Back to Federal guidance
2010 WIA performance goal negotiations
Summary ETA instructed states on negotiating program year 2010 WIA and Wagner-Peyser performance and customer-satisfaction goals, including proposed levels and negotiation procedures. Seven attachments provide a recommended timeline and performance data tables. It rescinded TEGL 9-08; TEGL 29-10 later rescinded this guidance.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
TEGL No. 23-09
Date issued
April 27, 2010
Status
Rescinded
TEGL 29-10 expressly rescinded this letter on June 1, 2011. ETA lists it Canceled as of 2026-10-24; this letter itself rescinds TEGL 9-08 and prints Expiration Date: Continuing.
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This document has been rescinded.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/2010/TEGL23-09acc.pdf
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION WIA/Performance Reporting
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
OPDR-OWI
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DATE
Washington, D.C. 20210 April 27, 2010
ADVISORY: TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 23-09
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
STATE WORKFORCE ADMINISTRATORS
STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
FROM: JANE OATES /s/
Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act Title 1B
Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year
2010
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 funded activities for Program Year (PY) 2010. These performance goals,
once they are agreed upon between the state and the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), will be incorporated into the State’s Strategic Plan for the WIA and
Wagner-Peyser Act.
2. References.
• WIA Section 136.
• WIA regulations at 20 CFR Part 666 and Part 661.
• Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 9-08 and 9-08 Change 1,
Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act, Title 1B Programs and
Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year 2009.
• TEGL No. 14-08, and TEGL 14-08, Change 1, Guidance for Implementation of the
Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act Funding in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 and State Planning Requirements for Program Year 2009.
• TEGL No. 9-07, Revised Incentive and Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act Title
1B Programs.
• TEGL No. 17-05, Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training
Administration’s (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related Performance
Issues.
• TEGL No. 17-05, Change 2
• TEGL No. 11-01, Guidance on Revising Workforce Investment Act State Negotiated Levels
of Performance.
RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE
TEGL 9-08 Continuing
3. Background. The intent of this guidance is to clarify the performance measures for which
states will be held accountable in PY 2010, 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 has been improved by the consistent use of these
tools to do the required analysis, which are available as attachments to this guidance, as
well as through ETA’s performance Web site at
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/negotiating.cfm.
Furthermore, this guidance provides national performance targets required for the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), also referred to as the “GPRA
goals.” The levels set as GPRA goals provide information by which Congress and the Office
of Management and Budget evaluate the success of Federal programs, including those
operated by states and localities.
This guidance describes actions taken to address the effects of the current recession on the
GPRA goals over the next few years. The impact of economic conditions on WIA
performance led the Department to develop a regression model that adjusts performance
levels to be utilized in PY 2011 as part of the performance negotiations process for states
and local workforce areas, with an option for states to volunteer for early implementation in
setting PY 2010 performance goals.
4. Changes to the Negotiations Process. In general, the process for this current round of
negotiations will be similar to the process used in PY 2009. Negotiations will continue to
take place between the states and the corresponding ETA regional offices, and specific
guidance regarding contacts and timeframes will be provided to the states by the
appropriate regional office (the actual process steps are described in more detail in section
7.C of this guidance). As was the case for the last round of negotiations, states will be
required to establish PY 2010 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. States have the option, as they did in PY 2009, of extending their current goals.
States may extend their negotiated PY 2009 goals into PY 2010 or they may negotiate new
goals for PY 2010. As part of the negotiation process, states may volunteer to utilize
statistical analysis to help establish the performance levels for PY 2010. States that choose
either option (extending PY 2009 negotiated goals or negotiating new goals for PY 2010)
must notify their appropriate Regional Administrator no later than April 30, 2010.
5. Methodology for Assessing Performance Against Negotiated Levels. For both the WIA
Title 1B programs 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 for acceptable performance is 80% of the negotiated level of
performance. Performance on an individual measure will be interpreted based on the
outcome’s position relative to the two boundaries for a measure as follows:
• Exceeds - when the actual performance achieved against an individual performance
measure is in excess of 100% of the negotiated level of performance for the measure;
2
• 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% 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. States may continue to use additional distinctions to differentiate
performance within the Meets category.
These three categories align with WIA regulations
(http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/laws_regs.cfm):
666.220(b)(3) The State exceeded the State negotiated levels of performance for title I,
the levels of performance under title II and the levels for vocational and technical
programs under Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. (WIA sec.
503 (b))
666.230(a)(2) The extent to which the negotiated levels of performance were exceeded;
and
666.240(d) Only performance that is less than 80 percent of the negotiated levels will
be deemed to be a failure to achieve negotiated levels of performance.
Please note that for purposes of WIA incentive grant eligibility, a state must meet at least 90
percent of the negotiated level for each applicable WIA performance measure to be
considered eligible for an incentive.
6. Applicable Performance Measures for the PY 2010 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 programs. The 20 performance
measures include 17 WIA indicators of performance (15 Adult, Dislocated Worker and
3
Youth program measures and the two customer satisfaction indicators) and three Wagner-
Peyser performance measures.
For those states that have requested a waiver to report against the WIA Adult and Youth
common performance measures only, and have received approval to do so in accordance
with the waiver authority granted to the Secretary at WIA section 189(i)(4), the 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
WIA Measures (Majority of States) Common Measures (Waiver States) Wagner-Peyser
Measures (All
Dislocated Customer Dislocated States)
Adult Worker Youth Satisfaction Adult Worker Youth
Older Youth Participant Entered
Entered Entered American Entered Entered Placement in
Entered Employment
Employment Employment Customer Employment Employment Employment
Employment Rate for Total
Rate Rate Satisfaction Rate Rate or Education
Rate Exiters
Index
Employer
Older Youth
Employment American Attainment of Employment
Employment Employment Employment Employment
Retention Customer a Degree or Retention Rate
Retention Rate Retention Retention Rate Retention Rate
Rate Satisfaction Certificate for Total Exiters
Rate
Index
Employment Employment Older Youth Average Six Average Six Literacy and Average Six
and and Credential Months Months Numeracy Months Earnings
Credential Credential Rate Earnings Earnings Gains for Total Exiters
Rate Rate
Average Six Average Six Older Youth
Months Months Earnings
Earnings Earnings Change
Younger
Youth Skill
Attainment
Rate
Younger
Youth
Diploma or
Equivalent
Rate
Younger
Youth
Retention
Rate
4
The source documents with the definitions and related reporting specifications for the
applicable performance measures follow:
• The 17 WIA performance measures - TEGL No. 17-05, “Common Measures Policy
for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Performance Accountability
System and Related Performance Issues”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf); and the Workforce
Investment Act Annual Report: General Reporting Instructions and ETA Form 9091,
Revised 2010
(http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/WIA_Annual_Report_Specif
ications_Expires_12312012.pdf)
• The WIA Youth program common measures - TEGL No. 17-05, “Common Measures
Policy for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Performance
Accountability System and Related Performance Issues”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf); TEGL No. 17-05, Change
2, “Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related Performance
Issues”(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05c2acc.pdf); and the
Workforce Investment Act Annual Report; General Reporting Instructions and ETA
Form 9091, Revised 2010
(http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/WIA_Annual_Report_Specif
ications_Expires_12312012.pdf
• The three Wagner-Peyser program performance measures - TEGL No. 17-05,
“Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Performance Accountability System and Related Performance Issues”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL17-05.pdf); and the ETA 9002 and
VETS 200 Data Preparation Handbook, ET Handbook No. 406, released in February
2009 (http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/ET-406-Handbook-
Expiration-022809_tookout%20on%20mar-16-07.pdf .
