Back to Federal guidance
Program year 2009 performance negotiations
Summary ETA gave states guidelines for negotiating program year 2009 WIA and Wagner-Peyser performance and customer satisfaction goals, with an option to extend program year 2008 goals. It expressly rescinded TEGL 19-06. ETA now labels this period-specific advisory Canceled.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
TEGL No. 9-08
Date issued
January 14, 2009
Status
Withdrawn
ETA lists this advisory Canceled as of 2026-10-24; its official letter prints Rescissions: TEGL 19-06 and Expiration Date: Continuing.
Status last verified October 24, 2026
Is this still the rule?
This document has been withdrawn. Ezel checks what federal law requires today, under current federal labor law, and answers your situation with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08acc.pdf
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING WIA/Performance Goals
ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROTECH/OWI/ORIT
Washington, D.C. 20210 DATE
January 14, 2009
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 9-08
TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
ALL STATE WORKFORCE ADMINISTRATORS
ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
FROM: BRENT R. ORRELL /s/
Deputy Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act Title IB
Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year 2009
1. Purpose. To inform states of the guidelines for negotiating Workforce Investment
Act (WIA) Title IB performance and customer satisfaction goals and performance levels
for the Wagner-Peyser Act funded activities for Program Year (PY) 2009, including the
option to extend PY 2008 negotiated goals for PY 2009. These performance goals, once
they are agreed upon between the state and the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), will be incorporated into the State’s Strategic Plan for the WIA
and Wagner-Peyser Act.
2. References. WIA Section 136; WIA regulations at 20 CFR Part 666 and Part 661;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 7-08, “Instructions for
Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act State Planning and Waiver Requests
for Year Five of the Strategic Five-Year State Plan (PY 2009)” TEGL No. 9-07, “Revised
Incentive and Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act Title IB Programs”; TEGL
No. 17-05, “Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training
Administration’s (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related Performance
Issues”; and TEGL No. 11-01, “Guidance on Revising Workforce Investment Act State
Negotiated Levels of Performance.”
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
TEGL 19-06 Continuing
-2-
3. Background. The information in this Guidance Letter supersedes and rescinds
previously issued guidance related to performance negotiations in TEGL 19-06,
“Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act Title IB Programs
and Wagner-Peyser Act Program for Program Years 2007 and 2008.” The intent of this
guidance is to clarify the performance measures for which states will be held
accountable in PY 2009, provide an outline of the negotiation process, and provide
descriptions of tools available for use during the negotiation process. The negotiation
process across the system has been improved by the consistent use of these tools to do
the required analysis, which are available as attachments to this guidance, as well as
through ETA’s performance Web site at:
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/negotiating.cfm.
4. Changes to the Negotiation Process. In general, the process for this current round of
negotiations will not change much from the processes used in PY 2007 and PY 2008.
Negotiations will continue to take place between the states and the corresponding ETA
regional offices, and specific guidance regarding contacts and timeframes will be
provided to the states by the appropriate regional office (the actual process steps are
described in more detail in Section 7.C of this guidance). As was the case for the last
round of negotiations, states will be required to establish PY 2009 performance levels
for the Wagner-Peyser Act component of the State Plans at the same time they negotiate
performance levels for the WIA Title IB programs. One option for PY 2009 is that states
may extend their negotiated PY 2008 goals for an additional year. States that choose
this option must notify their appropriate Regional Administrator no later than April 15,
2009.
5. Methodology for Assessing Performance Against Negotiated Levels. For both the
WIA Title IB and the Wagner-Peyser Act programs, the upper bound of the
performance range will be the negotiated level of performance for the measure, while
the lower bound of the range is 80% of the negotiated level of performance.
Performance on an individual measure will be interpreted based on the outcome’s
position relative to the two boundaries for a measure as follows:
• Exceeds - when the actual performance achieved against an individual
performance measure is in excess of 100% of the negotiated level of performance
for the measure;
• Meets - when the actual performance achieved against an individual performance
measure falls in the range of 80 to 100% of the negotiated level of performance for
the measure; and,
• Fails - when the actual performance achieved against an individual performance
measure is less than 80% of the negotiated level of performance.
For example, if a state negotiates a 90.0% goal for the employment retention rate
measure, the state would:
-3-
• Exceed the goal if the actual performance level achieved was greater than 90.0%;
• Meet the goal if the actual performance level achieved was greater than or equal
to 72.0% and less than or equal to 90.0%; and,
• Fail the goal if the actual performance level achieved was less than 72.0%.
While whole percentages are used in this example, it should be noted that this is simply
because 80% of the negotiated 90.0% happens to be exactly 72%; actual performance
results should not be rounded to a whole number. Negotiated performance levels and
results are stated to the tenth of a percent. States may continue to use additional
distinctions to differentiate performance within the Meets category.
These three categories align with WIA regulations
(http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/laws_regs.cfm):
666.220(b)(3) The state exceeded the state negotiated levels of performance for title
I, the levels of performance under title II and the levels for vocational and
technical programs under Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act. (WIA sec. 503(b));
666.230(a)(2) The extent to which the negotiated levels of performance were
exceeded; and
666.240(d) Only performance that is less than 80 percent of the negotiated levels
will be deemed to be a failure to achieve negotiated levels of performance.
Please note that for purposes of WIA incentive grant eligibility, a state must meet at
least 90 percent of the negotiated level for each applicable WIA performance measure to
be considered eligible for an incentive.
6. Applicable Performance Measures for the PY 2009 Performance Negotiation
Process. The negotiation process will focus on establishing agreed-upon levels of
performance for 20 performance measures for the WIA and Wagner-Peyser programs.
The 20 performance measures include 17 WIA indicators of performance (15 Adult,
Dislocated Worker, and Youth program measures and two customer satisfaction
indicators) and three Wagner-Peyser performance measures.
For those states that have requested a waiver to report against the WIA Adult and
Youth common performance measures only, and have received approval to do so in
accordance with the waiver authority granted to the Secretary at WIA section 189(i)(4),
the negotiation process will focus on establishing a total of nine agreed-upon levels of
performance for the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth programs and three
agreed-upon levels for the Wagner-Peyser program. For these waiver states, the three
-4-
Adult common measures will be applied separately to the WIA Adult and Dislocated
Worker programs, and the three Youth common measures will be applied to the WIA
Youth program. The table below summarizes the performance measures involved in
the negotiation process.
Applicable Performance Measures
Wagner-
WIA Measures (Majority of States) Common Measures (Waiver States)
Peyser
Dislocated Customer Dislocated Measures (All
Adult Worker Youth Satisfaction Adult Worker Youth States)
Older Youth Participant Entered
Entered Entered American Entered Entered Placement in
Entered Employment
Employment Employment Customer Employment Employment Employment
Employment Rate for Total
Rate Rate Satisfaction Rate Rate or Education
Rate Exiters
Index
Employer
Employment Older Youth American Attainment of Employment
Employment Employment Employment
Retention Employment Customer a Degree or Retention Rate
Retention Rate Retention Rate Retention Rate
Rate Retention Rate Satisfaction Certificate for Total Exiters
Index
Employment Employment Older Youth Average Six Average Six Literacy and Average Six
and and Credential Months Months Numeracy Months Earnings
Credential Credential Rate Earnings Earnings Gains for Total Exiters
Rate Rate
Average Six Average Six Older Youth
Months Months Earnings
Earnings Earnings Change
Younger
Youth Skill
Attainment
Rate
Younger
Youth
Diploma or
Equivalent
Rate
Younger
Youth
Retention Rate
The source documents with the definitions and related reporting specifications for the
applicable performance measures follow:
• The 17 WIA performance measures - TEGL No. 17-05, “Common Measures
Policy for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Performance
Accountability System and Related Performance Issues”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf); and the Workforce
Investment Act Annual Report: General Reporting Instructions and ETA Form
9091, Revised 2006 (http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/guidance/WIA/WIA-
Annual-Report-Specifications-Expires-02282009.doc);
-5-
• The WIA Youth program common measures - TEGL No. 17-05, “Common
Measures Policy for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Performance Accountability System and Related Performance Issues”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf); TEGL No. 17-05,
Change 1, “Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related
Performance”(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL17-
05c1.pdf); and the Workforce Investment Act Annual Report; General Reporting
Instructions and ETA Form 9091, Revised 2006
(http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/guidance/WIA/WIA-Annual-Report-
Specifications-Expires-02282009.doc); and
• The three Wagner-Peyser program performance measures - TEGL No. 17-05,
“Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related Performance Issues”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf); and the ETA 9002
and VETS 200 Data Preparation Handbook, ET Handbook No. 406 released in
February 2006 (http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/guidance/WIA/ET-406-
Handbook-Expiration-022809.pdf).
