Workforce

Employer-educator partnerships are an effective strategy for integrating educational instruction and workforce development that benefits employers, today's workers, and workers of tomorrow. By working together, employers and educators can help employers meet their workforce need and ensure that adult education and career and technical education are truly job-driven. Employer-educator partnerships can:

• Increase foundation skills development within the workplace.
• Foster new skills development and internal job promotion.
• Provide stepping stones for low-wage, entry-level workers to more productive employment.
• Link education/training and workforce development to labor market trends and needs.

This website introduces employers and educators to the value of partnering; describes best practices and success stories; disseminates evidence-based tools for building and sustaining partnerships and creating career pathways.

In the workforce field, participants’ choices or behaviors that harm their ability to be successful in school or work are often attributed to a lack of soft skills, motivation, or work ethic. While individual responsibility cannot be ignored, the unique circumstances and context of poverty and other cognitive biases can contribute to an individual’s actions. Behavioral economics and psychology research point toward some interventions that workforce development practitioners can use to address some of the barriers presented by poverty and human biases. These strategies, which may help unleash individuals’ potential and strengths, include the following:

• Providing decision-making, goal-setting, and planning supports
• Removing hassles and using channel factors
• Using reminders
• Using public and private commitments
• Using default options or prompted choices
• Categorizing or grouping choices
• Providing appropriate anchor or reference points
• Framing choices around gains and loss
• Providing early rewards
• Priming positive identities
• Using social proof and social influence
• Providing communications, workshops, or tutorials on the brain and learning

Other features of the report include:

• “In Focus” examples provide insight into how some of the strategies have been put into practice
• a four-step process for testing interventions and strategies
• recommendations for the workforce development system to consider in light of what is being learned from economics and psychology
• guidance on what interventions may be appropriate in specific circumstances (Appendix A)

The new high school equivalency tests ask adults to perform at a level of critical thinking that they may not have been introduced to in their earlier education. This kind of thinking means that a person is able to look at the details and see the big picture or look at the big picture and pick out the relevant details for a given situation. This kind of thinking requires keeping track of the WHOLE (the main idea) and the PARTS (the details) at the same time, while considering the relationships between them. While part-whole critical thinking is important in all academic areas and in problem-solving on the job, it is especially central to math success. Earlier institution-sponsored research revealed that about 20% of students in community college basic math and pre-algebra programs lacked a sense of part-whole relationships with whole numbers. Using the same tool with a group of 86 workforce students, about 75% placed five whole numbers on an empty number line in a way that indicated lack of part-whole thinking. This concept, needed to understand fraction and percent relationships, carries over as a grasp of the relationship between details and the main idea in factual prose, in critical thinking in job situations, and on the current high school equivalency tests. Assessing learners for their understanding of the part-whole concept allows teachers to help students strengthen either their understanding of the part-whole concept or their applied skills.

The Revised Career Pathways Toolkit: A Guide for System Development features Six Key Elements of Career Pathways that help to guide local and state teams through the essential components necessary for developing a comprehensive career pathways system. The components under each element are not sequential and may occur in any order. Likewise, multiple partners can engage in the components simultaneously to carry out the mission of the career pathways system. The six elements are:

1. Build cross-agency partnerships and clarify roles
2. Identify industry sectors and engage employers
3. Design education and training programs
4. Identify funding needs and sources
5. Align policies and programs
6. Measure system change and performance

