A Review of the Job Training

Partnership Act Program

in California

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 2

Chapter IThe Job Training Partnership ActProgram in California

JTPA Funding 3Participant Characteristics 4JTPA Serves Less Than 3 Percent

of Eligible Individuals 4JTPA Service to Target Groups

is Mixed 6

Chapter IIJTPA Performance

Data on Local Training Activities andOutcomes is Seriously Deficient.. 7

Wide Variety. of LocalTraining Services. 8

State Needs to Further Define WhatConstitutes a JTPA Placement 9

Statewide JTPA Performance 10Performance Standards and Incentive

Awards System Does NotEncourage Excellence 11

Table ofContents

IntroductionThe Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

program is one of the primary govern-ment programs providing employmentand training services in California. In thisreport, we review selected elements of theoperation of the JTPA program.

Our intent in preparing this report istwofold: (1) to provide the Legislaturewith information about the performanceof JTPA in California after three years ofoperation and (2) to recommend to theLegislature steps which can be taken at thestate level to improve the program'sperformance in future years. Specifically,we hope these recommendations will beimplemented in time to affect the nextJTPA two-year program cycle (1988-1990).Because JTPA is a locally run program, wehave focused primarily on issues concern-ing the state's oversight of the program.

Introduction

In preparing this report, we usedstatewide data on JTPA operationsprovided by the Job Training PartnershipOffice (JTPO). In addition, because thestate does not collect certain key pieces ofinformation about the program, we asked10 sample Service Delivery Areas (SDAs)to provide information on their localprograms.

We wish to thank the staff of the JTPOfor their assistance in preparing thisreport. In addition, we are grateful to theSDAs who made a special effort to provideinformation for this report.

This report was prepared by AndreaKane under the supervision of HadleyJohnson. It was typed by Tanya Elkins andformatted for publication by Suki a'Kane.

Executive SummaryThe Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

program is a federally funded employ-ment and training program for disadvan-taged individuals. The JTPA, which is thesuccessor to the Comprehensive Employ-mept and Training Act (CETA), beganoperating in California in October 1983.Seventy-eight percent of the federal fundsallocated under Title II-A of the federal actpass through the state to 51 local ServiceDelivery Areas (SDAs) for the purpose ofproviding employment and trainingservices to economically disadvantagedyouth and adults. Our review focusesprimarily on the Title II-A 78 percentprogram (referred to here as the basic jobtraining program), which is the largestcomponent of JTPA.

Findings andRecommendations

ITPA Serves a Small Number of ThoseEligtvle for Services. In aggregate, theSDAs served 2.5 percent of the individualseligible for the Title II-A 78 percentprogram in 1985-86.

Service to Target Groups is Mixed. Stateand federal law require SDAs to servecertain segments of the eligible populationin proportion to their share of the totaleligible population. In 1985-86, statewideperformance in serving target groups wasmixed, with some groups overrepresentedamong JTPA participants and other groupsunderrepresented.

Data on Local Training Activities isDeficient. Our review indicates thatcomparable statewide data on training

Executive Summary

activities and results do not exist. Webelieve the Legislature and the stateagencies charged with oversight of theJTPA program need such information inorder to assess the merits of varioustraining strategies. Therefore, werecommend that the Legislature adoptsupplemental report language directingJTPO and the Job Training CoordinatingCouncil (JTCC) to work with the SDAs todevelop standard training definitions andprocedures for reporting training activitiesand outcomes.

State Needs to Further Define WhatConstitutes a ]TPA Placement. We foundthat the current definition of placementfor the JTPA program may not ensurequality placements nor is it consistentamong SDAs. We recommend that theLegislature adopt supplemental report lan-guage directing JTPO and JTCC, with theassistance of the SDAs, to develop a stan-dard definition of placement which goesbeyond the minimum federal standard.

Perfonnance Standards and IncentiveAwards System Does Not EncourageExcellence. Our report describes twoprimary concerns with this system. First,the performance standards do notencourage SDAs to provide the mosteffective training services. Second, incen-tive awards--which are supposed to pro-mote and reward outstanding perfor-mance-are given to all but a few SDAs. Inlight of these findings, we recommendthat the Legislature adopt supplementalreport language requiring JTCC and JTPO,with the assistance of SDAs, to develop aproposal for improving California's per-formance standards and incentive awardssystem.•:-

Page 2

Chapter I

Chapter I

The Job Training Partnership ActProgram in California

The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)is a federally funded program which pro-vides employment and training servicesto disadvantaged adults and youth, olderworkers, and displaced workers. The JobTraining Partnership Office {JTPO) withinthe Employment Development Depart-ment (EDD) administers JTPA at the statelevel, while the Job Training CoordinatingCouncil {JTCC) sets policy for California'sjob training programs. The JTPA programis operated at the local level by 51 ServiceDelivery Areas (SDAs) and PrivateIndustry Councils (PICs). (Our use of theterm SDA encompasses both the SDA andthe PIC.)

