Negotiating 2011 WIA performance goals

Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2011/TEGL29-10ACC.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                   June 1, 2011



ADVISORY:        TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 29-10

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 (PY) 2011

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 PY 2011. 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 Notice No. 8-10 Workforce Investment Act Self—Service
       Participant Reporting - What, Where and How.
     Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 23-09, Negotiating
       Performance Goals for the Workforce Investment Act, Title 1B Programs and Wagner-
       Peyser Act Funded Activities for Program Year 2010.
     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 and 17-05 Change 2, Common Measures Policy for the Employment and
       Training Administration’s (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related
       Performance Issues.
     TEGL No. 11-01, Guidance on Revising Workforce Investment Act State Negotiated Levels
       of Performance.




  RESCISSIONS                                          EXPIRATION DATE
  TEGL 23-09                                           Continuing
3. Background. The intent of this guidance is to clarify the performance measures for
which states will be held accountable in PY 2011, 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. Additional information is available on ETA’s performance website at
http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/negotiating.cfm.

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 (OMB) evaluate the success of Federal programs, including those
operated by states and localities. Furthermore, 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 U.S. Department of Labor
to develop a regression model that adjusts performance levels to be utilized as a starting
point for negotiating performance targets in PY 2011.

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 2010. 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
8(C) of this guidance).

As was the case for the last round of negotiations, states will be required to establish PY
2011 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 2010, of extending their current goals. States may
extend their negotiated PY 2010 goals into PY 2011 or they may negotiate new goals for PY
2011. States that choose either option (extending PY 2010 negotiated goals or negotiating
new goals for PY 2011) must notify their appropriate Regional Administrator no later than
May 31, 2011.

The primary difference between the PY 2010 negotiations process and the current PY 2011
process involves the utilization of the regression model as it relates to the negotiation
process. In a departure from PY 2010, the regression adjusted performance targets for all
states (not just the pilot states) will be provided to each Regional Administrator for his/her
use in negations with each state. In the PY 2010 negotiation process, regression adjusted
targets were made available to the eight pilot states and it was possible for these states to
adopt the regression adjusted targets directly without undergoing negotiations. This is no
longer an option as states must engage in negotiations, as required under WIA. However,
a state and ETA may agree to accept the regression adjusted targets, in which case, the
negotiation has taken place. The Regional Administrators will be the recipients of the
regression adjusted performance targets for each state in PY 2011.

                                            - 2 -
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 percent 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 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 90.0 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 percent happens to be exactly 72 percent; 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)). The reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
      2006 (Perkins IV) removed the requirement that funds be reserved to carry out
      section 503 of the WIA which only referenced P.L. 105-332 (Perkins III); thus, DOL


                                            - 3 -
      and ED no longer consider States’ performance levels under Perkins IV in
      determining eligibility for incentive grants under Section 503 of WIA;

     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.

6. WIA Incentive Grant Eligibility. For both the WIA Title 1B programs and the Wagner-
Peyser Act programs, there are two levels in measuring performance for Incentive
Awards: 1) the individual measure, which must exceed 90 percent; and, 2) the average for
that cluster, which must exceed 100 percent for states to be considered eligible for an
incentive. In addition, states must have submitted specified quarterly (ETA form 9090)
and annual reports (ETA 9091) by their due dates. 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 grant.

7. Applicable Performance Measures for the PY 2011 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
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 common performance
measures only, and have 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
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.




                                            - 4 -
                                    Applicable Performance Measures
                                                                                                                Wagner-
                     WIA Measures                                          Common Measures
                                                                                                                Peyser
               Dislocated                     Customer                        Dislocated                      Measures (All
  Adult         Worker           Youth       Satisfaction       Adult          Worker            Youth          States)

                               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

                               Older Youth    Employer
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


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/WIAAnnualReportSpecific
       ations.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,
                                                        - 5 -
       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/WIAAnnualReportSpecific
       ations.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 required 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 2011. 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).

