Briefing BookITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration
|
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Prepared by Public Policy Associates, Incorporated and
the Corporation for a Skilled Workforce
Section One: Demonstration Project Overview
Disclaimer:
These materials have been prepared by a contractor to the U. S. Department of Labor in an effort to provide
timely and useful information. This material does not necessarily represent official Agency policy or opinion.
Included among these materials is information based on the interim final Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
regulations published in full on April 15, 1999 at 64 Federal Register 18662 et seq. The final WIA regulations
are scheduled to be issued December 1999, and may differ from the interim final regulations.
Section One: Demonstration Project
Overview
Information Session Agenda
8:00 - 9:00 Registration; Continental Breakfast
9:00 - 10:00 Introduction and Overview
10:00 - 10:10 BREAK
10:10 - 12:00 Individual Training Accounts: Participants and Eligible Training Providers
under WIA
Relevance to ITAs and Eligible Training Providers
What would you envision an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system would look like?
How would your organization need to change to implement this new system?
What do you view as the key challenges to successful implementation?
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Dallas Region VI
Topic: The Central Role of ITAs in Implementing the WIA Principles
1:00 - 2:10 ITA Implementation Options
2:10 - 2:20 BREAK
2:20 - 2:35 Technical Assistance
Expectations for Participants for System-building and Sharing
2:35 - 3:05 Proposal Development
3:05 - 3:30 Session Evaluation and Wrap-Up
Thanks for attending! We hope that the day was helpful to you.
Please be sure to complete and return the session evaluation form that
is located in the last section of this Briefing Book.
Information Session Goals
The goals of this information session are to:
ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration and
Experiment Goals
Overview
The ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration seeks to support the design and implementation of
the Workforce Investment Act by testing approaches that best fuel the creation of a more
market-like environment for adult worker re-training. The demonstration evaluation will
generate valuable information about alternative ITA/Eligible Provider models that are
implemented at various sites. This information will assist the states and localities by providing
guidance for the implementation of more promising models that have the greatest likelihood of
producing positive impacts for participants. This will allow the new Workforce Investment
Areas (WIAs) to tailor their training programs to better serve trainees and to increase the
effectiveness of training programs.
The evaluations of the ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative will include information on key issues
regarding implementation and operational processes (e.g., payment mechanisms necessary to
implement ITAs, eligible training provider lists), the impacts of various ITA models, and
estimates of the return on the public's investments in ITAs.
Two Projects
The ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative includes the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration and the
ITA Experiment. This information session is linked to the solicitation for sites interested in
participating in the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration. Sites that are selected for the
ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration are not required to apply for or participate in the ITA
Experiment. There will be a separate SGA issued at a later date for sites interested in
participating in the ITA Experiment.
ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration
This ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration is designed to fund a broad array of states and local
areas to pilot test a limited range of approaches to implementing ITAs. This project will
include the provision of extensive technical assistance and training to participating sites in a
short-run effort to provide early operating models. This project serves as the initial step to
immediately begin collecting and processing information for early lessons learned about the
development and implementation of ITAs under the WIA.
The ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration will support the development and implementation of
ITA/Eligible Provider systems in 10 to 12 pilot sites and will use those experiences to provide
learning opportunities for the broad workforce development system as it continues to
implement the Workforce Investment Act over the coming year. This project will focus on the
development of administrative systems and structures, the engagement of vendors and other
stakeholders in the planning process, and the necessary staff training and development to
support the customer-focused approach inherent in the ITA concept. This project will also
feature extensive information exchange both among the participating sites and between the
sites and other state and local workforce officials. More detailed information regarding
application requirements for the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration project can be found in
Section Five of this briefing book.
ITA Experiment: Determining Impacts of Alternative ITA Models
The ITA Experiment is designed to fund a selected group of state and local Workforce
Investment Areas to conduct a rigorous experiment involving carefully selected ITA models.
The ITA Experiment will provide in-depth analysis of the impacts of alternative ITA models
on the labor market outcomes of adults. More detailed information regarding application
requirements for this experimental project will be provided in a separate solicitation for grant
applications (SGA) which is expected to be issued in January 2000.
Additional information about the evaluation of both the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration
and Experiment can be found in Section Three of this briefing book.
Section Two: ITAs -- Participants and
Eligible Training Providers Under WIA
Introduction
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 represents the first major reform of the nation's job
training system in over 15 years. The enactment of the legislation was the culmination of a
four-year bipartisan effort on the part of the Administration and Congress to design, with
states and local communities, a revitalized system that provides workers with the information,
advice, job search assistance, and training they need to get and keep good jobs--and provides
employers with skilled workers.
The enactment of the Workforce Investment Act provides unprecedented opportunity for major
reforms that will result in a reinvigorated, integrated workforce investment system. States and
local communities should seize this historical opportunity by thinking expansively and
designing a customer-focused, comprehensive delivery system. New, strong, business-led
local boards can contribute fresh thinking about the labor market and its needs, as well as
about quality and continuous improvement--in a way that earns sustained support by local
business leaders.
WIA Principles
The Workforce Investment Act gives American workers the chance to equip themselves with
the skills and information needed to compete in the new economy and helps workers take
responsibility for building a better future for themselves and their families.
To accomplish the goals of the new legislation, the new workforce investment system will be
built around several key principles:
Streamlining Services
Empowering Individuals
Universal Access
Increased Accountability
Strong Role for Local Workforce Investment Boards and the Private Sector
State and Local Flexibility
Customer Choice
The underlying principle of the provision of training services under the WIA is customer
choice. One-Stop centers will provide access to consumer information relating to training
providers that can assist individuals in gaining relevant skills--including information about the
performance of such providers in placing graduates in employment. Through local boards,
each state will compile a list of eligible training providers that meet performance levels as set
by the Governor and adjusted upward, as appropriate, by local boards. Individuals may
choose any provider from the list of approved providers, whether or not the provider is located
in the local area where the individual resides. In addition, states may enter into agreements on
a reciprocal basis that allow individuals to access training in another state.
The Act creates a market-based system for training service and will provide a "level playing
field" for a wide array of providers--large and small, public and private. Those who provide
training services under the Act will have to meet the test private businesses face every day.
They will have to deliver value to their customers, or risk losing them. With individuals
making their choices based on past performance, ineffective training providers will not
survive.
WIA ITA/Eligible Training Provider Requirements
There are many issues associated with designing and operating an ITA/Eligible Training
Provider system. This section provides a brief overview of regulations governing system
design and operation.
(Note: For a complete presentation of WIA Regulations, the reader should consult the WIA
Interim Final Regulations and WIA Interim Regulations Q&As, both of which are available
through the usworkforce.org web site. Specific web addresses can be found in the
bibliography of this briefing book. The final WIA regulations are scheduled to be issued
December 1999, and will be made available through the web site at that time.)
A discussion of some of the policy issues that need to be addressed by system planners can be
found in the sub-sections that follow.
Individual Training Accounts
Eligible Training Providers
Issues for Participants
Background on Participant Issues
Finding workers to sustain America's economic growth is becoming one of the most crucial
concerns of business owners and managers across the United States. Changing job
requirements and the resulting demand for new skills, the desire for reliable worker
credentials, and shifting company and industry structures mean continuing intense demand for
high-quality services that enable workers to meet the needs of the labor market. The WIA was
developed with the recognition that, as the 21st century approaches, we have to develop
training opportunities that respond to market needs and provide consumer choices.
In an effort to get a better understanding of how voucher-style training accounts might impact
consumer choice, the U.S. DOL conducted a multi-site demonstration project in which
selected sites were allowed to design and implement innovative voucher style approaches to
providing training to dislocated workers. This demonstration project was conducted prior to
the passage of the WIA and used the term career management account (CMA) rather than ITA.
A systematic evaluation of the CMA Demonstration has provided valuable lessons that help
inform the development and implementation of ITAs. (Note: The briefing materials include a
copy of the CMA final report as a separate document.)
Based on learnings from the Career Management Account (CMA) Demonstration Project,
participants in an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system will be empowered to have control
over career choices, control over training providers, and control over expenditures.
Control Over Career Choices
In a true voucher environment, workforce development agency staff would not make career
decisions. Rather, they would inform or guide those choices, and the ultimate decision would
rest with the participant. The extent to which customers are empowered to make career and
training choices will vary across ITA/Eligible Training Provider systems, however, the system
must accommodate broad choice for customers. Participants must be challenged to examine
their options and decisions in terms of what is appropriate to their educational and professional
background, available in their local economy, and feasible to accomplish with the ITA and
other available resources.
Control Over Training Providers
Traditionally, decisions on training options were often made by agency staff who would buy
training slots in bulk. In order to make the system cost-effective, it was important to make
certain that those slots be filled. This could lead to pressure on staff to direct clients to classes
or individual slots that were already committed but not fully subscribed. By contrast, the
participant-driven decisions about the type of training desired and who the provider should be
puts the individual in a position of having to analyze not just the labor market but the training
market as well. In the ITA/Eligible Training Provider systems, participants must be
challenged to consider all of the relevant information regarding eligible training provider
performance to make appropriate choices when selecting a training vendor. The clear
implication for states, workforce boards, and One-Stops is that they must provide the kind of
information about training choices and providers that is necessary to make an informed
decision and provide in a form that is easily usable by participants. This is one of the
significant system-building challenges under WIA.
Control Over Expenditures
In order for customers to make informed choices, they must be aware of the amount available
at any time and the rules for spending. Based on findings from the CMA Demonstration
project, participants did not necessarily value physical control of the account and payment
mechanism (as might be afforded through a debit card or checkbook) as much as they valued
the freedom to assign resources they controlled to their own choices. As long as their
decisions were implemented on a timely basis, the physical method of payment did not matter
significantly. Control over spending requires separate accounting for each participant. While
this does not differ in principle from the accounting requirements of JTPA, it can be very
different operationally.
Summary of CMA Participant Survey Results
|
CMA Demonstration Clients of Re-employment Services Survey Results |
|||
|
Prepared by | |||
|
Public Policy Associates | |||
|
and | |||
|
Corporation For a Skilled Workforce | |||
|
October 1998 | |||
General Information
Thinking about the re-employment services you received from our agency, please circle the number next to the response which best represents your answer to each question.
RESULTS Total CMA Title III
1. Were you enrolled in a unique re-employment service that somehow differed from traditional job search or training programs? (n=1217)
Yes 50.8% 53.5% 47.8%
No 30.5% 29.0% 32.1%
Don't know 18.7% 17.4% 20.2%
2. When you began using our services, were you interested in making a career change? (n=1245)
Yes 78.6% 80.5% 76.4%
No 21.4% 19.5% 23.6%
*Significant differences at the 0.10 -level. (Chi-square test)
a. Did you successfully make a career change? (n=1145)
Yes 56.6% 58.6% 54.4%
No 43.4% 41.4% 45.6%
Program Enrollment
3. Compared to other government programs, how would you describe the amount of paper work required to obtain re-employment services? (n=1128)
Less than others 35.3% 38.2% 32.1%
About the same 54.0% 50.7% 57.6%
More than others 10.7% 11.1% 10.3%
*Significant differences at the 0.10 -level. (Chi-square test)
4. How easy or difficult was it to understand the rules and regulations involved in your re-employment program? (n=1233)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Easy Difficult
Mean 2.30 2.28 2.32
Median 2 2 2
Std. Deviation 1.61 1.59 1.64
5. To what extent did your re-employment program require you to learn about or investigate your career choice in order for you to get a training program approved? (n=1234)
To a great extent 30.3% 35.4% 24.7%
Somewhat 41.7% 40.3% 43.1%
Not very much 18.5% 17.0% 20.1%
Not at all 9.6% 7.3% 12.1%
*Significant differences at the 0.10 -level. (Chi-square test)
Re-employment Services
Please help us understand the nature of your re-employment program by answering each of the following questions.
