Skip to content
  ETA Home / ETA GRANTS / SGA /  

Briefing Book ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration

Briefing Book

ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration

Information Sessions

September 27 and 28, 1999

Dallas, TX

Prepared by Public Policy Associates, Incorporated and
the Corporation for a Skilled Workforce

ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration

Briefing Book

Information Sessions
September 27 and 28, 1999
Dallas, TX

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration

Prepared by Public Policy Associates, Incorporated and
the Corporation for a Skilled Workforce

Table of Contents

Section One: Demonstration Project Overview

Section Two: ITAs -- Participants and Eligible Training Providers Under WIA
Section Three: Implementation Models
Section Four: Technical Assistance
Section Five: Proposal Development
Section Six: Additional Voucher Background Information
Section Seven: Information Session Evaluation Form


These materials have been prepared by a contractor to the U. S. Department of Labor in an effort to provide timely and useful information. This material does not necessarily represent official Agency policy or opinion. Included among these materials is information based on the interim final Workforce Investment Act (WIA) regulations published in full on April 15, 1999 at 64 Federal Register 18662 et seq. The final WIA regulations are scheduled to be issued December 1999, and may differ from the interim final regulations.

Section One: Demonstration Project Overview

Information Session Agenda

8:00 - 9:00 Registration; Continental Breakfast

9:00 - 10:00 Introduction and Overview

  • Greetings and Introductions
  • Agenda Overview
  • Session Goals
  • The ITA Initiative:
    • Goals for the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration
    • Goals for the ITA Experiment
    • Explanation of Connections and Distinctions

10:00 - 10:10 BREAK

10:10 - 12:00 Individual Training Accounts: Participants and Eligible Training Providers under WIA

  • Overview
    • Review WIA Principles and Requirements
    • Review ITA/Eligible Training Provider Terminology
    • What We Have Learned about Vouchers to Date:

Relevance to ITAs and Eligible Training Providers

  • Elements of the New System
    • Participant Issues
    • Eligible Training Provider Issues
    • The Integrative Role of States, Workforce Boards, and One-Stops
  • Visioning Exercise:

What would you envision an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system would look like?

How would your organization need to change to implement this new system?

What do you view as the key challenges to successful implementation?

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch

  • Guest Speaker: Mr. Joseph C. Juarez, Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Dallas Region VI

Topic: The Central Role of ITAs in Implementing the WIA Principles

1:00 - 2:10 ITA Implementation Options

  • Goals of the Demonstration
  • Common and Variable Elements of the Demonstration
    • Common Elements and Variable Elements
    • Opportunities for Innovation/Creativity
  • Evaluation Approach

2:10 - 2:20 BREAK

2:20 - 2:35 Technical Assistance

  • Technical Assistance Available during the Demonstration Project
  • Role of Demonstration Sites in Providing TA to Others:

Expectations for Participants for System-building and Sharing

2:35 - 3:05 Proposal Development

  • Proposal Requirements and Guidance
  • Questions and Answers

3:05 - 3:30 Session Evaluation and Wrap-Up

Thanks for attending! We hope that the day was helpful to you.

Please be sure to complete and return the session evaluation form that is located in the last section of this Briefing Book.

Information Session Goals

The goals of this information session are to:

  • summarize the current knowledge base about Individual Training Accounts (ITAs)/Eligible Training Provider system goals, frameworks, and implementation processes,
  • review the goals and objectives of the Demonstration Project,
  • explain the technical assistance services that will be provided to grantees,
  • discuss expectations for grantee involvement in designing, testing, and evaluating alternative approaches to ITA/Eligible Training Provider implementation, and
  • establish a common language and shared terminology regarding ITAs and Eligible Training Providers.

ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration and Experiment Goals


The ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration seeks to support the design and implementation of the Workforce Investment Act by testing approaches that best fuel the creation of a more market-like environment for adult worker re-training. The demonstration evaluation will generate valuable information about alternative ITA/Eligible Provider models that are implemented at various sites. This information will assist the states and localities by providing guidance for the implementation of more promising models that have the greatest likelihood of producing positive impacts for participants. This will allow the new Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) to tailor their training programs to better serve trainees and to increase the effectiveness of training programs.

