This report presents the findings from a 30-month evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act ... more This report presents the findings from a 30-month evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title IV Section 401 Indian and Native American (INA) Program. This specially targeted JTPA program provides employment and training services to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Most grantees are tribal governments or community-based organizations. The evaluation consisted of a survey completed by 113 of the approximately 175 INA grantees and site visits to 23 randomly selected grantees during which services were observed and staff and program participants were interviewed. Following an executive summary and an introductory chapter, the study design is detailed in chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents quantitative data from the grantee survey. Chapter 4 takes a broad-brush look at grantee organizations and service strategies, including goals and objectives, funding, staffing, and service emphases. Chapter 5 looks in depth at specific elements of service delivery: outreach and recruitment, the processes by which participants' needs are assessed and their service strategies developed; and the use of supportive services and stipends to support participants through training. The next four chapters focus on basic and occupational skills classroom training, on-the-job training, work experience and community service employment, and training assistance and placement services. Chapters 10-11 present factors influencing program design decisions, an assessment of program effectiveness, and some policy recommendations. Three appendices contain the survey, client characteristics and outcomes, and a list of abbreviations. (TD)
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and its replacement, the Workforce Innovation and Oppo... more The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and its replacement, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), require that Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs) oversee the implementation of America’s public workforce system in local communities. As part of the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs Gold Standard Evaluation, we examined the structure and priorities of 28 randomly selected LWIBs and learned that:
One-Stop Profile DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticu... more One-Stop Profile DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticut during the period of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Widespread downsizing within the defense and insurance industries led to high levels of unemployment in the state. During the three years between 1989 and 1992, over 150,000 jobs were lost and unemployment doubled from 3.7% to 7.5%. In 1992, it was estimated that more than 75% of workers who had lost jobs were permanently laid offthe highest permanent job loss rate on recordand the proportion of unemployed who had not worked during the previous six months had reached the second highest level since the 1940s. Unemployment has, however, declined since 1992 to current levels of about 5%. Partly in response to these rapid structural changes in the state's economy, a farreaching examination of the state's workforce development system was undertaken. Surveys conducted among business and individual customers of the Connecticut Department of Labor at about this time revealed low levels of customer satisfaction with the system. Employers expressed their desire for more customized services that would meet their changing needs in a timely manner. Individual customers complained of "red tape," the fact that they often had to give the same information several times, and contact several DOL employees in order to access the services they required. At the policy level, weaknesses identified by other stakeholders included the existence of multiple and ineffective planning processes, a poor capacity for priority setting, and a lack of overall accountability for workforce development services. In response to these criticisms, a number of initiatives were undertaken in Connecticut to integrate the planning and delivery of workforce development services (described below under Evolution of the State One-Stop Vision). Thus, prior to the receipt of the federal One-Stop Implementation Grant, much of the groundwork for increased coordination, co-location, and integration of DOL-funded workforce development services had already taken place, particularly for the programs operated by the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL). Although originally conceived as a response to assist dislocated workers, Transition Centers eventually served as an important bridge toward providing integrated career services to a universal population. In the spring of 1994, the Connecticut legislature passed Public Act 94-116, which provides formal legislative authority for implementing a statewide system of Job Centers focused on the delivery of workforce development services to the general public.' The Act calls for the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission to set overall policy for the Job Center system. Administrative oversight of the Job Center system is to be shared between the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL) and Regional Workforce Development Boards (RWDBs). The legislation also calls for these entities to consult with the Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development to ensure coordination of services with employers and to collaborate with other public and private education, human services, and employment and training providers to deliver coordinated serices to individuals. As part of the One-Stop initiative, Connecticut's existing Job Centers are being transformed into One-Stop centers through the involvement of additional state and local agency partners and development of the capacity to provide integrated services to job seekers and business customers, with an emphasis on the use of self-access services. As described in its application for a federal One-Stop Implementation Grant, Connecticut's initial schedule for the "roll out" of Connecticut Works Centers was very ambitious. The state's goal was to open fourteen out of nineteen planned One-Stop centers during the first year of implementation in 1995. In actuality, only two centers were opened during this formative year. At the time of the site visit in June 1996, seven Connecticut Works Centers had opened; the remaining twelve centers were scheduled to be certified as One-Stop centers in 1997. The Connecticut Employment and Training Commission was intended to be the state's major policy body for issues of workforce development. In addition to CETC's mandate to produce a coordinated workforce development plan, it was designed to iThe same legislation established the framework for a statewide school-to-work system.
DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticut during the peri... more DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticut during the period of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Widespread downsizing within the defense and insurance industries led to high levels of unemployment in the state. During the three years between 1989 and 1992, over 150,000 jobs were lost and unemployment doubled from 3.7% to 7.5%. In 1992, it was estimated that more than 75% of workers who had lost jobs were permanently laid offthe highest permanent job loss rate on recordand the proportion of unemployed who had not worked during the previous six months had reached the second highest level since the 1940s. Unemployment has, however, declined since 1992 to current levels of about 5%. Partly in response to these rapid structural changes in the state's economy, a farreaching examination of the state's workforce development system was undertaken. Surveys conducted among business and individual customers of the Connecticut Department of Labor at about this time revealed low levels of customer satisfaction with the system. Employers expressed their desire for more customized services that would meet their changing needs in a timely manner. Individual customers complained of "red tape," the fact that they often had to give the same information several times, and contact several DOL employees in order to access the services they required. At the policy level, weaknesses identified by other stakeholders included the existence of multiple and ineffective planning processes, a poor capacity for priority setting, and a lack of overall accountability for workforce development services. In response to these criticisms, a number of initiatives were undertaken in Connecticut to integrate the planning and delivery of workforce development services (described below under Evolution of the State One-Stop Vision). Thus, prior to the receipt of the federal One-Stop Implementation Grant, much of the groundwork for increased coordination, co-location, and integration of DOL-funded workforce development services had already taken place, particularly for the programs operated by the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL). State of Connecticut: One-Stop Profile With the advent of the Connecticut's One-Stop initiative in 1995, nineteen existing Job Centers administered by CTDOL are being transformed into One-Stop Centers. These One-Stop Centers, which are known as Connecticut Works Centers, are intended to offer a full range of USDOL services through co-location and integration of services administered by the Connecticut Department of Labor (responsible for ES and UI), Regional Workforce Development Boards (responsible for JTPA and adult education) as well as services provided by other state and local partner agencies. By mid-1996, 7 of a total of 19 Job Centers had been certified as Connecticut Works Centers, and a remaining 12 were slated to be certified before the end of 1997, the third year of One-Stop implementation. Several contextual variables have influenced One-Stop planning, design, and implementation in Connecticut. These include: (1) a history of providing One-Stop type services through "transition centers" for dislocated workers; (2) a strong commitment to the development of tools for performance measurement; and (3) an equally strong emphasis on developing staff capacity through training. These are briefly described below.
This report presents the findings from a 30-month evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act ... more This report presents the findings from a 30-month evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title IV Section 401 Indian and Native American (INA) Program. This specially targeted JTPA program provides employment and training services to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Most grantees are tribal governments or community-based organizations. The evaluation consisted of a survey completed by 113 of the approximately 175 INA grantees and site visits to 23 randomly selected grantees during which services were observed and staff and program participants were interviewed. Following an executive summary and an introductory chapter, the study design is detailed in chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents quantitative data from the grantee survey. Chapter 4 takes a broad-brush look at grantee organizations and service strategies, including goals and objectives, funding, staffing, and service emphases. Chapter 5 looks in depth at specific elements of service delivery: outreach and recruitment, the processes by which participants' needs are assessed and their service strategies developed; and the use of supportive services and stipends to support participants through training. The next four chapters focus on basic and occupational skills classroom training, on-the-job training, work experience and community service employment, and training assistance and placement services. Chapters 10-11 present factors influencing program design decisions, an assessment of program effectiveness, and some policy recommendations. Three appendices contain the survey, client characteristics and outcomes, and a list of abbreviations. (TD)
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and its replacement, the Workforce Innovation and Oppo... more The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and its replacement, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), require that Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs) oversee the implementation of America’s public workforce system in local communities. As part of the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs Gold Standard Evaluation, we examined the structure and priorities of 28 randomly selected LWIBs and learned that:
One-Stop Profile DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticu... more One-Stop Profile DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticut during the period of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Widespread downsizing within the defense and insurance industries led to high levels of unemployment in the state. During the three years between 1989 and 1992, over 150,000 jobs were lost and unemployment doubled from 3.7% to 7.5%. In 1992, it was estimated that more than 75% of workers who had lost jobs were permanently laid offthe highest permanent job loss rate on recordand the proportion of unemployed who had not worked during the previous six months had reached the second highest level since the 1940s. Unemployment has, however, declined since 1992 to current levels of about 5%. Partly in response to these rapid structural changes in the state's economy, a farreaching examination of the state's workforce development system was undertaken. Surveys conducted among business and individual customers of the Connecticut Department of Labor at about this time revealed low levels of customer