JTPA Funding

The JTPA funds are allocated to thestates by the federal Department of Labor(OOL) under several sections of the federalact. The single largest component of JTPAis Title II-A funds which are allocated toCalifornia to provide training to youthand adults. Under Title II-A, 78 percent ofthe funds are allocated to the SDAs to pro-vide basic job training and employmentservices to economically disadvantagedyouth and adults. The remaining 22 per-cent of the Title II-A funds support specific

programs, as follows: (1) 3 percent fortraining older workers, (2) 8 percent tocoordinate with educational entities andto provide educational services for partici-pants in the Greater Avenues forIndependence (GAIN) program, (3) 6 per-cent for incentive awards and technicalassistance to the SDAs, and (4) 5 percentfor state administration of the JTPA pro-gram and special projects.

The SDAs also receive funds under TitleII-B to provide employment services toyouth during the summer months. Inaddition, the state receives funds underTitle III to provide employment andtraining services to dislocated workers.Title IV provides funds for employmentprograms for veterans, Native Americans,and migrant and seasonal farmworkers.These funds are administered directly bythe federal government.

Table 1 shows federal funding for JTPAill the prior, current, and budget years.The table shows that the current-yearbudget includes $187.9 million in JTPAfunds carried over from 1985-86. Whenthe figures are adjusted to account for thiscarry-over, the department has budgetedidentical federal funding levels for 1986-87and 1987-88. This is because the OOL hasnot yet notified EDD regarding the actual

Page 3

amount of federal funds the state willreceive in the budget year.

Participant CharacteristicsTable 2 shows the characteristics of

individuals who participated in the Title II-A 78 percent program in 1985-86. Ingeneral, the table shows that JTPA served:

• Slightly more women than men.

• About equal numbers of youth (age 14-21) and adults.

• More than twice as many individualswho had completed high school orequivalency examinations (57 percent)as schooldropouts (23 percent).

Chapter I

JTPA Serves Less Than 3 Percentof Eligible Individuals

The JTPA program reaches a relativelysmall number of individuals eligible forservices in California. Data provided byJTPO indicate that SDAs served 2.5 percentof those eligible for the Title II-A basic jobtraining program in 1985-86. Table 3shows the number of individuals eligiblefor the program by target group and thenumber actually served in 1985-86. Thetable shows that:

• JTPA served between 2 and 3 percent ofthe eligible women, hispanics, drop-outs, and veterans.

Table 1Job Training Partnership Act

Federal Funding Levels1985-86 through 1987-88(dollars in thousands)

Actual Estimated ProposedProgram 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88Title II-Local Programs:

Adult and Youth program $149,994 $209,461 $147,885(carry-over) (61,576)

SummerYouth program 81,815 134,842 67,692

(carry-over) (67,150)

Subtotals $231,809 $344,303 $215,577(carry-over) (28726)

Subtotals, less carry-over $231,809 $215,577 $215,577

Title II-8tate Programs:

Educational Linkages $15,603 $26,362 $15,168Incentive Grants 7,771 24,537 11,363Administration 10,157 14,390 9,360

(specialprojects) (2,062) (4,751) (326)

Older Workers 6,280 10,620 5,688

Title III-DisplacedWorkers 13,660 34,792 9,892Title IV-C-Veterans -0- 800 800

Subtotals $53,471 $111,501 $52,271(carry-over) (59.200)

Subtotals, less carry-over $53,471 $52,301 $52,271

Totals $285,280 $455,804 $267,848(carry-over) (187,926)

Totals, less carry-over $285,280 $267,878 $267,848

a Not ameaningful figure.

Change from 1986-87Amount Percent

-$61,576 -29.3%

-67,150 -49.7

-$128,726 -37.4%

-$11,194 -42.5%

-13,174 -53.7

-5,030 -35.0

(-4,425) -93.1

-4,932 -46.4

-24,900 -71.6

-$59,230 -53.1%

-$30 NMFa

-$187,956 -41.2%

-$30 NMFa

Page 4

Chapter I

• The program served approximately 4percent of the blacks and AFDCrecipients eligible for services.

