Narrative: III. b. 4. B.

At a minimum, workforce delivery system partner program services, and the partner programs included in this Combined State Plan, will be assessed using performance measures they have in common, in addition to other performance accountability measures required by each program’s funding source(s) and grants. Performance will be reviewed at both the state and the local workforce area level.

Each program’s performance in each of the primary indicators of performance will be a start point for further evaluation of the quality, effectiveness and opportunities for improvement. Each partner program will submit their performance metrics into a statewide dashboard on a quarterly basis. Each partner program will report out to the Program and Performance Evaluation (PPE) Committee with their accomplishments, plans, and strategies to continue to make improvements, how they address areas that are not being met and the identification of resources or support they need to move forward.

The state and local areas will be assessed based on a comparison of the actual performance level with the adjusted level of performance each quarter and annually. The following definitions will be utilized to determine if a core program exceeded, met, or failed to meet the negotiated levels of performance. These definitions are developed based on the understanding that they are the same definitions to be utilized by the federal agencies in determining if the State met performance. Absent federal guidance on this subject at the time of plan development, these definitions may need to be adjusted subsequent to the issuance of federal guidance later in 2016.

Levels of Proficiency and Actions "Exceed" Condition: If the actual performance in any indicator is greater than 100 percent of the adjusted level, the measure will be considered to "exceed" the measure’s adjusted rate.

Action: This is an indication that the program is providing high quality and effective services. The state or local area is expected to, consistent with economic conditions and characteristics of the participants continue to improve its performance. The programs are encouraged to innovate in service delivery, processes and practices. An example is to evaluate programs through a process improvement models, such as Lean Six Sigma, process mapping, simulation, DRIVE.

"Meet" Condition: If the actual performance in any indicator is 90 percent or more and lower than 100 percent of the adjusted level, this measure will be determined to "meet".

Action: The program is required to improve its performance to meet 100 percent of the adjusted rate. The program will continue to improve processes, practices and to adjust strategies in order to create a higher quality workforce system.

"At-Risk" Condition: If the actual performance in any indicator is more than 50 percent and below 90 percent of the adjusted level, the measure will be characterized as "At-Risk ". According to the proposed threshold outlined in §677.190(d)(1), each program is required to average at least a 90 percent average of their indicator scores in order to pass the Overall Program Score criteria. Additionally, the second threshold in §677.190(d)(1) requires the state’s Overall Indicator Score to be an average score of 90 percent or greater in each indicator across all core programs. In the case of performance characterized as "At-Risk", the individual indicator does not achieve 90 percent of the adjusted score. This may put the state or local area at risk of failing the Overall Indicator Score and Overall Program Score criteria. Meeting the 50 percent threshold is only an indicator that the quality and effectiveness of the program in a specific measure meets the minimum standards established by the Federal government in a specific measure. This performance level is however, not an indication that the overall quality and effectiveness of the program necessarily met.

Action: The program is required to improve its performance to meet the 90 percent threshold by improving processes, practices and to adjust strategies in order to create a higher quality workforce system.

"Fail" Condition: If the actual performance in any indicator is less than 50 percent and the adjusted level, this measure will "fail" the proposed threshold outlined in §677.190(d) (2). This indicates a specific measure requires improvement in order to be compliant with federal standards. It is the minimum standard of the quality and effectiveness of services.

Action: In instances when the state or a local area falls below this threshold, immediate technical assistance will be provided by the appropriate office to improve the proficiency of staff members in providing WIOA services, provide an opportunity to develop strategies to improve the program’s ability to meet performance measures.

Levels of Proficiency Requirements:

• Exceeding Indicator Greater than 100 percent

• Innovate and stay on top

• Strive for national excellence

• Meet Indicator between 90-100 percent

• Process, practice improvement, adjust strategies

• At-Risk Indicator between 50-90 percent

• Technical Assistance available, process, practice improvement, adjust strategies

• Fail Indicator Less than 50 percent

• Immediate mandatory Technical Assistance, process, practice improvement

Additional Metrics

In addition to the primary indicators of performance, secondary metrics may be created and reviewed to more fully assess the activities and performance of a program. The data elements on the WIOA annual state and local report as well as the Eligible Training Provider reports will be reviewed to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to workforce training programs. Areas for improvement may be identified from these metrics.

In early 2018, the new chair of the Arkansas Workforce Development Board began to shift the Board's focus beyond the implementation phase and began expressing a desire to implement "evidence-based" policymaking. While this idea is currently in its infancy, it is expected that the framework will include four (4) key components: 1) program assessment via the systematic review of all available program data 2) developing an inventory of funded programs 3) categorizing programs by their evidence of effectiveness, and 4) attempting to identify each programs' return on investment.

Additionally, the State Board believes that this approach will identify best practices, highlight gaps in our service delivery system, and allow for strategic program improvement.