2013 WIA and Wagner-Peyser performance goals

Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2013/TEGL_26_12_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 6. 2013


TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 26-12

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 (WIA) Title
                 1B Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year (PY)
                 2013

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 2013.
Once agreed upon between the State and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA),
these performance goals will be incorporated into the State’s Strategic Plan.

2. References.
   •   WIA Section 136;
   •   WIA regulations at 20 CFR Part 666 and Part 661;
   •   Workforce Investment Act Annual Report: General Reporting Instructions and ETA
       Form 9091, Revised 2010;
   •   ETA 9002 and VETS 200 Data Preparation Handbook, ET Handbook No. 406, released
       in August 2012;
   •   Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 38-11 Negotiating Performance
       Goals for the WIA Title 1B Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for PY
       2012;
   •   Training and Employment Notice No. 8-10 Workforce Investment Act Self—Service
       Participant Reporting - What, Where and How;
   •   TEGL No. 21-11, Requirements for 2012 State Workforce Plans;
   •   TEGL No. 29-10, Change 1, Extending the Deadline for Declaring Intent to Negotiate
       and for Submitting the Proposed Targets when Negotiating Performance Goals for the
       WIA Title 1B Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for PY 2011;
   •   TEGL No. 29-10, Negotiating Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act,
       Title 1B Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year (PY)
       2011;
   •   TEGL No. 9-07, Revised Incentive and Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act
       Title 1B Programs;


 RESCISSIONS                                           EXPIRATION DATE
 TEGL 38-11                                            Continuing

   •   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;
   •   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 clarifies the performance measures for which States will be held
accountable in PY 2013, provides an outline of the negotiations 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) evaluate the success of Federal programs, including those
operated by States and local areas.

As the economy began to contract severely in 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor (Department)
developed a regression model that explicitly takes into account changes in labor market
conditions when setting the national GPRA targets. This model has been subsequently applied to
the common performance measures at the State and local level for use in negotiations of
performance goals with ETA. The regression targets represent starting points for negotiating
performance goals for PY 2013.

4. Changes to 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.

Also, States must establish PY 2013 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, the option to extend previous years’ goals without a negotiation process
is not available for PY 2013. All States must negotiate their PY 2013 performance goals in
accordance with the guidance contained herein. The regression adjusted performance targets for
PY 2013 for all States and local areas will be made available at
https://sites.google.com/site/wiaexchange/home (which State and Regional personnel can access
using an existing Google account or by creating an account and requesting access to the page) for
use in PY 2013 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 percent;

  •   Meet the goal if the actual performance level achieved was greater than or equal to 72
      percent and less than 90 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 percent happens to be exactly 72 percent. There will be no
rounding up in interpreting performance results as negotiated performance levels and results are
stated to the tenth of a percent. This means that, in the above example, 89.9 percent would be
considered a Meet. States may continue to use additional distinctions to differentiate
performance within the Meets category.

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 2013 Performance Negotiations Process.
The negotiations process 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, yet 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, report the results in
the annual report, and in 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 below
summarizes the performance measures involved in the negotiations process. States with an
approved common measure waiver will only have to negotiate on 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 17 WIA 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 2010
         (http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/WIAAnnualReportSpecifications.
         pdf);

  •   The WIA Youth 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 2013. 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 three 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).

States should also be aware that the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) will
issue separate guidance on negotiating PY 2013 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.

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 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 of Labor (38
U.S.C. 4215). 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 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 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 2013.
During the negotiations 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. As well, 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 this into account 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. WIA
Section 101(13) defines “eligible youth” as a “low-income individual between the ages of 14 and
21 who is deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a runaway or foster child,
pregnant or parenting, an offender, or an individual who requires additional assistance to
complete an educational program or hold employment.” Section 112 (b)(17)(A)(iv) requires that
the State Plan, “describe how the State will serve the employment and training needs of
dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals (including
recipients of public assistance), individuals training for nontraditional employment, and other
individuals with multiple barriers to employment (including older individuals and individuals
with disabilities).” Section 134(d)(4)(E) requires that priority 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 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 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. Using the tools available for negotiation of
performance goals (see section 8.C), negotiations should begin with the development an
informational foundation from which expected performance can be established. Once
established, expectations about future performance should be considered a starting point from
which to negotiate towards improvement upon past performance.

   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 that demonstrate this commitment. These tools and guidelines are designed to
aid the negotiations process. Final performance levels must be negotiated and agreed upon by
the State and the ETA Regional Administrator no later than June 28, 2013.

Prior to proposing levels of performance to the appropriate Regional Administrator (see section
8.D and Appendix 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
           2007-2011) to determine projected levels of performance for PY 2013. 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 seven 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 negotiations 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 2013. 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 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 2013 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 31, 2013;
      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 28, 2013.