As was the case in PY 2007 and PY 2008, all states will continue to collect and report
against the three Youth common performance measures for the entire Youth population
(Older and Younger Youth combined) in PY 2009. However, ETA will not consider
performance against these measures in the incentive award and sanctions
determinations for states that are accountable for outcomes on the 17 WIA measures.
The exception is for states that have received an approved waiver to implement and
report against the “WIA common measures only.” These states will negotiate levels of
performance for the Youth common measures and ETA will use these measures in the
incentive and sanctions determinations.
Please note that for purposes of WIA incentive and sanctions determinations, the
applicable performance measures are listed in TEGL 9-07, “Revised Incentive and
Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act Title IB Programs”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL09-07.pdf).
States should also be aware that the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service
(VETS) intends to issue separate guidance on negotiating PY 2009 veterans’
performance targets with State Workforce Agencies. This negotiation of specific levels
of performance for veterans will include: 1) performance targets for veterans served by
the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service; and 2) grant-based performance targets for
veterans served through the Jobs for Veterans state grants.
7. Reaching Agreement on State Performance Levels. States should use negotiated
levels of performance to drive continuous improvement and enhanced customer
satisfaction. In proposing performance targets for both the WIA Title IB and Wagner-
-6-
Peyser programs, states should negotiate their goals within the context of integrated
service delivery, priority of service, economic conditions, customers served, and
workforce solutions that contribute to the regional economic competitiveness of their
state and sub-state areas.
A. Customers to Be Served
The customers served by the local area may have a significant impact on outcomes,
depending on the type of services, including entrepreneurial training, length of
services, and other factors unique to the population.
ETA encourages states to serve those individuals with barriers to employment and
individuals more at-risk of not connecting to the labor market, including those who
were formerly incarcerated, the homeless, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and
out-of-school youth. States should bring appropriate information to the negotiation
process that demonstrates either their past performance in serving these populations
and/or their current strategy for serving these populations.
ETA will consider adjusting performance targets to accommodate states currently
serving a significant number of at-risk individuals who need higher levels of service to
achieve a positive labor market outcome. States that have ongoing initiatives for
serving at-risk individuals may work with their respective Regional Administrator to
negotiate appropriate goals for PY 2009. During the negotiation process, states must
provide data to support adjustments of goals based on numbers of at-risk individuals
currently being served.
When negotiating the Youth goals, states should be aware that ETA’s strategic vision
for youth services includes a focus on serving the neediest youth, especially out-of-
school youth, including youth in foster care, youth in the juvenile justice system,
children of incarcerated parents, and migrant youth, as well as youth with disabilities
and Native American youth. States that transition to serving a higher percentage of
these more difficult to serve populations should take into account the populations being
served when proposing performance levels for the Youth measures. Serving a greater
percentage of the neediest youth may impact outcomes. If states are serving a greater
percentage of the neediest youth, they should provide data that shows how outcomes
are impacted by serving this population.
When negotiating goals for the Adult program, states proposing new efforts to increase
access to services for special populations that may face significant barriers (such as
veterans, older workers, individuals with disabilities, migrant or seasonal farm
workers, Indian and Native Americans, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) recipients), should provide data to show how these new efforts will impact
WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker and Wagner-Peyser Act outcomes. ETA supports
efforts that will help states better tap into a wider pipeline of available workers.
Available performance data indicate that the workforce investment system’s
-7-
employment and training programs have positive impacts on individuals’ employment,
including traditionally underserved populations. ETA expects states to document how
outcomes are impacted by changes in the mix of participants served.
Efforts to expand services to at-risk populations are consistent with the WIA legislation.
Section 101(13) of WIA defines eligible youth as a low-income individual between the
ages of 14 and 21 who is deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a
runaway or foster child, pregnant or parenting, an offender, or an individual who
requires additional assistance to complete an educational program or hold employment.
Section 112 (b)(17)(A)(iv) requires that the State Plan describe how the state will serve
the employment and training needs of dislocated workers (including displaced
homemakers), low-income individuals (including recipients of public assistance),
individuals training for nontraditional employment, and other individuals with multiple
barriers to employment (including older individuals and individuals with disabilities).
Section 134(d)(4)(E) requires that priority shall be given to recipients of public assistance
and other low-income individuals for intensive services and training services.
For future negotiations, ETA invites states to suggest mechanisms for expanding
services to at-risk populations within our current performance framework. Suggestions
should be emailed to: [email protected].
B. Tools for Proposing Levels of Performance
The following tools and process guidelines provide a uniform framework for states to use
to set performance goals. Following these guidelines should make coming to agreement
on final performance levels easier. The state and the ETA Regional Administrator must
negotiate and agree to final performance levels no later than June 30, 2009.
Prior to proposing levels of performance for the applicable performance measures to
the appropriate Regional Administrator to begin the negotiation process, as discussed
further in Part C of this section (and Attachment I), states should review and make use
of the following resources/tools to ensure that they have considered these factors in
determining a proposed level and that there is a sound rationale for the proposed levels
of performance:
I. Past performance. States should use historical, annual performance information
(PY 2005-2008) to inform projected levels of performance for PY 2009. Recent
quarterly performance results should also be used to inform the performance path
the state is following. The Wagner-Peyser funded activities began reporting
against the common performance measures in PY 2005 and now have three full
years of data on which to base future performance projections. The Department
anticipates that states will submit proposed levels of performance that reflect
continuous improvement and additional experience, and show increases over the
prior years’ performance levels. However, it is recognized that performance levels
may vary, up or down, based on economic factors that are beyond the state’s
-8-
control. While states should have ready access to their own historical performance
information, various tools and resources are available to examine states’ historical
performance data, including state by state files of the data
(www.doleta.gov/Performance/results/wia_national_performance.cfm); the
Federal Research and Evaluation Database (www.fred-info.org); VETS’
performance data (http://www.dol.gov/vets/vetoutcomes/index.htm) and
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for employment, industries, counties, average
earnings, etc. (www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm). When using BLS data as a guide,
states should carefully consider the timeframes covered by BLS employment and
wage information, and the relative time periods in which WIA and Wagner-Peyser
exiters enter employment and obtain post-program earnings.
II. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals. Throughout the
performance negotiation process, states should be aware of the preliminary GPRA
goals the Department established through PY 2010. These goals may or may not
be revised upon completion of a study currently under way to determine the
effects of the business cycle on program performance. If the GPRA goals are to
change, they will be revised in time for the FY 2010 Congressional Budget
Justification, at which time they will also be shared with the regional offices. The
regional offices will use the GPRA goals as one of several benchmarks by which to
gauge their states’ proposed performance levels in the context of these national
system goals. The GPRA is an important mechanism by which Congress, and the
Office of Management and Budget evaluate the success of Federal programs,
including those operated by states and localities. The preliminary GPRA
performance goals for the Department’s WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers, and
Wagner-Peyser programs are listed in Attachment II; more information is
available at: http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/goals/gpra.cfm.
III. National Distribution of WIA and Wagner-Peyser Performance Outcomes. ETA has
utilized states’ previously submitted annual performance data to provide
information on the national averages and distribution of performance outcomes.
