» Home

» Programs and Services

» Post Secondary Education

» K-12 Education

» Offender Reintegration 

» Employment Statistics

» Business Development

» Employment Support 

» Useful Links  

< Kansas Web site

Minutes

Kansas Workforce Investment Partnership (KWIP) Council
Quality Task Force
Meeting Notes
July 17, 2001

In attendance: David Brennan, Local Area II; Armand Corpolongo, KDHR; Joe Dermid, City of Wichita; Jerry Hiatt, KWIP; Jim Kessler, KWIP; Kris Kitchen, Local Area II; Sherrill Martinez, Education; Paul Osborn, Regents; Betty Stevens, Local Area II; Jim Stowell, Local Area V; Linda Weaver, KDHR; Barb Reavis, KWIP staff

After self-introductions by the attendees, Weaver and Donner presented information on the issue of "substantially met performance" as referred to this Task Force by the KWIP Council. The first order of business was to explain there are two completely separate performance evaluations to be considered.

The issue that needs to be before KWIP has to do with a special review covering a special designation period. This review happens one time only and reflects how things need to look at the end of the first two years of WIA implementation in Kansas. The outcomes of these reviews could have such dramatic impacts as recommendations for re-drawing boundary lines or reconstituting local area boards if an area has not "substantially met" the performance standards prescribed.

The other performance evaluation issue is the annual, ongoing effort concerning the performance standards negotiated between each Local Area and the State. Dave McEachern will report and describe the results from the first annual performance evaluation. Consequences of meeting or not meeting those negotiated targets are different.

Despite the differences in purpose and methods, both evaluation processes involve a set of WIA-defined Groups and Measures. These four groups and 17 measures are shown below:

A. Adult Group
1) Entered Employment Rate
2) Employment Retention Rate
3) Earnings Change
4) Employment and Credential Rate

B. Dislocated Worker Group
1) Entered Employment Rate
2) Retention Rate
3) Earnings Replacement Rate
4) Employment and Credential Rate

C. Youth Group
1) Entered Employment Rate
2) Employment Retention Rate
3) Earnings Gain Rate
4) Credential Rate
5) Skill Attainment Rate
6) Diploma or Equivalent Attainment Rate
7) Retention Rate

Note:
Measures 1 through 4 - Older Youth (19-21)
Measures 5 through 7 - Younger Youth (14-18)

D. Customer Satisfaction Group
1) Participant Satisfaction
2) Employer Satisfaction

Weaver and Donner explained the process they used to provide a weighted average and associated the weighted average to preliminary first year reports. It needs to be remembered these are brand new standards; there is no baseline data with which to compare. Because the U.S. Department of Labor is holding the states accountable for 80% on each of the 17 performance standards, the new proposed definition for "substantially met performance" uses that same 80% standard.

The KWIP Quality Task Force recommends to the full KWIP Council the following definition of "substantially met performance" to be applied to the one-time-only special review:

A Local Area will have "substantially met performance" if, for each year of the temporary designation period, the Area attains a minimum of 80% weighted average for two or more of the performance groups.