
performance improvement planning for the upcoming SQSP. This assessment
will utilize the most recent 12 months of performance data that are
available. For data reported monthly, the reporting period will include
the 12 months ending June 30 of each year; for data reported each
quarter, the four quarters ending with the second calendar quarter; and
for data reported annually, the calendar year ending December 31.
Because of the lag that must be built into this process, it is
possible that more current data will show that a performance problem
may have already been corrected. In that case, the State and the Region
will need to reference that more current information.
c. SESA/Regional Negotiation. Identification of the specific areas
for which Program Improvement Plans will be submitted in the SQSP will
be finalized through negotiations between the SESAs and the Regional
Office. For mandated Tier I, program review, or program reporting
performance areas, a CAP will be prepared if performance is
unsatisfactory and an effective plan is not already in place. For Tier
II areas of negotiated performance (or Tier I above the minimum
performance level), a Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) will be
prepared to reflect that negotiation.
Solicitation of Comments and Issuance
Unemployment Insurance Program Letter 4-99 (October 20, 1998)
described the recommended criteria, their rationale, and phase-in
schedule and solicited the comments of State Employment Security
Administrators. The criteria were also discussed in workshops that were
held at the UI Directors' meeting in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, October 20-
22, 1998. The workshops included not only the presentation of the
proposed levels and their rationale, but also questions and discussion.
After all comments have been assimilated and the criteria modified
as appropriate, the new minimum performance criteria will be
promulgated via a UIPL, anticipated in early calendar year 1999.
Appendices
The members of the Performance Criteria Workgroups are in Appendix
A; the members of the Performance Enhancement Group are in Appendix B;
UI PERFORMS Tier II Measures are in Appendix C.
Signed at Washington, D.C., on November 6, 1998.
Raymond L. Bramucci,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training.
Appendix A--Performance Criteria Workgroups
National Office Coordination and Technical Assistance
Andrew Spisak
Burman Skrable
Tom Stengle
Benefits Group
Barbara Chandler, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
Terry Clark, National Office
Walter Harris, New York Regional Office
William McGann, New Jersey Department of Labor
Bob Whiting, National Office
Appeals Group
Jack Bright, National Office
Dan Kassner, Alaska Department of Labor
Robert P. McWilliams, Kentucky UI Commission
Pat O'Neal, Seattle Regional Office
Hazel Warnick, National Association of UI Appellate Boards
Sonja Weisgerber, Kansas Department of Human Resources
Tax and Cash Management Group
Connie Carter, Atlanta Regional Office
Cindy Guthrie, Missouri Division of Employment Security
Connie Peterkin, National Office
Wendy Tyson, Wyoming Department of Employment
Appendix B--Performance Enhancement Group
Grace A. Kilbane, Director, Unemployment Insurance Service, U.S.
Department of Labor
Dale Ziegler, Assistant Commissioner, Unemployment Insurance
Division, Washington Employment Security Department
Alice Carrier, Director, Operational Support, Connecticut State
Labor Department
Donald Peitersen, Director, Office of Unemployment Insurance,
Colorado Department of Labor & Employment
Dave Murrie, Deputy Administrator, Oklahoma Employment Security
Commission
Gay Gilbert, Deputy Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment
Services
Reynel (Renny) Dohse, Bureau Chief of Job Insurance, Iowa Workforce
Development
David Henson, Director, Office of Regional Management, ETA, U.S.
Department of Labor
Cheryl Atkinson, Deputy Director, Unemployment Insurance Service,
U.S. Department of Labor
Ed Strong, Regional Administrator for Employment and Training,
Philadelphia Regional Office, U.S. Department of Labor
Robert Kenyon, Regional Director for Unemployment Insurance, Dallas
Regional Office, U.S. Department of Labor
Dianna Milhollin, Director, Unemployment Insurance Division, Atlanta
Regional Office, U.S. Department of Labor
Betty Castillo, Chief, Division of Program Development and
Implementation, Unemployment Insurance Service, U.S. Department of
Labor
Sandra King, Chief, Division of Performance Review, Unemployment
Insurance Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Appendix C--UI Performs Tier II Measures
1. Workshare First Payments Timeliness
2. Continued Weeks Payments Timeliness
3. Nonmonetary Issue Detection Timeliness
4. Workshare Continued Weeks Payment Timeliness
5. Nonmonetary Determinations Implementation Timeliness
6. Implementation of Appeals Decision Timeliness
7. Employer Tax Appeal Timeliness
8. Combined Wage Claim Wage Transfer Timeliness
9. Combined Wage Claim Billing Timeliness
10. Combined Wage Claim Reimbursements Timeliness
11. Wage /Tax Report Filing Timeliness
12. Securing Delinquent Reports Timeliness
13. Resolving Delinquent Reports Timeliness
14. Contributions Payments Timeliness
15. Lower Authority Appeals Due Process Quality
16. Higher Authority Appeals Quality--[to be developed]
17. Employer Tax Appeals Quality--[to be developed]
18. Posting Contributions Accuracy
19. Delinquent Reports Resolution Quality
[[Page 63550]]
20. Collection Actions Quality
21. Field Audits Quality
22. Employer Accounts Posting Accuracy
23. Employer Billings Accuracy
24. Employer Credits/Refunds Accuracy
25. Benefit Charging Accuracy
26. Experience Rating Accuracy
27. Benefit Payment Accuracy
28. Lower Authority Appeals, Case Aging
29. Higher Authority Appeals, Case Aging
30. Turnover of Receivables Liquidated or Written
31. Writeoff of Receivables
32. Assessment of Receivables to Taxes Due
33. Audit Penetration, Employers
34. Audit Penetration, Wages
35. Audit Targeting, Percent Change in Annual Total Wages
36. Trust Fund Solvency
37. Timeliness of Deposit to the Clearing Account
38. Timeliness of Intrastate UI First Payments
39. Timeliness of Interstate UI First Payments
40. Timeliness of UCFE First Payments
41. Timeliness of UCX First Payments
42. Timeliness of Intrastate Separation Determinations
43. Timeliness of Intrastate Nonseparation Determinations
44. Timeliness of Interstate Separation Determinations
45. Timeliness of Interstate Nonseparation Determinations
[FR Doc. 98-30366 Filed 11-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-U
