Back to Federal guidance
WIOA core program performance negotiations and sanctions, Change 1
Summary ETA and the Education Department revised guidance on negotiating WIOA core program performance targets and assessing state performance. They clarified the statistical adjustment model and when financial sanctions may apply across plan periods. TEGL 11-19, Change 2 rescinded and replaced this version in January 2025.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
TEGL No. 11-19, Change 1
Date issued
May 10, 2023
Status
Rescinded
Rescinded January 6, 2025 by TEGL 11-19, Change 2; ETA marks this listing entry Rescinded. This change itself rescinded TEGL 11-19.
Status last verified October 24, 2026
Is this still the rule?
This document has been rescinded. 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.
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION WIOA
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OPDR
Washington, D.C. 20210 DATE
May 10, 2023
ADVISORY: TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 11-19,
Change 1
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
STATE WORKFORCE ADMINISTRATORS
STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
STATE AND LOCAL WORKFORCE BOARD CHAIRS AND DIRECTORS
STATE LABOR COMMISSIONERS
STATE LMI DIRECTORS
FROM: BRENT PARTON
Acting Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Negotiations and Sanctions Guidance for the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) Core Programs
1. Purpose.
This guidance1 supersedes Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 11-19,
published February 6, 2020, and developed jointly by the U.S. Departments of Labor and
Education (the Departments). Through this updated guidance, the Departments:
• Revise their approach to using the statistical adjustment model for the purpose of
assessing state performance;
• Clarify the implementation of potential financial sanctions for consecutive performance
failures occurring across multiple State Plan periods; and
• Clarify that states can be sanctioned up to 10 percent of the Governor’s Reserve
Allotment if there is consecutive performance failure and a failure to report for the same
program year.
1
This guidance is a statement of the Departments’ policy regarding the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA). Other than statutory and regulatory requirements included in this document, the contents of this guidance
do not have the force and effect of law. This document is intended only to provide clarity regarding existing
requirements under the applicable law or agency policies.
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
TEGL 11-19 Continuing
This guidance also continues to delineate the process for negotiating levels of performance,
as required by section 116(b)(3)(A)(iv) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) and explains the two instances in which a state may be sanctioned, namely for
performance failure or for failure to report (section 116(f) of WIOA).
2. Action Requested.
Distribute this information to the appropriate state and local staff, including program,
reporting, performance accountability, and technical staff.
3. Summary and Background.
a. Summary – This revised guidance: (1) describes changes made to the implementation of
the statistical adjustment model for purposes of assessing performance; (2) continues to
outline the requirements for reaching agreement on the negotiated levels of performance; and
(3) clarifies the application of sanctions for the states2 outlined in section 116 of WIOA and
its implementing joint regulations in 20 CFR part 677 and 34 CFR parts 361 and 463,
particularly when a State fails both to report and meet adjusted levels of performance. This
guidance supplements the guidance provided by the Departments in “Performance
Accountability Guidance for WIOA Title I, Title II, Title III, and Title IV Core Programs,”
issued December 16, 2016, and updated August 17, 2017, and September 15, 2022, and
“WIOA Annual Performance Report Submission,” issued September 11, 2017.3
b. Background – WIOA establishes performance accountability indicators and performance
reporting requirements to assess the effectiveness of states and local areas in achieving
positive outcomes for individuals served by the workforce development system’s six core
programs.4
Under section 116(b)(2)(A) of WIOA, there are six primary indicators of performance for
which each of the state core programs must negotiate levels of performance with its
respective Federal agency:
2
As stated in 20 CFR § 677.150(d), 34 CFR § 361.150(d), and 34 CFR § 463.150(d), the negotiations and sanctions
process only applies to states as defined in sec. 3(56) of WIOA – each of the several states of the United States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It does not apply to the outlying areas as defined in
sec. 3(45)—American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Republic of Palau.
3
See Attachment VII – References.
4
The six core programs are the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs, authorized under WIOA title I and
administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL); the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
program, authorized under WIOA title II and administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED); the
Employment Service program authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by WIOA title III and
administered by DOL (the Employment Service program); and the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program
authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA title IV and administered by ED.
• The percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the
second quarter after exit from the program (for the title I Youth program, the indicator is
the percentage of program participants in education or training activities, or unsubsidized
employment, during the second quarter after exit);
• The percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the
fourth quarter after exit from the program (for the title I Youth program, the indicator is
the percentage of program participants in education or training activities, or unsubsidized
employment, during the fourth quarter after exit);
• The median earnings of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during
the second quarter after exit from the program;
• The percentage of program participants who attain a recognized postsecondary credential,
or a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, during participation in or
within one year after exit from the program. Under this primary indicator, the attainment
of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent is included only if the
participant is employed or is enrolled in an education or training program leading to a
recognized postsecondary credential within one year after exit from the program (this
indicator does not apply to the Employment Service program);
• The percentage of program participants who, during a program year, are in an education
or training program that leads to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment
and who are achieving measurable skill gains toward such a credential or employment
(this indicator does not apply to the Employment Service program); and
• The effectiveness of the core programs in serving employers (Effectiveness in Serving
Employers): In the preamble to the Joint WIOA final rule at 81 FR 55792, 55845-55848
(Aug. 19, 2016), the Departments indicated that they would initially implement this
indicator in the form of a pilot to test the feasibility and rigor of three proposed
approaches. During Program Year (PY) 2022, the Departments initiated the rulemaking
process to establish a standard definition of Effectiveness in Serving Employers (see
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at 87 FR 56318 (Sep. 15, 2022)). In the
preamble to the NPRM at 87 FR 56327, the Departments instructed States to continue to
report two of three proposed approaches until the Departments promulgate the final rule
and implement the indicator’s standard definition.
WIOA requires the Governor of each state to submit a Unified or Combined State Plan that
includes a four-year strategy for the state’s workforce development system and to submit a
modification to that plan after two years (sections 102(c) and 103(b)(1) of WIOA). The
expected levels of performance for each primary indicator of performance for each core
program must be included in the initial submission of a Unified or Combined State Plan and
in the required two-year modification of the plan (section 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA)). The
approved Unified or Combined State Plan and the required two-year modification must
reflect two years of negotiated levels of performance (section 116(b)(3)(A)(iv) of WIOA).
Additional information on the process for setting these levels of performance is provided in
section 4.
