2012 WIA and Wagner-Peyser performance goals

Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2012/TEGL_38_11_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                     June 18, 2012


ADVISORY:        TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 38-11

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)
                 2012

1. Purpose. To inform states of the guidelines for negotiating WIA Title 1B program
performance and customer satisfaction goals and performance levels for Wagner-Peyser Act
funded activities for PY 2012. These performance goals, once agreed upon between the State
and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), 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 February 2009;
   •   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. 21-11, Requirements for 2012
       State Workforce Plans;
   •   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 29-10                                            Continuing
TEGL 29-10, Change 1

   •   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; and
   •   TEGL No. 11-01, and 11-01 Change 1, Guidance on Revising Workforce Investment Act
       State Negotiated Levels of Performance.

3. Background. The intent of this guidance is to clarify the performance measures for which
States will be held accountable in PY 2012, provide an outline of the negotiations process, and
provide 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 severely contract in 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor (Department)
developed a regression model that explicitly took into account changes in labor market
conditions when setting the national GPRA targets, holding constant the characteristics of the
participants being served. This model was subsequently applied to the common performance
measures at the State and local level for use in their negotiations of performance goals with ETA.
The model is to be utilized as a tool to assist State and local areas negotiate State and local
performance targets for the common measures. The regression targets should be utilized as a
starting point when negotiating performance goals for PY 2012.

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.

As with previous negotiations, States must establish PY 2012 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 new State Plans, the option to extend previous years’ goals
without a negotiation process is not available for PY 2012. All States must negotiate their PY
2012 performance goals in accordance with the guidance contained herein. The regression
adjusted performance targets for all states and local areas are 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 2012 negotiations. (See section 10 for further discussion about the regression adjusted
targets.)

The State Plan guidance for PY 2012 describes the options States have for the date of their State
Plan submission (see TEGL 21-11,
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/tegl_21_11_acc.pdf). If a State submitted its full
State Plan by April 16, 2012, then the proposed performance levels for PY 2012 were also due to


the appropriate Regional Administrator no later than April 16, 2012. If a State requested, and
was approved for, a temporary extension of its PY 2011 State Plan into PY 2012, then the State
may also temporarily extend its PY 2011 performance goals. States must submit their proposed
PY 2012 performance goals at the time of the full State Plan submission. The deadline for the
extended submission timeline is no later than September 17, 2012, as outlined in TEGL 21-11.
With regard to the extended timeline, States that submit their full State Plans after April 16, 2012
will operate under the PY 2011 performance goals until the final performance goals for PY 2012
have been negotiated and agreed upon, which must be no later than December 31, 2012. Once
PY 2012 performance goals have been negotiated and agreed upon, they will be implemented
retroactively to July 1, 2012.

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 2012 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.

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 the common 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.


                                       Applicable Performance Measures
                     WIA Measures                                        Common Measures                   Wagner-
                                                                                                            Peyser
              Dislocated                       Customer                     Dislocated                     Measures
  Adult        Worker          Youth          Satisfaction       Adult       Worker          Youth        (All States)
  Entered       Entered      Older Youth      Participant      Entered       Entered      Placement in      Entered
Employment    Employment       Entered         American      Employment    Employment     Employment      Employment
   Rate          Rate        Employment        Customer         Rate          Rate        or Education    Rate for Total
                                Rate          Satisfaction                                                   Exiters
                                                 Index
Employment    Employment     Older Youth       Employer      Employment    Employment     Attainment of    Employment
 Retention     Retention     Employment        American       Retention     Retention      a Degree or    Retention Rate
   Rate          Rate       Retention Rate     Customer         Rate          Rate         Certificate      for Total
                                              Satisfaction                                                   Exiters
                                                 Index
Employment    Employment     Older Youth                     Average Six    Average Six   Literacy and    Average Six
    and           and       Credential Rate                   Months          Months       Numeracy         Months
 Credential    Credential                                     Earnings       Earnings        Gains        Earnings for
   Rate          Rate                                                                                     Total Exiters


