Integrated Performance Information IPI Project

1
Integrated Performance Information (IPI) Project

• Mike Switzer
• Workforce Florida, Inc.
• mswitzer_at_workforceflorida.com
• Jay Pfeiffer
• Florida Department of Education
• Jay.pfeiffer_at_fldoe.org

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Benefits of Integrated Performance Information

• Accountability to Policy Makers
• Strategic Planning and Coordination
• Efficiency
• Research

8
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

9
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?

10
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?

11
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

12
What Makes for a Good Performance Measure?

• Methodologically Sound
• Not Easily Gamed
• Inexpensive
• Comprehensive and Complementary
• There is no perfect set of performance measures.

13
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresLabor 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.

14
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresLabor 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.

15
IPI Draft Performance MeasureLabor 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.
16
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.

17
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresSkill 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

18
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresResults 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

19
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresResults 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

20
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresReturn 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

21
IPI Draft Performance MeasuresReturn 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

22
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.