29648 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

United States Employment Service and

America’s Labor Market Information

System; Labor Exchange Performance

Measures

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

establishment of final performance

measures for the public labor exchange

administered as part of the One-Stop

delivery systems of the States. We

established these performance measures

based on comments received in

response to proposed labor exchange

performance measures previously

published in the Federal Register. This

notice discusses the comments received

and our response to the comments.

Three of the performance measures

apply to job seekers registered with the

labor exchange: job seeker entered

employment rate; job seeker

employment retention rate at six

months; and job seeker customer

satisfaction. One performance measure

applies to employers receiving services

provided through the One-Stop delivery

system: employer customer satisfaction.

DATES: These labor exchange

performance measures will become

effective July 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments received

during the comment period following

the publication of the proposed labor

exchange performance measures (65 FR

49708, et seq., Aug. 14, 2000) are

available for public inspection and

copying during normal business hours

at the Employment and Training

Administration, Office of Career

Transition Assistance, Division of U.S.

Employment Service & ALMIS, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room C–

4514, Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gay

Gilbert, 202–693–3046 (voice) (this is

not a toll-free number), or e-mail:

ggilbert@doleta.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act: As

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), these

performance measures are being

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review. Affected

parties do not have to comply with the

information collection requirements

contained in this document until we

have published in the Federal Register

the control number assigned by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Publication of the control number

notifies the public that OMB has

approved these performance measures

under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

I. Authority

Labor exchange performance

measures are established under the

following authority:

A. Wagner-Peyser Act sec. 3(a), 29

U.S.C. 49b(a)

The Secretary shall assist in

coordinating the State public

employment services throughout the

country and in increasing their

usefulness by developing and

prescribing minimum standards of

efficiency, assisting them in meeting

problems peculiar to their localities,

promoting uniformity in their

administrative and statistical procedure,

furnishing and publishing information

as to opportunities for employment and

other information of value in the

operation of the system, and

maintaining a system for clearing labor

between the States.

B. Wagner-Peyser Act sec. 3(c)(2), 29

U.S.C. 49b(c)

The Secretary shall—

* * * * *

(2) assist in the development of

continuous improvement models for

such nationwide system that ensure

private sector satisfaction with the

system and meet the demands of job

seekers relating to the system.

C. Wagner-Peyser Act sec. 7(b), 29

U.S.C. 49f(b)

Ten percent of the sums allotted to

each State pursuant to section 49e of

this title shall be reserved for use in

accordance with this subsection by the

Governor of each such State to

provide—(1) performance incentives for

public employment service offices and

programs, consistent with performance

standards established by the Secretary,

taking into account direct or indirect

placements (including those resulting

from self-directed job search or group

job search activities assisted by such

offices or programs), wages on entered

employment, retention, and other

appropriate factors.

D. Wagner-Peyser Act sec. 10(c), 29

U.S.C. 49i(c)

Each State receiving funds under this

Act shall—

(1) make such reports concerning its

operations and expenditures in such

form and containing such information

as shall be prescribed by the Secretary,

and

(2) establish and maintain a

management information system in

accordance with guidelines established

by the Secretary designed to facilitate

the compilation and analysis of

programmatic and financial data

necessary for reporting, monitoring and

evaluating purposes.

E. Wagner-Peyser Act sec. 13(a), 29

U.S.C. 49l(a)

The Secretary is authorized to

establish performance standards for

activities under this Act which shall

take into account the differences in

priorities reflected in State plans.

F. Wagner-Peyser Act sec. 15(e)(2)(I), 29

U.S.C. 49l–2(e)(2)(I)

(e) State responsibilities.—

* * * * *

(2) Duties.—In order to receive

Federal financial assistance under this

section, the State agency shall—

* * * * *

(I) utilize the quarterly records

described in section 2871(f)(2) of this

title to assist the State and other States

in measuring State progress on State

performance measures.