Average Six   Average Six    Older Youth
 Months         Months        Earnings
 Earnings      Earnings        Change


                    WIA Measures                                       Common Measures                     Wagner-
              Dislocated                       Customer                   Dislocated                        Peyser
  Adult        Worker      Youth              Satisfaction       Adult     Worker      Youth               Measures
                                                                                                          (All States)
                            Younger Youth
                                Skill
                             Attainment
                            Younger Youth
                             Diploma or
                             Equivalent
                                Rate
                            Younger Youth
                            Retention Rate


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); 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); and,


  •   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 2012. However, when considering performance measures in the incentive
awards and sanctions 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 February 2009 (http://www.doleta.gov/performance/guidance/WIA/ET-
        406-Handbook-Expiration-022809_tookout%20on%20mar-16-07.pdf).

States should also be aware that the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) will
issue separate guidance on negotiating PY 2012 veterans’ performance targets with State
workforce agencies. This negotiation of specific levels of performance for veterans includes: 1)
performance targets for veterans served by One-Stop 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, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and out-
of-school youth. 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 takes
these factors into account 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 2012.
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 scholarly 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 or, “the
extent to which performance levels involved, promote continuous improvement in performance
on the performance measures by state workforce agencies ensure optimal return on investment
for Federal funds.” Continuous improvement should be considered in all aspects of the
negotiations process. Utilizing the tools available for negotiation of state performance goals,
such as the regression model targets, GPRA goals, and previous year’s results, provide an
informational foundation from which expected performance can be agreed upon, but 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 30, 2012, for those states that
have submitted their full State Plan by April 16, 2012, and no later than December 31, 2012 for
those States that request and are approved for an extension on the submission date of their State
Plans as explained in greater detail in TEGL 21-11.

Prior to proposing levels of performance for the applicable performance measures to the
appropriate Regional Administrator to begin the negotiations process, as discussed further in Part
B of this section (and Attachment I and II), 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 their proposed levels of performance:


         I. Past performance. States should use historical, annual performance information (PY
            2006-2010) to determine projected levels of performance for PY 2012. 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 six 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 III, 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 IV 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 a given variable on the different measures
against which the state will be negotiating levels for PY 2012 (and including in their WIA
Annual Report submissions for PY 2012).

   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 and II):


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 2012 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%). If a State
   submitted its full State Plan by April 16, 2012, then the State submitted its proposed
   performance levels to the appropriate Regional Administrator April 16, 2012. If a
   State requested and was approved for a temporary extension of its PY 2011 plan for
   a portion of PY 2012, then the State must submit its proposed performance goals at
   the time of full plan submission. Full State Plans must be submitted by September
   17, 2012, as outlined in TEGL 21-11 section 10. However, Regional Offices will
   work with States to begin the negotiations process in parallel with the planning
   process in order to ensure that final levels are agreed upon by June 30, 2012, for
   States that have submitted their full State Plans by April 16, 2012 or, where the PY
   2011 plans have been extended, by that time in which the full State Plans have been
   accepted and approved, to be completed no later than December 31, 2012.

   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. The Regional Administrator will utilize the regression adjusted
    targets as a tool in determining a lower bound, or floor, 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.

       III. 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 by April 16, 2012, unless the State has requested a temporary extension of
its PY 2011 State Plan for a portion of PY 2012. If the State has an approved extension of the
State Plan submission, then the State must submit its proposed levels with their full State Plan no
later than September 17, 2012. States must submit the proposed performance levels with their
State Plan. 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.

In accordance with the new State planning guidance as identified in TEGL 21-11, in cases where
final agreement on performance goals has not been reached until after the State Plan has been
approved, the Regional Administrator’s letter advising the 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 2012 negotiations process. 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 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 floor upon which to build from 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 2013 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 Standard Negotiations Process
       Attachment II:         Recommended Timeline for the Extended Negotiations Process
       Attachment III:        WIA and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service Performance Goal
                              Levels Established for the Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget
                              Justification and the Government Performance and Results Act
       Attachment IV:         Time Periods for Reporting Performance Information in the WIA
                              Annual Report for PY 2011 to PY 2012

Attachment 1: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2012/TEGL_38_11_Att1.pdf

ATTACHMENT I
     RECOMMENDED TIMELINE FOR A FULL STATE PLAN SUBMISSION BY
               APRIL 16, 2012 NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS

          Date                                            Action

                          Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Regional Offices
March - April 2012        provided technical assistance on strategic planning as requested by
                          State, including procedures for negotiating performance goals.

