U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.


Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Located in:
  • III. Operational Planning Elements

    The Unified or Combined State Plan must include an Operational Planning Elements section that supports the State’s strategy and the system-wide vision described in Section II(c) above.  Unless otherwise noted, all Operational Planning Elements apply to Combined State Plan partner programs included in the plan as well as to core programs.  This section must include—

III. b. 4. C. Previous Assessment Results

Beginning with the state plan modification in 2018 and for subsequent state plans and state plan modifications, provide the results of assessments of the effectiveness of the core programs and other one-stop partner programs and Combined State Plan partner programs included in the Unified or Combined State plan during the preceding 2-year period (i.e. the 2-year period of the plan modification cycle).  Describe how the State is adapting its strategies based on these assessments.

Current Narrative:

The following assessment results reflect the actual performance of Idaho’s workforce programs at the program level. The performance of each program is directly affected by, and thus reflects, the opportunities, barriers, strengths, and weaknesses identified in the analysis in Section (II) of this plan. As a result, these strategies are based on the factors that currently affect program performance. Therefore, implementing the strategies identified in Section (II) should inherently lead to improved performance outcomes.

For example, attracting and retaining qualified program staff should lead to higher levels of participation, retention, and outcomes for participants. Expanding services to rural communities may initially decrease certain aspects of program performance, as individuals in these communities have a higher likelihood of facing multiple barriers to employment and education. However, over the long-term, this strategy should improve outcomes as these communities build the capacity to support their residents through continued economic growth.

For Program Year (PY) 2016-2019 plans, certain primary indicators of performance were designated as “baseline” indicators to ensure an orderly transition from the requirements of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to those under WIOA. As a result, “baseline” indicators were not used to adjust year-end of performance levels nor were they used to determine failure to meet performance levels. The federal agencies designated indicators as “baseline” based on the likelihood of a State having insufficient data with which to make a reasonable determination of an expected level of performance.

The Primary Indicators of Performance for all programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act are:

1.   Percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment (and/or education or training, for Title I-B Youth) during the second quarter after exit. (Employment Rate – ER Q2)

2.   Percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment (and/or education or training, for Title I-B Youth) during the fourth quarter after exit. (Employment Rate – ER Q4)

3.   Median earnings of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after exit from the program. (Median Earnings - ME Q2)

4.   Percentage of program participants who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, or a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent during participation in or within 1 year after exit from the program. (Credential Attainment Rate – CAR)

5.   Percentage of program participants in an education or training program that led to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment and achieved a measurable skill gain, noting progress towards such a credential or employment. (Measurable Skill Gain – MSG)

Title I-B - Youth, Adult, Dislocated Worker

The performance reports for the previous three program years for each of the youth, adult and dislocated worker programs are included in the three tables that follow.

Youth Program - The WIOA Youth program transitioned to 100% out-of-school youth in PY2015, which is a much harder population to serve. As a result, its performance results have dropped from its WIA period of performance. Idaho hopes to recalibrate the baseline for serving youth under WIOA.

Table 25: Previous Assessment Results for WIOA Title I-B Youth

WIOA Indicator/MeasurePY16 NegotiatedPY16 ActualPY17 NegotiatedPY17 ActualPY18 NegotiatedPY18  Actual
ER Q273.10%NA75.10%74.90%69.50%80.34%
ER Q473.10%NA75.10%77.1%050.00%79.75%
ME Q2BaselineNABaselineNABaseline$3,912

Table 26: Previous Assessment Results for Title I-B Adult Programs

WIOA Indicator/MeasurePY16 NegotiatedPY16 ActualPY17 NegotiatedPY17 ActualPY18 NegotiatedPY18 Actual
ER Q281.50%NA83.50%80.80%77.00%85.75%
ER Q468.30%NA70.30%82.90%46.00%80.98%
ME Q2$5,225NA$5,425NA$6,000$7,202

Table 27 - Previous Assessment Results for Title I-B Dislocated Worker

WIOA Indicator/ MeasurePY16 NegotiatedPY16 ActualPY17 NegotiatedPY17 ActualPY18 NegotiatedPY18 Actual
ER Q281.80%NA83.80%82.40%85.90%83.46%
ER Q471.90%NA73.90%83.30%49.00%83.47%
ME Q2$6,433NA$6,633NA$7,241$8,016

Title II - Adult Education and Family Literacy

The Agency administering Title II Program (Idaho Career &Technical Education) is required to negotiate performance targets with the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education at the US Department of Education each year. The table below shows the target and actual performance for Program Year PY16 (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017), PY17 and PY18.

