Performance Goal Negotiation for SCSEP Grantees February 28, 2011

2 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Presenters Presenters:  Phil Hostetter, SCSEP National Office  Bennett Pudlin, The Charter Oak Group Moderator:  Kathleen Dorcy, M.H. West & Company

3 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation  Part I: Familiarize grantees with the goal negotiation process  Part II: Equip grantees to negotiate reductions in goals Additional information will be provided to grantees in early May when proposed goals are developed.Objectives

4 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Goal Negotiation Part I: The Goal Negotiation Process

5 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationSchedule  Early May: baseline performance for current year and proposed goals for next year are distributed  Late May–early June: Negotiations for grantees that dispute their proposed goals  June 30: Final goals are published and incorporated into grants for the new year  October 30: Formal evaluation of grantee performance compared to final goals

6 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Negotiation Process  If you accept the proposed goals, you don’t need to do anything!  If you wish to negotiate one or more goals, you must: –Notify Phil and Dana Graham by the specified deadline (end of May) –Indicate which goals you want to negotiate –Propose 3 negotiation times (from a list we will send you) in order of preference

7 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Negotiation Process  All requested changes must be supported by data –We love SCSEP anecdotes – but unfortunately they won’t help you much in the negotiation process!  You must send us any data you want considered at least 48 hours before your negotiation session  During the negotiation session, there will be no discussion of the methodology used to derive the goals

8 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Additional Data  Proposed goals already consider unemployment, poverty, and welfare recipiency at the state level for 2010  Grantees can argue that statewide data are not relevant because their slots are clustered in counties with higher rates –For sub-state data, the key is to show the data by county, and to show the number of authorized slots in each county –Use the Excel spreadsheet handout for this

9 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Additional Data  Grantees can also offer more recent data if the first quarter of 2011 looks different from 2010  The “Data Resources” handout lists data sources for sub-state and more recent data

10 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Additional Data  Grantees can make any arguments they think are relevant in support of a reduction, but they must support the arguments with data! –Ex: Grantee has twice as many participants as the nationwide average living in rural areas where there are few host agencies or employment prospects and no public transportation, and 65% of its slots are in rural counties  We can only provide adjustment if the factor affects a substantial portion of the slots

11 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Final Goals  No goals are adjusted until all negotiations are complete  Although no purely mechanical formula can be applied, every effort is made to treat all grantees equally in assessing information provided during negotiations  Adjustments are approved by DOL leadership before final goals are published

12 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationEvaluation  The Department is required to use goals to do an end-of-year performance evaluation  Grantees that fail to achieve their goals for a year are subject to corrective action  Grantees that fail to meet 80% of their aggregate goals for 3 consecutive years (4 consecutive years for national grantees) will be sanctioned

13 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationEvaluation  The Department is required to publish the final goals and the annual performance evaluation for each grantee  If you have any comments on the negotiation process, send them to us and we will publish your comments along with the final negotiated goals

14 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Goal Negotiation Part II: How to Negotiate a Reduction in Goals

15 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Proposed Goals Grantee’s baseline performance (Q3 PY 2010 projected to end of year) adjusted for –Unemployment, poverty, welfare –Barriers to employment –State minimum wage SCSEP’s nationwide performance and GPRA goals Continuous improvement For those below the nationwide average, ½ the difference between their baseline and the nationwide average

16 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationBaselines  Common Measures and Most-in-Need –Q3 performance with floor and cap –Grantees with fewer than 20 in Average Earnings  Service Level and Community Service Measure –PY 2009 and PY 2010 data not directly usable due to extra funding –May need to use historical SCSEP data

17 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Bad Data  Grantees with poor data quality get the nationwide average instead of their own baseline –The threshold for good data has been a rejection rate of about 2.0% or less –Nationwide rejection rate for PY 2009 was 0.14%

18 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationAdjustments  Statute contains five adjustment factors  Three of these adjustment factors are used in determining the proposed goals at the state level

19 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationAdjustments 1. Unemployment, poverty, and welfare –Based on the latest annual federal rates for unemployment, poverty, and welfare –Any grantees with a rate one standard deviation or more above the national average in any of the three gets a one point reduction in the three Common Measures –Maximum total adjustment is 3 points

20 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationAdjustments 2. Barriers to employment - Consists of the most-in-need measure plus the percentage of participants without a high school diploma points are deducted from the Common Measures for any grantee above one standard deviation on the most-in-need measure and 0.5 points for any grantee above one standard deviation for high school degree. - Maximum total adjustment is 3 points Maximum total adjustment for Common Measures is 5 points

21 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationAdjustments 3. State minimum wages - Factored in through the use of modified positions in the calculation of service level and the community service measure

22 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationAdjustments Grantees can offer data on two other factors during the negotiations, -Downturns in the economy not already considered (e.g., the results of plant closings, oil spills, or major weather events) -Limited economies of scale

23 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Special Adjustments  In last two years, we have made across- the board reductions in the Common Measures goals because of the recession  No way to know whether those will occur this year until we see the baseline analysis  Same is true for the interim adjustments of the current PY 2010 goals

24 SCSEP: Goal NegotiationNegotiation Grantees can offer sub-state data on any of the adjustment factors where only state data have been considered –Ex: Statewide unemployment rate is not high enough for adjustment, but grantee has 70% of its slots in counties where the unemployment rate meets the standard; for 40% of the slots, the rate substantially exceeds the standard  Grantees can also offer more recent data if the first quarter of 2011 looks different from 2010

25 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation Data Sources  Handout lists reliable sources for data  If presenting sub-state data, use the latest annual data available. In many cases, that will mean a 3 or 5 year average  Use spreadsheet to report data by county  If offering more recent data, use first quarter of 2011  Use official sources and document them  When in doubt, ask Phil!

26 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation How to Win  You can make any argument you think supports a reduction in goals, but without data, you are not likely to be successful  Data must establish that your situation: –Is substantially different from the nationwide –Not already factored into the proposed goals  If you don’t use the spreadsheet to present the data, it is difficult or impossible to determine if an adjustment is warranted

27 SCSEP: Goal Negotiation