No later than April 16,   States formally submitted State Plans to ETA, including the
2012                      proposed or final performance goals.

                          Regional Offices review States’ proposed performance goals and
May and June 2012
                          work with States to arrive at mutually agreed upon goals.

                          Regional Administrators send approval letter to States regarding the
                          final performance goals.
June 30, 2012
                          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, 2012
                          be considered for that program year’s incentive grants (additional
                          criteria must be met also).

                          State may renegotiate their performance goals through the end of the
                          third quarter. States renegotiating their goals after the end of the
March 31, 2013
                          second quarter will not meet that eligibility criterion for that
                          program year’s Workforce Investment Act incentive grants.

Attachment 2: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2012/TEGL_38_11_Att2.pdf

ATTACHMENT II
   RECOMMENDED TIMELINE FOR THE FULL STATE PLAN SUBMISSION BY
            SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS


         Date                                             Action

                          Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Regional Offices
                          provided technical assistance on strategic planning as requested by
March - April 2012        State, including procedures for negotiating performance goals.
                          States submitted a request to extend their current State Plan,
                          waivers, and performance goals.

No later than September   States formally submit State Plans to ETA, including the proposed
17, 2012                  or final performance goals.

May through December      Regional Offices review States’ proposed performance goals and
2012                      work with States to arrive at mutually agreed upon goals.

                          Regional Administrators send approval letter to States regarding the
July through December     final performance goals.
2012
                          ETA incorporates final performance goals into State Plans.


                          States must notify their Regional Offices by the end of the second
December 31, 2012         quarter if they plan to renegotiate their performance goals and still
                          be considered for that program year’s incentive grants (additional
                          criteria must be met also).

                          State may renegotiate their performance goals through the end of the
                          third quarter. States renegotiating their goals after the end of the
March 31, 2013
                          second quarter will not meet that eligibility criterion for that
                          program year’s Workforce Investment Act incentive grants.

Attachment 3: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2012/TEGL_38_11_Att3.pdf

ATTACHMENT III
 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) AND WAGNER-PEYSER EMPLOYMENT
SERVICE (WP ES) PERFORMANCE GOALS ESTABLISHED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
   2013 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND THE GOVERNMENT
                   PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

                                                    Results              TARGETS
     Program                  Measure
                                                     2010         2012       2013        2014
                        Entered Employment            55.2        56.7       57.1        57.9
WIA Adults              Retention                     80.0        80.1       80.1        80.1
                        Earnings                    13,801       14,450     14,765      15,086
                        Entered Employment            57.3        58.6       58.9        59.6
WIA Dislocated
                        Retention                     81.9        82.0       82.0        82.1
Workers
                        Earnings                    17,550       18,346     18,737      19,136
                        Placement                     59.0        59.7       59.9        60.2
WIA Youth               Attainment                    59.5        59.6       59.7        59.7
                        Literacy                      41.5        40.8       40.7        40.4
                        Entered Employment            69.4        70.7       71.0        71.7
National Emergency
                        Retention                     83.8        83.9       83.9        84.0
Grants (NEGs)a
                        Earnings                    17,155       17,935     18,318      18,709
                        Entered Employment            48.4        49.9       50.3        51.0
        b
WP ES                   Retention                     78.0        78.1       78.1        78.1
                        Earnings                    13,884       14,510     14,818      15,133
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 2010, 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 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 4: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2012/TEGL_38_11_Att4.pdf

ATTACHMENT IV
   TIME PERIODS FOR REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE
  WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT ANNUAL REPORT FOR PY 2011 AND PY 2012


                                   Annual Report PY 2011      Annual Report PY 2012

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