• JTPA served almost 5 percent of theeligible Asians.

The SDAs could serve a larger share ofthe eligible population if they spent all oftheir annual allocation. In 1985-86, forexample, the SDAs spent only 77 percentof their available Title IT-A basic job

training funds. Thus, to the extent thatSDAs spent more of their available funds,they could have served more than 80,000individuals, or 2.5 percent, of the eligiblepopulation. It should be noted, however,that even if the SDAs spent 100 percent oftheir available resources, the JTPAprogram would still be serving a relativelysmall fraction of those who are eligible forservices.

Table 2Participant Characteristics

fl'PA Title II-A 78 Percent Program1985-86

Total Participants

Sex Number Percent

Male 39,200 49%

Female 40,743 51

Totals 79,943 100%

Age

Youth: 14-15 1,568 2%

16-21 34,409 43

Adult: 22-44 38,602 4845-54 3,804 5

55+ 1,560 2

Totals 79,943 100%

Education

School dropout 18,317 23%

Student 16,255 20

High school graduate, equivalency,45,371 57or post high school

Totals 79,943 100%

Table 3fI'PA Service to Eligible Population

California1985-86

Eligible Population

Total Number Seroed'l Percent Seroed1,851,709 40,708 2.2%

416,755 15,652 3.8853,856 23,4% 2.8162,008 7,792 4.8543,060 21,717 4.0

1,254,363 18,280 1.5294.314 6216 2.1

3,166,977 79,883 2.5%Total eligible populationb

a Number enrolled inJTPA Title II-A 78 percent program.

b Total is less than sum of targetgroups because some individuals are counted in more than one targetgroup.

Characteristics ofPopulationWomenBlacksHispanicsAsiansAFDC recipientsDropoutsVeterans

PageS

JTPA Service to Target Groupsis Mixed

Federal and state law require SDAs toserve certain segments of the eligiblepopulation in proportion to their share ofthe total JTPA eligible population. Ourreview of JTPA service levels indicatesthat the SDAs are serving most targetgroups at least in proportion to their shareof the eligible population. Several groups,however, are not receiving a propor-tionate level of services.

Chapter!

Table 4 shows the extent to which!California served target groups in the TitleII-A program in 1985-86. As the table indi-cates, California failed to serve women,dropouts, and veterans in proportion totheir share of the eligible population. Itshould be noted that the large difference(16 percent) between the proportion ofdropouts in the eligible population andtheir actual service level is at least partial-ly due to confusion over the definition ofdropout. The JTPO advises that it isattempting to clarify this issue. .:-

Table 4JTPA Service to Target Groups in California

1985-86

Characteristics of Proportion of ActualPopulation Eligible Population Service Leuela Difference

Women 58% 51% -7%

Blacks 13 20 7

Hispanics 27 29 2

Asians 6 10 4

AFDC recipientsb 18 27 9

Dropouts 39 23 -16

Veterans 9 8 -1

a Percentoftotal participants enrolled in Title II-A 78 percent program.

b Federal law actually requires equitable seroice to registrants in the Work Incentive program. However,JTPO does nothave accurate data for this group.

Page 6

Chapter II

JTPA Performance

In this chapter, we examine the perfor-mance of the JTPA program in California.In attempting to analyze this issue, wefound major shortcomings--at both thestate and local levels--in the available dataon training activities and outcomes.Consequently, there is limited informa-tion about how JTPA is working and thekinds of services it is providing. Thischapter addresses five issues: (1) data onlocal training activities and outcomes, (2)the wide variety of local training services,(3) the definition of "placement" in theJTPA program, (4) statewide JTPAperformance, and (5) the performancestandards and incentive awards system.

Data on Local Training Activitiesand Outcomes is Seriously Deficient

We recommend that the Legislatureadopt supplemental report languagedirecting the ]TCC and ]TPO, with theassistance of the SDAs, to develop bySeptember 15, 1987 standard trainingdefinitions and procedures for reportingon local training activities and outcomes.

Currently, the JTPO does not collect dataon (1) the mix of training activitiesactually offered by each SDA or (2) theresults of each type of training activity.While the SDAs include information intheir job training plan on the extent towhich they plan to use various types oftraining activities--such as classroom train-ing, on-the-job training, and work exper-ience--they are not required to report

Chapter!!

information on the actual mix of activitiesused or on the results of each trainingactivity. Thus, JTPO cannot tell theLegislature:

• How many individuals participate inthe various types of job trainingactivities.

• The job placement rate for each ofthese training activities.

• The average wage at placement forparticipants by training activity.

• The cost of putting someone througheach training activity.

Since JTPO does not collect informationabout the SDAs' training activities andoutcomes, we asked 10 SDAs to providethe information to us directly. The 10sample SDAs serve 40 percent of the JTPAparticipants in the state.

Most of the SDAs we contacted maintainsome information on program activitiesand outcomes for their own managementpurposes. However, only two SDAs wereable to readily extract from their computersystems the requested information. FiveSDAs were able to supply the informationonly by special programming andcalculations and even then were not ableto provide complete information. Threeother SDAs were not able to provide anyinformation in time for preparation ofthis analysis.

.Unfortunately, the information we didreceive was of limited value because:

Page 7

• The SDAs do not have standardprocedures for tracking costs andoutcomes for individual clients,especially if the individuals participatein more than one training activity. Itwas particularly difficult to comparecosts and outcomes for individualswho participated in (1) recruitment,intake, and assessment and (2) jobsearch and placement assistance.

• The SDAs do not use standarddefinitions for training activities, eventhough the training activity categorieswe asked about were the same as thoseused by]TPO.

• Several SDAs could not provide basicinformation including (1) the averagewage at placement and (2) enteredemployment rate for individuals indifferent training activities.

We recognize that local variation is animportant feature of the JTPA programand do not intend that SDAs haveidentical computer systems and clienttracking methods. We do believe,however, that the state needs comparableand meaningful information on localprogram activities and outcomes in orderto carry out its oversight responsibility forthe JTPA program. In addition, theLegislature needs this information inorder to assess the effectiveness of theJTPA program. Specifically, this informa-tion is necessary in order to determinewhich kinds of training activities workbest under certain circumstances--forexample, urban or rural areas-and forwhat kinds of people--for example, welfarerecipients. Furthermore, we believe suchinformation could help the SDAs to planand operate more effective trainingprograms. In fact, several of the SDA staffwe contacted thought the state shouldcollect information on program activitiesand outcomes.

Beginning in 1987-88, JTPA will requireSDAs to provide data on individualparticipants. This data will include infor-

Chapter II

mation which the state currently lacksregarding program activities and out-comes. This data, however, will not proveuseful unless there is greater standardiza-tion of definitions and tracking proceduresamong the SDAs.

Therefore, we recommend that theLegislature adopt supplemental reportlanguage directing JTPO and JTCC to workwith the SDAs to develop standardtraining definitions and procedures forreporting training activities and outcomes.The following supplemental report lan-guage is consistent with this recom-mendation:

"The Job Training PartnershipOffice and the Job Training Coordi-nating Council, with the assistanceof the Service Delivery Areas, shalldevelop standard definitions fortraining activities and standardprocedures for reporting on trai~ing activities and outcomes. ThlSinformation should be available bySeptember 15, 1987 in order t? beused in the next Job TrammgPartnership Act two-year planningcycle. "

Wide Variety of LocalTraining Services

Because of the data problems discussedabove, we are able to describe the use ofvarious training activities for only 6 of the10 sample SDAs. These 6 SDAs serve 16percent of the JTPA participants statewide.As Table 5 indicates, on average, class-room training is the most widely usedtraining activity. However, the averagemasks considerable variation amongSDAs. For example, one SDA placed morethan half of its participants in classroomtraining, while an~ther SDA put only 10percent of its participants in this activity.Similar variation exists in the use of on-the-job or worksite training, job searchassistance and direct placement, and workexperience for youth.

Page 8

Chapter II

TableSPercent of Participants in Various Training Activities in Six SDAs

1985-86

Percentage ofTraining Slots Used by SDAs

Type ofTraining Average High Law

Oassroom training 27.5% 57.6% 10.7%

On-the-job/worksite 22.7 46.9 9.3

Job search/directplacement 15.2 25.2 -0-

Work experiencea 9.7 78.5 -0-

a Youth only.

State Needs to Further Define WhatConstitutes a JTPA Placement

We recommend that the Legislatureadopt supplemental report languagedirecting /TPO and ]TCC, with theassistance of the SDAs, to develop bySeptember 15, 1987 a standard definition of"placement" which is more rigorous thanthe existing federal placement standard.

One of the basic measures of success inthe JTPA program is the entered employ-ment rate. For purposes of calculating thisrate, the state relies on a federal definitionwhich counts as a placement any JTPA par-icipant who finishes training and enterspart- or full-time unsubsidized employ-ment. Under this definition, a JTPA partic-ipant who is employed for only one daywould count toward the enteredemployment rate. It should be noted that(1) some SDAs have established higherstandards for placements and (2) the staterequires a higher standard for placementsunder certain contracts.

The state has the discretion to defineplacement in a variety of ways which gobeyond the minimum federal standard.For example, the definition of placementcould include (1) that the placement be ina training-related job, (2) that the traineereceive a specified average wage atplacement, or (3) that the trainee retain

the job for a certain time period. Suchdefinitions would not preclude the SDAsfrom establishing their own additionalrequirements. Such definitions wouldensure, however, that training funds areused more effectively and that thereported placement rate is comparablestatewide.

Consequently, we recommend that theLegislature adopt supplemental reportlanguage directing JTPO and JTCC, withthe assistance of the SDAs, to develop astandard definition of "placement" whichgoes beyond the existing minimumplacement requirement. The followingsupplemental report language is consis-tent with this recommendation:

"The Job Training PartnershipOffice and the Job TrainingCoordinating Council, with theassistance of the Service DeliveryAreas, shall develop a standarddefinition of placement whichexceeds the existing federal place-ment standard. The new definitionshould be developed by September15, 1987 in order to be used in thenext JTPA two-year planningcycle. "

Page 9

Statewide JTPA PerformanceThe JTPA is a performance-driven

program. Federal law establishes sevenstandards for measuring SDAs'performance in administering the JTPATitle II-A 78 percent program and theSDAs receive incentive awards accordingto their ability to exceed these standards.There are four adult performancestandards and three youth performancestandards as follows:

Adult• Entered employment rate.• Entered employment rate for welfare

recipients.• Average wage at placement.• Cost per entered employment.

Youth• Entered employment rate.• Positive termination rate (youth who

entered employment or achievedspecified benchmarks such as return-ing to school or attaining youthcompetencies).

• Cost per positive termination.

The DOL establishes a national perfor-

Chapter II

mance rate for each standard. In turn,performance rates are established for eachSDA based on the national rates adjustedfor local factors including the populationserved, local economic factors, and thelength of training provided. For example,an SDA's entered employment ratestandard is reduced if it serves a relativelylarge number of dropouts, while its costper entered employment standard is raisedif it provides relatively long-term trainingprograms. These adjustments are made inorder to recognize that in general it ismore difficult to place dropouts in jobsand long-term training is relativelyexpensive. Thus, the performance stan-dards and incentive awards system influ-ences the policy set by the SDA in terms ofthe people it serves, the training activitiesit provides, and the results it expects.

Although there are no performancestandards for the state as a whole, webelieve it is useful to examine how theJTPA program is working overall inCalifornia. Table 6 shows actual statewideperformance compared with theperformance standards calculated for the

Table 6Statewide TIPA Performance

1984-85 and 1985-86

1984-85 1985-86

Percent PercentExceeded Exceeded

Perfonnance Measure Standard Actual Standard Standard Actual Standard

AdultEntered employmentrate (EER) 58% 66% 14% 55% 69% 25%

WelfareEER 46 57 24 43 60 40Average hourly wageat placement $5.11 $5.18 1 $4.98 $5.59 12

Cost~ enteredempoymen~ $4,746 $4,026 15 $5,792 $3,599 38

Youth

Entered employment rate 32% 51% 60% 29% 52% 79%Positive termination rate 79 77 -3 77 79 3Cost per positivetermination $3,513 $2,794 20 $4,469 $2,757 38

aExceeding cost standard means actual costs were below cost standard.

Page 10

state as if it were an SDA. In other words,the standards take into account the popula-tion served by the state, statewideeconomic conditions, and the averagelength of training provided statewide.

The table indicates that California is per-forming quite well as compared to the per-formance standards. In addition, perfor-mance improved significantly between1984-85 and 1985-86. The state exceeded sixof the seven performance standards by ahealthy margin, but only exceeded theyouth positive termination standard by asmall amount. Positive termination is anarea where the SDAs have had difficultyin the past. However, performance doesseem to be improving as the SDAs becomemore experienced in developing and im-plementing competency-based programsfor youth.