The evaluations of the ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative will include information on key issues regarding implementation and operational processes (e.g., payment mechanisms necessary to implement ITAs, eligible training provider lists), the impacts of various ITA models, and estimates of the return on the public's investments in ITAs.

Two Projects

The ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative includes the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration and the ITA Experiment. This information session is linked to the solicitation for sites interested in participating in the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration. Sites that are selected for the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration are not required to apply for or participate in the ITA Experiment. There will be a separate SGA issued at a later date for sites interested in participating in the ITA Experiment.

ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration

This ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration is designed to fund a broad array of states and local areas to pilot test a limited range of approaches to implementing ITAs. This project will include the provision of extensive technical assistance and training to participating sites in a short-run effort to provide early operating models. This project serves as the initial step to immediately begin collecting and processing information for early lessons learned about the development and implementation of ITAs under the WIA.

The ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration will support the development and implementation of ITA/Eligible Provider systems in 10 to 12 pilot sites and will use those experiences to provide learning opportunities for the broad workforce development system as it continues to implement the Workforce Investment Act over the coming year. This project will focus on the development of administrative systems and structures, the engagement of vendors and other stakeholders in the planning process, and the necessary staff training and development to support the customer-focused approach inherent in the ITA concept. This project will also feature extensive information exchange both among the participating sites and between the sites and other state and local workforce officials. More detailed information regarding application requirements for the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration project can be found in Section Five of this briefing book.

ITA Experiment: Determining Impacts of Alternative ITA Models

The ITA Experiment is designed to fund a selected group of state and local Workforce Investment Areas to conduct a rigorous experiment involving carefully selected ITA models. The ITA Experiment will provide in-depth analysis of the impacts of alternative ITA models on the labor market outcomes of adults. More detailed information regarding application requirements for this experimental project will be provided in a separate solicitation for grant applications (SGA) which is expected to be issued in January 2000.

Additional information about the evaluation of both the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration and Experiment can be found in Section Three of this briefing book.

Section Two: ITAs -- Participants and Eligible Training Providers Under WIA


The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 represents the first major reform of the nation's job training system in over 15 years. The enactment of the legislation was the culmination of a four-year bipartisan effort on the part of the Administration and Congress to design, with states and local communities, a revitalized system that provides workers with the information, advice, job search assistance, and training they need to get and keep good jobs--and provides employers with skilled workers.

The enactment of the Workforce Investment Act provides unprecedented opportunity for major reforms that will result in a reinvigorated, integrated workforce investment system. States and local communities should seize this historical opportunity by thinking expansively and designing a customer-focused, comprehensive delivery system. New, strong, business-led local boards can contribute fresh thinking about the labor market and its needs, as well as about quality and continuous improvement--in a way that earns sustained support by local business leaders.

WIA Principles

The Workforce Investment Act gives American workers the chance to equip themselves with the skills and information needed to compete in the new economy and helps workers take responsibility for building a better future for themselves and their families.

To accomplish the goals of the new legislation, the new workforce investment system will be built around several key principles:

Streamlining Services

  • Better integration at the street level through the One-Stop delivery system.
  • Programs and providers will co-locate, coordinate, and integrate activities and information so that the system as a whole is coherent and accessible for individuals and businesses alike.

Empowering Individuals

  • Adults eligible for training are given their own financial power to use Individual Training Accounts at qualifying institutions.
  • The development of "Consumer Reports" containing information for each training provider will allow individuals to make informed training choices.
  • Individuals are empowered through the advice, guidance, and support available through the One-Stop system and its partners.

Universal Access

  • Any individual will have access to the One-Stop system and to core employment-related services.
  • Information about job vacancies, career options, student financial aid, relevant employment trends, and instruction on how to conduct a job search, write a resume, or interview with an employer will be available to any job seeker in the U.S. or anyone who wants to advance his or her career.
  • While training and the use of ITAs are not universal services, all customers will have access to the Consumer Report information gathered on training institutions in the area through the Eligible Training Provider process.

Increased Accountability

  • Training providers and their programs will have to demonstrate successful performance to remain eligible to receive funds under the Act.
  • Participants, with their ITAs, have the opportunity to make training choices based on program outcomes.
  • To survive in the market, training providers must make accountability for performance and customer satisfaction a top priority.

