WIOA State Plan Common Elements

(A) Assessment of Core Programs. Describe how the core programs will be assessed each year based on state performance accountability measures described in section 116(b) of WIOA. This state assessment must include the quality, effectiveness, and improvement of programs broken down by Local Area or provider. Such state assessments should take into account local and regional planning goals.

Measuring Maryland’s Success: Performance Accountability

WIOA made changes to the performance accountability system and created a requirement that the United States Secretaries of Labor and Education create a statistical adjustment model that replaces the regression-based levels that the USDOL used in performance negotiations under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. USDOL created such a model and states were able to negotiate Program Year (PY) 2018 and PY2019 standards using the model for several measures not indicated as baseline.

Under WIOA Adult, Dislocated Worker, JVSG, Wagner-Peyser, Title II and Title IV Performance Measures are as follows:

• Employment Rate QTR2– Percentage of participants in unsubsidized employment in the second quarter after exit (Q2 post-exit).
• Employment Rate QTR4– Percentage of participants in unsubsidized employment in the fourth quarter after exit (Q4 post-exit).
• Median Earnings – Median earnings of participants in the second quarter after exit (Median earnings Q2 after exit).
• Credential Rate – Percentage of participants with postsecondary credential attainment or high school diploma or GED^® during participation in the program or within one year after exit. (WP and JVSG is excluded)
• Measurable Skills Gain – Percentage of participants who, during the PY, are in education or training programs that lead to recognized postsecondary credential or employment, and who achieve measurable skills gain (documented academic, technical, occupational or other forms of progress, toward the credential or employment). (WP and JVSG is excluded)

In accordance with §677.155(d)(1-6), the primary indicators for the youth program under title I of WIOA are:

WIOA Youth Performance Measures

• Placement in Employment or Education QTR2 – Percentage of participants who are in education and training, or in unsubsidized employment, during the second quarter after exit (Q2 post-exit).
• Placement in Employment or Education QTR4 – Percentage of participants who are in education and training, or in unsubsidized employment, during the fourth quarter after exit (Q4 post-exit).
• Median Earnings - Median earnings of participants in the second quarter after exit (Median earnings Q2 after exit).
• Credential Rate - Percentage of participants with postsecondary credential attainment or high school diploma or GED^® during participation in the program or within one year after exit.
• Measurable Skills Gain - Percentage of participants who, during the PY, are in education or training programs that lead to recognized postsecondary credential or employment, and who achieve measurable skill gain (documented academic, technical, occupational or other forms of progress, toward the credential or employment).

In accordance with §677.155(a)(1)(vi), there is a new primary indicator for the effectiveness in serving employers under WIOA, which is:

WIOA Effectiveness in Servicing Employers Measures

• Employer Penetration Rate- addresses the programs' efforts to provide quality engagement and services to all employers and sectors within a state and local economy. Percentage of employers using WIOA core program services out of all employers in the state. 
• Repeat Business Customers- addresses the programs' efforts to provide quality engagement and services to employers and sectors and establish productive relationships with employers and sectors over extended periods of time; percentage of employers who have used WIOA core program services more than once during the last three reporting periods. 
• Retention with Same Employer in the 2nd and 4th Quarters after Exit. Addresses the programs' efforts to provide employers with skilled workers; Percentage of participants with wage records who exit and were employed by the same employer in the second and fourth quarters after exit.

States must select two of the three measures above to report on for PY2018 and PY2019.  Maryland chose to report on all three for PY2018 in an effort to provide a complete picture of how the   programs are currently engaging with employers and meeting their needs.

The implementation of WIOA performance accountability requirements were phased in and implemented by July 1, 2016 (PY 2016). Performance reporting of the negotiated performance measures began PY17.

While MD Labor, MSDE, DHS, and DHCD are capable of reporting on each individual program to the respective federal oversight agency, Maryland does not currently have an integrated system that includes partner programs. Under WIOA, states must report Title I and III program files through the USDOL, while Adult Education and VR files are submitted through the Department of Education. As shown, the MWE currently houses the following USDOL programs: WIOA Adult, Dislocated Worker. Youth, Wagner-Peyser, JVSG, SCSEP, and Trade program participants. While the State has successfully increased the capacity of the MWE by adding in 2017 a module focused on reemployment of UI claimants and will integrate a module for SNAP Employment and Training in 2018, TANF, VR, Adult Education, and CSBG are not currently MWE users.

