1. All States UI Integrity Webinar
Friday, July 8th, 2011
11pm-12:30pm ET; or
3pm-4:30pm ET 1

2. Opening Message Gay Gilbert U.S. Department of Labor
Employment & Training Administration
Administrator, Office of Unemployment Insurance

3. Presenters
Gay Gilbert, Administrator
Dale Ziegler, Deputy Administrator
Stephanie Garcia, UI Operations
Andy Spisak, UI Performance Management

4. Our Agenda Review of UIPL 19-11, Reduction of Improper payments
Review of UI Virtual Institute
Supplemental Budget Request
COP Overview
Review of UIPL17-11, Performance Measure
Q & A
Next Steps / Closing

5. Reducing Improper Payments
Review of UIPL 19-11
Reducing Improper Payments

6. UIPL 19-11
A call to action for states to join DOL in bringing down the UI improper payment rate by focusing on prevention.
UI improper payment rate for 2010 is 11.2%, which is above the rate set forth by IPERA of 10%.(10.6% overpayment rate and .6% underpayment rate).
Main causes of overpayments are Benefit Year Earnings (BYE), Separation, Work Search, and Employment Services (ES) Registration.

7. US Overpayments by Cause – FY2010
Sev./Vac./SSI/Pension
$163,394,550
2.3%
Dependents Allow.
$38,674,704
0.5%
Oth. Elig. Iss.
$273,182,985
3.9%
Other Issues
$294,292,567
4.2%
Base Period Wage Iss.
$380,247,470
5.4%
Able+Available
$382,738,451
JS Reg.
$788,343,823
11.1%
Work Search Issues
$1,286,707,519
18.2%
Separation Issues
$1,385,523,642
19.5%
Benefit Year Earnings
$2,094,269,508
29.5% 7 7

8. Strategies for Reducing Overpayments
Targeting for Prevention: BYE, Separation, & ES registration
States form UI Cross-Functional Integrity Taskforces to address integrity issues
Mandatory use of the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and Automated Claimant Notification
Claimant Messaging
Implement State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES)

9. Integrity Virtual Institute
High Impact States
Integrity Virtual Institute

10. Virtual Institute on UI Integrity/Improper Payments
USDOL has formed a collaboration with11 “high impact” states that have the highest dollar amount of controllable improper payments
States formed cross-functional integrity task forces to do two things:
Develop state specific strategic plans to bring down the state’s improper payment rate; and
Develop a culture that everyone owns integrity.
DOL hosted a Virtual Integrity Institute

11. Joint Integrity Task Force Mission
The Joint Integrity Task Force’s mission is to identify a tangible and measureable action plan that will, through process, procedure and other improvements, prevent and detect overpayments in such a way as to materially reduce the overall UI overpayment rate. Further, the Task Force will identify and recommend changes which will create a common ownership over the improper payments issue for all UI staff – serving to create a culture of common ownership and innovation that will continuously improve performance. Finally, the Task Force will identify and share root problems and solutions with the USDOL (and therefore with other states) in an effort to help spread the focus on reducing overpayments throughout the UI system and help to replicate best practices throughout the Nation.

12. Joint Task Force Key Players: Composition of State Task Forces
UI Director
BPC Manager
Tax Representative
Call Center or Intake Representative
BAM Representative
Adjudications Representative
Appeals Representative
IT Representative
Training Representative

13. Features of the Integrity Institute
States completed a self-assessment tool to identify areas of improvement.
States reviewed and analyzed a wide array of data.
States task forces had concentrated facilitated sessions to target root causes and develop their action plan.
States had access to federal and state Subject Matter Experts (SME) to help with data concerns and technical questions.
States shared their strategies with each other.

14. Strategies Used (cont.)
Each state facilitator led their Task Force during break-out sessions to develop the strategic plan.
States and USDOL shared information and resources using a SharePoint site.
States presented their strategic plans during the final UI Integrity Institute session.
States submitted a formal strategic plan one week following the UI Integrity Institute.

15. Next Steps
DOL working to refine the tools used in the Integrity Institute to create an “Institute in a Box” for use by all states
Plan to roll out in early September and a call for all states to convene task forces and to create comprehensive action plans to prevent improper payments
Envision webinars to train facilitators in each state – more to come on details.

16. SQSP Process: UIPL 21-11
New requirement to address action strategies to reduce improper payments
High Impact States may use their plans developed during the Virtual Institute
Encourage other states to focus first on the “call to action” in the UIPL – implementation of improved SDNH and NDNH cross matching and automated claimant notification and SIDES implementation.
States can amend their SQSPs later when their comprehensive plans are completed.