Strong Role for Local Workforce Investment Boards and the Private Sector

  • Local, business-led boards will act as "Boards of Directors" focusing on long-range strategic planning, policy development, and oversight of the local workforce investment system.
  • The active involvement of business and labor is critical to understanding what skills are in demand, what jobs are available, what career fields are expanding, and what types of training programs will best meet local employer needs.

State and Local Flexibility

  • States and localities will have exceptional flexibility to build on existing reforms in order to implement innovative and comprehensive workforce investment systems.
  • States and their local partners will also have the flexibility to tailor delivery systems to meet the particular needs of regional and local labor markets.

Customer Choice

The underlying principle of the provision of training services under the WIA is customer choice. One-Stop centers will provide access to consumer information relating to training providers that can assist individuals in gaining relevant skills--including information about the performance of such providers in placing graduates in employment. Through local boards, each state will compile a list of eligible training providers that meet performance levels as set by the Governor and adjusted upward, as appropriate, by local boards. Individuals may choose any provider from the list of approved providers, whether or not the provider is located in the local area where the individual resides. In addition, states may enter into agreements on a reciprocal basis that allow individuals to access training in another state.

The Act creates a market-based system for training service and will provide a "level playing field" for a wide array of providers--large and small, public and private. Those who provide training services under the Act will have to meet the test private businesses face every day. They will have to deliver value to their customers, or risk losing them. With individuals making their choices based on past performance, ineffective training providers will not survive.

WIA ITA/Eligible Training Provider Requirements

There are many issues associated with designing and operating an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system. This section provides a brief overview of regulations governing system design and operation.

(Note: For a complete presentation of WIA Regulations, the reader should consult the WIA Interim Final Regulations and WIA Interim Regulations Q&As, both of which are available through the web site. Specific web addresses can be found in the bibliography of this briefing book. The final WIA regulations are scheduled to be issued December 1999, and will be made available through the web site at that time.)

A discussion of some of the policy issues that need to be addressed by system planners can be found in the sub-sections that follow.

Individual Training Accounts

  • The ITA is established for eligible individuals to finance training services.
  • WIA Title I adult and dislocated workers purchase training services from eligible training providers they select in consultation with their case manager.
  • The state or local Board may impose limits on the ITAs, such as limitations on the dollar amounts and/or duration. Limits to ITAs may be established for an individual participant that are based on the needs identified in the individual employment plan, or the state or local Board may establish a range of amounts and/or a maximum amount applicable to all ITAs. However, these limitations should not undermine the Act's requirement that training services must be provided in a manner that maximizes informed consumer choice in selecting an eligible provider.
  • Each local Board, through the One-Stop center, must make available to customers the state list of eligible providers. The list includes a description of the programs through which the providers may offer the training services and the performance and cost information about eligible providers of training services.
  • An individual who has been determined eligible for training services selects a provider from the state list after consultation with a case manager. Unless the program has exhausted funds for the program year, the operator must refer the individual to the selected provider and establish an ITA for the individual to pay for training. A referral may be carried out by providing a voucher or certificate to the individual to obtain the training. The cost of referral of an individual with an ITA to a training provider is paid by the applicable adult or dislocated worker program under Title I of WIA.
  • Payments to training providers from ITAs may be made in a variety of ways, including the electronic transfer of funds through financial institutions, vouchers, or other appropriate methods. Payments may also be made incrementally; through payment of a portion of the costs at different points in the training course.

