DOL-ONLY PIRL
|
-
|
(Texas) DOL has proposed a
large number of changes to the 9172. While some are relatively
minor clarifications to existing elements (updating details to
match current practices), others are more substantive –
including adding dozens of new data elements that will cost
significant amounts of money to implement in grantee case
management systems.
Even
the proposals to make existing elements required for additional
programs will require programming changes minimally in the code
that produces the PIRL and possibly in the case management system
if an element is not currently tracked for that program and there
is no existing way to enter it. We therefore urge DOL to
consider whether the value of gathering additional data is worth
the cost. In most cases, the cost of adding a new element to a
case management system and to the PIRL coding is largely the same
whether applicable to <1% of participants or to nearly all
participants. We
recommend that DOL reconsider whether these changes are really
necessary and worth the cost given that while DOL estimates a
cost to implement/comply with the ICR, it doesn’t provide
additional money to grantees for this purpose.
Between biennial updates to the PIRL, three-four times per year
edit changes, and new quarterly data integrity improvement
efforts that often require programming to change, grantees are
having to dedicate ever-greater amounts to capturing and
reporting data that may be of limited value and this comes at the
expense of funding for other activities.
We
are particularly concerned about some of the larger changes, such
as updating the ONET codes used in reporting occupational
outcomes and the proposal new element for reporting whether
individualized services were provided in person or remotely.
While we see the value of both of these pieces of information,
the fact is that many states may not have been tracking this and
will not be able to report the data retroactively.
Bigger
changes like this have both programming and reporting challenges.
On the question of in person vs. remote service, for example,
our system doesn’t track in person vs remote service
separately. If we report on a person who has exited prior to
this going into effect, we won’t be able to answer this
question affirmatively as yes or no. because of this. Talking to
states that use some of the larger vendor products, it seems like
we’re not alone, as many of those products don’t do
this tracking either.
As
to the effective date of changes, we face a different problem.
It appears that DOL intends to implement this proposed PIRL
effective July 1, 2021 but we won’t know what the final
requirements are until May or June given that this has to go back
out for public comment again and those comments could result in
removal, addition, or modification of proposed changes. We
recommend that changes ultimately adopted through this ICR not be
made mandatory until July 1, 2022 and that they not be applied
retroactively to customers who exited prior to the changes going
into effect.
The delayed implementation will provide time for states to make
changes and the non-retroactivity will ensure that states are not
required to go back and try to gather data that would normally
have been gathered during either the eligibility or service
delivery phases of participation.
What
follows are comments on specific proposed changes including other
recommendations for DOL PIRL elements that should be considered.
|
Thank you for your comment. DOL will issue additional guidance on
the timing of the adoption of these changes.
|
N/A
|
-
|
(Texas Comments #1-#53) Element
401 UC Eligible Status – ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATION
- DOL has indicated that they plan to administer the new
Reemployment Service and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program
measures using the PIRL. However, those measures depend in part
on identifying who was an RESEA Participant. While Element 401
indicates if a person was referred by RESEA, it does not indicate
if that person actually received all the RESEA-required services.
A person might have come in and only received some of the
services or might have been a Wagner-Peyser Participant prior to
becoming a UI claimant and selected for RESEA and elected to not
participate in RESEA. There are two ways to address this
problem:
Modify
the response options in this element to indicate if RESEA
Referred AND Participating or RESEA Referred but NOT
Participating, OR
Add
a new RESEA Program Participation element to the 900 series of
elements that specifies that the person was both referred for
RESEA services AND received the required services.
|
The Department agrees with the commenter and has modified the
definition of the PIRL data element.
|
ETA 9172- DOL only PIRL
|
-
|
Element
808 MSFW – proposes element name change with additional
language clarifying intent of the element and matches proposed
Common PIRL change – Support
Element
1301 – Support
– clearly a typo correction and not change in the
requirements.
Element
1304 ETP Program of Study by Potential Outcome – Support
– This is just an element Name change and has no
functional impact on what and how the element is reported.
Element 1406 Post
Exit- Enrollment in PSE – Support
– Non-substantive, clarifying change.
|
Thank you for your supportive comments.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element 915 TAA Petition
Number – Need
Clarification –
the proposal is to remove language instructing states to create
multiple PIRL rows on TAA customers who have more than one
applicable TAA Petition Number (primarily when in the same Period
of Participation). What’s not clear is if this is to bring
the element in line with current reporting guidance (and thus not
a substantive change) or if it represents a new policy for
reporting. If the latter, please provide additional guidance or
clarification about what to states should do when reporting a
Participant who has more than one applicable TAA petition.
|
Thank you for your comment. This revision brings the element in
line with current reporting guidance by removing erroneous
reporting instructions provided under old reporting mechanisms.
This does not represent a change in in reporting guidance from
the current PIRL reporting.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Making
Elements 1000, 1001, and 1201 mandatory for TAA –
Ambivalent –
there may be cost to modifying PIRL coding to populate these
elements for TAA-only Participants but this should be an easier
change than some of the other proposals to make new data
required for new programs.
Making
Element 1103 mandatory for REO Adult, 1004 and 1210 mandatory
for REO Youth and 1205 mandatory for both REO programs –
Ambivalent –
there may be cost to modifying PIRL coding to populate these
elements for REO-only Participants but these should be an easier
change than some of the other proposals to make new data
required for new programs.
