[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4587]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 1, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Employment and Training Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Job Training Partnership Act; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Job Training Partnership Act; Proposed Revisions to the
Performance Management System, and Proposed Performance Standards for
Program Years (PY's) 1994 and 1995
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed revisions to the performance management
system, and proposed revisions to the secretary's performance
standards; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the statutory requirements in the Job Training
Partnership Act, as amended in 1992, the Department of Labor is
proposing changes to State incentive and sanction provisions for
programs operated under Title II of the Job Training Partnership Act.
Also being introduced are two new performance standards for job
training programs serving older workers funded under Section 204.
DATES: These changes to the performance management system will be
effective for programs in PY's 1994 and 1995 (July 1, 1994-June 30,
1996).
COMMENTS: Written comments are invited from the public. Comments must
be submitted on or before March 31, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be addressed to the Assistant
Secretary for Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor, room
N5631, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Attention:
Steven Aaronson, Chief, Adult and Youth Standards Unit.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: Information collection related to this
regulation has been approved previously by the Office of Management and
Budget, No. 1205-0321. No further information collections or other
paperwork requirements of the public are needed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Aaronson, Chief, Adult and
Youth Standards Unit. Telephone: 202 219-5487, extension 107 (this is
not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992 (Amendments) introduced
significant changes in the way job training programs are designed and
operated at the local levels. These statutory changes, combined with
recent legislative and administrative initiatives to promote high-
quality, results-driven, customer-oriented services throughout the
Federal Government, are reshaping national and State policy and
practices.
Under Section 106 of the amended Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA), the Secretary of Labor is required to set standards for
programs serving: (1) Adults and youth under Title II-A and Title II-C;
(2) dislocated workers under Title III; and (3) older workers under
section 204(d). The Secretary may modify these performance standards no
more than every two years, and such modifications cannot be
retroactive.
National job training objectives have remained unchanged since 1990
and focus on enhancing the long-term employability and economic self-
sufficiency of those most at risk of becoming or remaining unemployed.
Current adult measures reflect this emphasis on employment retention
and earnings; for youth, employment and skill enhancements are
stressed. For this reason, the Secretary's performance measures will be
retained for PY's 1994 and 1995.
Numerical levels for these core standards, however, have been
updated to reflect the most recent JTPA program experience.
Programs serving older workers were not previously subject to
performance standards. Under section 204(d) of JTPA, as recently
amended, these programs are now subject to performance standards that
are to be focused on increasing employment and earnings including
hourly wages, similar to those programs serving other disadvantaged
adults. In developing requirements for these performance standards, the
special needs and circumstances of this population group were
considered. Because field evidence suggests that older workers are much
more likely to remain employed once they are placed in jobs, employment
at program completion is a fundamental priority. The employment and
wage measures together underscore the employment focus of the program,
particularly in jobs that are higher paying.
To comply with the new legislative provisions, the Department
considered adding specific outcome measures for hard-to-serve
participants, and separate outcomes for in-school and out-of-school
youth. However, in the interest of avoiding a proliferation of
performance measures and limiting local flexibility in programming,
additional measures for these three separate groups were not proposed.
States will need to consider, however, the quality of service to
out-of-school youth and placements in jobs with employer-assisted
benefits when judging service delivery area (SDA) performance and
awarding incentive funds. The Department requests comments on whether
these proposals adequately address statutory requirements for promoting
service to the hard-to-serve population and improving service to out-
of-school youth through its existing performance standards and revised
incentive award criteria.
Since the Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of its
Title III programs, changes in outcome measures will be deferred until
this critical assessment is completed. Governors will continue to be
required to set an entered employment rate standard for their Title III
programs and encouraged to establish an average wage at placement goal.
At the same time, the Department will be exploring ways to maximize
post-program wages, to better measure skills acquisition and customer
satisfaction, and to improve the quality of services provided to
dislocated workers.
Financial information will continue to be collected for program
management purposes; however, the policy of excluding cost measures
from incentive awards will remain unchanged.
Statutory Basis of Performance Standards
Section 106 of JTPA directs the Secretary of Labor to establish
performance standards for major job training programs funded under
separate JTPA statutory provisions: Title II-A (adult programs), Title
II-C (youth programs), and Title III (dislocated worker programs).
Section 204(d)(6)(A) of JTPA, as recently amended, for the first time
subjects older worker programs to performance standards. Performance
standards serve the purpose of assuring Congress that the basic
statutory objectives (increased earnings and employment, skills
acquisition, and reduced welfare dependency) are being met (29 U.S.C.
1516). On the basis of the Secretary's performance standards, Governors
must set performance standards for each of their SDA's and substate
areas (SSA's).
The proposed issuance appended to this notice contains revised
performance standards levels and implementation instructions to conform
the Title II performance management system with the Job Training Reform
Amendments of 1992.
Rationale for Retaining Adult Measures
Data on post-program employment and earnings provide the most
direct measure of long-term employability. Currently, measures for
programs serving adults and adult welfare recipients capture a
participant's employment status and earnings three months after program
completion.
The Amendments, however, envision longer periods of employment
retention--beyond six months--to measure a job training program's
success in preparing its adult participants for long-term employment.