Eligible Training Providers

  • WIA establishes requirements that a provider must meet in order to be eligible to receive adult or dislocated worker funds and to be identified on a state list.
  • There are two different types of programs: 1) those which are eligible under the Higher Education Act (HEA) or registered under the National Apprenticeship Act (NAA) and 2) those not HEA-eligible or registered under NAA.
  • There are also two types of eligibility: initial and subsequent eligibility.
  • The applications for initial eligibility for HEA and NAA programs are developed by the local area, while those for non-HEA, non-NAA are developed by the state. The state applications for the non-HEA, non-NAA programs must require performance and cost information. (There is nothing to preclude locals for requesting such information, however.)
  • The provider can submit an application to any local area in which the provider wishes to provide services.
  • The local Board receives all initial applications, reviews, and approves (or disapproves) them and then forwards the list of eligible providers and programs to the state. The state then compiles the lists from all the local areas and widely disseminates the list, making sure it is available through the One-Stop system. A designated state agency must verify performance information within 30 days.
  • Initial eligibility can last 12 to 18 months depending on the methodology adopted by the state.
  • To remain subsequently eligible, after initial eligibility is over, the provider must annually submit verifiable program-specific information to the local Board and be found by the local Board to meet the local performance criteria for each program.
  • States set the general procedures and standards for performance, but locals can set higher standards. Both the state and local standards must take into account a variety of factors, including economic conditions and student or client characteristics.
  • There are seven measures for which providers must submit data and standards must be developed and met. Three of the measures cover all individuals participating in a program and include: completion rate in the training program, percentage obtaining unsubsidized employment (and may include training-related employment), and wages at placement.
  • Four of the measures concern only WIA clients who complete the training program and cover: the percentage who obtain unsubsidized employment, the 6-month employment retention rate, wages at 6 months, and rate of licensure, certification or skills attainment, as appropriate. These measures are similar to the core measures required for general WIA accountability.
  • Performance information for eligible programs and providers must be developed using UI wage records, in a manner consistent with requirements under WIA's overall accountability system.
  • Each provider must also submit information relating to the costs of each program.
  • All cost and performance information must be provided in a Consumer Report system, which is built on the eligible training providers list, and provides all the information needed for an adult or dislocated worker to fully understand the options available in choosing a training program. The list of providers and their eligible programs must also be made available to the general public as part of the core services in the One-Stop system.
  • The state or local level may require providers to submit additional program specific information. If such requests impose extraordinary costs, the state or local Board must provide access to cost effective methods of collecting the information or provide additional resources to collect it.
  • Providers of contract training are subject to the eligible training provider requirements, i.e., they must make an initial application, provide performance information, and be included on the state list. On-the-job training (OJT) and customized training are not subject to the requirements, but the state may require that local areas collect performance information, determine if these providers meet the standards, and disseminate information identifying providers that meet the criteria.
  • Training services are to be provided in a manner that maximizes consumer choice in selecting an eligible program. Customers must have access to the list of eligible programs and relevant cost and performance information in the Consumer Report system. An adult or dislocated worker determined eligible for training may select any eligible program after consultation with a case manager. The eligible training program must meet the training needs identified in the individual's employment plan and the individual must have the skills and qualifications to successfully complete the program. The training program selected must be directly linked to employment opportunities in the local area or in another area in which an individual would be willing to relocate.
  • If WIA intensive-service clients do not use any WIA funds for training, they can take programs that are not on the eligible list. This might occur if an individual has access to other funds such as a Pell grant, scholarships or other programs' funds. The local WIA system is still responsible for tracking employment outcomes for the client, however, through good follow-up and case-management practices. The provider and program would not be subject to any requirements for the eligible training provider system.
  • States may enter into reciprocal arrangements to permit individuals to use ITAs to pay for eligible training programs in the other states and for providers to accept ITAs from other states' WIA clients.
  • Programs and providers can be removed from the eligible list for several reasons: failure to meet local standards (determined either by the local area or during the data verification process by the state agency), intentionally submitting inaccurate information, or other violations of WIA requirements. States must establish provider appeals procedures for a denial of eligibility.

Issues for Participants

Background on Participant Issues

Finding workers to sustain America's economic growth is becoming one of the most crucial concerns of business owners and managers across the United States. Changing job requirements and the resulting demand for new skills, the desire for reliable worker credentials, and shifting company and industry structures mean continuing intense demand for high-quality services that enable workers to meet the needs of the labor market. The WIA was developed with the recognition that, as the 21st century approaches, we have to develop training opportunities that respond to market needs and provide consumer choices.

In an effort to get a better understanding of how voucher-style training accounts might impact consumer choice, the U.S. DOL conducted a multi-site demonstration project in which selected sites were allowed to design and implement innovative voucher style approaches to providing training to dislocated workers. This demonstration project was conducted prior to the passage of the WIA and used the term career management account (CMA) rather than ITA. A systematic evaluation of the CMA Demonstration has provided valuable lessons that help inform the development and implementation of ITAs. (Note: The briefing materials include a copy of the CMA final report as a separate document.)