II. Labor Exchange Performance

Measures

A. Background

We initiated the development of a

performance measurement system for

the public labor exchange in early 2000

with the formation of a workgroup in

collaboration with the Interstate

Conference of Employment Security

Agencies (ICESA)—now the National

Association of State Workforce Agencies

(NASWA). This workgroup consisted of

representatives from fifteen State

agencies, ICESA, the Veterans’

Employment and Training Service

(VETS), and the ETA Regional and

National Offices. The workgroup met

three times during 2000 to develop

recommendations for a labor exchange

performance measurement system, to

include specific labor exchange

performance measures.

Based on recommendations the

workgroup developed during its first

two meetings, we published a set of five

proposed labor exchange performance

measures in the Federal Register (65 FR

49708 et seq., Aug. 14, 2000). These

measures were: employer customer

satisfaction; job seeker customer

satisfaction; employment rate; entered

employment rate; and employment

retention rate at six months. We also

published a framework for establishing

expected levels of performance for each

of these measures.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices 29649

1The three mandatory questions originally

proposed for the job seeker customer satisfaction

survey are the following:

(1) Utilizing a scale of 1 to 10 where ‘‘1’’ means

‘‘Very Dissatisfied’’ and ‘‘10’’ means ‘‘Very

Satisfied’’ what is your overall satisfaction with the

service(s) provided from ll?

(2) Considering all of the expectations you may

have had about the services, to what extent have the

services met your expectations? ‘‘1’’ now means

‘‘Falls Short of Your Expectations’’ and ‘‘10’’ means

‘‘Exceeds Your Expectations.’’

(3) Now think of the ideal service(s) for people

in your circumstances. How well do you think the

service(s) you received compare with the ideal

service(s)? ‘‘1’’ now means ‘‘Not Very Close to

Ideal’’ and ‘‘10’’ now means ‘‘Very Close to the

Ideal.’’

During its third meeting, the

workgroup reviewed and analyzed all

comments received on the proposed

labor exchange performance measures.

The review and analysis led to the final

set of performance measures presented

in this document. The workgroup also

provided substantial input that will lead

to revised ETA 9002 Reports, where the

results of the performance measures will

be reported, and a revised ET Handbook

No. 406 (ETA 9002 Data Preparation

Handbook), containing data collection

and reporting instructions. Finally, the

workgroup recommended that the

proposed procedures for establishing

expected levels of performance be

revised, based on the comments

received. Further information about

reporting on labor exchange services

and performance measures, and

methods for establishing expected levels

of performance will be published in

separate notices.

B. Response to Comments

We received twenty-five sets of

comments in response to the five

proposed labor exchange performance

measures published in the August 14,

2000, Federal Register. Representatives

from twenty State agencies (three

agencies provided two separate sets of

comments), a private researcher, and

VETS provided comments. We

considered these comments and the

recommendations of the workgroup in

establishing the final labor exchange

performance measures. The comments

are discussed at length as follows:

(1) Employer Customer Satisfaction

We proposed to adopt the results of

the employer customer satisfaction

survey administered under Title I of the

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

(WIA) using the American Customer

Satisfaction Index (ACSI) methodology

for employers receiving services

involving significant personal contact

with One-Stop staff to reflect employer

satisfaction with One-Stop services (see

65 FR 49709–49711).

Seven commenters supported the use

of the employer customer satisfaction

survey as stated, with two commenters

specifically supporting the concept of

the combined WIA/labor exchange

survey of employers receiving services

through the One-Stop centers that

involved significant personal contact

with staff.

Several commenters commented on

the employer survey. These comments

included general concern about the

wording of the lead-in before the

questions, the wording of the second

and third questions, the degree of

flexibility allowed States to add

additional questions, and the level of

specificity of the questions.1 One

commenter suggested that an elevenpoint scale (0–11) should be used so

that the number ‘‘five’’ would be the

mid-point, whereas the proposed tenpoint scale does not have a mid-point.

Another commenter pointed out that the

terms ‘‘completion of service’’ and ‘‘30–

60 days after a job order has been listed’’

were used as if they meant the same

thing in indicating when the survey

should be administered to an employer.

In fact, services could have been

provided to one employer over a 6–8

month period before being completed,

although a job order could have been

listed by another employer after only

one phone call. Such employers would

have vastly differing experiences with

the labor exchange. Other commenters

questioned what provisions would be

made to administer the survey to nonEnglish-speaking employers, and why

the decision was made to use a

telephone versus a mail survey. Still

others expressed concerns about the

cost of the survey—specifically whether

provisions would be made for sharing

the cost with Title I of WIA.