satisfaction with the system. Employers expressed their desire for more customized services that would meet their changing needs in a timely manner. Individual customers complained of "red tape," the fact that they often had to give the same information several times, and contact several DOL employees in order to access the services they required. At the policy level, weaknesses identified by other stakeholders included the existence of multiple and ineffective planning processes, a poor capacity for priority setting, and a lack of overall accountability for workforce development services. In response to these criticisms, a number of initiatives were undertaken in Connecticut to integrate the planning and delivery of workforce development services (described below under Evolution of the State One-Stop Vision). Thus, prior to the receipt of the federal One-Stop Implementation Grant, much of the groundwork for increased coordination, co-location, and integration of DOL-funded workforce development services had already taken place, particularly for the programs operated by the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL). Although originally conceived as a response to assist dislocated workers, Transition Centers eventually served as an important bridge toward providing integrated career services to a universal population. In the spring of 1994, the Connecticut legislature passed Public Act 94-116, which provides formal legislative authority for implementing a statewide system of Job Centers focused on the delivery of workforce development services to the general public.' The Act calls for the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission to set overall policy for the Job Center system. Administrative oversight of the Job Center system is to be shared between the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL) and Regional Workforce Development Boards (RWDBs). The legislation also calls for these entities to consult with the Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development to ensure coordination of services with employers and to collaborate with other public and private education, human services, and employment and training providers to deliver coordinated serices to individuals. As part of the One-Stop initiative, Connecticut's existing Job Centers are being transformed into One-Stop centers through the involvement of additional state and local agency partners and development of the capacity to provide integrated services to job seekers and business customers, with an emphasis on the use of self-access services. As described in its application for a federal One-Stop Implementation Grant, Connecticut's initial schedule for the "roll out" of Connecticut Works Centers was very ambitious. The state's goal was to open fourteen out of nineteen planned One-Stop centers during the first year of implementation in 1995. In actuality, only two centers were opened during this formative year. At the time of the site visit in June 1996, seven Connecticut Works Centers had opened; the remaining twelve centers were scheduled to be certified as One-Stop centers in 1997. The Connecticut Employment and Training Commission was intended to be the state's major policy body for issues of workforce development. In addition to CETC's mandate to produce a coordinated workforce development plan, it was designed to iThe same legislation established the framework for a statewide school-to-work system.
DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticut during the peri... more DESCRIPTION OF TILE STATE CONTEXT Several economic shocks occurred in Connecticut during the period of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Widespread downsizing within the defense and insurance industries led to high levels of unemployment in the state. During the three years between 1989 and 1992, over 150,000 jobs were lost and unemployment doubled from 3.7% to 7.5%. In 1992, it was estimated that more than 75% of workers who had lost jobs were permanently laid offthe highest permanent job loss rate on recordand the proportion of unemployed who had not worked during the previous six months had reached the second highest level since the 1940s. Unemployment has, however, declined since 1992 to current levels of about 5%. Partly in response to these rapid structural changes in the state's economy, a farreaching examination of the state's workforce development system was undertaken. Surveys conducted among business and individual customers of the Connecticut Department of Labor at about this time revealed low levels of customer satisfaction with the system. Employers expressed their desire for more customized services that would meet their changing needs in a timely manner. Individual customers complained of "red tape," the fact that they often had to give the same information several times, and contact several DOL employees in order to access the services they required. At the policy level, weaknesses identified by other stakeholders included the existence of multiple and ineffective planning processes, a poor capacity for priority setting, and a lack of overall accountability for workforce development services. In response to these criticisms, a number of initiatives were undertaken in Connecticut to integrate the planning and delivery of workforce development services (described below under Evolution of the State One-Stop Vision). Thus, prior to the receipt of the federal One-Stop Implementation Grant, much of the groundwork for increased coordination, co-location, and integration of DOL-funded workforce development services had already taken place, particularly for the programs operated by the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL). State of Connecticut: One-Stop Profile With the advent of the Connecticut's One-Stop initiative in 1995, nineteen existing Job Centers administered by CTDOL are being transformed into One-Stop Centers. These One-Stop Centers, which are known as Connecticut Works Centers, are intended to offer a full range of USDOL services through co-location and integration of services administered by the Connecticut Department of Labor (responsible for ES and UI), Regional Workforce Development Boards (responsible for JTPA and adult education) as well as services provided by other state and local partner agencies. By mid-1996, 7 of a total of 19 Job Centers had been certified as Connecticut Works Centers, and a remaining 12 were slated to be certified before the end of 1997, the third year of One-Stop implementation. Several contextual variables have influenced One-Stop planning, design, and implementation in Connecticut. These include: (1) a history of providing One-Stop type services through "transition centers" for dislocated workers; (2) a strong commitment to the development of tools for performance measurement; and (3) an equally strong emphasis on developing staff capacity through training. These are briefly described below.
Uploads
Papers by KRISTIN WOLFF