These benchmarks serve as estimates that states and regions can refer to when
setting goals to achieve continuous improvement. Attachment III presents WIA
and Wagner-Peyser outcomes for the past seven program years (table 1) and the
national distribution of performance outcomes for the past three program years
(table 2).
IV. Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs.
Attachment IV presents this information by state for the past six Program Years
using state WIA Annual Report data.
V. Estimates of Six Months Average Earnings by State Using BLS-Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) Program Data. The QCEW is a cooperative
program involving the BLS and the State Workforce Agencies that produces a
comprehensive tabulation of employment and wage information for workers
-9-
covered by state Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws and federal workers covered
by the Unemployment Compensation system. The QCEW contains data on the
number of establishments, monthly employment, and quarterly wages, by North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry, by county and by
ownership sector for the entire United States. At the state and local levels, the
QCEW program publishes employment and wage data down to the 6-digit NAICS
industry level. The QCEW data can serve as a resource to assist states in placing
the results achieved under the average earnings measure for the WIA programs
and Wagner-Peyser funded activities within the context of the average earnings for
the overall workforce. Attachment V presents an estimate of this information by
state for the past five years and Attachment VI provides additional information on
the methodologies used to develop these estimates and details on the data’s
coverage and limitations. As noted earlier, states should carefully consider the
timeframes covered by BLS wage information, and the relative time periods in
which WIA and Wagner-Peyser exiters enter employment and obtain post-
program earnings.
VI. Estimates of the effects of economic and demographic variables and other factors. WIA
section 136(b)(3)(A)(iv) (see
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/laws_regs.cfm) addresses
additional factors, such as differences in economic conditions, characteristics of
participants, and services to be provided, that should be considered in the
negotiation process. Consider the following additional detail on these and other
factors:
o Attachment VII provides estimates of how various economic and
demographic variables may impact outcomes. Please note that these
estimates are based on national-level data, and do not necessarily reflect the
economic conditions and client base unique to a state. Therefore, these
estimates are not hard and fast reasons for adjusting performance goals up
or down. Instead, they are provided as an example of how a state might
analyze its own data in order to propose goals that take into account the
characteristics of individuals served and economic conditions in the state.
In applying these variables, it is also important to recognize that the
different performance measures may not be affected by the same variable in
the same way because of the lag associated with the calculation of some of
the performance measures. For example, a given state’s economy could
project no job growth for 2009, which could have a strong effect on the
negotiated entered employment rate for PY 2009, but a lesser effect on the
employment retention and six month average earnings measures for PY
2009, because the individuals included in those measures for PY 2009
reporting purposes would have been employed prior to the start of calendar
year 2009 for the most part. Attachment VIII contains a description of the
time periods during which individuals will have to have exited program
services to be included in the different performance measures. This
- 10 -
attachment will assist states in their analysis of the impact of a given
variable on the different measures against which the state will be
negotiating levels for PY 2009 (and including in their WIA Annual Report
submissions for PY 2009).
o States that have Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic
Development (WIRED) regions should consider how the additional
investment and reshaping of talent development strategies within those
regions impact overall performance, particularly individuals served. To
the extent possible, negotiations should reflect projected impacts of the
WIRED strategies.
C. Process for Reaching Agreement on State Performance Levels
The process for reaching agreement on state performance levels includes the following
steps, as outlined in the attached timeline (Attachment I):
I. After conducting their own analysis of factors that may affect performance, as
discussed above (in Part A of this section), states will propose levels of
performance for each of the applicable performance measures for PY 2009 by
submitting these proposed levels to the Regional Administrator serving the state.
Proposed performance levels should be stated to a tenth of a percent (XX.X%)
and must be submitted to the appropriate Regional Administrator no later than
April 15, 2009; however, regional offices will work with states to begin the
negotiation process prior to that date and in parallel with the planning process in
order to ensure that final levels are agreed upon by June 30, 2009.
When submitting the proposed levels, states should provide the following as
support for the levels (see Part II, Section X, Subpart C, Item 1 of the Stand-Alone
Planning Guidance or State Planning Guidance, or Part III, Section K, Item 1(a)(i)
of the Unified Planning Guidance):
• The methodology used for developing proposed levels of performance,
including a description of data sources, calculations, and additional
environmental factors (such as those previously addressed in TEGL 9-07,
and discussed in Section 5 of this guidance.)
• How the target levels will promote continuous improvement in state
performance.
When submitting the proposed levels for review, states should also include a
discussion of how the proposed levels will positively impact customer
satisfaction with services received and the extent to which the proposed levels
ensure optimal return on investment of Federal funds. (See WIA section
136(b)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv).)
- 11 -
II. The regional offices will review the analyses used by the state to develop the
proposed performance levels and will work with the state to set mutually
agreed-upon levels of performance. Regional offices will take into account the
environmental factors addressed by the state, including current and future
economic conditions. The regional offices will consider the proposed levels in
light of previously negotiated goals, past performance results, and the national
GPRA goals, as prescribed by the FY 2010 Congressional Budget Justification.
Additionally, regional offices will consider the quality of the data presented by
the state, including its relevance, source, the time period from which it is drawn,
and whether the data is part of a trend or is anomalous. The negotiation process
will focus on whether each performance level appears appropriate in light of
statutory criteria and this guidance, and the adequacy of any information the
state offers to substantiate each level. If regional offices determine through their
analysis that a state could increase its proposed performance levels to more fully
support continuous improvement and customer satisfaction strategies, they will
negotiate with the state to obtain higher mutually agreed-upon performance
levels.
III. Once the performance levels are agreed upon, the Regional Administrator will
send a letter to the state confirming the agreed-upon levels this letter constitutes
a modification, incorporating these performance goals into the State Strategic
Plan.
8. Inclusion of Performance Goals in State Plans. States are required to submit the
proposed levels of performance by April 15, 2009. States can submit the proposed
performance levels either with the modification request that revises the current State
Plan, or with the letter requesting a one-year extension of the current State Plan, or
separately to the Regional Administrator. States should note that the proposed levels of
performance are subject to the same public review and comment requirements that
apply to State Plans and Plan modifications. When the state submits the proposed
levels to ETA, the state should confirm that it has made the proposed levels available to
the public for review and comment.
States that have completed negotiations with ETA by April 15, 2009, can include their
agreed-upon levels of performance for PY 2009 in the modification to the current State
Plan, or with the letter requesting a one-year extension of the current State Plan.
In cases where final agreement on performance goals has not been reached until after
the State Plan has been approved, the Regional Administrator’s letter advising the
states of the agreed-upon goals will constitute a modification to the State Plan. For
subsequent revisions to performance goals during the life of the State Plan, the Regional
Administrator’s letter advising the state of the agreed upon goals will also constitute a
modification to the State Plan. The state must ensure that the agreed-upon goals are
included in the state’s official copy of the State Plan, and that any published State Plan,
on the state’s Web site or through other forums, includes the agreed-upon goals. ETA
- 12 -
will incorporate these performance goals into the Regional and National Office copies
of the State Plan.
9. Action Required. States are requested to distribute this information to the
appropriate state and local staff.
10. Inquiries. Questions concerning this guidance may be directed to the appropriate
regional office.
11. Attachments.
Attachment I: Recommended Timeline for the Negotiation Process
Attachment II: GPRA Performance Goals for the Department of Labor
Attachment III: National Distribution of WIA and Wagner-Peyser Performance
Outcomes
Table 1: National Averages of Performance Measure Outcomes,
PY 2001 to PY 2007
Table 2: National Distribution of Performance Outcomes,
PY 2005 to PY 2007
Attachment IV: Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated
Worker Programs
Attachment V: Estimates of Six Months Average Earnings by State Using BLS-
QCEW Program Data
Attachment VI: Additional Notes on BLS–QCEW Program Data
Attachment VII: Economic and Demographic Variables
Attachment VIII: Time Periods for Reporting Performance Information in the WIA
Annual Report for PY 2008 - PY 2010
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a1.pdf
ATTACHMENT I
Recommended Timeline for the Negotiation Process
DATE ACTION
March 2009 ETA regional offices provide technical
assistance on negotiating performance
goals.