Element
1300 Received Training – Ambivalent
–
proposes to add
“as defined by program specific guidance” to the
“Received Training = Yes” definition – Support
– This is largely as DOL has been operating and therefore
doesn’t represent a meaningful change.
|
Thanks you for your comment. The Department strives to keep
burden down while ensuring cross program alignment to facilitate
easier common reporting.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Modifying Element 1114
Referred to Jobs for Veterans State Grants Services to have an
additional value for Vietnam-era veterans – Concerned
– DOL has provided no context for this change. Why
Vietnam-era veterans only? What about veterans of the original
Gulf War or more recent military conflicts? This will likely
required both IT case management costs (will need to now capture
the date of entry into military service for people who left the
military after May 1975 since they may have served during the
Vietnam-era) and PIRL changes.
|
Veterans’ Program Letter No. 03-19 added “Vietnam-era
veterans” as a sub-population who are eligible to receive
services from Disabled Veteran Outreach Program specialists. As
such, it is important for VETS to be able to separate out
participants who fall into this category for analytic purposes.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Elements 1306, 1311, 1316,
1612, and 1613 (related to updating ONET codes used in reporting)
– Very
Concerned –
there could be significant costs to implementing this data in
case management systems depending on how those systems were
created and the degree to which there may be secondary systems or
functions that are based on the older standards.
|
The Department appreciates the challenges associated with making
this change and will therefore implement a phased implementation
of this change in order to allow states time to determine how
best to make these adjustments. To accomplish this, the
Department will continue to allow older ONET codes via its edit
checks during the transition period.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element 1322 – Not
clear why the name is proposed to be changed to not align to the
other “Date of Most Recent ____________ Service” data
elements. Recommend
either not changing or changing all the other applicable elements
to this naming convention.
|
Accepting recommendation to align name to include “Date
of…”
|
ETA 9172- DOL only PIRL
|
-
|
Element 1328 Training
Provided Virtual/Online (previously titled “Distance
Learning”) – Very
Concerned –
we understand the value of this and while the addition of a “Mix
of In Person and Online” option might seem easy – the
reality is that it may not be. TWC has tracked remote vs in
person training data but at the Eligible Training Provider
Program-level. Students did one or the other. COVID-19
obviously caused many programs to shift from in person to online,
but we don’t have a means to track that. Texas has
hundreds of Eligible Training Providers with several thousand
approved programs – trying to retroactively find out which
classes were being offered in person vs online at different
points in time is not feasible. We
can only support this if the new “both” value is
applicable to training conducted after the effective date of the
element change.
|
DOL concurs with this element only be required for training
occurring after the effective date of the element change, but
states may voluntarily report “both” on prior
training if the data is readily available.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element 1332 Participated
in PSE during Participation – proposes to add “clarifying”
language to the “No PSE” response and to eliminate
the option to record “blank” if not applicable.
The
additional clarifying language is essentially restating the
existing language to try to clarify intent – Support
Removal
of the option to leave blank if not Applicable – OPPOSE
– This data element is used to drive the Credential Rate
denominator. The Credential Rate is not applicable not
applicable if a participant in a WIOA program is also enrolled
in PSE unrelated to their services from workforce system (other
than for Title I in-school Youth).
For
example, if we have a person enrolled in WIOA Adult who happens
to be in PSE during participation but we are not paying for that
education directly or with support payments and are instead only
serving to help the person find employment while in school, then
that person should not be in the Credential Rate denominator.
The
proposed change requires the state to record a yes or no on every
person, even those for whom the element is not applicable such as
in the example identified above. Without the blank if not
applicable option, many states and locals may have confusion
about how to respond. If they answer “Yes” to on a
record like the above WIOA Adult example, then that will put the
person in the Credential Rate denominator even if the participant
was early in their education and only needed school-compatible
employment assistance. This element should be entirely written
as follows:
Record
1 if the participant was in a postsecondary education program
that leads to a credential or degree from an accredited
postsecondary education institution at any point during program
participation
and the program provided services that directly supported that
enrollment.
Record
0 if the participant was not in a postsecondary education program
that leads to a credential or degree from an accredited
postsecondary education institution during program participation
OR was in such
education but the program did not provide services that directly
supported that enrollment. Note:
this includes if the participant was enrolled in a postsecondary
education program that does not lead to a credential or degree
from an accredited postsecondary education institution at any
point during program participation.
Note:
This data element relates to the credential indicator denominator
and those who are recorded as 1 are included in the credential
rate denominator. This element is a subset of PIRL 1811. Do not
record 1 if the participant was first enrolled in postsecondary
education after exiting the program
OR if the program was not directly supporting the post-secondary
education.
|
The Departments have agreed to add back in a “leave blank”
option into 1332 to ensure that all possibilities are
appropriately accounted for. The language will read “Leave
blank if the participant was not in a postsecondary education
program, as defined in program specific guidance.”
|
ETA 9172- DOL only PIRL
|
-
|
Making Elements 1403 and
1405 applicable to REO Adult and REO Youth programs and Elements
1408 and 1415applicable to REO Youth – Concerned
– Are the required system change costs worth the value of
these elements if grantees are not currently capturing this
information on these programs?
|
Thank you for your comment. The purpose of making these items
applicable to our adult and youth reentry programs is to have our
grantees report on these items, so if the items are approved
grantees will capture and report on them. PIRL 1403 is for
Alternative School Services. This item will allow us to document
in both our adult and youth reentry grants the number of
participants who are provided high school equivalency classes.
