Negotiating 2014 WIA and Wagner-Peyser performance goals

Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2014/TEGL_25-13_Acc.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                     May 15, 2014


TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 25-13

TO:              STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
                 STATE WORKFORCE ADMINISTRATORS
                 STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS

FROM:            PORTIA WU /s/
                 Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT:         Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title
                 1B Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year (PY)
                 2014

1. Purpose. To inform states of the guidelines for negotiating WIA Title 1B program
performance and performance levels for Wagner-Peyser Act funded activities for PY 2014.
Once performance goals are agreed upon by the state and the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), they will be incorporated into the state’s Strategic Plan. This Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) also announces that ETA will require that all states
negotiate performance goals for credential outcomes beginning in PY 2015. Prior to 2015, ETA
will work with states to modify the terms of approved common measure waivers. Currently,
states are required to report on credentials in their quarterly Workforce Investment Act
Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) submissions regardless of whether or not they have a
common measure waiver.

2. References.
   •   WIA Section 136;
   •   WIA regulations at 20 CFR Part 666 and Part 661;
   •   TEGL No. 38-11 Negotiating Performance Goals for the WIA Title 1B Programs and
       Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for PY 2012;
   •   TEGL No. 26-12, Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act,
       Title 1B Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year (PY)
       2013;
   •   TEGL No. 21-11, Requirements for 2012 State Workforce Plans;
   •   TEGL No. 9-07, Revised Incentive and Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act
       Title 1B Programs;
   •   TEGL No. 17-05 and 17-05 Change 2, Common Measures Policy for the Employment
       and Training Administration’s (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related
       Performance Issues;


RESCISSIONS                                            EXPIRATION DATE
TEGL 26-12                                             Continuing

   •   TEGL 11-01 Change 1, Guidance on Revising Workforce Investment Act State
       Negotiated Levels of Performance;
   •   State Integrated Workforce Plan Requirements for Workforce Investment Act Title
       I/Wagner-Peyser Act and Department of Labor Workforce Programs (OMB No. 1205-
       0398); and
   •   Planning Guidance for State Unified Plans and Unified Plan Modifications Submitted
       under Section 501 of the Workforce Investment Act (OMB No. 1205-038).

3. Background. This guidance specifies the performance measures for which states will be held
accountable in PY 2014, provides an outline of the negotiation process, and provides a
description of the factors that should be considered during the negotiation of state and local
performance goals. Additional information is available on ETA’s performance Web site at
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/negotiating.cfm. In addition, this guidance
provides national performance targets required for the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993 (GPRA) and the more recent GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-352), also
referred to as the GPRA goals. The GPRA goals are used by Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget to (OMB) manage Federal programs, including those operated by
States and local areas.

As the economy began to contract in 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) began
adjusting national GPRA targets to account for the deterioration in the labor market using a
series of statistical models. The underlying models were subsequently applied to the common
performance measures at the State and local level. Targets for states and local areas adjust for
changes in the characteristics of participants in addition to employment conditions and price-
levels. The targets are made available to help inform the negotiation process that ultimately
establishes the performance goals between ETA and each State.

4. The Negotiations Process. Negotiations will continue to take place between the states and
corresponding ETA Regional Offices. Specific guidance regarding contacts and time frames will
be provided to the states by the appropriate Regional Office.

States must establish PY 2014 performance levels for the Wagner-Peyser Act component of the
State Plans when they negotiate performance levels for the WIA Title 1B programs. In order to
ensure negotiated goals are in alignment with the vision and strategic goals described in the State
Strategic Plan, states must negotiate new goals for PY 2014. All states must negotiate their PY
2014 performance goals in accordance with the guidance contained herein. The regression
adjusted performance targets for PY 2014 for all states and local areas will be made available at
https://sites.google.com/site/wiaexchange/home (state and Federal staff can access the site using
an existing Google account or by creating an account and requesting access to the page) for use
in PY 2014 negotiations. (See section 10 for further discussion about the regression adjusted
targets.)

5. Methodology for Assessing Performance Against Negotiated Levels. For both WIA Title
1B programs and Wagner-Peyser Act programs, the floor of the range for acceptable
performance is 80 percent of the negotiated level of performance. Performance on an individual
measure will be interpreted based on the position of the outcome relative to the negotiated
performance goal using the Exceeds, Meets, and Fails criteria defined below:


  •   Exceeds - when the actual performance achieved against an individual performance
      measure is in excess of 100 percent 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 percent 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 percent of the negotiated level of performance.

For example, if a state negotiates a 90 percent goal for the employment retention rate indicator,
the state would:

  •   Exceed the goal if the actual performance level achieved was greater than 90.0 percent;

  •   Meet the goal if the actual performance level achieved was greater than or equal to 72.0
      percent and less than 90.0 percent; and

  •   Fail the goal if the actual performance level achieved was less than 72.0 percent.

While whole percentages are used in this example, it should be noted that this is simply because
80 percent of the negotiated 90.0 percent happens to be exactly 72.0 percent. There will be no
rounding up in interpreting performance results since negotiated performance levels and results
are stated to the tenth of a percent.

These three categories are consistent 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(c) (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.

6. WIA Incentive Grant Eligibility. For WIA Title 1B programs there are two levels in
measuring performance for incentive awards: 1) the individual measure, which must exceed 90
percent of the negotiated goal; and 2) the average for a specific cluster of measures, which must
exceed 100 percent for states to be considered eligible for an incentive. For more information
please refer to TEGL 09-07 regarding the specific guidelines around incentive grant eligibility.


7. Applicable Performance Measures for the PY 2014 Performance Negotiations Process.
The negotiations process for PY 2014 will focus on establishing 20 agreed-upon levels of
performance for WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act programs for those states reporting statutory
measures. The 20 performance measures include the 17 statutory WIA indicators of
performance (15 Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth program measures and two customer
satisfaction indicators) and three Wagner-Peyser Act performance measures. All states (whether
reporting statutory or common measures) no longer have to use the American Customer
Satisfaction Index. States must still measure customer satisfaction using a rigorous
methodology; however they now have the flexibility to use an approach that best suits their
specific needs and data systems. States that report using the statutory measures must continue to
negotiate customer satisfaction targets and report the results in the annual report and the annual
report narrative.

                                       Applicable Performance Measures
                     WIA Measures                                           Common Measures                     Wagner-
                                                                                                                 Peyser
              Dislocated                       Customer                        Dislocated                      Measures (All
  Adult        Worker          Youth          Satisfaction       Adult          Worker            Youth          States)
                             Older Youth                                                                          Entered
  Entered       Entered                       Participant      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

Employment    Employment     Older Youth       Employer                                        Attainment of     Employment
                                                              Employment       Employment
 Retention     Retention     Employment        Customer                                         a Degree or     Retention Rate
                                                             Retention Rate   Retention Rate
   Rate          Rate       Retention Rate    Satisfaction                                      Certificate    for Total Exiters

Employment
              Employment                                                                                        Average Six
    and                                                       Average Six      Average Six     Literacy and
                  and        Older Youth                                                                          Months
 Credential                                                     Months           Months         Numeracy
               Credential   Credential Rate                                                                     Earnings for
   Rate                                                        Earnings         Earnings          Gains
                 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


For those states that requested a waiver to report common performance measure outcomes only,
and received approval to do so in accordance with the waiver authority granted to the Secretary
of Labor 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 Act measures. For these 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 above
summarizes the performance measures involved in the negotiations process. States with an
approved common measure waiver will only have to negotiate goals for the common measures
and Wagner-Peyser measures listed in the table. The remaining states will have to negotiate
goals for the WIA measures and Wagner-Peyser measures identified in the table.

Below are the source documents with definitions and related reporting specifications for the
applicable performance measures:

  •   The WIA program performance measures
      o 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);
      o Workforce Investment Act Annual Report: General Reporting Instructions and ETA
         Form 9091, Revised 2012
         (http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/WIAAnnualReportSpecifications.
         pdf);

  •   The WIA program common measures
      o 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);
      o 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
      o Workforce Investment Act Annual Report; General Reporting Instructions and ETA
         Form 9091, Revised 2010
         (http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/WIAAnnualReportSpecifications.
         pdf).

As required since PY 2007, all states must continue to collect and report against the three youth
common performance measures for the entire youth population (older and younger youth
combined) in PY 2014. However, when considering performance measure outcomes for the
incentive awards and sanction determinations for states, the reported common measures
outcomes will only be considered for those states that have received an approved waiver to
implement and report against “WIA common performance measures only.” ETA will not
consider performance against these measures for those states that are accountable for outcomes
on the full 17 WIA statutory measures.

Please note that for purposes of WIA incentive awards and sanctions determinations, the
applicable performance measures are listed in TEGL 9-07, Revised Incentive and Sanction
Policy for WIA Title IB Programs (http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL09-07.pdf).

   • The Wagner-Peyser Act program performance measures
     o 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

      o ETA 9002 and VETS 200 Data Preparation Handbook, ET Handbook No. 406,
        released in August 2012:
        (http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/406_handbook.pdf).

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) will issue separate guidance on
negotiating PY 2014 veterans’ performance targets with State workforce agencies. This
negotiation of specific levels of performance for veterans includes: 1) performance targets for
veterans served by American Job Center Network employment services; and, 2) grant-based
performance targets for veterans served through the Jobs for Veterans State Grants.

States should also be aware that ETA will be increasing its focus on credential attainment data in
PY 2014 and beyond. Credentials are a critical component of helping people upgrade their skills
and obtain good jobs. All states are currently required to report on credentials in their quarterly
WIASRD submissions regardless of whether or not they have a common measures waiver. As
well, credential attainment outcomes were added to the quarterly reports (ETA 9090) beginning
in PY 2013. All states will be required to negotiate performance goals for credential outcomes
beginning in PY 2015. Prior to PY 2015, ETA will work with States to modify the terms of
approved common measures waivers.

8. Reaching Agreement on State Performance Levels. States should use negotiated levels of
performance to drive continuous improvement and enhance customer satisfaction. In proposing
performance targets for both WIA Title 1B and Wagner-Peyser Act programs, states should
negotiate their goals within the context of integrated service delivery, priority of service, local
economic conditions, customers served, and workforce solutions that contribute to the economic
competitiveness of their State and local areas.

A. Customers to Be Served

Customers served by the local area may have a significant impact on outcomes depending on the
type of services provided and other factors unique to the population. In accordance with WIA
Section 195(1), which states that services should be targeted to, “those who can benefit from, and
who are most in need of, such opportunities,” ETA encourages states to serve those individuals
with barriers to employment and individuals more at-risk of not connecting to the labor market,
including the long term unemployed, those who were incarcerated, homeless, individuals with
disabilities, and out-of-school youth. In addition, states are reminded that veterans are entitled to
priority of service in all employment and training programs funded whole or in part by the
Department (38 U.S.C. 4215) and that workforce services should emphasize stackable
credentials that put participants on a path to high quality sustained employment. States should
bring appropriate and sufficient information to the negotiation process that demonstrates either
their past performance in serving these populations and/or their current strategy for serving these
populations. Note that the regression model explicitly considers these factors when estimating
the regression adjusted targets.

ETA will continue to adjust 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 and who are not accounted for in the model. States that have ongoing
initiatives for serving at-risk individuals, who are not included in the regression model, may
work with their respective Regional Administrator to negotiate appropriate goals for PY 2014.
During the negotiation process, states must provide data to support adjustments of goals based on

numbers of individuals with barriers currently being served. This data should show increasing
numbers of at-risk individuals in past performance years. Additionally, the state must
demonstrate that participants with these barriers will exit in the negotiated performance year, as
well as how these individuals will quantitatively impact the performance outcomes.

When negotiating 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, 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 effects of those changes when
proposing performance levels for the youth goals, since serving a greater percentage of the
neediest youth may impact outcomes. Again, it is important to note that the regression model
accounts for many, if not all, of these groups. States that are serving a greater percentage of
omitted groups should provide evidence that shows how outcomes may be impacted by serving
this population, citing academic or other studies that identify the quantitative impact.

Efforts to expand services to at-risk populations are consistent with WIA legislation. Under
WIA Section 101(13) an “eligible youth” is a low-income individual between the ages of 14 and
21 who is deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a runaway or foster child,
pregnant or parenting, an offender, or an individual who requires additional assistance to
complete an educational program or hold employment. Section 112 (b)(17)(A)(iv) requires that
the State Plan describe, “how the State will serve the employment and training needs of
dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals (including
recipients of public assistance), individuals training for nontraditional employment, and other
individuals with multiple barriers to employment (including older individuals and individuals
with disabilities).” Section 134(d)(4)(E) requires that priority, under the WIA Adult program,
must be given to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals for intensive
services and training services.

When negotiating goals for the Adult program, states proposing new efforts to increase access to
services for special populations who may face significant barriers (such as the long term
unemployed, veterans, older workers, individuals with disabilities, migrant or seasonal farm
workers, Indian and Native Americans or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients)
should provide evidence to show how these new efforts will impact WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker and/or Wagner-Peyser Act outcomes. If these populations are included in the regression
adjustment methodology then changes in these groups are already accounted for. If the groups
are not included, the state should provide evidence that quantifies the level of impact to expect.
ETA supports efforts that will help states better tap into a 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.

For future negotiations, ETA invites states to suggest mechanisms for expanding services to the
long term unemployed and at-risk populations within our current performance framework.
Suggestions should be e-mailed to [email protected].


B. Continuous Improvement

WIA Section 136 (b)(3)(A)(iv)(III) encourages continuous performance improvement to ensure
optimal return on the investment of Federal funds. Continuous improvement should be
considered in all aspects of the negotiations process. Negotiations should begin with the
formation of expectations regarding future performance based on relevant available data,
including past performance, and the tools discussed in section 8.C. Once established,
expectations about future performance should be considered a starting point from which to
negotiate improvement upon past performance.

Continuous improvement does not necessarily imply that the goals for PY 2014 must be higher
than those for PY 2012 or PY 2013. If future performance is expected to decline due to
deterioration in the local labor market, an increase in hard to serve participant populations
compared to previous years, or some other exogenous event, it is possible for program
effectiveness to increase while the performance outcomes actually decline. As a result,
expectations for continuous improvement should be negotiated considering all relevant factors
impacting performance outcomes.

C. Tools for Proposing Levels of Performance

The following tools and process guidelines provide a uniform framework for states to use to set
performance goals. 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 27, 2014.

Prior to proposing levels of performance to the appropriate Regional Administrator (see section
8.D and Attachment I for information on the negotiations process), states should review and
make use of the following resources/tools to ensure that these factors have been considered in
determining proposed levels and that there is a sound rationale for proposed levels of
performance:

       I. Past performance. States should use historical, annual performance information (PY
          2007-2012) to determine projected levels of performance for PY 2014. Recent
          quarterly performance results should also be used to inform the performance path the
          state is following. Wagner-Peyser Act funded activities began reporting against the
          common performance measures in PY 2005 and now have more than eight 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 in service provision and quality.

           While states should have ready access to their own historical performance
           information, various tools and resources are available to examine all states’
           performance data, including state-by-state files
           (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 Act
           exiters enter employment and obtain post-program earnings.

       II. GPRA goals. Throughout the performance negotiation process, states should be
           aware of GPRA goals the Department established through PY 2014. The Regional
           Offices will use GPRA goals as one of several benchmarks by which to gauge their
           states’ proposed performance levels in the context of these national system goals.
           GPRA is an important mechanism by which Congress and OMB evaluate the success
           of Federal programs, including those operated by States and local areas. GPRA goals
           for the Department’s WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers and Wagner-Peyser Act
           programs, in addition to other national programs, are listed in Attachment II, and
           more information is available at http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/goals/gpra.cfm.

      III. 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.

Attachment III contains a description of the time periods during which individuals should have
exited program services to be included in the different performance measures. This attachment
will assist states in their analysis of the impact of any given factor on the different measures
against which the state will be negotiating levels for in PY 2014. Factors are only pertinent to
negotiations when they affect the program exiters included in the time periods associated with
any given outcome measure.

D. Process for Reaching Agreement on State Performance Levels

The process for reaching agreement on state performance goals will include the following steps,
and follow 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 2014 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%) or to the nearest whole dollar for average earnings and
       must be submitted to the appropriate Regional Administrator no later than May 30, 2014;
       however, Regional Offices will work with states to begin the negotiation process prior to
       that date in order to ensure that final levels are agreed upon by June 27, 2014.

       When submitting the proposed levels, states should provide the following as support for
       the levels (see Section I and II of the State Integrated Workforce Plan Requirements or
       Part I Section F 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 also should 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 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, national GPRA goals, and the regression adjusted targets.

  III. The Regional Administrator will employ the regression adjusted targets as a tool from
       which to begin negotiations. 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 are part of a trend or are anomalous.

       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 a Regional Office determines,
       through its analysis, that a state could increase its proposed performance levels to more
       fully support continuous improvement and customer satisfaction strategies, negotiations
       with the state to obtain mutually agreed-upon higher performance levels will take place.

   IV. Once the performance levels are agreed upon, the Regional Administrator will send a
       letter to the state confirming the finalized performance levels. This letter constitutes a
       modification to the State Plan and serves to incorporate the agreed-upon performance
       goals into the State Strategic Plan.

9. Inclusion of Performance Goals in State Plans. States are required to submit proposed
levels of performance no later than May 30, 2014. When the state submits the proposed levels to
ETA, the state should confirm with the Regional Administrator that it has made the proposed
levels available to the public for review and comment.

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
also will 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.


10. State and Local Regression Analysis. The Department, through the relevant Regional
Office, will use the regression-based performance levels as a tool in the negotiation process with
all states in the PY 2014 negotiations. In a similar manner, states are encouraged to use the
regression-based performance levels as a tool to aid their negotiations with their local areas.
Previous experience with the regression model has demonstrated that the regression-based
performance levels would best serve the goal setting process as an additional tool for use in the
negotiations process. Regional Administrators as well as the states are in no way precisely
bound to the regression-adjusted targets; instead, they should use the regression targets to inform
the negotiations process in order to ensure continuous improvement as outlined in the WIA
Section 136 (b)(3)(A)(iv)(III).

This TEGL also provides WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act GPRA goals. These goals support the
FY 2015 Congressional Budget Justification, and were developed using a national regression
model. National GPRA goals serve as an additional guide for negotiations; however, ETA
encourages states and local workforce boards to negotiate performance goals according to the
local area labor market and economic conditions.

11. 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 renegotiate goals should note
that renegotiation after the end of any program year’s second quarter (December 31st) eliminates
that State from being eligible to receive a WIA incentive grant. TEGL 11-01, Change 1 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. 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.

12. Action Requested. States are requested to distribute this information to the appropriate State
and local staff.

13. Inquiries. Questions concerning this guidance should be directed to the appropriate
Regional Office.

14. Attachments.

       Attachment I:          Recommended Timeline for the PY 2014 Negotiations Process


Attachment II:    WIA and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service Performance Goals
                  Established for the Fiscal Year 2015 Congressional Budget
                  Justification and the Government Performance and Results Act
Attachment III:   Time Periods for Reporting Performance Information in the WIA
                  Annual Report for PY 2013 and PY 2014

Attachment 1: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2014/TEGL_25-13_Attachment_I_Acc.pdf

ATTACHMENT I
                          RECOMMENDED TIMELINE
                    PROGRAM YEAR 2014 NEGOTIATION PROCESS

          Date                                           Action

                         Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Regional Offices
April 2014               provide technical assistance on strategic planning as requested by
                         State, including procedures for negotiating performance goals.


No later than            States formally send proposed performance levels to Regional
May 30, 2014             Offices.

                         Regional Offices review States’ proposed performance goals and
May through June, 2014
                         work with States to arrive at mutually agreed-upon goals.

                         Regional Administrators send approval letter to States regarding the
No later than June 27,   final performance goals.
2014
                         ETA incorporates final performance goals into State Plans.

                         States must notify their Regional Offices by the end of the second
                         quarter if they plan to renegotiate their performance goals and still
December 31, 2014
                         be considered for that program year’s incentive grants (additional
                         criteria must also be met).