No later than States submit proposed performance
April 15, 2009 levels either with the modification
request that revises the current State Plan,
or with the letter requesting a one-year
extension of the current State Plan, or
separately to the Regional Administrator.
April 16, 2009 – June 26, 2009 Regional offices review states’ proposed
performance levels and work with states
to arrive at mutually agreed-upon levels.
June 2009 Negotiations continue if necessary.
June 30, 2009 ETA advises states of agreed upon-levels
within the letter approving the
modification, within the letter approving
states’ request for an extension of their
current State Plan, or in a separate letter
from the Regional Administrator.
ETA incorporates final performance
levels into Regional and National Office
copies of the State Plan and the state
includes the agreed upon performance
levels in its official copy of the State Plan.
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a2.pdf
ATTACHMENT II
GPRA Performance Goals for the Department of Labor 1
PY PY PY PY PY PY
PERFORMANCE GOAL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL
WIA Adult Entered
76% 76% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Employment Rate
WIA Adult Employment
81% 82% 84% 84% 84% 84%
Retention Rate
WIA Adult Average Earnings NA $11,000 $13,575 $13,575 $13,575 $13,575
WIA Dislocated Worker
83% 78% 73% 73% 73% 73%
Entered Employment Rate
WIA Dislocated Worker
89% 88% 87% 87% 87% 87%
Employment Retention Rate
WIA Dislocated Worker Wage
Replacement Rate/ Average
92% $14,265 $15,188 $15,188 $15,188 $15,188
Earnings (PY 2006, PY 2007,
PY 2008, PY 2009, PY 2010)
Wagner-Peyser Entered
61% 60% 64% 64% 64% 64%
Employment Rate
Wagner-Peyser Employment
78% 77% 81% 81% 81% 81%
Retention Rate
Wagner-Peyser Average
Baseline $11,749 $12,763 $12,763 $12,763 $12,763
Earnings
1 PY 2008—2010 targets as of December 3, 2008
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a3t1.pdf
ATTACHMENT III
National Distribution of WIA and Wagner-Peyser Performance Outcomes,
PY 2001 - PY 2007
Table 1: National Averages of Performance Measure Outcomes
Performance Measures PY 2001 PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 20051 PY 2006 PY 2007
WIA Adults
Entered Employment Rate 75.7% 75.1% 74.3% 77.1% 77.0% 70.2% 69.6%
Employment Retention Rate 80.8% 82.7% 84.5% 86.2% 82.5% 82.4% 83.8%
3
Average Earnings $9,950 $9,396 $10,348 $10,773 $11,208 $11,870 $13,575
Employment and Credential Rate 57.8% 61.5% 61.8% 65.6% 67.8% 67.6% 71.9%
WIA Dislocated Worker
Entered Employment Rate 81.6% 83.3% 81.3% 83.7% 83.2% 78.0% 72.5%
Employment Retention Rate 87.6% 89.2% 90.2% 91.1% 88.1% 88.0% 87.2%
Average Earnings3 $13,431 $12,998 $13,803 $14,003 $14,150 $14,265 $15,188
Employment and Credential Rate 2 61.8% 65.4% 64.6% 69.5% 71.3% 70.8% 73.2%
WIA Older Youth 2
Entered Employment Rate 67.0% 69.5% 70.6% 73.6% 76.3% 76.4% 77.5%
Employment Retention Rate 78.0% 79.5% 81.2% 82.7% 82.6% 82.6% 85.2%
Average Earnings3 $3,081 $2,938 $3,167 $3,547 $3,769 $3,765 $3,980
Credential Rate2 39.9% 46.2% 47.7% 52.0% 53.0% 54.1% 53.6%
WIA Younger Youth2
Diploma Attainment Rate 53.6% 63.1% 62.6% 65.8% 63.5% 68.5% 74.1%
Employment Retention Rate 54.2% 59.5% 61.0% 64.8% 63.7% 70.1% 74.1%
Skill Attainment Rate 82.9% 80.2% 83.0% 84.4% 81.5% 83.2% 86.1%
WIA Youth 4
Placement in Employment or Education Rate NA NA NA NA NA 60.3% 62.3%
Attainment of Degree or Certificate NA NA NA NA NA 43.5% 56.8%
Literacy and Numeracy Gains NA NA NA NA NA NA 30.4%
Wagner-Peyser
Entered Employment Rate NA 63.0% 61.0% 64.0% 63.0% 60.3% 63.0%
Employment Retention Rate NA 80.0% 80.0% 81.0% 80.0% 77.9% 81.0%
Average Earnings 5 NA NA NA NA NA $11,747 $12,763
Source: WIA State Annual and Wagner-Peyser State Quarterly Reports
Estimates of these outcomes were developed from state Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) file submissions using common measures
definitions.
Notes:
1
In PY 2005, these programs began reporting common measure, which standardized the definitions of performance indicators across these programs. This change in
methodology had some impact on performance levels beginning in PY 2005; hence these data are not directly comparable to results of prior years.
2
Ten states had a waiver to report on common measures only and did not report on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker credential rates or older/younger youth
measures in PY 2006. 25 states had such a waiver in PY 2007.
3
Average earnings figures for WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs for PY2001-2005 are approximations based on Workforce Investment Act Standardized
Record Data. Earnings were measured as an earnings change for the WIA Adult program in PY 2001 -2005. This Adult measure changed to average earnings
beginning in PY 2006. For the WIA Dislocated Worker program, earnings were measured as a wage replacement rate in PY 2001- 2004. In PY 2005, this measure
changed to earnings changed for WIA Dislocated Worker program and further changed to average earnings beginning in PY 2006.
4
States began reporting against the three Youth Common Performance Measures in PY 2006.
5
Prior to PY 2006, average earnings were not tracked for the Wagner-Peyser program.
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a3t2.pdf
-2-
Table 2: National Distribution of Performance Outcomes
Top 10% of States Top 25% of States Top 50% of States Bottom 25% of States Bottom 10% of States
PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 Avg.