40 percent of participants in our adult offender grants over the
years did not have a high school diploma or equivalency and a
quarter of participants in our recent youth offender grants that
included data on school status were high school dropouts. PIRL
1405 is for work experience. Given the immediate need for many
adult offenders and older youth offenders to find a job to
support themselves work experience and transitional jobs are an
important way the reentry grants can serve these individuals, and
the DOL should be able to document how many individuals we have
provided work experience and transitional jobs.
PIRL 1415 is for post-secondary education and preparatory
activities. DOL should be able to document the extent to which
reentry programs have provided college bound services to young
offenders. PIRL 1408 is for leadership development activities.
PIRL 1408 is already in the youth offender schema and we are
requesting that it also be applicable to the adult reentry grants
because it is a valuable service, and the DOL should be able to
document the extent it has provided this service to adult
offenders.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Propose to change Elements
1506, 1507, 1509, 1510, 1514, 1515, 1519, 1520, 1524, 1525, 1529,
1530, 1536, and 1538 from reporting amounts “paid” to
“expenditures accrued” – Need
Clarification –
“Paid” and “accrued” have very different
meanings in accounting. If the change is nonsubstantive and
merely line up the language with the existing guidance, please
provide reference to that guidance in response to public
comments. However, if these change represent actual changes to
what is to be reported (accrued vs. paid), we OPPOSE
the change as being too costly to implement in accounting
systems, benefit systems, case management systems, and PIRL
coding which would all need to be modified for a change that does
not clearly provide information that is essential and superior to
the “paid” amounts reported currently.
|
This language change from “paid” to “expenditures”
accrued is to align with current guidance on how to populate
these fields throughout TAPR and PIRL. Accrual reporting is
required under 20 CFR 618.860, TEGL 01-19, TEGL 06-09 (including
Change 1 and Change 2), and has long been discussed in technical
assistance materials such as webinars and reporting FAQ sheets
available to states.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element 1542 A/RTAA
Overpayment – OPPOSE
– given that WIPS is a longitudinal data system, it is not
clear why this change is necessary. It is possible for DOL to
determine whether there was an overpayment in a POP by looking at
each PIRL submission rather than 50+ states, territories, and
Washington DC all having to make a programming change. It would
be far cheaper for DOL to use the data they already get to track
overpayments. DOL would only have to write or modify one query
and apply it to all the PIRL submissions they’ve received.
|
The DOL understands this overpayment element to be necessary to
track what kinds of participants are receiving overpayments to
better provide guidance on how to avoid overpayments in a program
that has long received concerns about overpayment risk. This
element has been consistent for TAA participant reporting since
FY 2009.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element 1608
Employment-Related to Training Q2 – Added the ability to
record “unknown” in the element – STRONGLY
SUPPORT –
Few states receive occupational data as part of their wage
records which means that the only way to report this element is
through follow-up contacts with the Job Seeker or perhaps the
Employer. Given that we must wait until the 2nd
quarter after exit to contact the Exiter to obtain the
information, sometimes we will not have current contact
information and be unable to contact the Exiter.
Contacting
the employer to obtain information about the occupation the
Exiter is employed in adds another 2+ months to the lag because
of the delay in receiving wage records and TWC does not support
contacting employers to obtain information about their employees
absent a true statutory purpose like to determine unemployment
eligibility information. Further, employers do not want to be
contacted for WIOA performance accountability purposes. That was
made perfectly clear to the Departments when they sought employer
input on the WIOA “Effectiveness in Serving Employers”
measure. While this element is unrelated to the employer
measures, the underlying message – “don’t call
us, we’ll call you” – is still applicable.
HOWEVER,
we also think that the “Leave Blank” provision needs
to be clarified to state that we also leave it blank if the
Exiter was not employed in the 2nd
Quarter After Exit (Q2). While this may not be the Departments’
intent, the currently proposed set of options does not provide
guidance on what to record (1, 0, or 9) if the Exiter was not
found employed in Q2 post-exit. All three options include the
condition “and obtained employment” which makes none
of the 3 options appropriate if the person was unemployed in Q2.
|
Thank
you for your comment.
|
N/A
|
-
|
1700 Series –
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION
– given there is significant seasonality in employment and
earnings by calendar quarter (Q4 tends to have the highest number
of people employed and many people get second, holiday jobs which
raises earnings for the quarter), we recommend that DOL add an
additional Element for the 4th
Quarter Prior to Participation Quarter. This would improve
pre-post participation earnings employment and comparisons by
ensuring that there is a full 4 quarters of both pre and post
participation earnings available for analysis.
|
Thank you for this recommendation. In the interest of minimizing
burden, DOL will not be collecting this data at this time, but
notes that states may collect additional information they deem
important to their program management.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Elements 1703-1706
Earnings in Xth Quarter after Exit Quarter – Changing the
word “Wages “to “Earnings” Support
– This change aligns the elements better with the reality
that we work with people who are self-employed or contractors or
gig workers. The term “wages” is more limiting. In
addition, the data element definitions/instructions always used
the word earnings.
In
addition, we have two related comments to offer:
First,
there is no need to report 999999.99 when wages are “not
yet available” and we recommend removing this language.
The Departments of Education and Labor have set out a
reporting schedule which identifies when earnings for a given
quarter are deemed to be available and the Departments have
data edit checks to make sure that states are not reporting
earnings as “not yet available” when they clearly
should be available based on the calendar. Therefore, there is
no need for states to code the “999999.99- data not
available” data. Further, it makes it impossible to
actually report $999,999.99 as “real earnings” on
the off chance that it occurs – reserving what is
otherwise a valid number in a monetary field to represent
something other than a monetary value is not a good data
practice – it makes the data harder to use by introducing
an additional data cleansing step. States should report nulls
until the data is mature and if there are no earnings once the
data matures, they should record a 0.