States also should be aware that the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS)
will be issuing separate guidance on negotiating PY 2011 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.

8. 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.



                                           - 6 -
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 provided 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 2011. 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 this into
account when proposing performance levels for the Youth goals since serving a greater
percentage of the neediest youth may impact outcomes. States that are serving a greater
percentage of the neediest youth should provide data that shows how outcomes are
impacted by serving this population.

Efforts to expand services to at-risk populations are consistent with the 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 that may face significant barriers (such as
veterans, older workers, individuals with disabilities, migrant or seasonal farm workers,
                                           - 7 -
Indian and Native Americans, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 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 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
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,
2011.

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 C 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 to
      inform projected levels of performance for PY 2011. Recent quarterly performance
      results also should be used to inform the performance path the state is following.
      The Wagner-Peyser-funded activities began reporting against the common
      performance measures in PY 2005 and now have five 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. However, it is recognized that pre-PY 2009
      performance levels may not be as applicable in the current economic environment,
      as labor market conditions remain depressed.

      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,
                                          - 8 -
      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 PY 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 OMB
      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 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
      must have exited program services to be included in the different performance
      measures. This attachment will assist states in their analysis of the impact of a
      given variable on the different measures against which the state will be negotiating
      levels for PY 2011 (and including in their WIA Annual Report submissions for PY
      2011).

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 2011 by submitting these
      proposed levels to the Regional Administrator serving the state. Proposed
      performance levels should be stated to a tenth of a percent (XX.X%) and must be
      submitted to the appropriate Regional Administrator no later than May 31, 2011;
      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, 2011.

      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
                                            - 9 -
      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.

      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.

9. Inclusion of Performance Goals in State Plans. States are required to submit proposed
levels of performance to their Regional Administrator no later than May 31, 2011. 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.


                                          - 10 -
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 website 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 will use the regression-based
performance levels as a tool in the negotiations process with all states in the PY 2011
negotiation process. The Regional Administrators will receive the regression-based targets
for the states in their region and will use them as a tool in negotiations with the states. In a
similar manner, states are encouraged to utilize the regression-based performance levels as
a tool to aid their negotiations with their local areas. Previous experience with the
regression model pilot project has demonstrated that the regression-based performance
levels would best serve the goal setting process as an additional tool for use in the
negotiation process. Regional Administrators as well as the states are in no way precisely
bound to the regression-adjusted targets. Rather, the targets should serve as a starting
point or reference tool for use in negotiating PY 2011 performance targets. As such, the
state and local area regression-adjusted performance targets will be distributed through
the Regional Offices.

This TEGL also provides the WIA and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service Program
GPRA goals. These goals support the FY 2012 Congressional Budget Justification, and
were developed using a national regression model. The national GPRA goals are to 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 the second quarter (December 31,
2001) eliminates that state from being eligible to receive WIA incentive grants. 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
                                            - 11 -
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. 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.

13. Inquiries. Questions concerning this guidance may be directed to the appropriate
regional office.

14. Attachments.

      Attachment I:       Recommended Timeline for the Negotiation Process
      Attachment II:      Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Employment
                          Service Performance Goal Levels Established for the Fiscal Year
                          (FY) 2012 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 2010 to PY 2011




                                         - 12 -

Official attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2011/TEGL29-10ATT-A.pdf

                           ATTACHMENT I
         RECOMMENDED TIMELINE FOR THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS

            Date                                Action
                          ETA regional offices provide technical assistance on
March 2011                 strategic planning as requested by state, including
                           procedures for negotiating performance goals

April 30, 2011            States formally submit state plans to ETA


No later than
                          States send proposed performance levels to regional offices
May 31, 2011
                          Regional offices review states’ proposed performance
May 2011                   levels and work with states to arrive at mutually agreed
                           upon levels

June 2011                 Negotiation continues if necessary

                          Regional Administrators send approval letter to states
June 30, 2011              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, 2011
                           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, 2012
                           after the end of the second quarter are not eligible for
                           that Program Year’s WIA incentive funds.




