The Performance of Performance Standards

2 - U.S. Employment and Training Programs and Performance Standards System Design

15 2 U.S. Employment and Training Programs and Performance Standards System Design Pascal Courty Carolyn J. Heinrich Gerald Marschke Jeffrey Smith Prior to the recession that began in 2007, public expenditures on employment and training services were declining. For example, in fiscal year 2007, the total U.S. federal government appropriations for WIA programs—youth employment, adult job training, dislocated worker assistance, Job Corps, and other national activities—was $4.4 billion, down 18 percent from fiscal year 2005. Within the WIA program, the number of adults receiving training was likewise declining appreciably relative to its predecessor, JTPA (Frank and Minoff 2005). Furthermore , the JTPA program had substantially reduced the size and scope of federal public employment and training programs relative to its predecessors , the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). In 2009, the Obama administration reversed these trends of diminishing public expenditures on employment and training. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) injected an unprecedented level of funding (an addition of more than $3.5 billion) into the public workforce development system and associated employment and training programs.1 This infusion of resources to aid unemployed and underemployed workers nearly doubled U.S. federal government funding for WIA programs and rejuvenated public interest in improving the effectiveness of the workforce development system. This book focuses on the two most recent workforce development programs, JTPA and WIA. JTPA is widely known for having intro- 16 Courty, Heinrich, Marschke, and Smith duced outcomes-based performance standards to public employment and training programs (in 1982). WIA has retained the basic structure of its predecessor while making important operational changes in the performance standards system (in 2000).2 This chapter aims to provide basic information about U.S. employment and training programs to aid our readers in understanding the research and analyses presented in this book. In the following sections, essential features of these programs are described, including their origins and organizational structures, eligibility rules and the types of services made available to participants, and the design of the performance standards systems. ORIGInS AnD ORGAnIzATIOnAL STRUCTURE OF JTPAAnD wIA During the period in which it operated, JTPA constituted the largest federal employment and training program for disadvantaged U.S. workers. The act mandated the provision of employment and training services to “those who can benefit from, and are most in need of, such opportunities.” It also required that the basic return on training investments “be measured by the increased employment and earnings of participants and the reduction in welfare dependency” ( Congress 1982). Designed in the Reagan era of New Federalism, JTPA was distinguished by a more decentralized administrative structure that included a larger role for the private sector; a performance standards system developed to measure program outcomes, increase local-level accountability, and encourage more efficient program management; and lower program costs per participant, in part due to elimination of public service employment and participant stipend components. Dickinson et al. (1988), LaLonde (1995), and O’Leary, Straits, and Wandner (2004) provide more detail on the history of employment and training programs in the United States. The original titles of the JTPA legislation established four different programs.3 Title IIA authorized the largest of these programs to serve economically disadvantaged youths and adults, accounting for the majority of JTPA client enrollments and training expenditures.4 The primary services provided under JTPA Title IIA—vocational training, Training Programs and Performance Standards System Design 17 on-the-job training, basic/remedial education, job search assistance, work experience, and other services such as counseling and assessment , job-readiness activities, and case management—continue to be available in WIA, although training priorities and service access have changed. While amendments to JTPA had shifted service provision away from low-cost job search activities and toward more intensive (e.g., classroom) training, WIA made important changes to refocus the program toward assessment and job search assistance services that are made available to a broader population. WIA, enacted in 1998, officially superseded the JTPA program in July 2000. See O’Shea and King (2001) for a comprehensive discussion of the WIA provisions and changes, Social Policy ResearchAssociates (2004) for a comprehensive report on WIA implementation. In both JTPA and WIA, responsibility for the interpretation and implementation of program provisions was delegated to the USDOL. The USDOL communicates some specific policy directives to states, but the interpretation of many critical provisions...