This
then leads to our second recommendation – add an extra
digit to these fields as well as to the earnings prior to
participation data elements.
Yes, it is very rare that we serve a person who earns more
than $1M in a given quarter but it does happen. It happened
during the Great Recession when a lot of very highly
compensated finance workers and executives were laid off or
their companies closed. This is likely happening again with
participants in the COVID-19 period obtaining extraordinarily
high levels of earnings pre and post-exit. To be clear, this
is a rarity for most states but some states with high
concentrations of very highly paid workers (Wall Street,
Silicon Valley, etc.) could have this legitimately show up in
their records. In the absence of adding a digit, we request
that the instructions be modified to explicitly define what we
should report in an instance where the Exiter legitimately had
earnings of more than $1M in a given quarter. Of note is that
Element 2203 which is to report HOURLY wage at placement is
allows reporting of up to $9,999,999.99.
|
Thank you for your comment. The Departments are increasing the
field length to address the Commenters concern, but the
Departments are keeping the option to report all 9’s when
wages are “not yet available.”
|
ETA 9172 DOL only PIRL
|
-
|
Elements 1811 and 1813
Date Enrolled (or Completed) Education or Training during Program
Participation – STRONGLY
SUPPORT Removal
of the word “Postsecondary” from the element titles
will greatly reduce confusion about the applicability of these
elements to people in secondary education. The detailed
instructions on how to record the element always made it clear
that this included people enrolled in secondary education, but
the element name didn’t seem consistent with that guidance.
This made training and consistent coding/application of the
business rules more complicated.
|
Thank you for your comment.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Elements 1902, 1909, and
1916 Category of Assessment – Ambivalent
– Not clear why the change is proposed, particularly the
removal the ability to report a person being assessed in both ABE
and ESL.
|
Thank you for your comment. These changes were made to better
align with the most recent version of these assessments.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element
1905, 1908, 1912, 1915, 1919, and 1922 Pre and Post Test
Assessment Scores – Support
– these changes simply update the language to match
current reporting policy.
Elements
2003 and 2004 related to DWG – Support
Element
2126 – Support
– nonsubstantive naming change.
Addition
of Individualized Services Provided Virtual/Online –
Support
subject to the conditions noted in the introduction about
providing time to implement the automation changes to track this
and that it not be applied retroactively to periods in which it
was not possible to identify whether a service was provided in
person or online.
|
Thank you for your comment.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Elements 2109-2113 related
to Type of Training – OPPOSE
– Why would DOL remove Registered Apprenticeship as an
option to report on these elements given the great interest in
Registered Apprenticeship as well as the significant amounts of
funding that have gone to Apprenticeship Expansion Grants? Yes,
there is some redundancy to Element 2207, but the values are
currently reported and there is no cost to continuing to report
them.
|
Please see response from DOL’s Office of Apprenticeship in
the document below.
|
ETA 9172 DOL Only PIRL
|
-
|
Making Elements 2203,
2204, 2207, 2209, 2210, 2211, 2212 applicable to REO Adult
program (and RIO Youth for 2210 – OPPOSE
on basis of cost to modify IT systems and PIRL coding to
record/report these items.
|
Thank you for your comments. We believe that the value of making
these items applicable to our reentry programs outweighs any
costs for modifying IT systems and PIRL coding. Items 2203 and
2204 are for hourly wages and weekly hours of jobs in which
reentry grants placed participants. Finding a job is the main
reason offenders apply for our programs and DOL should be able to
document the wages and weekly hours of the jobs in which we place
individuals. Items 2209, 2210, 2211, and 2212 are for supportive
services relating to transportation, health care, child care, and
housing. Many ex-offenders are in dire financial situations and
are in need of supportive services. Over the course of the
years, 75 percent of participants in our adult offender grants
have received supportive services and we should be able to
document what type of supportive services that they have
received. Child care is relevant because women make up almost a
quarter of participants in our adult offender programs.
Similarly, the value of making 2210 applicable to youth reentry
programs outweighs any costs modifying IT systems because DOL
should be in a position to document the number of participants
receiving health-related supportive services. As a benchmark, 20
percent of participants in our adult reentry grants have received
health-related supportive services.
|
N/A
|
-
|
Element 2212 Housing
Services – Support the name change but don’t
understand removal of the option to report “both”
since a person might initially receive temporary housing
assistance and then also receive permanent housing assistance
when an opportunity arises.
|
The Department agrees with the commenter and has added the option
to report “both” back in the data element.
|
ETA 9172 DOL only PIRL
|
-
|
All Other Section E.11
Elements – OPPOSE
– No justification was provided for the need to add these
data elements and while they might be useful in some regard, it
is not clear for what purpose or that the value of the data
outweighs the cost of implementing them. These elements will
require changes to case management systems and PIRL coding. In
addition, the Wagner-Peyser registration requirements were
substantially expanded under WIOA and require answering 100
questions (since not all elements can be asked in the PIRL format
and still be understandable to lay people). Time spent gathering
data is time that can’t be spent serving the customer so
the data that is gathered has to be of highest value to make it
worth the diversion of attention from the customer and the
creation of additional hoops for them to jump through.
|
Thank you for your comment.
The 4 elements added for REO are
needed to populate the REO QPRs.
The elements for virtual
services, given the rapid expansion the use of virtual services,
the Department believes it’s necessary to capture
additional information.
