1. UI Excellence in Action: States Helping States Move Forward
Webinar Date: March 28, 2013
Presented by:
Office of Unemployment Insurance
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration

2. Enter your location in the Chat window – lower left of screen
Where are you?
Enter your location in the Chat window – lower left of screen #

3. Moderators Moderator: Gay Gilbert Title: Administrator
Organization: Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration
Moderator: Nan Thomas
Title: Deputy Commissioner
Organization: Employment Security Department, Washington State #

4. Here’s what you can expect in this webinar
An update on the UI Excellence in Action
initiative
An overview of the new resources and tools
on the UI CoP website and how to use them
A showcase of successful practices from
Maine and Utah
A chance to ask questions and share your
experience #

5. Agenda Welcome and introduction
UI Excellence in Action: Where are we now?
New resources and tools on the UI CoP
Successful practices in Maine and Utah
Closing remarks and Q&A #

6. Presenters Presenter: Jim Van Erden Title: Senior Policy Advisor
Organization: National Association of State Workforce Agencies
Presenter: Tom Crowley
Title: UI Tax Chief
Organization: Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration
Presenter: Dean Coffin
Title: UC Tax Section Manager
Organization: Maine Department of Labor #

7. Presenters Presenter: Richard “Skip” Tompkins
Title: Director, Benefit Services Division
Organization: Maine Department of Labor
Presenter: John Davenport
Title: Assistant Director, Division of Adjudication/Appeals
Organization: Utah Department of Workforce Services #

8. UI Excellence in Action: Where Are We Now?
An Overview of UI Excellence in Action: States Helping States Move Forward
Presented by Jim Van Erden, Senior Policy Analyst
National Association of State Workforce Agencies #

9. The Goal: States Helping States
To enhance UI program accountability and
performance through the benchmarking of quality
business processes and the identification of best
practices.
To share the identified processes and practices among
state systems in support of their adoption, enabling
improved program accountability and performance. #

10. Who Was Involved #

11. Project Overview sponsors Gay Gilbert and Nan Thomas.
The initial step was the establishment of a workgroup by co-
sponsors Gay Gilbert and Nan Thomas.
The workgroup’s mission was to collaboratively develop and
execute a methodology to enhance UI program accountability
and performance.
This was accomplished by the benchmarking of quality business
processes and the identification of best practices for the
administration and delivery of UI benefits.
The services of the American Productivity and Quality Center
(APQC), a global leader in benchmarking and best practices,
were utilized to guide the benchmarking and review process.
Focused on four functional areas of UI Benefits: Initial Claims,
Adjudication, Continued Claims, and Appeals. #

12. Identification of Successful Practices and Data Gathering
UI Excellence in Action used a multi-phase approach to identify and catalog successful practices:
Online application – participants nominated successful practices
in their state or in other states. 
Telephone interview – Nominated practices were validated
through a telephone interview.
Onsite observation – Onsite observations for some nominees
documented the successful practices.
Dissemination of successful practices – All successful
practices and case studies are now online on the UI Community
of Practice (CoP). #

13. State Selection Criteria
States were scored after their telephone interview using the following criteria:
Number of successful practices
State size
Performance level based on data submitted to USDOL
Efficiency (measuring the potential savings in labor or
cost of the examined practices)
Effectiveness (measuring the potential impact of the
examined practices on quality and customer
satisfaction)
Depth and breadth of the successful practices #

14. *States Selected for Site Visits
State Nominations
Texas*
Missouri*
Idaho
Minnesota*
North Dakota*
Florida
Washington*
West Virginia
Indiana
Colorado
Mississippi*
Georgia*
Maine
Utah
Rhode Island
New York
*States Selected for Site Visits #

15. Project Results Telephone interviews completed for all nominated
processes
Potential successful practices identified: 110
Site visits conducted in seven states, case studies
developed and reviewed by states
Interview team included state subject matter experts
Team identified 39 successful practices to highlight
Successful practices and case studies now available on
the UI CoP
Outreach program in place to inform UI system #

16. Assessment Tool
We have developed an Assessment Tool to help states identify potential practices that could be replicated. The Assessment Tool allows states to:
Score potential successful practices relative to the
agency’s current status
Evaluate practices with respect to implementation
attributes such as:
feasibility
effectiveness
level of complexity
risk
technology required #

17. New Tools and Resources on the UI CoP
Demonstrated by Tom Crowley, UI Tax Chief
Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration #

18. Successful Practices: Maine
The Maine Business Intelligence Solution:
The Use of Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition Software for Linking, Accessing and Managing Labor and UI Data
Presented By Dean Coffin, Tax Section Manager
and
Richard “Skip” Tompkins, Director of Benefit Services Division
Maine Department of Labor #

19. Where do you go to get data to:
Respond to public or internal inquiries?
Evaluate legislative or regulatory proposals - inform public
policy direction?
Assess and track employee or program performance – manage
operations?
‘Mine’ claimant database to attract new business, fill jobs,
determine training or service needs, etc.?
Analyze workforce trends and patterns?
Identify potential UI fraud or worker misclassification?
Determine how best to deploy your UI audit staff?
How quickly and easily can you get this data?
How might your job improve if you had access to this type of data at your fingertips? #