Table 28: Previous Assessment Results for Title II, Adult Education Programs

Educational Functioning LevelPY16 TargetPY16 ActualPY17 TargetPY17 ActualPY18 TargetPY18 Actual
ABE Level 151%36%36%44%41%36%
ABE Level 250%39%39%46%44%38%
ABE Level 344%39%39%41%44%38%
ABE Level 440%39%39%43%45%42%
ABE Level 533%44%44%46%49%44%
ABE Level 6NA15%15%19%20%15%
ESL Level 148%40%40%43%45%39%
ESL Level 255%47%47%42%53%46%
ESL Level 355%45%45%34%51%33%
ESL Level 445%37%37%27%42%25%
ESL Level 534%34%34%32%39%25%
ESL Level 620%17%17%13%20%20%

Measurable Skill Gain Assessment

The overall skill gain rate for Idaho’s CTE programs was 36% for PY18, compared to 38.59% in PY17. Despite not meeting the PY18 Educational Functioning Level (EFL) performance goals, Idaho’s Adult Education programs have identified trends and performance improvement solutions to address the MSG rate. The overall rate for measurable skill gain varied from 32% to 45% among local programs in PY18.

Three related trends emerged in the PY18 Annual Reports which may help identify some causes of low MSG performance:

  • The continued low unemployment rate in Idaho continues to be a challenge for retaining adult education students. Idaho just marked two years of an unemployment rate below three percent. Additionally, Adult Education students are balancing classes, childcare, personal, and professional responsibilities. The opportunity cost of attending classes is particularly challenging for many adult education students, as students have significant financial burdens of providing for their families’ immediate needs. 
  • The challenge of adapting to a new assessment was a significant factor for many of the program sites. Program sites are continuing to refine curriculum to better align with the TABE assessment.
  • The limitations of our current statewide database (Idaho Management & Accountability System) has meant program sites are unable to investigate their data in a meaningful way to determine underlying reasons behind the MSG drop. It is challenging for sites to be able to make data-informed programming decisions and changes due to the database’s limitations and low data quality.

For those programs whose performance was unusually low (compared to prior years), the State required a Program Improvement Plan, which was implemented in the winter 2016-2017.

Post-Exit Outcomes

The post exit targets were not included in Idaho’s PY17 and PY18 reporting requirements, as the data submitted will be used as a baseline for future negotiations. Title II actual performance for PY17 and PY18 post-exit outcomes are described in the following table.

Table 29: Previous Post-Exit Outcomes for WIOA Title II Adult Education

WIOA Indicator/MeasurePY17 NegotiatedPY17 ActualPY18 NegotiatedPY18 Actual
ER Q2NA55.69%NA60%
ER Q4NA57.43%NA39%
ME Q2NA$4,219NA$4,656

Title III - Wagner-Peyser

The performance reports for the previous program years for the Wagner-Peyser program are included below. Under the Workforce Investment Act, Title III programs are considered to have met the performance goals if the actual results are within 80% of the negotiated goal. Idaho’s performance results indicate a very high quality Wagner-Peyser program. Wagner-Peyser is currently not required to include CAR and MSG as active program measures.

Table 30: Previous Assessment Results for WIOA Title III, Wagner Peyser Program

WIOA Indicator/MeasurePY16 NegotiatedPY16 ActualPY17 NegotiatedPY17 ActualPY18 NegotiatedPY18 Actual
ER Q258.1%NA60.1%73.10%65.60%72.90%
ER Q467.6%NA69.6%73.40%49.00%72.90%
ME Q2$4,545NA$4,745$5,592$4,859$5,743

Title IV - Vocational Rehabilitation

Title IV Vocational Rehabilitation programs are using a phased-in approach to set levels of performance for all primary performance indicators under this Combined State Plan. RSA-TAC-18-01 released January 18, 2018 provided guidance on the requirements for these indicators for PYs 2018 and 2019, noting that the same required levels of performance for PYs 2016 and 2017 be used. The level of performance for PYs 2016 and 2017 were baseline therefore baseline levels of performance will continue to be collected for PYs 2018 and 2019 to be used in establishing initial levels of performance for future negotiation. As a result, not all results are being reported for the Primary Indicators of Performance listed: Data on Measurable Skill Gains are now coming online, and this preliminary baseline is reported in table 31 below Title IV programs anticipate negotiation of the MSG target for the first time next year, with other 116 primary performance indicators coming online before the next state plan.  Title IV programs have provided emerging results for ER Q2 and ME Q2. 