Individualized Services Provided
Virtually: with the increasing capabilities of technology and the
unfortunately circumstances of the pandemic, it seems possible
and probable that individualized career services could be
delivered virtually. This will be an important distinction as
DOL analyzes performance outcomes.
Transitioning Service Member
Warm Handover/Housing Plan: As part of the ongoing partnership
with the Dept. of Defense, it is necessary to ensure that the
Warm Handover requirement (any military member who is deemed not
career ready must be referred to the AJC) is being carried out
as intended. Additionally, if someone is deemed to be at risk of
homelessness, a housing plan is also required.
Referred from VA: In a partnership with the Dept. of Veteran’s
Affairs, it is important for DOL to determine what additional
services a veteran has received in addition to the ones received
at the AJC. To fully analyze the performance outcomes of
veterans, DOL must also know as many non-DOL services received as
possible.
|
|
-
|
Suggestion related to
PIRL Elements currently reported based on Status at Date of
Program Entry but which can change during participation:
We suggest that reporting on a participant’s Status at Exit
would be more valuable for analyzing the success of program
efforts. Ultimately,
it doesn’t matter what the person’s status was at
Date of Program Entry. Status at Exit reflects the challenges
that participants face or advantages they have in navigating the
labor market after their program participation ends.
Do these characteristics change over time for a large portion of
the population? Maybe not, particularly in a program like
Wagner-Peyser that serves a very high volume of people and
typically for relatively short periods. However, for smaller
programs and programs where participation tends to occur over
longer periods of time (like Youth and Vocational
Rehabilitation), a greater proportion of Participants will have
life changes that are important to note to tell the story of the
workforce system, those we served, and what we together were able
to achieve.
Many
of these data elements, particularly those related to what WIOA
calls “Barriers to Employment” are utilized in the
WIOA statistical adjustment models as well as to break out
participants and result in the annual and quarterly report
templates. As relates to the barriers, they statistically tend
to correlate to lower outcomes – that is, all other things
being equal, a person with a barrier is less likely to have as
successful a set of outcomes as a person who is in every other
way statistically similar but does not have any barriers.
One
example of this is if you had two people of the same age,
demographic characteristics, gender, geographic location, work
history, education levels, certifications, etc. but one with a
felony conviction and the other without, we know that the person
with a felony conviction is statistically less likely to have as
strong a set of outcomes as the person without a felony
conviction.
In
addition, some of the most common questions from elected and
appointed officials, partners, and other stakeholders relate to
the number of people served and their outcomes based on
demographic and other characteristics. Some of the most
requested characteristics are:
Veterans
People
with a Disability
Ex-Offenders
Foster
Youth
Low
Income
Single
Parents.
When
we’re asked these questions, they are not interested in a
count based on status at date of participation. That is not
relevant to the question. If the system begins serving an Active
Military member before he or she musters out and is providing
participatory level services, the current Joint PIRL requires
this person to be reported as “Non-Veteran.” But the
reason this person came to us was in preparation for leaving the
military and could in fact do so during that same Period of
Participation. Assuming the discharge type was not disqualifying
for veteran status, this person is now a Veteran. We served a
Veteran and yet we can’t report it in any of the data we
report to the Departments of Labor and Education through our
quarterly and annual reports because the requirements are to
report based on status at Date of Participation.
A
similar example would be a person who had no disability when
participation began but who had an accident during their Period
of Participation and now has a disability – we have served
a person with a disability but have no way to report it. That
means that the Statistical Adjustment Models used to evaluate
program performance based on the characteristics of those served
and the economic conditions in which they were served does not
get a true picture of who was served and therefore can’t
account for that true casemix in evaluating performance at the
end of the year. This undermines the legitimacy of the WIOA
performance accountability system which is predicated on the
creation of a model that can account for factors outside the
program’s control that impact outcomes (positively or
negatively).
Further,
for the Title I programs, the populations in question are much
smaller when running local workforce development board
performance and therefore the impact of each participant on the
casemix becomes all the more important. If a local board has an
unusual number of these kind of life changes in a group of
exiters, the impact of not being able to update the record to
reflect these changes will be much more pronounced.
Our
recommended solution is to change these data elements to not be
limited to status at Date of Program Entry but rather to allow
states to update values as appropriate to reflect the relevant
characteristics of those we serve as they enter/reenter the labor
market:
202
Individual with a Disability – As discussed above.
400
Employment Status – This one is slightly unique –
what we’re particularly concerned with is the “negative”
status on an element, the characteristics/statuses that are more
likely to make a positive outcome harder to achieve. So in this
case, we recommend that if at any point during participation,
the participant becomes “Unemployed” we would report
it as such and would not update that back to “Employed”
if the person became employed during participation. This may
seem inconsistent but from a reporting and service perspective,
that person was unemployed and we served them while unemployed
and we helped that person achieve a positive employment outcome
(which will be reflected in wage records later).
402
Long-term Unemployed – In the current pandemic it is clear
that a large portion of those we serve will not be “long
term unemployed” at Date of Program Entry but will be
unable to find employment for quite some time (new claimants
from March will hit 27 weeks of unemployment by the end of
October). If a person comes to us immediately after being laid
off, they can still become long-term unemployed and employers
may be more hesitant to hire them as they may have concerns that
the person’s skills have atrophied through long term
disuse.
407
Highest School Grade Completed / 408 Highest Education Level
Completed – If in 11th
grade at program entry but a HS or college grad or certificate
holder at exit, the education level at exit is more relevant to
their opportunities of success in the labor market.