4. Negotiations and Sanctions Guidance.
Terms
In this guidance, the Departments use the following terms with respect to the process of
establishing levels of performance under WIOA section 116(b):
• Expected levels of performance are the levels of performance proposed by the state in
the initial submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and in the required two-year
modification of the Unified or Combined State Plan prior to negotiations (WIOA section
116(b)(3)(A)(iii)) for each primary indicator of performance for each core program;
• Negotiated levels of performance are the levels of performance mutually agreed to by
the state and the Departments for each respective program. The negotiations process must
be based on four factors described in section 4 of this guidance. These negotiated levels
of performance must be incorporated into the approved Unified or Combined State Plan
and the approved two-year modification of that Plan (WIOA section 116(b)(3)(A)(iv)) for
each primary indicator of performance for each core program;
• Adjusted levels of performance are levels of performance determined by adjusting the
negotiated levels of performance at the end of the program year to reflect actual
characteristics of participants served and the actual economic conditions experienced
using the statistical adjustment model (see below) (WIOA section 116(b)(3)(A)(vii));
• Actual level of performance is the outcome reported by a state on the Statewide
Performance Report (ETA-9169 OMB No. 1205-0526) for each primary indicator of
performance for each core program (section 116(d)(2) of WIOA). The Departments will
compare actual levels of performance to the adjusted levels of performance at the close of
the program year to determine the state’s performance success or failure pursuant to
section 116(b)(3)(A)(vii) of WIOA;
• Adjustment factor is a positive or negative difference that will be added to the
negotiated level of performance to determine the adjusted level of performance. The
adjustment factor is the difference between the estimated levels of performance predicted
by the statistical adjustment model based on pre-program year estimates of participant
characteristics and economic conditions and the levels of performance re-estimated by
the statistical adjustment model after the close of the program year based on the actual
participant characteristics and economic conditions. This calculation will yield a positive
or negative difference, which will be used as the adjustment factor for the program year;
• Individual indicator score is the proportion the actual level of performance represents
of the adjusted level of performance for a single performance indicator for a single
program. It is calculated by dividing the actual level of performance achieved by the
adjusted level of performance (20 C.F.R. § 677.190(c)(5) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 361.190(c)(5)
and 463.190(c)(5));
• Overall state program score is the average of the individual indicator scores for a
single WIOA core program across performance indicators (20 C.F.R. § 677.190(c)(1) and
34 C.F.R. §§ 361.190(c)(1) and 463.190(c)(1));
• Overall state indicator score is the average of the individual indicator scores for a
single performance indicator across WIOA core programs (20 C.F.R. § 677.190(c)(3) and
34 C.F.R. §§ 361.190(c)(3) and 463.190(c)(3)); and
• Statistical adjustment model is an objective regression model, developed pursuant to
section 116(b)(3)(A)(3)(viii) of WIOA, used to estimate levels of performance and derive
the adjusted levels of performance based on participant characteristics and economic
conditions. Economic conditions include differences in unemployment rates and job
losses or gains in particular industries. Characteristics of participants include but are not
limited to: indicators of poor work history, lack of work experience, lack of educational
or occupational skills attainment, dislocation from high-wage and high-benefit
employment, low levels of literacy or English proficiency, disability status,
homelessness, ex-offender status, and welfare dependency (20 C.F.R. § 677.170(c) and
34 C.F.R. §§ 361.170(c) and 463.170(c)). The statistical adjustment model also considers
other factors that, through empirical support, are determined to have an effect on state
outcomes. The Departments are committed to a transparent process for assessing state
performance. Accordingly, ETA, the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education
(OCTAE), and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) will publish the
statistical adjustment model for all primary indicators of performance on their websites.
Summary of Revised Approach to Using the Statistical Adjustment Model
In TEGL 11-19, published February 6, 2020, the Departments stated that they would use the
same statistical adjustment model estimates both before and after the program year when
negotiating and adjusting levels of performance. This implied that the Departments would
not add more currently available data to the statistical adjustment model when adjusting
levels of performance after the program year. Under that guidance, the coefficients estimated
before the program year were fixed and were not informed by new data until the next
negotiation cycle began. As a result, the statistical adjustment model estimates used to adjust
negotiated levels of performance for the purpose of assessing state performance were based
on data that were two to three years old (i.e., the data available at the time the negotiated
levels of performance were approved during the State Plan or State Plan modification
approval process). This approach did not include more recently available pre-program year
data. It is critical to adjust for the effects of more recent economic conditions, as well as any
possible major disruptions to service delivery (e.g., a pandemic), and this requires the use of
more current information available to derive reliable estimates for the purposes of
performance assessment. In addition, limited data (both number of observations and the time
period covered) are a significant weakness in the previous statistical adjustment model
estimates, as experience with the model has demonstrated to the Departments. Specifically,
the Departments have learned that data which are two to three years old are insufficient for a
statistical adjustment model to yield accurate and reliable estimates for adjusting levels of
performance.
Through their experience in working with the statistical adjustment model since PY 2018, the
Departments have determined it necessary to revise their current approach by adding more
recent data when determining adjusted levels of performance after the program year.
Therefore, the Departments will update the statistical adjustment model with more recent
data in a manner that is aligned with the common framework the Departments outlined in the
preamble to the final rule. The Departments have determined that this approach is consistent
with section 116(b)(3)(A)(vii) of WIOA, which emphasizes that estimates produced before
the program year begins are based on historical data and estimates produced after the
program year ends are based on actual economic conditions and participant characteristics.
The addition of these data will increase the likelihood that the statistical adjustment model
produces estimates that yield more accurate adjusted levels of performance and more
objective state performance assessments.
The Departments use the statistical adjustment model at two key junctures in negotiating and
assessing state performance:
• Before the program year, the Departments use the statistical adjustment model, based on
the data available at the time, to derive estimated coefficients and pre-program year
performance estimates. The Departments use these estimates as one of four required
factors in the negotiations process, in accordance with section 116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA.
• After the program year, the estimated coefficients derived from the statistical adjustment
model are re-estimated to incorporate additional data from before the program year that
were not available at the time negotiations occurred. See Attachment V for a comparative
illustration of the original and revised approaches to data use and Attachment VI for a
functional example. These estimated coefficients are then applied to pre-program year
estimates of participant characteristics and economic conditions to obtain updated pre-
program year performance estimates. These re-estimated coefficients are also applied to
the actual economic conditions and characteristics of participants served to obtain post-
program year performance estimates. The difference between these two pre- and post-
program year performance estimates determines the adjustment factor (WIOA section
116(b)(3)(A)(vii)).
The Negotiations Process Overview
WIOA section 116(b)(3)(A)(iv) requires that states reach agreement with the Departments on
levels of performance for each primary indicator of performance for each of the core programs
at two separate and distinct times, specifically during both the State Plan and State Plan
modification approval process. These agreed-upon negotiated levels of performance,
commonly known as “negotiated levels of performance,” must be included in the approved
State Plan and State Plan modification, as applicable. These negotiated levels of performance
must cover the first two program years of the Unified or Combined State Plan, with new
approved negotiated levels of performance for each of the primary indicators of performance
for each of the core programs covering the third and fourth years of the Unified or Combined
State Plan (i.e., for the State Plan modification approval process). The submission to the
Departments of the Unified or Combined State Plan and the required modification of a plan,
including the required expected levels of performance, initiates performance negotiations
between the state and the Departments.
Negotiated levels of performance for the first and second years of the Unified or Combined
State Plan must be established before the start of the first program year and included in the
State Plan for its approval. Likewise, negotiated levels of performance for the third and fourth
years of the required two-year State Plan modification must be established before the start of
the third program year. To ensure performance negotiations and State Plan submission and
approval are completed before the beginning of the first and third program years of a Unified
or Combined State Plan, states must adhere to deadlines established in separate guidance
issued by the Departments that govern State Plans.