Table 31: Previous Assessment Results for WIOA Title IV VR Programs

WIOA Indicator/MeasurePY16 NegotiatedPY16 ActualPY17 NegotiatedPY17 ActualPY18 NegotiatedPY18 Actual

OAA Title V - Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)

Performance level goals for each core indicator are agreed upon by USDOL and the grantee before the start of each program year (PY). USDOL evaluates the goals and performance of each grantee annually, making both available for public review. Prior to 2018, SCSEP was previously measured by six core performance measures, subject to goal setting and corrective action. These performance measures, along with a description of each, are listed below.

  • Community Service: The total number of hours of community service provided by participants divided by the number of hours of community service funded by the grant.
  • Entered Employment: The number of participants who are employed divided by the number of participants who exit.
  • Employment Retention: The number of participants who are employed divided by the number of participants who exit.
  • Average Earnings: Total earnings in the second and third quarters after exit; divided by the number of employed participants who exited.
  • Service Level: Total number of participants served divided by a grantee’s authorized number of positions.
  • Service Most in Need: Average number of employment barriers per participant. Barriers include having a severe disability; frail; age 75 or older; meet the eligibility requirements related to age for, but do not receive, benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); live in an area with persistent unemployment; have limited English proficiency; have low literacy skills; reside in a rural area; veteran; have low employment prospects; have failed to find employment after using services through the American Job Center system; or are homeless or at risk for homelessness.

Table 32: Previous Assessment Results for the SCSEP Program

Performance MeasurePY 16 GoalPY 16 ActualPY 16 %  MetPY 17 GoalPY 17 ActualPY 17 % Met
Community Service80.0 %N/AN/A80.0%79.3%99.1%
Entered Employment46.1%39.1%84.8%46.2%5.6%12.1%
Employment Retention73.0%36.4%49.972.1%50.0%69.3%
Average Earnings759710001131.6%8711396545.5%
Service Level175.0%N/AN/A175.0%137.2%78.4%
Service Most in Need2.802.7497.9%2.752.7198.5%

The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration adopted as a final rule, without change, the interim final rule (IFR) published by the Department in the December 1, 2017 Federal Register. The IFR revised performance accountability measures for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). The Older Americans Act (OAA) Reauthorization Act of 2016 amended the measures of performance for the SCSEP program in large part to align them with the performance measures mandated for programs under WIOA (listed earlier) and required implementation, including through regulation by December 31, 2017. Below are the core performance measures for PY18 with the newly revised performance measures:

Table 33: Previous Assessment Results for SCSEP Program –WIOA Basis

Performance MeasurePY 18 GoalPY 18 ActualPY 18 %  Met
Service Level150.0%123.3%82.2%
Community Service75.9%76.9%101.3%
Service to Most in Need2.903.11107.2%
ER Q233.5%19.0%56.7%
ER Q432.1%13.0%40.5%
ME Q2$2792$208074.5%
Employer, Participant, & Host Agency Effectiveness   
Host Agencies79.7%N/AN/A

SCSEP Strategies to Improve Performance Measures

Community service and Service Level: The U.S. Department of Labor determines every year how many positions will be available for the SCSEP on a national and state level. After negotiations and or funding changes, sometimes positions will get modified. The assessment results above show that the modified positions were changed in the middle of the third quarter of PY 2016 to reflect the awards made to national grantees by the 2016 competition and changes to Equitable Distribution based on the latest Census data. Fields in the Quarterly Performance Reports cannot be accurately reported for the third and fourth quarters of PY 2016 or for the final end-of-year QPR for PY 2016.

The employment rate (after 2nd and 4th quarters) measure did not meet project goals (56.7% and 40.5%, respectively). ICOA is working on making program improvements with a new subrecipient, Easterseals-Goodwill, in order to ensure that employment rate goals are met.

The employment retention measure increased from 36.4% to 50% under the previous subrecipient. With the new subrecipient and newly revised core performance measures in place, consistent follow up with exited participants will be emphasized in order to ensure that employment retention goals are met. The individual employment plan (IEP) of every participant that Easterseals-Goodwill is tailored to ensure that employment after SCSEP is plausible and aligned with the participants’ long term goals.

The average earnings goal for PY 17 were not met at 45.5%. With the new performance measure of median earnings for PY 18, the goal was not met at 74.5%. The new subrecipient, Easterseals-Goodwill, will work with participants in searching for and securing employment that compensates adequately to maintain this goal.

The most in need performance measure increased from 2.71% to 3.11% average employment barriers per participant. As positions open Easterseals-Goodwill will prioritize participants with barriers to employment first. Easterseals-Goodwill will also ensure that priority of service is given to veterans and ensure positions are filled in rural areas where employment opportunities are limited.