WIA Adults
Entered Employment Rate 89% 91% 88% 89% 87% 88% 87% 87% 85% 85% 85% 85% 69% 66% 71% 69% 60% 59% 66% 62%
Employment Retention Rate 1 90% 91% 93% 91% 88% 89% 91% 89% 86% 87% 89% 87% 76% 78% 80% 78% 72% 75% 78% 75%
Average Earnings $13,426 $14,649 $16,199 $14,758 $12,390 $13,376 $14,604 $13,457 $11,534 $12,502 $13,468 $12,501 $9,113 $9,086 $9,696 $9,298 $9,017 $8,400 $9,140 $8,852
Employment and Credential Rate 83% 81% 81% 82% 78% 76% 76% 77% 75% 71% 76% 74% 57% 59% 59% 58% 50% 58% 55% 54%
WIA Dislocated Workers
Entered Employment Rate 93% 93% 93% 93% 91% 91% 92% 91% 89% 89% 90% 89% 76% 71% 74% 74% 69% 63% 66% 66%
Employment Retention Rate 1 94% 95% 98% 96% 93% 94% 96% 94% 92% 93% 94% 93% 81% 84% 85% 83% 73% 82% 81% 79%
Average Earnings $17,283 $17,778 $17,975 $17,678 $16,499 $16,792 $17,220 $16,837 $15,409 $15,708 $16,225 $15,781 $11,656 $11,902 $12,422 $11,993 $10,434 $10,911 $11,312 $10,886
Employment and Credential Rate 86% 83% 84% 84% 81% 79% 83% 81% 78% 76% 79% 77% 60% 57% 53% 56% 51% 50% 40% 47%
Wagner-Peyser
Entered Employment Rate 79% 75% 76% 77% 74% 73% 73% 73% 71% 69% 71% 70% 57% 50% 54% 53% 47% 44% 48% 46%
Employment Retention Rate 88% 84% 86% 86% 86% 83% 85% 85% 85% 82% 83% 83% 76% 68% 77% 74% 75% 63% 76% 71%
WIA Older Youth
Entered Employment Rate 92% 87% 89% 89% 86% 83% 87% 85% 82% 81% 83% 82% 64% 71% 70% 68% 54% 64% 67% 62%
Employment Retention Rate 90% 93% 97% 93% 89% 89% 93% 90% 87% 88% 89% 88% 74% 81% 80% 78% 66% 75% 78% 73%
Credential Rate 78% 67% 65% 70% 69% 62% 64% 65% 64% 61% 61% 62% 40% 50% 38% 42% 31% 42% 30% 34%
WIA Younger Youth
Skill Attainment Rate 97% 93% 94% 95% 93% 90% 93% 92% 89% 87% 91% 89% 73% 70% 73% 72% 69% 65% 69% 67%
Diploma Attainment Rate 90% 84% 88% 87% 82% 80% 85% 83% 76% 75% 80% 77% 49% 45% 54% 49% 34% 35% 48% 39%
Retention Rate 86% 86% 89% 87% 80% 81% 84% 82% 76% 77% 79% 77% 59% 52% 60% 57% 53% 42% 56% 50%
Customer Satisfaction
Participants 90 91 92 91 88 88 89 88 85 85 86 85 73 68 75 70 69 59 74 67
Employers 89 88 88 88 86 85 86 86 81 81 82 82 65 63 68 64 56 54 65 58
Source: WIA State Annual Reports and Wagner-Peyser State Quarterly Report
1
Common Measures performance estimates derived from Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD)
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a4.pdf
ATTACHMENT IV
Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs 1
WIA Adult Program WIA Dislocated Worker Program
2 2 2 2
State PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005 PY 2006 PY 2007 PY 2002 PY 20032 PY 20042 PY 20052 PY 2006 PY 2007
2
Nation $9,396 $10,348 $10,773 $11,208 $11,869 $13,575 $12,998 $13,803 $14,003 $14,150 $14,265 $15,188
AK $10,539 $13,506 $12,606 $13,008 $13,595 $14,689 $14,675 $18,606 $16,271 $15,907 $19,079 $19,972
AL $8,859 $11,506 $13,094 $8,974 $9,859 $11,092 $10,677 $11,642 $12,653 $12,861 $13,471 $14,805
AR $9,077 $10,005 $12,634 $11,861 $12,428 $12,898 $10,311 $11,172 $12,518 $12,228 $13,090 $14,428
AZ $9,434 $9,439 $9,409 $10,330 $12,117 $12,263 $12,077 $13,206 $13,533 $14,792 $15,598 $15,010
CA $10,397 $10,483 $11,680 $12,396 $15,732 $16,640 $14,945 $15,030 $15,311 $15,726 $16,321 $16,978
CO $9,172 $11,037 $10,512 $11,274 $11,587 $14,286 $13,410 $15,269 $16,040 $15,980 $15,282 $15,717
CT $10,243 $9,517 $9,818 $11,004 $12,298 $11,463 $15,775 $14,159 $16,193 $16,336 $16,726 $16,945
DC $8,478 $8,971 $8,924 $10,220 $10,830 $12,633 $14,209 $13,816 $15,059 $14,027 $13,697 $15,570
DE $8,586 $9,518 $9,272 $10,075 $10,612 $9,915 $12,374 $12,058 $12,987 $12,979 $12,906 $13,369
FL $9,690 $11,367 $12,118 $15,108 $16,439 $19,531 $12,799 $13,720 $14,140 $14,480 $15,844 $16,887
GA $8,716 $9,102 $10,284 $10,644 $10,573 $12,046 $11,151 $13,024 $13,940 $14,244 $13,897 $14,682
HI $8,987 $9,137 $10,087 $10,186 $10,951 $12,451 $12,435 $12,434 $12,941 $12,868 $14,640 $15,072
IA $9,049 $9,344 $9,511 $9,598 $10,319 $10,233 $11,296 $11,791 $12,230 $11,880 $12,401 $12,856
ID $9,229 $8,921 $9,413 $10,391 $10,232 $11,796 $12,940 $12,417 $13,266 $13,094 $13,364 $14,164
IL $9,585 $9,985 $10,198 $10,759 $11,288 $11,802 $13,676 $15,034 $15,333 $15,413 $15,828 $16,358
IN $9,348 $10,159 $10,149 $10,370 $10,461 $11,893 $12,839 $14,980 $14,189 $14,577 $13,652 $14,753
KS $8,950 $10,105 $11,281 $11,419 $13,451 $12,960 $12,294 $14,804 $15,539 $15,621 $15,417 $15,170
KY $9,381 $9,612 $10,081 $10,634 $12,179 $15,928 $12,066 $11,668 $11,950 $13,296 $13,436 $13,338
LA $8,764 $9,277 $10,063 $10,194 $12,082 $12,537 $11,083 $11,227 $11,544 $12,179 $13,459 $14,554
MA $9,515 $9,849 $10,018 $10,581 $10,426 $10,666 $13,972 $14,756 $16,643 $18,615 $17,486 $17,513
MD $10,501 $11,431 $12,240 $12,740 $12,096 $12,245 $14,307 $15,902 $17,269 $15,919 $15,574 $15,713
ME $8,959 $9,220 $9,312 $9,247 $9,701 $9,989 $10,932 $10,760 $12,919 $11,164 $12,285 $11,916
MI $9,096 $9,617 $9,388 $9,651 $10,316 $10,099 $12,598 $12,674 $12,336 $12,914 $12,797 $13,768
MN $9,319 $10,035 $10,539 $10,661 $11,203 $12,466 $15,434 $16,498 $16,300 $16,143 $17,003 $17,528
MO $8,101 $8,589 $8,658 $9,178 $9,414 $10,466 $12,651 $13,165 $12,590 $13,257 $12,830 $14,460
MS $8,313 $8,333 $8,450 $8,871 $9,334 $9,818 $9,346 $9,659 $9,663 $10,169 $10,597 $11,148
MT $8,468 $7,936 $9,697 $9,758 $11,398 $13,825 $13,127 $13,014 $13,888 $13,964 $13,582 $17,107
NC $9,133 $9,110 $9,669 $9,893 $10,259 $11,634 $11,229 $11,858 $12,217 $13,714 $13,487 $13,683
ND $7,801 $7,809 $8,332 $9,447 $9,235 $10,499 $11,328 $10,832 $11,164 $12,338 $12,388 $12,042
NE $7,887 $9,387 $9,505 $9,839 $9,924 $10,582 $12,647 $12,676 $13,342 $12,919 $14,194 $14,301
NH $9,485 $11,009 $10,544 $9,947 $9,104 $9,211 $13,389 $17,111 $15,121 $17,111 $13,159 $15,903
NJ $9,928 $10,533 $11,209 $11,945 $11,885 $12,177 $13,821 $14,189 $15,815 $16,272 $15,706 $15,698
NM $8,946 $9,234 $10,158 $11,007 $10,658 $11,877 $11,223 $11,800 $13,315 $12,739 $14,248 $13,914
NV $9,536 $8,537 $10,437 $9,767 $11,025 $11,934 $13,575 $15,004 $14,723 $13,727 $14,199 $15,839
NY $10,134 $10,969 $11,639 $12,164 $10,841 $15,368 $14,815 $15,182 $15,138 $14,716 $14,158 $17,457
OH $13,409 $14,218 $14,221 $14,718 $14,860 $15,040 $15,618 $17,021 $17,093 $17,057 $16,744 $17,451
OK $9,311 $9,422 $10,206 $10,452 $11,701 $11,376 $11,871 $12,020 $12,842 $13,118 $12,767 $13,569
OR $8,354 $9,323 $9,938 $9,990 $10,053 $10,704 $11,719 $12,425 $12,812 $12,919 $13,352 $13,960
PA $8,844 $9,762 $10,184 $11,540 $12,177 $12,469 $12,975 $13,741 $14,581 $15,460 $15,142 $14,901
PR $4,629 $5,835 $7,149 $7,158 $5,753 $6,898 $4,925 $5,638 $5,847 $6,959 $6,129 $7,740
RI $9,757 $10,608 $10,653 $10,378 $11,213 $12,507 $13,161 $13,099 $13,324 $14,691 $13,273 $13,986
SC $8,429 $8,774 $9,071 $9,240 $9,268 $9,416 $10,425 $11,107 $11,283 $12,252 $11,749 $12,172
SD $7,402 $8,277 $8,954 $9,978 $10,277 $10,745 $10,328 $11,333 $11,348 $12,388 $12,317 $13,193
TN $9,814 $17,178 $14,595 $11,860 $12,692 $13,137 $12,118 $20,922 $16,898 $12,586 $12,970 $13,272
TX $9,255 $10,257 $10,591 $11,248 $11,658 $12,243 $12,533 $13,407 $12,859 $13,598 $13,893 $14,319
UT $9,540 $9,271 $9,031 $9,029 $12,094 $12,108 $13,674 $13,250 $13,794 $15,022 $15,611 $14,457
VA $7,804 $9,812 $9,253 $9,031 $9,168 $9,924 $12,371 $13,665 $13,147 $12,651 $12,593 $13,368
VT $9,822 $9,730 $10,427 $10,611 $12,107 $12,647 $13,440 $14,285 $14,947 $13,174 $14,969 $15,502
WA $9,710 $10,387 $10,394 $11,100 $11,928 $12,159 $14,477 $15,383 $16,022 $17,295 $18,566 $17,928
WI $7,965 $7,918 $9,073 $9,441 $9,432 $9,581 $13,116 $13,547 $13,829 $13,836 $13,846 $14,513
WV $9,447 $7,549 $9,378 $9,610 $10,509 $11,246 $13,060 $10,641 $14,979 $12,770 $13,318 $15,392
WY $8,173 $9,775 $10,724 $10,215 $13,817 $12,907 $12,199 $11,121 $14,140 $11,996 $14,492 $14,589
Source: Estimates using Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) PY 2002 - PY 2007
1
These estimates do not include NEG-only participants. However, they incorporate those who receive both WIA Title 1B and NEG
assistance.