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
6. How would you rate the extent to which program staff provided you with assistance to determine and meet your re-employment needs? (n=1237)
| Too little assistance | 17.5% | 16.5% | 18.5% |
| About the right amount | 81.4% | 82.3% | 80.5% |
| Too much assistance | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.0% |
7. How would you rate the amount of information you received about your program and all the options and services available to you? (n=1241)
| Too little information | 20.7% | 20.2% | 21.2% |
| About the right amount | 77.9% | 79.0% | 76.7% |
| Too much information | 1.4% | 0.8% | 2.0% |
8. How would you rate the quality of information available to you to make decisions about re-employment services or training? (n=1241)
| Excellent information | 40.3% | 42.6% | 37.7% |
| Adequate information | 47.5% | 45.7% | 49.6% |
| Not very good | 9.8% | 9.5% | 10.0% |
| No information at all | 2.4% | 2.1% | 2.7% |
9. How would you rate the amount of information available to you regarding job training services (i.e., schools or other training providers)? (n=1237)
| Too little information | 25.5% | 25.0% | 26.0% |
| About the right amount | 73.7% | 74.5% | 72.8% |
| Too much information | 0.8% | 0.5% | 1.2% |
10. How would you rate the amount of information available to you regarding specific jobs or career fields? (n=1236)
| Too little information | 32.3% | 31.4% | 33.2% |
| About the right amount | 66.1% | 66.9% | 65.2% |
| Too much information | 1.6% | 1.7% | 1.5% |
11. How would you rate the range of service options available to you? (n=1233)
| Many options | 24.5% | 25.5% | 23.4% |
| A fair amount of options | 49.3% | 50.1% | 48.5% |
| Only a few options | 22.2% | 19.9% | 24.7% |
| No options at all | 4.0% | 4.5% | 3.4% |
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
12. To what extent were you able to make your own decisions about service options? (n=1227)
| To a great extent | 61.9% | 66.1% | 57.4% |
| Somewhat | 26.8% | 24.4% | 29.5% |
| Not very much | 8.0% | 6.8% | 9.2% |
| Not at all | 3.3% | 2.6% | 3.9% |
*Significant differences at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)
13. How were decisions made regarding what services and training you could take? (n=1221)
I made my own decisions, with little or no advice
from a counselor 35.0% 35.7% 34.2%
A counselor helped advise me on choosing
from several options 49.6% 51.9% 47.0%
A counselor suggested the best option
for me 10.9% 8.7% 13.4%
A counselor told me
what to do 4.5% 3.7% 5.4%
*Significant differences at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)
14. Did your re-employment program make a specific amount of money available for your services and training? (n=1221)
| Yes | 60.9% | 74.3% | 46.1% |
| No | 17.9% | 10.7% | 25.7% |
| Don't know | 21.2% | 15.0% | 28.2% |
*Significant differences at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)
15. How much control did you feel you had over how you could spend money available? (n=1102)
| Complete control | 10.5% | 12.0% | 8.6% |
| A lot of control | 25.8% | 30.7% | 19.5% |
| A little control | 25.6% | 30.2% | 23.8% |
| No control at all | 38.1% | 30.2% | 48.0% |
*Significant differences at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)
16. How would you rate the amount of control you would liked to have had over how your financial assistance was spent relative to the amount you did have? (n=1077)
| I preferred less control | 3.1% | 3.0% | 3.2% |
| I had the right amount of control | 63.4% | 66.0% | 60.1% |
| I preferred more control | 33.5% | 31.1% | 36.7% |
Outcomes
The following set of questions is designed to help us evaluate the overall quality of your re-employment program.
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
17. How did the outcome of your program compare with your initial expectations? (n=1216)
| Exceeded my expectations | 28.9% | 29.2% | 28.7% |
| Met my expectations | 48.9% | 49.6% | 48.2% |
| Did not meet my expectations | 22.1% | 21.2% | 23.1% |
18. How satisfied were you with the degree to which you could make your own decisions? (n=1214)
| Very satisfied | 57.7% | 59.5% | 55.6% |
| Somewhat satisfied | 30.1% | 30.0% | 30.3% |
| Not very satisfied | 7.5% | 7.3% | 7.7% |
| Not satisfied at all | 4.7% | 3.1% | 6.4% |
*Significant differences at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)
19. How much do you feel your re-employment experience helped you? (n=1221)
| Quite a bit/a lot | 60.4% | 62.6% | 57.8% |
| Somewhat | 24.8% | 23.6% | 26.2% |
| Not very much | 9.2% | 8.5% | 9.9% |
| Not at all | 5.7% | 5.3% | 6.1% |
20. How would you describe your overall experience with re-employment program staff? (n=1223)
| Positive | 78.3% | 80.4% | 75.8% |
| Neutral | 15.8% | 14.4% | 17.3% |
| Negative | 6.0% | 5.1% | 6.9% |
21. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your re-employment program? (n=1224)
| Very satisfied | 57.5% | 60.0% | 54.7% |
| Somewhat satisfied | 28.9% | 27.1% | 30.9% |
| Not very satisfied | 7.8% | 8.1% | 7.4% |
| Not satisfied at all | 5.8% | 4.8% | 6.9% |
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
22. Other than receiving financial assistance for training, which of the following aspects of the re-employment program was most important and valuable to you? (n=893)
| Good counseling | 27.2% | 25.7% | 28.8% |
| Good information about training programs | 17.7% | 16.0% | 19.5% |
| Good information about jobs | 10.0% | 7.3% | 12.8% |
| Freedom to decide about where to go for training | 29.9% | 35.2% | 24.2% |
| Freedom to decide how to spend financial assistance | 2.8% | 5.0% | 0.5% |
| Space to work and make phone calls | 7.1% | 6.0% | 8.1% |
| Assistance with things like child care or transport | 5.4% | 4.8% | 6.0% |
Significant differences at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)
Re-employment Program Improvements
In order to help us better understand how re-employment programs should be improved, please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please circle a number on the scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree with the statement, and 7 means you strongly agree with the statement.
23. People entering re-employment programs should be required to do research into training providers or vendors. (n=1226)
| Mean | 4.98 | 5.15 | 4.78 |
| Median | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.77 | 1.78 | 1.74 |
*Significant difference at the 0.01 -level. (T-test)
24. People entering re-employment programs should be required to research their chosen career. (n=1232)
| Mean | 5.65 | 5.80 | 5.49 |
| Median | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.55 | 1.48 | 1.60 |
*Significant difference at the 0.01 -level. (T-test)
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
25. People entering re-employment programs should be required to do research to understand what jobs are available and how to get them. (n=1232)
| Mean | 5.66 | 5.76 | 5.49 |
| Median | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.59 | 1.53 | 1.60 |
*Significant difference at the 0.05 -level. (T-test)
26. People entering re-employment programs should be left alone to make their own decisions. (n=1234)
| Mean | 3.29 | 3.29 | 3.29 |
| Median | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.82 | 1.77 | 1.88 |
27. People entering re-employment programs should be required to meet with career counselors prior to enrolling in training. (n=1236)
| Mean | 5.92 | 5.98 | 5.86 |
| Median | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.49 | 1.42 | 1.56 |
28. People in re-employment programs should be given freedom to spend financial assistance as they see fit. (n=1228)
| Mean | 3.60 | 3.68 | 3.50 |
| Median | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.96 | 1.95 | 1.96 |
Significant difference at the 0.10 -level. (T-test)
29. People in re-employment programs should be allowed to choose any training program they want. (n=1233)
| Mean | 4.61 | 4.64 | 4.59 |
| Median | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.97 | 1.91 | 2.03 |
30. I was treated like a responsible adult by my re-employment program. (n=1232)
| Mean | 6.04 | 6.07 | 6.02 |
| Median | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Std. Deviation | 1.63 | 1.58 | 1.69 |
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
Demographic Information
The following questions are extremely important to help us ensure that training services are delivered to all participants on an equal basis. Please remember that this information is completely confidential.
31. In what year were you born? [AGE] (n=1223)
| Mean | 44.39 | 43.81 | 45.04 |
| Median | 45 | 44 | 46 |
| Std. Deviation | 10.14 | 9.96 | 10.31 |
*Significant difference at the 0.05 -level. (T-test)
32. What is your sex? (n=1234)
| Male | 39.5% | 39.3% | 39.9% |
| Female | 60.5% | 60.7% | 60.1% |
33. What was the highest level of school that you had complete prior to enrolling in your re-employment program? (n=1216)
| 8th Grade or less | 0.6% | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| Some high school | 2.5% | 2.0% | 3.1% |
| Completed high school/GED | 26.7% | 22.7% | 31.3% |
| Some college courses | 33.1% | 37.6% | 28.1% |
| Completed two-year degree | 11.8% | 12.7% | 10.7% |
| Completed four-year degree | 12.3% | 11.6% | 12.9% |
| Some graduate courses | 5.4% | 5.6% | 5.2% |
| Completed graduate degree | 7.6% | 7.5% | 7.7% |
*Significant difference at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)
34. Did you complete the training that was arranged through your re-employment program? (n=1223)
| Yes | 72.7% | 72.9% | 72.5% |
| No | 27.3% | 27.1% | 27.5% |
35. Are you currently employed? (n=1223)
| Yes | 70.1% | 72.9% | 67.0% |
| No | 29.9% | 27.1% | 33.0% |
*Significant difference at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)
| Total |
CMA |
Title III |
36. With which racial or ethnic group do you most closely identify yourself? (n=1214)
| African American/Black | 14.7% | 15.6% | 13.6% |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 1.6% | 1.6% | 1.6% |
| Caucasian/White | 74.5% | 73.9% | 75.1% |
| Hispanic or Latino | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.0% |
| Native American | 3.0% | 2.7% | 3.3% |
| Other | 2.1% | 1.9% | 2.4% |
37. Please feel free to write any additional comments regarding your re-employment program in the space below or on back.
Eligible Training Provider Issues
Eligible Training Provider Background
The WIA principles encourage more choice for customers and, overall, a more market-oriented training system. Bringing training vendors--the suppliers of training services--into
the system so that customers can have access to them is an essential element of making these
principles real. Eligible training providers are training vendors who have applied to a
workforce board to receive training funds under WIA and have been approved by the board
and the state to do so. These providers face a variety of issues as they move into the WIA
system, issues that the workforce boards and One-Stops must understand and take into account
in operating the system. These issues include, among others, the approval process, a need for
information about the WIA training market, a new customer focus, requirements to provide
program and performance information, and how to respond to the new market conditions.
Training Provider Approval
For a training vendor to become an eligible training provider under WIA, they must complete
a process by which a local workforce board gives approval to them to provide specific
programs and in which the state agency verifies performance information. This involves
several steps and all levels of the system within a state.
The state develops application requirements, including performance levels, that programs not
eligible under the Higher Education Act nor a registered apprenticeship program must meet in
order to become initially eligible. The state must set minimum levels of performance for all
providers to remain subsequently eligible and the locals can adjust these upward. It is also the
responsibility of the designated state agency to create a list of eligible training providers
compiled from the submissions of the local boards. Those providers who have been approved
by the local boards and have had their information verified by the state are added to the list.
The state then has the responsibility to disseminate widely the list of providers. WIA is silent
on the mechanism to be used for dissemination, but many states are developing or examining
the use of web-based systems that can be easily accessed by One-Stops and individual
participants. WIA also requires that consumer reports on performance and cost be provided,
but is silent on how this will be accomplished.
Local Board responsibilities include:
The application and approval process must elicit commitments from applicants to provide
performance information, subject to audit, as required by WIA. If the process is too complex
or time consuming, training providers will be less likely to apply. For example, where a
training provider operates across the jurisdictions of multiple workforce boards, submission of
several applications and adherence to slightly different procedures could be seen as too
burdensome. If so, it might result in fewer applications than the workforce boards may hope
to receive. On the other hand, if the process fails to obtain the necessary commitments to
assure that complete, accurate performance information is provided, then the system will not
be able to equip individual participants with what they need to make informed decisions.
Need for Market Information
It is not inevitable that training vendors will flock to the new system. Instead, they will need
certain types of market information to make the decision on whether to apply to become
eligible training providers and which training programs they will apply to have included.
Providers will want to know how many participants are likely to receive ITAs, what amount of
money each ITA will include, and what range of training services will be allowed by the
workforce board and the state. Also, they will need financial and regulatory information; any
limitations on fees; contracting processes, if any; record-keeping requirements for accepting
the vouchers; data collection and reporting requirements; and the application and approval
process. They will also need information on how customers may connect with eligible
providers, such as referral processes, and the types of marketing opportunities that will be
available.
Such information will help providers calculate whether the time and expense necessary to
apply is likely to be recovered through the business they could do. For workforce boards and
One-Stops that are eager to attract a large number of providers, furnishing this type of
information will be a part of the process of doing so.