                         States may renegotiate their performance goals through the end of
                         the third quarter. States renegotiating their goals after the end of
March 31, 2015
                         the second quarter will not meet the eligibility criterion for that
                         program year’s Workforce Investment Act incentive grants.

Attachment 2: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2014/TEGL_25-13_Attachment_II_Acc.pdf

ATTACHMENT II
   WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) AND WAGNER-PEYSER EMPLOYMENT
SERVICE (WP ES) PERFORMANCE GOALS ESTABLISHED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015
      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND THE GOVERNMENT
                     PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

                                                    Results                 TARGETS
     Program                  Measure
                                                     2012         2013          2014         2015
                        Entered Employment            59.9         61.2         62.5         63.1
WIA Adults              Retention                     81.9         82.0         82.1         82.1
                        Earnings                    $13,335      $13,684      $13,945      $14,194
                        Entered Employment            60.0         61.2         62.3         62.8
WIA Dislocated
                        Retention                     84.3         84.4         84.6         84.6
Workers
                        Earnings                    $15,930      $16,364      $16,694      $16,998
                        Placement                     66.0         66.4         66.8         66.9
WIA Youth               Attainment                    62.3         62.3         62.2         62.2
                        Literacy                      47.5         46.9         46.2         46.0
                        Entered Employment            73.7         74.9         76.0         76.5
National Emergency
                        Retention                     88.3         88.4         88.6         88.6
Grants (NEGs)a
                        Earnings                    $18,138      $18,619      $18,979      $19,321
                        Entered Employment            53.0         53.8         54.7         55.0
        b
WP ES                   Retention                     81.0         81.1         81.1         81.2
                        Earnings                    $14,252      $14,642      $14,937      $15,210
Targets were set based on the estimated effect of unemployment rates on program performance
outcomes and Office of Management and Budget’s assumptions about future unemployment rates
and the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The base for setting performance
targets is the performance results for Program Year 2012, the most recent program year for which
performance results are available. Performance outcomes are aligned with the unemployment rates
and CPI-U within the quarters for which each measure is derived for the outcome in each program
year.
(a) Estimates from Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker were used to set targets for these
programs, since Workforce Investment Board area identifiers were not available for National
Employment Grant-only records.
(b) These estimates are based on Wagner-Peyser (WP) - Employment Services (ES) individual
records from Pennsylvania and Texas. Individual record data for WP ES were not a required
collection in previous submission; however, these data were collected in these two States through
the Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting system pilot.

Attachment 3: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2014/TEGL_25-13_Attachment_III_Acc.pdf

ATTACHMENT III
   TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE
  WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 2013 AND PY 2014


                                   Annual Report PY 2013      Annual Report PY 2014

        Reporting Item                 Time Period (Exit Cohort) to Be Reported
Total Participants                    7/1/13 to 6/30/14           7/1/14 to 6/30/15
Total Exiters                         4/1/13 to 3/31/14           4/1/14 to 3/31/15
Employer Customer Satisfaction       1/1/13 to 12/31/13          1/1/14 to 12/31/14
Participant Customer Satisfaction    1/1/13 to 12/31/13          1/1/14 to 12/31/14
Adult and Dislocated Worker Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate              10/1/12 to 9/30/13          10/1/13 to 9/30/14
Employment Retention Rate             4/1/12 to 3/31/13           4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Six Months Average Earnings           4/1/12 to 3/31/13           4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Employment and Credential Rate       10/1/12 to 9/30/13          10/1/13 to 9/30/14
Older Youth Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate              10/1/12 to 9/30/13          10/1/13 to 9/30/14
Employment Retention Rate             4/1/12 to 3/31/13           4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Earnings Change                       4/1/12 to 3/31/13           4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Employment and Credential Rate       10/1/12 to 9/30/13          10/1/13 to 9/30/14
Younger Youth Performance Measures
Skill Attainment Rate                 4/1/13 to 3/31/14          4/1/14 to 3/31/15
Youth Diploma or Equivalent Rate      4/1/13 to 3/31/14          4/1/14 to 3/31/15
Retention Rate                        4/1/12 to 3/31/13          4/1/13 to 3/31/14