Looking toward the feasibility of developing such measures, the
Department has awarded grants to 16 States to compare alternative
approaches, measures using Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records
versus follow-up survey data, as a basis for assessing and rewarding
local program performance. Information on the operational problems of
using alternative measures, such as timing for incentive awards and
addressing uncovered or out-of-State employment, will be an important
part of the pilot project report due in Fall 1994. The Department, in
conjunction with State and local staff, will use the results of these
State case studies and other information to introduce, where feasible,
alternative post-program measures in FY 1995.
Rationale for Retaining Youth Measures
Youth measures have undergone the most refinements since JTPA's
inception and now more fully reflect the dual goals of programs serving
youth who are enrolled in school, as well as those who are out of
school and seeking employment. Additionally, all the required program
outcomes in the newly revised youth provisions at Section 106(b)(4),
including employment, attainment of employment competencies, dropout
prevention and recovery, secondary and post-secondary school
completion, and enrollment in advanced training, are encompassed in the
current two measures. To address a longstanding concern that employment
may not be an appropriate outcome for all youth, the Department will
continue its practice of excluding in-school youth--those enrolled in
dropout prevention or dropout recovery programs--from the base used to
compute the Youth Entered Employment Rate.
Although separate performance measures for in-school and out-of-
school youth are not specifically called for in Section 106(b)(4)(B),
the Department has carefully examined the implications of a dual
performance management system for youth programs. Separate performance
measures are not preferred for a number of reasons. One objection to
separate performance measures is that they lead to a proliferation of
measures, creating confusion at the local level among conflicting
policy priorities. In addition, separate measures for in-school and
out-of-school youth limit flexibility in program design by penalizing
SDA's that do not choose to balance enrollments between in-school and
out-of-school youth. In programs serving only small numbers of in-
school youth, each terminee would represent a large percentage of in-
school terminations. Individual outcomes would therefore have a
relatively larger impact on overall performance.
Rationale for New Older Worker (Section 204(d)) Performance Measures
Section 204(d)(6)(A) of JTPA imposes performance standards on State
programs serving older workers. Quality employment is a primary goal of
these programs and the Department believes that, in the absence of
postprogram data, measures surrounding job placements at termination
are appropriate at this time. As postprogram information becomes
available on the section 204(d) program, the Department will reconsider
the possibility of follow-up employment and earnings measures. However,
for PYs 1994 and 1995, the Department is proposing to assess programs
operated under section 204(d) using an Entered Employment Rate and an
Average Wage at Placement measure.
Note: Programs operated under section 204(d) are State programs,
even though they may be operated by various local entities.
Therefore, the two performance measures will be applied to all older
worker programs statewide.
Rationale for Not Establishing Separate Hard-to-Serve Performance
Measures
Section 106(b)(7) of JTPA states that Governors shall award
incentive grants to SDA's that, in addition to meeting other criteria,
``exceed the performance standards established by the Secretary * * *
with respect to services to populations of hard-to-serve individuals *
* *''. This provision could be interpreted as requiring the addition of
separate hard-to-serve performance measures to the current JTPA
performance standards system.
However, additional performance measures for the hard-to-serve
population, per se, do not appear to be the best approach for
implementing this requirement. The four current adult measures provide
critical evaluative data which would preclude their exclusion from the
performance standards system. Therefore, additional hard-to-serve
performance measures merely would add to the complexity of the system
and lead to an unwanted proliferation of measures. In fact, past
experience with 12 performance measures provided solid evidence of the
pitfalls of introducing such complexity.
Moreover, with the addition of hard-to-serve measures, the core set
of performance standards is redundant and, thus, not a useful
management tool. It is estimated that over 60 percent of adults and
youth currently served in JTPA qualify for one or more hard-to-serve
categories. Therefore, it can be argued that the current measures
adequately reflect the program goals of increased employment and self-
sufficiency among those most in need of JTPA's services, because these
individuals constitute a majority of the program's participants. In
fact, welfare recipients are already double counted in the current
measures; adding outcomes for hard-to-serve groups will result in
welfare recipients being counted three times (as adults, as welfare
adults, and as hard-to-serve adults).
The Department considered several strategies for avoiding the
proliferation of measures while, at the same time, maintaining
Congressional intent. The most expedient way to approach the statutory
requirement was from a State incentive policy perspective. Therefore,
in order for an SDA to be considered eligible to receive any incentive
award, the Department is proposing that 65 percent of their terminees
(i.e., both 65 percent of Title II-A terminees and 65 percent of Title
II-C terminees) receiving services beyond objective assessment (i.e.,
training and/or job search assistance) must be from the legislatively
defined hard-to-serve categories.
This requirement serves as a ``gate'' in determining an SDA's
eligibility for incentive awards, thus ensuring the Congressional
objective that program be rewarded on the basis of both high levels of
service to the hard-to-serve and good performance. In the absence of
such a gate, both State and local administrators expressed concerns
that local programs could exceed their performance standards and thus
be rewarded, even if service levels to the hard-to-serve fall below the
legislatively required floor of 65 percent.
Excluding individuals participating in the program, but receiving
only objective assessment, from the determination of eligibility for
incentive awards is consistent with existing Department policy of
excluding such individuals from the performance standards universe.
Rationale for Including Improved Service to Out-of-School Youth and
Employer-Assisted Benefits Incentive Award Criteria
Section 106(b)(7) of JTPA includes, among other required criteria
for awarding incentive grants to SDA's, improved service to out-of-
school youth and job placements that provide employer-assisted
benefits. Governors will be required to reward model out-of-school
youth programs either identified by the Department of Labor or
recognized by the State or SDA as having a demonstrated record of
success. Considerable flexibility will be given to Governors in
establishing a method for doing so.