Two commenters did not support the

concept of a combined employer survey

for both Title I of WIA and the labor

exchange, while another commenter

found it improper to hold programs

funded under Title I of WIA accountable

for Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange

performance. Other comments related to

the response rate, with some

commenters stating that the proposed

fifty percent response rate was too high

and not achievable, and another stating

that employers do not want to be

bothered with surveys. Another

commenter noted that the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

guidelines state that erroneous

inferences are possible when response

rates are in the 50%–75% range.

Finally, a commenter sought definitions

of the terms ‘‘substantial service’’ and

‘‘labor exchange.’’

Response: We agree that the

commenters identified some problems

with the proposed employer customer

satisfaction survey. We have, however,

decided to use a revised version of the

proposed employer customer

satisfaction survey to measure employer

satisfaction with services involving

substantial personal contact with OneStop staff. Using a single instrument to

measure customer satisfaction with

One-Stop employer services provides an

overarching measure of the One-Stop

system. Specifications for the final

employer customer satisfaction measure

for employers receiving services

involving significant personal contact

with One-Stop staff can be found in

TEGL 14–00, March 5, 2001.

The ACSI methodology is being

adopted to be consistent with Title I of

WIA. The ACSI is the most widely used

index currently in practice. It is used

extensively in the business community,

including at over 150 Fortune 500

companies, and in many European

countries. Twenty-nine agencies of the

Federal government have used the

ACSI. In addition, it has been used

twice in the past four years to assess

customer satisfaction for ETA’s Quality

Initiative—the Enterprise. The ACSI

will allow the workforce investment

system and particularly, the public labor

exchange, to not only look at

performance within the system, but also

to be able to gain perspective on the

workforce investment system’s

performance by benchmarking against

outside organizations and industries.

The ACSI also has a history of

usefulness in tracking change in

customer satisfaction over time, making

it an ideal way to gauge States’ progress

in continuously improving performance.

This survey approach captures

common customer satisfaction

information that can be aggregated and

compared at a State and national level.

The survey will be administered using

a set of three required questions that

will form a customer satisfaction index.

The ACSI score is obtained by

combining scores from three specific

questions that address different

dimensions of customers’ experience. In

order for the ACSI survey to yield

meaningful results under the prescribed

methodology, we cannot significantly

modify the survey questions or the

associated scale and must administer

the survey via telephone.

We will publish instructions for

reporting employer customer

satisfaction scores as part of the labor

exchange performance measurement

system as part of a revised version of ET

Handbook No. 406 (ETA 9002 Data

Preparation Handbook). These

29650 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices

2The three mandatory questions originally

proposed for the job seeker customer satisfaction

survey are the following:

(1) Utilizing a scale of 1 to 10 where ‘‘1’’ means

‘‘Very Dissatisfied’’ and ‘‘10’’ means ‘‘Very

Satisfied’’ what is your overall satisfaction with the

service(s) provided from ll?

(2) Considering all of the expectations you may

have had about the services, to what extent have the

services met your expectations? ‘‘1’’ now means

‘‘Falls Short of Your Expectations’’ and ‘‘10’’ means

‘‘Exceeds Your Expectations.’’

(3) Now think of the ideal service(s) for people

in your circumstances. How well do you think the

service(s) you received compare with the ideal

service(s)? ‘‘1’’ now means ‘‘Not Very Close to

Ideal’’ and ‘‘10’’ now means ‘‘Very Close to the

Ideal.’’

instructions will address many of the

comments about the details of survey

administration.

(2) Job Seeker Customer Satisfaction

We proposed a job seeker customer

satisfaction measure that would follow

the WIA methodology, but which would

apply distinctly to job seekers registered

with the labor exchange (see 65 FR

49711–49712).

We received a large number of

comments on the job seeker customer

satisfaction measure. Many of these

comments were similar to those

provided on the employer customer

satisfaction survey. Four commenters

supported the measure as proposed.