As is the case since PY 2007, all states will continue to collect and report against the three
Youth common performance measures for the entire Youth population (Older and Younger
Youth combined) in PY 2010. However, ETA will not consider performance against these
measures in the incentive award and sanctions determinations for states that are
accountable for outcomes on the 17 WIA measures. The exception is for states that have
received an approved waiver to implement and report against the “WIA common
performance measures only.” These states will negotiate levels of performance for the
Youth common measures and ETA will use these measures in the incentive and sanctions
determinations.
Please note that for purposes of WIA incentive and sanctions determinations, the applicable
performance measures are listed in TEGL 9-07, “Revised Incentive and Sanction Policy for
Workforce Investment Act Title IB Programs”
(http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL09-07.pdf).
5
States should also be aware that the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS)
will be issuing separate guidance on negotiating PY 2010 veterans’ performance targets with
state workforce agencies. This negotiation of specific levels of performance for veterans
includes: 1) performance targets for those veterans served by One-Stop employment
services; and, 2) grant-based performance targets for those 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 programs,
states should negotiate their goals within the context of integrated service delivery, priority
of service, economic conditions, customers served, and workforce solutions that contribute
to the regional economic competitiveness of their state and sub-state areas.
A. Customers to Be Served
The customers served by the local area may have a significant impact on outcomes,
depending on the type of services, including entrepreneurial training, length of services,
and other factors unique to the population.
ETA encourages states to serve those individuals with barriers to employment and
individuals more at-risk of not connecting to the labor market, including those who were
formerly incarcerated, the homeless, Veterans, individuals with disabilities and out-of-
school youth. States should bring appropriate information to the negotiation process that
demonstrates either their past performance in serving these populations and/or their
current strategy for serving these populations.
ETA will consider adjusting performance targets to accommodate states currently serving a
significant number of at-risk individuals who need higher levels of service to achieve a
positive labor market outcome. States that have ongoing initiatives for serving at-risk
individuals may work with their respective Regional Administrator to negotiate
appropriate goals for PY 2010. During the negotiation process, states must provide data to
support adjustments of goals based on numbers of individuals with barriers currently being
served.
When negotiating the Youth goals, states should consider the importance of 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 are serving a
greater percentage of the neediest youth, they should provide data that shows how
outcomes are impacted by serving this population.
6
When negotiating goals for the Adult program, states proposing new efforts to increase
access to services for special populations that may face significant barriers (such as veterans,
older workers, individuals with disabilities, migrant or seasonal farm workers, Indian and
Native Americans, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients), should
provide data to show how these new efforts will impact WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker and Wagner-Peyser Act outcomes. ETA supports efforts that will help states better
tap into wider variety of available workers. Available performance data indicate that the
workforce investment system’s employment and training programs have positive impacts
on individuals’ employment, including traditionally underserved populations. ETA expects
states to document how outcomes are impacted by changes in the mix of participants
served.
Efforts to expand services to at-risk populations are consistent with the WIA legislation.
Section 101(13) of WIA defines “eligible youth” as a low-income individual between the
ages of 14 and 21 who is deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a
runaway or foster child, pregnant or parenting, an offender, or an individual who requires
additional assistance to compete an educational program or hold employment. Section 112
(b)(17)(A)(iv) requires that the State Plan describe how the state will serve the employment
and training needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income
individuals (including recipients of public assistance), individuals training for
nontraditional employment, and other individuals with multiple barriers to employment
(including older individuals and individuals with disabilities). Section 134(d)(4)(E) requires
that priority shall be given to recipients of public assistance and other low-income
individuals for intensive services and training services.
For future negotiations, ETA invites states to suggest mechanisms for expanding services to
at-risk populations within our current performance framework. Suggestions should be
emailed to [email protected].
B. Tools for Proposing Levels of Performance
The following tools and process guidelines provide a uniform framework for states to use to
set performance goals that demonstrate this commitment. These tools and guidelines are
designed to aid the negotiation process. Final performance levels must be negotiated and
agreed upon by the state and the ETA Regional Administrator no later than June 30, 2010.
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
2006-2009) to inform projected levels of performance for PY 2010. Recent quarterly
performance results should also be used to inform the performance path the state is
7
following. The Wagner-Peyser funded activities began reporting against the
common performance measures in PY 2005 and now have four full years of data on
which to base future performance projections. The Department anticipates that
states will submit proposed levels of performance that reflect continuous
improvement and additional experience, and show increases over the prior years’
performance levels. However, it is recognized that performance levels may vary, up
or down, based on prior performance and economic 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); VETS’
performance data (http://www.dol.gov/vets/vetoutcomes/index.htm) and Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for employment, industries, counties, average earnings,
etc. (www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm). When using BLS data as a guide, states should
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. GPRA goals. Throughout the performance negotiation process, states should be
aware of the GPRA goals the Department has established through FY 2011. The
regional offices will use the GPRA goals as one of several benchmarks by which to
gauge their states’ proposed performance levels in the context of these national
system goals. The GPRA is an important mechanism by which Congress and the
Office of Management and Budget evaluate the success of Federal programs,
including those operated by states and localities. The GPRA goals for the
Department’s WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers, and Wagner-Peyser programs in
addition to other national programs, including new GPRA measures for National
Emergency Grants are listed in Attachment II, and more information is available at
http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/goals/gpra.cfm.
III. National Distribution of WIA and Wagner-Peyser Performance Outcomes. ETA has
utilized states’ previously submitted annual performance data to provide
information on the national averages and distribution of performance outcomes.
These benchmarks serve as estimates that states and regions can refer to when
setting goals to achieve continuous improvement. Attachment III presents WIA and
Wagner-Peyser outcomes for the past eight program years (table 1) and the national
distribution of performance outcomes for the past three program years (table 2).
IV. Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs.
Attachment IV presents this information by state for the past seven program years
using state WIA annual report data.
V. Estimates of Six Months Average Earnings by State Using BLS-Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) Program Data. The QCEW is a cooperative program
involving the BLS and the State Workforce Agencies that produces a comprehensive
tabulation of employment and wage information for workers covered by state
8
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 six years and also 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/usworkforce/wia/wialaw.htm#sec136) addresses
additional factors, such as differences in economic conditions, characteristics of
participants, and services to be provided, that should be considered in the
negotiation process. Consider the following additional detail on these and other
factors:
o Attachment VI provides estimates of how various economic and
demographic variables may impact outcomes. Please note that these
estimates are based on national-level data, and do not necessarily reflect the
economic conditions and client base unique to a state. Therefore, these
estimates are not hard and fast reasons for adjusting performance goals up
or down. Instead, they are provided as an example of how a state might
analyze its own data in order to propose goals that take into account the
characteristics of individuals served and economic conditions in the state.
In applying these variables, it is also important to recognize that the
different performance measures may not be affected by the same variable in
the same way because of the lag associated with the calculation of some of
the performance measures. For example, a given state’s economy could
project no job growth for 2010, which could have a strong affect on the
negotiated entered employment rate for PY 2010, but a lesser affect on the
employment retention and six month average earnings measures for PY
2010, because the individuals included in those measures for PY 2010
reporting purposes would have been employed prior to the start of calendar
year 2010 for the most part.
o Attachment VII contains a description of the time periods during which
individuals will have to have exited program services to be included in the
different performance measures. This attachment will assist states in their
9
analysis of the impact of a given variable on the different measures against
which the state will be negotiating levels for PY 2010 (and including in their
WIA Annual Report submissions for PY 2010).
C. 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 2010 by submitting these
proposed levels to the Regional Administrator serving the state. Proposed
performance levels should be stated to a tenth of a percent (XX.X%) and must be
submitted to the appropriate Regional Administrator no later than April 30, 2010;
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, 2010.
When submitting the proposed levels, states should provide the following as support
for the levels (see Part II, Section X, Subpart C, Item 1 of the Stand-Alone Planning
Guidance or State Planning Guidance or Part III, Section K, Item 1(a)(i) of the Unified
Planning Guidance):
• The methodology used for developing proposed levels of performance,
including a description of data sources, calculations, and additional
environmental factors (such as those previously addressed in TEGL 9-07, and
discussed in sections 5 - 7 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).)
