Integrated Performance Information (IPI) Project Mike Switzer Workforce Florida, Inc. Jay Pfeiffer Florida Department of Education

IPI Project Supported by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor Florida, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Washington National Governors Association Center for Best Practices; Ray Marshall Center, University of Texas

IPI Project National meetings of policy and technical teams from 6 states representing: Governors’ Offices State and Local Workforce Investment Boards State Workforce Agencies Community and Technical Colleges Secondary Career and Technical Education Vocational Rehabilitation TANF Adult Education and Family Literacy

IPI Project Consensus Process State Institutes – 10 More States End Product: A Blueprint Guide to States on Creating Integrated Performance Information The IPI Blueprint will address: Benefits of Integrated Performance Information Challenges and State Responses Integrated Performance Measures Performance Targets and Consequences Integrated Information Systems

The Question What are the best performance measures for workforce development if the same measures are applied horizontally and vertically within the system, including programs that are funded mostly by the states and programs that are funded mostly by Congress? Policy not Management Level Measures

Workforce Development System Secondary Career and Technical Education Postsecondary Career and Technical Education The Employment Service, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title III WIA Title I-B Adult Education and Family Literacy, WIA Title II Vocational Rehabilitation, WIA Title IV Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Work Program Apprenticeship Other Programs

Benefits of Integrated Performance Information Accountability to Policy Makers Strategic Planning and Coordination Efficiency Research

Relation to OMB Common Measures Builds consistency across state as well as federal workforce programs States play a leading role Process includes cross-section of major programs

What Do Policy Makers Want to Know About Performance? * Results for Employers and the Economy What are the impacts of workforce development programs on the economy? Are the programs meeting the needs of employers? * Labor Market Results for Program Participants Do people get jobs? Do the jobs last? What are they paid? * Participant Satisfaction To what extent are participants satisfied?

What Do Policy Makers Want to Know About Performance? * Social Welfare Results for Program Participants What are the changes in the receipt of TANF? Food Stamps? Medicaid? UI? What are the changes in poverty rates? * Skill Gains To what extent do education levels increase? * Return on Investment What do programs cost? What is the return on the investment?

What Makes for a Good Performance Measure? Measures Outcomes not Process Promotes Desired Results Easily Explainable to a Lay Audience Level Playing Field Among Programs and Service Strategies Meaningful for Each Program Scaleable and Divisible Timely

What Makes for a Good Performance Measure? Methodologically Sound Not Easily “Gamed” Inexpensive Comprehensive and Complementary There is no perfect set of performance measures.

IPI Draft Performance Measures Labor Market Results for Program Participants 1. Short-term Employment Rate: The percentage of participants who have exited with employment during the second quarter after exit. Number of exiters with any earnings during the second quarter after exit* _____________________________ Total number of exiters * For youth, the numerator includes exiters enrolled in education or with any earnings.

IPI Draft Performance Measures Labor Market Results for Program Participants 2. Long-term Employment Rate: The percentage of participants who have exited with employment during the fourth quarter after exit. Number of exiters with any earnings during the fourth quarter after exit* _____________________________ Total number of exiters * For youth, the numerator includes exiters enrolled in education or with any earnings.

IPI Draft Performance Measure Labor Market Results for Program Participants 3. Earnings Level: Median earnings during the second quarter after exit among all exiters with any earnings. (For youth, individuals enrolled in education should be excluded from the measure.) Nesting measures: By Subpopulations of Participants, By Service, and by Distribution of Earnings.

IPI Draft Performance Measures Participant Satisfaction Not recommended as an accountability measure Social Welfare Results for Program Participants Recommend as net impact measure, and as nesting measures. Gross outcomes determined by changes in eligibility.

IPI Draft Performance Measures Skill Gains 4. Credential Completion Rate: The percentage of exiters who have completed a certificate, degree, diploma, licensure, or other industry- recognized credential within one year of exit. Number of exiters who have completed a credential within one year of exit _______________________________ Total number of exiters

IPI Draft Performance Measures IPI Draft Performance Measures Results for Employers and the Economy 5. Repeat Employer Customers: The percentage of employers who are served, directly or indirectly, who return for the same service. Number of employers who receive the same service again within a year of the initial service quarter _________________________________________ Total number of employers who receive a service during a quarter Nesting Measures: By Sector, By Service

IPI Draft Performance Measures IPI Draft Performance Measures Results for Employers and the Economy 6. Employer Market Penetration: The percentage of all employers who benefit from the services. Number of employers served either directly or indirectly _______________________ Total number of employers Nesting Measures: By Sector, By Service

IPI Draft Performance Measures Return on Investment 7. Taxpayer Return on Investment: The net impact on tax revenue and social-welfare payments compared to the cost of the services. Estimated net impact on tax revenue and social-welfare payments to 67 years of age __________________________________ Cost of the services

IPI Draft Performance Measures Return on Investment 8. Participant Return on Investment: The net impact on participant earnings compared to the cost of the services. Estimated net impact on participant earnings to 67 years of age ____________________________ Cost of the services

NEXT STEPS Continuing to present to national, state and local stakeholders, inviting input. Will finalize draft by end of February Developing PR info for interest groups, Congressional Committees, etc. Will provide TA/Peer help to states interested in testing proposed measures and/or building data warehouse.