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—
- b. State Operating Systems and Policies
The Unified or Combined State Plan must include a description of the State operating systems and policies that will support the implementation of the State strategy described in section II Strategic Elements. This includes—
- b. State Operating Systems and Policies
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. Due to unforeseen circumstances impacting the natural flow of operations, Title II and IV programs have been extended transitional delay in the imposition of sanctions on PY 2020 and 2021 data when available baselines are not sufficient to produce reliable estimates using the Statistical Adjustment Model (RSA-FAQ-22-01 & RSA-TAC-20-02). 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.
Table 25: Previous Assessment Results for WIOA Title I-B Youth
| WIOA Indicator/Measure | PY18 Negotiated | PY18 Actual | PY19 Negotiated | PY19 Actual | PY20 Negotiated | PY20 Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER Q2 | 69.50% | 80.34% | 70.50% | 80.34% | 76.50% | 72.20% |
| ER Q4 | 50.00% | 79.75% | 52.00% | 79.75% | 78% | 77.60% |
| ME Q2 | Baseline | $3,912 | Baseline | $3,912 | $3,991 | $4,274 |
| CAR | 52.00% | 51.04% | 55.00% | 51.04% | 58% | 46.90% |
| MSG | Baseline | 40.22% | Baseline | 40.22% | 50% | 49.60% |
Table 26: Previous Assessment Results for Title I-B Adult Programs
| WIOA Indicator/Measure | PY18 Negotiated | PY18 Actual | PY19 Negotiated | PY19 Actual | PY20 Negotiated | PY20 Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER Q2 | 77.00% | 85.75% | 78.00% | 85.30% | 81.50% | 73.60% |
| ER Q4 | 46.00% | 80.98% | 49.00% | 85.60% | 82.00% | 76.90% |
| ME Q2 | $6,000 | $7,202 | $6,100 | $6,593 | $6,900 | $6,716 |
| CAR | 50.00% | 63.67% | 53.00% | 74.70% | 70.00% | 73.30% |
| MSG | Baseline | 47.23% | Baseline | 30.50% | 50.00% | 64.30% |
Table 27 - Previous Assessment Results for Title I-B Dislocated Worker
| WIOA Indicator/ Measure | PY18 Negotiated | PY18 Actual | PY19 Negotiated | PY19 Actual | PY20 Negotiated | PY20 Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER Q2 | 85.90% | 83.46% | 86.90% | 81.90% | 80.30% | 81.20% |
| ER Q4 | 49.00% | 83.47% | 53.00% | 83.90% | 81.00% | 76.20% |
| ME Q2 | $7,241 | $8,016 | $7,400 | $7,923 | $8,016 | $7,876 |
| CAR | 45.00% | 69.08% | 50.00% | 77.20% | 65.50% | 73.80% |
| MSG | Baseline | 46.29% | Baseline | 22.80% | 50.00% | 61.20% |
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 PY19 (July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020) and PY20.
Table 28: Previous Assessment Results for Title II, Adult Education Programs
| Educational Functioning Level | PY20 Target | PY20 Actual |
|---|---|---|
| ABE Level 1 | 40% | 26% |
| ABE Level 2 | 40% | 28% |
| ABE Level 3 | 43% | 30% |
| ABE Level 4 | 43% | 32% |
| ABE Level 5 | 45% | 26% |
| ABE Level 6 | 15% | 40% |
| ESL Level 1 | 44% | 15% |
| ESL Level 2 | 44% | 22% |
| ESL Level 3 | 41% | 19% |
| ESL Level 4 | 40% | 13% |
| ESL Level 5 | 30% | 17% |
| ESL Level 6 | 20% | 8% |
Measurable Skill Gain Assessment
The overall skill gain rate for Idaho’s CTE programs was 27% for PY20, compared to 36% in PY18. Despite not meeting the PY20 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 25% to 45% among local programs in PY20.
Three related trends emerged in the PY20 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. 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. In addition, region’s employers are accepting applicants with less than a high school diploma or GED, and this contributed to lower outcomes.