2
Average earnings figures from PY 2002 - 2005 are approximations based on Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data.
Earnings were measured as an earnings change for the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs from PY 2002-2005 before changing
to average earnings in PY 2006.
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a5.pdf
ATTACHMENT V
Estimates of Six Months Average Earnings by State Using BLS-QCEW Program Data
CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007
Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1
Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg.
Earnings Earnings Earnings Earnings Earnings
US2 107,792,549 $18,754 109,233,923 $19,567 111,361,684 $20,253 134,870,635 $19,748 135,704,350 $20,613
AK 215,626 $18,252 220,849 $18,853 226,441 $19,409 307,637 $20,875 310,810 $21,986
AL 1,483,039 $15,784 1,509,246 $16,408 1,548,068 $17,004 1,928,281 $18,102 1,952,091 $18,746
AR 930,765 $14,247 942,044 $14,901 957,385 $15,389 1,167,925 $16,195 1,173,852 $17,059
AZ 1,902,998 $17,301 1,980,818 $18,104 2,107,545 $18,853 2,614,344 $20,010 2,647,691 $20,776
CA 12,447,085 $20,932 12,609,942 $22,022 12,877,981 $22,842 15,503,144 $24,173 15,640,575 $25,269
CO 1,776,722 $19,445 1,800,646 $20,103 1,843,544 $20,796 2,242,012 $21,753 2,292,630 $22,698
CT 1,390,345 $24,467 1,398,093 $25,815 1,409,194 $26,839 1,672,109 $27,407 1,686,043 $29,015
DC 421,101 $28,038 429,176 $29,589 435,674 $30,799 671,143 $35,075 n/a $36,725
DE 347,500 $20,442 356,173 $21,171 361,184 $22,296 422,187 $23,142 423,412 $23,654
FL 6,213,122 $16,457 6,423,693 $17,219 6,694,864 $18,048 7,952,023 $19,242 7,945,162 $19,873
GA 3,156,763 $18,432 3,206,888 $19,123 3,288,867 $19,757 4,024,699 $20,185 4,077,184 $21,089
HI 454,089 $15,987 468,748 $16,792 487,265 $17,282 618,178 $18,899 625,862 $19,733
IA 1,177,501 $15,110 1,195,269 $15,838 1,218,487 $16,326 1,470,742 $17,160 1,485,627 $17,869
ID 468,484 $14,136 482,745 $14,713 505,098 $15,220 643,671 $16,290 660,683 $16,772
IL 4,887,063 $20,287 4,895,801 $21,159 4,942,881 $21,926 5,821,022 $22,825 5,869,157 $23,843
IN 2,427,271 $16,697 2,451,737 $17,364 2,476,047 $17,732 2,892,419 $18,277 2,905,725 $18,764
KS 1,048,871 $15,897 1,058,858 $16,506 1,067,241 $17,132 1,327,677 $17,848 1,356,966 $18,522
KY 1,423,208 $15,829 1,439,029 $16,462 1,464,009 $16,868 1,779,202 $17,600 1,801,907 $18,240
LA 1,493,180 $15,307 1,500,416 $15,861 1,483,085 $16,759 1,807,563 $18,302 1,868,986 $19,115
MA 2,739,212 $23,285 2,739,861 $24,614 2,758,287 $25,213 3,194,914 $26,217 3,234,357 $27,622
MD 1,983,840 $19,578 2,014,285 $20,506 2,048,799 $21,390 2,530,011 $23,081 2,547,351 $24,121
ME 492,329 $15,115 497,523 $15,697 495,573 $16,052 598,525 $16,897 602,321 $17,565
MI 3,679,892 $19,742 3,665,091 $20,202 3,664,372 $20,562 4,235,650 $21,079 4,179,122 $21,679
MN 2,206,420 $19,347 2,230,302 $20,290 2,266,499 $20,483 2,670,222 $21,093 2,687,482 $22,188
MO 2,200,623 $16,972 2,213,813 $17,512 2,247,382 $18,102 2,699,860 $18,571 2,719,380 $19,302
MS 864,109 $13,569 871,265 $14,016 877,853 $14,600 1,122,474 $15,597 1,135,336 $16,146
MT 314,240 $12,830 323,727 $13,305 334,143 $13,968 426,182 $15,298 436,656 $16,112
NC 3,093,372 $16,657 3,141,074 $17,317 3,208,940 $17,882 3,965,479 $18,719 4,062,955 $19,455
ND 251,672 $13,599 258,025 $14,303 264,609 $14,789 335,718 $15,658 341,705 $16,543
NE 724,281 $14,962 730,413 $15,527 739,567 $16,002 902,383 $16,907 916,580 $17,619
NH 520,458 $18,843 529,498 $19,771 536,157 $20,512 627,371 $21,224 630,204 $21,932
NJ 3,262,121 $22,990 3,274,157 $23,817 3,308,847 $24,560 3,951,210 $25,822 3,961,341 $26,927
NM 570,868 $14,470 582,169 $15,045 597,145 $15,672 807,063 $17,284 821,484 $18,190
NV 949,334 $17,160 1,010,267 $18,055 1,075,087 $18,941 1,271,634 $20,035 1,284,502 $21,075
NY 6,803,570 $23,951 6,854,296 $25,397 6,928,662 $26,489 8,429,519 $27,739 8,554,012 $29,720
OH 4,524,065 $17,303 4,533,380 $17,964 4,555,293 $18,415 5,314,572 $19,284 5,306,812 $17,746
OK 1,120,680 $14,632 1,130,802 $15,225 1,158,861 $15,779 1,507,196 $17,011 1,534,802 $19,959
OR 1,314,854 $16,909 1,344,751 $17,513 1,386,917 $18,115 1,699,932 $19,039 1,727,886 $19,785
PA 4,753,844 $18,241 4,781,005 $19,033 4,837,168 $19,632 5,607,139 $20,675 5,652,547 $21,620
PR 726,994 $10,159 743,857 $10,435 750,665 $10,762 1,036,802 $11,854 1,016,362 $12,371
RI 407,764 $17,432 412,149 $17,984 414,842 $18,533 480,570 $20,227 480,132 $20,823
SC 1,454,329 $15,121 1,476,668 $15,654 1,500,676 $16,210 1,855,842 $17,141 1,891,255 $17,697
SD 295,714 $13,376 300,583 $13,896 306,681 $14,328 383,876 $15,146 392,060 $15,828
TN 2,204,879 $16,748 2,246,911 $17,429 2,286,964 $17,930 2,728,694 $18,782 2,745,099 $19,541
TX 7,587,587 $18,721 7,695,635 $19,550 7,926,772 $20,440 9,922,313 $21,229 10,231,906 $22,348
UT 857,043 $15,261 884,984 $15,795 925,300 $16,414 1,170,587 $17,565 1,219,207 $18,527
VA 2,788,213 $19,071 2,859,017 $20,058 2,931,169 $20,969 3,636,417 $22,025 3,672,958 $22,998
VT 244,595 $15,786 248,057 $16,361 249,757 $16,824 303,205 $17,771 303,448 $18,478
WA 2,157,934 $19,337 2,196,183 $19,409 2,264,776 $20,113 2,850,073 $21,449 2,925,908 $22,511
WI 2,307,228 $16,499 2,335,623 $17,194 2,365,071 $17,558 2,767,141 $18,411 2,780,924 $19,025
WV 542,349 $14,179 550,559 $14,788 558,749 $15,272 705,189 $16,364 706,172 $17,053
WY 183,403 $14,574 187,822 $15,329 195,241 $16,310 266,894 $18,331 277,721 $19,627
Data Source: BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Annual Averages, 2003-2005. http://www.bls.gov/cew
1
Average Annual Wages, which are used to compute the Estimated 6 Months Average Earnings, are obtained through taking Total Annual Wages and dividing them by
the Average Annual Employment
2
Aggregated National data incorporates all 50 States as well as territories
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a6.pdf
ATTACHMENT VI
Additional Notes on BLS—QCEW Program Data
Data Source/Methodology:
ETA utilized annual Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) employment
and wage data for private industry by state for calendar years 2003 through 2007, which is
readily available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/ under the heading “Publications and Other Documentation.”
