WIA and TAA

Co-enrollment Pilot
Project: Project Overview
and Promising Practices

www.spra.com July 2008

Key Research Questions

1. Do TAA participant outcomes improve

with wrap-around services afforded
through co-enrollment?
--Assessment
--Supportive services
--Placement assistance
--Follow-up services
2. Myth or Reality?
Co-enrollment depresses WIA Dislocated
Worker performance outcomes.
2
Explaining TAA Performance Gap

Services & Trigger for Exit

Wrap-around services much less
common in TAA

Emphasis on Performance
Substantial emphasis in WIA but
much less so in TAA

Measurement Issues
Can be important (e.g., use of WRIS
and supplemental data, etc.)

Who is Served and Where

Accounts for at best a small
part of the difference
WIA DW TAA
3
Conditions of the Pilot

• 100% Co-enrollment of TAA participants,

including:
− New and existing TAA customers
− TAA customers in training and on
waivers
• Hold harmless provisions protect
participating states
• No additional funds provided for the project

4
Participating States and Sites Visited

5
Overview of the Evaluation

Impact study

Implementation assistance

Process study

6
Impact Study

• Estimate impact of co-enrollment of TAA

participants in WIA DW. Initially planned to use
difference-in-difference design
– Modified because most pilot states did not reach 100
percent coenrollment
– Estimate effect of coenrollment rates over time in pilot
and non-pilot states
• Impact period: April – December 2006
• Outcome data will be available by:
– September 2007 - 1st quarter after exit outcomes for all
exiters
– March 2008 - 3rd quarter after exit outcomes for all
exiters
7
Implementation Assistance

In order to help states reach full co-

enrollment, we offered assistance.
• Established a project website with a tutorial
and frequently asked questions
• All states were provided phone-based
assistance
• Half the states accepted offer of on-site
training for state and/or LWIA staff

8
Process Study

• Designed to support impact analysis by

examining how states and locals
implemented the pilot
• Two rounds of site visits
– 3 local sites per state
– Interviews with ES, TAA, WIA, OS partners
– Key question: how did services change for
customers who were co-enrolled, or, what
difference did co-enrollment really make?
9
Coenrollment Rates Over Time

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
4

7
4

7
4

05

06

07

7
-0

-0

-0

-0
l-0

l-0

l-0

l-0
-0

-0

-0

-0
-0

n-

n-

n-
ct

ct

ct

ct
n

pr

pr

pr

pr
Ju

Ju

Ju

Ju
Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja
O

O
A

A
Illinois Kentucky Missouri Pennsylvania Texas NonPilot
10
Coenrollment by TAA Type among
those Exiting During Pilot Period
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
20%

10%
N/A
0%
Illinois Kentucky Missouri Pennsylvania Texas NonPilot
11
Trainees TRA Waiver
Outcomes in the DW Program
Performance Non-Pilot
Measure/Period States IL KY MO PA TX

EER

2004 83.1% 82.8% 70.5% 94.3% 80.5% 83.5%

2005 77.6 86.0 84.6 89.9 80.9 80.5

2006 72.9 85.1 85.6 90.0 80.3 82.8

Retention

2004 77.1 89.7 74.6 87.2 89.9 90.7

2005 85.7 91.1 89.6 90.6 88.7 87.1

2006 84.5 89.1 62.8 89.4 87.1 90.3

Earnings

2004 $14,261 $15,234 $9,927 $12,492 $12,891 $14,550

2005 $14,132 $15,036 $9,730 $13,353 $13,054 $14,308

2006 $13,312 $15,726 $8,630 $14,692 $13,930 $14,941

12
Outcomes in the TAA Program
Performance Non-Pilot
Measure/Period States IL KY MO PA TX

EER

2004 70.4% 76.3% 76.1% 73.3% 75.0% 79.2%

2005 70.1 82.5 65.3 77.5 82.4 74.9

2006 69.2 81.6 82.6 75.5 81.2 78.3

Retention

2004 89.2 92.1 64.3 92.0 91.5 90.1

2005 87.4 92.4 81.2 92.0 92.9 90.0

2006 89.0 91.2 90.3 85.6 93.0 92.5

Earnings

2004 $13,245 $14,069 $10,088 $9,803 $13,464 $12,627

2005 $13,619 $11,421 $12,242 $10,965 $13,587 $13,305

2006 $13,981 $12,940 $11,347 $13,641 $14,240 $13,949

13
Key Impact Analysis Findings

• Coenrollment rates have no effect on

outcomes in the WIA Dislocated Worker
program
• Coenrolling has significant positive effects on
EER and retention calculations on TAA
participants
– This does not appear to be due to selectivity bias
for EER, but may be due to selectivity for retention
• Coenrolling had no clear effect on earnings
for TAA participants
14
Key Site Visit Findings

