1. 1 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT PY 2000 (JULY 2000-JUNE 2001) Title 1-B Adults and Dislocated Workers Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE) Project Agreement K-6558-8-00-80-60 Research Project No. 2 Activity and Service Combinations Prepared for: Division of Research and Demonstration Office of Policy and Research Employment and Training Administration U.S. Department of Labor Principal authors: Peter R. Mueser Department of Economics University of Missouri-Columbia 573/882-6427 mueserp@missouri.edu and David W. Stevens, Executive Director The Jacob France Institute University of Baltimore 410/837-4729 dstevens@ubmail.ubalt.edu May 29, 2003 The authors accept full responsibility for the tabulations and text as they appear here. No attribution of agreement with this content should be made to any other person or organization. ADARE project partners John Baj, Kevin Hollenbeck, Julie Hotchkiss, Christopher King, and Phillip Rokicki provided the WIASRD data for their ADARE project states.

2. 2 Graphical Overview Research question: –What services are most common? –What variation is there across states? –What combinations of services and activities are received? –Are there specific patterns that are particularly common, uncommon? Method of Analysis –PY2000 (7/00-6/01) Adult and Dislocated Worker records are extracted from WIASRD state data files. –States included: Florida Georgia Illinois Maryland Missouri Texas Washington

3. 3 We will examine two supportive services coded on the WIASRD file: –Item 330: Supportive Services –Item 331: Needs-Related Payments or Stipends We consider three training services –Item 335: Adult Education Basic Skills and/or Literacy Activities –Item 336: On-the-Job Training –Item 337: Occupational Skills Training or Skills Upgrading/Retraining, and/or Workplace Training We look at how many individuals are receiving multiple kinds of training services and how the training services relate to the supportive services.

4. 4 Among Adult recipients, levels of “supportive services” vary: –5% overall for Core service recipients. Low partly by definition of “Core,” since often service receipt may cause a recipient to be identified as Intensive or Training. –10% overall for Intensive service recipients. –27% overall for Training service participants. –Large differences across states. There is one state that provides no such services to Core recipients, and one state that provides such services to only 1% of Intensive recipients. (Maximums are 9% and 18%, for Core and Intensive recipients, respectively.) One state provides such services to only 19% of those receiving Training, while one provides it to 61%. Combined Sample: 7 States

5. 5 Among Dislocated Workers: –Proportion receiving support services is similar for Core and Intensive recipients, parallel to that for Adults. –Proportion of Training recipients with support services among Dislocated Workers is somewhat smaller than for Adults. –Variation among states for Dislocated Workers is very similar to that for Adults. States with high levels of services for Adults also tend to have high levels for Dislocated Workers. Combined Sample: 7 States

6. 6 Levels of needs-related services are generally low for Adults. –Average is less than 1% for Core and Intensive service recipients. –5% of Training recipients receive it. –Some states provide no such services to any individuals. –One state provides such services to 29% of Training recipients, but the maximum among other states is only 6%. –We suspect that these low levels reflect budget constraints not low levels of need. Figure 3: Needs-Related Payments/Stipends (Item 331): Adults 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% COREINTENSIVETRAINING Service Category Percent Receiving Services Combined SampleHighest and Lowest State Values Combined Sample: 7 States

7. 7 Levels of needs-related services are also low for Dislocated Workers. –Proportion receiving benefits is slightly lower than for Adults. –Basic pattern is very similar. Figure 4: Needs-Related Payments/Stipends (Item 331): Dislocated Workers 0% 10% 20% COREINTENSIVETRAINING Service Category Percent Receiving Services Combined SampleHighest and Lowest State Values Combined Sample: 7 States

8. 8 We consider three training services –Item 335: Adult Education Basic Skills and/or Literacy Activities –Item 336: On-the-Job Training –Item 337: Occupational Skills Training or Skills Upgrading/Retraining, and/or Workplace Training Normally, only individuals coded as in Training received such services, and so we limit consideration to those in Training.

9. 9 Basic Skills/Literacy training is provided to relatively few clients –10% of the combined Training sample received such training. –One state offered this training to no Adults or Dislocated Workers in Training, while another offered it only to 1%. –Highest rate: 22% of Adults in Training in one of the states participated. –Overall, the proportion of Adults and Dislocated Workers receiving this component is very similar. (The two states where Dislocated Workers are more likely than Adults to get such training are relatively large states, which compensates for the fact that Adults are more likely to get this service in the other states.) Figure 5: Adult Basic Education, Basic Skills/Literacy (Item 335) 0% 10% 20% 30% 1234567All State Percent Participating Adults Dislocated Workers As percent of Training recipients.

10. 10 On-the-Job Training is even less common than Adult Basic Education/Literacy training (compare figures 5 and 6). –6% of Adults have OJT. –Overall, OJT is very uncommon for Dislocated Workers (2%). –The maximum is one state where over 20% of Adult Training recipients participate in OJT. –Two states have OJT participation rates of less than 1% for both Adults and Dislocated Workers. –We suspect that the low rates of OJT reflect difficulties in negotiating arrangements with employers in the face of substantial paperwork burdens. Figure 6: On-the-Job Training (Item 336) 0% 10% 20% 30% 1234567All State Percent Participating Adults Dislocated Workers As percent of Training recipients.