704
Foster Care Youth Status – again, if we have a young
person who was in their original family at participation and has
a family tragedy that results in that person becoming a Foster
Youth during participation, we have served a foster youth and
that person is going to face all of the challenges that being a
foster youth brings when it comes to completing their high
school education, advancing to postsecondary education, and
transitioning into the workforce.
800
Homeless Individual, Homeless Children and Youths, or Runaway
Youth – as above, if a person had a stable family
environment/home and then that changed during participation,
that person is now going to face all the challenges that being
homeless or a runaway bring. Their outcomes are statistically
unlikely to be as good as those whose family/home status did not
deteriorate during participation.
801
Ex-Offender – As discussed above.
802
Low Income – As with Long Term Unemployed discussed above,
a person might come to the system with good income but over
their period of participation, particularly through the
pandemic, may have to apply for and receive public assistance
(not unemployment insurance). There is keen interest in how the
system helps people on public assistance to become
self-sufficient. Cases that transition like this are not
reportable in the existing system.
806
Single Parent – This status can certainly change during
participation and creates an entirely new set of challenges for
the participant.
807
Displaced Homemaker – as with single parent status, this
can change during participation and impact outcomes and again,
represents a priority population that WIOA requires us to report
on.
Most
of the above elements-relate to “Barriers to Employment”
under WIOA. The statute in its very first sentence says that
“The purposes of this Act are the following: (1) To
increase, for individuals in the United States, particularly
those individuals with barriers to employment, access to and
opportunities for the employment, education, training, and
support services they need to succeed in the labor market.”
It goes on to define these barriers in WIOA Sec.3 (24) and in
WIOA 116(b)(3) requires the Departments of Labor and Education to
develop a statistical model that accounts for the barriers
(though it doesn’t call them barriers in WIOA Sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II)(bb), it does list many of the barriers as
examples of factors to be considered by the model). Finally,
WIOA Sec. 116(d)(2)(B) and (H) require performance data to be
disaggregated by each subpopulation of individuals with barriers
to employment.
In
short, WIOA defines a key part of its purpose to serve people
with “Barriers to Employment,” requires the
performance accountability system to account for the
characteristics of those served including factors that may
negatively impact performance – like “Barriers to
Employment” – and, finally, requires reports to break
performance data out by demographic characteristics and barriers
to employment. However, the current Joint PIRL specs are not
aligned with these statutory provisions because they focus on the
person on at the beginning of participation and it is their
status at the end of participation that will have the greatest
influence on their outcomes in the vast majority of cases.
In
order to ensure that the national workforce system’s
service to people with barriers as well as the outcomes achieved
are fully reflected in the quarterly and annual reports as well
as the statistical adjustment models, we urge the Departments to
revisit the existing standards and modify them to be more
reflective of the people we serve and the challenges they face
during that period of service and transition to either
Post-Secondary Education or Employment.
|
The Department thanks the Commenter for this suggestion and notes
that not all of the referenced elements are based on status at
date of program entry. For those that are based on status at date
of program entry, it is acceptable to change information in an
individual’s PIRL record based on new information if that
new information reflects their status at program entry. If the
participant’s status changes during participation, however,
these elements must not be updated to reflect such changes. For
example, if a participant discloses that they had been previously
incarcerated but were uncomfortable discussing that when first
entering the program, then PIRL DE801 (Ex-Offender Status at
Program Entry) can be changed to a “1”, but if a
participant who was unemployed starts working a part time job
after entering the program then PIRL DE400 (Employment Status at
Program Entry) cannot be changed. Additionally, elements that are
not specifically designated as taking place at program entry,
such as PIRL DE202 (Individual with a Disability) can be updated
at any time to reflect the most accurate information about the
participant.
Special consideration for common
reporting of co-enrollment. While ETA encourages the use of prior
assessments when possible to determine participant eligibility,
needs, etc. it may be the case that a participant in one program
may have a change in status that leads to them becoming eligible
for services in another program. In such a scenario, it is
acceptable to update the relevant “at program entry”
elements to reflect the participant’s status at entry into
the subsequent program to better facilitate common reporting.
The Department will not be making changes to the collection in
response to this comment.
|
N/A
|
-
|
(Pennsylvania #54-#55)
Request
to modify current definitions:
The following proposals are being
made to address definitional issues for the purpose of easing
burden and improving reliability of the data:
413 -
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Designation as defined at 20 CFR
651.10
808 -
Eligible Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Status (WIOA sec. 167)
It is
understood that 413 and 808 have definitional differences and
that 808 is a common element across all core programs. However,
we respectfully request a review of the two elements to identify
a way to capture and report in a single element, including
directions that only certain responses are applicable to Titles I
and III. It is felt this would allow for a more robust look at
MSFW's served by the workforce system.
907 -
Recipient of Incumbent Worker Training
The requirement to report multiple values identifying the program
of funding is slightly redundant, given the values could be
derived based on the programs of participation captured in other
PIRL elements.
1306, 1311,
1316 – Occupational Skills Training Code –
The requirement to align the codes in these fields with a
specific O*NET SOC taxonomy will result in significant costs to
adjust current systems to utilize the updated taxonomy. Not only
will the cost be to incorporate the new taxonomy but also to
ensure all prior recorded codes align with the current taxonomy.
In addition, the realignment of these codes may lead to
inaccuracies when analyzing the types of trainings being
provided, as some codes stay the same but the definition changes.
1812 -
School Status at Exit
This element is applicable to Youth program participants only. As
such, the definition should be modified in such a way as to
indicate the information should be captured at the conclusion of
youth services.