       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 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 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 for
       determining a lower bound 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 their 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 31, 2013. 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.

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.

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 negotiations process


with all States in the PY 2013 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 employ the regression targets as a
basis upon which to build 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 2014 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. 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.

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 2013 Negotiations Process


Attachment II:    WIA and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service Performance Goals
                  Established for the Fiscal Year 2014 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 2012 and PY 2013

Attachment 1: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2013/TEGL_26_12_Att_A.pdf

ATTACHMENT I
                          RECOMMENDED TIMELINE
                   PROGRAM YEAR 2013 NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS

          Date                                           Action

                         Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Regional Offices
April 2013               provided 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 31, 2013             offices.

                         Regional Offices review States’ proposed performance goals and
May through June, 2013
                         work with States to arrive at mutually agreed-upon goals.

                         Regional Administrators send approval letter to States regarding the
No later than June 28,   final performance goals.
2013
                         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, 2013
                         be considered for that program year’s incentive grants (additional
                         criteria must also be met).

                         State may renegotiate their performance goals through the end of the
                         third quarter. States renegotiating their goals after the end of the
March 31, 2014
                         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/2013/TEGL_26_12_Att_B.pdf

ATTACHMENT II
   WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) AND WAGNER-PEYSER EMPLOYMENT
  SERVICE (WP ES) PERFORMANCE GOALS ESTABLISHED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
     2014 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND THE GOVERNMENT
                     PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

                                                    Results                 TARGETS
     Program                  Measure
                                                     2011         2013          2014         2015
                        Entered Employment           57.2          59.8         60.8         61.7
WIA Adults              Retention                    80.8          80.9         81.0         81.0
                        Earnings                    13,482       $14,149      $14,466      $14,799
                        Entered Employment           61.1          63.4         64.3         65.1
WIA Dislocated
                        Retention                    84.2          84.5         84.5         84.6
Workers
                        Earnings                    16,500       $17,343      $17,740      $18,157
                        Placement                    59.3          60.1         60.3         60.6
WIA Youth               Attainment                   62.6          62.5         62.5         62.5
                        Literacy                     47.7          46.6         46.3         45.8
                        Entered Employment           76.6          78.9         79.8         80.6
National Emergency
                        Retention                    89.2          89.5         89.5         89.6
Grants (NEGs)a
                        Earnings                    19,134       $20,084      $20,535      $21,009
                        Entered Employment           51.3          53.0         53.6         54.2
        b
WP ES                   Retention                    78.8          78.9         79.0         79.0
                        Earnings                    14,262       $14,998      $15,343      $15,707
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 2011, the most recently 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 WIA Dislocated Worker were used to set targets for these programs, since
Workforce Investment Board area identifiers were not available for NEG-only records.
(b) These estimates are based on WP ES individual records from Pennsylvania and Texas.
Individual record data for WP ES are not a required collection; however, these data are 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/2013/TEGL_26_12_Att_C.pdf

ATTACHMENT III
   TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE
  WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 2012 AND PY 2013


                                   Annual Report PY 2012      Annual Report PY 2013

        Reporting Item                 Time Period (Exit Cohort) to Be Reported
Total Participants                    7/1/12 to 6/30/13           7/1/13 to 6/30/14
Total Exiters                         4/1/12 to 3/31/13           4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Employer Customer Satisfaction       1/1/12 to 12/31/12          1/1/13 to 12/31/13
Participant Customer Satisfaction    1/1/12 to 12/31/12          1/1/13 to 12/31/13
Adult and Dislocated Worker Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate              10/1/11 to 9/30/12          10/1/12 to 9/30/13
Employment Retention Rate             4/1/11 to 3/31/12           4/1/12 to 3/31/13
Six Months Average Earnings           4/1/11 to 3/31/12           4/1/12 to 3/31/13
Employment and Credential Rate       10/1/11 to 9/30/12          10/1/12 to 9/30/13
Older Youth Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate              10/1/11 to 9/30/12          10/1/12 to 9/30/13
Employment Retention Rate             4/1/11 to 3/31/12           4/1/12 to 3/31/13
Earnings Change                       4/1/11 to 3/31/12           4/1/12 to 3/31/13
Employment and Credential Rate       10/1/11 to 9/30/12          10/1/12 to 9/30/13
Younger Youth Performance Measures
Skill Attainment Rate                 4/1/12 to 3/31/13          4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Youth Diploma or Equivalent Rate      4/1/12 to 3/31/13          4/1/13 to 3/31/14
Retention Rate                        4/1/11 to 3/31/12          4/1/12 to 3/31/13