11. 11 Figure 7: Occupational Skills Training/Upgrading/ Retraining or Workplace Training (Item 337) 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1234567All State Percent Participating Adults Dislocated Workers Occupational Training/Upgrading/Retraining or Workplace Training is the most common component in every state. –Overall, over 90% of Adults, and over 90% of Dislocated Workers receiving Training receive this kind of training. –The smallest proportion is over 70%. –One state is close to 100%. As percent of Training recipients.

12. 12 How common is overlap between types of training? Overlap is modest overall: –6% of all those receiving Training receive more than one of these three types. –Almost all of these receive Adult Education and Occupational Skills training. –Almost no one receives all three types of services (0.1%) –But most of those who receive adult basic educational services also receive occupational skills training (5% out of 9%) Figure 8: Overlap Between Services for Adults in Training 5% 3% 85% 0% 5% 1% 5% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 335:Adult Educ.336: On-the-Job Training337: Occup. Skills, etc. 335 & 337 Combined Sample: 7 States Only 1 service 337 & 336

13. 13 Figure 9: Overlap Between Services for Dislocated Workers in Training 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 335:Adult Educ.336: On-th-Job Training337: Occup. Skills, etc. Patterns for Dislocated Workers are very similar to those for Adults. 335 & 337 Only 1 service

14. 14 Receipt of services varies little by type of training. –Nearly 3/4 receive no supportive services. –Up to 5% receive needs-based support. Of these, over half are also receiving general supportive services.

15. 15 1.0INTRODUCTION This is one of seven data-based reports covering Workforce Investment Act clients, activities and outcomes that will be completed in the current year under U.S. Department of Labor Agreement K-6558-8-00-80-60. Seven states are participating in this Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE) project--Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Texas and Washington. The overall ADARE project includes seven research and evaluation components: Research Components 1. Mapping WIA One-Stop client flows. 2. Activity and service combinations (this report). 3. Core indicators of performance. Evaluation Components 1. WIA One-Stop client flow demographics and status. 2. Low-income and welfare client priorities. 3. 'Flash' impact estimates of performance. 4. Consumer choices, individual training accounts (ITAs), and linkages to occupations in demand. This Research Project No. 2 report covers PY 2000 (July 2000-June 2001) Workforce Investment Act Title I-B Adult and Dislocated Worker exit flows. Status descriptors are drawn from the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record (WIASRD) data file provided by each of the ADARE project states. Section 2 describes the data that were assembled to prepare the summary tabulations. Section 3 presents summary tables underlying the graphs presented above. Analysis Details

16. 16 2.0DATA SOURCES AND PROCESSING 2.1Data Source The base data for Workforce Investment Act client information are obtained from WIA Standardized Record (WIASRD) data, listing WIA exiters in PY2000 (July 2000-June 2001), provided to each of the ADARE project partners by the WIA administrative entity in their state. Among the ADARE project states, Florida and Texas were voluntary early implementers of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. This means that the 2000 WIA Program Year covered in this report was the second year of WIA reporting for Florida and Texas, but only the first year of such reporting for Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, and Missouri. The WIASRD file has three sections: (1) individual information; (2) activity and services information; (3) program outcomes information. 2.2Data Processing The Department of Economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia programming staff completed the following processing steps to arrive at the tabulations that appear below: 1. WIASRD data element 303 Date of WIA Exit was used to ensure that only exit dates between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001 were included for the Adult and Dislocated Worker populations. This includes ‘hard’ exits, and ‘soft’ exits based on 90 days having elapsed since the last recorded service. 2. WIASRD data elements 304 Adult (Local) and 305 Dislocated Worker (Local) were used to select the two sub-populations of interest. Duplication is permitted and does occur but the number of duplicated cases is very small. Youth, statewide activities supported by the 15 percent provision in the federal legislation, including Displaced Homemakers, Rapid Response, and National Emergency Grant funded services to clients, are not included. 3. WIASRD data element 333 Date of First Training Service was used to assign an individual to the Training sub-population. Any Adult or Dislocated Worker with a valid Date of First Training Service was assigned to the Training Services sub- population. 4. Among remaining individuals meeting our criteria, WIASRD data element 332 Date of First Intensive Service was used to identify those receiving Intensive services. Individuals with a valid date on this variables (but with not valid date for element 333) were classified as Intensive service recipients, while all others were classified as Core service recipients. 5. These steps resulted in the assignment of each person to one of the three mutually exclusive categories of WIA services—Core, Intensive, and Training.

17. 17 3.0 TABULATIONS This section contains tables providing information on WIA clients aggregated for all the available states and separately for states, but not identifying the states by name. This is the information underlying the figures presented above. State-specific information will be provided when states approve such release. It is worth stressing that our analyses are limited by the data elements that are available in the WIASRD file. In particular, the three variables specifying Training services are very broad, and it is clear that data element 337, Occupational Skills Training or Skills Upgrading/Retraining, and/or Workplace Training includes a wide variety of activities, which we cannot separately identify. A related issue is that differences in service use across states may, in part, reflect differences in reporting practices. We do not have independent verification of the data provided to us.

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21