Report of Responses to the UI Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Tool

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations
Self-Assessment Tool:

Intake-Initial Claims
This self-assessment review of the state’s Intake-Initial Claims functional area will examine the
initial claims processes for intrastate and interstate claims as well as the monetary determination
process. Initial claims include new, transitional, and additional and reopened claims. The selfassessment will also review program operations. The reviewer will consult with appropriate staff
regarding each operational element, as necessary, to ensure accurate and complete information is
reported. This will include Unemployment Insurance (UI) administrators, IT managers, fiscal
officers, office/call center managers, claims supervisors, and coordinators or reviewers.
The reviewer will provide information regarding the state’s performance for each calendar quarter
of the review period for first payment promptness. Use this link for more information regarding
UI PERFORMS ALPs/Performance Criteria: Acceptable Level of Performance. Claims workload
data will also be provided.
Upon completion of this self-assessment review, the results should be shared with UI
administrators, appropriate program manager(s), and supervisors. The self-assessment findings
can provide a good analysis of the state’s initial claims operations and can be used to drive
process and program-improvement initiatives.
A comments section is provided for each operational element, which the reviewer should use to
document any observations regarding issues identified related to that specific operational element.
This space may also be used to provide any additional information relating to a specific question
in this section. In doing so, the reviewer should reference the specific question by number and
insert the additional information related to that question.
In addition, a concluding comments section is provided at the end of the self-assessment
instrument to capture any strengths identified by the reviewer in this functional area which could
constitute a successful practice(s) to be shared with other states; any issues identified by the
reviewer in the functional area that adversely impacts the state’s performance and to identify any
possible corrective actions to address the issue; and general comments about this functional area.
The reviewer can provide information here that Federal reviewers and state UI administrators and
managers can use to assess program operations and the state’s effectiveness in providing quality
services in this functional area.
Save your entries regularly as you complete the review and when you close the self-assessment
to ensure your answers are saved.

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

1

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

SECTION 1:

Procedures, Policies, and Confidentiality

The purpose of this section is to review the policies and procedures provided by the agency for
staff to use in operating this functional area of the UI program. These are the written (in hardcopy, electronically, or both formats) standards, instructions, and guidelines that staff regularly
use in the operation of the program. The reviewer may utilize resources that include manuals,
handbooks, desk aids, computer help screens, training guides, organized collections of procedures
or policies, or other readily accessible instructions which can help staff do their work correctly,
including ET Handbook No. 392 for guidance regarding initial claims procedures. Instructions
will normally include general information such as compilations of relevant laws and regulations,
as well as detailed instructions for carrying out individual jobs in the agency. The reviewer may
need to examine all relevant instructions and consult with UI administrators, office/call center
managers, claims supervisors, and coordinators.
The reviewer will document whether the state has policies and procedures sufficient to provide
guidance and instruction to staff involved with the initial claims process. Existing policies and
procedures should be examined to determine whether they are up-to-date and address all law
changes, organizational changes, and technology changes that occurred during the review period.

Helpful Info.
Question 7: If backdating is allowed, backdating procedures should be consistent
throughout and when Nonmonetary Determinations are issued, all determination processes
should be met and be available for random selection for BTQ reviews.
Question 11: The reviewer should review Section 303(e)(2)(A)(iii)(III) of the Social
Security Act and the state’s policies and procedures on intercepting child support payments
before completing this section.
Question 14: The reviewer should indicate all methods the state uses to verify claimants’
identity when filing a claim, and for each method indicate whether the process is
conducted real-time or through a batch process.
Question 18: The reviewer should review requirements of 29 CFR Part 31 and 29 CFR
Part 32 concerning providing services to claimant to determine whether the state conforms
to the requirements set forth.
Question 21: The reviewer will document all methods the state uses to resolve possible
incorrectly reported wages discovered through the review of SID, IBIQ and ICON queries.
(If space is not adequate to fully respond to this question, the reviewer may use space in
the Comments area at the end of this section.)

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

2

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

Helpful Info. (continued)
Question 22: The HAND application should be kept up-to-date at all times so that other
states have current information. The reviewer should consult with UI administrators and
the interstate coordinator to determine which agency unit/position is responsible for
maintaining and making updates to the state’s section of the HAND application.
Question 23: The reviewer should review requirements of 20 CFR 603.5 concerning
confidentiality for UI claims records to determine whether the state conforms to the
requirements set forth.
Question 24: The reviewer should review requirements of 20 CFR 603.11 concerning
informing claimants that confidential information may be requested and provided to other
governmental agencies to determine whether the state conforms to the requirements set
forth.
Question 26: The reviewer should review methods of filing claims for the various types
listed in Question 26. If the claims filing methods are different from the methods used in
regular UI claims, then the reviewer should explain the differences. For example if UCFE
and DUA claims are filed only in person or by mail/fax but regular UI claims has
additional methods of phone and internet for filling of claims.