The Joyce Foundation extended Shifting Gears funding from 2012 – 2014 (referred to as SG 3.0) in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. These states had committed to expanding adult education bridge programs to increase the number of students transitioning into postsecondary education. Such bridge programs are designed to link and integrate basic academic skills with postsecondary occupational credit-based learning in key industry sectors. These bridge programs typically involve contextualized curriculum and instruction, career development, and enhanced student services and supports. Often they are directly connected with additional postsecondary courses as part of a career pathway that leads to postsecondary credentials and degrees. The Foundation also committed to evaluate the progress of these three states in order to document the expansion of adult education bridge programs and the increased number of participants served. A key aspect of this evaluation was to learn how state systems scale adult education bridges, and to identify key factors that enabled or hindered progress toward scale. This report examines the progress made in each state from 2012 – 2014, and also briefly reviews how the Shifting Gears work influenced the national discourse on increasing skills and credentials for adult learners. The evaluation reached five primary findings: • Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin doubled the total number of their bridge programs from 79 to 196 between SG 2.0 to SG 3.0. This growth includes expanding adult basic education bridge programs to more adult education providers and more community and technical college campuses. • Each state effectively institutionalized its adult education bridge program as an ongoing option to address the educational and skill needs of low-skilled adult learners. Altogether, the number of participants served more than doubled, from 4,000 during SG 2.0 to 10,345 during SG 3.0. • In two of the three states (Minnesota and Wisconsin), important policy changes expanded financial resources available for adult education bridges, and created the foundation for further advancing adult education bridges. These changes included reallocating current resources as well as new state funding dedicated to sustaining the expansion of bridge programs. Minnesota now has an $11.2 million allocated fund for career pathway and bridge programs in the biennium budget and Wisconsin has a $4 million annual fund to support these same program approaches. • Scale was not achieved during this period in terms of serving many or most of the low-skilled adults who might benefit from bridge programs. Altogether during SG 3.0 the three states served less than five percent of the adult learners in need. States grew their programs opportunistically rather than setting intentional goals and strategies around scaling. • The work of Shifting Gears positively influenced the national discourse on workforce development. The goal of helping adult learners increase their skills and earn credentials is now widely embraced in the workforce field and can be found as a core principle in the recently reauthorized federal workforce development legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Overall, after eight years of investment, the evaluation concludes that the Shifting Gears initiative made demonstrable progress in three Midwestern states in terms of expanding adult education bridges and serving low-skilled adults effectively. In addition, research conducted by Minnesota and Wisconsin suggests that Bridge program students transitioned to college and earned postsecondary credentials at a higher rate than students in traditional adult basic education programs. Furthermore, the focus on career pathways and aligning state adult basic education, workforce, and community and technical college systems influenced national and local thinking on workforce development across the country. In doing so, Shifting Gears contributed to a better understanding of the importance of addressing the educational and skill needs of low-skilled adults, the strategies and actions necessary to do so, and the challenges in sustaining and scaling efforts to achieve significant impact.

This two-part webinar provides stakeholders with a better understanding of the performance accountability provisions in section 116 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the accompanying regulation. Part 1 reviewed WIOA's performance accountability reporting requirements. Part 2 reviewed state and grantee performance reporting. The presentation (PowerPoint) is available as well as transcripts for Part 1 and Part 2 (MS Word). An outline of both webinars are provided below. PART 1 WIOA Vision

• The workforce system will be characterized by three critical hallmarks of excellence:
  • The needs of business and workers drive workforce solutions;
  • One-Stop Centers (or American Job Centers) provide excellent customer service to jobseekers and employers and focus on continuous improvement; and
  • The workforce system supports strong regional economies and plays an active role in community and workforce development.
• Across the system, continuous improvement is supported through evaluation, accountability, identification of best practices, and data driven decision making.

Themes of WIOA

• Career Pathways
• Employer engagement
• Work-based learning
• Sector strategies
• Partnerships
• Integrated Service Delivery
• Data Systems
• Performance measurement

Performance Accountability Provisions and Reporting Requirements

• WIOA Performance Regulations were published jointly by the Department of Labor and Department of Education. The three rules are identical.
  • 20 CFR part 677
  • 34 CFR part 361
  • 34 CFR part 463
  • See Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 161
• WIOA Information Collection Requests
  • Joint Requirements (OMB No. 1205-0526)
    • Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL) for jointly used data elements (ETA-9170)
    • Annual Report template for states and local areas (ETA-9169)
    • Reporting cohorts for each indicator
    • Eligible Training Provider data element definitions (ETA-9171) – Title I only
    • Effectiveness in Serving Employers specifications
  • DOL Reporting Requirements (OMB No. 1205-0521)
    • Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL) for ALL data elements to be reported to DOL (ETA-9172)
    • Quarterly Report template (ETA-9173)
    • Pay-for-Performance Report template (ETA-9174)
  • RSA Reporting Requirements
    • RSA-911 Case Service Report (OMB No. 1820-0508)
  • AEFLA Reporting Requirements
    • WIOA Annual Statewide Performance Report template
    • AEFLA NRS Reporting Tables (OMB No. 1830-0027) – includes AEFLA tables, Narrative Report, Financial Report, and Data Quality Checklist
    • Reports are available at:
      • ETA Performance Reporting (Department of Labor)
      • National Reporting System (Department of Education, OCTAE)

Primary Indicators of Performance

• Employment Rate 2nd Quarter after Exit (Education/Employment for youth)
• Employment Rate 4th Quarter after Exit (Education/Employment for youth)
• Median Earnings in the 2^nd Quarter after Exit
• Credential Attainment Rate
• 5 Types of Measurable Skills Gains
  • Secondary diploma/equivalent
  • Secondary of post-secondary transcript
  • Educational funding level gain
  • Progress toward milestones
  • Passing technical/occupational knowledge based exam
• Effectiveness in Serving Employers (states choose 2)
  • Retention with the same employer in the 2nd and 4th quarters after exit
  • Employer Penetration Rate
  • Repeat Business Customer Rate

