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. B. Previous Assessment Results
For each four-year state plan and state plan modification, 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), in accordance with methods described in 4(A). Describe how the State is adapting its strategies based on these assessments.
Current Narrative:
As discussed in 4(A), DWD utilizes a variety of assessment methods. Results of some of those assessments are discussed below:
Performance Assessments. Following the close of each program year, a performance assessment is completed to compare the estimated performance outcomes to the actual performance results for core programs. For the previous two years, the model that has been used to conduct this assessment is an average of the negotiated performance measure with the actual performance of the performance measure.
As we continue to refine our performance assessment processes, the implementation of the LSAM for the PY24/25 performance cycle will provide for a more real-time understanding of how performance estimates compare to actuals, using variables such as economic conditions and participant characteristics. In partnership with our local university partner, the Indiana Business Research Center, a model has been developed using a combination of economic and participant data sets that will help shape more realistic targets for local areas and understand where the impacts in performance may come from.
Monitoring Year-in-Review (YIR). The results of the PY21-22 and PY22-23 YIRs indicated several trending outcomes, both in opportunities for improvement and in noteworthy practices across the state. The YIRs provide a snapshot of aggregated data collectively for all twelve LWDAs for various review areas, such as participant file integrity, case management practices, financial accounting, local WIOA governance, and equal opportunity. DWD agency and program leadership utilize the results of the YIR to assess areas in need of targeted technical assistance, policy development, or internal program improvement. LWDAs are expected to utilize the YIR to assess the same in local area practices, along with learning from other LWDAs and sharing best practices.
Federal Performance Assessment. The Federal Performance Measures are made available on the DWD Performance Portal at https://www.in.gov/dwd/performance/. The results of these performance measures drive conversations and collaboration among state and local partners to identify areas for improvement, to prioritize technical assistance, and to inform funding (e.g., funding to target specific metrics or state priority areas). The State met all its negotiated performance measures for PY22 and saw overall improved performance from the previous two years. While there were local regions that did not meet the negotiated metrics, DWD will work with local boards to identify areas for improvement.
As the State moves forward with its Unified WIOA Plan, it will continue to look for opportunities to address performance across partner programs. Below is a depiction of how our local areas can see their performance as compared to others and as compared to our statewide performance.
In addition to evaluating these core programs, the state assesses performance across various programs. This is done by looking at a four-year snapshot that assesses participants served and services provided. The quarterly dashboard discussed in 4.A. identifies trends in participants and service delivery both by region and statewide. A snapshot of this dashboard can be seen below, depicting an assessment of several programs and areas. The efforts here will provide details on how services can be tailored to areas where improvement may be needed.