The WIBs or One-Stops must be responsible for acquiring, organizing, and disseminating
information for both consumers and providers.
A New Customer Focus
Under JTPA, the degree of individual choice about the use of training providers varied widely,
but in virtually all cases, WIA should result in increased customer choice. This means that
staff will play a different role in the decisions about what kind of training is needed and which
provider will be used. For the eligible training providers, this means a dramatic shift in who
their customer is. Instead of working to understand and meet the needs of JTPA staff, as they
often have needed to do in the past, they will have to understand and meet the needs of
individual WIA participants.
The responses of the providers must be understood by the staff who operate the system. They
must address such issues as:
It is likely that training vendors will communicate among themselves about the WIA system
and will attempt to influence its development and operation. While there is nothing untoward
about such an effort, it is essential that the workforce boards and One-Stops be aware of it.
While the interests of the training vendors and participants overlap, they are not identical.
Those who operate the WIA system must assure that the interests of the participants are
effectively represented.
Providing Program and Performance Information
WIA requires that all eligible training providers furnish information about their courses of
study and program outcomes. This program and performance information has at least two
uses. Workforce boards and states will use it to determine subsequent eligibility and
individual participants to inform their training decisions. If the system provides for easy
comparison of the performance of a relatively large number of providers, then eligibility
becomes less an issue; the choices of the individuals are likely to skew in the direction of those
who perform well.
Many proprietary schools have collected performance information in the past, however few
have ever had to generate verifiable information that will track against UI wage records. Still,
for many of them, the WIA requirements may be less a departure from business as usual. For
community colleges and other public sector providers, there is wide diversity of experience--
some have limited experience with it, others have none. Under WIA, programs eligible under
the Higher Education Act or registered under the National Apprenticeship Act at community
colleges or proprietary schools must meet the requirements of locally developed applications,
which will generally not require performance information. Programs which are not HEA-eligible (or registered under the Apprenticeship Act) --whether offered by a community
college, proprietary school or community-based organization -- will have to provide
performance information as per state-developed requirements. But providers of all programs
must provide the same performance information after the first year or period of initial
eligibility. They will also have to meet state or locally adjusted standards to remain eligible.
as other providers.
Types of program information valued by participants is likely to be quite broad. What might
be critically important for one may be inconsequential for another. For example, a participant
with limited financial capacity may care most about price, while one with limited
transportation may value geographic proximity more highly. A participant who needs to
support a family may care most about wages at placement, while one who is less confident in
his or her ability may be most focused on completion rates.
Market Responses
If the market for particular services includes several providers and if WIA allows them to
charge market rates, those providers will compete for the business of the ITA-eligible WIA
customers. This competition may take several forms, including marketing and price.
Some providers may want to communicate as much information about themselves as possible
through the eligible training providers list and the Consumer Report system. If the list is web-based, the state and workforce boards may decide to link the record of a provider directly to
that provider's website. This would provide a marketing channel that would otherwise be
closed to the provider. Another communication vehicle that providers may wish to use is
marketing or advertising at or near the One-Stop. Workforce boards and One-Stop operators
will need to deal with the issues that this raises. For example, on-site advertising could be a
valuable revenue source, but could also raise equity questions such as whether smaller, cash-poor providers may be disadvantaged relative to their larger counterparts. Near-site
advertising is probably beyond the direct control of a One-Stop, but staff will need to be
prepared for customers responding to these advertisements.
Other providers will want to compete on price. Since this information is already included in
the mandatory information, it will be kept as part of the eligible training providers' list and the
Consumer Report system. It will be important to allow changes to the list to be made easily
and frequently to capture the benefits of such price competition. The benefits will accrue to
the customers, who will be able to afford more training within the limits of the ITA, and to the
WIA system that will be able to serve more customers with the savings based on any price
competition. Some JTPA offices have in the past limited voucher payments to the lowest level
charged by any provider of a particular training. This strategy of price management may
control costs, but it also creates a risk of limiting the number of providers who participate in
the system and of making WIA training a "lowest-common-denominator" system.
In general, providers are likely to be quite creative in their responses to the more market-oriented WIA system. The exact responses cannot be anticipated, but they must be monitored
and understood so that the staff can play an effective role in assisting customers.
It is important to understand that the WIA system itself is part of the marketplace and that
vendors will respond to the way WIA is implemented. If the states and workforce boards
establish straightforward procedures, respond to problems quickly, and pay their bills on time,
then they will have a positive effect on creating a functioning market. If not, they may impede
the emergence of the training market that is so important to the strengthening of their regional
workforce.
CMA Issue Paper: Vendor Perspectives and
Likely Impact
|
The Use of Vouchers in Adult Worker Retraining: Vendor Perspectives and Likely Impact |
|||
|
Prepared by | |||
|
Public Policy Associates | |||
|
and | |||
|
Corporation For a Skilled Workforce | |||
|
October 1998 | |||
Table of Contents
Institutional Purchasing Versus Individual Choice
Implications
Introduction
Vendors are providers of training or other services to customers of the adult worker retraining
system. They deliver services that are critical to accomplishment of the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) mission--which is to move workers into jobs at attractive wages as
quickly as possible.
The use of vouchers in the JTPA system has profound implications for vendors and their
relationship with JTPA. The Career Management Account (CMA) Demonstration Project,
which tested a variety of approaches to vouchers at 13 JTPA sites across the nation, included
groups of 200 participants in voucher experiments for a period of about one and a half years.
Despite its limitations, the demonstration provided some insight into how vendors may
perceive and react to a broadened use of vouchers and how these perceptions and reactions
may change the relationship between the vendor community and the JTPA system.
In this paper, the differences between the traditional and voucher approaches are explored,
vendor responses are discussed, and implications for the role of JTPA are noted. Finally, key
issues of staff reorientation and training are articulated.
Institutional Purchasing Versus Individual Choice
A key distinction between the traditional Title III system and the use of vouchers is that, with
vouchers, individual customers have much greater latitude in selecting the specific vendors
who will provide their training. Viewed from the vendor perspective, this means that the
individual JTPA participant becomes the customer.
In any market, sellers attempt to carry out transactions with buyers. The adult worker
retraining market is no exception. However, if a JTPA agency purchases training slots in bulk
through a procurement process, or if it maintains a very narrow list of certified training
vendors, then, from the vendor's point of view, it is the JTPA staff that is the customer and
not the individual participant.
The shift to individuals as the customers has a variety of implications for vendors. Instead of
cultivating relationships with JTPA staff, they must consider marketing to individuals. Instead
of focusing on the institutional perspective on training needs, they must anticipate the desires
of individuals. Instead of focusing on system-wide timelines, they must respond to the
schedules of individuals.
Despite the small scale of the CMA demonstration, such responses were observed at many of
the 13 sites. For instance, in Palm Beach, some vendors wanted more of an opportunity to
advertise and get their information directly into the hands of the CMA customers. Several
referenced new materials and products they had developed to advertise more effectively to
individuals. In Baltimore, vendors who formerly provided class-size training were encouraged
to submit proposals and redesign their programs to accommodate individual schedules.
According to staff at that site, subcontractors could no longer depend upon their agency to fill
their classes. Instead, they had to begin rethinking how they did business.
Vendor Certification
If choice is to be meaningful, the range of available choices must be as broad as possible. The
freedom to choose from all vendors in a local training market is quite different from selecting
one of a few on a list of pre-certified vendors. The response of vendors to the certification
process appears to depend on the complexity of the process and the size of the market to which
certification provides access.
In order for choice to be meaningful to individuals and participation attractive to vendors, the
process of being added to the list must be relatively simple. On the other hand, the JTPA
system must be aggressive about policing fraud and abuse among vendors. This means that
management of the certified list is a critical function of a voucher system.
The broadening of the numbers and types of vendors certified, as well as the process for being
included, is very important in creating a positive perspective among vendors. If the scale of
voucher activities increases substantially, vendors will become highly motivated to be included
in such a list. Also, individual customers will need a relatively simple process for
"nominating" a vendor for inclusion. The CMA demonstrations showed this was possible. At
the Phoenix CMA site, 14 new vendors were added over the first four months of the
demonstration. The certification process took less than two weeks. In Oklahoma, the number
of training vendors expanded from about 50 to more than 160. Of the limited number of
vendors who were included in the study, very few complained about the certification or
approval process.
In addition to the number of vendors who are certified, the types of vendors is also important
to customers. The Georgia CMA site liberalized the vendor qualification process to meet the
needs of CMA clients seeking unconventional or high-skill training.
Massachusetts utilized a statewide registry developed as a result of a Request for Qualifications
solicitation issued by the Massachusetts Service Delivery Area Directors Association. This
approach addressed the potential problem of dealing with vendors who operate in multiple
service delivery areas. The Massachusetts demonstration sites maintained an outcomes report
on regional vendors which was available to customers, and there were many references to its
extensive use during site visits. According to staff, procurement of training became smoother
and more streamlined within the CMA model.
Market Dynamics One would expect that vendors would behave differently in a system driven by individual
choice, and the CMA experience provided some evidence that this is the case. Responses
were quite different, however, from private- and public-sector vendors. The JTPA operation
itself, with regard to certain services, is a special case of public-sector vendor. The market
response of this type of vendor must be clearly understood. The limitations of the data in this
area must be made clear--in many sites, vendors and staff indicated it was too early to see
much change in vendor behavior in response to vouchers. Despite this important limitation,
however, there were a number of clues about changes that can be expected to occur as
vouchers go to scale.
Responding to Individuals
Vendors respond quite differently to institutional customers than to individuals. In New York
City, a vendor reported that her organization bids aggressively for bulk contracts with JTPA.
Pricing is adjusted to compete with what her organization believes others will bid and what
JTPA is willing to pay. This same organization, however, has a strict policy not to negotiate
price with individuals.
In Portland, Oregon, quite a different story was heard. A customer who was seeking
computer training shopped the market for qualified vendors and was able to negotiate a
discounted price from the one he judged to be the best, based on the limits of the voucher and
the willingness of another vendor to sell at a lower price.
Despite concerns that moving from bulk contracts to individual accounts would necessarily
lead to higher training costs, there is evidence to suggest that vendors will respond to
competitive pressures in the training market and negotiate price reductions on an individual
basis.
Another type of response to individuals concerns the scheduling of training. The use of fixed-schedule, classroom-style training has been very common among JTPA programs. The
advantages of using this type of training often include volume purchase discounts and
predictability. Individuals, however, are often forced to change their training plans to
accommodate fixed schedules. Vendors who understood the voucher system expressed interest
in providing open-entry, open-exit training programs that would eliminate scheduling barriers
for individuals.
Marketing
While there are clear positives and negatives in the market response of vendors to a voucher
system, the key difference, compared to traditional Title III, is that their perception of who
their customer is shifts dramatically. This shift toward focusing on individuals implies a
different marketing strategy for vendors. Within such a system, they will want to market to
JTPA participants and JTPA-eligible individuals. If the market is structured well, this can be
a constructive process. If not, the marketing process can distort customer choices in a
problematic fashion. A key element of structuring the market to take this into account is
providing good consumer information.
The CMA demonstration was not large enough to stimulate extensive changes in marketing
activities. However, vendors understood the implications of the voucher system for their
approach to marketing.
Private Versus Public Sector
The level of information provided to vendors about the voucher programs varied widely
among the 13 sites. There were cases in which vendors did understand the CMA designs, and
when they did, they tended to like them both in concept and in practice. Conceptually, private
sector vendors tend to like market-oriented designs. Such vendors often said they felt
comfortable with the idea of competing for clients, although those who had enjoyed large-scale
contracts over long periods of time worried about the loss of such contracts. In most cases,
vendors who were aware of the program designs felt they were less bureaucratic and more
streamlined than the traditional approach. For instance, vendors to the Palm Beach program
felt it was flexible and easier to manage from a logistical/paperwork standpoint. Those in
Oregon appreciated the rapid payment for the vouchers, as did those in San Bernadino, where
the voucher system turned a 30-day process into a three-day process for issuing payment.
Staff of public-sector training entities, such as community colleges, were sometimes less
sanguine about the value of the voucher system for their institutions. They are generally much
less flexible in their scheduling and, therefore, have a competitive disadvantage compared with
trainers that can meet timelines of customers and potential employers. There was some
evidence, however, that the higher-education community will compete aggressively in a
voucher system. Central Texas College is moving to short-term training, such as a truck
driving program and computer certification, as a result of the shift in the marketplace and
funding streams.