                                   - 1 -

Official attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2011/TEGL29-10ATT-B.pdf

                                 ATTACHMENT II

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT AND WAGNER-PEYSER EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
 PERFORMANCE GOAL LEVELS ESTABLISHED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012
     CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND THE GOVERNMENT
                 PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

                                                        Results              TARGETS
       Program                  Measure
                                                          2009         2011     2012       2013
                          Entered Employment              54.0         53.1     53.7       54.6
  WIA Adults              Retention                       77.7         73.1     73.7       75.0
                          Earnings                       13,712       12,865   13,178     13,701
                          Entered Employment              51.0         49.7     50.6       51.9
  WIA Dislocated
                          Retention                       79.7         78.0     78.3       78.7
  Workers
                          Earnings                       16,804       15,418   15,840     16,567
                          Placement                       53.7         53.3     53.6       54.0
  WIA Youth               Attainment                      52.9         54.7     53.4       51.4
                          Literacy                        38.1         40.4     39.7       38.6
                          Entered Employment              62.5         61.0     62.0       63.6
  National Emergency
                          Retention                       78.5         77.1     77.5       78.1
  Grants (NEGs)a
                          Earnings                       14,118       12,953   13,308     13,919
  Wagner-Peyser           Entered  Employment             47.8         46.6     47.4       48.7
  Employment              Retention                       75.2         70.6     71.0       72.0
          b
  Service                 Earnings                       12,798       12,602   12,824     13,159
  Targets were set based on the estimated effect of unemployment rates on program performance
  outcomes and OMB’s assumptions about future unemployment rates and the Consumer Price
  Index-Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The base for setting performance targets is the performance
  results for PY 2009, 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 WIA Dislocated Worker were used to set targets for these programs, since
  Workforce Investment Board area Identifications Numbers were not available for National
  Emergency Grants-only records.
  (b) These estimates are based on Wagner-Peyser Employment Service (WPES) individual
  records from Pennsylvania and Texas. Individual record data for WPES are not a required
  collection; however, this data is collected in these two states through Workforce Investment
  Standardized Performance Reporting System.




                                          - 2 -

Official attachment PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2011/TEGL29-10ATT-C.pdf

                                ATTACHMENT III

    TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE
              WIA ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 2010 AND PY 2011



                                  Annual Report PY 2010       Annual Report PY 2011

        Reporting Item                 Time Period (Exit Cohort) to Be Reported
Total Participants                        7/1/10 to 6/30/11           7/1/11 to 6/30/12
Total Exiters                             4/1/10 to 3/31/11           4/1/11 to 3/31/12
Employer Customer Satisfaction           1/1/10 to 12/31/10          1/1/11 to 12/31/11
Participant Customer Satisfaction        1/1/10 to 12/31/10          1/1/11 to 12/31/11
Adult and Dislocated Worker Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate                  10/1/09 to 9/30/10          10/1/10 to 9/30/11
Employment Retention Rate                 4/1/09 to 3/31/10           4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Six Months Average Earnings               4/1/09 to 3/31/10           4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Employment and Credential Rate           10/1/09 to 9/30/10          10/1/10 to 9/30/11
Older Youth Performance Measures
Entered Employment Rate                  10/1/09 to 9/30/10          10/1/10 to 9/30/11
Employment Retention Rate                 4/1/09 to 3/31/10           4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Earnings Change                           4/1/09 to 3/31/10           4/1/10 to 3/31/11
Employment and Credential Rate           10/1/09 to 9/30/10          10/1/10 to 9/30/11
Younger Youth Performance Measures
Skill Attainment Rate                     4/1/10 to 3/31/11           4/1/11 to 3/31/12
Youth Diploma or Equivalent Rate          4/1/10 to 3/31/11           4/1/11 to 3/31/12
Retention Rate                            4/1/09 to 3/31/10           4/1/10 to 3/31/11




                                       - 3 -