UIPL 39-99 Attachment B
Summary of Comment Received on UIPL No. 6-99
At the recommendation of the Performance Enhancement Group as an additional administrative procedure UIS published the proposed changes to Handbook No. 336 in UIPL No. 6-99, "Proposed State Quality Service Plan (Draft)." UIS received comments from California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania. Texas, Virginia, Washington State, and West Virginia. Here is a summary of their comments and the UIS response:
1) Concern about the decision rule for requiring CAPs and Continuous Improvement Plans (CIPs).
Response - CAPs are mandatory if performance is unsatisfactory and an effective plan is not already in place for: 1) program reviews conducted during the year by the Federal partner, 2) required reports, 3) Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) requirements, 4) Tax Performance System (TPS) requirements, or for Tier I measures. Program Letters and Handbooks describe expectations for program reviews, reporting, BAM, and TPS. The criteria for Tier I measures are performance floors below which performance is never acceptable; the criteria are not DLAs.
SESAs and Regional Administrators must agree on the specific areas for which the SESA will submit CIPs in the SQSP. The negotiations encompass Tier II performance measures and Tier I performance above the established minimum criteria.
2) Suggestion that dispute resolution procedures be spelled out.
Response - The remedies available to the State to resolve disputes arising from the SQSP process are not different from those that have always governed the relationship between the Federal-State partners and can be found at 20 CFR Part 601.5.
3) Define "egregious."
Response - Egregious means conspicuously bad performance.
4) Spell out sanctions and formal Department actions.
Response - The sanctions and formal Department actions relating the SQSP process are not different from those that have always governed the relationship between the Federal-State partners and can be found at 20 CFR Part 601.5.
5) Suggestion that program emphasis be provided a year in advance.
Response - the five-year DOL and the ETA Strategic Plans, as well as the DOL and
ETA Annual Performance Plans form the basis for Program emphasis and are available now. See 6.a. below.
6) Suggestion that program emphasis be negotiable.
Response - The Department provides program emphasis to communicate to the States areas considered especially important. By its very nature the establishing of Federal program emphasis does not lend itself to negotiations. The State Plan Narrative section of the SQSP, however, provides a forum for the State to respond to the Federal program emphasis and to articulate its own emphasis.
7) concern about addressing BAM deficiencies.
Response - BAM deficiencies are described in the annual determination letter the Regional Administrator sends to the SESA Administrator each spring.
8) Question concerning the timing of the data to be used in the SQSP.
Response - An annual assessment will augment the ongoing continuous improvement process, and will form the basis for continuous improvement planning and corrective action planning for the SQSP. This annual assessment will utilize the most recent 12-month performance data available. Specifically, for data reported monthly or quarterly, the assessment will include the 12 months ending March 31 of each year. For data reported annually, the assessment will be based on data reported for the most recent complete calendar year (or other 12-month period, per reporting requirements).
9) Disbelief that the reporting burden for the SQSP is similar to PBP.
Response - as explained above, the increase in required narrative is expected to be offset by a reduction in the submission of plans responding to performance measured by Tier II measures, compared to the number of CAPs required in response to DLAs under the Quality Appraisal program.
10) Question concerning whether performance and planning will affect budget allocations, whether there will be awards for exceeding norms, or additional funding if needed.
Response - The Performance Enhancement Group (PEG) will consider the structure of an awards systems to augment UI PERFORMS. It is likely that the system will emphasize recognition awards, rather than monetary awards. On the matter of allocations or additional funding see section 6.d. and section 7 below.
11) Concur that continuous improvement is important part of budget and planning, but have concerns that the State Plan Narratives are attempting to get States to commit in greater detail to better performance when the Federal partner continues to hold back FUTA funds needed to meet increasing workload demands.
Response - UIS is sensitive to SESA concerns about adequate funding for administration of the program. Greater detail in performance planning could inform the ongoing dialogue and will not work to the detriment of the State.
12) Assert that State law and policy inhibit prompt determinations.
Response - The criteria established for determinations promptness take into consideration the time needed for fact finding to make a proper determination. States should continually review their law and policy to be sure it strikes the proper balance between speed of administration and protection of the claimants' and employers' rights.
13) Reviewed the draft and is prepared to institute the plan in FY 2000.
14) Should not require milestones for each quarter.
Response - Milestones must be established for each core element of the SESAs corrective action/improvement plan and be of sufficient number and frequency to facilitate State and Regional plan oversight and assessment during fiscal year. It is anticipated that one or more milestones for each quarter would permit States and Regions to track progress more easily during the fiscal year.
15) The annual assessment of program performance should use the same time period whether the data is reported on a monthly, quarterly, or yearly basis.
Response - Although performance may be viewed, and judged, at specific points in time (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc), each assessment reviews performance over time and focuses not only on average performance for the period in question, but also on the trend of performance over the period reviewed (e.g., whether performance was declining or improving, sustained or erratic).