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 the
state, including its relevance, source, the time period from which it is drawn, and
whether the data is part of a trend or is anomalous.
10
The negotiations process will focus on whether each performance level appears
appropriate in light of statutory criteria and this guidance, and the adequacy of any
information the state offers to substantiate each level. If regional offices determine
through their analysis that a state could increase its proposed performance levels to
more fully support continuous improvement and customer satisfaction strategies,
they will negotiate with the state to obtain higher mutually agreed-upon
performance levels.
III. Once the performance levels are agreed upon, the Regional Administrator will send
a letter to the state confirming the agreed-upon levels. This letter constitutes a
modification to the State Plan and serves to incorporate the agreed upon
performance goals into the State Strategic Plan.
8. Inclusion of Performance Goals in State Plans. States are required to submit proposed
levels of performance by April 30, 2010. States can submit the proposed performance levels
either with the modification request that revises the current State Plan, or with the letter
requesting an extension of the current State Plan, or separately to the Regional
Administrator. States should note that the proposed levels of performance are subject to the
same public review and comment requirements that apply to State Plans and Plan
modifications. When the state submits the proposed levels to ETA, the state should confirm
that it has made the proposed levels available to the public for review and comment. States
that have completed negotiations with ETA by April 30, 2010, can include their agreed-upon
levels of performance for PY 2010 in the modification to the current State Plan, or with the
letter requesting a one-year extension of the current State Plan.
In cases where final agreement on performance goals has not been reached until after the
State Plan has been approved, the Regional Administrator’s letter advising the states of the
agreed-upon goals will constitute a modification to the State Plan. For subsequent revisions
to performance goals during the life of the State Plan, the Regional Administrator’s letter
advising the state of the agreed upon goals will also constitute a modification to the State
Plan. The state must ensure that the agreed-upon goals are included in the state’s official
copy of the State Plan, and that any published State Plan, on the state’s Web site or through
other forums, includes the agreed-upon goals. ETA will incorporate these performance
goals into the Regional and National Office copies of the State Plan.
9. State and Local Regression Analysis. This TEGL also provides the GPRA goals. These
goals support the FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification, and were developed using a
national regression model. Using these national GPRA goals as a guide, ETA encourages
states and local workforce boards to adjust performance goals according to the local area
labor market and economic conditions. ETA plans to fully implement the use of regression-
based analysis as part of the negotiations process for states by PY 2011. At that time, the
statistical analysis will also be made available for states to use in negotiations with their
local Workforce Investment Boards (WIB).
Models for computing adjusted performance levels for each WIB can be computed with the
state’s adjusted performance levels as the point of departure. Using the same weights for
11
differences between a WIB and its state and each state to the nation, all levels should add
up. To assist states in adjusting its levels, Attachment VI provides the multivariate
adjustment factors for the WIA programs to consider for PY 2010 goal setting.
The Department plans on implementing the use of regression-based performance levels in
the negotiations process with all states, down to the local level, in PY 2011. In the
meantime, PY 2010 is an option year. States that volunteer to participate in PY 2010 will use
the regression-adjusted levels as the basis of Federal-state performance target negotiations
and will be encouraged to apply the regression results to their local levels. This phase-in
approach allows ETA to address challenges to implementation before it goes to the national
scale. In addition to the methodology, the state-by-state and WIB-by-WIB models for the PY
2009 performance indicators estimates will also be posted on the
www.doleta.gov/Performance Web site.
10. Renegotiation of State Goals. WIA allows for the renegotiation of performance levels if
circumstances arise that result in a significant change in the factors used to develop the
original performance levels. Such criteria could include significant changes in economic
conditions, changes in service mix, or changes in client characteristics. States should notify
their regional office of any intent to renegotiate their performance. States that renegotiated
goals should note that renegotiation after the end of the third quarter eliminates that state
from the WIA incentives. TEGL 11-01 offers further guidance on renegotiating state goals.
Under 20 CFR 661.230(b)(2), a change in "performance indicators" is considered a
substantial change that must be officially incorporated into the State Plan through a
modification. Therefore, states must submit modifications to the State Plan reflecting the
agreed upon performance levels. These plan modifications are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements that apply to the development of the original State Plan.
Therefore, the state must provide an opportunity for public comment on the modification
prior to submission to the regional office. The agreed upon performance levels are
incorporated into the state plans when the Regional Administrator approves the state's
modification of its plan. Regional offices will monitor state progress toward achievement of
the targets and may request a corrective action plan if a state does not appear on track to
achieve its negotiated levels.
11. Action Required. States are requested to distribute this information to the appropriate
state and local staff. The state-by-state and WIB-by-WIB performance goals for the WIA
(Adult, Dislocated Workers and Youth) will be distributed to states that volunteer to
implement early. To see the GPRA performance goals for the WIA and Wagner-Peyser
programs, please refer to Attachment II. More information is available at:
http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/goals/gpra.cfm.
12. Inquiries. Questions concerning this guidance may be directed to the appropriate
regional office.
12
13. Attachments.
Attachment I: Recommended Timeline for the Negotiation Process
Attachment II: Performance Goal Levels Established for the Fiscal Year (FY)
2011 Congressional Budget Justification and the Government
Performance and Results Act
Attachment III: National Distribution of WIA and Wagner-Peyser Performance
Outcomes
Table 1: National Averages of Performance Measure
Outcomes, PY 2001 to PY 2008
Table 2: National Distribution of Performance Outcomes,
PY 2005 to PY 2008
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: Multivariate Adjustment Factors (Economic and Demographic
Variables)
Attachment VII: Time Periods for Reporting Performance Information in the
WIA Annual Report for PY 2009 to PY 2010
13
Attachment 1 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a1.pdf
ATTACHMENT I
RECOMMENDED TIMELINE FOR THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS
DATE ACTION
• ETA regional offices provide technical assistance on
March 2010 strategic planning as requested by state, including
procedures for negotiating performance goals
No later than
• States send proposed performance levels to regional offices
April 30, 2010
• States formally submit state plans to ETA, including the
April 30, 2010
proposed or final performance levels
• Regional offices review states’ proposed performance
May 2010 levels and work with states to arrive at mutually agreed
upon levels
June 2010 • Negotiation continues if necessary
• Regional Administrators send approval letter to states
June 30, 2010
regarding the final performance levels
• ETA incorporates final performance levels into state plans
• States must notify their Regional Offices by the end of the
second quarter if they plan to renegotiate their performance
December 31, 2010
goals and still be included in that Program Year’s incentive
funds
• State may renegotiate their Performance goals through the
end of the third quarter. States renegotiating their goals
March 31, 2011
after the end of the second quarter are not eligible for that
Program Year’s WIA incentive funds.
