-

 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D. C. 20210

CLASSIFICATION

UI/BPC

CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL

TEUMC

ISSUE DATE

January 5, 1995

RESCISSIONS

None

EXPIRATION DATE

December 31, 1993

DIRECTIVE

:

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 28-92

 

TO

:

ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES

 

FROM

:

DONALD J. KULICK
Administrator
for Regional Management

 

SUBJECT

:

Implementation of Quality Control (QC) Program Improvement (PI) Recommendations into the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program

  1. Purpose. To provide limited resources for State employment security agencies (SESAs) to implement QC/PI recommendations within their mainstream UI program.

  2. References. UIPL 33-89 (May 18, 1989), and UIPL 34-91 (July 24, 1991).

  3. Background. During the past several years, many SESAs have implemented a wide range of PI recommendations. In most of these cases, the cost of the improvement was negligible and could be accommodated within existing funding. In other cases the cost of the implementation was considered an investment, in view of the SESAs' projected savings. Unfortunately, a number of other projects were not implemented due to limited administrative resources. It has become apparent that States need additional support to undertake some of the QC/PI recommendations. During Fiscal Year 1990 (FY '90) the National Office (NO) provided three selected SESAs with the resources necessary to implement QC recommendations. In FY '91 resources were provided to five States.

  4. Policy. The NO will continue in FY '92 to provide limited PI implementation funding for SESAs to implement QC/PI recommendations within their UI program. States are invited to submit proposals for additional funds for FY '92. The proposal eligibility is open to all States that have documented problems identified through QC findings that need to be corrected to improve operations, but do not have sufficient funding to implement these improvements. SESAs submitting requests for additional funding should describe: problems resulting from QC findings; what are changes, actions, etc. to be accomplished in the proposed project; the type of personnel that will be involved; and the additional resources in staff and material (i.e., programming and equipment) that will be required, including one-time start-up costs. The proposal must also contain the timeframes for the process including development, training and implementation. In addition, where outside contractor assistance is necessary, the proposal must include an estimate of the level of contractor effort. Proposals should plan an initial implementation by October 1, 1992. After one year of operation, SESAs must submit a report describing the implementation effort and the resulting outcomes. This report should be received in the NO by December 17, 1993. The SESA must also agree to periodic Regional Office/NO monitoring of progress Funds granted for PI implementation are for the express purpose presented in the agency's proposal as approved, including any clarifications or stipulations made by the Department. By accepting funding for this initiative, States are agreeing to the conditions and timeframes set forth in the proposal. Failure to implement funded proposals, or redirection of the total funds allocated for this purpose, may subject the funding to recapture or audit exception. SESAs which are unable to initiate projects and or obligate the funds for UI implementation should return those funds to the NO as soon as they become aware of the inability to implement the project, so that other approved projects may be funded. In the event unforeseen circumstances prevent the State from obligating these funds by December 31, 1992, a formal extension request must be submitted to the NO, Office of Quality Control. The extension request should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances, and should be for a limited time period only.

  5. PI Implementation Funding. The total dollar amount to be set aside for this project is not yet available. However, the NO will provide funding to those SESAs selected until the amount dedicated to the initiative is exhausted. The NO must obligate the funding by September 30, 1992.

  6. Procedures for Submitting and Reviewing Proposals.

    1. State Agency Procedures SESAs wishing to undertake QC/PI implementation projects should submit a comprehensive proposal based on the criteria above. Attachment A provides an outline for proposals. The proposal must be received in the appropriate RO no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this UIPL. The Regional Office (RO) should submit these proposals to the NO, Attn: TEUQI as soon as possible.

    2. NO Proposal Review Procedures Proposals received timely by the NO will be evaluated according to the procedure contained in Attachment B. The panel will review each proposal to determine if the proposal is consistent with the format contained in Attachment A.

  7. Action Required. SESA administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff.

  8. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to the appropriate RO.

  9. Attachments. 

    State Proposal Format

    Panel Proposal Review Procedures

 

 

 


 

 

 

STATE PROPOSAL OUTLINE

 

  1. Executive Summary

    1. Amount Requested

    2. Project Title: QC Program Improvement Implementation

    3. Proposal Abstract:

      1. What is to be accomplished and start-up and ending dates of the project

      2. Description of software/programming needs

  2. Amount Requested and Purpose

    1. List equipment and software to be purchased (include one-time costs of new or revised forms necessary for implementation).

    2. Provide an in-depth description on each phase of the implementation process.

  3. Supporting Materials

    States having informational material which, in their opinion, will enhance the content of the proposal have the option to attach such material to the proposal.

  4. Contractor Assistance

    Any proposal which includes project funds to be paid to an outside contractor must include:

    • A brief statement of work, a work schedule, and an estimate of level of contractor effort stated in terms of full-time equivalent positions and contractor costs.

    • The specific period of performance for which funding is requested. This information may be included in or attached to the request.

 

 

 


 

 

 

PANEL PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCEDURES

 

The NO review panel shall review all proposals and make formal recommendations to higher level UIS management.

  1. First Level of Review. The first level of review is to determine if the following items are addressed in the proposal. If these items are not addressed or included where appropriate, the proposal may be considered deficient and rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of the proposal submission process.

    1. The proposal must indicate the ability of the SESA to obligate the funds prior to December 31, 1992.

    2. Any proposal requesting funds for outside contractor assistance must be accompanied by supporting documentation as indicated in Attachment A.

  2. Second Level of Review The second level of review is the assignment of a point value to each proposal. Through an evaluation of the proposal's narrative, points are to be awarded based on planned performance. The criteria to evaluate and award points include:

    1. Technical Merit The depth of the State's technical approach to the PI implementation project, and the level of operational efficiency to be attained as a result of implementing these program improvements.

    2. Strategic Design Evidence of a well thought out analysis of SESA operations based on QC findings. These will include, but are not limited to:

      1. Basis for Proposal

        • Adequate documentation submitted to support proposed project

        • Aspects of project proposal that were identified through QC verification data

      2. Implementation efforts clearly identified

        • Ability to meet timeframes indicated

        • Resources explanation

        • How implementation will provide better service to claimants or employers, or will result in future savings for the SESA