In addition, there may be opportunities to include non-traditional training vendors within the
sphere of options available to voucher program participants. While there was scant evidence
within the CMA demonstration sites of the use of on-the-job training and internships, their
inclusion in the pool of available training providers would broaden the range of training
options available to individual participants.
JTPA as a Vendor
Among the public-sector (or sometimes private, non-profit) providers is one entity that brings
a unique perspective to the voucher environment--the JTPA agency itself. These agencies play
several roles in the JTPA system, including stewardship of funds, counseling and guidance,
and training. The shift to vouchers has forced JTPA offices to question whether the latter two
of these functions should be "voucherized" and whether the agencies offering them should
begin to operate in the same competitive environment as do other vendors. The answers to
this question varied widely among the CMA sites.
Most CMA sites offered some types of training or support services. These ranged from
classroom training for computer skills in Oregon to basic skills development in Maine. Most
offices provided resume development and fax/mailing service as part of their support for job
search activities. The rules on use of and payment for these services indicates the perspective
of these vendors about operating in a market-like setting. Most provided these training and
other services at no charge to the customer. Some allowed the voucher funds to be used to
purchase similar services from outside vendors, but most had serious reservations about such a
use of the funds. Only in a few cases was the competitive "playing field" on which the JTPA
office and outside vendors competed truly level.
In the area of counseling and career planning, it was even less common for the services to be
voucherized. However, there were a few exceptions. In Phoenix, for example, counseling
and career planning was available both from the JTPA office and from outside vendors. Since
the cost of JTPA services were not charged to the voucher, that office had a substantial
competitive advantage. It does bear noting that, in the few cases in which an outside vendor
was used, outcomes were not particularly positive. Florida went even further, as described on
page 11, by outsourcing their Basic Readjustment Services entirely.
The more common response of JTPA offices was to keep the counseling and planning-support
functions entirely outside the voucher framework. Most feared that, if customers had the
choice of either using these services or not, they would not invest sufficient resources in
planning. They also were deeply concerned about their ability to sell their services to
customers in a competitive environment. In New York City and elsewhere, the essence of the
concern was that, while the services have value, customers might not be able to see that value
prior to receiving service and, therefore, would not choose to use them. While this concern is
similar to what some private sector vendors expressed, the difference is that the JTPA offices
typically addressed their own concern by eliminating the possibility of competition or choice.
The Need for Market Information As vendors increasingly find themselves in the position of needing to market their services to
individual customers, the temptation to overstate their effectiveness will likewise increase.
Whether this amounts to simply putting the best appearance on their products or outright
fraud, customers will be faced with the need to examine critically the claims of vendors before
deciding to purchase their services. This requires such extensive information that it is not
feasible or efficient for individual consumers to develop it.
Likewise, vendors must receive adequate information about the voucher system to allow them
to decide whether to participate in the system and accept vouchers. The type and amount of
information must be sufficient for them to determine how the system operates, whether it is
mechanically and technically feasible to participate, and whether it makes good business sense
for them to be involved. If choice for JTPA customers is to be meaningful, the flow of such
information to prospective vendors must be robust.
Consumer Information
The data needed to support good consumer choice is fairly straightforward. It includes
information on content of training, customer satisfaction, outcomes in terms of placement rates
and wages, and cost. Armed with such data on a variety of vendors, a consumer can shop
around and make the selection that best fits his or her needs. This positions the consumer to
carry out a well-informed transaction with a vendor.
In Oregon, for example, as described in their final report, future plans include the increased
use of information on vendor performance--since the CMA project "yielded examples of how
empowered consumers were more likely to hold training vendors to a higher level of
accountability and were likely to shop around for the most cost-effective alternatives."
The staff of the San Bernadino CMA site reported that the flexibility CMA participants had in
choosing a training provider allowed them to challenge the credentials of less-credible schools.
Schools were not guaranteed enrollees and, therefore, had to in a sense "prove" themselves to
individual customers. For that site, this was an unanticipated benefit of the CMA
program--one that was made possible because individual consumers were put in a position to
acquire good information and utilize it as they shopped for services.
These illustrations provide promising evidence that, when this occurs, it influences both the
perspective and behavior of vendors. Acquiring this information is not always easy.
Problems encountered during the CMA demonstration included both quality of information and
availability of information. In several sites, staff were skeptical of the reliability of data from
proprietary schools. Part of the problem was a fear that these schools simply overstate their
placement rates. In addition, however, was a worry that data were drawn from a school's
entire pool of customers, which may be systematically different from the JTPA population.
Sometimes information was simply not available. The public higher education system was
rarely able to provide placement or wage information for its previous customers. In many
cases, community colleges and universities simply did not see such information as relevant to
their mission.
Vendor Information
The JTPA offices must provide the type of information needed by vendors to assess the value
of the program and decide whether and to what extent vendors may choose to participate.
This includes financial and regulatory information, such as the amount of the voucher; any
other limitations on fees; contracting processes, if any; record-keeping requirements for
accepting the vouchers; data collection and reporting requirements; and the certification
process. It also includes information on how customers may connect with vendors, such as
referral processes, size of the pool of customers, and marketing opportunities.
Because of the limited scale of the CMA demonstration, opportunities to develop and
disseminate vendor information were constrained. As a result, some confusion among vendors
occurred. At the Atlanta CMA site, for example, clients indicated that the process often
breaks down at a training site when financial-aid staff do not understand the voucher process.
Similar difficulties were seen at other sites.
In general, vendors were not particularly well-informed about the CMA systems--but this was
not always a problem. The Oregon voucher system was administratively simple, but vendors
could not generally describe the differences between it and the traditional system. They were
not particularly interested in understanding the fine points of the design. This result may
imply, then, that the need for vendor information can be minimized if the design of the
voucher program is very simple and market oriented.
The JTPA offices must be responsible for acquiring, organizing, and disseminating
information for both consumers and vendors. However, as with many functions, this
information could be provided by the JTPA system or from an entity with which JTPA
contracts, which would then carry it out with oversight from the JTPA office. Operating JTPA in a Market Setting An important influence on vendor perspectives about vouchers is the process through which a
JTPA office operates the voucher system. Payment processes are of great concern to vendors,
as is the competitive framework within which they must operate. JTPA offices also face the
question of whether they will continue to be providers of service as well as managers of the
voucher process. The answer may influence both the range of activities of the JTPA operation
and the perspective of vendors about it.
Vendors care a great deal about getting paid for the services they provide, but timeliness of
payment varied greatly across the CMA sites. As noted above, some sites accelerated payment
processes substantially. However, there were problems with the payment processes at some
sites. In New York City, for example, vendors who had been certified to provide services and
were selected by a customer for specific training were forced to wait as long as a year to
receive payment. Staff, vendors, and customers were equally frustrated with the problem.
But this difficulty did not seem to be specific to the voucher system. Rather, it appeared to be
endemic to the large NYC bureaucracy. However, the consequences may be more problematic
in a voucher system. While not nearly as severe as the New York City problems, vendors to
the Atlanta CMA program reported that the system was "smooth but slow." In Texas,
dissatisfaction was expressed with the site's 60- to 90-day payment cycle. In general, vendors
seem to expect payment on a timely basis, which commonly means 30 days.
Such difficulties inevitably sour vendors on accepting vouchers in the future--which will
ultimately narrow the range of available providers. With volume purchases, vendors may be
willing and able to wait for payment. However, when training decisions are made by
individuals, the vendors may decide that the voucher has little value because of the inherent
time lag in payment. Since the nature of the relationship between the vendor and JTPA is a
function of the transactional decisions of vendors, they may simply reject vouchers from future
customers after having a few negative experiences.
Another reality of the shift to a market-based system is that some vendors will prosper while
others may suffer or even fail. These differences are clearly reflected in the perspectives held
by vendors about the merit of the shift. A powerful illustration is the dependence of some
vendors on relatively large-scale contracts to provide training. Such a vendor may have gotten
to the point where a substantial fraction of the organization's income is derived from JTPA
services. The loss of such a revenue base--or even uncertainty about its continuation--can be
devastating. In New York City and elsewhere, community-based non-profit organizations
have been given notice that they will need to begin to compete for JTPA work based on
performance. The response has been politically difficult for the agencies that have taken such
positions.
The Florida CMA site, on the other hand, decided that it would no longer be a provider of
services. This very different approach illustrates an almost purely market-making role for the
JTPA organization. As described in that site's final report, internal Basic Readjustment
Services were discontinued early in the program because the "availability of these in-house
services was influencing the customers in some way and prevented outside providers from
participating in the program. By outsourcing (the services), the RESTART staff was able to
concentrate on facilitating 'customer choice,' overseeing the voucher process, and monitoring
the use of the Career Management Accounts."
A dramatic shift in the role of JTPA implies the need to equip staff to play a new role. If the
agencies are to be credible and effective in dealing with vendors, they will need to understand
the issues and responses that are likely to be elicited from those vendors as a result of the shift
to a market-based approach. This suggests the need for staff to be exposed to research and
training materials that address such issues. It will be critically important to help them
understand how the shift in the JTPA role changes the nature of their jobs and to equip them to
do that job well. This is, perhaps, the most important precursor to a successful voucher
system.
Implications
The Congress and Administration have moved toward vouchers because they are different
from the current system, and the response of vendors represents one of the key differences.
This difference requires the JTPA system to play a role in organizing the training market,
rather than simply purchasing services. The following are the key elements of this role:
Establish clear criteria for inclusion on a certification list
Implement a relatively easy and fast process for certification
Require that all vendors provide performance data, subject to audit
Police vendors aggressively for misrepresentation or fraud
Provide high-quality information to consumers and vendors
Process payments quickly
While some of these elements are similar to current JTPA activities, they would be carried out
in a different context. The response of vendors will depend upon the manner in which this
role is carried out. If JTPA staff are clear with vendors that they will no longer be the
primary customers of the vendors, then vendors are likely to understand and adjust to the shift
to a market-based voucher system.
Role of Workforce Boards and One-Stops
The Leadership Role of Workforce Boards
The workforce investment system under WIA emphasizes informed customer choice, system
performance, and continuous improvement. The eligible training provider process involves
several key strategic choices that can either advance or impede achievement of these goals.
State and local boards will work together to create the performance accountability measures
for the eligible training provider application process and to develop a list that identifies two
types of providers: those initially eligible and those subsequently eligible. As workforce
boards, in partnership with states, set the limits on identifying training providers whose
performance qualifies them to train adults and dislocated workers, they can do so in ways that
make the training market more robust or less so.
Establishing and maintaining the free flow of accurate, useful information between eligible
training providers and participants is perhaps the most critical leadership role. Without this
essential ingredient, it is just not possible to stimulate a more robust training market. The key
policy decision that states and workforce boards must make is whether the number of eligible
training providers will be constrained or relatively large. It is only when they choose the latter
course that customer choice has real meaning.
Other policy decisions that shape the nature of the WIA system include the performance
standards for inclusion on the eligible training provider list, the range of occupations that are
considered to be "demand occupations," and the level of encouragement and support that is
provided to staff to implement a truly market-oriented system.
At each decision point, the states and workforce boards must understand that they can exert
leadership that will influence not only the WIA system, but the entire training market and
therefore the labor market of the region.
The Changing Operational Role of One-Stop Staff
An individual training account-based system is truly a paradigm shift. This transformation
equates to new and different administrative burdens and new staffing roles. The role of case
manager in this One-Stop system changes from decision maker to coach and facilitator. Staff
are expected to assess skills and readiness and coach clients on courses of action that would
hopefully lead to strong labor market attachment. Staff must manage new individual payment
arrangements and new forms of paperwork, develop and maintain ongoing relationships with
clients, be accessible and able to coach them, and maintain working relationships with
vendors.
Since staff members are expected to play a role significantly different from their previous one,
they need to access a new set of tools when communicating with customers. If existing staff
members are to effectively implement a voucher system, it is essential that they both
understand and feel comfortable in their new role. One-Stops should invest in training early
on to prepare staff for greater responsibilities in assessing customer needs and to ensure
adequate transition to this system that is more focused on customer choice and decision making
in providing training services. Staff members should receive support in making these changes
through learning networks and technical assistance.
Similarly, in order for participants to benefit fully from the voucher program, it is imperative
that they understand how the system operates, what their responsibility is, and what choices
are available to them. Participants should participate in a comprehensive orientation session
and should be required to develop, and receive approval for, a re-employment plan that
provides a rationale for their career/training choices, as well as support services necessary to
attain their goals.
Many changes follow a voucher program's shift of authority from staff to customers. Not
only does the role of staff shift to guiding or supporting a research and planning process
carried out principally by the participant, but the perspective of vendors changes from viewing
staff as their principal customers to focusing on individual participants as customers. Even
state and federal policy makers will need to adjust their thinking, as the responsibility for
outcomes inevitably shifts from staff to their customers--accountability mechanisms must
address this change.
As the use of individual training accounts expands through implementation of the Workforce
Investment Act, staff and leadership must think carefully about their future planning and
activities. Leaders must send a clear message to staff regarding the changes that are in store
and the administrative support that will be provided to make an effective transition to a new
operating system.
CMA Issue Paper: Promoting and Sustaining
Change in Organizations Implementing CMAs
|
Institutionalization of Change: Promoting and Sustaining Change in Organizations Implementing Career Management Accounts |
|||
|
Prepared by | |||
|
Public Policy Associates | |||
|
and | |||
|
Corporation For a Skilled Workforce | |||
|
October 1998 | |||
Table of Contents
Organizational Change: Steps to Success
Institutionalizing Change: The Employment and Training System Perspective
Appendix A: The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change
Endnotes
Introduction
In order to increase the "staying power" of future demonstration projects, this paper addresses
change management from the following two perspectives:
1. Organizational: This paper outlines strategies that have been developed by business
theorists for the introduction of new concepts into an organization. Based on these
theories, a number of steps are suggested in response to the Career Management
Accounts (CMA) experience.
2. Employment and Training System: A generic service-delivery model is offered, and a
review of CMA experiences in that context suggests a focus on a few system-level
supports.
The premise of this paper is that public programs must be able to introduce and test new ideas
efficiently in order to maximize opportunities in an era of limited public funds.
Defining "Institutionalization of Change"
Thomas Harvey, a business management theorist, defines the institutionalization of change as
the "integration of a change effort into the mainstream of the organization so that its
continuance is at least as certain as that of any other activity in the organization."(1) In addition,
Harvey lists the following fundamental determinates of institutionalizing change:
Planning and preparation
Timing
Congruence with mission
Environmental sensitivity
Clarity and simplicity
Unpretentious realism
Sufficient, not indulgent, resources
Strong, central leadership
Reduced individual, proprietary interest
Of these factors, the planning and preparation requirement is highlighted as the primary
requirement for success. Reflections on the CMA experience to date can be classified as
planning and preparation for the future.
The Employment and Training Environment
As the Workforce Development Act is implemented, one of the primary issues facing the
public employment and training system will be the extent to which the service providers are
able to embrace individual training accounts as a way to organize service delivery. The
experience to date suggests that the concept is acceptable on its face but that a great many
questions will arise as system-wide implementation proceeds. This relates to the wide latitude
in interpretation of the concept. In that context, the Department of Labor (DOL) will be called
upon to both facilitate and manage change across a service delivery landscape that is becoming
more localized and decentralized.
Along with job training reform legislation, a number of environmental factors are pushing
service delivery systems towards local design and variability. The following factors illustrate
this point:
Without question, the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) is the dominant factor pushing service
delivery design to the state and local levels (i.e., devolution).(2) DOL-administered
welfare-to-work money places service delivery authority with local JTPA providers
for services to the economically disadvantaged.
Career centers are being implemented without a presumed service deliverer. Local
decisions are being made about service delivery structures in order to meet a set of
objectives outlined by the DOL (universality, customer choice, integration, and
performance accountability).
Unemployment insurance (UI) benefits automation de-couples the relationship
between benefits payment offices and employment service offices.
UI profiling--the mechanism for early identification of need and referral to re-employment services for unemployed workers--pushes local services integration but
does not prescribe roles.
In this environment, drawing upon the CMA experience to refine the individual account
concept, to discern next steps, and to provide a knowledge base for new implementers is the
only choice.
Organizational Change: Steps to Success
There are a number of prescriptions and checklists that have been prepared by leading business
theorists on change management (as noted above and in Appendix A). A subset of specific
actions, suggested after the review of the CMA experience, is outlined in the following
discussion.
Articulate the Vision
As articulated by John Kotter, experts on organizational change agree that a clear vision is an
essential element in promoting healthy change within systems:
"Vision plays a key role in producing useful change by helping to direct, align,
and inspire actions on the part of large numbers of people. Without an
appropriate vision, a transformation effort can easily dissolve into a list of
confusing, incompatible, and time-consuming projects that go in the wrong
direction or nowhere at all."
Source: Kotter, John P., Leading Change, Harvard
Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
Implementation of a service delivery structure based on the individual account model in a
decentralized environment, without the development of a unified vision and message, will
result in "a thousand blooms" and little commonality. The CMA experience, in which 13
demonstration sites from across the country experimented in various ways to design and
implement career management accounts, provides strong evidence of the effect. This paper is
not based on the premise that such a result, in and of itself, is undesirable. Simply, if the
opposite result is being sought, some attention to the message and the messenger will be
required.
State the Degree of Freedom
An organization's orientation to change can range in degree from organizational development
to quality management to business process reengineering. Those three concepts can be
outlined as follows:
1. Organizational development emphasizes the importance of communications, the use of
formal data collection techniques, and the need for participation in adapting
organizational operations to the ever-changing environment.(3)
2. Quality management suggests a higher level of proactivity and refers to programs and
initiatives that emphasize incremental improvement in work processes and outputs over
an open-ended period of time.
3. Reengineering (also known as business process redesign or process innovation), in
contrast, refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radically redesigned
and improved work processes in a bounded time frame.(4)
It would be appropriate to characterize the CMA demonstration, by and large, as an exercise
in incremental change. However, when viewed from the perspective of the continuum
described above, the research team found considerable variation among sites. Oklahoma and
Maine, for example, basically masked the "new" program and melded it without a seam into
the existing service delivery framework. Florida, on the other hand, established a distinct
program outside of the current structure. Arizona's expedited enrollment process and, to some
degree, its service options were largely unique for CMA.
While configurations at both ends of the continuum may be acceptable and even desirable, an
up-front declaration and continued communication on the "degree of freedom" would make it
clear what degree of change is intended as the norm. If one outcome is favored over the
other, variability in the field will be reduced by the broadcast of that message.
The importance of clear communication was emphasized in the Final Report for the Greater
Cincinnati Career Resource Network (September 25, 1997, p.2.), which stated:
"The CMA planning process was greatly enhanced by the guidelines issued by
USDOL. Specifically, the flexibility, creativity, innovativeness, and more relaxed
regulatory requirements allowed program operators to explore a wide range of
opportunities and concepts... As a result, new systems for financial control and
program management were successfully implemented, mainly the issuance of
individual checkbooks from which to pay for customers' training expenses and
greater choice in obtaining necessary supportive services."
Find Champions and Provide a Platform
Exactly who will be the leaders as the employment and training world reorders itself is not
entirely clear. Federal regulations, without question, will define a relevant set of parameters.
Champions of individual accounts are another matter. Local policy boards are sure to have an
increased presence in the coming years. The necessity for those agenda-setting boards to
understand both the vision and the nuances associated with individual accounts suggests, at a
minimum, a leadership role for the DOL in the dissemination of policy and program
information surrounding individual accounts. Given the increasingly local nature of the
system, those that are continuing with a form of the CMA model developed during the
demonstration, or those that have independently started to implement individual accounts, are
candidates to be champions.(5) With a strong statement of vision and an expectation of change
fixed at the federal level, local champions will provide the credibility and details on
implementation that is needed to overcome the natural resistance to change. Every effort
should be made to establish and expand over time a community of natural leaders.
Promote Cultural Change
Government reinvention authors David Osborne and Peter Plastrik suggest that a successful
strategy to transform an organization's culture must "change people's experiences, their
emotional commitments, and their mental models."(6) But they warn that "changing an
organization's culture is not a science. The process cannot just be planned and implemented;
it cannot be engineered. It contains too many variables."
The following examples, identified during the CMA demonstration evaluation, help illustrate
this point. The experience of the NOVA Private Industry Council, which, independent of the
CMA demonstration, voluntarily implemented individual training accounts, suggested that the
power of a single idea(7) (i.e., customer focus) and a few tools (Baldrige Award criteria, the
Enterprise, and customer satisfaction surveys) were sufficient to move away from the
ingrained focus on program procedures. In Massachusetts, the presumption that CMA would
allow case managers to move away from extensive case documentation toward more
counseling opportunities drove acceptance throughout the organization. Streamlining was cited
as an attractive and coalescing feature in a number of other sites including San Bernardino,
Cincinnati, and Oregon.
Show That It Works
The ability to demonstrate "short-term wins" is cited as a strategy that erases doubt and builds
momentum. The Training Development Corporation in Maine started down that path with the
production of two videos in 1997--one about the available services and one about the
development process underlying implementation of the CMA. In Atlanta, the "initial success
of the CMA software encouraged staff to consider using the program to track other client flow
activities." (Final Report, July 1, 1997, p.6.).
Communicate Throughout the System
Communication "early and often," and across all levels of the organization, is a practice
advised by the masters of organizational change. During the evaluation team's site visits, a
great deal of interest in what the other sites were doing was encountered. The grantees'
conference phone calls were widely characterized as useful to the grantees. An electronic
workspace for posting comments, questions, or findings would be useful in the future.
For communication beyond the sites themselves, the program managers are an ally in the task.
In Massachusetts, the Corporation for Business, Work and Learning (CBWL) will be sharing
"with other regions of the state the experience, lessons learned, and tools(8) developed through
the Career Management Account Project." (Final Report, August 1977, p.8). In Missouri,
SDA II reported that workforce development professionals from other areas of the state who
became aware of the ICMA project through the project team's presentation at the Heartland
Conference said they felt the team's approach was the one the state should replicate because it
built on the strengths of what was already done. Informed debate can lead to informed choice.
It is important to note that experience with accounts extends beyond the 13 demonstration sites
and interest is growing. The evaluation team visited two additional service delivery areas--the
Thumb Area in Michigan and the NOVA Private Industry Council in Sunnyvale,
California--to learn more about the vouchering efforts being implemented under the current
JTPA structure. The Thumb Area reported a high level of inquiries. Continuing to build the
discussion around the CMA experience and its counterparts will maximize the public
investments to date and frame the ongoing discussion.
Communicate Externally
External communication is an essential part of organizational and cultural change because it
provides a reality check and, hopefully, validation. The executive director of the Lower
Merrimack Valley Regional Employment Board in Massachusetts has noted that the CMA
demonstration project provided evidence to the local business community that steps were being
taken to rationalize the delivery of employment and training services. The Thumb Area in
Michigan has reported similar results. Its voucher program, The Tool Chest, has clarified
service delivery for business members of the local workforce development board and, in turn,
allowed them to speak more forcefully to the larger business community.