- 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. However, this has been reconciled with securing a new Management Information System called LACES. We anticipate data will be more accurate and reliable moving forward.
- Due to COVID, several outreach sites were closed of which a few are beginning to reopen. This situation in conjunction with a large reduction in attendance led to low MSG outcomes. In addition, program sites are continuing to refine curriculum to better align with the TABE assessment and the new CASAS Math Goals.
Table 29: Previous Post-Exit Outcomes for WIOA Title II Adult Education
| WIOA Indicator/Measure | PY19 Negotiated | PY19 Actual | PY20 Negotiated | PY20 Actual |
| ER Q2 | Baseline | 19.39% | 55% | 4% |
| ER Q4 | Baseline | 39.14% | 40% | 21% |
| ME Q2 | Baseline | $4,570 | $4500 | $3900 |
| CAR | Baseline | 28.7% | 35% | 100% |
| MSG | 40.0% | 27.0% | 40% | 27% |
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/Measure | PY18 Negotiated | PY18 Actual | PY19 Negotiated | PY19 Actual | PY20 Negotiated | PY20 Actual |
| ER Q2 | 65.6% | 72.90% | 66.6% | 69.6% | 70.1% | 64.4% |
| ER Q4 | 49.0% | 72.90% | 51.0% | 70.2% | 70.0% | 65.3% |
| ME Q2 | $4,859 | $5,743 | $5,110 | $5,912 | $5,800 | $6,135 |
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. Later, PY20 was also included in this practice. 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/Measure | PY18 Negotiated | PY18 Actual | PY19 Negotiated | PY19 Actual | PY20 Negotiated | PY20 Actual |
| ER Q2 | Baseline | 53.6% | Baseline | 59.3% | Baseline | 58.9% |
| ER Q4 | Baseline | NA | Baseline | 54.6% | Baseline | 57.3% |
| ME Q2 | Baseline | $3,734 | Baseline | $4,055 | Baseline | $4,259 |
| CAR | Baseline | NA | Baseline | NA | Baseline | 40.3 |
| MSG | Baseline | 35.3% | Baseline | NA | 38.5% | 52.6% |
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. SCSEP performance is measured by seven core performance measures, subject to goal setting and corrective action. These performance measures, along with a description of each, are listed below.
1. Service Level: The number of participants who are active on the last day of the reporting period or who exited during the reporting period divided by the number of modified community service positions
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Employment Rate – 2nd Quarter after Exit: The number of participants employed in the second quarter after the exit quarter divided by the number of participants who exited two quarters earlier
5. Employment Rate – 4th Quarter after Exit: The number of participants employed in the fourth quarter after the exit quarter divided by the number of participants who exited four quarters earlier
6. Median Earnings: Of those participants who are employed in the second quarter after the quarter of program exit, the median value of earnings in the second quarter after the exit quarter
7. Effectiveness in serving 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.
Table 32: Previous Assessment Results for the SCSEP Program
| Performance Measure | PY 18 Goal | PY 18 Actual | PY 18 % Met | PY 19 Goal | PY 19 Actual | PY 19 % Met |
| Service Level | 150.0% | 123.3% | 82.2% | 151.3% | 143.2% | 94.6% |
| Community Service | 75.9% | 76.9% | 101.3% | 76.9% | 74.4% | 96.7% |
| Service to Most in Need | 2.90 | 3.11 | 107.2% | 2.90 | 3.35 | 115.5% |
| Employment Rate – Q2 | 33.5% | 19.0% | 56.7% | 31.5% | 21.7% | 68.9% |
| Employment Rate – Q4 | 32.1% | 13.0% | 40.5% | 26.0% | 13.6% | 52.3% |
| Median Earnings | $2792 | $2080 | 74.5% | 2758 | 1734 | 62.9% |
| Employer, Participant, & Host Agency Effectiveness | ||||||
| Employers | 85.8 | N/A | N/A | 85.8 | N/A | N/A |
| Participants | 79.5 | N/A | N/A | 80.5 | N/A | N/A |
| Host Agencies | 79.7 | N/A | N/A | 80.7 | N/A | N/A |
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 PY20 with the newly revised performance measures:
Table 33: Previous Assessment Results for SCSEP Program –WIOA Basis
| Performance Measure | PY 20 Goal | PY 20 Actual | PY 20 % Met |
| Service Level* | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Community Service* | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Service to Most in Need | 2.90 | 3.47 | 119.7% |
| Employment Rate - Q2 | 28.5% | 27.8% | 97.5% |
| Employment Rate - Q4 | 23.5% | 26.3% | 111.9% |
| Median Earnings | $2735 | $3656 | 133.7% |
| Employers | 85.8% | N/A | N/A |
| Participants | 80.5% | N/A | N/A |
| Host Agencies | 80.7% | N/A | N/A |
*Because of the pandemic, USDOL determined that Service Level and Community Service measures would not be tracked due to host agency shutdowns.
