[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