Attachment 2 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a2.pdf
ATTACHMENT II
PERFORMANCE GOAL LEVELS ESTABLISHED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2011
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND THE GOVERNMENT
PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
Results TARGETS
Program Measure
2008 2009 2010 2011
Entered Employment 68.1% 65.5% 65.8% 66.8%
Adults Retention 83.5% 81.9% 82.1% 82.7%
Earnings $14,649 $13,741 $13,848 $14,205
Entered Employment 67.6% 66.3% 66.5% 67%
Dislocated Workers Retention 86% 84% 84.2% 85%
Earnings $16,167 $15,542 $15,618 $15,869
Entered Employment 59.7% 56.5% 56.9% 58.1%
Employment Service Retention 79.6% 76.6% 77% 78.2%
Earnings $13,067 $9,827 $10,131 $11,178
Senior Community Entered Employment 48.1% 46.2% 46.5% 47.2%
Service Employment Retention 71.1% 69.7% 69.9% 70.4%
Program (SCSEP) Earnings $6,795 $6,374 $6,423 $6,589
National Entered Employment 80.3% 77.2% 77.6% 78.8%
Farmworker Jobs Retention 71.1% 69.7% 69.9% 70.4%
Program (NFJP- Earnings
$9,427 $8,843 $8,911 $9,141
MSFW)
(Indian and Native Entered Employment 62.6% 60.2% 60.5% 61.4%
American Program Retention 76.2% 74.7% 74.9% 75.5%
(INAP) Earnings $9,780 $9,174 $9,245 $9,484
Entered Employment NA 57.3% -- --
Work Incentive
Retention NA 78% -- --
Grants (WIGs)
Earnings NA $10,189 -- --
Placement 60.6% 58% 58.3% 59.3%
Youth Services Attainment 53.9% 47.9% 48.5% 50.8%
Literacy 37.5% 28.7% 29.5% 32.4%
Placement 31.4% 36% 38% 40%
YouthBuild Attainment 41% baseline TBD TBD
Literacy 28% 30% 32% 34%
Re-integration of Entered
60% 57.7% 58% 58.9%
Ex-Offenders Employment(PRI)
Retention (PRI) 66% 64.7% 64.9% 65.4%
Earnings (PRI) $10,002 $9,382 $9,455 $9,699
Recidivism (PRI) 1 13% 22% 22% 22%
Placement 50% 47.8% 48.5% 49.4%
Recidivism Ages14-172 19% 16% 16% 16%
- 1 -
Results TARGETS
Program Measure
2008 2009 2010 2011
Recidivism Over 182 9% 17% 17% 17%
Entered Employment 73.1% 67.1% 67.4% 68.5%
National Emergency
Retention 85.7% 81.9% 82.1% 82.7%
Grants (NEGs)
Earnings $15,108 $12,488 $12,585 $12,910
NA: Data not available
TBD: Baseline data collection underway. Goals to be set upon receipt of complete data
results.
1
Goal based on program goal to reduce the recidivism rate by half of the national rate.
2
Baseline data collected from 3 of 15 grantees.
Results TARGETS
Program Measure
2009 2010 2011
Entered Employment 69% 61.9% 62.7%
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Retention 88% 83.3% 83.9%
(TAA)
Earnings $15,117 $13,172 $13,391
Entered Employment 70.2% 66.5% 67%
Retention 83.2% 81.4% 85%
Apprenticeship
Earnings $20,566 $15,618 $15,869
Wage Gains -- -- --
Timely 1st Payments 82.9% 85.9% 86%
Detection of
52.9% 52.8%* 53.1%
Unemployment Insurance Overpayments
(UI) Reemployment 56.5% 58.6% 59.8%
Timely Status
84.1% 90% 90.0%
Determinations
H-1B 98% 100% 100%
Foreign Labor Certification Permanent Labor -- 80% 81%
(FLC) H-2A 48% 53% 57%
H-2B 43% 65% 72%
NA: Data not available
TBD: Baseline data collection underway. Goals to be set upon receipt of complete data results.
* Numerator and denominator of the ratio reflect varying influences in addition to economic
conditions, such as correction of measurement errors, and the phase-in of national directory of new
hires which affects the numerator and denominator in opposite directions.
- 2 -
Attachment 3 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a3.pdf
ATTACHMENT III
National Distribution of WIA and Wagner-Peyser Performance Outcomes,
PY 2001 - PY 2008
Table 1: National Averages of Performance Measure Outcomes
Performance Measures PY 2001 PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 20051 PY 2006 PY 2007 PY 2008
WIA Adults
Entered Employment Rate 75.7% 75.1% 74.3% 77.1% 77.0% 70.2% 69.6% 68.1%
Employment Retention Rate 80.8% 82.7% 84.5% 86.2% 82.5% 82.4% 83.8% 83.5%
3
Average Earnings $9,950 $9,396 $10,348 $10,773 $11,208 $11,870 $13,575 $14,649
Employment and Credential Rate 57.8% 61.5% 61.8% 65.6% 67.8% 67.6% 71.9% 54.9%
WIA Dislocated Worker
Entered Employment Rate 81.6% 83.3% 81.3% 83.7% 83.2% 78.0% 72.5% 67.6%
Employment Retention Rate 87.6% 89.2% 90.2% 91.1% 88.1% 88.0% 87.2% 86.0%
3 $13,431 $12,998 $13,803 $14,003 $14,150 $14,265 $15,188 $16,167
Average Earnings
Employment and Credential Rate2 61.8% 65.4% 64.6% 69.5% 71.3% 70.8% 73.2% 71.2%
WIA Older Youth 2
Entered Employment Rate 67.0% 69.5% 70.6% 73.6% 76.3% 76.4% 77.5% 75.5%
Employment Retention Rate 78.0% 79.5% 81.2% 82.7% 82.6% 82.6% 85.2% 84.9%
3 $3,081 $2,938 $3,167 $3,547 $3,769 $3,765 $3,980 $4,148
Average Earnings
Credential Rate2 39.9% 46.2% 47.7% 52.0% 53.0% 54.1% 53.6% 52.3%
WIA Younger Youth2
Diploma Attainment Rate 53.6% 63.1% 62.6% 65.8% 63.5% 68.5% 74.1% 74.4%
Employment Retention Rate 54.2% 59.5% 61.0% 64.8% 63.7% 70.1% 74.1% 74.6%
Skill Attainment Rate 82.9% 80.2% 83.0% 84.4% 81.5% 83.2% 86.1% 88.3%
WIA Youth 4
Placement in Employment or Education Rate NA NA NA NA NA 60.3% 62.3% 60.6%
Attainment of Degree or Certificate NA NA NA NA NA 43.5% 56.8% 53.9%
Literacy and Numeracy Gains NA NA NA NA NA NA 30.4% 37.5%
Wagner-Peyser
Entered Employment Rate NA 63.0% 61.0% 64.0% 63.0% 60.3% 62.0% 58.0%
Employment Retention Rate NA 80.0% 80.0% 81.0% 80.0% 77.9% 81.0% 80.0%
Average Earnings 5 NA NA NA NA NA $11,747 $12,763 $15,590
Source: WIA State Annual and Wagner-Peyser State Quarterly Reports
Estimates of these outcomes were developed from state Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) file submissions using common
measures definitions.
Notes:
1
In PY 2005, these programs began reporting common measure, which standardized the definitions of performance indicators across these programs. This
change in methodology had some impact on performance levels beginning in PY 2005; hence these data are not directly comparable to results of prior years.
2
Ten states had a waiver to report on common measures only and did not report on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker credential rates or older/younger
youth measures in PY 2006. 25 states had such a waiver in PY 2007.
3
Average earnings figures for WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs for PY2001-2005 are approximations based on Workforce Investment Act
Standardized Record Data. Earnings were measured as an earnings change for the WIA Adult program in PY 2001 -2005. This Adult measure changed to
average earnings beginning in PY 2006. For the WIA Dislocated Worker program, earnings were measured as a wage replacement rate in PY 2001- 2004. In PY
2005, this measure changed to earnings changed for WIA Dislocated Worker program and further changed to average earnings beginning in PY 2006.
4
States began reporting against the three Youth Common Performance Measures in PY 2006.
5
Prior to PY 2006, average earnings were not tracked for the Wagner-Peyser program.
Table 2: National Distribution of Performance Outcomes
Top 10% of States Top 25% of States Top 50% of States Bottom 25% of States Bottom 10% of States
PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 PY 08 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 PY 08 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 PY 08 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 PY 08 Avg. PY 05 PY 06 PY 07 PY 08 Avg.