Calendar year data on average earnings for the overall workforce were used as a point of
comparison to the actual average earnings achieved by the reporting cohorts included on
state Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Annual Report submissions during Program Years
(PY) 2002 through 2005, and the state quarterly reports submitted for the WIA and Wagner-
Peyser programs for the quarter ending September 30, 2008. For instance, the exit cohorts
for the employment retention and earnings measures on the state quarterly reports ending
September 30, 2008, covered the periods July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. With the
exception of one quarter for the April-June 2008 cohort, the actual six months earnings
quarters (i.e., 2nd and 3rd post-program quarters) for these exit cohorts covered the calendar
year 2007 period. Similar coverage based on a calendar year period exists for exit cohorts
reported on prior WIA Annual Reports.
To estimate the six months average earnings using the QCEW data, the following
methodology was applied:
(TOTAL ANNUAL EARNINGS x 1,000) divided by ANNUAL AVERAGE Employment
The result of this computation was then divided by 2 to get the six months estimate.
All published BLS data are final. State detail may not add to the national totals due to
rounding.
Data Coverage/Limitations:
Employment data under the QCEW program represent the number of covered workers
who worked during, or received pay for, the pay period including the 12th of the month.
Excluded are members of the armed forces, the self-employed, proprietors, domestic
workers, unpaid family workers, and railroad workers covered by the railroad
unemployment insurance system. Wages represent total compensation paid during the
calendar quarter, regardless of when services were performed. Included in wages are pay
for vacation and other paid leave, bonuses, stock options, tips, the cash value of meals and
lodging, and in some States, contributions to deferred compensation plans (such as 401(k)
plans). The QCEW program does provide partial information on agricultural industries
and employees in private households.
BLS publishes data from the QCEW program every quarter in the County Employment and
Wages press release. This is usually released 6 to 7 months after the end of the quarter. In
addition, QCEW publishes the annual bulletin Employment and Wages, Annual Averages
about 10 months after the end of the year.
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a7.pdf
ATTACHMENT VII
Economic and Demographic Variables
Table 1: Relationship between Performance Outcomes and Unemployment Rates and
Customer Characteristics
Effect on Performance of a One Percentage Point Increase in:
Percent Not Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age High School Low with
ment Rate Female 55 or Older Graduate Income Disabilities
Adults
Entered Employment Rate (%) -0.5 -.011 -.065 -.105 -- -.144
Employment Retention (%) -1.5 .010 -.006 -.081 -.054 -.072
Average Earnings ($) -944 -44 14 -34 -45 -30
Credential rate (%) -1.9 .035 -- -.158 -.053 -.149
Dislocated Workers
Entered Employment Rate (%) -1.3 -.006 -.127 -.045 -- -.112
Employment Retention (%) -1.3 .011 -.037 -.048 -- -.040
Average Earnings (%) -1,347 -44 -- -34 -- -22
Credential rate (%) -- -.020 -.041 -.032 -- -.064
Percent Not Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age High School Basic Skills with
Older Youth ment Rate Female 19 Graduate Deficient Disabilities
Entered Employment Rate (%) -- -.025 -.016 -.128 -.035 -.061
Employment Retention (%) -1.4 -- -- -.118 -.036 --
Earnings change ($) -250 -- -- -39 -9 ---
Credential rate (%) -- -- -- -.096 -.097 --
Percent Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age High School Basic Skills with
Younger Youth ment Rate Female 14 or 15 Dropout Deficient Disabilities
Skill attainment rate (%) 3.5 .009 .031 -.082 -.032 .013
Diploma attainment rate (%) 5.8 .055 .029 -.331 -.078 .094
Retention (%) -- .021 -.026 -.095 -.019 -.032
-2-
Percent Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age High School Basic Skills with
Youth Common Measures ment Rate Female 19 to 21 Dropout Deficient Disabilities
Literacy and Numeracy Gain 2.4 -- -.085 -.083 -- --
Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age Attending Basic Skills with
ment Rate Female 14 to 15 High School Deficient Disabilities
Placed in Employment or Education -- .022 -.167 -.065 -.073 -.052
Attained Degree or Certificate -- .040 -.182 .073 -.138 .045
Note: Almost all adjustments shown are statistically significant at the 1% level; the remainder are statistically
significant at the 5% level.
Table 1: Relationship Between Performance Outcomes and Unemployment Rates and
Customer Characteristics
This table shows estimates of how performance outcomes are affected by changes in
unemployment rates and selected customer characteristics. The analysis was conducted on PY
2007 WIASRD records. Each number in the table represents the effect on performance of a one
percentage point change in the unemployment rate or in the percentage of customers with a
specific characteristic. This type of information can be used during negotiations to inform
discussions of the impact of changes in the economic environment and customer
characteristics on state performance. States are encouraged to conduct similar analyses using
their own state data when proposing performance levels.
Performance measures shown in the table were determined as follows:
• Adults and dislocated workers
− Entered employment uses the common measures definition and reflects the use of
supplemental data.
− Retention uses the common measures definition and reflects the use of
supplemental data.
− Average earnings change uses the common measures definition.
− Credential uses the TEGL 17-05 definition and uses supplemental data to
determine employment.
• Older and Younger Youth
− All measures based on TEGL 17-05 definitions and use supplemental data where
appropriate.
-3-
• Youth
− Common measures are based on the current definitions. Literacy and numeracy
based on definition for first year of implementation and includes only youth who
began youth services between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.