1814 - Date Attained Graduate/Post
Graduate Degree (WIOA)
This
information should not be required for Title I and programs since
a master's degree is not a program/performance focus.
|
Thank you for your comment.
RE 413/808: There are
statutorily reasons why the definitions exist, and the Department
will provide additional technical assistance on reporting these 2
elements.
RE 907: Due to different
requirements for providing Incumbent Worker Training in the
various programs and the possibility for combined reporting, the
Department finds it necessary to collect this element using
multiple values.
RE 1306,1311,1316: The
Department appreciates the challenges associated with making this
change and will therefore implement a phased implementation of
this change in order to allow states time to determine how best
to make these adjustments. To accomplish this, the Department
will continue to allow older ONET codes via its edit checks
during the transition period.
RE 1812: The Department
disagrees with the commenter. This element is required for WIOA
Youth, NFJP, INA, and REO Youth so it’s not just a youth
element. Also, it’s important this element remain as
status at exit because DOL compares school status at enrollment
to school status at exit to assess the program’s impact on
school status over the life of the program.
RE 1814: This is a joint element and is included for
title I in case grantees want to report this attainment for
programs the individuals are co-enrolled in, and can be left
blank if not applicable.
|
ETA 9172 DOL only PIRL
|
-
|
Requests to remove data elements from the PIRL structure:
204 - 209 – Types of
Disability-related services received – small, specialized
populations
Attempts to work with state
Departments of Human Services to obtain crossmatches have
indicated there is a lack of clarity at the state level as to
what this means. Where clarity exists, extensive IT development
is required to obtain the information from what research has
shown to be a very small crossmatch of individuals.
Information may be germane to
service delivery/planning/goal setting but to make it mandatory
data entry with coded values when applicable to such a small
percentage of the population we serve is burdensome and costly.
The collection of this
information by workforce development front-line staff, who are
unfamiliar with these services, require individual
interpretation leading to inconsistencies and a lack of intended
value.
308 – Homeless Veteran
The inclusion
of this data element is seen as an unnecessary data collection,
as this demographic can be derived from two other elements (301 &
800)
315 – Other Significant
Barrier to Employment
Lack of clarity
exists as to what would be captured here. Including a data
element in the PIRL data file that is rarely populated does not
fit with good data file design principles.
934 – Rapid Response Event
Number
While
recognizing US DOL’s desire to retain this element to allow
continued capture of data from those states that implemented an
internal tracking system, the inclusion of this element adds
unnecessary cost and burden to states who did not implement such
a system.
935 – Accountability Exit
Status (code value 3) –
Discussions
indicate the applicability of this code value is very limited
across states, even those with large numbers of Trade
participants. In addition, the time and cost associated with
tracking and recording it from the case management system to the
PIRL report is burdensome.
939 & 940 - Individual with A
Disability Individualized Education Program/Disability Section
504 Plan
Information may
be germane to service delivery/planning/goal setting, but to make
it mandatory data entry with coded values when applicable to such
a small percentage of the populations is burdensome and costly.
1902 – 1922 –
Educational Functioning Level testing information
The
inclusion of these data elements is seen as an unnecessary data
collection, as the information is not necessary for determination
of an EFL gain in relation to the measurable skill gains metric.
In addition, significant changes to the assessment tools from
which this data was captured has led to the misalignment of code
values to information available.
|
While the Department understands the complexities of collecting
and tracking data, it is important for front-line staff to learn
new methods in which to collect data through professional
development, as well as the reasons why the data provides
critical information to the workforce development system. This
data is useful to the system in multiple ways, including:
1. States and localities can
improve programmatic accessibility for individuals by better
understanding who is being served.
2. Multiple agencies and
organizations serve participants under the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Collecting common data elements
enables the Department to learn who is being served, and by which
agencies, allowing the Department to enhance collaboration among
required and non-required partners. By expanding partnerships,
WIOA programs can leverage funding to provide additional services
and ultimately decrease service silos through better
coordination. This also leads to improved services and outcomes
for participants.
3. Tracking of disability data
will help the Department get a better understanding of outcomes
that are resulting under WIOA, including for new requirements
such as those relating to Competitive Integrated Employment and
other work options (such as Customized Employment). Analyzing
these outcomes will also assist the DOL to identify needs to
provide targeted technical assistance in areas where outcomes are
lacking.
The Department has released a
suite of materials in the last fiscal year, including:
A policy and analysis brief
to explain the disability related data elements, and analyze
state reporting across all these elements, which is available
here:
http://leadcenter.org/resources/report-brief/disability-related-reporting-participant-individual-record-layout-pirl.
A WIOA PIRL Data
Visualization Tool to help states understand their own levels of
reporting on the disability-related PIRL data elements,
available at
http://drivedisabilityemployment.org/wioa-reporting.
Two webinars to help state
and local workforce systems better understand and collect these
data. These webinars are available at:
http://www.leadcenter.org/webinars/understanding-wioa-disability-related-reporting-tools-data-visualization
and
http://leadcenter.org/webinars/wioa-disability-related-reporting-deep-dive-participant-individual-record-layout-pirl-0.
The Department is currently
working on additional technical assistance materials relating to
the PIRL disability data elements to be released later this
fiscal year.
RE 308: The Department
agrees with the Commenter and will remove PIRL 308.
RE 315: PIRL 315 is an
important data element as JVSG requirements can change before
PIRL revisions occur. For example, Vietnam-era veterans was
added as a significant barrier to employment on February 7, 2019,
but there was not an existing data element to capture this. PIRL
315 can be used in the interim until a permanent solution is
implemented.