Based on learnings from the Career Management Account (CMA) Demonstration Project, participants in an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system will be empowered to have control over career choices, control over training providers, and control over expenditures.

Control Over Career Choices

In a true voucher environment, workforce development agency staff would not make career decisions. Rather, they would inform or guide those choices, and the ultimate decision would rest with the participant. The extent to which customers are empowered to make career and training choices will vary across ITA/Eligible Training Provider systems, however, the system must accommodate broad choice for customers. Participants must be challenged to examine their options and decisions in terms of what is appropriate to their educational and professional background, available in their local economy, and feasible to accomplish with the ITA and other available resources.

Control Over Training Providers

Traditionally, decisions on training options were often made by agency staff who would buy training slots in bulk. In order to make the system cost-effective, it was important to make certain that those slots be filled. This could lead to pressure on staff to direct clients to classes or individual slots that were already committed but not fully subscribed. By contrast, the participant-driven decisions about the type of training desired and who the provider should be puts the individual in a position of having to analyze not just the labor market but the training market as well. In the ITA/Eligible Training Provider systems, participants must be challenged to consider all of the relevant information regarding eligible training provider performance to make appropriate choices when selecting a training vendor. The clear implication for states, workforce boards, and One-Stops is that they must provide the kind of information about training choices and providers that is necessary to make an informed decision and provide in a form that is easily usable by participants. This is one of the significant system-building challenges under WIA.

Control Over Expenditures

In order for customers to make informed choices, they must be aware of the amount available at any time and the rules for spending. Based on findings from the CMA Demonstration project, participants did not necessarily value physical control of the account and payment mechanism (as might be afforded through a debit card or checkbook) as much as they valued the freedom to assign resources they controlled to their own choices. As long as their decisions were implemented on a timely basis, the physical method of payment did not matter significantly. Control over spending requires separate accounting for each participant. While this does not differ in principle from the accounting requirements of JTPA, it can be very different operationally.

Summary of CMA Participant Survey Results

CMA Demonstration

Clients of Re-employment Services

Survey Results

Prepared by

Public Policy Associates


Corporation For a Skilled Workforce

October 1998

Results of the Survey of Clients of Re-employment Services

General Information

Thinking about the re-employment services you received from our agency, please circle the number next to the response which best represents your answer to each question.


1. Were you enrolled in a unique re-employment service that somehow differed from traditional job search or training programs? (n=1217)

Yes 50.8% 53.5% 47.8%

No 30.5% 29.0% 32.1%

Don't know 18.7% 17.4% 20.2%

2. When you began using our services, were you interested in making a career change? (n=1245)

Yes 78.6% 80.5% 76.4%

No 21.4% 19.5% 23.6%

*Significant differences at the 0.10 -level. (Chi-square test)

a. Did you successfully make a career change? (n=1145)

Yes 56.6% 58.6% 54.4%

No 43.4% 41.4% 45.6%

Program Enrollment

3. Compared to other government programs, how would you describe the amount of paper work required to obtain re-employment services? (n=1128)

Less than others 35.3% 38.2% 32.1%

About the same 54.0% 50.7% 57.6%

More than others 10.7% 11.1% 10.3%

*Significant differences at the 0.10 -level. (Chi-square test)

4. How easy or difficult was it to understand the rules and regulations involved in your re-employment program? (n=1233)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Easy Difficult

Mean 2.30 2.28 2.32

Median 2 2 2

Std. Deviation 1.61 1.59 1.64

5. To what extent did your re-employment program require you to learn about or investigate your career choice in order for you to get a training program approved? (n=1234)

To a great extent 30.3% 35.4% 24.7%

Somewhat 41.7% 40.3% 43.1%

Not very much 18.5% 17.0% 20.1%

Not at all 9.6% 7.3% 12.1%

*Significant differences at the 0.10 -level. (Chi-square test)


Re-employment Services

Please help us understand the nature of your re-employment program by answering each of the following questions.