The WIOA partners intend to replace the existing multiple systems with a new system that will include imaging and workflow management, and a robust business rules engine to aid in eligibility determination and creating and managing benefit plans, as well as report performance accountability measures.

As previously noted, Maryland’s WIOA partners are dedicated to placing customers at the heart of the WIOA system. The Benchmarks for Success is one leadership tool that the WIOA partners have developed to drive innovation and collaboration in the State’s Workforce System.

Maryland’s WIOA partners are further committed to conducting ongoing evaluations of workforce activities carried out in the state in order to promote, establish, implement, and utilize methods for continuously improving core program activities. This will allow the WIOA system to achieve high-level performance within, and high-level outcomes from the workforce development system.

Core WIOA Programs

WIOA standardizes performance requirements across core programs. For the WIOA Title I Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs, Title II Adult Education and Literacy programs, Title III Wagner-Peyser employment services, and Title IV VR, the primary indicators of performance are, as follows:

• Employment during 2nd quarter after exit,
• Employment during 4th quarter after exit,
• Median earnings,
• Credential attainment rate, (Excludes Title III and JVSG)
• Measurable skills gain, (Excludes Title III and JVSG) and
• Effectiveness in serving employers.

For the WIOA Title I Youth program, the primary indicators of performance are, as follows:

• Employment, education, or training during 2nd quarter after exit;
• Employment, education, or training during 4th quarter after exit;
• Median earnings;
• Credential attainment rate;
• Measurable skills gain; and
• Effectiveness in serving employers.

Title III Wagner-Peyser (Employment Services) and JVSG is exempted from Credential Attainment and Measurable Skill Gains. Effectiveness in Serving Employers is a pilot measure, where states must select two of the three federal proposed metrics.  This measure is measured across all six core programs.  Data sharing agreements are required to secure data from Rehabilitation in order to report these measures for PY2017 and thereafter.  For PY2018 Maryland selected to report all three effectiveness measures. WIOA explains that each state shall identify within the State Plan its expected levels of performance for each primary indicator, for each program, for the first two PYs covered by the State Plan. The law subsequently explains that the levels agreed to by the state, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Education, shall be considered to be the state adjusted performance and shall be incorporated into the State Plan prior to its approval. Maryland received from USDOL further guidance on the WIOA performance measures via Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGL 10-16 Change 1) and Training and Employment Notices (TENs). Maryland’s WIOA partners are committed to continuing to work closely with USDOL in anticipation of additional information.

MD Labor’s OWIP works with Local Areas and Regions and takes performance assessment into account when establishing goals. Local Area staff use the MWE to report, on an individual customer basis, the data needed to produce the performance measures used to review actual accomplishments. OWIP produces, reviews, and provides copies of the WIOA and Labor Exchange Quarterly reports.  OWIP also provides to the Local Areas a quarterly summary report, which highlights the 12 Local Areas’ performance compared to their locally negotiated goals.  This report indicates their current status (exceeding, meeting, or failing) for each of the measures.  In addition, MD Labor also provides the Local Areas data extract files (for both WIOA and Labor Exchange) to conduct their own analysis of the individual records. 

Procedures are in place to address substandard performance.  The first step is to determine if the performance for the particular measure or measures is a local issue or a data reporting issue.  If the latter is the case, then no technical assistance is provided. 

If a determination is made that the area is experiencing a performance issue that cannot be attributed to a reporting issues, then a more extensive review of the performance data is performed.  This is a vital part of the review process.  The detailed data is analyzed to determine possible factors that maybe influencing performance, sufficient and poor.  It is important to note that the Local Area now have the capability to review the performance outcomes tables that are used to produce their local performance measures and how their performance relates to the State.

The State follows a formal analysis process.  A standard procedure is utilized at quarterly intervals that includes taking the extract from the previous quarter and matching with the current quarter to reveal changes (some changes are expected).  Each performance measures is reviewed closely, both positives and negatives. 

“High” is defined as 95 percent and above.  “Low” is defined as close to 90 percent and below.  When low is determined, the data for that particular Local Area is analyzed closely. All fields that attribute to the measure definition are examined.  Findings are always shared with Local Areas.  If findings affect more than one Local Area, information is communicated and shared throughout. Local Areas, State staff, and managers are notified when an issue is determined.