SCSEP Customer Satisfaction Surveys – American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) for employers, participants, and host agencies: Customer satisfaction surveys for the SCSEP are distributed to all parties in involved in SCSEP efforts (i.e., employers, participants, and host agencies). Easterseals-Goodwill and ICOA are communicating the purpose of the survey to respondents and ensuring that they are being completed appropriately and mailed back on time.

Trade Adjustment Assistance

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program does not have state negotiated performance measures. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program previously reported two sets of measures - those defined by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act (aligned with WIOA under TAARA 2015) and Common Measures. USDOL only established TAA program goals under Common Measures and not, however, for the TAA measures. The program now reports solely under the first three WIOA primary indicators of performance listed at the beginning of this section.

For FY18, Idaho well exceeded the national results for entered employment rates, which was slightly lower in the previous fiscal year.  TAA performance measure period is based on federal fiscal year (FY), which ranges from October through September. FY17 measures October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017, while FY18 would measure the same period the following year.

Table 34: Previous Assessment Results for TAA Program 


Idaho Results

National Results

Idaho Results

National Results
ER Q274.8%74.8%84.6%76.6%
ER Q449.3%74.0%83.5%75.2%
ME Q2$7,022$8,039$7,827$8,892

It should be noted when comparing Idaho’s wages to the nation’s there is a significant difference between the wage markets. The annual mean wage in the United States for all occupations (May 2018 – U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) is $51,960 while the wage in Idaho for the same period is $43,480. Increasing wages for the Idaho workforce is definitely a priority and directly corresponds to expanding services to rural communities.

Veterans’ Employment

As noted in the State’s PY2018 Modification, USDOL did not require performance measures for states implementing Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) programs. It was estimated new program performance measures would be in place for PY 2018. USDOL resumed quarterly reporting for the program, with the first reports to be submitted in November of 2018.  Previously, the program had had established thirteen performance measures, (similar to those under WIA) which focus on the effectiveness of the services delivered to veterans, noting the two distinct sets of services: the Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs) and Disabled Veterans Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs). However, like many other programs, VETS now only requires states to address the first three primary indicators of performance under WIOA.  Because of the implementation of this recent change and lack of data, the state has only last year’s data to present. 

Table 35: Previous Assessment Results for VETS Program



ID Results


ID Results (Q1)
ER Q263.0%65.9%64.0%66.7%
ER Q461.0%56.2%62.0%58.1%
ME Q2$5,400$6,067$6,500$5,963

Unemployment Insurance

The Unemployment Insurance program has approximately 30 reports that reflect various aspects of the program performance. However in the context of the One-Stop service delivery system, the Unemployment Insurance program will be assessed by evaluating its performance in service delivery to claimants. The cores measure for services to claimants in the UI program are: “All First Payments 14/21-day Timeliness” and “Nonmonetary Determinations 21-day Timeliness.” These performance measures reveal the timeliness of processing and paying UI claimants’ claims.

The standard for first unemployment insurance payments made within 14 days is 87%. Idaho not only exceeds the standard, but ranks among the highest in the nation in its percent.

A second core measure is the timeliness of nonmonetary determinations. A nonmonetary determination is a written notice to the worker and other interested parties which advises of the worker’s eligibility with respect to acts or circumstances which are potentially disqualifying. The standard for these decisions to be made is 80% within 21 days. Idaho does not currently meet the standard of 80% but continues to work on methods to improve non-mon timeliness including training, monitoring individual performance and process improvement.

Table 36: Previous Assessment Results for Unemployment Insurance-First Payments within 14 Days

Fiscal YearFirst Payments within 14 daysRank
FY 201390.5%9th
FY 201487.2%24th
FY 201596.5%2nd
FY 201696.5%1st
FY 201797.1%2nd
FY 201896.9%2nd
FY 201997.1%3rd

Table 37: Previous Assessment Results for Unemployment Insurance-Nonmonetary Determinations within 21 Days

Fiscal YearDeterminations within 21 daysRank
FY 201369.8%28th
FY 201468.5%35th
FY 201575.4%35th
FY 201679.4%28th
FY 201780.6%24th
FY 201879.7%30th
FY 201978.7%33rd

Approximately six years ago, the state modified its unemployment insurance program service delivery strategy. Piloting a change in FY 2014, Idaho centralized its unemployment insurance processing. The results of this change showed cost savings, but also resulted in the standardization of procedures, improved individual performance and policy consistency. The cost savings has been invested in technology towards the development and modification of a new unemployment insurance system.

The centralization strategy also produced improved staff outcomes through consistent training, leading to higher quality levels of service to claimants throughout the state, including those in rural areas.  While most customers file online claims, claims are also taken over the phone for those that request it.  There are also six UI navigators located in the Comprehensive One Stop Centers.