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, positions may get modified. The assessment results above show that the performance measures for “Service Level” and “Community Service” were not taken into account due to the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic had on SCSEP participation.
The employment rate after 2nd quarter measure did not meet the project goal of 28.5% (actual: 27.8%); however, the employment rate after 4th quarter (goal: 23.5%) was exceeded (actual: 26.3%).
The median earnings goal (goal: $2735) for PY 20 was exceeded (actual: $3656). ICOA’s subrecipient, Easterseals-Goodwill, will continue working with participants in searching for and securing employment that compensates adequately to maintain this goal.
The service to most in need performance measure (goal: 2.90) exceeded the PY goal (actual: 3.47). 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. FY19 measures October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019, while FY20 and FY21 would measure the same period the following years.
Table 34: Previous Assessment Results for TAA Program
| Measure | FY19 Actual | FY20 Actual | FY21 Actual |
| ER Q2 | 83.7% | 73.7% | 81.8% |
| ER Q4 | 86.7% | 82.9% | 68.8% |
| ME Q2 | $9,738 | $9,629 | $8,527 |
| CAR | 80.0% | 84.0% | 78.1% |
| MSG | 18.9% | 24.2% | 61.7% |
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 2020 – U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) is $56,310 while the mean wage in Idaho for the same period is $46,800. Increasing wages for the Idaho workforce is definitely a priority and directly corresponds to expanding services to rural communities.
Veterans’ Employment
VETS did not initially require states to report on all five WIOA measures since it did not collect all the data necessary to complete reporting on each measure. However, since then, it began data collection for all five which are shown in the table below. This now mirrors reporting for most WIOA Title I-B and TAA programs.
Table 35: Previous Assessment Results for VETS Program
| Measure | PY19 Goals | PY19 ID Results | PY20 Goals | PY20 ID Results |
| ER Q2 | 64.0% | 65.9% | 63.0% | 63.4% |
| ER Q4 | 62.0% | 56.2% | 61.0% | 63.8% |
| ME Q2 | $6,500 | $6,067 | $5,500 | $5,308 |
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 Year | First Payments within 14 days | Rank |
| FY 2013 | 90.5% | 9th |
| FY 2014 | 87.2% | 24th |
| FY 2015 | 96.5% | 2nd |
| FY 2016 | 96.5% | 1st |
| FY 2017 | 97.1% | 2nd |
| FY 2018 | 96.9% | 2nd |
| FY 2019 | 97.1% | 3rd |
| FY 2020 | 66.3% | 42nd |
| FY 2021 | 65.7% | 20th |
Table 37: Previous Assessment Results for Unemployment Insurance-Nonmonetary Determinations within 21 Days
| Fiscal Year | Determinations within 21 days | Rank |
| FY 2013 | 69.8% | 28th |
| FY 2014 | 68.5% | 35th |
| FY 2015 | 75.4% | 35th |
| FY 2016 | 79.4% | 28th |
| FY 2017 | 80.6% | 24th |
| FY 2018 | 79.7% | 30th |
| FY 2019 | 78.7% | 33rd |
| FY 2020 | 77.0% | 15th |
| FY 2021 | 72.1% | 6th |
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 ten UI navigators located in the Comprehensive One Stop Centers.