Back to Federal guidance
WIA and Wagner-Peyser performance goal negotiations
Summary ETA gave states guidelines for negotiating Program Year 2007 and 2008 Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser performance goals and incorporating them into state plans. Eight attachments contain measures and planning materials. The letter rescinded three older TEGLs and was itself expressly rescinded by TEGL 9-08.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
TEGL No. 19-06
Date issued
March 30, 2007
Status
Rescinded
TEGL 9-08 expressly rescinded this letter; ETA also lists it Canceled as of 2026-10-24. This letter itself rescinded TEGLs 22-03, 27-04, and 29-05.
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This document has been rescinded.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.
Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Acc.pdf
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION WIA/Performance Goals
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PROTECH/OWI/OFO
Washington, D.C. 20210 DATE
March 30, 2007
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 19-06
TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
ALL STATE WORKFORCE ADMINISTRATORS
ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
FROM: EMILY STOVER DeROCCO /s/
Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act Title 1B
Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Program for Program Years 2007 and 2008
1. Purpose. To inform states of the guidelines for negotiating Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Title 1B performance and customer satisfaction goals and performance levels for the Wagner-
Peyser Act Program for Program Year (PY) 2007 and PY 2008. These negotiated performance
goals will be incorporated into the State Strategic Plans for the WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act as
part of the modifications states will be making for Years Three and Four of the Strategic Five-
Year State Planning cycle.
2. References. WIA Section 136; WIA regulations at 20 CFR Part 666 and Part 661; Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 8-99, “Negotiating Performance Goals and
Incentives and Sanctions Process Under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act;” TEGL No.
11-01, “Guidance on Revising Workforce Investment Act State Negotiated Levels of
Performance;” TEGL No. 17-05, “Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training
Administration’s (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related Performance Issues;”
TEGL No. 13-06, “Instructions for WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act State Planning and Waiver
Requests for Years Three and Four of the Strategic Five-Year State Plan (PY 2007 – 2008).”
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
TEGL 22-03; TEGL 27-04; TEGL 29-05 Continuing
3. Background. States are developing their WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act State Strategic Plans
for PY 2007 and PY 2008, addressing what policies are in place to support integrated service
delivery in their regional economies. Further, they must also plan for the common data
collection and reporting processes, information management and performance management that
support these strategies. In addition, they must negotiate performance goals for PY 2007 and PY
2008.
In developing their service strategies and associated accountability levels, states should reflect
on the critical role of the workforce investment system in supporting the development of an
educated and prepared workforce that is able to meet the needs of industry, contribute to
economic prosperity, and compete in the global economy.
In February 2006, ETA launched the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development
(WIRED) Initiative which focuses on the role of talent development in driving regional
economic competitiveness and new opportunities for workers and jobseekers. WIRED goes
beyond traditional strategies for worker preparation by bringing together state, local and federal
entities; academic institutions (including K-12, community colleges and universities); investment
groups; foundations; and business and industry to address the challenges associated with
building a globally competitive and prepared workforce.
Among the many components in the WIRED framework, the model takes demand-driven
approaches and applies them in a regional context. The expected improvements within the
workforce investment system from this approach include more individuals being trained for
high-skill jobs in high-growth and high-demand industries. Talent development approaches
under the WIRED framework may require unique and different strategies in training and service
delivery. For example, shorter and targeted training may be required in some instances and
longer-term training in others, depending on the specific skills and credentials identified as
necessary by industry—both at entry-level positions and as individuals’ progress up and across
career lattices. Some workforce solutions may be developed to ensure individuals requiring more
comprehensive service strategies are part of the pipeline of workers moving into jobs in high-
growth industries such as out-of-school youth, individuals with limited English proficiency, or
individuals with disabilities.
The performance accountability system, including negotiated levels of performance, should be
aligned with and take into account the effect of strategies based on WIRED principles in specific
service approaches identified at the state, regional, and local levels. If necessary, state, regional,
and local areas should consider options for making the accountability system more flexible,
including the use of the waiver provision in WIA section 189(i), in support of their service
strategies, e.g., (1) a waiver of the provision contained in WIA section 181(e), which prohibits
the use of WIA Title I funds for economic development activities not directly related to training,
to further clarify allowable activities and/or (2) a waiver of the requirement for a 50 percent
employer match for customized training, to permit a sliding scale match to increase employer
connections with the One-Stop system.
2
The information in this Guidance Letter supersedes and rescinds previously issued guidance
related to performance negotiations in TEGL 29-05, Negotiating Common Measures
Performance Goals for Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year (PY) 2006, Re-
Negotiating the Earnings Common Measure for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title IB
Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs, and Clarification of Accountability for Youth Measures,
TEGL 27-04, Negotiating Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title 1B Performance Goals for
Program Years (PY) 2005 and 2006, and TEGL 22-03, Negotiating PY 2004 Expected Levels of
Performance for the Labor Exchange Entered Employment Rate (EER) and Employment
Retention Rate (ERR) Performance Measures. The intent of this document is to clarify the
performance measures for which states will be held accountable for PY 2007 and PY 2008,
provide an outline of the negotiations process and provide descriptions of tools available for use
during the negotiations process. The negotiations process across the system should be improved
by the provision of these consistent analysis tools, 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 Negotiations Process. In general, the process for this current round of
negotiations will not change significantly from the processes used in past rounds. 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.B.
of this guidance). The major difference in this round of negotiations is that states will be
required to establish PY 2007 and PY 2008 performance levels for the Wagner-Peyser Act
component of the State Plans at the same time as they negotiate performance levels for the WIA
Title 1B programs.
5. Integrated Approach for Assessing Performance Against Negotiated Levels. Beginning in
PY 2007, ETA will be defining performance results similarly for both the WIA Title 1B and
Wagner-Peyser Act programs. While this methodology has not changed for the WIA Title 1B
programs, it is more noteworthy for the Wagner-Peyser program, which used a single
performance point in the past. This change to the interpretation of results for the Wagner-Peyser
Act program is being made to align it more closely with the WIA methodology. The intent of
this change is to lessen the confusion within the workforce investment system associated with
having two different methodologies for defining whether program performance meets, or fails to
meet a negotiated goal, as well as to aid in the integration of services across the programs at the
state, regional, and local levels.