SECTION 2:

Training

Managers/employees should possess and maintain a level of expertise which enables them to
accomplish their assigned duties. Training systems should be sufficient to ensure that personnel
understand and perform their duties properly. When reviewing training systems, the reviewer
should consult with the state’s training unit/staff and the office/call center managers and examine
formal training procedures (e.g., the training is conducted using an established schedule and using
set guidelines to make judgments about the quality of work being produced). The state should
have procedures for identifying general and specific training needs, for developing a training
curriculum and training materials, and for delivering training as needs are identified.

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

3

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

Helpful Info.
Question 5: The reviewer should document any technology or operational changes that
have been implemented during the review period that affect initial claim intake processes.
(If space is not adequate to fully respond to this question, the reviewer may use space in
the Comments area at the end of this section.)
Question 6: The reviewer should document all law changes, program implementations or
policy and procedural changes that have been implemented during the review period that
affect initial claim intake processes.

SECTION 3:

Workload Analysis/Management Controls

The reviewer will examine the state’s ability to manage initial claims workloads, particularly
through periods of unforeseen spikes in workload and will also review the methods used by the
state to address such workload increases when they occur, to ensure the state’s ability to provide
timely initial claims intake. The reviewer will document process-improvement initiatives aimed
at minimizing initial claims backlogs. The reviewer will interview office/call center managers,
initial claims supervisors, performance management staff, and coordinators to thoroughly
document the state’s practices for managing its initial claims workloads.
Helpful Info.
Question 4: If the state has a systematic plan to manage initial claims workload increases,
document the methods used and explain in the Training section how training is delivered to
supplemental staff, if used.
Question 7a: Describe all business process analysis initiatives the state conducted during
the review period regarding its initial claims processes and what operational changes that
have been implemented as a result of those initiatives. (If space is not adequate to fully
respond to this question, the reviewer may use space in the Comments area at the end of
this section.)

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

4

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

SECTION 4:

Performance Management

The reviewer will examine the state’s practices for monitoring program performance and
compliance with Federal and state law and regulations. Review the state’s practices for the
preparation and monitoring of corrective action plans to ensure timely and accurate submittal and
methods for continued monitoring of program performance in relation to designated milestones.
If the state has a performance management unit, the reviewer should consult with performance
management staff in addition to UI administrators, office/call center managers, and initial claims
supervisors when completing this section.

Helpful Info.
Question 1a: The reviewer should consult with UI managers for information regarding
any Corrective Action Plan(s) or Narrative that the state’s State Quality Service Plan
(SQSP) contained during the review period for its initial claims performance.
Question 2a: If the state did not meet designated milestones on its CAP(s) during any
quarter(s) during the review period, the reviewer will need to identify the milestones that
were not met and provide information about why the milestones were not met from the UI
managers, office/call center managers, initial claims supervisor(s), and performance
management staff.
Question 3a: If the state has submitted multi-year CAP(s) the reviewer will document
progress made in meeting designated milestones based upon information obtained from UI
managers, office/call center managers, and initial claims supervisor(s).
Question 4a: The reviewer will document the methods the state uses to monitor its initial
claims operations. If the state’s processes for monitoring its initial claims performance are
considered to be particularly effective and/or efficient, explain fully in the Comments area
at the end of this section.

SECTION 5:

Information Technology (IT)

When completing this section of the self-assessment the reviewer should consult with UI and IT
administrators and office/call center managers. IT projects relating to UI initial claims processes
that were completed during the review period and those planned but not accomplished will be
detailed. The reviewer will assess the state IT department’s delivery of programming and
technical support to the initial claims functional areas.

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

5

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

Helpful Info.
Question 1a: The reviewer should describe any major IT projects that were conducted
during the review period and provide information regarding the project status and, if
completed, the success of the project.
Question 2a: If the state had IT needs related to its initial claims program that were not
met, the reviewer should document the needs that were not met and the impact it had on
initial claims processing efficiency and operations, if any.
Question 6a: If the state experienced any issues/problems related with telecommunicating
IB initial claims information and/or from following Interstate Connection (ICON)
application, then the reviewer should document if issues were corrected and how long
issues continued.
Question 12: The reviewer should determine if the claimstakers give an approximate
weekly benefit amount (predetermination or pseudo-monetary determination) to the
claimant prior to filing an initial claim and receiving the official monetary determination in
the mail. This may be needed when giving the claimant filing options.