Table 1 provides estimated relationships between unemployment rates and performance
outcomes. These relationships were estimated using WIASRD data on outcomes for exiters in
the most recent year available for each measure1 and CY 2006 and CY 2007 state
unemployment rates in a simple bivariate regression analysis. CY 2006 was used for entered
employment; CY 2007 was used for retention and earnings. The results indicate, for example,
that an increase of the national unemployment rate by one percentage point (say from 5% to
6%) decreases the adult entered employment rate by 0.5 percentage points (say from 70.0% to
69.5%). This information may be used in conjunction with the information in Table 2 to
determine the expected influence of changes in unemployment rates on entered employment
rates.
Table 1 also provides estimated relationships between selected customer characteristics and
performance outcomes. These estimates were developed in the same way as the estimates for
the unemployment rate, using bivariate regressions based on WIASRD data. These estimates
indicate, for example, that if the percentage of older youth with disabilities increases by 10
percentage points, then the entered employment rate is expected to decrease by 0.61
percentage points (10 x –0.061). It should be noted, that the estimated relationships between
performance outcomes and customer characteristics are generally small enough that only
very large changes in customer characteristics will have a material impact on outcomes.
However, modest changes in the age categories or education status of youth, especially
younger youth, can have a noticeable impact on outcomes.
States should note that the following parameters and definitions were used to create the
estimates for customer characteristics:
• The percentage with disabilities includes both disabilities that are a substantial barrier
to employment and other disabilities.
• The percentage female, the percentage in an age group, and the percentage with
disabilities were based on all WIA exiters (except as noted below for the adult and
- 3 -
1 Estimates for entered employment, credential attainment, placement in employment and education, and
attainment of degree or certificate were based on exiters between October 2006 and September 2007. Estimates for
retention and earnings change were based on exiters from April 2006 to March 2007. Estimates for younger youth
skill attainment and younger youth diploma attainment were based on exiters between April 2007 and March
2008. Estimates for literacy and numeracy gains were based on youth who started youth services between July 1,
2006 and June 30, 2007.
-4-
dislocated worker credential and employment rates, the younger youth diploma rate,
and the youth common measures).
• The percentage who are low income or not high school graduates were calculated for all
younger or older youth and for adults and dislocated workers who received intensive
or training services (except as noted below for the adult and dislocated worker
credential and employment rates and the younger youth diploma rate).
• When adjusting the adult and dislocated worker credential and employment rates, the
customer characteristics were based on those who receive training (e.g., the relationship
between the adult employment rate and the percent low-income variable is based on
the percentage of low-income individuals receiving training services).
• When adjusting the younger youth diploma rate, the customer characteristics were
based on younger youth who were not high school graduates, or the equivalent, at
registration.
• When adjusting the youth common measures the characteristics should be based on the
subset of youth included in the denominator of each measure.
• For younger youth, “not a high school graduate” includes school dropouts and those
attending high school.
The estimated adjustments were designed to make adjustments only for a single characteristic.
However, simultaneous adjustments for several characteristics are reasonably accurate.
-5-
Table 2: Unemployment Rates for CY 2003 to CY 2007
Actual Unemployment Rates (%)
CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007
Nation 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.6
Alabama 5.8 5.2 4.0 3.5 3.5
Alaska 8.0 7.4 6.8 6.5 6.2
Arizona 5.6 5.0 4.7 4.1 3.8
Arkansas 6.2 5.6 4.9 5.3 5.4
California 6.7 6.2 5.4 4.9 5.4
Colorado 6.0 5.6 5.0 4.3 3.8
Connecticut 5.5 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.6
Delaware 4.4 4.0 4.2 3.5 3.4
District of Columbia 7.0 7.5 6.5 5.9 5.7
Florida 5.1 4.7 3.8 3.4 4.0
Georgia 4.7 4.8 5.3 4.6 4.4
Hawaii 4.3 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.6
Idaho 5.4 4.7 3.8 3.2 2.7
Illinois 6.7 6.2 5.7 4.6 5.0
Indiana 5.1 5.3 5.4 4.9 4.5
Iowa 4.5 4.7 4.6 3.8 3.8
Kansas 5.4 5.6 5.1 4.3 4.1
Kentucky 6.2 5.5 6.1 5.8 5.5
Louisiana 6.6 5.7 7.1 3.9 3.8
Maine 5.1 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.7
Maryland 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6
Massachusetts 5.8 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.5
Michigan 7.3 7.0 6.7 6.9 7.2
Minnesota 5.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6
Mississippi 6.3 6.3 7.9 6.7 6.3
Missouri 5.6 5.8 5.4 4.8 5.0
Montana 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.3 3.1
Nebraska 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.0 3.0
Nevada 5.2 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.8
New Hampshire 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.6
New Jersey 5.9 4.9 4.4 4.7 4.2
New Mexico 6.4 5.7 5.3 4.3 3.5
New York 6.3 5.8 5.0 4.6 4.5
North Carolina 6.5 5.5 5.2 4.7 4.7
North Dakota 4.0 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2
Ohio 6.1 6.2 5.5 5.4 5.6
-6-
Actual Unemployment Rates (%)
CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007
Oklahoma 5.7 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.3
Oregon 8.2 7.3 5.4 5.4 5.2
Pennsylvania 5.6 5.4 4.7 4.6 4.4
Puerto Rico 12.0 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.9
Rhode Island 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0
South Carolina 6.8 6.8 6.5 6.4 5.9
South Dakota 3.6 3.8 3.2 3.1 3.0
Tennessee 5.8 5.5 5.2 5.1 4.7
Texas 6.8 6.0 4.9 4.9 4.3
Utah 5.6 5.5 2.9 3.0 2.7
Vermont 4.6 5.0 3.6 3.7 3.9
Virginia 4.1 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.0
Washington 7.5 3.7 5.0 4.9 4.5
West Virginia 6.1 6.3 4.9 4.7 4.6
Wisconsin 5.6 5.3 4.7 4.7 4.9
Wyoming 4.4 5.0 3.2 3.3 3.0
Table 2: Unemployment Rates For CY 2003 to CY 2007
Table 2 shows annual average unemployment rates for the nation and each state
spanning a period from Calendar Year (CY) 2003 to CY 2007. The data presented was
obtained from the Annual Average Statewide Data category of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. More specifically,
these tables are located at http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables.
Characteristics of this data include:
1) The unemployment rates shown are calendar years, not program years.
2) The annual averages presented are the actual percent of unemployment and not
seasonally adjusted rates. Seasonally adjusted data isolate for and measure the
overall impact of effects on time series data, which occur at specific periods
during the year in a highly predictable pattern.
3) The data refer to rates collected on a place of residence basis. The data have also
been revised to incorporate updated population controls and re-estimation.
4) The annual average state estimates do not sum to the U.S. total.
Attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2009/TEGL09-08a8.pdf
ATTACHMENT VIII
Time Periods for Reporting Performance Information in the
WIA Annual Report for PY 2008 - PY 2010
Annual Report Annual Report Annual Report
PY 2008 PY 2009 PY 2010
Reporting Item
Total Participants 7/1/08 to 6/30/09 7/1/09 to 6/30/10 7/1/10 to 6/30/11
Total Exiters 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10 4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Employer Customer Satisfaction 1/1/08 to 12/31/08 1/1/09 to 12/31/09 1/1/10 to 12/31/10
Participant Customer Satisfaction 1/1/08 to 12/31/08 1/1/09 to 12/31/09 1/1/10 to 12/31/10
Adult and Dislocated Worker
Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate 10/1/07 to 9/30/08 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Employment Retention Rate 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Six Months Average Earnings 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Employment and Credential Rate 10/1/07 to 9/30/08 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Older Youth Performance
Measures
Entered Employment Rate 10/1/07 to 9/30/08 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Employment Retention Rate 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Earnings Change 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Employment and Credential Rate 10/1/07 to 9/30/08 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Younger Youth Performance
Measures
Skill Attainment Rate 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10 4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Youth Diploma or Equivalent Rate 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10 4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Retention Rate 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
What does federal law require today?
This guidance has been withdrawn. Ezel checks current federal labor law as it stands now and answers your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace