Common Measures: Do They Really Measure the Value of the

Workforce System?

By Candace Moody and Bryan Stone Jacksonville, Florida

THE TROUBLE WITH COMMON MEASURES

Common measures allow multiple programs and partners pursue universal goals as they serve the customers who use their services; they were adopted by all major federal training and employment programs by 2005. Over the past nine years, they’ve served their purpose: to measure the same outcomes, using the same formulas, across training programs. Now the new Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) has been signed into law, and the bill includes a few tweaks to the common measures. But there’s one word that consistently appears in measure after measure: exit. The idea of measuring performance starting with an “exit” presents two problems: one practical, the other philosophical.

Let’s start with the practical. Ideally, when someone enters the workforce system, he or she is offered services which holistically assess work readiness, address barriers to employment, make referrals to jobs and if necessary and appropriate, consider training as an option. The language in WIOA’s definition of career pathways suggests this holistic approach: “career pathways include, as appropriate, education offered concurrently with workforce preparation activities and training for a specific occupation.”

Common performance measures are calculated in various calendar quarters after program termination. All individuals who receive services funded (in whole or in part) from multiple programs, sequentially or simultaneously, are counted as a participant in each program, and will share a common “date of participation” and a common “date of exit” for federal reporting. The presumption is that a

customer participates in several programs simultaneously. But as a practical matter, participants don’t care about our reporting structure, and in some cases, have the ability to re-enroll themselves, e.g. in Wagner -Peyser, at any time through self-service.

Indeed, that scenario is likely. A WIA trainee may complete a certification and start looking for employment right away. If the only employment she finds is a part-time job, or a job at a lower salary than she had hoped, she will likely take it in order to get her new career started. In this scenario, staff would create an “exit” point for her by closing her case and Wagner Peyser file. The common measure clock begins.

But the outcome of part-time work or a salary that did not meet her expectations is not the end point for her – nor should it be. She may very well re-enter the online jobs system to start browsing for better opportunities. She may come in to the career center for advice or a workshop on interviewing on her day off. All

But as a practical matter, participants don’t care about our reporting structure, and in some cases, have the ability to re-enroll themselves, e.g. in Wagner -Peyser, at any time through self-service.

www.careersourcenortheastflorida.com

of these activities are the right things for her to be doing. But they keep her record in perpetual limbo; she doesn’t ever “exit” the workforce system completely.

In a recent review of our WIA trainees, we reported that we had exited 278 participants in one quarter with a credential and employment. When we viewed that same quarter on the Common Measures report, only 47 appeared as positive outcomes. A percentage of the others were employed at registration, since they were enrolled as employed worker trainees. But the others had voluntarily re-engaged with our system by looking for jobs, editing their online resumes, or attending a workshop at one of our career centers. They were co-enrolled in Wagner-Peyser and their applications remain active. The Common Measure report was disquieting in its misrepresentation of what truly occurred.

We estimate that 72 percent of our clientele voluntarily re-engage with our system, even after they get a new job. In fact, we should be encouraging them to do so. But for our stakeholder, funders and users of the system, this does not paint an accurate picture of how the system is performing, since credit for their placement only occurs 90 days after there is no activity in Wagner Peyser. This focus on “exit as termination” drives the system to think only in the short term, rather than focus on long term income growth and continuous engagement.

That’s the philosophical side of the question. The WIOA includes language that specifically encourages organizations to help an individual “enter or advance within a specific occupation.” If we do our job right, workers should be in

contact with the system periodically throughout their careers.

Our vision is one of measuring performance during and after service delivery. While this approach is radically different than any system, if we could implement it, we could plan for a system of targeted engagement throughout an individual’s career, a concept we call “The Income Growth Strategy.”

In the Income Growth Strategy model, we cycle through stages of assistance and services:

• Assessment of work readiness, barriers and career goals

• Development of a career plan • Immediate placement into employment,

if feasible, or placement into education or training

• Later, skills upgrade training through individual initiative or as part of an employed worker training strategy

• Job advancement, either within the current employer or in another company within the industry

The Income Growth Strategy Model encourages engagement throughout a worker’s career. The things that Common Measures credits are the most important things to measure: obtaining a credential, getting a job, and income growth. But waiting for someone to terminate to begin counting success is not giving credit to a system that provides significant value after credentialing or obtaining a job.

In order to measure the value of the workforce system, we must develop a more realistic model that mirrors the real world and how

THE TROUBLE WITH COMMON MEASURES

people advance in their careers. We propose the following changes to make the Common Measures more effective in assessing the true value of workforce and training services:

• We should treat the common measures term “exit” not as termination from all service activities, but as completion points marking the success and progress of our customers along the career pathway. The object should not be to terminate our relationship with the worker, but to continue to serve him or her with relevant services throughout his/her career.

• We should also measure each completion point as its own marker, and begin the clock at that point to show our customers and funders the system’s effectiveness. So if a customer exits a WIOA training program with a credential, we should not be required to terminate them from all services before counting the successful completion of the training activity. Our experience shows that the customer will look for employment and at the same time may consider enrolling in an advanced training program. Obtaining a CNA credential, for example, may not be

enough to lead to economic self-sufficiency; they may need to go on to obtain a LPN credential and move up to a better paying position. And we should be there to help every step of the way; and it is imperative for our customers and funders to understand the full range of activity that moves a person to economic self-sufficiency.

About the Authors Candace Moody and Bryan Stone direct Jacksonville’s Center for Workforce Leadership, an organization dedicated to solutions for America’s talent pipeline. They are part of the leadership team of Northeast Florida’s workforce investment board, CareerSource Northeast Florida, which served over 170,000 jobseekers in 2014.

In order to measure the value of the workforce system, we must develop a more realistic model that mirrors the real world and how people advance in their careers.

www.careersourcenortheastflorida.com