RE 934: The Department
notes this element is optional, so it adds no burden other than
having a blank column in the file submission. This element has
been used by states meaningfully to help improve tracking of
rapid response events and according to a recent analysis,
approximately 1/3 of states are utilizing this field
meaningfully. While there may be no current plans to create a
national system, when this data is available it provides
important insights into the number of rapid response events.
RE 935: DOL agrees with
this comment that this element is particularly burdensome for
TAA. The Department will remove code value 3. However, to track
TAA participants who receive services under multiple petitions,
PIRL 915 will be modified to accept a delimited list of values.
The Department recommends only
collecting this data when an individual indicates they have a
disability.
RE 939/940: The
Department recommends only asking this question to participants
that indicate they have a disability
RE 1902 – 1922: The department agrees that
it would be reasonable to removed elements 1902-1922 for the
formula programs. DOL is going to keep these elements in the PIRL
as required for YouthBuild, REO Adult, and REO Youth, Job Corps,
NFJP as they have specific uses for these elements for monitoring
and these elements are already included in their national case
management systems so it’s not an additional burden for
them to stay as required PIRL elements for those programs.
|
ETA 9172 DOL Only PIRL
|
|
Error: Reference source not found
|
|
|
-
|
(Pennsylvania)
Request
to remove the following elements as ‘required’ for
Apprenticeship reporting
The
Apprenticeship program is unique from other workforce programs in
that the individual is already employed through a connection
outside the traditional workforce system. Required collection of
this information would be burdensome to the employer who must
provide this information to the grantee for tracking purposes and
in some cases require the employer do an assessment to determine
applicability to the apprentice:
Element
108-A – ETA-assigned 1st Local Workforce Board
Code
Element 301
– Eligible Veteran Status
Element 303
– Disabled Veteran
Element 401
– UC Eligible Status
Element 409
– School Status at Program Entry
Element 804
– Basic Skills Deficient/Low Levels of Literacy at Program
Entry
Element 806
– Single Parent at Program Entry
Element 807
– Displaced Homemaker at Program Entry
Element 903
– Adult Program Participant
Element 904
– Dislocated Worker Program Participant
Element 905
– Youth Program Participant
Element 910
– Adult Education Program Participant
Element 911
– Job Corps Program Participant
Element 913
– Indian and Native American Program Participant
Element 914
– Veterans’ Program Participant
Element 915
– TAA Petition Number
Element 916
– Vocational Education
Element 917
– Vocational Rehabilitation
Element 918
- Wagner-Peyser Employment Service
Element 919
– YouthBuild
Element 938
– H-1B
Element 1210
– Received Pre-Vocational Activities
Element 1333
– Received Training from Programs Operated by the Private
Sector
Element 2413
– Incarcerated at Program Entry
In addition,
Element 1301 – Eligible Training Provider – Name –
Training Service #1 should not be required because Registered
Apprenticeships are not required to be included on the state
Eligible Training Program list. In addition, not all
Apprenticeship grantees have access to state Eligible Training
Program lists, nor are they required to compile one.
|
|
|
-
|
(From NC Community College)
Based upon the information provided
and the request to evaluate whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, I have to say that it is not. This is requiring 131
data elements that are to be collected for apprenticeship, many
of which are not relevant to the apprentice. Apprentices do
not complete intake forms and are hired by the employer, through
the means that the employer finds the most efficient.
Employers are referred WIOA
participants, but the company does not choose to hire them.
Therefore, this data collection burden is placed on the
employer. Employers do not have time to collect this
additional data, especially now that they are dealing with the
pandemic and continuing to run a company. Employers are
viewing this as a burden of additional paperwork and are more and
more becoming uninterested in apprenticeship because of it.
The information already collected
is enough to follow the apprentice through training and after
training. We must minimize the burden of collecting
information, not create more of a burden.
This does not follow the paperwork
reduction act of 1995 (PRA), but is just the opposite.
|
|
|
-
|
Montana
The Montana Department of Labor &
Industry (MTDLI) is committed to facilitating and developing
high-quality registered apprenticeship (RA) programs in order to
recruit, train and retain a diverse and highly skilled workforce.
No other education and training system brings together
government, education, business and labor so effectively to
produce such high-performance outcomes. With that context, MTDLI
respectfully asks that the RA Expansion grants be left off the
list as DOL/ETA considers this extension of authority.
RA is an industry-recognized,
voluntary and employer-driven system. If DOL/ETA is to evaluate
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility, it should
take into consideration the Fitzgerald Act and resultant and
related State regulations put in place to ensure accountability
and equal employment opportunity. Employer and Labor sponsors of
RA programs are already subject to a myriad of legally binding
provisions in both federal and state law. MTDLI sees no utility
in applying WIOA, pre-employment-based performance metric
requirements to an already well regulated, high-performing,
employment-based, career building program.
MTDLI is committed to a national
System of Registered Apprenticeship. While we are encouraged by
recent public investments in the model, we are also concerned
that the proposed extension of data gathering authority to
include Federal RA Expansion Grants underestimates the burden
already imposed on registered sponsors and could negate the
significant gains seen in recent years per that public
investment.
|
|
|
-
|
|
For comments pertaining to data collection, please see response
from DOL’s Office of Apprenticeship in the document below.
The comments pertaining to WIPS are outside of the scope of the
ICR and will be addressed through technical assistance.
|
|
-
|
|
|
|