Methodology for Assessing Performance Against Negotiated Levels
For both the WIA Title 1B 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:
3
• 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 indicator, the
state would:
• 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 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%; there will be no rounding in
interpreting performance results. Negotiated performance levels and results are stated to the
tenth of a percent. The Meets category is rather broad; states may use additional distinctions to
differentiate performance within that category. These three categories align with existing
guidance on incentives and sanctions (see TEGL 8-99) as well as the WIA regulations:
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 the 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;
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.
6. Applicable Performance Measures for the PY 2007 and PY 2008 Performance
Negotiations Process. The negotiations process will focus on establishing agreed-upon levels
of performance for 20 performance levels for the WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act programs. The
17 WIA indicators of performance, consisting of the Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth
program measures, the two customer satisfaction indicators and the three Wagner-Peyser
performance measures.
4
For those states that have requested 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 negotiations process will focus
on establishing a total of nine agreed-upon levels of performance for the WIA Adult, Dislocated
Worker and Youth programs and the three Wagner-Peyser measures. For these waiver states, the
three 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 negotiations
process.
Applicable Performance Measures
Wagner-
WIA Measures (Majority of States) Common Measures (Waiver States)
Peyser
Dislocated Customer Dislocated Measures
Adult Worker Youth Satisfaction Adult Worker Youth (All States)
Older Youth Participant Entered
Entered Entered American Entered Entered Placement in
Entered Employment
Employment Employment Customer Employment Employment Employment
Employment Rate for
Rate Rate Satisfaction Rate Rate or Education
Rate Total Exiters
Index
Older Youth Employer Employment
Employment Employment American Employment Employment Attainment
Employment Retention
Retention Retention Customer Retention Retention of a Degree
Retention Rate for
Rate Rate Satisfaction Rate Rate or Certificate
Rate Total Exiters
Index
Employment Employment Older Youth Average Six Average Six Literacy and Average Six
and and Credential Months Months Numeracy Months
Credential Credential Rate Earnings Earnings Gains Earnings for
Rate Rate Total Exiters
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 are as follows:
5
• 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);
• The WIA Adult and Youth programs’ 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); 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);
• The three Wagner-Peyser Program’s 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).
All states will collect and report against the three Youth common performance measures for the
entire Youth population (Older and Younger Youth combined) in PY 2007 and PY 2008.
However, performance against these measures will not be considered 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.
States should also be aware that the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS)
intends to issue separate guidance on negotiating PY 2007 and PY 2008 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 One-Stop employment and
workforce information services; 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 1B and Wagner-Peyser funded activities, states
should negotiate their goals within the context of integrated service delivery, priority of service,
customer mix, and workforce solutions that contribute to the regional economic competitiveness
of their state and sub-state areas. The following tools and process guidelines provide a uniform
framework for states to use to set performance goals that demonstrate this commitment.
Following these guidelines should make coming to agreement on final performance levels easier.
Final performance levels must be negotiated and agreed upon by the state and the ETA Regional
Administrator no later than June 30, 2007.
6
A. Tools for Proposing Levels of Performance
Prior to proposing levels of performance for the applicable performance measures to the
appropriate Regional Administrator to begin the negotiations process as discussed further in Part
B of this section (and Attachment I), states should review and make use of the following
resources/tools to ensure that these factors have been considered in determining their proposed
level and that there is a sound rationale for their proposed levels of performance:
I. Past performance. States should use historical, annual performance information (PY
2002-2005) to inform projected levels of performance for PY 2007 and PY 2008. 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 a full year 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 prior performance
and environmental factors that are beyond the state’s 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/cewover.htm). When using BLS data as a guide, states should be
careful to 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 GPRA goals the
Department has established for PY 2007 and PY 2008. These goals will be used by
regional offices 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 evaluates the success of Federal programs,
including those which are operated by states and localities. The GPRA is also a principal
component of the President’s Management Agenda, by which the Administration
evaluates programs as part of its goal to integrate budget and performance outcomes.
The GPRA performance goals for the Department’s WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers
programs, and the Wagner-Peyser program are listed in Attachment II, and more
information is available at http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/goals/gpra.cfm.
III. National comparisons. 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
this information for the past four program years. (Note that these tables include estimates
of outcomes using common measure definitions for adult and dislocated workers. These
7
estimates were created by using states’ previously submitted Workforce Investment Act
Standardized Record Data [WIASRD] files).
IV. Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs.
Attachment IV presents an estimate of this information by state for the past four
program years using states’ previously submitted Workforce Investment Act
Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) files.
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 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 four 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 be careful to 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) and TEGL 8-99
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL8-99.pdf) address additional factors, such
as differences in economic conditions, characteristics of participants, and services to be
provided, that should be considered in the negotiation process. Below is some additional
detail on these and other factors that should be considered:
o Estimates of how various economic and demographic variables may impact
outcomes achieved is provided in Attachment VII. 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 should not be considered 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 2007, which could have a strong effect on the negotiated entered
8
employment rate for PY 2007, but a lesser effect on the employment retention
and six month average earnings measures for PY 2007, because the individuals
included in those measures for PY 2007 reporting purposes would have been
employed prior to the start of calendar year 2007 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, to 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 2007 and PY 2008 (and including in their WIA
Annual Report submissions for PY 2007 and PY 2008).
o Also, states that contain WIRED regions should take into consideration how the
additional investment and reshaping of talent development strategies within
those regions will impact overall performance, particularly individuals served.
The original WIRED Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) identified
improved performance under the Workforce Investment Act and the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program as an expected outcome under these grants.
While PY 2007 may represent a continuation of the program implementation
phase for some of the regions, it is expected that PY 2008, and beyond, will
begin to yield quantifiable results as employment, training, and advancement
programs and opportunities increase. Pages 4 and 5 of TEGL 13-06
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL13-06_508.pdf) provide a
discussion of the roles of the WIRED initiative in the development of ETA’s
current policy emphases and strategic priorities. To the extent possible,
negotiations should reflect projected impacts of the WIRED strategies.
o 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 goals. Serving a greater percentage of the
neediest youth may impact outcomes. If states plan to serve a greater
percentage of the neediest youth, they should provide data that shows how
outcomes are impacted by serving this population.
o 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 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 WIA
Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker and Wagner-Peyser Act outcomes will be
impacted. 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 employment and training programs have
positive impacts on individuals served, including traditionally underserved
9
populations for employment. In order to continue good management and
oversight of our programs, it will be necessary to document how outcomes are
impacted by changes in the mix of participants served.
B. Process for Reaching Agreement on State Performance Levels
The process for reaching agreement on state performance levels will include 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 2007 and PY 2008 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 May 1, 2007; 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,
2007.
When submitting the proposed levels, states should provide the following as support for
the levels, which is also necessary documentation for the State Plans (see Part II, Section
X, Subpart D, Item 1 of the Stand-Alone Planning Guidance or State Planning Guidance
or Part III, Section K, Item 1(b)(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 listed in WIA section 136(b)(3)(A)(iv), previously addressed in
TEGL 8-99, and discussed in Section 5.A. 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).)
10
II. The regional office 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 office will
consider the proposed levels in light of previously negotiated goals, past performance
results, and the national GPRA goals. Additionally, regional offices will consider the
quality of the data presented by 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
offer 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 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.
At a minimum, states will be required to submit the proposed levels of performance as part of
the State Plans, which are due to ETA by May 1, 2007. In a notice to States from the ETA’s
Administrator for the Office of Workforce Investment, entitled: ETA’s Intent to Revise TEGL
13-06 to Provide States Additional Time for Submission of State Plans, states (or jurisdictions)
that have new governors are being provided the option of additional time to submit their
modified State Plans; eligible jurisdictions requesting this option have until June 30, 2007, to
submit their modified State Plans. (See 20 CFR 661.230(b)(2), “Planning Guidance and
Instructions for Submission of the Strategic Five-Year Plan for Title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 and the Wagner Peyser Act” and TEGL No. 13-06 (and any subsequent
changes) “Instructions for WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act State Planning and Waiver Requests for
Years Three and Four of the Strategic Five-Year State Plan (PY 2007 – 2008)”.
States should note that the content of the State Plans, including the proposed levels of
performance, are subject to public review and comment requirements. States that have
completed negotiations with ETA should include their agreed-upon levels of performance for PY
2007 and PY 2008 for the WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act programs in the State Plan as part of
their modification request.
In cases where final agreement on performance goals is not reached before the State Plan is
submitted to ETA for review and approval, but is reached before ETA approval of the State Plan,
the letter advising the states of approval of the State Plan will notify the State of ETA’s approval
of the agreed-upon goals (and attach to the letter a copy of the agreed upon goals).
11
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 State 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 will incorporate these performance goals into the Regional and
National Office copies of the State’s 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 Act
Performance Outcomes, PY 2002 - PY 2005
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 2007 and PY 2008
12
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att1.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att1.pdf
ATTACHMENT I:
RECOMMENDED TIMELINE FOR THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS
DATE ACTION
• ETA regional offices provide technical assistance on
March-April 2007 strategic planning as requested by state, including
procedures for negotiating performance goals
No later than
• States send proposed performance levels to regional offices
May 1, 2007
• States formally submit state plans to ETA, including the
May 1, 2007
proposed or final performance levels
• Regional offices review states’ proposed performance
May 2007 levels and work with states to arrive at mutually agreed
upon levels
June 2007 • Negotiation continues if necessary
• States (or jurisdictions) that have new governors are being
provided the option of additional time to submit their
modified State Plans. Eligible jurisdictions requesting this
option have until June 30, 2007, to submit their modified
June 30, 2007
State Plans
• Regional Administrators send approval letter to states
regarding the final performance levels
• ETA incorporates final performance levels into state plans
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att2.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att2.pdf
ATTACHMENT II:
GPRA PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005 PY 2006 PY 2007 PY 2008
PERFORMANCE GOAL
GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL
WIA Adult Entered Employment
Rate 71% 75% 76% 76% 76% 78%
WIA Adult Employment
Retention Rate 82% 85% 81% 82% 83% 84%
WIA Adult Earnings
Change/Average Earnings (PY $3,100 $3,300 $3,400 $11,000 $11,100 $11,200
2006, PY 2007, and PY 2008)1
WIA Dislocated Worker Entered
Employment Rate 78% 82% 83% 84% 84% 84%
WIA Dislocated Worker
Employment Retention Rate 88% 91% 89% 90% 90% 90%
WIA Dislocated Worker Wage
Replacement Rate/ Average
Earnings (PY 2006, PY 2007, and
93% 91% 92%
PY 2008)1 $13,800 $13,900 $14,000
Wagner-Peyser Entered
Employment Rate 58% 58% 61% 64% 65% 65%
Wagner-Peyser Employment
Retention Rate 72% 72% 78% 81% 82% 82%
Wagner-Peyser Average Earnings
N/A N/A Baseline $10,500 $10,750 $11,000
N/A = Not Applicable
Please note: Targets for the goals for PY 2005 forward were set based on the policy guidance on
common measures provided by TEGL 17-05.
1
TEGL 17-05 changed the methodology for calculating the earnings measure for the WIA Adult
and Dislocated Worker programs effective July 1, 2006, so the goals/targets for PY 2006 – PY
2008 are not directly comparable to previous year targets for these measures.
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att3.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att3.pdf
ATTACHMENT III:
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WIA AND WAGNER-PEYSER
PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES,
PY 2002 - PY 2005
Table 1: National Averages of Performance Measure Outcomes
Overall Average
PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005
Adults
Entered Employment Rate 75% 74% 77% 77%
Employment Retention Rate1 80% 80% 78% 83%
Average Earnings1 $9,396 $10,348 $10,773 $11,208
Employment and Credential Rate 62% 62% 66% 68%
Dislocated Workers
Entered Employment Rate 83% 82% 84% 83%
Employment Retention Rate1 87% 87% 84% 88%
Average Earnings 1 $12,998 $13,803 $14,003 $14,150
Employment and Credential Rate 65% 65% 70% 68%
Older Youth
Entered Employment Rate 70% 71% 74% 76%
Employment Retention Rate 80% 81% 83% 83%
Earnings Change $2,938 $3,167 $3,547 $3,769
Credential Rate 46% 48% 52% 53%
Younger Youth
Skill Attainment Rate 80% 83% 84% 84%
Diploma Attainment Rate 63% 63% 66% 65%
Retention Rate 60% 61% 65% 69%
Customer Satisfaction
Participants 77 76 77 80
Employers 74 72 73 75
Wagner-Peyser
Entered Employment Rate 63% 61% 64% 63%
Employment Retention Rate 80% 80% 81% 80%
Average Earnings2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: WIA State Annual and Wagner-Peyser State Quarterly Reports
1
Estimates of these outcomes were developed from state Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data
(WIASRD) file submissions using common measures definitions.
2
The methodology for calculating the Average Earnings measure became effective July 1, 2006. Unlike the WIA
programs, it is not possible to estimate outcomes for prior years for the Wagner-Peyser Program. However, the
preliminary result through the end of the 2nd quarter of PY 2006 for Average Earnings is $11,762.
Attachment III
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 02 PY 03 PY 04 PY 05 Avg. PY 02 PY 03 PY 04 PY 05 Avg. PY 02 PY 03 PY 04 PY 05 Avg. PY 02 PY 03 PY 04 PY 05 Avg. PY 02 PY 03 PY 04 PY 05 Avg.
WIA Adults
Entered Employment Rate 85% 87% 89% 89% 88% 81% 83% 87% 87% 85% 77% 79% 85% 85% 81% 73% 74% 72% 69% 72% 68% 69% 70% 60% 67%
1, 2
Employment Retention Rate 85% 87% 92% 90% 88% 84% 84% 91% 88% 86% 81% 82% 89% 86% 84% 78% 79% 83% 76% 79% 76% 76% 81% 72% 76%
1
Earnings Change $4,121 $4,281 $5,836 $6,492 $5,183 $3,895 $3,820 $5,263 $5,707 $4,671 $3,285 $3,130 $4,730 $5,179 $4,081 $2,647 $2,727 $2,906 $3,272 $2,888 $2,297 $2,352 $2,631 $2,718 $2,500
Employment and Credential Rate 71% 75% 80% 83% 77% 70% 68% 76% 78% 73% 64% 65% 74% 75% 69% 56% 60% 57% 57% 57% 52% 52% 51% 50% 51%
WIA Dislocated Workers
Entered Employment Rate 91% 90% 90% 93% 91% 88% 88% 87% 91% 89% 84% 85% 86% 89% 86% 80% 81% 84% 76% 80% 74% 78% 83% 69% 76%
Employment Retention Rate 1, 2 91% 92% 96% 94% 93% 91% 90% 95% 93% 92% 88% 89% 94% 92% 91% 86% 86% 88% 81% 85% 83% 83% 86% 73% 81%
1
Earnings Change $2,811 $1,229 $138 $4,891 $2,267 $646 $50 $121 $3,385 $1,051 -$561 -$1,239 $108 $2,046 $88 -$1,744 -$2,357 $80 -$1,629 -$1,413 -$2,378 -$3,687 $75 -$2,233 -$2,056
Employment and Credential Rate 79% 77% 84% 86% 81% 71% 73% 80% 81% 76% 66% 68% 77% 78% 72% 60% 64% 60% 60% 61% 57% 59% 55% 51% 55%
Wagner-Peyser
Entered Employment Rate 79% 74% 71% 57% 47%
Employment Retention Rate 88% 86% 85% 76% 75%
WIA Older Youth
Entered Employment Rate 79% 83% 92% 92% 86% 75% 79% 87% 86% 82% 72% 73% 82% 82% 77% 63% 69% 67% 64% 66% 59% 64% 64% 54% 60%
Employment Retention Rate 85% 90% 92% 90% 89% 83% 86% 90% 89% 87% 80% 82% 87% 87% 84% 76% 79% 77% 74% 76% 72% 77% 74% 66% 72%
Earnings Change $3,855 $4,074 $5,049 $5,285 $4,566 $3,262 $3,547 $4,569 $4,697 $4,019 $2,753 $3,079 $4,125 $4,305 $3,566 $2,469 $2,636 $2,680 $2,759 $2,636 $1,960 $2,311 $2,139 $2,174 $2,146
Credential Rate 60% 63% 69% 78% 67% 56% 57% 66% 69% 62% 48% 52% 62% 64% 56% 39% 43% 42% 40% 41% 33% 38% 37% 31% 35%
WIA Younger Youth
Skill Attainment Rate 96% 93% 94% 97% 95% 89% 89% 92% 93% 91% 81% 85% 89% 89% 86% 76% 79% 74% 73% 75% 70% 72% 70% 69% 70%
Diploma Attainment Rate 77% 78% 83% 90% 82% 74% 73% 80% 82% 77% 64% 63% 76% 76% 70% 57% 56% 53% 49% 54% 46% 51% 49% 34% 45%
Retention Rate 74% 78% 82% 86% 80% 68% 71% 78% 80% 74% 61% 64% 74% 76% 69% 53% 58% 59% 59% 57% 47% 53% 55% 53% 52%
Customer Satisfaction
Participants 84 85 89 90 87 82 81 86 88 84 78 77 84 85 81 74 75 72 73 73 70 71 69 69 70
Employers 83 83 87 89 85 78 78 83 86 81 75 76 80 81 78 71 72 68 65 69 68 68 66 56 64
Source: WIA State Annual Reports and Wagner-Peyser State Quarterly Reports
1 Common Measures performance estimates derived from Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data
2 Includes supplemental data
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att4.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att4.pdf
ATTACHMENT IV
Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs
WIA Adult Program WIA Dislocated Worker Program
1 1
State PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005 PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005
Nation $9,396 $10,348 $10,773 $11,208 $12,998 $13,803 $14,003 $14,150
AK $10,539 $13,506 $12,606 $13,008 $14,675 $18,606 $16,271 $15,907
AL $8,859 $11,506 $13,094 $8,974 $10,677 $11,642 $12,653 $12,861
AR $9,077 $10,005 $12,634 $11,861 $10,311 $11,172 $12,518 $12,228
AZ $9,434 $9,439 $9,409 $10,330 $12,077 $13,206 $13,533 $14,792
CA $10,397 $10,483 $11,680 $12,396 $14,945 $15,030 $15,311 $15,726
CO $9,172 $11,037 $10,512 $11,274 $13,410 $15,269 $16,040 $15,980
CT $10,243 $9,517 $9,818 $11,004 $15,775 $14,159 $16,193 $16,336
DC $8,478 $8,971 $8,924 $10,220 $14,209 $13,816 $15,059 $14,027
DE $8,586 $9,518 $9,272 $10,075 $12,374 $12,058 $12,987 $12,979
FL $9,690 $11,367 $12,118 $15,108 $12,799 $13,720 $14,140 $14,480
GA $8,716 $9,102 $10,284 $10,644 $11,151 $13,024 $13,940 $14,244
HI $8,987 $9,137 $10,087 $10,186 $12,435 $12,434 $12,941 $12,868
IA $9,049 $9,344 $9,511 $9,598 $11,296 $11,791 $12,230 $11,880
ID $9,229 $8,921 $9,413 $10,391 $12,940 $12,417 $13,266 $13,094
IL $9,585 $9,985 $10,198 $10,759 $13,676 $15,034 $15,333 $15,413
IN $9,348 $10,159 $10,149 $10,370 $12,839 $14,980 $14,189 $14,577
KS $8,950 $10,105 $11,281 $11,419 $12,294 $14,804 $15,539 $15,621
KY $9,381 $9,612 $10,081 $10,634 $12,066 $11,668 $11,950 $13,296
LA $8,764 $9,277 $10,063 $10,194 $11,083 $11,227 $11,544 $12,179
MA $9,515 $9,849 $10,018 $10,581 $13,972 $14,756 $16,643 $18,615
MD $10,501 $11,431 $12,240 $12,740 $14,307 $15,902 $17,269 $15,919
ME $8,959 $9,220 $9,312 $9,247 $10,932 $10,760 $12,919 $11,164
MI $9,096 $9,617 $9,388 $9,651 $12,598 $12,674 $12,336 $12,914
MN $9,319 $10,035 $10,539 $10,661 $15,434 $16,498 $16,300 $16,143
MO $8,101 $8,589 $8,658 $9,178 $12,651 $13,165 $12,590 $13,257
MS $8,313 $8,333 $8,450 $8,871 $9,346 $9,659 $9,663 $10,169
MT $8,468 $7,936 $9,697 $9,758 $13,127 $13,014 $13,888 $13,964
NC $9,133 $9,110 $9,669 $9,893 $11,229 $11,858 $12,217 $13,714
ND $7,801 $7,809 $8,332 $9,447 $11,328 $10,832 $11,164 $12,338
NE $7,887 $9,387 $9,505 $9,839 $12,647 $12,676 $13,342 $12,919
NH $9,485 $11,009 $10,544 $9,947 $13,389 $17,111 $15,121 $17,111
NJ $9,928 $10,533 $11,209 $11,945 $13,821 $14,189 $15,815 $16,272
NM $8,946 $9,234 $10,158 $11,007 $11,223 $11,800 $13,315 $12,739
NV $9,536 $8,537 $10,437 $9,767 $13,575 $15,004 $14,723 $13,727
NY $10,134 $10,969 $11,639 $12,164 $14,815 $15,182 $15,138 $14,716
OH $13,409 $14,218 $14,221 $14,718 $15,618 $17,021 $17,093 $17,057
OK $9,311 $9,422 $10,206 $10,452 $11,871 $12,020 $12,842 $13,118
OR $8,354 $9,323 $9,938 $9,990 $11,719 $12,425 $12,812 $12,919
PA $8,844 $9,762 $10,184 $11,540 $12,975 $13,741 $14,581 $15,460
PR $4,629 $5,835 $7,149 $7,158 $4,925 $5,638 $5,847 $6,959
RI $9,757 $10,608 $10,653 $10,378 $13,161 $13,099 $13,324 $14,691
SC $8,429 $8,774 $9,071 $9,240 $10,425 $11,107 $11,283 $12,252
SD $7,402 $8,277 $8,954 $9,978 $10,328 $11,333 $11,348 $12,388
TN $9,814 $17,178 $14,595 $11,860 $12,118 $20,922 $16,898 $12,586
TX $9,255 $10,257 $10,591 $11,248 $12,533 $13,407 $12,859 $13,598
UT $9,540 $9,271 $9,031 $9,029 $13,674 $13,250 $13,794 $15,022
VA $7,804 $9,812 $9,253 $9,031 $12,371 $13,665 $13,147 $12,651
VT $9,822 $9,730 $10,427 $10,611 $13,440 $14,285 $14,947 $13,174
WA $9,710 $10,387 $10,394 $11,100 $14,477 $15,383 $16,022 $17,295
WI $7,965 $7,918 $9,073 $9,441 $13,116 $13,547 $13,829 $13,836
WV $9,447 $7,549 $9,378 $9,610 $13,060 $10,641 $14,979 $12,770
WY $8,173 $9,775 $10,724 $10,215 $12,199 $11,121 $14,140 $11,996
Source: Estimates using Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) PY 2002 - PY 2005
1
These estimates do not include NEG-only participants
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att5.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att5.pdf
ATTACHMENT V
Estimates of Six Months Average Earnings by State Using BLSQCEW Program Data
CY 2002 CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005
State Annual Avg. Total Annual Estimated Annual Avg. Total Annual Estimated Annual Avg. Total Annual Estimated Annual Avg. Total Annual Estimated
Employment Earnings 6Month Avg. Employment Earnings 6Month Avg. Employment Earnings 6Month Avg. Employment Earnings 6Month Avg.
(in thousands) Earnings (in thousands) Earnings (in thousands) Earnings (in thousands) Earnings
Nation 107,577,281 $3,930,767,025 $18,270 107,065,553 $4,015,823,331 $18,754 108,490,066 $4,245,640,890 $19,567 110,611,016 $4,480,311,193 $20,253
AK 211,903 $7,617,915 $17,975 215,626 $7,871,182 $18,252 220,849 $8,327,132 $18,853 226,441 $8,789,821 $19,409
AL 1,492,477 $45,554,715 $15,261 1,483,039 $46,815,174 $15,784 1,509,246 $49,528,759 $16,408 1,548,068 $52,648,070 $17,004
AR 936,465 $25,949,062 $13,855 930,765 $26,521,181 $14,247 942,044 $28,075,079 $14,901 957,385 $29,466,569 $15,389
AZ 1,876,764 $63,133,831 $16,820 1,902,998 $65,847,521 $17,301 1,980,818 $71,721,836 $18,104 2,107,545 $79,466,739 $18,853
CA 12,461,949 $508,166,580 $20,389 12,447,085 $521,081,230 $20,932 12,609,942 $555,403,066 $22,022 12,877,981 $588,323,302 $22,842
CO 1,814,307 $68,921,440 $18,994 1,776,722 $69,097,929 $19,445 1,800,646 $72,397,898 $20,103 1,843,544 $76,677,727 $20,796
CT 1,408,923 $66,767,965 $23,695 1,390,345 $68,036,491 $24,467 1,398,093 $72,184,249 $25,815 1,409,194 $75,643,196 $26,839
DC 420,177 $22,703,981 $27,017 421,101 $23,613,304 $28,038 429,176 $25,397,871 $29,589 435,674 $26,836,815 $30,799
DE 347,690 $13,731,536 $19,747 347,500 $14,207,358 $20,442 356,173 $15,081,359 $21,171 361,184 $16,105,993 $22,296
FL 6,149,892 $195,667,180 $15,908 6,213,122 $204,504,193 $16,457 6,423,693 $221,216,998 $17,219 6,694,864 $241,658,332 $18,048
GA 3,188,907 $114,822,735 $18,003 3,156,763 $116,369,030 $18,432 3,206,888 $122,652,733 $19,123 3,288,867 $129,957,278 $19,757
HI 444,519 $13,756,399 $15,473 454,089 $14,519,181 $15,987 468,748 $15,742,130 $16,792 487,265 $16,841,715 $17,282
IA 1,185,662 $34,571,883 $14,579 1,177,501 $35,584,066 $15,110 1,195,269 $37,861,507 $15,838 1,218,487 $39,785,287 $16,326
ID 465,801 $12,929,751 $13,879 468,484 $13,244,828 $14,136 482,745 $14,204,915 $14,713 505,098 $15,375,363 $15,220
IL 4,952,156 $196,793,208 $19,869 4,887,063 $198,286,927 $20,287 4,895,801 $207,181,480 $21,159 4,942,881 $216,755,351 $21,926
IN 2,443,987 $79,613,943 $16,288 2,427,271 $81,058,368 $16,697 2,451,737 $85,142,689 $17,364 2,476,047 $87,808,487 $17,732
KS 1,064,161 $33,054,081 $15,531 1,048,871 $33,348,003 $15,897 1,058,858 $34,955,699 $16,506 1,067,241 $36,568,804 $17,132
KY 1,425,851 $43,812,708 $15,364 1,423,208 $45,056,332 $15,829 1,439,029 $47,378,920 $16,462 1,464,009 $49,390,277 $16,868
LA 1,488,755 $44,697,643 $15,012 1,493,180 $45,713,492 $15,307 1,500,416 $47,596,758 $15,861 1,483,085 $49,709,216 $16,759
MA 2,790,220 $126,412,037 $22,653 2,739,212 $127,562,806 $23,285 2,739,861 $134,879,469 $24,614 2,758,287 $139,087,838 $25,213
MD 1,977,276 $74,885,643 $18,937 1,983,840 $77,677,539 $19,578 2,014,285 $82,608,965 $20,506 2,048,799 $87,645,609 $21,390
ME 492,726 $14,406,686 $14,619 492,329 $14,882,776 $15,115 497,523 $15,618,817 $15,697 495,573 $15,910,026 $16,052
MI 3,745,997 $142,953,008 $19,081 3,679,892 $145,296,101 $19,742 3,665,091 $148,087,745 $20,202 3,664,372 $150,697,111 $20,562
MN 2,214,010 $83,067,155 $18,759 2,206,420 $85,374,066 $19,347 2,230,302 $90,506,869 $20,290 2,266,499 $92,847,710 $20,483
MO 2,214,874 $73,676,398 $16,632 2,200,623 $74,697,428 $16,972 2,213,813 $77,535,609 $17,512 2,247,382 $81,365,467 $18,102
MS 874,488 $23,010,211 $13,156 864,109 $23,449,773 $13,569 871,265 $24,424,055 $14,016 877,853 $25,633,801 $14,600
MT 310,388 $7,701,702 $12,407 314,240 $8,063,221 $12,830 323,727 $8,614,228 $13,305 334,143 $9,334,656 $13,968
NC 3,132,633 $101,780,187 $16,245 3,093,372 $103,050,909 $16,657 3,141,074 $108,786,936 $17,317 3,208,940 $114,764,370 $17,882
ND 249,821 $6,525,296 $13,060 251,672 $6,844,739 $13,599 258,025 $7,381,059 $14,303 264,609 $7,826,400 $14,789
NE 723,673 $21,025,492 $14,527 724,281 $21,673,276 $14,962 730,413 $22,682,662 $15,527 739,567 $23,669,559 $16,002
NH 521,454 $19,081,847 $18,297 520,458 $19,613,486 $18,843 529,498 $20,937,397 $19,771 536,157 $21,994,858 $20,512
NJ 3,275,702 $146,988,589 $22,436 3,262,121 $149,994,400 $22,990 3,274,157 $155,963,272 $23,817 3,308,847 $162,528,342 $24,560
NM 565,731 $15,946,021 $14,093 570,868 $16,521,345 $14,470 582,169 $17,517,156 $15,045 597,145 $18,716,335 $15,672
NV 917,523 $30,310,494 $16,518 949,334 $32,581,025 $17,160 1,010,267 $36,480,273 $18,055 1,075,087 $40,725,789 $18,941
NY 6,848,947 $322,109,480 $23,515 6,803,570 $325,906,816 $23,951 6,854,296 $348,157,089 $25,397 6,928,662 $367,073,278 $26,489
OH 4,576,369 $154,229,328 $16,851 4,524,065 $156,563,413 $17,303 4,533,380 $162,874,667 $17,964 4,555,293 $167,769,662 $18,415
OK 1,145,071 $32,245,630 $14,080 1,120,680 $32,795,855 $14,632 1,130,802 $34,431,859 $15,225 1,158,861 $36,570,949 $15,779
OR 1,320,125 $43,650,904 $16,533 1,314,854 $44,466,608 $16,909 1,344,751 $47,101,505 $17,513 1,386,917 $50,247,780 $18,115
PA 4,791,355 $169,026,136 $17,639 4,753,844 $173,433,529 $18,241 4,781,005 $181,991,489 $19,033 4,837,168 $189,925,436 $19,632
PR 701,719 $13,923,358 $9,921 726,994 $14,770,755 $10,159 743,857 $15,524,818 $10,435 750,665 $16,156,827 $10,762
RI 404,008 $13,429,119 $16,620 407,764 $14,216,602 $17,432 412,149 $14,824,318 $17,984 414,842 $15,376,785 $18,533
SC 1,454,665 $42,890,165 $14,742 1,454,329 $43,980,643 $15,121 1,476,668 $46,230,124 $15,654 1,500,676 $48,651,908 $16,210
SD 294,996 $7,644,669 $12,957 295,714 $7,910,687 $13,376 300,583 $8,353,985 $13,896 306,681 $8,788,049 $14,328
TN 2,209,384 $71,740,575 $16,235 2,204,879 $73,853,100 $16,748 2,246,911 $78,322,558 $17,429 2,286,964 $82,008,403 $17,930
TX 7,662,067 $281,705,795 $18,383 7,587,587 $284,093,347 $18,721 7,695,635 $300,899,015 $19,550 7,926,772 $324,046,986 $20,440
UT 857,874 $25,746,002 $15,006 857,043 $26,158,826 $15,261 884,984 $27,956,753 $15,795 925,300 $30,375,868 $16,414
VA 2,785,885 $102,382,111 $18,375 2,788,213 $106,348,991 $19,071 2,859,017 $114,694,940 $20,058 2,931,169 $122,928,599 $20,969
VT 246,527 $7,547,034 $15,307 244,595 $7,722,455 $15,786 248,057 $8,116,785 $16,361 249,757 $8,403,816 $16,824
WA 2,153,424 $81,803,682 $18,994 2,157,934 $83,454,302 $19,337 2,196,183 $85,249,803 $19,409 2,264,776 $91,101,471 $20,113
WI 2,310,188 $74,197,881 $16,059 2,307,228 $76,133,210 $16,499 2,335,623 $80,318,510 $17,194 2,365,071 $83,050,227 $17,558
WV 547,512 $15,231,081 $13,909 542,349 $15,380,345 $14,179 550,559 $16,283,559 $14,788 558,749 $17,066,902 $15,272
WY 182,026 $5,150,110 $14,147 183,403 $5,345,901 $14,574 187,822 $5,758,340 $15,329 195,241 $6,368,867 $16,310
Data Source: BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Annual Averages, 20022005. http://www.bls.gov/cew
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att6.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att6.pdf
ATTACHMENT VI:
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON BLS QCEW PROGRAM DATA
Data Source/Methodology:
ETA utilized annual QCEW employment and wage data for private industry by state for calendar
years 2002 through 2005, which is readily available on the 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, 2006. For instance, the exit cohorts for the employment retention
and earnings measures on the state quarterly reports ending September 30, 2006, covered the
periods July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. With the exception of one quarter for the April-June
2005 cohort, the actual six months earnings quarters (i.e., 2nd and 3rd post-program quarters) for
these exit cohorts covered the calendar year 2005 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
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.
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att7.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att7.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 (%) -2.3 .015 -.063 -.108 -.056 -.106
Employment Retention (%) -1.3 .042 -.010 -.069 -.054 -.068
Average Earnings ($) -720 -24 10 -22 -38 -15
Credential rate (%) -0.3 .020 -- -.132 -.100 -.168
Dislocated Workers
Entered Employment Rate (%) -2.8 -- -.100 -.056 -- -.072
Employment Retention (%) -1.7 .008 -.031 -.037 -- -.041
Average Earnings ($) -1035 -44 -3 -29 -- -14
Credential rate (%) -0.4 .011 -.066 -.032 -- -.042
Percent Not Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age High School Basic Skills with
Older Youth ment Rate Female 19 Graduate Deficient Disabilities
Entered Employment Rate (%) -- -.020 -.021 -.129 -.040 -.045
Employment Retention (%) -- -- -- -.122 -.033 --
Earnings change ($) -- -5 -- -25 -6 ---
Credential rate (%) -- -- -- -.111 -.070 --
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 (%) -0.1 -- -.006 -.026 -.004 .014
Diploma attainment rate (%) 1.6 .036 -.125 -.203 -- .139
Percent Not
High School Percent Percent
Unemploy- Percent Percent Age Graduate Basic Skills with
ment Rate Female 14 or 15 Deficient Disabilities
Retention (%) -1.2 .015 -.134 -.129 -- --
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
2005 Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) submissions. 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 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 are based on TEGL 17-05 definitions and use supplemental data where
appropriate.
Table 1 provides estimated relationships between unemployment rates and performance
outcomes. These relationships were estimated using the WIASRD outcomes for exiters in the
most recent year available for each measure 1 and CY 2005 state unemployment rates in a simple
bivariate regression analysis. The results indicate, for example, that an increase of the national
unemployment rate by one percentage point (say from 4% to 5%) decreases the national adult
entered employment rate by 2.3 percentage points (say from 70.0% to 67.7%). 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 the WIASRD. These estimates
indicate, for example, that if the percentage of older youth who are not high school graduates
increases by 10 percentage points, then the employment retention rate is expected to decrease by
1.22 percentage points (10 x -0.122). It should be noted, that the estimated relationships
between performance outcomes and customer characteristics are generally small enough
1 Estimates for entered employment and credential attainment were based on exiters between October 2004
and September 2005. Estimates for retention and earnings change were based on exiters from April 2004 to March
2005. Estimates for younger youth skill attainment and younger youth diploma attainment were based on exiters
between April 2005 and March 2006.
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 effect 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
dislocated worker credential and employment rates and the younger youth diploma rate).
• 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.
• 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.
ATTACHMENT VII
Table 2: Recent and Projected Unemployment Rates
Projected Unemployment Rates (%)
CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010
Nation
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Actual Unemployment Rates (%)
CY 2002 CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006
Nation 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6
Alabama 5.9 5.8 5.2 4.0 3.6
Alaska 7.7 8.0 7.4 6.8 6.7
Arizona 6.2 5.6 5 4.7 4.1
Arkansas 5.4 6.2 5.6 4.9 5.3
California 6.7 6.7 6.2 5.4 4.9
Colorado 5.7 6.0 5.6 5.0 4.3
Connecticut 4.3 5.5 4.9 4.9 4.3
Delaware 4.2 4.4 4 4.2 3.6
District of
Columbia
6.4 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.0
Florida 5.5 5.1 4.7 3.8 3.3
Georgia 5.1 4.7 4.8 5.3 4.6
Hawaii 4.2 4.3 3.3 2.8 2.4
Idaho 5.8 5.4 4.7 3.8 3.4
Illinois 6.5 6.7 6.2 5.7 4.5
Indiana 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.0
Iowa 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.6 3.7
Kansas 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.1 4.5
Kentucky 5.6 6.2 5.5 6.1 5.7
Louisiana 6.1 6.6 5.7 7.1 4.0
Maine 4.4 5.1 4.6 4.8 4.6
Maryland 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9
Massachusetts 5.3 5.8 5.2 4.8 5.0
Michigan 6.2 7.3 7 6.7 6.9
Minnesota 4.4 5.0 4.6 4.0 4.0
Mississippi 6.8 6.3 6.3 7.9 6.8
Missouri 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.4 4.8
Actual Unemployment Rates (%)
CY 2002 CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006
Montana 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.2
Nebraska 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.0
Nevada 5.5 5.2 4.6 4.1 4.2
New 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.4
Hampshire
New Jersey 5.8 5.9 4.9 4.4 4.6
New Mexico 5.4 6.4 5.7 5.3 4.2
New York 6.1 6.3 5.8 5.0 4.5
North 6.7 6.5 5.5 5.2 4.8
Carolina
North Dakota 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.2
Ohio 5.7 6.1 6.2 5.9 5.5
Oklahoma 4.5 5.7 4.9 4.4 4.0
Oregon 7.5 8.2 7.3 6.1 5.4
Pennsylvania 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.0 4.7
Puerto Rico 12.3 12.0 10.6 11.3 10.4
Rhode Island 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.1
South 6.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.5
Carolina
South Dakota 3.1 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.2
Tennessee 5.1 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.2
Texas 6.3 6.8 6.0 5.3 4.9
Utah 6.1 5.6 5.5 5.1 2.9
Vermont 3.7 4.6 5.0 4.3 3.6
Virginia 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.0
Washington 7.3 7.5 3.7 3.5 5.0
West Virginia 6.1 6.1 6.3 5.5 4.9
Wisconsin 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.7
Wyoming 4.2 4.4 5.0 4.7 3.2
Table 2: Recent and Projected Unemployment Rates
Table 2 shows recent and projected unemployment rates for the nation and each state. The
values for CY 2005 are representative of when the PY 2005 employment and earnings outcomes
occurred. For example, both entered employment for exiters from October 2004 to September
2005 and retention for exiters from April 2004 to March 2005 occurred during CY 2005.
The December 2006 numbers are provided as an indication of where states are today. The
national projections are provided to help extrapolate state values to the future. The projections
were developed by the Administration to support the FY 2007 budget. These projections are
now somewhat out of date. However, the implication of these projections is that unemployment
rates can be expected to be relatively stable over the next few years. Therefore, one might use
the December 2006 unemployment rates as a projection of future unemployment rates.
(When using Table 2 to inform the negotiation process, please note that the unemployment rates
shown are calendar years, not program years.)
Official attachment PDF (TEGL19-06_Att8.pdf): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2007/TEGL19-06_Att8.pdf
ATTACHMENT VIII:
TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE
WIA ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 2007 AND PY 2008
Annual Report PY 2007 Annual Report PY 2008
Reporting Item Time Period (Exit Cohort) to Be Reported
Total Participants 7/1/07 to 6/30/08 7/1/08 to 6/30/09
Total Exiters 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09
Employer Customer Satisfaction 1/1/07 to 12/31/07 1/1/08 to 12/31/08
Participant Customer Satisfaction 1/1/07 to 12/31/07 1/1/08 to 12/31/08
Adult and Dislocated Worker Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate 10/1/06 to 9/30/07 10/1/07 to 9/30/08
Employment Retention Rate 4/1/06 to 3/31/07 4/1/07 to 3/31/08
Six Months Average Earnings 4/1/06 to 3/31/07 4/1/07 to 3/31/08
Employment and Credential Rate 10/1/06 to 9/30/07 10/1/07 to 9/30/08
Older Youth Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate 10/1/06 to 9/30/07 10/1/07 to 9/30/08
Employment Retention Rate 4/1/06 to 3/31/07 4/1/07 to 3/31/08
Earnings Change 4/1/06 to 3/31/07 4/1/07 to 3/31/08
Employment and Credential Rate 10/1/06 to 9/30/07 10/1/07 to 9/30/08
Younger Youth Performance Measures
Skill Attainment Rate 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09
Youth Diploma or Equivalent 4/1/07 to 3/31/08 4/1/08 to 3/31/09
Rate
Retention Rate 4/1/06 to 3/31/07 4/1/07 to 3/31/08
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