WIA Adults
Entered Employment Rate
89% 91% 88% 89% 89% 87% 88% 87% 87% 87% 85% 85% 85% 83% 84% 69% 66% 71% 65% 68% 60% 59% 66% 58% 61%
Employment Retention
Rate 1 90% 91% 93% 94% 92% 88% 89% 91% 92% 90% 86% 87% 89% 89% 88% 76% 78% 80% 77% 78% 72% 75% 78% 75% 75%
Average Earnings $13,426 $14,649 $16,199 $17,250 $15,381 $12,390 $13,376 $14,604 $15,745 $14,029 $11,534 $12,502 $13,468 $14,230 $12,933 $9,113 $9,086 $9,696 $10,151 $9,512 $9,017 $8,400 $9,140 $10,151 $9,177
Employment and
Credential Rate 83% 81% 81% 80% 81% 78% 76% 76% 75% 77% 75% 71% 76% 70% 73% 57% 59% 59% 39% 53% 50% 58% 55% 29% 48%
WIA Dislocated Workers
Entered Employment Rate
93% 93% 93% 95% 94% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90% 76% 71% 74% 72% 73% 69% 63% 66% 65% 66%
Employment Retention
Rate 1 94% 95% 98% 97% 96% 93% 94% 96% 95% 94% 92% 93% 94% 94% 93% 81% 84% 85% 82% 83% 73% 82% 81% 81% 79%
Average Earnings $17,985
$17,283 $17,778 $17,975 $18,904 $16,499 $16,792 $17,220 $17,860 $17,093 $15,409 $15,708 $16,225 $16,625 $15,992 $11,656 $11,902 $12,422 $12,693 $12,168 $10,434 $10,911 ###### $11,750 $11,102
Employment and
Credential Rate 86% 83% 84% 83% 84% 81% 79% 83% 78% 80% 78% 76% 79% 73% 76% 60% 57% 53% 42% 53% 51% 50% 40% 37% 44%
Wagner-Peyser
Entered Employment Rate
79% 75% 76% 89% 80% 74% 73% 73% 86% 77% 71% 69% 71% 83% 73% 57% 50% 54% 64% 56% 47% 44% 48% 58% 49%
Employment Retention
Rate 88% 84% 86% 93% 88% 86% 83% 85% 91% 86% 85% 82% 83% 87% 84% 76% 68% 77% 80% 75% 75% 63% 76% 75% 72%
WIA Older Youth
Entered Employment Rate
92% 87% 89% 97% 91% 86% 83% 87% 84% 85% 82% 81% 83% 80% 82% 64% 71% 70% 56% 65% 54% 64% 67% 43% 57%
Employment Retention
Rate 90% 93% 97% 94% 94% 89% 89% 93% 90% 90% 87% 88% 89% 87% 88% 74% 81% 80% 71% 76% 66% 75% 78% 62% 70%
Credential Rate 78% 67% 65% 68% 69% 69% 62% 64% 62% 64% 64% 61% 61% 55% 60% 40% 50% 38% 29% 39% 31% 42% 30% 21% 31%
WIA Younger Youth
Skill Attainment Rate 97% 93% 94% 98% 96% 93% 90% 93% 95% 93% 89% 87% 91% 90% 89% 73% 70% 73% 59% 69% 69% 65% 69% 46% 62%
Diploma Attainment Rate 90% 84% 88% 85% 87% 82% 80% 85% 80% 82% 76% 75% 80% 75% 76% 49% 45% 54% 44% 48% 34% 35% 48% 30% 37%
Retention Rate 86% 86% 89% 85% 86% 80% 81% 84% 81% 81% 76% 77% 79% 76% 77% 59% 52% 60% 58% 57% 53% 42% 56% 53% 51%
Customer Satisfaction
Participants 90 91 92 89 90 88 88 89 86 88 85 85 86 77 83 73 68 75 74 72 69 59 74 73 69
Employers 89 88 88 91 89 86 85 86 87 86 81 81 82 83 82 65 63 68 70 66 56 54 65 69 61
Source: WIA State Annual Reports and Wagner-Peyser State Quarterly Report
1
Common Measures performance estimates derived from Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD)
Attachment 4 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a4.pdf
ATTACHMENT IV
1
Average Six Months Earnings for WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker Programs
WIA Adult Program WIA Dislocated Worker Program
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
State PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005 PY 2006 PY 2007 PY 2008 PY 2002 PY 2003 PY 2004 PY 2005 PY 2006 PY 2007 PY 2008
Nation $9,396 $10,348 $10,773 $11,208 $11,869 $13,575 $12,576 $12,998 $13,803 $14,003 $14,150 $14,265 $15,188 $14,787
AK $10,539 $13,506 $12,606 $13,008 $13,595 $14,689 $16,756 $14,675 $18,606 $16,271 $15,907 $19,079 $19,972 $19,972
AL $8,859 $11,506 $13,094 $8,974 $9,859 $11,092 $11,101 $10,677 $11,642 $12,653 $12,861 $13,471 $14,805 $14,805
AR $9,077 $10,005 $12,634 $11,861 $12,428 $12,898 $13,717 $10,311 $11,172 $12,518 $12,228 $13,090 $14,428 $14,428
AZ $9,434 $9,439 $9,409 $10,330 $12,117 $12,263 $12,831 $12,077 $13,206 $13,533 $14,792 $15,598 $15,010 $15,010
CA $10,397 $10,483 $11,680 $12,396 $15,732 $16,640 $16,364 $14,945 $15,030 $15,311 $15,726 $16,321 $16,978 $16,978
CO $9,172 $11,037 $10,512 $11,274 $11,587 $14,286 $14,904 $13,410 $15,269 $16,040 $15,980 $15,282 $15,717 $15,717
CT $10,243 $9,517 $9,818 $11,004 $12,298 $11,463 $11,810 $15,775 $14,159 $16,193 $16,336 $16,726 $16,945 $16,945
DC $8,478 $8,971 $8,924 $10,220 $10,830 $12,633 $12,168 $14,209 $13,816 $15,059 $14,027 $13,697 $15,570 $15,570
DE $8,586 $9,518 $9,272 $10,075 $10,612 $9,915 $9,658 $12,374 $12,058 $12,987 $12,979 $12,906 $13,369 $13,369
FL $9,690 $11,367 $12,118 $15,108 $16,439 $19,531 $21,583 $12,799 $13,720 $14,140 $14,480 $15,844 $16,887 $16,887
GA $8,716 $9,102 $10,284 $10,644 $10,573 $12,046 $11,904 $11,151 $13,024 $13,940 $14,244 $13,897 $14,682 $14,682
HI $8,987 $9,137 $10,087 $10,186 $10,951 $12,451 $13,403 $12,435 $12,434 $12,941 $12,868 $14,640 $15,072 $15,072
IA $9,049 $9,344 $9,511 $9,598 $10,319 $10,233 $11,324 $11,296 $11,791 $12,230 $11,880 $12,401 $12,856 $12,856
ID $9,229 $8,921 $9,413 $10,391 $10,232 $11,796 $12,773 $12,940 $12,417 $13,266 $13,094 $13,364 $14,164 $14,164
IL $9,585 $9,985 $10,198 $10,759 $11,288 $11,802 $12,340 $13,676 $15,034 $15,333 $15,413 $15,828 $16,358 $16,358
IN $9,348 $10,159 $10,149 $10,370 $10,461 $11,893 $11,274 $12,839 $14,980 $14,189 $14,577 $13,652 $14,753 $14,753
KS $8,950 $10,105 $11,281 $11,419 $13,451 $12,960 $15,562 $12,294 $14,804 $15,539 $15,621 $15,417 $15,170 $15,170
KY $9,381 $9,612 $10,081 $10,634 $12,179 $15,928 $16,012 $12,066 $11,668 $11,950 $13,296 $13,436 $13,338 $13,338
LA $8,764 $9,277 $10,063 $10,194 $12,082 $12,537 $12,613 $11,083 $11,227 $11,544 $12,179 $13,459 $14,554 $14,554
MA $9,515 $9,849 $10,018 $10,581 $10,426 $10,666 $11,122 $13,972 $14,756 $16,643 $18,615 $17,486 $17,513 $17,513
MD $10,501 $11,431 $12,240 $12,740 $12,096 $12,245 $14,115 $14,307 $15,902 $17,269 $15,919 $15,574 $15,713 $15,713
ME $8,959 $9,220 $9,312 $9,247 $9,701 $9,989 $9,665 $10,932 $10,760 $12,919 $11,164 $12,285 $11,916 $11,916
MI $9,096 $9,617 $9,388 $9,651 $10,316 $10,099 $10,939 $12,598 $12,674 $12,336 $12,914 $12,797 $13,768 $13,768
MN $9,319 $10,035 $10,539 $10,661 $11,203 $12,466 $12,715 $15,434 $16,498 $16,300 $16,143 $17,003 $17,528 $17,528
MO $8,101 $8,589 $8,658 $9,178 $9,414 $10,466 $10,908 $12,651 $13,165 $12,590 $13,257 $12,830 $14,460 $14,460
MS $8,313 $8,333 $8,450 $8,871 $9,334 $9,818 $10,999 $9,346 $9,659 $9,663 $10,169 $10,597 $11,148 $11,148
MT $8,468 $7,936 $9,697 $9,758 $11,398 $13,825 $13,036 $13,127 $13,014 $13,888 $13,964 $13,582 $17,107 $17,107
NC $9,133 $9,110 $9,669 $9,893 $10,259 $11,634 $12,450 $11,229 $11,858 $12,217 $13,714 $13,487 $13,683 $13,683
ND $7,801 $7,809 $8,332 $9,447 $9,235 $10,499 $10,543 $11,328 $10,832 $11,164 $12,338 $12,388 $12,042 $12,042
NE $7,887 $9,387 $9,505 $9,839 $9,924 $10,582 $10,464 $12,647 $12,676 $13,342 $12,919 $14,194 $14,301 $14,301
NH $9,485 $11,009 $10,544 $9,947 $9,104 $9,211 $9,414 $13,389 $17,111 $15,121 $17,111 $13,159 $15,903 $15,903
NJ $9,928 $10,533 $11,209 $11,945 $11,885 $12,177 $12,127 $13,821 $14,189 $15,815 $16,272 $15,706 $15,698 $15,698
NM $8,946 $9,234 $10,158 $11,007 $10,658 $11,877 $13,685 $11,223 $11,800 $13,315 $12,739 $14,248 $13,914 $13,914
NV $9,536 $8,537 $10,437 $9,767 $11,025 $11,934 $13,232 $13,575 $15,004 $14,723 $13,727 $14,199 $15,839 $15,839
NY $10,134 $10,969 $11,639 $12,164 $10,841 $15,368 $16,597 $14,815 $15,182 $15,138 $14,716 $14,158 $17,457 $17,457
OH $13,409 $14,218 $14,221 $14,718 $14,860 $15,040 $15,324 $15,618 $17,021 $17,093 $17,057 $16,744 $17,451 $17,451
OK $9,311 $9,422 $10,206 $10,452 $11,701 $11,376 $12,113 $11,871 $12,020 $12,842 $13,118 $12,767 $13,569 $13,569
OR $8,354 $9,323 $9,938 $9,990 $10,053 $10,704 $11,584 $11,719 $12,425 $12,812 $12,919 $13,352 $13,960 $13,960
PA $8,844 $9,762 $10,184 $11,540 $12,177 $12,469 $11,824 $12,975 $13,741 $14,581 $15,460 $15,142 $14,901 $14,901
PR $4,629 $5,835 $7,149 $7,158 $5,753 $6,898 $6,384 $4,925 $5,638 $5,847 $6,959 $6,129 $7,740 $7,740
RI $9,757 $10,608 $10,653 $10,378 $11,213 $12,507 $11,487 $13,161 $13,099 $13,324 $14,691 $13,273 $13,986 $13,986
SC $8,429 $8,774 $9,071 $9,240 $9,268 $9,416 $10,522 $10,425 $11,107 $11,283 $12,252 $11,749 $12,172 $12,172
SD $7,402 $8,277 $8,954 $9,978 $10,277 $10,745 $10,121 $10,328 $11,333 $11,348 $12,388 $12,317 $13,193 $13,193
TN $9,814 $17,178 $14,595 $11,860 $12,692 $13,137 $13,581 $12,118 $20,922 $16,898 $12,586 $12,970 $13,272 $13,272
TX $9,255 $10,257 $10,591 $11,248 $11,658 $12,243 $11,831 $12,533 $13,407 $12,859 $13,598 $13,893 $14,319 $14,319
UT $9,540 $9,271 $9,031 $9,029 $12,094 $12,108 $13,320 $13,674 $13,250 $13,794 $15,022 $15,611 $14,457 $14,457
VA $7,804 $9,812 $9,253 $9,031 $9,168 $9,924 $10,816 $12,371 $13,665 $13,147 $12,651 $12,593 $13,368 $13,368
VT $9,822 $9,730 $10,427 $10,611 $12,107 $12,647 $11,829 $13,440 $14,285 $14,947 $13,174 $14,969 $15,502 $15,502
WA $9,710 $10,387 $10,394 $11,100 $11,928 $12,159 $16,881 $14,477 $15,383 $16,022 $17,295 $18,566 $17,928 $17,928
WI $7,965 $7,918 $9,073 $9,441 $9,432 $9,581 $10,942 $13,116 $13,547 $13,829 $13,836 $13,846 $14,513 $14,513
WV $9,447 $7,549 $9,378 $9,610 $10,509 $11,246 $10,791 $13,060 $10,641 $14,979 $12,770 $13,318 $15,392 $15,392
WY $8,173 $9,775 $10,724 $10,215 $13,817 $12,907 $14,506 $12,199 $11,121 $14,140 $11,996 $14,492 $14,589 $14,589
Source: Estimates using Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) PY 2002 - PY 2008
1
These estimates do not include NEG-only participants. However, they incorporate those who receive both WIA Title 1B and NEG assistance.
2
Average earnings figures from PY 2002 - 2005 are approximations based on Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data. Earnings were
measured as an earnings change for the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs from PY 2002-2005 before changing to average earnings in PY
2006.
Attachment 5 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a5.pdf
ATTACHMENT V
Estimates of Six Months Average Earnings by State Using BLS-QCEW Program Data
CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008
Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1 Annual Avg. Estimated 1
Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg. Employment 6-Month Avg.