Several commenters expressed concern

about coordinating the labor exchange

job seeker survey with the WIA

participant survey for the several

reasons discussed below. Some

commenters were concerned about

being able to identify which individuals

were surveyed under Title I of WIA so

that they would not be surveyed again

by the labor exchange survey. Others

were concerned about relating the

results of the survey specifically to labor

exchange services if queried job seekers

had received services from multiple

One-Stop partner programs, and how

those queried would be able to identify

whether they were responding about

their satisfaction with labor exchange

services or other One-Stop services. One

commenter suggested combining the

labor exchange survey with the WIA

survey and sorting according to the

services received by the job seeker.

Another commenter suggested that

those job seekers required to register by

State law or policy should be excluded

from the survey, so that the survey

would only include those voluntarily

registering. Another commenter

suggested that some job seekers might

be deterred from registering with the

labor exchange by the prospect of being

surveyed.

A number of commenters cited

concerns about the ACSI methodology.

One suggested that an eleven-point scale

(0–11) should be used so that the

number ‘‘five’’ would be the mid-point,

whereas the proposed ten-point scale

does not have a mid-point. Others

wanted more information to be provided

about the ACSI weights, and questioned

the quality and reliability of the ACSI

methodology. Two commenters wanted

clarification on the timing of the survey,

and one of the two additionally

suggested that the survey be conducted

within a set timeframe after receipt of

service rather than after registration, as

was proposed. Additional comments

centered on the cost of the survey and

questioned the use of a telephone

methodology. Among the concerns cited

with the telephone methodology were

the lack of telephone service in rural

areas and difficulty in properly

administering the survey to non-English

speaking individuals.

Finally, a number of commenters

were concerned about the questions

contained in the proposed survey.2 One

commenter suggested eliminating the

third mandatory question and

rephrasing the second to read: ‘‘How did

the services you received meet the

expectations that you had?’’ Others

suggested that the questions were too

broad and did not provide enough

specific information on how to improve

the labor exchange system. Still others

wanted more guidance on what part of

the survey could be modified—

particularly whether the lead-in section

before the first question could be

modified.

Response: The purpose of the job

seeker customer satisfaction measure is

to gauge the satisfaction of registered job

seekers with the labor exchange. We are

adopting the ACSI methodology to

measure job seeker customer satisfaction

to be consistent with Title I of WIA and

for the reasons described in the previous

section on employer customer

satisfaction.

Since the ACSI trademark is property

of the University of Michigan and the

Claes Fornell International Group (CFI),

we will be modifying our existing

license agreement with the University of

Michigan to allow States to use the

ACSI for a Statewide sample of job

seekers. This sample will be in addition

to the sample of employers and WIA,

Title I participants already being

surveyed under our current license

agreement.

In the near future, we will publish

detailed instructions for administering

the job seeker customer satisfaction

survey and reporting the job seeker

customer satisfaction scores in the ET

Handbook No. 406 (ETA 9002 Data

Preparation Handbook) which will be

filed with OMB as part of a Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) package.

(3) Employment Rate

ETA initially proposed an

employment rate defined as:

All Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange

applicants who registered in quarter Q0 and

who earned wages in quarter Q1 or Q2 after

registration, divided by the number of

Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange applicants

who registered in quarter Q0.

Six commenters supported the

employment rate measure as proposed.

One commenter questioned the concept

of treating continued employment with

the same employer as a positive

outcome. This commenter suggested

that a better outcome measure would be

one that was previously considered by

the workgroup, but not proposed (as

noted in the August 14, 2000 Federal

Register), in which employment with a

different employer following

registration with the labor exchange

would be counted as a positive

outcome. Two commenters suggested

that the employment rate measure did

not add value and that it might be

confusing due to its inconsistency with

the performance measures for Title I of

WIA. One commenter stated that

measuring the number of job seekers

who continue to be employed after

receiving labor exchange services is

difficult given the proposed method of

measurement. Finally, one commenter

raised concerns about including

individuals using labor exchange

services, but who do not have a goal of

obtaining employment in the measure.