Attachment III “WIOA Negotiations/Performance Process Flow Chart” illustrates the process
for negotiations and Attachment IV “Determining Performance Success or Failure” illustrates
the process for assessing performance, which is detailed later in this guidance. The primary
indicator for the Effectiveness in Serving Employers has not yet been defined; therefore, the
Departments do not negotiate levels of performance for this indicator with States.
The negotiations process will proceed as follows:
• Pursuant to section 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA, each state must identify expected levels of
performance in its Unified or Combined State Plan and in the two-year modification of
that plan. Expected levels of performance for the first two years of a State Plan must be
submitted in the initial submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and in the
initial submission of the two-year modification of that Plan, for years three and four, as
described in 20 CFR § 677.170(a) and 34 CFR § 361.170(a) and § 463.170(a) and should
be the result of the state’s own analyses. Expected levels of performance must be stated to
the nearest tenth of a percent (XX.X %) or to the nearest whole dollar for median
earnings. States are reminded that the expected levels of performance proposed by states
in their plan must be published for public comment prior to plan submission in
accordance with state law, regulation, and policy. In order to satisfy these requirements
and deadlines, the state should not wait for the release of the latest estimated levels of
performance derived from the Departments’ statistical adjustment model;
• After the Unified or Combined State Plan submission, the state must negotiate and reach
agreement with the respective Federal agency on the negotiated levels of performance for
the indicators for each of the first two years of the Unified or Combined State Plan (or for
the third and fourth years of the Unified or Combined State Plan during the required two-
year modification process) for each of the core programs under WIOA section
116(b)(3)(A)(iv). The factors that will be taken into account during the negotiations
process are described in detail below under Negotiation Factors;
• The Departments will use the statistical adjustment model as a tool in the negotiations
process to estimate the state’s levels of performance prior to the
program year to help reach agreement on the negotiated levels of performance. The
negotiation factors outlined in WIOA section 116(b)(3)(A)(v) and further described
below under Negotiation Factors will be taken into account during this process; and
• Once negotiated levels of performance are agreed upon, the state must incorporate the
negotiated levels of performance into the Unified or Combined State Plan and the two-
year modification of that plan prior to the plan’s approval (section 116(b)(3)(A)(iv) of
WIOA).
Use of the Statistical Adjustment Model in the Negotiations and State Performance
Assessment Processes
As required by section 116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA, the Departments will use the statistical
adjustment model to ensure that the impact of participant characteristics and economic
conditions in the state are accounted for in determining the negotiated levels of performance.
The statistical adjustment model will perform two major functions in performance
negotiations and assessment of state performance. First, it is one of the factors used when
coming to agreement on the negotiated levels of performance. It is used to account for the
economic conditions and the characteristics of participants to be served in the state and/or
local areas (section 116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II) of WIOA). Second, it will be used at the close of a
program year to adjust the negotiated levels of performance for the actual economic
conditions experienced and actual characteristics of participants served (section
116(b)(3)(A)(vii) of WIOA); these are the adjusted levels of performance.
The statistical adjustment model is critically important to the WIOA performance
negotiations process. As more data become available, the Departments will periodically
review the model and refine it as necessary.
The Departments will assess State performance using the model containing coefficients that
were re-estimated after the program year using additional data that were not available at the
time of negotiations. In other words, the Departments will assess for performance using more
current data, which will lead to more accurate and reliable results than under the prior
approach of using data that were locked in at the time the negotiated levels of performance
were approved. For all core programs, the additional data used to re-estimate the coefficients
include more recent observations of economic conditions and participant characteristics up to
but not including the cohorts associated with the program year being assessed. By not
including economic conditions and participant characteristics for the program year being
assessed, the Departments will maintain separation between the state performance results
being assessed and the data used to inform the re-estimated coefficients.
Negotiating Levels of Performance
Unified or Combined State Plan submissions and the two-year modifications to those plans
must contain expected levels of performance for the primary indicators of performance
(section 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA). Submitting this information is the first step in the
negotiations process. Once the expected levels of performance have been submitted, each
core program must begin negotiations with its respective Federal agency (section
116(b)(3)(A)(iv) of WIOA). Title I WIOA and title III Employment Service programs will
conduct these negotiations with their Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Regional Offices. The title II AEFLA program will conduct negotiations with OCTAE’s
Division of Adult Education and Literacy, and the title IV VR program will conduct
negotiations with the RSA’s State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division. The
Departments will outline how this negotiation process will apply to the Effectiveness in
Serving Employers indicator after the final rule defining the indicator is promulgated.
States have access to their own historical performance information and various other tools
and resources, such as data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or U.S. Census Bureau. These
tools may be used to establish the states’ expected levels of performance. When using other
resources to analyze the relationship between labor market or economic conditions and actual
performance, states should consider the reference period of the resource and the timeframes
associated with each of the primary indicators of performance and apply them accordingly.
Negotiation Factors
In reaching agreement on the negotiated levels of performance, states and the Departments
must apply the following factors pursuant to section 116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA. Note that
WIOA does not specify more or less weight on any specific negotiation factor.
1. Take into account how the levels involved compare with the negotiated levels of
performance established for other states (section 116(b)(3)(A)(v)(I) of WIOA).
The Departments will provide the most recent performance data for all states, including
previous actual, negotiated, and adjusted levels of performance, and will use this
information throughout the negotiations process.
2. Ensure that the levels involved are adjusted using an objective statistical adjustment
model provided by the Departments (section 116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II) of WIOA).
Before the negotiations process begins, the Departments will provide the estimated
performance outcomes produced by the statistical adjustment model, including the
coefficients and state specific values for each variable. This information will include
levels of performance, as estimated by the Departments, to be used to inform the
negotiations process. State agencies and their respective Federal agencies must negotiate
using the levels of performance estimated by the model, as one of four factors pursuant to
section 116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA, for each primary indicator of performance. These
estimated levels of performance may not be altered for the purposes of negotiations,
including any changes in participant characteristics or economic conditions anticipated by
the state that would result in changes to the levels of performance predicted by the
statistical adjustment model. Any changes in participant characteristics or economic
conditions will be reflected in the model by using the actual participant characteristics and
economic conditions after the close of the program year, and they will not be factored into
the negotiations process.
3. Take into account the extent to which the levels involved promote continuous
improvement in performance accountability measures by the state and ensure optimal
return on the investment of Federal funds (section 116(b)(3)(A)(v)(III) of WIOA).
The Departments consider continuous improvement to be a critical factor in the
negotiations process. The Departments will consider continuous improvement factors that
ensure optimal return on investment of Federal funds.
The Departments acknowledge that there are many ways to define continuous
improvement as related to state or national program circumstances. For example,
continuous improvement may reflect:
• An increase from the levels of performance previously attained;
• Increases in percentile rankings of levels of performance either nationally or among
similar states;
• A change in service strategy and delivery, including more progressive or innovative
approaches designed to better meet participants’ needs;
• A change in the intensity or comprehensiveness with which individuals are served; or
• A maintenance of previous performance for the top performing states.
The Departments acknowledge that changes to service strategy or individuals served do
not always lead to increases in performance levels.
States and local areas must adhere to the priority of service requirements of WIOA title I
programs as established in WIOA.5 Additionally, the Departments encourage all other
WIOA programs to serve more individuals with barriers to employment who may need
more intensive services to achieve a positive outcome. The effect of serving more of these
individuals will be accounted for in the adjusted levels of performance calculated after the
program year.
4. Take into account the extent to which the levels involved will assist the state in meeting
the performance goals established by the Secretaries of Education and Labor in
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (section
116(b)(3)(A)(v)(IV) of WIOA).
5
WIOA section 134(c)(3)(E), 20 CFR 680.600-660, TEGL 19-16, and TEGL 07-20 provide additional information
regarding priority of service populations and service requirements.
Section 116(b)(3)(A)(vi) of WIOA requires the Departments to establish long-term goals
for the adjusted levels of performance for each of their core programs as provided under
GPRA. GPRA is a mechanism through which Congress and OMB evaluate the success of
Federal programs, including those operated by states and local areas. During negotiations,
the Departments will take into consideration levels of performance that will assist the
Federal agencies in meeting the established GPRA goals.
Determination of Sanctions
There are two different types of failure that can lead to sanctions: failure to report and failure
to meet adjusted levels of performance (section 116(f) of WIOA). A discussion of both
circumstances is below.
a. Sanctions for Failure to Report
Sanctions will be applied when a state fails to submit the performance reports to the
appropriate Federal agency, as required under WIOA section 116(d) (section 116(f)(1)(B) of
WIOA). Consistent with 20 CFR § 677.185(a) and 34 CFR §§ 361.185(a) and 463.185(a),
the Departments consider a state as failing to submit the performance reports if the state
either: (1) does not submit performance reports by 11:59 p.m. local time6 on October 1 or the
next business day if October 1 falls on a holiday or weekend or (2) submits performance
reports by the date for timely submission, but the report is incomplete. Annual performance
reports are complete when the state:
• Attests all reports are complete and accurate to the best of its knowledge;
• Submits a WIOA Statewide Performance Report (ETA-9169) for each of the six WIOA
core programs;
• Collects and reports all required elements of the WIOA Statewide Performance Reports
as applicable to the core program and uses appropriate data for the reporting period;
• Makes available a mechanism of electronic access to local area performance reports for
WIOA title I programs;
• Makes available a mechanism of electronic access to Eligible Training Provider (ETP)
performance reports for WIOA title I programs; and
• Submits at least one WIOA Statewide Performance Report that includes Effectiveness in
Serving Employers performance results reflecting all six core programs.
If the performance report submitted by the state does not meet all of the above requirements
by the reporting deadline, it is incomplete.
The Departments implemented sanctions provisions for failure to report beginning with the
PY 2017 WIOA Statewide Performance Reports submission, which was due on October 1,
2018.7
6
Local time references the state capital’s time zone.
7
ETP performance reports were required to be submitted beginning with the PY 2018 Annual Report due on
October 1, 2019.
Consistent with section 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA, sanctions will not be applied in cases where
failure to report is due to exceptional circumstances outside the state’s control as determined
by the Departments. The Departments defined “exceptional circumstances” in 20 CFR §
677.185(b) and 34 CFR §§ 361.185(b) and 463.185(b). Exceptional circumstances may
include, but are not limited to:
• natural disasters;
• unexpected personnel transitions; and
• unexpected technology-related issues.
Extension Requests
In the event of exceptional circumstances as described in the preceding section, the state
must notify the Secretary of Labor or Education, as appropriate, in writing of a potential
impact on the state’s ability to submit its annual performance report, and request an
extension, in order not to be considered failing to report (20 CFR § 677.185(c) and 34 CFR
§§ 361.185(c) and 463.185(c)). The state’s request for an extension should include a detailed
account identifying the unexpected events precluding timely reporting sufficient for the
Departments to make a determination. The following information should be included in an
extension request:
• Sufficient detail of the unexpected circumstances that will lead to untimely or incomplete
reporting to warrant an extension;
• A proposed extension, fitting of the circumstances causing the delay, which should not
exceed 30 calendar days after the established annual reporting deadline;
• The names and contact information of each responsible state designee or designated point
of contact who will ensure that any extended deadline will be met; and
• Any other information that the state deems relevant to help explain the need for an
extension.
The state must submit the extension request as soon as possible, but not later than 30
calendar days prior to the established annual reporting deadline (20 CFR § 677.185(c)(1) and
34 CFR §§ 361.185(c)(1) and 463.185(c)(1)). The annual reporting deadline is October 1
each year or the next business day if October 1 falls on a holiday or weekend. Therefore,
states must submit reporting extension requests no later than September 1 (or the next
business day if September 1 falls on a holiday or weekend).
In cases where unexpected, exceptional circumstances occur within 30 calendar days of the
established annual reporting deadline, the state must submit an extension request to the
Secretary of Labor or Education, as applicable, as soon as possible but not later than the
established annual reporting deadline (20 CFR § 677.185(c)(2) and 34 CFR §§ 361.185(c)(2)
and 463.185(c)(2)). Under these circumstances, in addition to the information described
above, the request should include sufficient explanation as to why notification of the delay
could not be provided 30 calendar days prior to the established annual reporting deadline.
All extension requests will be reviewed by the Departments for completeness and a thorough
explanation of exceptional circumstances. The Departments may grant extension requests as
submitted, grant extension requests with revisions, or reject the extension requests. Proposed
reporting extensions should not exceed 30 calendar days after the established annual
reporting deadline and should be appropriate to and commensurate with the exceptional
circumstances.
In the event of failure to report timely or completely, pursuant to section 116(f)(1)(B) of
WIOA, the Governor’s discretionary funds provided under section 128(a) of WIOA will be
reduced by five percent of the maximum available allotment in the immediately succeeding
program year. The WIOA Joint Final Rule at 20 CFR § 677.195(a) and 34 CFR §§
361.195(a) and 463.195(a) provide that the sanction is equal to five percent of the maximum
allotment percentage that could be reserved by the Governor in the succeeding program year,
and the preamble to the WIOA Joint Final Rule at 81 FR at 55863-55864 clarified that the
sanction was not a five-percentage point reduction from the percentage that a Governor
elected to reserve. This sanction will be enforced for each year in which a state fails to report
timely or completely.
b. Sanctions for Failure to Meet Adjusted Levels of Performance
In accordance with 20 CFR § 677.190(d) and 34 CFR §§ 361.190(d) and 463.190(d), a
performance failure occurs if:
• Any single Individual Indicator Score for any single core program falls below 50 percent
of the adjusted level of performance;
• The Overall State Program Score falls below 90 percent for that single core program; or
• The Overall State Indicator Score falls below 90 percent for that single measure.
Any state that fails to meet adjusted levels of performance for the primary indicators of
performance for any year will receive technical assistance, including assistance in the
development of a performance improvement plan provided by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education (20 CFR § 677.190(b) and 34 CFR §§ 361.190(b) and 463.190(b)).
However, if the state has the same performance failure occur in two consecutive program
years, the Departments will apply sanctions. Further explanation of how technical assistance
and sanctions will be applied is provided later in this section.
Determining Performance Success or Failure
The Departments will determine state performance success or failure at the end of each
program year. In order to make a determination of success or failure, the negotiated levels of
performance for that year will be adjusted using the statistical adjustment model, which will
factor in data on the actual economic conditions of the state and the actual characteristics of
the populations served by the program during that year. This adjustment will be calculated
using the adjustment factor to produce the adjusted levels of performance described in the
“Terms” section above. A detailed explanation of this calculation is found in Attachment II
“Calculation—Adjusted Level of Performance.” This will determine the adjusted levels of
performance for the program year against which the state’s actual levels of performance will
be evaluated through the calculation of the performance score. Attachment IV, “Determining
Performance Success or Failure,” provides an overview of the entire process.
The individual indicator score is calculated by dividing the actual level of performance
achieved by the adjusted level of performance. The adjusted level of performance is
calculated by adding the adjustment factor to the negotiated level of performance. The
individual indicator score will not be rounded; it will be truncated to the first decimal place.
A detailed example can be found in Attachment I.
Table 1, below, illustrates the determination of performance success or failure across all
indicators of performance for a single core program. The performance scores are calculated
for each primary indicator of performance and the average is computed. In this example, the
Individual Indicator Score for Employment Rate—4th Quarter after Exit of 46.8 percent is a
performance failure because it is below the 50.0 percent threshold.
The Overall State Program Score of 81.5 percent is obtained by averaging the scores for
each indicator in the program. In Table 1 below, this is a performance failure because the
core program did not achieve 90 percent. Percentages will not be rounded in this calculation;
they will be truncated to the tenth of a percent. Note that the Effectiveness in Serving
Employers indicator is not included in this calculation because this indicator is not yet
defined by the Departments.
Table 1: Calculation of Overall State Program Score
Actual Level of
Primary Indicator Adjusted Level Individual Indicator Score
Performance
of Performance of Performance Calculation
(Numerator/Denominator)
Employment 14,720 14,720
Rate—2nd Quarter 75.1% ( ) ÷75.1%= 98.0%
after Exit 20,000 20,000
Employment 8,200 8,200
Rate—4th Quarter 70.0% ( ) ÷70.0%= 46.8%
after Exit 25,000 25,000
Median Earnings—
2nd Quarter after $3,434 $3,890 $3,434÷$3,890= 88.2%
Exit
Credential 12,500 12,500
55.2% ( ) ÷55.2%= 90.5%
Attainment 25,000 25,000
Measurable Skill 21,600 21,600
85.6% ( ) ÷85.6%= 84.1%
Gains 30,000 30,000
Effectiveness in
N/A N/A N/A
Serving Employers
Overall State
Program Score*
(Average of
- - 81.5%
Individual Indicator
Scores for this Core
Program)
*For a detailed explanation of the calculation behind the Overall State Program Score, please refer to
Attachment I.
Table 2 illustrates the calculation for a single primary indicator of performance across all
core programs. The performance scores are calculated for the Employment—2nd Quarter
after Exit indicator for each core program, and the average is computed. In this case, the
Overall State Indicator Score, which is the average of all Individual Indicator Scores, is
92.6 percent, so the core program achieved performance success. Again, percentages will
not be rounded in this calculation; they will be truncated to the tenth of a percent.
Table 2: Calculation of Overall State Indicator Score
Overall
State
Indicator
Score*
(Average of
Title I- Title I- Title I-
Program Title II Title III Title IV Individual
Adult Youth DW
Indicator
Scores
Across
Core
Programs)
Actual Level of
Performance 14,720 8,820 12,648 9,300 21,330 6,792
-
(Numerator/ 20,000 15,000 17,000 15,000 30,000 12,000
Denominator)
Adjusted Level
75.1% 70.2% 75.5% 67.5% 70.0% 69.0% -
of Performance
14,720 8,820 12,648 9,300 21,330 6,792
(20,000) ÷ (15,000) ÷ (17,000) ÷ (15,000) ÷ (30,000) ÷ ( )
Individual 12,000
Indicator Score 75.1% 70.2% 75.5% 67.5% 70.0% ÷ 69.0% 92.6%
Calculation = = = = = =
98.0% 83.7% 98.5% 91.8% 101.5% 82.0%
*For a detailed explanation of the calculation behind the Overall State Indicator Score, please refer to
Attachment I.
Phasing in Sanctions for Performance Failure
The Departments used their transition authority under section 503(a) of WIOA to implement
a phased-in approach to determine performance success or failure for each indicator or
program, due to lack of available data, consistent with the requirements of 20 CFR §
677.190(c) and 34 CFR §§ 361.190(c) and 463.190(c). Consistent with past practice, the
Departments will continue to inform states when the assessment of any performance
indicator is delayed.8
If a performance failure occurs at the end of the program year, the respective Federal agency
and the state agency will work to develop a performance improvement plan, and the Federal
agency will provide technical assistance in accordance with section 116(f)(1)(A) of WIOA.
8
See Training and Employment Notice 14-21 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Core Program
Performance Accountability Assessment for Program Years (PY) 2020 and 2021
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-notice-no-14-21
In this updated guidance, the Departments want to make clear that if the state has the same
performance failure occur in two consecutive program years, the Departments will apply
sanctions, pursuant to section 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA. This applies regardless of where those
program years fall within the negotiations cycle. That is, although state negotiated levels of
performance are negotiated at two-year intervals, a failure in the second year of one
negotiation cycle followed by the same failure in the first year of the subsequent negotiation
cycle is considered a failure in two consecutive program years. For example, the
Departments will establish negotiated levels of performance for PYs 2024 and 2025 in one
negotiation cycle and negotiated levels of performance for PYs 2026 and 2027 in another
negotiation cycle. A state will be sanctioned if it has a repeat performance failure in PYs
2025 and 2026.
Specifically, the Departments will reduce the Governor’s discretionary funds provided under
section 128(a) of WIOA by five percent of the maximum available amount in the program
year immediately succeeding the second consecutive performance failure. This sanction will
be enforced each successive year in which the state continues to have the same performance
failure.
c. Sanctions for Failure to Report and Repeat Failure to Meet Adjusted Levels of
Performance in the Same Program Year
If the state, in the same year, has both types of failure that would result in sanctions being
applied as described in sections (a) and (b) above, meaning the state has both a failure to
report and a failure to meet adjusted levels of performance for a second consecutive program
year, then the Departments will apply sanctions for both types of failure. The WIOA Joint
Final Rule at 20 CFR § 677.195(b) and 34 CFR §§ 361.195(b) and 463.195 provide that the
sanction is equal to ten percent of the maximum allotment percentage that could be reserved
by the Governor in the succeeding program year. The Departments will enforce this sanction
each successive year in which the state continues to have the same reporting and performance
failures.
Local Performance and Negotiations under WIOA Title I
a. Negotiations with Local Areas
In addition to the state negotiated levels of performance, states must work with local
workforce development areas to establish local performance goals for WIOA title I programs
(section 116(c) of WIOA).
The local board, the Chief Elected Official, and the Governor must negotiate and reach
agreement on local levels of performance based on the state negotiated levels of
performance. In negotiating the local levels of performance, the local board, the Chief
Elected Official, and the Governor also must use the above-listed four factors of negotiation
used at the state level. In addition, a statistical adjustment model that aligns with the
framework of the state-level model must be used at the end of the program year to adjust
negotiated local levels of performance in order to reflect the actual economic conditions
experienced in the local area and the characteristics of the actual individuals served
according to the state’s established policies. States should make these negotiated and
adjusted levels, as well as the established policies for local performance assessment,
available to the local boards and the state’s DOL-ETA Regional Office prior to the start of
the program year in which the policies will be applied.
The Departments have developed the framework for an objective statistical adjustment
model that satisfies the WIOA requirements at the state level. States must use this framework
and develop a model that satisfies their needs at the local level, both in the performance
negotiations and year-end adjustment of local levels of performance.
The local board, the Chief Elected Official, and the Governor must negotiate and reach
agreement on local levels of performance for two program years at a time, based on the
state’s negotiated levels of performance, no later than September 30 in each year in which
state negotiations occur. The state must notify its DOL-ETA Regional Office that
negotiations are complete and include in the notification the agreed-upon levels of
performance for each local area.
b. Local Performance Success and Failure
States must use local performance goals for WIOA title I programs for two required
purposes: (1) to determine if a local area “performed successfully” for subsequent local area
designation, and (2) to determine when a state must take corrective action when a local area
fails to meet the adjusted levels of performance.
For the purpose of determining subsequent local area designation, the term “performed
successfully” means that the local area met or exceeded the levels of performance the
Governor negotiated with the local board and chief elected official for WIOA primary
indicators of performance and that the local area has not failed any individual measure for the
last two consecutive program years in accordance with a state-established definition,
provided in the Unified or Combined State Plan, of “met or exceeded performance.” For
subsequent designation determinations made at the conclusion of PY 2018, or at any point
thereafter, states must base their findings of whether a local area performed successfully for
the two most recently completed program years on all six of the WIOA primary indicators of
performance where at least two years of data are available.
A state must establish the threshold for failure to meet adjusted levels of performance for a
local area before coming to agreement on the negotiated levels of performance for the local
area. Following the conclusion of the program year, a state must establish the adjusted level
of performance for a local area, using the statistical adjustment model described. At least two
years of complete data on any indicator for any local core program are required in order to
establish adjusted levels of performance for a local area. States must provide technical
assistance if a local area fails to meet the adjusted levels of performance agreed to for the
primary indicators of performance in WIOA title I programs in any program year. Upon the
state’s request to the Secretary of Labor, DOL may provide this technical assistance. The
technical assistance may include:
• Assistance in the development of a performance improvement plan;
• The development of a modified local or regional plan; or
• Other actions designed to assist the local area in improving performance.
If a local area fails to meet the adjusted levels of performance agreed to for the same primary
indicators of performance for the same core program authorized under WIOA title I for a
third consecutive program year, the Governor must take corrective actions. If the Governor
takes corrective action against a local area for failing to meet the negotiated goals, the state
workforce agency should advise its Federal Project Officer of this action. The corrective
actions must include the development of a reorganization plan under which the Governor:
• Requires the appointment and certification of a new local board, consistent with the
criteria in 20 CFR § 679.350;
• Prohibits the use of eligible providers and one-stop partners that have been identified as
achieving poor levels of performance; or
• Takes such other significant actions as the Governor determines are appropriate.
5. Inquiries. Questions regarding this guidance should be directed to the appropriate ETA,
OCTAE, or RSA office.
6. References. Refer to Attachment VII of this guidance.
7. Attachments.
Attachment I: Calculation—Overall State Indicator and Program Scores
Attachment II: Calculation—Adjusted Level of Performance
Attachment III: WIOA Negotiations / Performance Process Flow Chart
Attachment IV: Determining Performance Success or Failure
Attachment V: Improved Data Usage
Attachment VI: Functional Example of Updated Approach Deriving Statistical Adjustment
Model Estimates
Attachment VII: References—Joint Negotiations and Sanctions Guidance
Attachment I
Calculation—Overall State Indicator and Program Scores
States and Federal agencies negotiate to one decimal place. Actual levels of performance are
calculated by dividing the number of successes within an indicator (numerator) by the total
number of participants matching the qualifications for the given indicator (denominator). Actual
levels of performance are reported by the state for all primary indicators of performance. In the
WIOA statewide performance report (ETA-9169), actual levels of performance are represented
by rounding to the nearest tenth of a percent, but for the purpose of performing these
calculations, actual levels of performance and adjusted levels of performance are neither rounded
nor truncated.
In the table below, refer to the column related to the title I Adult program for an example of
Employment Rate—2nd Quarter after Exit.
• Numerator = 16,244 (Total number of participants in the denominator that were also
employed second quarter after exit.)
• Denominator = 24,000 (Total number of participants that exited during the reporting period.)
16,244
• Numerator divided by Denominator = = 0.676833
24,000
• Rate reported in Annual Report = 67.7%
• Adjusted level of performance = 75.2%
Employment Rate—2nd Quarter after Exit Results by Core Program
Title I Title III Title IV
Title I Title I Title II
Program Dislocated Wagner- Vocational
Adult Youth AEFLA
Worker Peyser Rehabilitation
Numerator 16,244 13,000 20,000 9,000 6,000 31,555
Denominator 24,000 18,000 30,000 15,000 12,000 42,000
Annual Report Value 67.7% 72.2% 66.7% 60.0% 50.0% 75.1%
Adjusted Level of
75.2% 72.5% 76.3% 79.7% 68.7% 65.4%
Performance
What figures are used to determine how close actual performance was to the adjusted level of
performance?
Each Indicator Score is calculated in a similar way. For those indicators reported as a
percentage, use both numerator and denominator in the next step.
The Indicator Score is calculated by dividing the actual outcome by the adjusted level of
performance.
16,244
(24,000)
= = .90004 (represented in the report as 90.0%)
75.2%
For those indicators not reported as a percentage, such as Median Earnings in the Second Quarter
after Exit, use the value in the Annual Report and divide by the adjusted level of performance.
Attachment I
How are the Overall State Indicator Scores calculated?
After the Indicator Score is calculated for each single primary indicator of performance, it is
populated into the below matrix. Each row of Indicator Scores is averaged and truncated to one
decimal place to produce the Overall State Indicator Score. In the example below, the average of
the Employment Rate—2nd Quarter after Exit Indicator Scores for the six programs is 0.89985
and is truncated to one decimal place for an Overall State Indicator Score of 89.9%.
16,244 13,000 20,000 9,000 6,000 31,555
(24,000) (18,000) (30,000) (15,000) (12,000) (42,000)
= 75.2% + 72.5% + 76.3% + 79.7% + 68.7% + 65.4% = .89985 = 89.9%
6 6 6 6 6 6
Primary Overall
Title I Title III Title IV
Indicator/ Title I Title I Title II State
Dislocated Wagner- Vocational
Core Adult Youth AEFLA Indicator
Worker Peyser Rehabilitation
Program Score
Employment
2nd Quarter 90.0% 99.6% 87.4% 75.3% 72.8% 114.9% 89.9%
after Exit
Employment
4th Quarter 87.4%
after Exit
Median
Earnings 2nd
111.8%
Quarter after
Exit
Credential
Attainment 130.1% N/A
Rate
Measurable
84.1% N/A
Skill Gains
Effectiveness
in Serving N/A
Employers
Overall
State
100.6% -
Program
Score
Attachment I
How are the Overall State Program Scores calculated?
After the Indicator Score is calculated for each primary indicator of performance, it is populated
into the above matrix. Each column of Indicator Scores is averaged and truncated to one decimal
place to produce the Overall State Program Score. In the example below, the average of the
Indicator Scores for the title I Adult program is 1.00689 and is truncated to one decimal place for
an Overall State Program Score of 100.6%, as shown in the table above.
16,244 15,300 17,950 21,600
(24,000) (25,000) $4,350 (25,000) (30,000)
$3,890
= 75.2% + 70.0% + + 55.2% + 85.6% = 1.00689 = 100.6%
5 5 5 5 5
Title I Adult Results by Performance Indicator
Actual Level of
Primary Indicator of Annual Report Adjusted Level of
Performance
Performance Value Performance
(Numerator/Denominator)
Employment Rate—2nd 16,244
67.7% 75.2%
Quarter after Exit 24,000
Employment Rate—4th 15,300
61.2% 70.0%
Quarter after Exit 25,000
Median Earnings—2nd
$4,350 $4,350 $3,890
Quarter after Exit
17,950
Credential Attainment 71.8% 55.2%
25,000
21,600
Measurable Skill Gains 72.0% 85.6%
30,000
Effectiveness in Serving
N/A N/A N/A
Employers
Attachment II
Calculation—Adjusted Level of Performance
The Federal agencies estimate levels of performance based on participant characteristics and
economic conditions using an objective statistical model. The pre-program year performance
estimate is provided to states prior to the start of the program year during the negotiations
process and is a factor in reaching agreement on the negotiated levels of performance. After the
close of the program year, the Federal agencies will:
(1) re-estimate the coefficients in the statistical adjustment model with the additional year(s)
of data available;
(2) apply the revised coefficients to the same pre-program year participant characteristics and
economic conditions used in calculating the estimated levels of performance to generate
the pre-program year estimate (Estimate0); and
(3) apply the revised coefficients to the characteristics of the actual participants served and
the actual economic conditions of the state to estimate the state’s actual program year
performance (Estimate1).
Federal agencies will subtract Estimate0 from Estimate1 to obtain the adjustment factor. The
resulting positive or negative adjustment factor is added to the negotiated level of performance to
arrive at the adjusted level of performance. These calculations are shown in Examples 1 and 2
below. Refer to section on Determining Performance Success or Failure of the guidance for an
explanation of how the adjusted level of performance is used to determine performance success
or failure.
Example 1: Adjusted Level of Performance Calculation
Expected Level of Performance 68.9%
Negotiated Level of Performance 70.2%
Estimate0 75.5%
Estimate1 73.7%
Adjustment Factor 73.7% - 75.5% = -1.8%
Adjusted Level of Performance -1.8% + 70.2% = 68.4%
Example 2: Adjusted Level of Performance Calculation
Expected Level of Performance 68.9%
Negotiated Level of Performance 70.2%
Estimate0 75.5%
Estimate1 78.3%
Adjustment Factor 78.3% - 75.5% = 2.8%
Adjusted Level of Performance 2.8% + 70.2% = 73.0%
Attachment III
WIOA Negotiations / Performance Process Flow Chart
Step 1:
States: Submit Expected Levels DOL/ED: Produce pre-program
of Performance for two program year performance estimates
years in State Plans or plan using the statistical adjustment
modifications (PYs A and B). model.
Step 2: Before PY A begins states and
Required DOL/ED arrive at Negotiated Levels of
State Performance for PYs A and B by
Actions considering the four factors of performance
Step 3: PY A Concludes. DOL/ED re- Step 5: PY B Concludes. DOL/ED re-
estimate the statistical adjustment model estimate the statistical adjustment model
coefficients with the additional year of data coefficients with the additional two years of
available, process state data on actual data available, process state data on actual
outcomes and re-estimate performance outcomes and re-estimate performance
levels (Estimate0 and Estimate1) using the re- levels (Estimate0 and Estimate1) using the re-
estimated coefficients, the same objective estimated coefficients, the same objective
model specification, and actual model specification, and actual
characteristics of participants and economic characteristics of participants and economic
conditions of PY A. conditions of PY B.
The positive or negative difference between The positive or negative difference between
the DOL/ED estimates before and after PY the DOL/ED estimates before and after PY
A are used to adjust the negotiated levels of B are used to adjust the negotiated levels of
performance and calculate the adjusted performance and calculate the adjusted
levels of performance. levels of performance.
Step 4: DOL/ED determine states' Step 6: DOL/ED determine states'
performance success or failure using performance success or failure using
actual results of PY A and the adjusted actual results of PY B and the adjusted
levels of performance for PY A. levels of performance for PY B.
For steps 4 and 6, please
see "Attachment IV—
Determining
Performance Success or
Failure"
Attachment IV
Determining Performance Success or Failure
Step 1: After the close of the PY, DOL/ED Step 2: DOL/ED apply the revised coefficients
will re-estimate the statistical adjustment to the same pre-program year participant
model coefficients using the same objective characteristics and economic conditions used in
model specification and additional pre-PY calculating the estimated levels of performance
data that were not available at the time of for performance negotiations prior to the
negotiations. program year (Estimate0).
Step 3: DOL/ED apply the revised coefficients to the actual participant characteristics and
actual economic conditions of the PY to generate the program year estimate (Estimate1). The
positive or negative percentage point difference yielded by subtracting Estimate0 from Estimate1
is the PY adjustment factor.
Step 4: DOL/ED add the PY
adjustment factor to the negotiated
level of performance to determine the
adjusted level of performance.
Step 5: The actual results from the
PY are then divided by the adjusted Performance Failure occurs if any
level of performance to determine the individual indicator score is below
individual indicator scores. 50%.
Step 6: The average of individual
Performance Failure occurs if any
indicator scores across WIOA core
overall state program score is below
programs is the overall state program
90%.
score.
Step 7: The average of individual
Performance Failure occurs if any
indicator scores for a single WIOA core
overall state indicator score is below
program across performance indicators is
90%.
the overall state indicator score.