The Act is not at all directive with regard to rewarding employment
in jobs offering fringe benefits. In the absence of any data on what
constitutes a reasonable national estimate of job placements with
employer-assisted benefits in JTPA, the Department has given States
considerable flexibility in establishing incentive policies that
promote such placements. Once relevant data become available from
JTPA's management information system, the Department will be able to
offer more guidance to States.
Because numerous types of employer-assisted benefits are available
which are more or less typically provided, the Department needs to
ensure some degree of uniformity. It is proposed that the States use a
standardized definition. The definition used in JTPA's newly instituted
Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR) provides this
comparability. This definition requires that the job offer employer-
assisted health benefits; but the individual does not have to actually
receive such benefits. Again, in the absence of firm data with which to
establish a credible benchmark, the Department is offering States
maximum flexibility in measuring the provision of employer-assisted
benefits and determining an appropriate incentive policy emphasis.
Rationale for New Numerical Levels
The Secretary's national numerical standards for PY's 1994-1995 are
set on the basis of the most recent JTPA performance data available (PY
1992). The numerical values of the standards are generally set so that
if SDA's/SSA's continue to perform in the same manner as they did in
the most recent program year, 75 percent of the system should exceed
their standards. This means that the proposed numerical standards for
five of the six core measures and the Title III Entered Employment Rate
measure are set at the 25th percentile of PY 1992 performance. Revising
the numerical standard for the youth entered employment rate (YEER) in
the same way would lead to reduced standards for SDAs. However, 30
month results from the recent National JTPA Study suggest that outcomes
experienced by out-of-school youth in JTPA fall short of acceptable
levels. Therefore, to encourage improved services to out-of-school
youth, the numerical standard for the YEER will remain at its current
level of 41 percent. The Secretary's standards for the new older worker
measures are derived from a combination of data obtained from Job
Training Quarterly Survey data and the JTPA Annual Status Report.
Rationale for New Sanction Policy Provisions
The amended JTPA states in Section 106(j)(1) that the Department is
to establish uniform criteria for determining whether an SDA fails to
meet performance standards and the circumstances under which remedial
action shall be taken. This provision shifts responsibility for
defining ``failure'' to meet standards from the States to the
Department.
In determining the new sanction policy provisions, the Department
sought uniformity and, thus, comparability across the JTPA system. This
is clearly in line with Congressional intent. Furthermore, the
Department believes that, to minimize confusion, the meaning of
``failure'' in one year should be consistent with the meaning of
``failure'' for a second year, since failure for two consecutive years
triggers reorganization. States and local areas should clearly
understand the meaning of failure, and it should be consistent from one
program year to the next. Use of the Secretary's standards for the
purpose of imposing sanctions on SDA's is consistent with past
practices.
Another issue related to imposing sanctions on SDA's concerns the
definition of ``failure'', specifically, defining an appropriate
``level of failure''. Consistent with the intent of the amended
legislation, the Department has specified the number of ``standards not
met'' as constituting failure. It was noted that the lack of
specificity in the past led to confusion and inconsistency across the
JTPA system. In addition, to make the definition more explicit and to
properly consider the goals of the youth program, the Department added
a stipulation that an SDA which does not meet at least one of the two
youth standards will be considered as failing.
``Meeting Performance Standards'' is defined as meeting at least
four of the six core standards, one of which must be a youth standard.
Conversely, ``Failure'' is defined as: Failing to meet three (3) or
more of the core standards or failing to meet both youth standards. For
the first year, failure will require a State to provide technical
assistance to an SDA and will preclude that SDA from receiving any
incentive award. (This is explicitly stated, since an SDA which passes
through the eligibility gate could conceivably qualify for an incentive
award based on meeting other criteria.) For the second year, failure
will trigger the reorganization of the SDA and preclude receipt of any
incentives in that year.
Public Comment and Participation
The Department is committed to a participatory process in the
development of performance standards through periodic meetings with
State, SDA, and Private Industry Council (PIC) representatives to
address performance standards issues. Such a meeting was held in July
1993 to provide the Department with field input critical to the
development of these standards. This request for comment, which
incorporates that input, is another important part of the participatory
process.
The Secretary especially requests comments on the following issues:
General
Does the system proposed in this notice adequately deal with
legislated requirements for promoting service to the hard-to-serve
through performance standards and related incentive award criteria?
Retaining Current Adult and Youth Measures as the Secretary's Core
Measures
Given currently available data, do the six adult and youth measures
proposed as the Secretary's core measures adequately and appropriately
reflect the program's overall goals of increased employment and
earnings, reduced welfare dependency, long-term economic self-
sufficiency, and increased educational attainment and occupational
skills?
Hard-to-Serve ``Gate'' for Incentive Award Eligibility
The Department proproses to require for eligibility to receive
incentive awards that SDA's ensure that 65 percent of their terminees
receiving training or other services beyond objective assessment
represent one of the statutorily defined hard-to-serve categories. Does
establishing this requirement fully address the need to emphasize this
population in the performance standards system? Would additional
outcome measures for hard-to-serve create confusion or undue complexity
at the local level? In assessing compliance with the eligibility gate
for incentive awards, should the 65 percent targeting provision be
applied to those enrolled in JTPA or those completing the program?
Also, should the eligibility gate be comprised of total individuals
served (i.e., adults and youth combined), or should appropriate
separate adult and youth gates be identified?
Failure To Meet Performance Standards
Is the definition of failure to meet standards reasonable, fair,
and consistent with the intent of the amended JTPA?
Older Worker (Sec. 204(d)) Performance Measures
Is it appropriate to limit performance assessment to outcomes at
termination, or does the reintroduction of termination-based measures
create a perverse effect? Once postprogram data on 204(d) programs
become available from the SPIR beginning in PY 1994, should any
postprogram measures be considered? Do the standards adequately address
the needs of individuals who participate in older worker programs?
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of February 1994.
Doug Ross,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Appendix--Revisions to the Performance Management System, and
Performance Standards for Program Years (PY's) 1994 and 1995
Training and Employment Guidance Letter ________
Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. ________
From: Barbara Ann Farmer, Administrator for Regional Management
Subject: Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title II and Title III
Performance Standards for PY's 1994-1995
1. Purpose. To transmit guidance on the Secretary's required
performance measures and the Secretary's implementing instructions
for performance standards provisions for Program Years (PY's) 1994
and 1995 (July 1, 1994-June 30, 1995; July 1, 1995-June 30, 1996).
2. Background. Sec. 106 of JTPA, as amended, directs the
Secretary to establish performance standards for adult, youth, and
dislocated worker programs. These standards are updated every two
years based on the most JTPA program experience and on program
emphases and goals established by the Department of Labor. The
Secretary also issues instructions for implementing standards and
parameter criteria for States to follow in adjusting the Secretary's
standards for service delivery areas (SDA's) and substate areas
(SSA's).
The Job Training Reform Amendments (JTRA) of 1992 mandated
significant changes in the design and operation of local job
training programs, as well as the criteria used to assess their
performance. The revised Section 106 requires that performance
standards reflect job placements that are a minimum of 20 hours per
week, and that programs be rewarded based not only on high
performance, but also on increased service to the ``hard-to-serve,''
and on quality job placements that are both high paying and offer
employer-assisted benefits. Incentive and sanction policies are to
be structured around more explicit criteria and guidelines, and
criteria for failure to achieve program objectives are to be
clarified and made more uniform. Section 204(d) mandates performance
measures for the older worker program.
To assist the Department in responding to the substantive
changes required in the Section 106 amendments, a Technical
Workgroup was convened in Washington, DC, in mid-July, 1993. The
workgroup had representatives from State and local JTPA programs;
public interest groups including the Partnership for Training and
Employment Careers, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
Association of Counties, the National Governors' Association, and
the National Council on the Aging; and staff from the Department of
Labor (DOL) Office of the Inspector General. This Guidance Letter
incorporates, to a large extent, the workgroup's findings.
3. Performance Management Goals for PY's 1994-1995. PY 1994 will
begin the sixth two-year cycle of the performance management system
under JTPA. Departmental goals, initially established for PY 1990 in
anticipation of the amendments, remain unchanged:
Targeting services to a more at-risk population;
Improving the quality and intensity of services that
lead to skills acquisition, long-term employability and increased
earnings;
Placing greater emphasis on basic skills acquisition to
qualify for employment or advanced education or training; and
Promoting comprehensive, coordinated human resource
programs to address the multiple needs of at-risk populations.
In addition, with the passage of the Amendments in 1992, the
performance management system has been tasked, through performance
incentive award policies, to improve service to out-of-school youth
and also foster employment in better quality jobs which offer high
wages and employer-assisted benefits
These goals are reflected in the Secretary's six Title II-A and
Title II-C (core) measures, national numerical standards for these
measures, new incentive award criteria, and associated reporting
requirements. Governors still retain authority to establish
additional standards which reflect State policy and to develop the
specific approach to determining incentive awards.
This issuance specifies the national standards for PY's 1994-
1995 and introduces the new criteria which must be a part of State
incentive grant policies. Data to support additional non-cost
measures will continue to be reported and Governors may use those in
incentive policies. Cost data are to be used for purposes of program
oversight and fiscal management only. Numerical levels for the core
standards are identified in Section 7 of this Guidance Letter.
Note: The Department has identified two additional goals for
which Title II measures/standards have not yet been established:
Establishing a strong customer focus and orientation
and improving the responsiveness of services to the individual needs
of participants; and
Improving access to labor market information and
obtaining feedback from customers and employers on the quality of
program services.
Various options for collecting and analyzing customer feedback
will be explored. In the meantime, States and SDA's are encouraged
to begin on their own to focus on improving the quality of program
services and using customer feedback as a management tool.
4. Title II-A and Title II-C Core Performance Measures. Four
performance measures will be used for Title II-A for PY's 1994 and
1995. These are:
--the Adult Follow-Up Employment Rate;
--Adult Weekly Earnings at Follow-Up;
--the Welfare Follow-Up Employment Rate; and
--Welfare Weekly Earnings at Follow-Up.
Two performance measures will be used for Title II-C for PY's
1994 and 1995. These are:
--the Youth Entered Employment Rate; and
--the Youth Employability Enhancement Rate.
The adult and welfare measures are being retained because post-
program outcomes are the most direct measure of long-term
employability. The current measures send an explicit policy signal
that JTPA, as a value-added program, promotes employment retention
for its participants, as measured by an individual's employment
status and earnings three months after leaving the program. Since
earnings are also a critical factor in reducing welfare dependency,
the welfare earnings measure is the best proxy currently available
for identifying reduced dependency.
Note: The Amendments suggest that adult program measures should
address longer periods of employment retention than the current 13
weeks. The Department has awarded grants to 16 States that will
examine the merits of using Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records
for such longer-term measures. Preliminary data indicate that
comparable performance measures can be developed from UI wage
records. Applying the results of longer-term measures to ongoing
program management and annual incentive award determinations raises
technical and operational issues which will need to be examined by
the pilot sites. The Department will use the results of these States
studies and other available data to introduce, where feasible,
longer-term measures in PY 1995.
Youth measures are unchanged because they fully reflect
Departmental priorities and the required performance standards
factors listed in section 106(b)(4) of JTPA (employment, attainment
of employment competencies, dropout prevention and recovery,
secondary and post-secondary school completion, and enrollment in
other training programs). Acknowledging that employment may not be
an appropriate outcome for all youth, those individuals who are
enrolled in dropout prevention programs and successfully remain in
school, and those who are enrolled in dropout recovery programs and
successfully return to school will not be included in the Youth
Entered Employment Rate.
5. Performance Standards Provisions for Older Workers Programs.
Except for incentive award and sanctions provisions, section 204
(d)(6) of JTPA identifies requirements, including performance
standards, for the operation of older worker programs. In response
to this new provision, two performance measures have been
established to take into account program goals for this segment of
the population. Starting in PY 1994, there will be an Entered
Employment Rate performance measure as well as an Average Wage at
Placement performance measure for older worker programs. As
postprogram information becomes available on the section 204(d)
program, the Department will reconsider the possibility of follow-up
employment and earnings measures.
Note: Programs operated under section 204(d) are State programs
even though they may be operated by various local entities.
Therefore, performance standards will be applied to the total older
worker programs State-wide.
6. Performance Standards Provisions for Title III. Governors are
required to set an entered employment rate standard for Title III
programs and are encouraged to establish an average wage at
placement goal. Performance standards for Title III will be applied
to the following programs funded under section 302: all of section
302(c)(1) State activities, and sections 302(c)(2) and 302(d)
substate area activities. Performance outcomes will be reported for
programs operated under section 302(a)(2), Secretary's National
Reserve, in lieu of applying performance standards, because these
funds are typically used for one-time projects rather than ongoing
programming.
While rewards and the imposition of sanctions are not required
for title III programs, Governors may use a portion of the 40
percent funds reserved for State activities under section 302(c)(1)
for rewarding substate area performance, particularly lengthier,
substantive training that will better ensure the long-term
employability of participants. Although no statutory requirement
exists for monetary incentives, Congress requires State plans to
include incentives to ensure that long-term training is provided to
those who need it.
7. Secretary's National Numerical Standards for PY's 1994-1995.
The title II-A and II-C numerical standards are derived from PY '92
performance data reported on the JTPA Annual Status Report (JASR)
and are generally set at a level that approximately 75% of the SDA's
are expected to exceed. Revising the numerical standard for the
youth entered employment rate (YEER) in the same way would lead to
reduced standards for SDAs. However, 30 month results from the
recent National JTPA Study suggest that outcomes experienced by out-
of-school youth in JTPA fall short of acceptable levels. Therefore,
to encourage improved services to out-of-school youth, the numerical
standard for the YEER will remain at its current level of 41
percent. Earnings have been adjusted to account for expected future
inflation. Finally, an additional special adjustment has been made
to the Adult and Welfare Follow-Up Employment Rates and the Youth
Entered Employment Rate to account for the requirement in section
106(k) that for performance standards purposes ``. . . `employment'
means employment for 20 or more hours per week.''
The Secretary's standards for title II-A for PY's 1994-1995 are
as follows:
Adult Follow-up Employment Rate: 59%
Adult Weekly Earnings at Follow-up: $245
Welfare Follow-up Employment Rate: 47%
Welfare Weekly Earnings at Follow-up: $223
The Secretary's standards for title II-C for PY's 1994-1995 are
as follows:
Youth Entered Employment Rate: 41%
Youth Employability Enhancement Rate: 40%
No national data on older worker program performance are
currently available to assist in setting national standards.
However, the Job Training Quarterly Survey (JTQS) has detailed
employment and wage data on older workers served by regular title
II-A programs. Based on these data, and adjusting for the 20 hours
per week employment requirement, the Secretary's standards for older
worker programs are as follows:
Entered Employment Rate: 62%
Average Hourly Wage at Placement: $5.45
The title III standard is derived from PY '92 performance data
reported on the Worker Adjustment Program Annual Program Report
(WAPR). This standard is at a level that approximately 75 percent of
the substate areas are expected to exceed. As with the employment
measures for title II-A and II-C, an adjustment has been made to
take into account the 20 hour per week employment requirement. The
Secretary's standard for title III is:
Entered Employment Rate: 67%
8. Implementing Provisions. The following implementing
requirements must be followed:
A. Required Standards. For titles II-A and II-C, Governors are
required to set, for each SDA, a numerical performance standard for
each of the six Secretary's measures; for the older worker program,
Governors are required to set numerical Entered Employment Rate and
Average Wage at Placement standards for programs operated under
section 204(d); for title III, Governors are required to set for
each substate area a numerical performance standard for the Entered
Employment Rate and are encouraged to establish an average wage at
placement goal.
B. Setting the Standards. Consistent with new legislative
provisions, Governors are now required to adjust the Secretary's
performance standards to reflect local area circumstances (section
106(d)). Such adjustments must conform to the Secretary's parameters
described below:
1. Procedures must be:
Responsive to the intent of the Act,
Consistently applied among the SDA's/SSA's,
Objective and equitable throughout the State,
In conformance with widely accepted statistical
criteria;
2. Source data must be:
Of public use quality,
Available upon request;
3. Results must be:
Documented,
Reproducible; and
4. Adjustment factors must be limited to:
Economic factors,
Labor market conditions,
Geographic factors,
Characteristics of the population to be served,
Demonstrated difficulties in serving the population
(this adjustment factor is new), and
Type of services to be provided.
The Department offers an adjustment methodology that conforms to
these parameter criteria for Governors to use in making required
adjustments. Should the Governor choose to use an alternate
methodology, or make adjustments not addressed by the Departmental
model, it must conform to the parameter criteria and be documented
in the Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan (GCSSP)
prior to the program year to which it applies.
The State Job Training Coordinating Council and, where
appropriate, the State Human Resources Investment Council, must have
an opportunity to consider adjustments to the Secretary's standards
and to recommend variations. To determine whether an SDA has met/
exceeded a performance standard, Governors must use actual, end-of-
year program data to recalculate the performance standards.
C. Performance Standards Definitions. Governors must calculate
the performance of their SDA's, SSA's, and Section 204(d) programs
according to the definitions included in the attachments.
D. Titles II-A and II-C Incentive and Sanction Policies.
Performance standards are to be established for programs funded
under Titles II and III of the Act. In applying the Secretary's
standards for Titles II-A and II-C, Governors must use the six core
measures and also consider criteria relating to model programs
successfully serving out-of-school youth and placement in jobs
providing employer-assisted benefits. Governors may select
additional non-cost measures to form the basis of incentive policies
as long as the following criteria are met:
1. As the basis for making incentive awards, the Governors must
use all (i.e., cannot ``zero weight'' any) of the six Secretary's
core measures. Governors will also be required to reward model out-
of-school youth programs either identified by the Department of
Labor or recognized by the State or SDA as having a demonstrated
record of success. Considerable flexibility will be given to
Governors in establishing a method for doing so. Likewise, in the
absence of firm data with which to establish a credible benchmark,
States have total flexibility in how to measure the provision of
employer-assisted benefits. Decisions regarding the relative weight
or emphasis of each core measure (e.g., the Youth Entered Employment
Rate) and incentive criterion (e.g., placement in jobs with
employer-assisted benefits) in a State's incentive award formula
rest with the Governor. The core measures will be the basis for
identifying SDA's that are candidates for technical assistance and
for imposing sanctions. At least 75 percent of the funds set aside
for performance incentives must be related to these measures and the
out-of-school and employer-assisted benefits criteria, in accordance
with Section 106(b)(7)(E).
2. Cost standards cannot be used for incentive award purposes.
3. Incentive policies may include adjustments to incentive award
amounts based upon factors such as grant size, additional services
to the hard-to-serve, intensity of service, and expenditure level.
4. A Secretary's standard for service to the hard-to-serve, as
required by Section 106(b)(7)(B) of the amended JTPA, has been
established in the form of a stand-alone eligibility criterion
(``gate'') for incentive awards. In order for an SDA to be eligible
to receive any incentive award, at least 65 percent of both the
SDA's (a) Title II-A and (b) title II-C (in-school and out-of-school
combined) terminees receiving training and/or other services beyond
objective assessment must be hard-to-serve. The definitions of hard-
to-serve are to be consistent with the definitions in Sections
203(b), 263(b), and 263(d) of the Act.
5. For those SDA's that successfully ``pass through'' the gate,
three criteria (in addition to any funds set aside for Governors'
standards) will determine the amount of the incentive award:
Exceeding the Secretary's standards; providing quality service to
out-of-school youth and placing participants in employment that
provides employer-assisted benefits.
--The definition of ``employer-assisted benefits'' is to be
consistent with the SPIR definition (Item 35c). Thus, State
incentive policies will be structured to include benefit information
for those participants who entered employment at termination, and
Governors will have considerable latitude in implementing this
incentive policy requirement.
6. Consistent with present DOL policy, SDA's that exceed all six
of the Secretary's Titles II-A and II-C standards must receive an
incentive award (if the ``gate'' is successfully attained).
7. Determination of an SDA's failure to meet standards and
consequent imposition of technical assistance and reorganization
requirements, under Section 106(j), will be based only on the
Secretary's title II-A and Title II-C core measures.
--``Meeting Performance Standards'' is defined as meeting at least
four of the six core standards, one of which must be a youth
standard. Conversely, ``Failure'' is defined as failing to meet
three (3) or more of the core standards or failing to meet both
youth standards.
--Failure for the first year precludes an SDA from receiving any
incentive awards and requires Governors to provide technical
assistance to the underperforming SDA.
--Failure for the second year precludes an SDA from receiving any
incentive award and requires Governors to impose a reorganization
plan.
