State Core Measures
Federal acts, such as the Carl Perkins Act and WIA, specify certain mandatory measures of program results. Mandatory
federal core measures, unfortunately, are different for each program.

States have the discretion to identify additional state indicators. The state core measures below are additional state indicators for Washington. The methodology for the measures relies as much as possible on administrative records as opposed to program staff or participant self-reports. This data source is used to allow for as much consistency and objectivity across programs as possible and because it is relatively inexpensive.

The Workforce Board and its partner agencies reviewed the results for each postprogram quarter for three and a half years following program exit for five of the largest workforce development programs. We found that the third postprogram quarter is the best possible single representation of the programs' relative and lasting results without waiting years to obtain long-term results.

Employment or Further Education
a. Programs serving adults: Percentage of former participants with employment recorded in UI and other administrative records during the third quarter after leaving the program.
b. Programs serving youth: Percentage of former participants with employment or further education as recorded in UI, student, and other administrative records during the third quarter after leaving the program.

Earnings
Median annualized earnings of former participants with employment recorded in UI and other administrative records during the third quarter after leaving the program, measured only among the former participants not enrolled in further education during the quarter.

Skills
Percentage or number of program participants leaving the program who achieved appropriate skill gains or were awarded the relevant educational or skill credential based on administrative records.

Customer Satisfaction
a. Employer Satisfaction With Former Program Participants: Percentage of employers who report satisfaction with new employees who are program completers as evidenced by survey responses.
b. Former Participant Satisfaction: Percentage of former participants who report satisfaction with the program as evidenced by survey responses.

Return on Investment
a. Taxpayer Return on Investment: The net impact on tax revenue and social welfare payments compared to the cost of the services.
b. Participant Return on Investment: The net impact on participant earnings and employer provided benefits compared to the cost of the services.
----------------------------------------------
To measure employment and earnings, the methodology takes advantage of the UI wage files maintained by ESD (and the equivalent agency in other states). These files hold information on all employment covered by the UI system—approximately 90
percent of all employment. Where available, the UI records are supplemented by other administrative records of employment, such as Department of Defense records.

Criteria for Good Performance Measures
Other things being equal, performance measures are better the extent to which they:

1. Are outcome measures: Performance measures should be measures of the results for customers as opposed to process
   measures or measures of program outputs.
   
2. Promote desired results: Because you get what you measure, measures should be carefully designed to promote behavior and results that are consistent with the desired outcomes.
   
3. Are easily explainable to a lay audience: Policy leaders are lay people when it comes to the often arcane subject of performance measures. Keeping it simple is good advice.
   
4. Create a level playing field among programs and service strategies: Measures should be designed so that they do not create a bias toward one program or strategy or another.
   
5. Are scalable and divisible: Measures should be applicable, to the extent possible, to local institutions, regional areas, and the state. Measures should also be divisible so that results can be understood for subpopulations and service strategies.
   
6. Are not easily “gamed”: While there may be no measure that is completely impervious to manipulation, some measures are more susceptible than others.
   
7. Are inexpensive: Performance measures are very important for ensuring that taxpayer dollars are wisely used, but policy leaders very reasonably want to minimize the amount of money spent on activities other than direct service to customers, and those include performance measurement.