17. Overview of Supplemental Budget Request (SBR)
& Forthcoming UIPL

18. Overview of Supplemental Budget Request (SBR) & Forthcoming UIPL
Goals of Funding Solicitation:
Accelerate significant state actions to reduce improper payment rates;
Provide an opportunity for states to modernize their UI Benefits and/or UI Tax Systems and design and implement technology-based tools to prevent, detect or recover improper UI payments.

19. SBR Structure of Funding
Two Types of funding:
Integrity Services
Core Integrity Activities
Incentive Activities
Technology Infrastructure
In order to qualify for any funding in either category, states must have already implemented or agree to implement a set of core integrity activities by certain specified dates for which funding is also provided.

20. STATE INTEGRITY ACTIVITY
Core & Incentive Funds
STATE INTEGRITY ACTIVITY
FUNDS AVAILABLE
Core Integrity Activities
New Benefit Year Earnings Performance Measure
N/A
Cross-Functional Task Force
NDNH Cross-match and Recommended Operating Procedures
$250,000
SIDES Implementation
$500,000
Claimant/Employer Messaging
$100,000
Employment Service Registration (applies only to those states with error rates above three (3) percent)
State Specific Solutions by State Size
$400,000/$550,000/$750,000
Incentive Funds (only those states that have completed, or that commit to complete core activities listed above by dates specified below, may apply)
$1,000,000

21. Incentive Funds Use
Those states that have implemented, or that commit to implementing, all of the core activities listed above will qualify for additional incentive funds
Worker Misclassification
Implementing additional state-specific solutions to prevent improper payments

22. Incentive Funds Use (cont)
Payment of the SIDES subscription fees
Securing contract staff to support BPC efforts
Implementing the TOP
Implementing state-specific UI performance improvement projects

23. Technology Improvements Consortia
Develop (or modify and develop) either of the core UI Benefits or Tax and Benefit system designs, which the two state consortia recently developed.
Design an additional core UI Benefits or Tax and Benefits system using open source components that is also exportable to other states.
Implement technology-based tools designed to prevent, detect or recover improper UI payments.

24. Application & Award of Supplemental Funds
States must submit individual proposals for any or all of the projects described above in one package. However, states should complete a separate request for each activity for which the state is seeking funding.
Each proposal will be considered a separate section of the state’s supplemental budget request (SBR), and each will be evaluated individually.

25. Application & Award of Supplemental Funds (cont.)
Name of Project (20% of Total Score)
Amount of Funding Requested for this Project
State Contact
Project Description
Project Timeline
Description of Costs (20% of Total Score)
Staff Costs for Agency & Contract Staff
Hardware, Software, & Telecommunications Equipment
State Leveraged Resources (Technology Solutions, only) Other

26. Application & Award of Supplemental Funds (cont.)
Strategic Design (30% of Total Score)
Measurable Improvements Expected in UI Operations (30% of Total Score)
Additional Points for Technology Improvements
Use of Consortia Products – 10 points
Leveraged funds above 25% - Up to 10 points

27. Application & Award of Supplemental Funds (cont.)
The one-time funds being made available for automation must be obligated by states by September 30, 2013, and liquidated within 90 days of that date
Applications to be submitted electronically.
Applications are Due by Close of Business August 17, 2011.

28. Overview of Community of Practice

29. The Unemployment Insurance Community of Practice
Promotes, highlights and showcases Unemployment Insurance (UI) program initiatives
A vehicle for states to share and access tools and applications that can be utilized to enhance UI business processes
Can be accessed via

30. BYE Performance Measure
Review of UIPL 17-11
BYE Performance Measure

31. UIPL 17-11 Performance Background
The 2010 national Unemployment Insurance improper payment rate is 11.2 %, which exceeds the minimum acceptable Improper Payments Elimination & Recovery Act (IPERA) rate of 10%.
Almost 30% of all overpayments are due to BYE errors.
This measure will initially evaluate BYE fraud error reductions using BAM data from the last 3 years as a benchmark.

32. Proposed Measure & Acceptable Level of Performance (ALP)
Measure Definition: Percentage of UI benefits overpaid due to BYE fraud.
ALP: Reduce the percentage of UI benefits overpaid due to BYE fraud from the baseline level by 35% at the end of the 1st year of implementation & by 50% by the end of the 2nd year. BYE rate will be estimated by the BAM survey.
Performance Period: Will be CY based on BAM data. First measurement period will be CY 2012.