Title III

6. How would you rate the extent to which program staff provided you with assistance to determine and meet your re-employment needs? (n=1237)

Too little assistance 17.5% 16.5% 18.5%
About the right amount 81.4% 82.3% 80.5%
Too much assistance 1.1% 1.2% 1.0%

7. How would you rate the amount of information you received about your program and all the options and services available to you? (n=1241)

Too little information 20.7% 20.2% 21.2%
About the right amount 77.9% 79.0% 76.7%
Too much information 1.4% 0.8% 2.0%

8. How would you rate the quality of information available to you to make decisions about re-employment services or training? (n=1241)

Excellent information 40.3% 42.6% 37.7%
Adequate information 47.5% 45.7% 49.6%
Not very good 9.8% 9.5% 10.0%
No information at all 2.4% 2.1% 2.7%

9. How would you rate the amount of information available to you regarding job training services (i.e., schools or other training providers)? (n=1237)

Too little information 25.5% 25.0% 26.0%
About the right amount 73.7% 74.5% 72.8%
Too much information 0.8% 0.5% 1.2%

10. How would you rate the amount of information available to you regarding specific jobs or career fields? (n=1236)

Too little information 32.3% 31.4% 33.2%
About the right amount 66.1% 66.9% 65.2%
Too much information 1.6% 1.7% 1.5%

11. How would you rate the range of service options available to you? (n=1233)

Many options 24.5% 25.5% 23.4%
A fair amount of options 49.3% 50.1% 48.5%
Only a few options 22.2% 19.9% 24.7%
No options at all 4.0% 4.5% 3.4%


Title III

12. To what extent were you able to make your own decisions about service options? (n=1227)

To a great extent 61.9% 66.1% 57.4%
Somewhat 26.8% 24.4% 29.5%
Not very much 8.0% 6.8% 9.2%
Not at all 3.3% 2.6% 3.9%

*Significant differences at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)

13. How were decisions made regarding what services and training you could take? (n=1221)

I made my own decisions, with little or no advice

from a counselor 35.0% 35.7% 34.2%

A counselor helped advise me on choosing

from several options 49.6% 51.9% 47.0%

A counselor suggested the best option

for me 10.9% 8.7% 13.4%

A counselor told me

what to do 4.5% 3.7% 5.4%

*Significant differences at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)

14. Did your re-employment program make a specific amount of money available for your services and training? (n=1221)

Yes 60.9% 74.3% 46.1%
No 17.9% 10.7% 25.7%
Don't know 21.2% 15.0% 28.2%

*Significant differences at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)

15. How much control did you feel you had over how you could spend money available? (n=1102)

Complete control 10.5% 12.0% 8.6%
A lot of control 25.8% 30.7% 19.5%
A little control 25.6% 30.2% 23.8%
No control at all 38.1% 30.2% 48.0%

*Significant differences at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)

16. How would you rate the amount of control you would liked to have had over how your financial assistance was spent relative to the amount you did have? (n=1077)

I preferred less control 3.1% 3.0% 3.2%
I had the right amount of control 63.4% 66.0% 60.1%
I preferred more control 33.5% 31.1% 36.7%


The following set of questions is designed to help us evaluate the overall quality of your re-employment program.



Title III

17. How did the outcome of your program compare with your initial expectations? (n=1216)

Exceeded my expectations 28.9% 29.2% 28.7%
Met my expectations 48.9% 49.6% 48.2%
Did not meet my expectations 22.1% 21.2% 23.1%

18. How satisfied were you with the degree to which you could make your own decisions? (n=1214)

Very satisfied 57.7% 59.5% 55.6%
Somewhat satisfied 30.1% 30.0% 30.3%
Not very satisfied 7.5% 7.3% 7.7%
Not satisfied at all 4.7% 3.1% 6.4%

*Significant differences at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)

19. How much do you feel your re-employment experience helped you? (n=1221)

Quite a bit/a lot 60.4% 62.6% 57.8%
Somewhat 24.8% 23.6% 26.2%
Not very much 9.2% 8.5% 9.9%
Not at all 5.7% 5.3% 6.1%

20. How would you describe your overall experience with re-employment program staff? (n=1223)

Positive 78.3% 80.4% 75.8%
Neutral 15.8% 14.4% 17.3%
Negative 6.0% 5.1% 6.9%

21. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your re-employment program? (n=1224)