Institutionalizing Change: The Employment and
Training System Perspective
The purpose of the Career Management Account Demonstration was to assess whether
individual career management accounts could accomplish the following:
Increase customer choice in an administratively feasible manner
Allow maximum flexibility in customizing services and service delivery to the needs of
the individual dislocated workers
Expand the resources and sources of assistance that are available to the worker
With these stated goals, and the designation of the Title III population as the target group,
further interpretations of the concept and the service delivery structure were site specific. In
other words, the CMA demonstration grant opened the door for change across the full range of
the grantees' operations. The list of service components and support systems shown in Table
1 offers a generic service delivery model (also see Figure 1.). It is accompanied by a few
examples of the types of activities undertaken under the CMA umbrella to demonstrate the
diversity of activities spawned by CMA.
| Table 1: CMA Generic Service Delivery Model and Activities | |
| Service Components | Grantee Activities |
| Recruitment | UI profilees were targeted in Georgia and Oklahoma, among others. New York targeted a deliberate mix of high- and low-skill workers for independent and group programs, respectively. California had a large percentage of highly-educated participants. |
| Intake/Program Enrollment | Arizona expedited CMA enrollment to maximize training time. In Ohio, the first-year selection process was guided by a customer's need for "supportive services not normally funded under Cincinnati's Title III grant." |
| Assessment | Florida used a self-directed, automated assessment tool. |
| Basic Readjustment Services | Massachusetts assigned internal cost figures to these activities and charged the customer's account. Missouri allowed for outside procurement, but it was rarely, if ever, used. |
| Retraining | A tendency for short-term training was evident in Florida. Texas and Arizona did not restrict training to high-demand occupations. Maine started with the target of long-term training, defined as 12+ months, and then reduced the threshold to six months. |
| Support Services
(e.g., transportation) |
Support service payments were placed in an ATM account in Oregon. |
| Job Placement | Texas permitted the use of $650 for a job search. |
| Job Retention | Arizona offered up to $500 as an incentive for completion of six months of continuous employment. Maryland offered a 30-day retention incentive. |
| Support Systems |
Grantee Activities |
| Tracking/Reporting | Massachusetts integrated its tracking into the statewide JTPA tracking system. |
| Financial | Account statements were utilized heavily in Oklahoma and Missouri. CMA forced the integration of two systems in Maine. Maryland developed a system from scratch. Ohio used the checkbook model with the intent of streamlining the vendor payment process. |
| Customer Satisfaction | Florida surveyed customers about program activities as well as surveying the vendors themselves about the program. Focus groups were convened in Massachusetts and Texas. |
| Labor Market Information | Maine customers repeatedly cited LMI-use in development of the career plan. |
| Service Vendor Information | Oklahoma extended their training vendor list across state lines. Florida tapped into an automated state-level performance measurement system. Maryland reinvented its vendor registration process. |
The division of service components and support systems in the representative model is intended, in part, to suggest that configuration and management of the service components are primarily the province of the local program operator. The major feat of an individualized service strategy is to move away from a strictly sequenced set of actions to the use of a mix of components on an as-needed basis.(9) The underlying process for accessing the service components and management of those activities varies greatly site-to-site according to design, the respective players, and the availability of local community services. Because of the local variation, little state or federal action regarding service components can be suggested to promote system-wide change.
A closer look at the system support activities, on the other hand, suggests more fertile ground for state or federal interventions that can apply across programs and speak to system-building. Table 2 illustrates five such support systems. Evidence exists as a result of the CMA demonstration that common development activities were undertaken in three of the five listed systems--suggesting that some economy of scale or routine might exist. However, variation in reported CMA experience with regard to the last two listed support systems (tracking/reporting and financial) suggests that technical assistance in these arenas is a more complex undertaking.
| Table 2: CMA Service Delivery Support System Design Experience | |
| System | CMA Experience |
| Customer Satisfaction | The DOL's emphasis on customer satisfaction measurement was readily embraced. Each site independently developed customer satisfaction measures and some sites convened focus groups to comment on service delivery. The tendency for "homegrown" tools represented a substantial investment of time and resources. Because of the variation in form and content, the evaluation team had to suggest distribution of a common tool by mail as the project was in its final stage. Future efforts could impose the requirement for use of a common tool, while allowing for local modification beyond the base to capture additional content. |
| Labor Market Information | There was extensive use of labor market information by customers as they made their choices among occupations, training options, and service vendors. Most programs used the resource centers and materials that were associated with regular Title III processes. As the DOL expands its electronic service delivery offering (America's Job Bank, Talent Bank, Career InfoNet, and Learning eXchange), promotion of those tools and training sessions for local staff would be a wise investment that could lead to further tailoring of the data to meet local needs. |
| Service Vendor Information | There were many variations among CMA sites on the collection and use of training vendor information. State education departments' lists were most frequently cited as source data, but many sites referenced local refinements. Massachusetts was the clearest about the local role, including the maintenance of a database. The Florida site made a state-level longitudinal database available to customers. Maine coached its customers on what to ask during visits to training vendors in order to be an informed consumer. Student feedback in Maryland led to a shift in training vendors (which the students then helped select). The development and testing of some protocols, standards, and procedures in this arena should be considered to support individual accounts in the marketplace. |
| Tracking/Reporting | Citing an extensive effort to develop an adequate tool, Massachusetts started with off-the-shelf packages (Quicken and Timeslips). As the result of an RFP process, Massachusetts ended up with modifications to its statewide SPIR reporting system to track credits and debits, time spent on direct and indirect services, and an account statement. Texas used the CMA experience to inform development of its PALADIN system, a financial management system being implemented with its One-Stop Career Center system. |
| Financial | Maine used a proprietary financial system (Platinum) and its own case management system (ACMS). Integration of these two systems to produce customer account statements exceeded the term of the grant. Maryland created a spreadsheet application as it moved from ten vendors to over 50 and certification exam fees were cited as problematic in that system. |
Conclusion
Interest in account-based payment methods for service components is likely to increase given
the following factors:
Emergence of one-stop career centers, with an emphasis on information brokering as a
distinct role
Recent passage of the federal legislation that incorporates accounts ("Individual
Training Accounts") into the service delivery structure
Natural evolution toward individualized service in a technology-enabled world
With a few CMA sites retaining elements of their CMA account structure for the current
delivery of Title III services--and other service delivery area programs incorporating
individual accounts into their service delivery mix--the opportunity to support and sustain a
community of interest exists.
From the global perspective, the DOL can use information and context to maximize the
acceptance of a new manner of service delivery across the diverse set of local service
organizations that comprise the employment and training system.
From a program management perspective, strategic investments and design of a select number
of functional support systems can promote a degree of uniformity across the broader
employment and training system. More importantly, centralized development of those systems
in a manner that will allow local adaptations (i.e., open systems standards) will save scarce
development dollars.
1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency
Examining the market and competitive realities
Identifying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities
2. Creating the Guiding Coalition
Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change
Getting the group to work together like a team
3. Developing a Vision and Strategy
Creating a vision to help direct the change effort
Developing strategies for achieving that vision
4. Communicating the Change Vision
Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and
strategies
Having the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of employees
5. Empowering Broad-Based Action
Getting rid of obstacles
Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision
Encouraging risk-taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions
6. Generating Short-Term Wins
Planning for visible improvements in performance, or "wins"
Creating those wins
Visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible
7. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
Using increased credibility to change all systems, structures, and policies that don't
fit together and don't fit the transformation vision
Hiring, promoting, and developing people who can implement the change vision
Reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents
8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
Creating better performance through customer- and productivity-oriented behavior,
more and better leadership, and more effective management
Articulating the connection between new behaviors and organizational success
Developing means to ensure leadership development and succession
Source: Adapted from John P. Kotter, "Why Transformation Efforts Fail," Harvard Business
Review, March-April 1995, p.61.
Endnotes
Section Three: Implementation Models
Design Elements for Demonstrations
Common Elements
The ITA Demonstration Projects will include several common elements. In addition, the
demonstration will test several variations on how individual training accounts may be
implemented across the country. While some of the design elements will constrain the design
of the demonstrations to some degree, there are many other elements that are not specified
here. These include, for example, the provider eligibility criteria, payment mechanism,
participant enrollment and assessment processes, and role of community-based organizations as
training providers. The approach to such issues is left to the discretion of the applicants.
All Adult Training ITA participants will be included. With the enactment of the Workforce
Investment Act, a broader range of customers--dislocated workers, those seeking to leave
welfare, adult learners, and even the employed--will be eligible for ITAs. To meet the needs
of a diverse customer base, systems may consider redesigning the assessment process. For
example, one site in the CMA project used a fast track for those who had already chosen a
training area, a middle track for those who had narrowed selections to two or three choices,
and a high-need track for those who needed extensive counseling to select a career field. In
serving a broad range of customers, the increased self-direction and motivation among the
"more-capable" customer enabled case managers to focus more time and energy on those who
needed more intensive assistance.
An ITA is triggered by development of an Individual Employment Plan including an
assessment process and selection of a training program after consultation with a case manager.
In developing an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system, it is important to give the customer
control over expenditures, to ensure that customers have the ability to make their own choices.
Regardless of the payment mechanism selected, it should allow the customer to trigger
payment.
Participants will be informed of the dollar amount available in their ITA and available from
other sources, such as the Pell grant, all subject to local and state policy. Customers at CMA
Demonstration sites who knew that they would have access to a fixed amount, and knew what
the amount was at the outset, appeared to behave differently than those not empowered with
this information. They made conscious calculations about how to allocate their voucher across
competing needs (e.g., tuition, books, tools, transportation) and tried to get the most for their
money. The CMA Demonstration also indicated that customers have more awareness of, and
a greater sense of responsibility for, their decisions when they can see exactly how much
money has been spent to assist them in upgrading their skills or becoming employed. In order
to raise their awareness and increase responsibility, participants should regularly receive
statements that report the funds they have accessed from their account and those that remain.
Verifiable program-specific performance, cost, and any other information consistent with WIA
requirements and State procedures, must be received and disseminated to participants through
the consumer reports system. The burden of submitting information falls on the providers
while the State is responsible for verifying that information and the State or localities are
responsible for disseminating it. Providers are responsible for submitting program-specific
performance information on the completion rate, placement rate, and wages for all its students
and the placement, 6-month retention, 6-month wages, and credentials for its WIA clients.
States and localities can request additional performance information, as well as any other
information that they identify as being necessary for customers to make informed decisions
about training providers and their programs.
Inclusion of new providers must be allowed easily and quickly, with participants allowed to
"nominate" new providers. If customer choice is to be a meaningful principle within the
changing workforce development delivery system, then the range of available training choices
must be broad. In the CMA Demonstration, it was possible for customers to influence the
adding of additional approved vendors. However, it tended to be a cumbersome process
because of staff fears of fraud and abuse. To enhance choice for customers and make
participation attractive to providers, the application and approval process for programs and
providers must be relatively simple but policed aggressively to minimize abuse. States and
localities may want to explore expedited application and approval processes with appropriate
safeguards.
Training providers must be paid on a timely basis, that is, within 30 days, whether for one
payment or for several benchmarked payments. Payment delays can result in vendor
reluctance to accept voucher customers. Methods for paying for the training and other
approved expenditures varied among the CMA Demonstration sites. One site set up a
checkbook that gave customers a sense of control over funds as well as a way to track their
individual account expenditures. This method requires some level of training in its use. One
CMA site authorized credit card payments while another issued purchase orders.
Staff will receive orientation and training regarding the ITA process and the role they will play
in implementation. For an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system to effectively enable
customers to make good career and training choices and to access all available sources of
funding, special attention must be devoted to staff training and customer orientation. Since
staff members will be expected to play a role significantly different than their previous one,
they will need to communicate differently with customers, and they must understand and feel
comfortable in their new role. Staff members should receive support in making these changes
through learning networks and technical assistance.
Sites must agree to administer a common customer satisfaction survey to all participants to
determine their level of satisfaction with the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system. The
CMA Demonstration revealed that the freedom to choose a career direction contributed
significantly to customer satisfaction and commitment. Asking participants to shape their own
future appeared to build greater investment, buy-in, and ownership. Nonetheless, customers
still needed institutional support and guidance and their views on the nature and quality of
services need to be ascertained at multiple points in time.
Sites must agree to administer a common customer satisfaction survey to all staff. Asking staff
to provide input into the development of the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system will help
build greater investment, buy-in, and ownership. ITA Demonstration sites must administer a
customer satisfaction survey to all staff to determine their level of satisfaction with and
commitment to the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system.
Variable Elements
In addition to the Common Elements described above, there are several other elements of the
ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration design that are at the discretion of the applicant. The
U.S. DOL is looking for applicants who are interested in aggressive and creative approaches
that fall within the parameters of WIA. Some examples of these considerations are presented
below:
Under WIA, the state or local Board may impose limits on ITAs, including limitations on the
dollar amount and/or duration. There may be a limit for an individual participant that is based
on the needs identified in the individual employment plan. There may be a policy decision by
the state Board or local Board to establish a range of amounts and/or a maximum amount
applicable to all ITAs.
Each local Board will determine, within the bounds of state policy, the approval process for an
ITA. Depending upon local policy, the ITA may be approved by an individual participant's
counselor, by a committee, by a representative of the local Board, or other mechanisms. This
process will reflect what is determined locally to provide the appropriate balance between
accountability for training funds with effective customer service.
Although agency staff may inform and facilitate career decisions, the ultimate decision should
rest with the customer, however, the extent to which customers are empowered to make career
and training choices may vary across ITA systems. Shifting to an ITA/Eligible Training
Provider system requires staff to turn over much of the control that they previously had over
customer career paths and training. This will likely present the greatest challenge for existing
staff shifting to an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system. An important consideration in
developing an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system is what the staff response should be if an
individual fails to conduct a thorough analysis of the labor market or if staff believes he/she is
making unwise choices.
