Discusses key steps for states to create integrated performance information, recommends eight accountability measures and performance indicators under WIA, and discusses how states may link those measures and other system indicators through a data warehouse.  This is a historical WIA document.

“This is a guide for states interested in creating or further developing integrated performance information for workforce development programs. Integrated performance information reports performance results consistently across programs, across levels (from institutions to local areas to states), or for programs as a system….

This Blueprint discusses each of the steps involved [in creating or further developing integrated performance information]: establishing authority, building a culture of shared accountability and trust, generating capacity, crafting performance measures, setting and using targets, as well as, creating and maintaining a shared information system….

There are many advantages to states having integrated performance information. They include increased accountability, improved strategic planning, better research, more efficient use of resources, and a sense of shared-responsibility among workforce development programs” (p.i).

“The Blueprint was produced through the joint efforts of six states (Florida, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington)….Washington State's Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board (Washington Workforce Board)…convened policy and technical teams from each of the six states” (p.ii).

“The Blueprint consists of the following sections:

Part I: Challenges and Responses….examines some of the major challenges and choices that some states have made to address them. The section discusses: (1) establishing authority for integrated performance information, (2) creating a culture of shared accountability, (3) building capacity-including funding and addressing privacy issues, and (4) reaching consensus on goals and measures” (p.ii-iii).

“Part II: IPI Performance Measures….summarizes the discussion and recommendations of the six states' teams” (p.iii).

“Part III: Shared Information Systems….discusses the steps and decisions involved in establishing a ‘data warehouse’ that links administrative records from multiple programs with other data sets containing outcome information, such as unemployment insurance wage records” (p.v).

Conclusion.

(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

Major Findings & Recommendations

“[M]ost money for…programs [that encompass the workforce system] comes from the states….Given this funding arrangement, it is logical that states exercise leadership in devising integrated performance information across workforce development programs” (p.ii). The authors recommended the following accountability measures: “1. Short-term Employment Rate: The percentage of participants who are employed during the second quarter after exit” (p.iii). “2. Long-term Employment Rate: The percentage of participants who are employed during the fourth quarter after exit” (p.iii). “3. Earnings Level: Median earnings during the 2nd quarter after exit among all exiters with earnings. 4. Credential Completion Rate: The percentage of exiters who have completed a certificate, degree, diploma, licensure, or industry-recognized credential during participation or within one year of exit. 5. Repeat Employer Customers: The percentage of employers who are served who return to the same program for service within one year” (p.iii-iv). They also recommended performance indicators which, while indicators of how well the workforce system is doing, do not satisfy the criteria necessary to establish targets and consequences: “6. Employer Market Penetration: The percentage of all employers who are served during one year. 7. Taxpayer Return on Investment: The net impact on tax revenue and social welfare payments compared to the cost of the services. 8. Participant Return on Investment: The net impact on participant earnings and employer-provided benefits compared to the cost of the services” (p.iv). “A major barrier to integrated performance information is the absence of a shared or integrated information system for workforce development in most states” (p.v). In response, states can develop a data warehouse, which is built on top of existing Management Information Systems (MISs), and “is a longer-term repository where data are cleaned and matched in order to analyze and report performance outcomes and to conduct research. Creating a data warehouse requires states to make decisions regarding: authorization; leadership; funding; scope; data ownership, confidentiality, and access; information flows; reporting; and quality assurance, among other issues” (p.v). “Electronically linking records from multiple programs with files containing outcome data will facilitate the implementation of common measures and reporting…performance information” (p.v). (Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)