8. Section 106(j)(3) requires each State to report to the
Secretary, not later than 90 days after the end of each program
year, the actual performance and performance standards for each SDA
within that State. Within the same timeframe, technical assistance
plans for each SDA ``failing'' for the first year are required. A
90-day timeframe also applies to the imposition of a reorganization
plan, which is mandatory when an SDA ``fails'' for a second
consecutive year.
Specific procedures for the formal performance standards report
and required State action will be provided under separate cover.
However, in addition to the formal annual process, there should be
ongoing oversight of SDA performance and continuous technical
assistance and capacity-building aimed at addressing areas where
program performance can be improved.
9. Governors must specify in the GCSSP their incentive award
policy under Section 202(c)(1)(B) and 202(c)(3)(A) and imposition of
sanctions policy under Section 106(j).
10. In PY 1994 and 1995, Governors will continue to have the
discretion to exclude pilot projects serving ``hard-to-serve''
individuals, particularly out-of-school youth, funded from the 5
percent incentive fund set-aside in computing their standards and
actual performance. States and SDA's are encouraged to use such
funds to develop or replicate model programs serving out-of-school
youth, particularly those based on contextual learning models.
Note. For those SDA's in which ``incentive projects'' are
indistinguishable from those that provide general training, these
programs would not be considered exempt from performance standards.
9. State Action. States are to distribute this Guidance Letter
to all officials within the State who need such information to
implement the new performance standards policies and requirements
for PY 1994-1995. It is especially critical that States, State
Councils, Private Industry Councils and SDA operational staff become
thoroughly familiar with the new provisions concerning incentive and
sanctions policies.
A copy of this Guidance Letter is also being sent to your State
JTPA Liaison, the State Wagner-Peyser Administering Agency, and the
State Worker Adjustment Liaison.
10. Inquiries. Questions concerning this issuance may be
directed to Steven Aaronson at (202) 219-5487, extension 107.
11. Attachments:
1. Definitions for Performance Standards
2. Youth Employability Enhancement Definitions
Attachment 1--Definitions for Performance Standards
Those terminees who receive only objective assessment (or only
objective assessment and entered employment) are to be excluded from
the calculation of performance outcomes for Title II-A, Title II-C,
and Section 204(d) older worker programs. Participants in special 5-
percent-funded projects may, at the discretion of the Governor, also
be excluded from the calculation of performance outcomes for Title
II-A and Title II-C.
The following defines the Title II-A performance standards:
1. Adult Follow-Up Employment Rate--Total number of adult
respondents who were employed (for at least 20 hours per week)
during the 13th full calendar week after termination, divided by the
total number of adult respondents (i.e., terminees who completed
follow-up interviews).
2. Adult Follow-Up Weekly Earnings--Total weekly earnings for
all adult respondents who were employed (for at least 20 hours per
week) during the 13th full calendar week after termination, divided
by the total number of adult respondents employed (for at least 20
hours per week) at the time of follow-up.
Welfare
3. Welfare Follow-Up Employment Rate--Total number of adult
welfare respondents who were employed (for at least 20 hours per
week) during the 13th full calendar week after termination, divided
by the total number of adult welfare respondents (i.e., terminees
who completed follow-up interviews).
4. Welfare Follow-Up Weekly Earnings--Total weekly earnings for
all adult welfare respondents employed (for at least 20 hours per
week) during the 13th full calendar week after termination, divided
by the total number of adult welfare respondents employed (for at
least 20 hours per week) at the time of follow-up.
Note: If the response rates for those employed at termination
and those not employed at termination in an SDA differ by more than
5 percentage points in either the adult or welfare samples, then the
calculations of the follow-up outcomes for that group must be
modified to adjust for nonresponse bias.
The following defines the Title II-C performance standards:
5. Youth Entered Employment Rate (YEER)--Total number of youth
who entered employment at termination (for at least 20 hours per
week), divided by the total number of youth who terminated,
excluding those potential dropouts who are reported (on the
Standardized Program Information Report [SPIR]) as remained-in-
school and dropouts who are reported (on the SPIR) as returned-to-
school.
Note: As in past practice, youth terminees who remain-in-school
or return-to-school and who also enter employment will not be
excluded from the termination pool reflected in the denominator of
the Youth Entered Employment Rate. In effect, SDA's would ``receive
credit'' for these individuals twice--in the YEER and in the YEEN.
However, only employment of at least 20 hours per week satisfies the
requirement for ``employment.''
6. Youth Employability Enhancement Rate (YEEN)--Total number of
youth who attained one of the employability enhancements at
termination, whether or not they also obtained a job, divided by the
total number of youth who terminated.
Youth Employability Enhancements include:
a. Attained (two or more) PIC-recognized Youth Employment
Competencies.
b. Completed major level of education following participation of
at least 90 calendar days or 200 hours in JTPA activity.
c. Entered and retained for at least 90 calendar days or 200
hours in non-Title II training or received a certification of
occupational skill attainment.
Note: It is expected that the ultimate result of this outcome
will be the attainment of a job-specific skill competency on the
part of the terminee.
d. Returned to and retained in full-time school for one semester
or at least 120 calendar days (dropouts only), attained a basic or
job-specific skill, and made satisfactory progress.
Note: For the purposes of this outcome, and the remained in
school outcome described below, ``school'' includes alternative
schools, defined as a specialized, structured curriculum offered
inside or outside of the public school system which may provide
work/study and/or General Educational Development (GED) test
preparation.
e. Remained in school for one semester or at least 120 calendar
days (for youth at risk of dropping out of school), attained a basic
or job-specific skill competency, and made satisfactory progress.
Note: For youth aged 14 and 15, the acceptable competencies will
be basic skills or pre-employment/work maturity.
The following defines Section 204(d) Older Worker performance
standards:
1. Entered Employment Rate--Total number of individuals who
entered employment of at least 20 hours per week at termination,
divided by the number of total terminations.
2. Average Wage at Placement--Total hourly wage rate of all
terminees who entered employment of at least 20 hours per week at
termination, divided by the number of terminees who entered
employment of at least 20 hours per week at termination.
The following defines the Title III performance standard:
1. Entered Employment Rate--Total number of individuals who
entered employment of at least 20 hours per week at termination,
excluding those who were recalled or retained by the original
employer after receipt of a layoff notice, divided by the total
terminations, excluding those who were recalled or retained by the
original employer after receipt of a layoff notice.
Attachment 2--Youth Employability Enhancement Definitions
``Youth Employability Enhancement'' means an outcome for youth,
other than entered unsubsidized employment, which is recognized as
enhancing long-term employability and contributing to the potential
for a long-term increase in earnings and employment. Outcomes which
meet this requirement shall be restricted to the following:
(1) Attained PIC-Recognized Youth Employment Competencies (two
or more);
(2) Returned to Full-Time School;
(3) Remained in School;
(4) Completed Major Level of Education; or
(5) Entered Non-Title II Training.
1. Attained PIC-Recognized Youth Employment Competencies--The
total number of youth who demonstrated proficiency as defined by the
PIC in two or more of the following three skill areas in which the
terminee was deficient at enrollment: pre-employment/work maturity;
basic education; or job-specific skills. Competency gains must be
achieved through program participation and be tracked through
sufficiently developed systems that must include: quantifiable
learning objectives, related curricula/training modules, pre- and
post-assessment, employability planning, documentation, and
certification.
The completely detailed definition for Youth Employment
Competency systems is located in the Standardized Program
Information Reporting System (SPIR) instructions, transmitted in
TEIN No. 5-93, dated July 30, 1993.
2. Returned to Full-Time School--The total number of youth who:
(1) had returned to full-time secondary school (e.g., junior high
school, middle school and high school)--including alternative
school--if, at the time of intake, the participant was not attending
school (exclusive of summer school) and had not obtained a high
school diploma or equivalent; and (2) prior to termination had been
retained in school for one semester or at least 120 calendar days.
Alternative School--A specialized, structured curriculum offered
inside or outside of the public school system which may provide
work/study and/or GED preparation.
Note: To obtain credit for Returned to Full-Time School and
Remained in School (described below), SDA's must be prepared to
demonstrate that retention results from continuing, active
participation in JTPA activities and the youth must: (1) Be making
satisfactory progress in school; and (2) (for youth aged 16-21)
attain a PIC-approved Youth Employment Competency in Basic Skills or
Job-Specific Skills; or (3) (for individuals aged 14-15) attain a
PIC-approved Youth Employment Competency in Pre-employment/Work
Maturity or Basic Skills.
Satisfactory Progress in School--An SDA, in cooperation with the
local school system, must develop a written policy that defines an
individual standard of progress that each participant is required to
meet. Such a standard should, at a minimum, include both a
qualitative element of a participant's progress (e.g., performance
on a criterion-referenced test or a grade point average) and a
quantitative element (e.g., a time limit for completion of the
program or course of study). This policy may provide for exceptional
situations in which students who do not meet the standard of
progress are nonetheless making satisfactory progress during a
probationary period because of mitigating circumstances.
3. Remained in School--The total number of youth who, prior to
termination, had been retained in full-time secondary school,
including alternative school, for one semester or at least 120
calendar days. A youth may be reported as Remained-in-School only if
he/she was attending school at the time of intake, had not received
a high school diploma or its equivalent, and was considered ``at
risk of dropping out of school,'' as defined by the Governor in
consultation with the State Education Agency.
4. Completed Major Level of Education--The total number of
adults/youth who, prior to termination, had completed, during
enrollment in the program, a level of educational achievement which
had not been reached at entry. Levels of educational achievement are
secondary and post-secondary. Completion standards shall be governed
by State standards and shall include a high school diploma, GED
Certificate or equivalent at the secondary level, and shall require
a diploma or other written certification of completion at the post-
secondary level.
Note: To obtain credit, completion of a major level of education
must result primarily from active JTPA program participation of at
least 90 calendar days or 200 hours, usually prior to the completion
of the major level of education.
5. Entered Non-Title II Training--The total number of adults/
youth who, prior to termination, had entered an occupational skills
employment/training program not funded under Title II of the JTPA,
that builds upon and does not duplicate training received under
Title II.
Note: To obtain credit, the participant must have been retained
in that program for at least 90 calendar days OR 200 hours or must
have received a certification of occupational skill attainment.
During the period the participant is in non-Title II training, he/
she may or may not have received JTPA services. It is expected that
the ultimate result of this outcome will be the attainment of a job-
specific skill competency on the part of the terminee.
[FR Doc. 94-4587 Filed 2-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