Response: We have decided not to use

the employment rate as a performance

measure. However, we did reconsider

the measurement concept previously

reviewed by the workgroup in which

employment with a different employer

following registration with the labor

exchange would be counted as a

positive outcome and incorporated this

concept into the job seeker entered

employment rate.

(4) Entered Employment Rate

We initially proposed an entered

employment rate defined as:

Of those Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange

applicants who were not employed upon

registration in quarter Q0: The number who

earned wages in quarter Q1 or Q2 after

registration, divided by the number who

registered in quarter Q0.

Four commenters supported the

entered employment rate measure as

proposed. Several commenters noted

that the measure does not capture the

employment outcomes of people

changing jobs, or those who make a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices 29651

transition from part-time to full-time

employment or vice versa. Some

commenters suggested that a similar

measure should apply specifically to

unemployment insurance (UI)

claimants. One commenter suggested

that the measure should apply only to

job seekers who received staff-assisted

services. Finally, two commenters

suggested that the labor exchange

methodology should not differ from that

employed for Title I of WIA.

Response: We have refined the job

seeker entered employment rate to

account for the employment outcomes

of people who change jobs, rather than

limiting it to those unemployed at

registration. In the final measure, job

seekers who, in the first or second

quarter following the beginning of their

registration year, become employed by a

different employer than that by which

they were employed the quarter prior to

registration would be counted as

experiencing successful employment

outcomes. Thus, job seekers who make

a transition from part-time to full-time

employment, or full-time to part-time

employment, would be counted as

experiencing a successful employment

outcome if the transition was based on

employment with a new employer.

Additionally, job seekers who are not

employed at the beginning of the

registration year will be counted as

having entered employment if they

become employed in the first or second

quarter after the beginning of their

registration year.

The job seeker entered employment

rate differs from that established for

Title I of WIA because of the inherent

differences between labor exchange

services and the core, intensive, and

training activities provided under Title

I of WIA. The entered employment rate

for Title I of WIA applies only to

participants who have been determined

to have exited the program after having

completed receipt of workforce

investment services. Also, the measure

for Title I of WIA only applies to

participants who are unemployed at the

time of registration. The job seeker

entered employment rate applies to all

job seekers who register with the labor

exchange to aid them in their search for

work, regardless of whether they are

employed or unemployed at the time of

registration. Also, because the labor

exchange system is not structured

around the concept of exiting from

service receipt, we deemed it

impractical to establish such a concept

for labor exchange performance

measurement.

(5) Employment Retention Rate at Six

Months

We proposed an employment

retention rate at six months measure

defined as:

Of those Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange

applicants who registered in quarter Q0 and

who earned wages in quarter Q1 or Q2 after

registration: the number who also earned

wages in the second quarter following the

quarter in which earned wages were first

recorded, divided by the number who earned

wages in quarter Q1 or Q2.

Two commenters supported the

measure in its proposed form. One

suggested that the measure should be

the same as the WIA retention measure.

Many commenters provided comments

on how the measure might be modified.

Seven commenters stated that, as

proposed, the results of the measure

might be impacted by seasonal

employment, or individuals who do not

have a desire to work year-round, for

example students, seasonal

farmworkers, and those employed in

certain seasonal industries, such as

agriculture and tourism. Seven

commenters questioned whether

retention in employment should be

established as a goal for the labor

exchange and whether the labor

exchange has the capacity to impact

retention in employment. Two

commenters cited concerns about the

lag time before information would

become available due to the use of wage

records as a data source, and one

commenter did not believe that total

wages earned in a quarter from multiple

employers would provide valuable

information for performance

measurement purposes. Finally, two

commenters suggested that the retention

measure should only apply to job

seekers who receive staff-assisted

services.

Response: We have decided to retain

the job seeker employment retention

rate at six months measure for the labor

exchange to parallel the employment

retention rate at six months measure for

Title I of WIA. However, the labor

exchange retention measure builds upon

the job seeker entered employment rate

for consistency. Like the retention rate

measure for Title I of WIA, the job

seeker retention measure only applies to

those who were determined to have

entered employment according to the

respective program’s entered

employment rate. To account for a

portion of those registered job seekers

who may not be likely to be in the labor

force year-round, individuals under the

age of 19 at the time of registration are

excluded from the measure. This

excludes many individuals who are

students and is consistent with Title I of

WIA in that there is no employmentspecific retention rate measure for the

younger youth (age 14–18) program. The

job seeker retention measure is blind to

conditions of the labor market. Thus, we

will be developing methods to adjust for

economic conditions and the

characteristics of registered job seekers

to use in adjusting performance goals

and for interpreting final performance

levels. Such methods are still being

considered and will be addressed in a

future notice. Like the measure for Title

I of WIA, there is a substantial delay

between when a job seeker registers

with the labor exchange and when wage

record information will become

available for calculation of the measure.

However, we believe that the benefit to

be gained from this measure for program

oversight outweighs the drawbacks

associated with the need to wait until

data become available.

We support the measure of

employment retention at six months for

the labor exchange as a measure that is

consistent with those of other workforce

development programs. An employment

retention measure helps capture the

quality of staff-assisted services such as

referrals to employment, job search

workshops, career guidance, and other

services provided by labor exchange

staff. Quality self-services and

facilitated self-help services also

provide job seekers with resources to

maintain continued employment.

Examples include job seekers who may

enter temporary or short-term

employment, but who pursue continued

employment based in part on their

experience with the labor exchange. The

measure also can account for those who

return to the labor exchange for

assistance in finding their next job

following a spell of temporary or shortterm employment. In addition to serving

as a point of entry into the One-Stop

system, the labor exchange also fulfils

an important function in assisting job

seekers in entering and maintaining

employment as they exit One-Stop

partner programs.

(6) General Comments

Additionally, we received a number

of comments on issues related to the

performance measures in general. A

number of these comments were

requests for clearer definitions of such

terms as ‘‘registration,’’ ‘‘labor

exchange,’’ and ‘‘satisfaction.’’ With

regard to registration, some commenters

wanted clarification on how the

measures would apply to job seekers

using self-services, and asked whether

additional measures would be

developed exclusively for users of selfVerDate 11<MAY>2000 13:35 May 30, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MYN3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 31MYN3
29652 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices

services. Others were concerned that

registration policies may differ from

State to State, because some States only

register job seekers who receive staffassisted services while other States

register job seekers who utilize selfservices, facilitated self-help services,

and/or staff-assisted services.

Response: Job seekers who receive

staff-assisted services funded under the

Wagner-Peyser Act will be counted as

registered job seekers, as will

individuals who are required to register

with the labor exchange according to

State law or policy. State agencies may

establish their own policies about

whether to register job seekers using

self-services or facilitated self-help

services. At this time, we have decided

not to implement a policy that will

require registration or establish

mandatory performance measures for

users of self-services or facilitated selfhelp services provided by the labor

exchange. We will continue to use the

term—labor exchange—in the same way

it is used in the Wagner-Peyser Act (29

U.S.C. 49). At this time, we are not

formally defining the term,

‘‘satisfaction,’’ but are using that term in

the same context to which it is referred

in the ACSI methodology currently

approved by OMB for use under Title I

of WIA.

There were other comments about the

use of wage records, specifically, the

delay in the availability of wage data

and the difficulty in obtaining access to

wage data for federal employees and

military personnel. Several commenters

wanted to ensure that procedures would

be put in place to establish baseline data

for setting performance goals and

adjusting the measures to take into

account such factors as economic

conditions and the characteristics of the

population served. One commenter

suggested that the measures should be

constructed to control for what

otherwise would have happened to the

registered job seekers, had they not

registered with or used the labor

exchange.

Response: We have established two

performance measures that rely heavily

on wage record data for calculation. We

support the use of wage record data for

performance measurement for the labor

exchange to maintain consistency with

the performance measurement system

for Title I of WIA, and to ease the

burden of administrative follow-up

inherent in the current reporting system

for the labor exchange. We are currently

in the process of developing data

validation procedures to support quality

control in performance measurement

and data collection. Data validation

procedures will apply to the wage

record information that is used for the

labor exchange performance measures,

as well as to administrative records used

to identify job seekers and employers. In

addition, we expect that the Wage

Record Interchange System (WRIS) will

provide State agencies with a tool to

enhance the availability of employment

outcome data used to indicate entry into

employment and retention.

We acknowledge that many factors

outside the control of the labor

exchange will impact the prospects of

registered job seekers entering and/or

retaining employment. Although we

have not yet developed methods to

account for such factors, we plan to

consider local and regional economic

conditions and the socioeconomic

characteristics of registered job seekers

as performance goals are established

and as the success in meeting such goals

is evaluated. We will publish methods

for establishing and adjusting

performance goals in a future notice.

Finally, we received a number of

suggestions for additional measures.

Several commenters suggested

additional employer measures,

including a comparison of the number

of employers receiving services

compared to the total number of

employers in the State, and a

comparison of the number of job

openings listed with the State agency

compared to the total number of new

hires occurring in a State. Other

proposed measures included cost per

entered employment, a measure of the

length of it takes a job seeker to enter

employment after registering with the

labor exchange, and a measure relating

the value-added of the labor exchange to

its cost.

Response: We acknowledge that only

one labor exchange performance

measure applies specifically to

employers, and that this is a measure of

employers satisfaction with the OneStop system in general, rather than with

the labor exchange program in

particular. We will continue to

investigate additional techniques to

assess the performance of the labor

exchange in providing services to its

employer customers. We will consider

the measures suggested above as

possibilities for any enhancements to

the measurement strategy for employer

services in particular and the labor

exchange in general. In the meantime,

States are free to adopt additional

measures that they believe will enhance

the delivery of labor exchange services.

C. Labor Exchange Performance

Measures.

We establish four performance

measures for the public labor exchange:

• Job Seeker Entered Employment Rate

• Job Seeker Employment Retention

Rate at Six Months

• Job Seeker Customer Satisfaction

• Employer Customer Satisfaction

The labor exchange performance

measures apply to public labor

exchange services provided as part of

the One-Stop delivery systems of the

States. This includes labor exchange

services provided to job seekers and

employers under the Wagner-Peyser

Act, and to veterans by Disabled

Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) and

Local Veterans’ Employment

Representative (LVER) staff under VETS

programs, as specified in Title 38 of the

U.S.C. Individual States may include

other publicly-funded labor exchange

services in the labor exchange

performance measurement system at

their discretion.

The labor exchange performance

measures apply to all individuals who

are registered job seekers with the

public labor exchange, and to employers

who receive substantial service

involving personal contact with OneStop staff. At a minimum, State agencies

must request the following information

from job seekers during registration:

name, contact information, social

security number, ethnicity, race, veteran

status, age, gender, employment status,

educational attainment, disability

status, and migrant and seasonal

farmworker status. Job seekers may be

registered upon contacting the labor

exchange through the One-Stop delivery

system or as required by State law or

policy; however, job seekers receiving

staff-assisted services funded under the

Wagner-Peyser Act must be registered.

Job seekers who use self-services or

facilitated self-help services also may be

registered, but registration is not

required for receipt of these services.

A job-seeking customer is counted as

a registered job seeker during the

quarter in which registration occurs

(registration quarter) and the subsequent

three quarters. This four quarter period

constitutes the registration year. A

registered job seeker who receives

services during the fourth quarter after

the registration quarter will begin a new

registration year or be considered reregistered. Such a job seeker would then

be counted again as a registered job

seeker during each of the four reporting

periods covering that registration year. If

a job seeker’s registration year elapses,

and after some time he or she returns to

the labor exchange, that job seeker

would begin a new registration year.

The labor exchange performance

measures are defined as follows:

(1) Job Seeker Entered Employment Rate

(JSEER)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Notices 29653

JSEER = Number Entered Employment with a New Employer

[Number Registered Job Seekers Number Employed or Re-employed with Same Employer] −

Elements of the measure are defined

as follows:

Entered Employment with a New

Employer: The number of registered job

seekers who, in the first or second

quarter following the registration

quarter, earned wages from a new

employer if the job seeker was

previously not employed, or earned

wages from a different employer than

that from which the registered job

seeker earned wages in the quarter prior

to the registration quarter if the job

seeker was previously employed.