20. MDOL OBIEE Examples Dashboards Management Reports Ad Hoc Queries
BI Publisher #

21. A graph overview of initial claims#

22. The drill-down for the initial claim graph#

23. A graph to show the occupation of claimants filing initial claims#

24. A dashboard page that shows initial and continued claims#

25. The drill-down of initial claims showing each day of the week#

26. A dashboard page showing the numbers of claimants by occupation with a residence drill-down#

27. A workload report to review office performance#

28. We can drill down on an office to review staff performance#

29. A report to review timeliness and outcome of adjudicator decisions by law description#

30. A report to review timeliness and outcome of adjudicator decisions by office#

31. This report also drills down to individual performance#

32. This report shows the age of an appeal#

33. An appeals report showing outcomes#

34. The drill-down of an office showing appeal outcomes of adjudicators’ decisions#

35. An example of a recent ad-hoc query – recent frauds by occupation#

36. Successes Client-based implementation with very active client sponsors
12-week iterative phase approach – early tangible
deliverables and improvement in subsequent phases
Increased confidence in data accuracy
Increased skill capacity among program staff
Product implemented with an eye toward expansion –
within MDOL and across agencies
Performance information is available to program and
agency management ‘on-demand’ #

37. Successful Practices: Utah
Strategic Overbooking of Appeal Hearings:
Utah’s Appeal Scheduling Process
Presented by John Davenport, Assistant Director of Adjudication/Appeals
Utah Department of Workforce Services #

38. Prior scheduling process
Historically, 30% to 40% of appellants failed to show
for their scheduled appeal hearings.
When each hearing was scheduled, it was assigned to
a hearing officer on a one-to-one ratio.
If the appellant did not show up for the hearing, it
resulted in a hearing officer not having a hearing to
conduct, or a “wasted” time slot.
“Wasted” time slots added to the delay in conducting
appeal hearings in a timely manner. #

39. The innovation Schedule cases in anticipation that a percentage of
them will fail to participate and become a no show!
Results in more hearing slots even though the number
of hearing officers has NOT increased.
As an example - if the available one-to-one hearing
officer slots in a week results in 200 hearings, and
assuming 30% of those cases will become no shows,
260 hearings can be scheduled. #

40. Overbooking scheduling process
Hearings are scheduled at set times each day.
Hearing officers pick which set times they want to hold
hearings.
The number of hearing officers available at a set time
will determine how many cases scheduled. For
example, if 10 judges are available, 13 cases will be
scheduled.
A hearing officer is NOT assigned to the case until the
appellant confirms participation.
If the appellant does not confirm in advance, the
appeal is dismissed. #

41. What to do if you are overbooked
Since appellants have to confirm in advance, we know
at least 24 hours in advance if we are overbooked for a
certain time slot.
Utilize Chief Hearing Officer, Assistant Director, and
Director to cover overbooked cases.
Call confirmed hearings to see if they can reschedule
to a time when a judge is open. #

42. What is needed to implement process
Policy or rule requiring appealing parties to confirm
participation in advance.
Liberal reopening standard – Utah’s is excusable
neglect.
Establish historical no-show rates for appeal hearings.
Establish universal hearing times.
Use a master appeal hearing officer calendar. #

43. Results More cases processed without the need to hire more
hearing officers or use overtime.
Hearing officers’ time spent only reviewing cases they
will actually hear.
Even with substantial growth in caseload, Utah has
remained #1 in timelapse and case aging for the past
three years.
Percentage of no-shows has not increased – it has
remained around 30%. #

44. Conclusion
We hope you will find the information presented in today’s webinar helpful as you seek innovative ways to improve performance and outcomes in your state’s UI program. You are invited to visit the UI CoP and use the Assessment Tool to explore successful practices that could be replicated in your state. #

45. Reminder…
You can log in to the UI CoP at If you don’t have a UI CoP account, you can create one by using the same link and clicking on “Sign Up Here.” #

46. Please enter your questions in the Chat Room!#

47. Speakers’ Contact Information
Speaker: Jim Van Erden
Title: Senior Policy Analyst
Organization: National Association of State Workforce Agencies
Telephone: (202)
Speaker: Tom Crowley
Title: UI Tax Chief
Organization: Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration
Telephone: (202)
Speaker: Dean Coffin
Title: UC Tax Section Manager
Organization: Maine Department of Labor
Telephone: (207) #

48. Speakers’ Contact Information
Speaker: Richard “Skip” Tompkins
Title: Director, Benefit Services Division
Organization: Maine Department of Labor
Telephone: (207)
Speaker: John Davenport
Title: Assistant Director, Division of Adjudication and Appeals
Organization: Utah Department of Workforce Services
Telephone: (801) #

49. Find resources for workforce system success at:
Thank You!
Find resources for workforce system success at: #