PART 2 State and Grantee Performance Reporting

• Required Reports
  • WIOA State Annual Performance Report
  • WIOA Local Area Performance Report (Title I programs)
  • Submission of individual records (PIRL for Titles I and III; RSA-911 for Title IV); submission of NRS aggregate tables for Title II
  • NRS data quality checklist for Title II
  • Eligible Training Provider Reports (Title I programs)
  • DOL Narrative Report; Title II Narrative Report
• Reporting Timeframes
  • Quarterly reports are due 45 days after the end of the quarter
  • Annual reports are due October 15
  • The annual and quarterly report templates can be found at ETA Performance Reporting
• Data Availability
  • Program Year 2017 is the first year of full WIOA data
• Workforce Integrated Performance System (DOL)
  • Will allow states/grantees to submit an individual record file OR support case management systems
  • Uniform quarterly/annual reports will be automatically generated
• DOL-Only PIRL
  • • The Joint PIRL (ETA 9170) contains 76 data elements common to ED and DOL WIOA core programs
    • States will NOT submit individual records using the Joint PIRL (ETA-9170)
  • States will collect and report data as required by the DOL specific PIRL ETA-9172 (DOL-only PIRL)
• RSA Data Reporting
• RSA-911
  • States will collect and report data as required by the RSA-911 (OMB No. 1820-0508)
    • The RSA-911 contains 393 data elements, including the common elements found in the Joint PIRL.
• AEFLA-NRS
  • The AEFLA-only NRS reporting tables (OMB No. 1830-0027) collect aggregate data and contain common data elements found in the Joint PIRL.
• Period of Participation
  • Date of Program Entry (PIRL element 900), tracks the Date of Program Entry by requiring the initial service delivery date.
• Negotiations – WIOA requires 4 elements to be considered during performance level negotiations
  • How the levels involved compare with the adjusted levels of performance established for other states
  • An objective statistical adjustment model
  • The extent to which the levels involved promote continuous improvement
  • The extent to which the levels involved will assist the state in meeting goals established in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act
• Statistical Adjustment Model
  • The Departments have developed a fixed effect model to estimate State level performance outcomes.
  • A summary of the model is in Attachment II of TEGL 26-15
• Sanctions
  • Financial sanctions based on performance failure will be applied to states if, for 2 consecutive years, the state fails to meet:
    • 90 percent of the overall State program score for the same core program;
    • 90 percent of the overall State indicator score for the same primary indicator; or
    • 50 percent of the same indicator score for the same program.
• Failure to report the WIOA State annual report and/or state ETP report may also lead to financial sanction
• Determination of sanctions will be “phased in,” based on data availability
• Performance Guidance Review

RESOURCES

• Employment and Training Administration
  • For questions regarding performance reporting, contact the Office of Policy Development and Research at ETAperforms@dol.gov
  • The Performance and Results Web Site will assist you in understanding how performance is measured, reported, and evaluated at ETA.
  • The WIOA Resource Page provides information and resources for States, local areas, non-profits and other grantees, and other stakeholders to assist with implementation of the Act.
• Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education
  • For questions related to WIOA implementation, email AskAEFLA@ed.gov
  • OCTAE's WIOA webpage has information on: announcements; laws and guidance; information collection requests; state plan resources; resources, technical assistance and events; and WIOA partners.
• Rehabilitation Services Administration
  • Each state has a state liaison that can answer questions about the Rehabilitation Act and WIOA.

Industries in every state are struggling to find qualified applicants for jobs, while job seekers too often find they lack the skills needed to enter or progress along a career pathway. Preparing a workforce that is poised to meet the needs of businesses and ultimately to make the state more economically competitive is a top priority for many governors. State Strategies to Scale Quality Work-Based Learning highlights strategies governors can implement to increase opportunities for high-quality, demand-driven work-based learning and prepare their citizens for the modern workforce. With the support of their states’ talent pipeline partners, Governors can take a variety of concrete steps to scale high-quality work-based learning experiences:

• Elevate the state vision for high-quality work- based learning;
• Implement state-led pilots of high-quality work- based learning programs and plan to evaluate and expand them;
• Build an infrastructure to support talent pipeline partners’ e orts to scale the programs;
• Provide incentives for industry to launch and continue sponsoring the programs; and
• Provide incentives for educational institutions to integrate work-based learning into the education system and support students who participate.

Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Services (FNS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training (SNAP E&T) is a federal program that supports employment and training activities and related supportive services to help SNAP participants advance to self-sufficiency. The brief presents an examination of the initial impact, if any, on States’ SNAP E&T programs of the passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the opportunity it afforded States to develop new plans for their public workforce systems that align programs such as SNAP E&T with WIOA-supported core programs. It reviews State workforce plans that include SNAP E&T as a partner program. It also presents as a case study the approach of Tennessee, a state that has taken important steps to better align its growing SNAP E&T program with WIOA, both at a strategic and an operational level. Finally, the brief discusses the policies relevant to the alignment of WIOA and SNAP E&T as well as suggestions for integrating these programs in a way that is beneficial to the expansion of job-driven SNAP E&T programs.