Registered Job Seekers: Job seekers

who registered with the labor exchange

during the registration quarter; job

seekers who were re-registered after

their registration year expired; job

seekers who were not formally reregistered, but who engaged in a labor

exchange activity after their registration

year expired.

Employed or Re-employed with Same

Employer: Those job seekers whose only

wages earned in the first and second

quarter following registration were

exclusively with the same employer

from which wages were earned in the

quarter prior to the registration quarter.

Registration Quarter: The calendar

quarter in which a job seeker completed

an initial registration with the labor

exchange or in which a previously

registered job seeker began a new

registration year.

According to this measure, a

successful employment outcome is

recorded for a job seeker who enters

employment with a new employer,

whether the job seeker was employed or

unemployed at the time of registration.

This outcome is determined by

comparing the employer identification

numbers (EIN) of registered job seekers’

employers prior to and following

registration based on information

contained in the UI wage record

database, the State Directory of New

Hires (SDNH) database, or other

available records. An unsuccessful

outcome is recorded for a job seeker

who does not enter employment with a

new employer during the measurement

period. Job seekers who remain

employed exclusively with the same

employer during the measurement

period are excluded from the

calculation.

(2) Job Seeker Employment Retention

Rate at Six Months (JSERR)

JSERR =

Number Retained Employment Two Quarters after

 and over

Number Entered Employment with a New Employer (age 19 and over)

Entered Employment with a New Employer age ( ) 19

Elements of the measure are defined

as follows:

Retained Employment Two Quarters

after Entered Employment with a New

Employer (age 19 and over): The

number of registered job seekers age 19

and older at the time of registration who

earned wages in the second quarter

following the quarter in which they

Entered Employment with a New

Employer.

Entered Employment with New

Employer (age 19 and over): The

number of registered job seekers age 19

and older at the time of registration

who, in the first or second quarter

following the registration quarter,

earned wages from a new or different

employer than that from which the

registered job seeker earned wages in

the quarter prior to registration quarter.

According to this measure, a

successful employment retention

outcome is recorded for job seekers, age

19 and over at the time of registration,

who are determined to have entered

employment according to the job seeker

entered employment rate measure, and

who earned wages with any employer in

the second quarter following the quarter

in which they first were determined to

have entered employment.

(3) Job Seeker Customer Satisfaction

The job seeker customer satisfaction

measure for the public labor exchange is

patterned after the participant customer

satisfaction survey for Title I of WIA; it

requires the use of the ACSI

methodology. This methodology is

published at TEGL 14–00, March 5,

2001. A sample of registered job seekers

are surveyed between 60 and 90 days

following the date of registration with

the labor exchange. State agencies will

be able to exercise some discretion in

how they administer the survey, so long

as the ACSI methodology is followed.

Possibilities might range from surveying

a population of registered job seekers in

a distinct survey, to coordinating the job

seeker customer satisfaction survey with

the WIA participant customer

satisfaction survey or any customer

satisfaction survey that might be

administered by VETS or another OneStop partner program. In all cases, the

ACSI methodology must be followed.

We support the concept of common

measurement techniques for services

provided as part of the One-Stop

delivery system and intend to provide

States with the broadest opportunity to

coordinate surveys of One-Stop

customers’ satisfaction.

We are currently engaging in

discussions with the University of

Michigan to use the ACSI for the labor

exchange job seeker customer

satisfaction measure. We will publish

the specifications for the job seeker

customer satisfaction survey, including

the required questions and the survey

methodology, as part of the ET

Handbook No. 406 (ETA 9002 Data

Preparation Handbook).

(4) Employer Customer Satisfaction

The public labor exchange will adopt

the results of the ACSI survey

administered under Title I of WIA to

measure employer satisfaction with

One-Stop employer services.

Accordingly, States should administer

only one survey of employers to

measure their satisfaction with OneStop employer services to meet both the

WIA and the labor exchange employer

customer satisfaction measurement

requirements. Specifications for the

employer customer satisfaction survey

are described in TEGL 14–01, March 5,

2001.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 23rd day

of May, 2001.

Raymond J. Uhalde,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment

and Training.

[FR Doc. 01–13611 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P