Training services must be provided in a manner that maximizes informed consumer choice in
selecting an eligible program. Each local Board, through One-Stop centers, must make
available to customers the state list of eligible training providers and consumer reports that
include the performance and cost information described in WIA. The case manager's role is
to provide customers with guidance and feedback appropriate to their needs that can help them
understand their choices prior to the customer's selection of a training provider.
WIA regulations state that an individual selects a training program after consultation with a
case manager. However, the challenge in developing a successful ITA/Eligible Training
Provider system is delineating the appropriate role for staff in a program that accommodates a
great deal of customer choice and authority. A variety of approaches may be used to assist
customers in making good career choices and selecting appropriate training programs.
Determining the limited but legitimate instances where a case manager might reject the
participant's choice and identifying an appeals process for individuals are some areas that will
need to be addressed.
An ITA may pay for a narrow or broad range of services, but not for intensive/supportive
services prior to the determination of need for training and selection of a training program
(though some states and local areas could set up accounts for intensive/supportive services).
Clearly, tuition and fees can be funded by ITAs, and many states and locals will permit ITAs
to be used for equipment, tools, books, transportation, or other costs (even training-related
child care or living expenses) that raise the probability of successful completion of training.
Locals will also have to assure that case managers and providers of training are accessing the
full range of funds that are available (including Pell grants) and that can be used to fund many
of the same expenses as an ITA.
Evaluation Designs
Overview
The evaluation of the ITA Eligible Provider Initiative will generate valuable information about
alternative ITA/Eligible Provider models which will assist states and localities by providing
guidance for the implementation of more promising models that have the greatest likelihood of
producing positive impacts for participants. The evaluation of the ITA Demonstration will be
conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, with the assistance of Social Policy Research
Associates and Decision Information Resources.
The ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative includes the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration, in
which a set of 10 to 12 sites will design and implement their own models for providing ITAs
to individuals seeking training from local Workforce Investment Act agencies. The evaluation
of the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration will entail an implementation and process analysis
of the activities at the pilot sites based on two rounds of in-person visits to each site.
Another part of the ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative is the ITA Experiment, which will be used
to test different ITA models for adult workers to determine their impacts on participant
outcomes. The ITA Experiment will be based on a classical experimental design, with random
assignment of eligible individuals to the alternative models. The models to be tested will be
based on information from early-implementing WIA sites, as well as previous experience with
training vouchers in the Career Management Account Demonstration and other related
programs. All of the selected models will be tested in each of the approximately six sites.
Local operation of the experiment will begin on July 1, 2000. The evaluation of the ITA
Experiment will include an implementation and process analysis based on three rounds of in-person visits to each of the six sites. The evaluators will also examine how outcomes vary for
participants under different models based on administrative data and data collected from a
follow-up survey.
Section Four: Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance Services
Extensive and on-going technical assistance services will be available to the demonstration
sites. A tentative listing of services is provided below. The actual offerings may vary
depending upon the expressed needs of grantees. The description of technical assistance
services includes three basic categories: Learning Network Services, Site-Specific Customized
Services, and State and Regional Policy Development Services.
Public Policy Associates, Incorporated (PPA) and Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW)
are assisting the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration
(ETA) in providing technical assistance to grantees.
Learning Network
Talent bank networking services. Resource people from across the nation who have and are
willing to share special knowledge about the use of vouchers in adult worker retraining will be
recruited to join the talent bank. Grantees seeking assistance from the talent bank will be
connected with appropriate talent bank members based on site needs and the availability of
relevant resource people.
Issue briefs. As the demonstration project develops, particularly useful approaches to design
elements and solutions to common problems experienced across sites will be shared in short,
concise issue briefs. These short papers will be disseminated through the listserv and posted
on the DOL's usworkforce.org web site.
Regional and national learning conferences for grantees. Each grantee will, as a condition of
the grant, be expected to participate in a series of learning conferences and workshops. These
will be structured to inject knowledge into the entire demonstration and to encourage and
support dialogue among grantees. It is expected that grantees will participate in three to four
of these sessions each year.
Site-specific Customized Services
Site-specific customized services will enable sites to successfully address the technical
requirements of ITA implementation. This is a tentative list of offerings currently under
consideration by the U.S. DOL. U.S. DOL will continue to gauge the needs of grantees and
the system and will adjust the actual scope of site-specific services accordingly.
Planning and Management Issues
The first set of customized services will focus on the planning and management issues related
to establishing eligible training provider systems:
Implementation Planning -- Identifying all of the issues that need to be addressed to efficiently
move forward with implementation of eligible training provider systems.
Case Management Process Design -- Developing a process for identifying client needs and
providing the appropriate level of services related to individual case management.
Case Manager Training Needs Assessments -- Conducting assessments of staff competencies
and identifying development needs related to case management roles and responsibilities.
Case Manager Training Module Design -- Developing appropriate learning activities to
address case manager training needs.
Constructing the account, payment process and use -- Identifying all of the technical elements
involved in establishing an effective individual training account system.
Systems Development Issues
A second set of customized services will focus on the design and implementation of eligible
training provider systems:
ITA Expenditure Report System Design -- Identifying technical elements involved in
establishing an expenditure reporting system.
Eligible Training Provider Selection Process Development -- Providing options to states and
localities in establishing appropriate procedures for identifying eligible programs and in
creating guidelines for helping clients select appropriate programs for needed services.
Eligible Training Provider Performance Information and Consumer Report system Design --
Identifying options for technical elements involved in establishing an appropriate system for
reporting performance, linking administrative records, setting performance levels, verifying
performance data and displaying eligible training program and provider consumer information.
Regional and State System-Building
In addition to providing site-specific, practitioner-focused technical assistance, the PPA/CSW
Team will be available to facilitate regional and state system-building policy discussions
including:
Again, this is a tentative list of offerings currently under consideration by the U.S. DOL.
U.S. DOL will continue to gauge the needs of grantees and the system and will adjust the
actual scope of technical assistance services accordingly. All of the TA services will be
available to and through regional DOL offices. The team will focus on building the capacity
within the regional offices to deliver relevant information to states, workforce boards, and
One-Stops within their regions. During this capacity-building phase, it is expected that the
role of the TA team will begin at a fairly intensive level and diminish over time as regional
staff gain experience and expertise.
Technical Assistance Providers
DOL has selected Public Policy Associates, Incorporated (PPA) and Corporation for a Skilled
Workforce (CSW) to provide technical assistance to grantees. These firms were previously
selected by DOL to conduct the CMA Demonstration Project Evaluation. PPA and CSW have
a solid history of working together on workforce development and employment and training
related projects. As an integrated consulting team, PPA and CSW will offer very strong
internal capacity, quick response and effective support to meet the needs of the ITA
demonstration sites. This support will supplement technical assistance services already
available through the DOL Regional Offices and other contractors grantees might access using
DOL monies.
(Note: A complete listing of the DOL Regional Office representatives can be found in Section
Six of this briefing book.)
Public Policy Associates, Incorporated
119 Pere Marquette Drive, Suite 1-C
Lansing, MI 48912-1231
Phone: (517) 485-4477
Fax: (517) 485-4488
e-mail: ppa@publicpolicy.com
Public Policy Associates, Incorporated is a national public policy research, development, and
evaluation firm based in Lansing, Michigan. The firm serves clients in the public and private
sectors at the national, state, and local levels by conducting research and analysis that supports
informed strategic decision making. The PPA staff is comprised of professionals with
extensive experience and credentials in the areas of workforce and educational policy,
quantitative and qualitative research methods, complex data analysis, and strategic
consultation.
Corporation for a Skilled Workforce
2890 Carpenter Road, Suite 1600
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Phone: (734) 971-6060
Fax: (734) 971-6688
e-mail: lagood@skilledwork.org
Corporation for a Skilled Workforce is an Ann Arbor-based, not-for-profit organization that
specializes in facilitating systemic change in the workforce development field. CSW works
extensively with national policy makers, states, and communities to develop and implement
new strategies and organizations to respond effectively to changing needs. CSW focuses in
particular on the development of One-Stop career centers, workforce boards, WIA
implementation, and labor market research and analysis. CSW's partners include veteran
innovators from the state and local levels.
Role of Demonstration Sites in Technical
Assistance to Others
The sites selected to participate in the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration will be expected
to collaborate, connect, participate, and share their lessons and insights with other grantees.
In addition, grantees will be expected to serve as learning laboratories so that the lessons from
the demonstration can be shared throughout the nation. Specifically, the sites selected as
grantees will be expected to participate in a variety of activities including:
Additional assurances can be found in Section V of the SGA.
A complete copy of the SGA for the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration is provided in
Section Five of this briefing book.
Section Five: Proposal Development
SGA/Federal Register Notice
The full SGA document is available at the following web site:
Other Federal Guidance Information
Appendices to the SGA document are available at the following web site:
Section Six: Additional Voucher
Background Information
Research Report: Career Management Account
Demonstration Project Evaluation
This research study was conducted by Public Policy Associates, Incorporated (PPA) and
Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW) under a contract with the U.S. Department of
Labor.
In early 1995, the U.S. DOL offered interested SDAs a financial incentive, in the form of
demonstration grants, to design and implement voucher-style programs for training dislocated
workers. This demonstration project, known as the Career Management Account (CMA)
Demonstration, was conducted at 13 different JTPA sites including:
1. Arizona: City of Phoenix
2. California: San Bernardino County
3. Florida: Palm Beach County Private Industry Council
4. Georgia: Atlanta Regional Commission
5. Maine: Training and Development Corporation
6. Maryland: Office of Employment Development
7. Massachusetts: Corporation for Business, Work and Learning
8. Missouri: SDA II Private Industry Council
9. New York: New York City Department of Employment
10. Ohio: City of Cincinnati Employment and Training Division
11. Oklahoma: Eastern Workforce Development Board, Inc.
12. Oregon: The Oregon Consortium
13. Texas: Central Texas Council of Governments
The demonstration sites were authorized to provide services under the CMA for two program
years. The basic eligibility standard for the CMA programs was Title III eligibility. Beyond
that, the sites varied substantially in their participant selection criteria.
The multi-site evaluation conducted by PPA/CSW provides a rich source of information about
the promises and challenges involved in implementing voucher-style training programs. A
copy of the evaluation report is being provided to information session attendees as a separate
document. Additional copies of the report are available from DOL/ETA.
Research Report: Vouchers Under JTPA:
Lessons for Implementation of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA)
This research study looked at nine JTPA sites that used vouchers or voucher-like approaches.
The paper, which was done by John Trutko and Burt Barnow under a contract with James Bell
Associates, will soon be available at the ETA website.
� Vouchers were issued for single term or semester, renewals for longer-
term training.
� The SDA counselor or other staff exercised final approval in all sites.
Client outcomes: Program staff thought that placement and earnings outcomes
were about the same as under contract training, but that there was much higher
customer satisfaction.
Providers: The voucher system generally brought in many providers and
programs that in many cases were new to the SDA. It often changed the blend
of providers.
Costs: Startup raised costs initially. In some cases, more individuals received
training but at a lower per-person cost.
� This was important to maximize quality choices for all clients, but
particularly for the 5 to 10% of customers who made what were
considered inappropriate choices, either in overestimating their own
skills or choosing occupational areas for which there was too little
demand.
There is a need for continued monitoring of performance by providers. In areas
where there are many training providers and programs, this will be a
challenging task.
Amount/Time Limits: How will the size of ITAs be established? For what
period of time?
Utilization of ITAs: Can participants combine programs or use "leftover"
money in ITA accounts for other training or supplies?
Out-of-WIB Training Programs: How to monitor training programs in distant
sites that may not be within the geographic area of the WIB? What to do if
local WIB does not concur with all the options available on the state-approved
list?
Participation of Providers:
� Community colleges and some other vendors may resist taking
attendance and providing placement services (which they would need to
do if contingent payments are used and to provide data on overall
accountability).
� CBOs may experience problems if they are planning to offer class-sized
training. They also may not be as sophisticated at marketing as other
providers.
� One lesson for WIA system is the need to work with vendors but also to
assure neutrality/level playing field in referral process.
