1. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHN GLENN FOR MR. RAYMOND UHALDE UNDER THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA), LOCAL A) B) WOULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARE PROGRAM MANAGERS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS A) JTPA - Discretion in designing and operating programs is central to a program directed toward training and finding jobs for a diverse population located in over 600 different labor markets nationwide. Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) need sufficient discretion in order to balance local priorities regarding service and client mix and their assessment of local conditions within federally determined program emphases and performance goals and State oversight and incentives policies. Thus, much of the program's success is dependent on an SDA's ability to reconcile and implement multiple and oftentimes conflicting policy priorities within varying local conditions. B) Local program managers are generally supportive of JTPA's performance management system because it provides inducements to run programs that achieve high-quality outcomes, it makes programs accountable to local elected officials and private sector representatives on the Private Industry Council (PIC), and gives managers the opportunity to receive additional program funds through incentive awards. Performance standards also provide state-level program managers with an objective, equitable approach to assessing local program performance, in identifying programs in need of technical assistance for improvement and in making incentive award determinations among those programs worthy of replication and expansion. Finally, because state and local program managers actually participate in developing the performance management system "buy-in" to the system. - it increases the likelihood of 2. WHAT IT SEEMS THAT JTPA'S USE OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IS Flexibility in local programming contributes to more dynamic, innovative approaches to training different groups of participants. The Act acknowledges this necessary diversity in programming by authorizing more than 28 specific activities which programs can support as training. In addition, the statute links federally-funded job training to the local labor market through its private industry councils (PICs) and gives PICs wide discretion in structuring a mix of client services to accommodate the diversity in local labor market conditions. Imposing "rigid guidelines" on JTPA programming implies a certain degree of uniformity among clients, their training needs and labor market opportunities that does not now exist. In addition, more uniform programming implies there are proven training models worth imposing on the system. There is insufficient information in this program to identify the most effective combination of training to be used in serving certain subgroups across varying labor markets. 3. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL ASPECTS OF SERVICE DELIVERY CAN BE A distinction needs to be made between performance management and long-term evaluation or impact studies. For meaningful performance management, including periodic program assessment to overcome identified performance deficiencies and end-of-year assessments for making incentive/sanction determinations, data must be timely and relatively simple to acquire. The decision to use 13 weeks was based on these considerations and on research which indicated that 13 weeks was a reasonable proxy for longerterm employment and earnings experiences. In addition, performance standards can be adjusted to prevent local programs from being penalized for providing skill-intensive training to those who need it such as, school dropouts, individuals with reading skills below the 7th grade, and individuals with limited employment histories. Governors are also permitted to adjust performance standards further to account for innovative or especially intensive program design choices. In that sense, then, there are safeguards built into the system to minimize the "penalties" referred to in the question. Longer-term program impacts of JTPA are being measured through research rather than through the performance standards system. Preliminary findings were recently released on an 18 month study of JTPA in 16 sites. The Department is also pursuing the possibility of using unemployment insurance wage record data to evaluate longer-term employment and earnings experiences of JTPA program terminees. Such longitudinal efforts, however, address different needs than information used for more immediate program management. 4. A) YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT THE INITIAL DESIGN OF JTPA MEASURES A) WHAT DID YOU LEARN FROM THAT EXPERIENCE AS FAR AS THE B) ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT THIS INITIAL PROBLEM HAS BEEN The Department of Labor's goals and emphases for the JTPA program have evolved since its inception to reflect the needs of the eligible population and changes in the labor market. Initially, in a time of high unemployment and a higher skilled eligible population, the legislative goals of increased employment and earnings and program efficiency were expressed in terms of placing high levels of JTPA completers into jobs at the lowest possible costs. While these technically addressed policy goals and the needs of certain segments of the community, they did have the unintended effect of promoting less intensive, lower cost services to a less needy group of participants. More recently, the JTPA community and the Department have recognized the changing character of the labor force and labor market in terms of composition and needs. The emerging labor force is one with limited basic and occupational skills, lacking the credentials required to perform the increasingly technical Occupations in the emerging labor market. Consequently, beginning in Program Year (PY) 1990 the goals for the JTPA program and its performance management system were translated into performance measures which address long-term employability, intensive training, and basic/occupational skills development. Consistent with this approach, the use of cost measures has been eliminated from the performance standards system so as not to constrain the provision of intensive training. B) The Department is planning a comprehensive study of the effects of these changes in performance management goals on such areas as intensity of services and the promotion of skill attainment. Preliminary data demonstrates a positive effect: For adults the average weeks of program participation increased from 19 in PY 1989 to 23 in PY 1990; for youth the increase was from 22 to 26. The percent of youth attaining employment competencies (in the areas of basic skills or occupational skills or preemployment/work maturity skills) increased from 33% in PY 1989 to 43% in PY 1990; of these 17% attained a basic skills 5. IDEALLY, THE FIRST STEP IN DESIGNING PERFORMANCE MEASURES IS Section 106 of JTPA defines the broad objectives of JTPA as increases in employment and earnings and reductions in welfare dependency resulting from participation in the program. Further guidance is offered only in identifying possible performance "factors such as placement and retention in unsubsidized employment. No guidance is given on the specific definition of measures or on data collection and reporting needed to support the performance management system. Since JTPA's inception, then, the Department of Labor has made use of an extensive participatory process in developing performance standards for all of its Titles. With slight variation across Titles, the following approach has been used in establishing and periodically revising performance standards for JTPA programs: A) An advisory group comprised of policy-level representatives from all levels of the JTPA system (States, service delivery areas, private industry councils, client groups, grantees, as appropriate for the particular Title) considers legislative requirements and program experience and offers counsel on goals and emphases for the performance management system. It was the JTPA Advisory Committee convened in 1988 that provided the impetus for the redirection in Title IIA performance standards to measuring long-term employability and skills attainment. B) Once the basic goals and emphases for performance management are identified, the Department establishes technical workgroups comprised of program and technical experts from each level of the system. Workgroups consider specific performance measurement alternatives in terms of how well they describe program accomplishments and the availability of data to set performance goals. Performance measures and reporting options are presented to the Department and published in the Federal Register for public comment. C) To the extent feasible public comments are reconciled and final policy is communicated via directives to the system. In addition to these formal processes, field feedback on all aspects of the performance management system is solicited annually at a series of Performance Standards Training |