Earnings Earnings Earnings Earnings Earnings Earnings
US2 107,792,549 $18,754 109,233,923 $19,567 111,361,684 $20,253 134,870,635 $19,748 136,382,469 $20,613 134,805,659 $22,782
AK 215,626 $18,252 220,849 $18,853 226,441 $19,409 307,637 $20,875 310,810 $21,986 315,285 $22,903
AL 1,483,039 $15,784 1,509,246 $16,408 1,548,068 $17,004 1,928,281 $18,102 1,952,091 $18,746 1,936,489 $19,367
AR 930,765 $14,247 942,044 $14,901 957,385 $15,389 1,167,925 $16,195 1,173,852 $17,059 1,172,208 $17,460
AZ 1,902,998 $17,301 1,980,818 $18,104 2,107,545 $18,853 2,614,344 $20,010 2,647,691 $20,776 2,583,215 $21,259
CA 12,447,085 $20,932 12,609,942 $22,022 12,877,981 $22,842 15,503,144 $24,173 15,640,575 $25,269 15,494,915 $25,744
CO 1,776,722 $19,445 1,800,646 $20,103 1,843,544 $20,796 2,242,012 $21,753 2,292,630 $22,698 2,310,865 $23,307
CT 1,390,345 $24,467 1,398,093 $25,815 1,409,194 $26,839 1,672,109 $27,407 1,686,043 $29,015 1,687,902 $29,198
DC 421,101 $28,038 429,176 $29,589 435,674 $30,799 671,143 $35,075 678,119 $36,725 685,069 $38,259
DE 347,500 $20,442 356,173 $21,171 361,184 $22,296 422,187 $23,142 423,412 $23,654 423,083 $23,785
FL 6,213,122 $16,457 6,423,693 $17,219 6,694,864 $18,048 7,952,023 $19,242 7,945,162 $19,873 7,666,374 $20,284
GA 3,156,763 $18,432 3,206,888 $19,123 3,288,867 $19,757 4,024,699 $20,185 4,077,184 $21,089 4,031,467 $21,293
HI 454,089 $15,987 468,748 $16,792 487,265 $17,282 618,178 $18,899 625,862 $19,733 619,703 $20,338
IA 1,177,501 $15,110 1,195,269 $15,838 1,218,487 $16,326 1,470,742 $17,160 1,485,627 $17,869 1,490,575 $18,482
ID 468,484 $14,136 482,745 $14,713 505,098 $15,220 643,671 $16,290 660,683 $16,772 653,108 $16,949
IL 4,887,063 $20,287 4,895,801 $21,159 4,942,881 $21,926 5,821,022 $22,825 5,869,157 $23,843 5,841,692 $24,360
IN 2,427,271 $16,697 2,451,737 $17,364 2,476,047 $17,732 2,892,419 $18,277 2,905,725 $18,764 2,872,442 $19,202
KS 1,048,871 $15,897 1,058,858 $16,506 1,067,241 $17,132 1,327,677 $17,848 1,356,966 $18,522 1,366,878 $19,089
KY 1,423,208 $15,829 1,439,029 $16,462 1,464,009 $16,868 1,779,202 $17,600 1,801,907 $18,240 1,791,017 $18,717
LA 1,493,180 $15,307 1,500,416 $15,861 1,483,085 $16,759 1,807,563 $18,302 1,868,986 $19,115 1,890,007 $20,191
MA 2,739,212 $23,285 2,739,861 $24,614 2,758,287 $25,213 3,194,914 $26,217 3,234,357 $27,622 3,245,983 $28,373
MD 1,983,840 $19,578 2,014,285 $20,506 2,048,799 $21,390 2,530,011 $23,081 2,547,351 $24,121 2,537,752 $24,768
ME 492,329 $15,115 497,523 $15,697 495,573 $16,052 598,525 $16,897 602,321 $17,565 602,074 $18,159
MI 3,679,892 $19,742 3,665,091 $20,202 3,664,372 $20,562 4,235,650 $21,079 4,179,122 $21,679 4,070,914 $22,123
MN 2,206,420 $19,347 2,230,302 $20,290 2,266,499 $20,483 2,670,222 $21,093 2,687,482 $22,188 2,679,527 $22,913
MO 2,200,623 $16,972 2,213,813 $17,512 2,247,382 $18,102 2,699,860 $18,571 2,719,380 $19,302 2,715,183 $20,181
MS 864,109 $13,569 871,265 $14,016 877,853 $14,600 1,122,474 $15,597 1,135,336 $16,146 1,131,096 $16,754
MT 314,240 $12,830 323,727 $13,305 334,143 $13,968 426,182 $15,298 436,656 $16,112 437,591 $16,653
NC 3,093,372 $16,657 3,141,074 $17,317 3,208,940 $17,882 3,965,479 $18,719 4,062,955 $19,455 4,043,486 $19,870
ND 251,672 $13,599 258,025 $14,303 264,609 $14,789 335,718 $15,658 341,705 $16,543 350,440 $17,538
NE 724,281 $14,962 730,413 $15,527 739,567 $16,002 902,383 $16,907 916,580 $17,619 922,929 $18,122
NH 520,458 $18,843 529,498 $19,771 536,157 $20,512 627,371 $21,224 630,204 $21,932 628,763 $22,456
NJ 3,262,121 $22,990 3,274,157 $23,817 3,308,847 $24,560 3,951,210 $25,822 3,961,341 $26,927 3,934,789 $27,640
NM 570,868 $14,470 582,169 $15,045 597,145 $15,672 807,063 $17,284 821,484 $18,190 825,736 $18,955
NV 949,334 $17,160 1,010,267 $18,055 1,075,087 $18,941 1,271,634 $20,035 1,284,502 $21,075 1,252,987 $21,492
NY 6,803,570 $23,951 6,854,296 $25,397 6,928,662 $26,489 8,429,519 $27,739 8,554,012 $29,720 8,608,351 $30,144
OH 4,524,065 $17,303 4,533,380 $17,964 4,555,293 $18,415 5,314,572 $19,284 5,306,812 $17,746 5,235,972 $20,392
OK 1,120,680 $14,632 1,130,802 $15,225 1,158,861 $15,779 1,507,196 $17,011 1,534,802 $19,959 1,550,489 $18,642
OR 1,314,854 $16,909 1,344,751 $17,513 1,386,917 $18,115 1,699,932 $19,039 1,727,886 $19,785 1,713,764 $20,250
PA 4,753,844 $18,241 4,781,005 $19,033 4,837,168 $19,632 5,607,139 $20,675 5,652,547 $21,620 5,658,771 $22,191
PR 726,994 $10,159 743,857 $10,435 750,665 $10,762 1,036,802 $11,854 1,016,362 $12,371 1,001,120 $12,777
RI 407,764 $17,432 412,149 $17,984 414,842 $18,533 480,570 $20,227 480,132 $20,823 469,701 $21,515
SC 1,454,329 $15,121 1,476,668 $15,654 1,500,676 $16,210 1,855,842 $17,141 1,891,255 $17,697 1,876,081 $18,126
SD 295,714 $13,376 300,583 $13,896 306,681 $14,328 383,876 $15,146 392,060 $15,828 397,108 $16,411
TN 2,204,879 $16,748 2,246,911 $17,429 2,286,964 $17,930 2,728,694 $18,782 2,745,099 $19,541 2,721,990 $19,998
TX 7,587,587 $18,721 7,695,635 $19,550 7,926,772 $20,440 9,922,313 $21,229 10,231,906 $22,348 10,452,907 $22,970
UT 857,043 $15,261 884,984 $15,795 925,300 $16,414 1,170,587 $17,565 1,219,207 $18,527 1,221,052 $18,990
VA 2,788,213 $19,071 2,859,017 $20,058 2,931,169 $20,969 3,636,417 $22,025 3,672,958 $22,998 3,665,654 $23,621
VT 244,595 $15,786 248,057 $16,361 249,757 $16,824 303,205 $17,771 303,448 $18,478 302,627 $19,164
WA 2,157,934 $19,337 2,196,183 $19,409 2,264,776 $20,113 2,850,073 $21,449 2,925,908 $22,511 2,950,773 $23,285
WI 2,307,228 $16,499 2,335,623 $17,194 2,365,071 $17,558 2,767,141 $18,411 2,780,924 $19,025 2,772,889 $19,560
WV 542,349 $14,179 550,559 $14,788 558,749 $15,272 705,189 $16,364 706,172 $17,053 709,657 $17,994
WY 183,403 $14,574 187,822 $15,329 195,241 $16,310 266,894 $18,331 277,721 $19,627 286,333 $20,744
Data Source: BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Annual Averages, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/cew
1
Average Annual Wages, which are used to compute the Estimated 6 Months Average Earnings, are obtained through taking Total Annual Wages and dividing them by
the Average Annual Employment
2
Aggregated National data incorporates all 50 States as well as territories
Attachment 6 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a6.pdf
ATTACHMENT VI
MULTIVARIATE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
(Economic and Demographic Variables)
Relationship between Performance Outcomes and Unemployment Rates and Customer
Characteristics
Effects on Performance of a One Percentage Point Increase in:
Unemployment Percent Percent Age Percent Not High Percent Low Percent
Rate female 55 or Older School Graduate Income Disabled
Adult
Entered Employment -1.25 -0.004 -0.079 -0.062 -0.037 -0.102
Retention -0.7 0.024 -0.027 -0.051 -0.041 -0.034
Earnings -288 -21 -4 -22 -23 -14
Credentials -1.2 -0.015 -0.037 -0.056 -0.013 -0.039
Dislocated Worker
Entered Employment -0.7 -0.003 -0.099 -0.035 --- -0.053
Retention -0.9 0.008 -0.029 -0.023 --- -0.027
Earnings -226 -40 -11 -28 --- -15
Credentials 0 -0.026 -0.038 -0.043 --- -0.020
Basic Skill
Older Youth Age 19
Deficiency
Entered Employment -0.5 -0.019 -0.005 -0.112 -0.016 -0.089
Retention -0.7 0 0 -0.074 -0.014 0
Earnings -122 -9 -6 -13 -6 -13
Credentials 0 0.024 0 -0.010 -0.029 -0.012
Age 14 or High School Basic Skill
Younger Youth
15 Dropout Deficiency
Skill Attainment 0 0.008 -0.020 -0.092 -0.058 0.011
Diploma Attainment -1.72 0.032 -0.082 -0.299 -0.108 0.031
Retention 0 0.009 -0.060 -0.115 -0.031 -0.059
High School Basic Skill
Youth Common Measures Age 19-21
Dropout Deficiency
Literacy/Numeracy -2.4 0 -0.023 0 --- 0
Attending
Age 14-15
high school
Placement:
-1.4 0.012 -0.194 -0.08 -0.047 -0.052
employment/education
Attained degree or
-2.1 0.028 -0.212 0.097 -0.066 0
certificate
Note: All non-zero estimates are statistically significant at the 1% level.
- 1 -
Explanation of the Estimated Effects of Customer Characteristics and Unemployment
Rates on WIA Performance Measures
The estimates in Attachment VI show how unemployment rates and selected customer
characteristics affect performance outcomes. These estimates can inform negotiation
discussions about the impact of changes in the economic environment and customer
characteristics on state performance.
Performance measures shown in the table follow the standard definitions for the WIA common
measures. These measures were computed using individual participant data obtained from
WIASRD. The performance measures shown in the table were defined as follows.
• Adults and dislocated workers
o Entered employment uses the common measures definition and reflects the use of
supplemental data
o Retention uses the common measures definition and reflects the use of the
supplemental data
o Average earnings uses the common measures definition
o Credentials measure uses the TEGL 17-05 definition and uses supplemental data to
determine employment
• Older and Younger Youth
o All measures are based on TEGL 17-05 definitions and use supplemental data where
appropriate.
• Youth
o Common measures are based on the current definitions. Literacy and numeracy are
based on definition for first year of implementation.
The estimated effects of customer characteristics and unemployment rates on performance
outcomes were derived using quarterly WIASRD data. For all programs except younger youth,
the estimates are based on data from 2000:Q3-2008:Q1; for younger youth, the estimates are
based on data from 2006:Q1-2008:Q1. These relationships are based on the same time period
and database that were used to estimate the effects of unemployment rates on the national
performance targets incorporated in the President’s 2011 budget.
Performance outcomes of each individual exiter were regressed against the five customer
characteristics and the local unemployment rates. A separate model was estimated for each
performance measure for each program. Including all six factors in the same estimation, referred
to as multi-variate estimation, controls for the effects of the other factors on the performance
measure.
The estimates can be interpreted as the effect on the performance measure of a one percentage
point change in the customer characteristic or the unemployment rate. For instance, if a state
were interested in the estimated effect of percent low income on entered employment for the
Adult program, it would interpret the coefficient of -0.037 to mean that a one percentage point
increase in the percent of low-income customers would be expected to lower the entered
employment rate by 0.037 percentage points, holding all the other five factors and the
unemployment rate the same. Therefore, even if low-income participants were also highly likely
- 2 -
not to have graduated from high school, the estimate of -0.037 pertains only to the fact that the
individual is low-income.
If each factor were regressed in a separate equation, as in bi-variate estimation, the estimated
effect of any one factor would include the influence of all the others to the extent they are
correlated with the factor included in the equation. However, for multi-variate estimation, if one
wanted to compute the effect of an increase in the percentage without a high school education
together with an increase in the percentage of low-income customers, one would combine the
two estimates (-0.062 plus -0.037 equals -0.099). A bi-variate equation has one response or
dependent variable, and one predictor or independent variable, and the relationship between the
two is represented by a straight line. Building a bi-variate linear regression model to represent
the relationship between two variables by a straight line involves determining the coefficients of
that line, a process known as "fitting" the regression line. This type of model presents a limited
model because it only accounts for a factor correlated with another factor in the equation.
A change in the unemployment rate generally has a relatively large effect on the performance
measures. For example, in the case of the entered employment rate for the WIA Adult program,
a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate lowers the entered employment rate by
1.25 percentage points. That is, if the unemployment rate increased from 8 to 9 percent, say, the
entered employment rate is expected to decline from 68 percent to 66.75 percent.
It takes a larger change in the customer characteristics to have a material effect on the
performance measures. For example, a one percentage point increase in the percentage without a
high school education would lead to a 0.062 percentage point decline in entered employment rate
for WIA Adult customers. That is, if the percentage without a high school education increased
from 20 percent to 21 percent, the entered employment rate is expected to decline from 68
percent to 67.94. Increasing the change to a 10 percentage point increase in those without a high
school education would result in a drop in entered employment from 68 percent to 67.38 percent.
The combined effect of a 10 percent increase in each of the two factors (the change in
unemployment and percent without a high school education) would reduce entered employment
from 68 percent 67 percent (-0.062 plus -0.037 equals -0.099).
Definitions of the customer characteristics are consistent with those in the WIASRD.
• A participant is defined as disabled if he or she indicates a disability such as a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the person’s life activities,
as defined in the Americans with Disability Act of 1990
• A participants is defined as not a high school graduate if he or she completed none or
some elementary/secondary school grades but did not receive a high school diploma or
GED
• A person is defined as low-income if he or she receives cash payments under a Federal,
state, or local income-based public assistance; or received an income (or part of a family
that did) that does not exceed the higher of the poverty line or 70 percent of the lower
living standard income level; is a member of a household that receives food stamps;
qualifies as a homeless individual; or is a person with a disability whose own income
meets the income criteria established by WIA.
- 3 -
• The unemployment rate is the rate that a participant faces in his or her local labor
market, defined as the local workforce investment area, as provided by each state’s LMI
agency.
- 4 -
Attachment 7 (official source): https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2010/TEGL23-09a7.pdf
ATTACHMENT VII
TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE
WIA ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 2009 AND PY 2010
Annual Report PY 2009 Annual Report PY 2010
Reporting Item Time Period (Exit Cohort) to Be Reported
Total Participants 7/1/09 to 6/30/10 7/1/10 to 6/30/11
Total Exiters 4/1/09 to 3/31/10 4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Employer Customer Satisfaction 1/1/09 to 12/31/09 1/1/10 to 12/31/10
Participant Customer Satisfaction 1/1/09 to 12/31/09 1/1/10 to 12/31/10
Adult and Dislocated Worker Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Employment Retention Rate 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Six Months Average Earnings 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Employment and Credential Rate 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Older Youth Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Employment Retention Rate 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Earnings Change 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
Employment and Credential Rate 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 10/1/09 to 9/30/10
Younger Youth Performance Measures
Skill Attainment Rate 4/1/09 to 3/31/10 4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Youth Diploma or Equivalent Rate 4/1/09 to 3/31/10 4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Retention Rate 4/1/08 to 3/31/09 4/1/09 to 3/31/10
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