ETA Regional Offices
REGION I - Boston
Robert Semler
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
JFK Federal Building, Room E-350
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Commercial (617) 565-3630
Fax Number (617) 565-2229
REGION II - New York
Marilyn Shea
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
201 Varick St., Room 755
New York, New York 10014
Commercial (212) 337-2139
Fax Number (212) 337-2144
REGION III - Philadelphia
Edwin Strong, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
PO Box 8796
3535 Market Street, Room 13300
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Commercial (215) 596-6336
Fax Number (215) 596-0329
REGION IV - Atlanta
Toussaint Hayes
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
Atlanta Federal Center, Room 6M12
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Commercial (404) 562-2092
Fax Number (404) 562-2149
REGION V - Chicago
Byron Zuidema
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
230 S. Dearborn St., Room 628
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Commercial (312) 353-0313
Fax Number (312) 353-4474
REGION VI - Dallas
Joseph Juarez
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
Federal Building, Room 317
525 Griffin Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Commercial (214) 767-8263
Fax Number (214) 767-5113
REGION VII - Kansas City
Herman Wallace
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
City Center Square
1100 Main Street, Suite 1050
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
Commercial (816) 426-3796
Fax Number (816) 426-2729
REGION VIII - Denver
Thomas M. Dowd
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
1999 Broadway Street, Suite 1780
Denver, Colorado 80202-5716
Commercial (303) 844-1650
Fax Number (303) 844-1685
REGION IX - San Francisco
Armando Quiroz
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
71 Stevenson Street, Room 830
PO Box 193767
San Francisco, California 94119-3767
Commercial (415) 975-4610
Fax Number (415) 975-4612
REGION X - Seattle
Michael Brauser
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98101-3212
Commercial (206) 553-7700
Fax Number (206) 553-0098
ITA/Eligible Training Provider Glossary
This section provides a glossary of key terms that relate to ITA/Eligible Training Provider
programs and services. The glossary is organized alphabetically.
Career Management Account (CMA)
A Career Management Account is a term that was used in a recently completed U.S. DOL
demonstration project involving the use of vouchers to pay for training provided to dislocated
workers who qualified for services under Title III of JTPA. The demonstration project was
conducted prior to passage of the WIA.
Consumer Report
A Consumer Report consists of key information on the performance outcomes of all training
and education providers in the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system.
Customer
The customer is defined primarily as a program participant who is eligible to receive training
services through an Individual Training Account. Training vendors, employers, and staff are
also considered valued "customers" of the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system.
Core Services
Core services are services that One-Stop Career Centers are responsible for providing for all
adults and dislocated workers under WIA. Core services include initial assessment of skill
levels, job search and placement assistance, provision of labor market information, provision
of information about the performance and cost of education and training providers in the area,
career counseling, information about filing unemployment compensation claims, assistance in
establishing eligibility for welfare-to-work programs, information relating to the availability of
supportive services such as child care and transportation, and follow-up counseling services
after someone becomes employed. The WIA mandates that there be universal access to core
services.
Eligible Training Provider
An eligible training provider is an organization, entity or institution, such as a public or
private college and university, community-based organization, or proprietary school whose
application has been approved by the local workforce board and submitted to the state for
inclusion on the state list of to provide training services through the use of an Individual
Training Account.
Eligible Training Provider List
An eligible training provider list is a statewide compilation of providers that are approved to
provide services through the One-Stop system. These lists contain consumer information,
including cost and performance information for each of the providers, so that participants can
make informed choices on where to use their ITAs.
Eligible Training Provider Approval Selection
Eligible Training Provider Approval Selection is the method for approving training providers'
programs to be initially eligible (if the program is not HEA-eligible or an apprenticeship
program) and to be subsequently eligible (for all programs) using criteria such as completion
rates, placement rates, earnings or wages, and other performance indicators, as determined by
the state.
Individual Employment Plan
The individual employment plan is an ongoing strategy jointly developed by the participant
and the case manager that identifies the participant's employment goals, the appropriate
achievement objectives, and the appropriate combination of services for the participant to
achieve the employment goals.
Individual Training Account (ITA)
An ITA is an expenditure account established on behalf of a participant.
Intensive Services
Intensive services are services that local Boards are responsible for providing for adults and
dislocated workers under WIA. Intensive services may include specialized assessments of
individual skill levels and service needs, individual or group counseling and career planning,
development of an individual employment plan, short-term job-readiness activities, literacy
activities related to basic workforce readiness, and paid or unpaid work experience.
Local Board
Local Board means a local Workforce Investment Board established under WIA sec. 117 to set
policy for the local workforce investment system.
Targeted Customer
A targeted customer is a participant that is determined to be "more capable" of utilizing the
ITA/Eligible Training Provider system to choose a training provider. Some CMA sites
focused on using vouchers to serve customers that appeared to be better able to handle the
voucher process--customers with recent labor force attachment, stronger work history, and
more education. However, with the enactment of the Workforce Investment Act, a broader
range of customers--dislocated workers, those seeking to leave welfare, adult learners, and
even the employed--are eligible for ITAs.
Training Services
Training services is a special category of services that local Boards are responsible for
providing to adults and dislocated workers under WIA. Training services may include
occupational skills training, on-the-job training, job-readiness training, adult education and
literacy activities, cooperative education programs, training programs operated by the private
sector, skill upgrading and retraining, entrepreneurial training, and customized training
conducted by an employer.
Training Market
A training market reflects an approach with vendors selling training directly to individual
participants rather than through intermediary organizations.
Universal Services
Universal services are services available to every individual through the One-Stop system
including information about job vacancies, career options, relevant employment trends, job
search techniques, resume writing, and access to the Consumer Report information gathered
on training institutions in the area through the eligible training provider process.
Vendor
Vendor means an entity responsible for providing generally required goods or services to be
used in the WIA program. These goods or services may be for the recipient's or sub-recipient's own use or for the use of participants in the program.
Voucher
A voucher is a document that is exchangeable for training services.
Bibliography
DOL WIA Implementation Web-Based Resources
Workforce Investment Act of 1998
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Plain English Version)
Summary of Workforce Development Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-220)
Implementing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (White Paper)
WIA Interim Regs Q&As
WIA Q&As
Planning Resources - Individual Training Accounts
Planning Resources - Eligible Training Providers
WIA Implementation Training Introduction (Slide Show)
Research Reports
Kenny, Cynthia "Survey on Selected Services for Dislocated Workers under the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA): Use of Skill Grants/Vouchers and Reemployment Services for
Profiled Workers in Title III Programs Across the Nation" National Association of Counties,
June 1997.
Padden, Jeffrey D., John Austin, Nancy Hewat, Larry Good, and David Toombs. Career
Management Account Demonstration Project Final Report, U.S. Department of Labor/Public
Policy Associates, Incorporated and Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Washington, D.C.,
1998.
Trutko, John and Burt Barnow, "Vouchers Under JTPA: Lessons for Implementation of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA), U.S. Department of Labor (Forthcoming)
Background & Commentary
Good, Larry and Sam Leiken, "Individual Training Accounts: Old Wine in New Bottles or a
New Vintage." Workforce Investment Quarterly. National Governors' Association (NGA)
Center for Best Practices. Volume V, Issue 4, 1998. NGA: Washington, D.C., 1998.
Maguire, Sheila, "Surviving, and Maybe Even Thriving, under Vouchers." Public/Private
Ventures, New York, NY, (Forthcoming)
Sayner, Steve, "Key Implementation Decisions Affecting Low-Income Adults Under the
Workforce Investment Act." Center For Law and Social Policy Washington, DC, August
1999.
Sheets, Robert G., "Federal Strategies for Building a Comprehensive Workforce Preparation
System in the United States: A Demand-Side, Market-Based Approach." Paper prepared for
the Training Subcouncil of the Competitiveness Policy Council, DeKalb, IL, August 24, 1992.
Steuerle, C. Eugene, Van Coorn Ooms, George Peterson, and Robert D. Reischauer, Eds.
Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services, Brookings Institution (Forthcoming)
Section Seven: Information Session
Evaluation Form
DOL ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration
Information Session Evaluation Form
Please rate the following items (circle one rating for each item listed):
Poor Average Excellent
Session Information 1 2 3 4 5
Session Materials 1 2 3 4 5
Presenter(s) Methods 1 2 3 4 5
Presenter(s) Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
Overall Session 1 2 3 4 5
Please comment on the following:
Thank you for your feedback!
1. Harvey, Thomas R., Checklist for Change: A Pragmatic Approach to Creating and Controlling Change, Allan
and Bacon, Boston, MA, 1990, p.108.
2. "There is no single model of a work first program. What defines such programs is their overall philosophy: that
any job is a good job and that the best way to succeed in the labor market is to join it, developing work habits and
skills on the job rather than in a classroom... Beyond this common philosophy, however, work first programs
vary significantly in the services they offer, the sequencing of their activities, the extent to which participation is
required and enforced, and even their goals and approach." (emphasis added). [Brown, Amy, Work First: How to
Implement an Employment-Focused Approach to Welfare Reform, Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, March 1997, p.11.]
3. Bresnick, David, Managing Employment and Training Programs: Making JTPA Work, Human Services Press,
New York, NY, 1986, p.132.
4. Malhotra, Yogesh. (1996). Business Process Redesign: An Overview [WWW document]. URL
http://www.brint.com/papers/bpr.htm To provide a sense of gradation on the scale, this author lists the difference
between quality management and business process reengineering:
Appendix A: The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change
ITA/Eligible Training Provider listserv. As an ongoing means of creating a learning exchange
among participants, an ITA/Eligible Training Provider listserv will be established. Grantees
will be invited to post a question, problem, or insight and invite comment from all others.
http://www.wdsc.org/sga/sga/99-017sga.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/index.html#forms
http://usworkforce.org/wialaw.txt
http://usworkforce.org/Runningtext2.htm
http://usworkforce.org/summarywia.htm
http://usworkforce.org/wpaper3.htm
WIA Interim Final Regulations
http://usworkforce.org/finalregs.htm
http://usworkforce.org/finalregsq&a.htm
http://usworkforce.org/asp/qanda.asp
http://usworkforce.org/resources/ita.htm
http://usworkforce.org/resources/eligible.htm
http://usworkforce.org/training/introduction/index.html
| Quality Management | Business Process Reengineering | |
| Level of Change | Incremental | Radical |
| Starting Point | Existing Process | Clean Slate |
| Frequency of Change | One-Time/Continuous | One-Time |
| Time Required | Short | Long |
| Participation | Bottom-Up | Top-Down |
| Typical Scope | Narrow, within functions | Broad, cross-functional |
| Risk | Moderate | High |
| Primary Enabler | Statistical Control | Information Technology |
| Type of Change | Cultural | Cultural/Structural |
5. Kofman, Fred and Peter Senge, "Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations", in Chawla, Sarita and John Rhenish, e's., Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, 1995, pp.34-35. The authors note: "Leadership takes on important new meanings in learning organizations. In essence, leaders are those building the new organization and its capabilities. They are the ones 'walking ahead,' regardless of their management position or hierarchical authority... It has been proven again and again in military campaigns that the only leader whom soldiers will reliably follow when their lives are on the line is the leader who is competent and who soldiers believe is committed to their well-being."
6. Osborne, David and Peter Plastrik, Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA, 1997, p.269. The authors list tools to accomplish the three goals as well (Tools for Changing Habits; Tools for Touching Hearts; and, Tools for Winning Minds, pp.269-277).
7. Osborne and Plastrik (1997, pp.274-275), in their review of Peter Senge's work in The Fifth Discipline, note the power and role of attractive ideas:
"Creating governing ideas has important effects on organizational culture:
It helps employees align their energy toward common goals.
It energizes the organization, because it speaks to employees' dreams--their need for meaningful achievements.
It helps organizations shift from bureaucratic control to employee self-control."
8. The Corporation for Business, Work and Learning lists in its Final Report the following products/tools developed as a result of the CMA project:
Model of Service
Voucher Management System (automated account management and tracking integrated with participant demographics)
Training Vendor Performance Report
Catalog format
Customer satisfaction survey tools
Focus group facilitation guide
Emphasis on residual products from the operation of a demonstration can be indicated at the front-end of the grantee selection process and reinforced through the periodic reporting process.
9. While "self-service" and "customer choice" may rightfully be associated with some of the service components, the overwhelming majority of program operators felt that their management of the overriding process was required given the public nature of the funds.