SECTION 6:

Claimant/Employer Access & Communication

The reviewer will examine the state’s methods for filing initial claims. Methods used must
comply with requirements set forth in Federal law. The reviewer will consult with UI
administrators, office/call center managers, and initial claims supervisors when completing this
section of the self-assessment. The state’s methods for the filing of initial claims will be reviewed
to ensure they meet Federal regulations regarding accessibility.
Helpful Info.
Question 1a: The reviewer will provide the percentage of initial claims filed by each filing
method used by the state. It may be necessary to consult with the UI manager, office/call
center managers or IT manager to get this information.
Question 3: For each method the state uses for filing a claim (Internet, telephone, and inperson), the reviewer should indicate the help resources/type of assistance that are
available to claimants for each filing method.

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

6

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

Helpful Info. (continued)
Question 4: For each method the state uses for filing a claim (Internet, telephone, and inperson), the reviewer should indicate the means that are available to claimants to submit
documentation (such as doctor’s statement, pension documents) for each filing method.
Question 6: For each method the state uses for filing initial claims (Internet, telephone, inperson, and mail) the reviewer will indicate the methods used by the state to deliver
Benefits Rights Information to claimants.
Question 8: The reviewer will provide the security procedures in place for address
changes on initial claims filing (this could be a new claim with an address already on file,
transitional, additional or reopen claim).

SECTION 7:

Operational Efficiency/Resource Allocation

Through interviews with UI administrators and office/call center managers and other appropriate
staff, the reviewer will determine whether the state has allocated sufficient resources to training,
facilities, staff, etc. to support program operations. The reviewer will identify efficiencies and
automation the state has used to improve performance and provide better service to the public.
Helpful Info.
Question 4a: The reviewer will list all initial claim types that the state processes without
human intervention. If the state’s processes for handling these claims are considered to be
particularly effective and/or efficient, explain fully in the Comments area at the end of this
section.
Question 7: The reviewer will document the methods the state uses to manage documents
submitted related to initial claims. If the state’s documents management systems or
processes are considered to be especially effective and/or efficient, explain fully in the
Comments area at the end of this section.
Question 9b: The reviewer will document any initiatives the state has implemented to
improve efficiency for handling inquiry calls and the results of these efforts. If the state’s
processes are considered to be especially effective and/or efficient, explain fully in the
Comments area at the end of this section.
Question 11a: If the state uses both surveys and focus groups, the reviewer should
indicate both choices when responding.

Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

7

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefit Operations Self-Assessment Tool: Intake-Initial Claims

SECTION 8:

Staffing

The reviewer will examine organizational changes that occurred during the review period, if any,
and their effect on the state’s ability to manage its initial claims workload and to meet timeliness
processing of claims. The reviewer should consult with UI administrators, office/call center
managers and the state agency’s human resource manager when completing this section of the
self-assessment.
Helpful Info.
Question 1: Staffing allocations are examined to determine whether an adequate number
of FTEs are allocated for intake of initial claims.
Question 4: The reviewer will report the number of FTEs budgeted for intake of initial
claims, that is, the positions budgeted by the state after Federal “base” allocations.
Question 5: The number of FTEs dedicated to intake of initial claims impact the state’s
ability to meet Federal requirements for first payment promptness. Dedicated FTEs means
the number of FTEs that were charged to the function.

SECTION 9:

Concluding Summary Comments

The reviewer will use the Concluding Summary Comments section to highlight the state’s
strengths and weaknesses that impact the Intake-Initial Claims functional areas and to identify
issues that have not been addressed in any other section of the self-assessment. These comments
are intended to provide Federal reviewers and the state’s UI administrators with additional insight
into these program areas, focusing on methods that have proven to be successful and can be
capitalized upon or areas where corrective measures may be needed.
The first comment area provides the reviewer an opportunity to share any examples of good
and/or exemplary operations in this functional area after reviewing each operational element. The
reviewer can use this space to identify any policy, procedure or operation that would constitute a
successful practice that can be shared with other states.
The second comment area provides the reviewer an opportunity to document issues detected
during the review that are having an adverse impact on the functional area, affecting the state’s
performance, ability to meet performance standards or customer service. It is also a place to
recommend corrective actions for the agency’s leadership to consider implementing.
The final comment area in this section provides the reviewer space to share any additional
comments, concerns or observations regarding the state’s operations in this functional area.
Instructions — June 2016, Version 2.0

8