Performance Standards andIncentive Awards System DoesNot Encourage Excellence

We recommend that the Legislatureadopt supplemental report languagerequiring ]TCC and ]TPO, with theassistance of the SDAs, to submit to theLegislature by December 1, 1987 a plan forimproving the performance standards andincentive awards system.

Currently, the state awards incentivegrants to SDAs which exceed five of theirseven performance standards and fail nostandard by more than 15 percent. Ouranalysis indicates that both the perfor-mance standards and the criteria for distrib-uting incentive awards should bemodified to encourage and rewardoutstanding performance.

Do Current Performance StandardsEncourage Appropriate PerformanceObjectives? We believe that some of theperformance standards do not encouragethe SDAs to provide the most effectiveservices to some clients. For example, thecost per entered employment (adult) andcost per positive termination (youth)

Chapter II

standards encourage SDAs to provideinexpensive training services. In fact, anSDA's incentive award increases inproportion to the extent to which its costsare below the performance standards.Quick, inexpensive training, however,may not be the most effective strategy forhelping some JTPA participants tocompete in the labor market.

Similarly, the entered employmentperformance standard does not ensurequality placements. As discussed above,SDAs may count toward their enteredemployment rate any participant/whofinishes the program and finds a jolJ. Thisjob need not be t!aining related, whichmeans the individual might have foundthe job without JTPA assistance. Further-more, there is no assurance that theindividual remained employed for anylonger than one day.

The state has quite a bit of flexibility tomodify performance standards. Somestates, for example, have augmented thefederal performance standards byrequiring that a certain number of adultsretain their jobs for 13 weeks. Other statesweight the seven performance standardsaccording to state priorities.

Almost All SDAs Receive IncentiveAwards. Over the past three years, theSDAs' success in meeting the performancestandards has improved significantly.Table 7 shows the number of SDAs whichqualified for incentive awards and thenumber which exceeded all sevenstandards between 1983-84 and 1985-86.The number of SDAs exceeding all sevenperformance standards has risendramatically from 14 percent in 1983-84(the first year incentive awards weregranted) to 74 percent in 1985-86. Inaddition, 92 percent of the SDAs receivedincentive awards for 1985-86.

The purpose of theJTPA incentiveawards is to encourage and reward out-standing performance. Clearly, a systemwhich gives incentive awards to 92

Page 11

Chapter!!

Table 7JTPA Incentive Awards1983-84 through 1985-86

1983-84 1984-85 1985-86

Number Percent Number Percent Number PercentSDAsWho:

Received incentiveawards 45 90% 42 84% 47 92%

Exceeded allperformancestandards 7 14 23 46 37 74

percent of the SDAs does not achieve thisobjective. Even SDAs performing belowaverage--relative to other SDAs--receiveincentive awards.

The state has considerable discretion inestablishing criteria for awarding incen-tive grants to the SDAs. For example,some states award incentive grants only toSDAs which spend all their availablefunds. Other states reserve a portion ofthe incentive funds as a bonus for the topperformers in the state.

There are a number of steps Californiacould take to ensure that performancestandards and incentive awards truly en-courage and reward outstanding perfor-mance including the following:

• Adjust some or all performancestandards. For example, the state couldraise the cost standards, therebyremoving the incentive to providequick, inexpensive training.

• Establish additional standards reflect-ing state priorities.

• Raise the criteria for qualifying forincentive awards. For example, thestate could require that SDAs exceed aspecified number of performancestandards by 10 percent or exceed allseven standards in order to qualify foran incentive award.

Representatives of SDAs and JTPO havebeen studying the performance standards

and incentive awards issue for a couple ofyears. The }TCC voted to postpone chang-ing the present system until these repre-sentatives had two full years of perform-ance data to evaluate. Two years of dataare now available (1984-85 and 1985-86).Therefore, we recommend that the Legisla-ture adopt supplemental report languagerequiring the JTCC and }TPO, with theassistance of the SDAs, to develop a pro-posal for improving California's perform-ance standards and incentive awardsystem. The following supplemental re-port language is consistent with thisrecommendation:

"The Job Training PartnershipOffice and the Job TrainingCoordinating Council, with theassistance of the Service DeliveryAreas, shall develop a plan formodifying the performance stan-dard and incentive award system inorder to encourage and reward out-standing performance among Ser-vice Delivery Areas in California.This plan should be submitted tothe Legislature by December 1, 1987and changes to the performancestandards and incentive awardsystem should be announced beforethe Service Delivery Areascomplete their planning for the1988-1990 program cycle.".:.

Page 12