ADVISORY:	UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER No.06-03
TO:	ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES

FROM:	CHERYL ATKINSON  /s/ Administrator       Office of Workforce Security

SUBJECT:

Review of UI PERFORMS

1. Purpose.To announce a review of UI PERFORMS--the system for enhancing unemployment insurance operational performance--and to solicit comments on the UI PERFORMS system and suggestions for issues to be included in the review.

2. Reference. UIPL 41-95, "Draft Narrative Describing the System for Enhancing Unemployment Insurance (UI) Performance: the 'UI Performs' System" (August 24, 1995); UIPL 15-96, "Proposal to Modify the Benefits Quality Control Program" (April 2, 1996); UIPL 37-99, "UI PERFORMS Tier I and Tier II Performance Measures, and Minimum Performance Criteria for Tier I Measures" (July 1, 1999); Employment and Training Handbook No. 336, 17th Edition, "Unemployment Insurance State Quality Service Plan Planning and Reporting Guidelines" (June 18, 2002).

3. Background. Over the period 1993 to 1997 two joint federal-state workgroups designed a comprehensive performance management system for UI, and gave it the name UI PERFORMS. The system has five key elements or building blocks: partnership principles; federal and state role definitions; key performance objectives and measures; a continuous improvement cycle; and front-end activities and strategies. Two kinds of measures emerged from this process: Tier I measures for which minimum national criteria were set, and Tier II measures for which criteria were not set. Planning and budget cycles at the state level are structured around State Quality Service Plans (SQSP) which include performance objectives referenced to Tier I and Tier II measures. Over the succeeding years, the Department of Labor (Department), in consultation with its state partners began implementing UI PERFORMS. Revised benefits and tax measures were implemented in 1996 and 1997 after completion of developmental projects. The Benefits Quality Control system was streamlined in 1996-97 and renamed Benefit Accuracy Measurement. The final set of Tier I and Tier II measures and Tier I criteria was promulgated in July 1999. Some states began using the SQSP voluntarily for FY 2000 before it became mandatory for FY 2001. The only major element for UI PERFORMS not in place is the regulation. The UI PERFORMS regulation will be addressed after the review is completed so that any regulation reflects the changes resulting from the review.

RESCISSIONS	EXPIRATION DATE
None	November 30, 2003

UIPL 41-95, which provides a preliminary description of UI PERFORMS, suggests that the logic of the process requires periodic review of the nature and impact of the system. A subsequent UIPL (UIPL 37-99) specifies that a review be conducted not later than five years from the date of issuance for Tier I measures. Most new measurements computed using Benefits Timeliness and Quality and Tax Performance System data have been available for over five years, and Tier I measures and most elements of the system have been in place for three years. Thus, it is now an appropriate time to begin an assessment of UI PERFORMS.

4. Plan for the Review.Both the performance standards and the measuring mechanisms in place to implement these standards will be included within the scope of this review. Its basic phases will be identification of issues; analysis; formulation of options or recommendations; and notice and comment on proposed recommendations. The entire review will be conducted in consultation with the states directly and through the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.

5. Identification of Issues. This advisory signals the beginning of the first phase of the review, the identification of issues. The Department is seeking to identify issues relevant to the UI PERFORMS system and its operations. Issues seem to fall into the following categories:

• Overarching concerns
  • Effectiveness: Has UI PERFORMS led to improved UI operational performance?
  • Coverage: Is the system logically complete and consistent?
• Major components of the review
  • The measures:
  • Do the performance measures capture the critical dimensions of UI performance and measure them in the right way?
  • Should some measures be eliminated, or are new measures needed?
  • Are the parameters (e.g., starting and ending points) of the timeliness measures set properly?
  • Do the quality review instruments need revision?
• The criteria:
  • Are the performance criteria set at the correct levels?
  • Should some measures that are now designated as Tier I with assigned criteria, be Tier II without assigned criteria or vice versa?
• Planning:
  • Are there issues regarding the planning/budgeting process, including the CAP/CIP mechanism?
  • Can communications and feedback mechanisms between partners be improved, and, if so, how?

7. Inquiries. Direct inquiries to your Regional Office.