33. Attachment A State Baseline Performance Data & ALP Targets
BYE Fraud Rate
(Percent of UI Benefits Paid)
BYE Fraud Amount Overpaid*
Percent of Total BYE Fraud Overpayments
35% Rate Reduction
CY 2012
50% Rate Reduction
CY 2013 AK
1.75%
$2,941,461
0.32%
1.14%
0.88% AL
1.72%
$8,472,575
0.91%
1.12%
0.86% AR
5.19%
$25,174,572
2.71%
3.37%
2.60% AZ
2.96%
$20,621,815
2.22%
1.92%
1.48% CA
2.02%
$180,019,495
19.38%
1.31%
1.01% CO
0.64%
$5,167,189
0.56%
0.42% CT
1.38%
$14,086,765
1.52%
0.90%
0.69% DC
4.47%
$7,611,013
0.82%
2.91%
2.24% DE
2.43%
$3,880,367
1.58%
1.22% FL
0.78%
$18,734,665
0.51%
0.39% GA
0.80%
$9,704,799
1.04%
0.52%
0.40% HI
0.10%
$335,895
0.04%
0.07%
0.05% IA
0.06%
$388,641
0.03% ID
1.77%
$5,306,623
0.57%
1.15%
0.89% IL
1.07%
$35,695,867
3.84%
0.70%
0.54% IN
1.51%
$19,957,187
2.15%
0.98%
0.76% KS
$8,065,649
0.87% KY
0.67%
$4,941,035
0.53%
0.44%
0.34%

34. Attachment A State Baseline Performance Data & ALP Targets
BYE Fraud Rate
(Percent of UI Benefits Paid)
BYE Fraud Amount Overpaid*
Percent of Total BYE Fraud Overpayments
35% Rate Reduction
CY 2012
50% Rate Reduction
CY 2013 LA
7.27%
$26,891,993
2.89%
4.73%
3.64% MA
1.26%
$26,928,388
2.90%
0.82%
0.63% MD
2.05%
$18,253,682
1.96%
1.33%
1.03% ME
0.72%
$1,486,522
0.16%
0.47%
0.36% MI
0.74%
$19,443,703
2.09%
0.48%
0.37% MN
1.18%
$13,414,613
1.44%
0.77%
0.59% MO
$16,879,423
1.82%
1.36%
1.05% MS
3.34%
$8,371,203
0.90%
2.17%
1.67% MT
0.50%
$660,194
0.07%
0.33%
0.25% NC
1.79%
$36,152,567
3.89%
1.16% ND
0.93%
$643,910
0.60% NE
$1,853,650
0.20% NH
1.15%
$2,126,951
0.23%
0.75%
0.58% NJ
$21,231,488
2.29% NM
3.09%
$8,337,030
2.01%
1.55% NV
4.77%
$38,680,880
4.16%
3.10%
2.39% NY
1.40%
$54,666,166
5.88%
0.91%
0.70% OH
1.99%
$37,463,596
4.03%
1.29%
1.00%

35. Attachment A State Baseline Performance Data & ALP Targets
BYE Fraud Rate
(Percent of UI Benefits Paid)
BYE Fraud Amount Overpaid*
Percent of Total BYE Fraud Overpayments
35% Rate Reduction
CY 2012
50% Rate Reduction
CY 2013 OK
1.05%
$3,996,826
0.43%
0.68%
0.53% OR
1.91%
$21,596,394
2.32%
1.24%
0.96% PA
2.06%
$78,866,327
8.49%
1.34%
1.03% PR
3.40%
$9,261,672
1.00%
2.21%
1.70% RI
2.09%
$6,794,132
0.73%
1.36% SC
2.41%
$16,003,760
1.72%
1.57%
1.21% SD
0.61%
$280,864
0.03%
0.40%
0.31% TN
1.89%
$13,292,396
1.43%
1.23%
0.95% TX
0.52%
$14,177,209
1.53%
0.34%
0.26% UT
0.88%
$3,228,108
0.35%
0.57%
0.44% VA
1.74%
$14,300,604
1.54%
1.13%
0.87% VT
$1,656,272
0.18% WA
$16,673,952
1.79%
0.62%
0.48% WI
1.51%
$20,589,945
2.22%
0.98%
0.76% WV
0.60%
$1,487,164
0.16%
0.39%
0.30% WY
2.19%
$2,261,733
0.24%
1.42%
1.10% US
1.58%
$929,058,930
100.0%
0.79%

36. Any Questions????