Most beneficial aspects of coenrollment are:

• Rigorous assessment, LMI, up-front
counseling for training-related decisions
• Additional support during training, especially
supportive services (rather than case
management)
• Placement and follow-up services after
training has ended
• Requirement to select from the ETPL

15
Key Site Visit Findings

• Implementing universal coenrollment requires

significant resources, strategies and
guidance to promote greater coordination
• Managing TAA coenrollees is much easier
(and better for customers and staff) with an
integrated MIS
• When TAA volume is high, WIA staff time and
resources may be stretched, reducing the
effectiveness of coenrollment

16
Promising Practices

Formal Guidance on Coenrollment &

Integration
Texas and Pennsylvania have provided
extensive formal guidance to local areas:
– PA’s “Guidance on Integrating
Services Under the Trade Act
Programs”
– TX’s “Integration of Trade Services for
Dislocated Workers: A Comprehensive
Guide”
17
Promising Practices

Staff Cross-training
Pennsylvania
• TAA Coordinator lead ongoing sessions on the
TAA program several times a year and open to
staff from all partner agencies, including WIA
– Facilitates program integration
– Provides an opportunity to learn about the TAA
program with staff from many different agencies and
from various One-Stop offices across the state
– Sessions kept small (approximately 30 people) to
encourage participation and interaction

18
Promising Practices

Integrated MIS

Texas Workforce Commission

• Developed integrated MIS system, TWIST,
for WIA, ES, and TAA programs
• Integrated MIS facilitates coordination
between programs

19
Promising Practices

MIS Guidance
Purchase/Pennyrile LWIA,
Hopkinsville, KY
• Developed a comprehensive
program manual to provide
guidance to staff on every
stage of customer participation

20
Promising Practices

Performance Management
Pennsylvania
• State MIS produces customizable coenrollment
reports
• Lehigh Valley and Fayette County produce their
own reports with Excel and Access
TENCO, Maysville, Kentucky
• MIS manager regularly reviews performance
reports and predicts performance based on
supplemental data
21
Promising Practices

Enrollment & Orientation

Purchase/Pennyrile LWIA, Hopkinsville, KY
• Offers joint “Training Reemployment and Careers”
orientation sessions for WIA and TAA prior to the
certification of a trade petition.
• Early orientation sessions enable customers to
obtain WIA services right away and speeds TAA
application approval and, ultimately, services after
a petition is certified.
22
Promising Practices

Enrollment & Assessment

Pennsylvania
• Developed standard
Enrollment-Assessment-
Waiver process and
checklist to assist local
areas in integrating WIA
and TAA
• Local areas encouraged
to customize
23
Promising Practices

Service Flow
Lehigh Valley LWIA, Lehigh
Valley, PA
Purchase/Pennyrile LWIA,
Hopkinsville, KY
• Developed customer flow
charts that provide a step-by-
step guide to the integrated
WIA and TAA enrollment
processes

24
Promising Practices

Service Flow
Westmoreland & Fayette LWIA,
Fayette County, PA
• Provides checklists for customers
and case managers to complete
during the coenrollment process
• Customer checklist includes a
Training Research Guide to assist
customers in selecting an
appropriate training provider

25
Promising Practices

Training Plan Approval

TENCO LWIA, Maysville, KY

LWIA #19 in Decatur, IL
• Formed committees made up of counselors,
case managers, employment specialists,
and follow-up-specialists to review and
approve participant training plans

26
Contact Us

For Comments or Further Information

Melissa Mack
Project Manager and Social Scientist
Social Policy Research Associates
510-763-1499 x658
Melissa_Mack@spra.com

27