Attachment V
Improved Data Usage
The following table provides an example of how the Departments will leverage more data to
derive more accurate adjusted levels of performance under the revised approach to use of the
statistical adjustment model, compared to the original approach. In this example, under the
revised approach, PY 2022 Assessments would leverage PY 2021 data, whereas that same data
would not be leveraged for PY 2022 Assessments under the original approach.
Original Approach
Availability
Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Fall 2023 Fall 2024
Data Points
Timing Activity
PY 2017 PY 2018 PY 2019 PY 2020 PY 2021 PY 2022 PY 2023
Spring PY 2022/2023 Not Not Not
Available Available Available Available
2022 Negotiations Available Available Available
Fall PY 2022 Available/ Available/ Not
Available Available Available Available
2023 Assessments Not Used Not Used Available
Fall PY 2023 Available/ Available/ Available/
Available Available Available Available
2024 Assessments Not Used Not Used Not Used
Revised Approach
Availability
Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Fall 2023 Fall 2024
Data Points
Timing Activity
PY 2017 PY 2018 PY 2019 PY 2020 PY 2021 PY 2022 PY 2023
Spring PY 2022/2023 Not Not Not
Available Available Available Available
2022 Negotiations Available Available Available
Fall PY 2022 Available/ Available/ Not
Available Available Available Available
2023 Assessments Used Not Used* Available
Fall PY 2023 Available/ Available/ Available/
Available Available Available Available
2024 Assessments Used Used Not Used*
*As described on page 8 of this guidance, the Departments will not use data from the program
year being assessed to inform the re-estimation of the statistical adjustment model at the end of
the program year.
Attachment VI
Functional Example of Revised Approach for Using the Statistical Adjustment Model
In implementing the revised approach for using the statistical adjustment model, the
Departments will use the most current data available to derive adjusted levels of performance for
all six core programs, thereby furthering a consistent application of the common framework. The
example below demonstrates how and when the Departments will add more current data to the
statistical adjustment model to produce more accurate results. After the first program year, the
Departments will add an additional year of data to the statistical adjustment model. After the
second program year, the Departments will add a second additional year of data.
This example reflects a hypothetical economic upturn that occurred after RSA and a state VR
program established negotiated levels of performance before the program years began.
Before PYs 2024 and 2025 begin:
• In its State Plan, a state VR program submits expected levels of performance of 46.0% for
PY 2024 and 47.0% for PY 2025 for the measurable skill gains indicator.
• The statistical adjustment model produces a pre-program year estimate of 45.0% for PYs
2024 and 2025. This estimate is based on data from PYs 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and
2022. Because the negotiations take place during PY 2023, economic conditions and
participant data for PY 2023 are not yet available. PY 2022 data are the most recent data
available at that time.
• Using the pre-program year estimate and other negotiation factors, RSA and the state VR
program agree to negotiated levels of performance of 47.0% for PY 2024 and 48.0% for
PY 2025.
After PY 2024 ends:
• The state VR program reports an actual level of performance of 52.0% for PY 2024.
• RSA produces Estimate0 of 50.0% that includes PY 2023 data in addition to data
available at the time of negotiations which, at the time of the assessment, are the most
recent data available to the Departments.
• Using PY 2023 data, the statistical adjustment model produces an Estimate1 of 52.0% for
PY 2024. This estimate is based on the actual participant characteristics and actual
economic conditions in PY 2024.
• RSA calculates an adjustment factor of 2.0% (52.0% - 50.0%).
• RSA adds 2.0% to the negotiated level of performance of 47.0% to produce an adjusted
level of performance of 49.0%.
• RSA divides the actual level of performance of 52.0% by the adjusted level of
performance of 49.0% to produce an individual indicator score of 106.0%, which means
the state VR program passed this performance indicator for PY 2024 pursuant to 34 CFR
§ 361.190(d)(1) and (2) since the individual indicator score was greater than 50 percent.
Attachment VI
During PY 2025:
• The state experiences improved economic conditions.
After PY 2025 ends:
• The state VR program reports an actual level of performance of 52.0% for PY 2025.
• The statistical adjustment model produces Estimate0 for PY 2025 of 53.0% using PYs
2023 and 2024 data in addition to data available at the time of negotiations. Of note, this
is another PY’s worth of data being added to the statistical adjustment model to ensure it
incorporates the most recent economic conditions and participant data available to the
Departments at the time the calculations are being done.
• Using PYs 2023 and 2024, the statistical adjustment model produces an Estimate1 of
59.0% for PY 2025. This estimate is based on the actual participant characteristics and
actual economic conditions in PY 2025.
• RSA calculates an adjustment factor of 6.0% (59.0% - 53.0%).
• RSA adds 6.0% to the negotiated level of performance of 48.0% to produce an adjusted
level of performance of 54.0%.
• RSA divides the actual level of performance of 52.0% by the adjusted level of
performance of 54.0% to produce an individual indicator score of 96.0%, which means
the state VR program passed this performance indicator for PY 2025 pursuant to 34 CFR
§ 361.190(d)(1) and (2) since the individual indicator score was greater than 50 percent.
Attachment VII
References—Joint Negotiations and Sanctions Guidance
• WIOA Section 116, Performance Accountability System
• WIOA Section 503, Transition Provisions
• Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat.
285)
• GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-352; 124 Stat. 3866)
• WIOA Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and
the One-Stop System Joint Provisions Final Rule, 20 CFR parts 676, 677, and 678 and 34
CFR parts 361 and 463
• Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Effectiveness in Serving Employers
Performance Indicator, 87 Fed. Reg. 56,318 (Sept. 14, 2022).
• Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Common Performance Reporting
(OMB No. 1205-0526)
• DOL-only Performance Accountability, Information, and Reporting System
(OMB No. 1205-0521)
• Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan
Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(OMB No. 1205-0522)
• “A Methodology for Statistical Adjustment under WIOA” report (2016), available at
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Performance/pdfs/WIOA_Statistical_Model_M
ethodology_Report-6-24-2016.pdf
• TEGL 10-16, Change 2: Performance Accountability Guidance for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Core Programs, available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/tegl-10-16-change-2
• TEGL 19-16: Guidance on Services provided through the Adult and Dislocated Worker
Programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the Wagner-
Peyser Act Employment Service (ES), as amended by title III of WIOA, and for
Implementation of the WIOA Final Rules, available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-guidance-letter-no-
19-16
• TEGL 07-20: Effective Implementation of Priority of Service Provisions for Most in Need
Individuals in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Adult Program,
Attachment VII
available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-
guidance-letter-no-07-20
• TEGL 03-17: WIOA Annual Performance Report Submission, available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-guidance-letter-no-
03-17
• TEGL 04-21: Modification Requirements for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) State Plans for Program Years (PYs) 2022 and 2023, available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-guidance-letter-no-
04-21
• TEN 14-21: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Core Program
Performance Accountability Assessment for Program Years (PY) 2020 and 2021, available
at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/training-and-employment-notice-no-14-21
What does federal law require today?
This guidance has been rescinded. 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