1 / 10

UI Integrity / Improper Payments Joint Federal/State Task Force

UI Integrity / Improper Payments Joint Federal/State Task Force. State Presentation: Washington Draft Plan. October 14, 2011. Areas of National Focus:. Benefit Year Earnings (BYE): 2008 – 2011 Root Causes : BYE - 12% of total overpayments Claimant Causes:

benito
Download Presentation

UI Integrity / Improper Payments Joint Federal/State Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UI Integrity / Improper PaymentsJoint Federal/State Task Force State Presentation: Washington Draft Plan October 14,2011

  2. Areas of National Focus: • Benefit Year Earnings (BYE): 2008 – 2011 Root Causes : BYE - 12% of total overpayments • Claimant Causes: • Unreported Earnings 68%, Incorrect Earnings 23% • Fraud • Confusion on reporting requirements • Estimating past wages without documentation • Agency and Employer • All other causes 9%

  3. Areas of National Focus: • Benefit Year Earnings (BYE): Planned action(s) to address: • Expand State Directory of New Hires to include date of new hire and rehire if separation of more than 60 days • Communications Outreach Principal milestones: • Pass required legislation by March 2012 • Complete required computer modification by June 2012 • Execute employer education strategy by June 2012 3

  4. Areas of National Focus: • Separations (SEPs): 2008 – 2011 Root Causes Identified: 8% of total overpayments Very complicated state law – all parties bear some responsibility, especially for voluntary quit issues • Claimant solely responsible 39% of the time • Agency and claimant share 23% responsibility • All three parties responsible in 12% of cases • Common factors include: • Complexity of adjudications • Duration of conditional payments as claims adjudicated • Untimely, incomplete responses to info requests 4

  5. Areas of National Focus: • Separations: • Planned action items: • User testing of exiting employer sep information • Employer education and outreach to help employers actively manage claims and prevent fraud • Possible reprioritization of conditional pays in work queues • Explore non-SIDES technology enhancements • Principal milestones: • Review work queue priorities before winter peak 2011 • Complete user testing and launch web campaign by March 2012 • Design timely response campaign by March 2012 • Launch campaign by June 2012 • Computer feasibility TBD • (resource challenges) 5

  6. Areas of National Focus: • Work Search Issues: 2008 - 2011 Root Causes Identified: 65% of total overpayments • Agency Causes • State law very stringent • High standard for documentation • No warning for “first failure” • Insufficient time for claimants to respond to in-person interview requirements • Claimant Causes • Inattention to requests for information • Confusion about requirements • Misunderstanding serious consequences of failing job search requirements 6

  7. Areas of National Focus: • Work Search Issues : • Planned Action: Comprehensive Review and Overhaul of Job Search Review Program • Policy, data, operations, claimant messaging and outreach, and technology requirements reviews • Formal recommendations presented to senior agency leadership • Implementation as major project with project management and dedicated staffing • Principal milestones: • Agency project lead already identified • High level planning underway • Incremental changes as possible with full implementation by December 2012 7

  8. State-Specific Issues • Data Integrity • Root causes • Data validation failures on ETA 227 • Lack of consistent IT support due to competing priorities • Instability of aging GUIDE system • Possible inconsistent scoring by BAM reviewers • High supervisory and staff turnover • Lack of formal training systems • Few incentives for BAM staff to remain long-term • Planned action(s) to address issue • Trouble-shoot data validation issues • Audit BAM methodology • Review BAM staffing model • Principle milestones • Compete all data integrity tasks by December 2011

  9. Everybody Owns Integrity • Strategies to Support Owning UI Integrity and Overall Integrity Communications: • No distinction among groups about the importance of integrity, only about which message to send • Pulling demographic information on overpayments by claimant, industry, occupation for targeting purposes • Awaiting DOL research results on what messages work among different target audiences • Trying to identify non-traditional ways to communicate: • (We know what doesn’t work, but not what does…) • Putting together a bare-bones budget that will actually move the needle

  10. Summary and Q&A “Integrity: Own It!” • Questions? • State Contact for follow-up: Jill Will: jwill@esd.wa.gov Phone: 360-902-9658

More Related