Very satisfied 57.5% 60.0% 54.7%
Somewhat satisfied 28.9% 27.1% 30.9%
Not very satisfied 7.8% 8.1% 7.4%
Not satisfied at all 5.8% 4.8% 6.9%


Title III

22. Other than receiving financial assistance for training, which of the following aspects of the re-employment program was most important and valuable to you? (n=893)

Good counseling 27.2% 25.7% 28.8%
Good information about training programs 17.7% 16.0% 19.5%
Good information about jobs 10.0% 7.3% 12.8%
Freedom to decide about where to go for training 29.9% 35.2% 24.2%
Freedom to decide how to spend financial assistance 2.8% 5.0% 0.5%
Space to work and make phone calls 7.1% 6.0% 8.1%
Assistance with things like child care or transport 5.4% 4.8% 6.0%

Significant differences at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)

Re-employment Program Improvements

In order to help us better understand how re-employment programs should be improved, please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please circle a number on the scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly disagree with the statement, and 7 means you strongly agree with the statement.

23. People entering re-employment programs should be required to do research into training providers or vendors. (n=1226)

Mean 4.98 5.15 4.78
Median 5 5 5
Std. Deviation 1.77 1.78 1.74

*Significant difference at the 0.01 -level. (T-test)

24. People entering re-employment programs should be required to research their chosen career. (n=1232)

Mean 5.65 5.80 5.49
Median 6 6 6
Std. Deviation 1.55 1.48 1.60

*Significant difference at the 0.01 -level. (T-test)



Title III

25. People entering re-employment programs should be required to do research to understand what jobs are available and how to get them. (n=1232)

Mean 5.66 5.76 5.49
Median 6 6 6
Std. Deviation 1.59 1.53 1.60

*Significant difference at the 0.05 -level. (T-test)

26. People entering re-employment programs should be left alone to make their own decisions. (n=1234)

Mean 3.29 3.29 3.29
Median 3 3 3
Std. Deviation 1.82 1.77 1.88

27. People entering re-employment programs should be required to meet with career counselors prior to enrolling in training. (n=1236)

Mean 5.92 5.98 5.86
Median 6 6 7
Std. Deviation 1.49 1.42 1.56

28. People in re-employment programs should be given freedom to spend financial assistance as they see fit. (n=1228)

Mean 3.60 3.68 3.50
Median 4 4 3
Std. Deviation 1.96 1.95 1.96

Significant difference at the 0.10 -level. (T-test)

29. People in re-employment programs should be allowed to choose any training program they want. (n=1233)

Mean 4.61 4.64 4.59
Median 5 5 5
Std. Deviation 1.97 1.91 2.03

30. I was treated like a responsible adult by my re-employment program. (n=1232)

Mean 6.04 6.07 6.02
Median 7 7 7
Std. Deviation 1.63 1.58 1.69


Title III

Demographic Information

The following questions are extremely important to help us ensure that training services are delivered to all participants on an equal basis. Please remember that this information is completely confidential.

31. In what year were you born? [AGE] (n=1223)

Mean 44.39 43.81 45.04
Median 45 44 46
Std. Deviation 10.14 9.96 10.31

*Significant difference at the 0.05 -level. (T-test)

32. What is your sex? (n=1234)

Male 39.5% 39.3% 39.9%
Female 60.5% 60.7% 60.1%

33. What was the highest level of school that you had complete prior to enrolling in your re-employment program? (n=1216)

8th Grade or less 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%
Some high school 2.5% 2.0% 3.1%
Completed high school/GED 26.7% 22.7% 31.3%
Some college courses 33.1% 37.6% 28.1%
Completed two-year degree 11.8% 12.7% 10.7%
Completed four-year degree 12.3% 11.6% 12.9%
Some graduate courses 5.4% 5.6% 5.2%
Completed graduate degree 7.6% 7.5% 7.7%

*Significant difference at the 0.01 -level. (Chi-square test)

34. Did you complete the training that was arranged through your re-employment program? (n=1223)

Yes 72.7% 72.9% 72.5%
No 27.3% 27.1% 27.5%

35. Are you currently employed? (n=1223)

Yes 70.1% 72.9% 67.0%
No 29.9% 27.1% 33.0%

*Significant difference at the 0.05 -level. (Chi-square test)



Title III

36. With which racial or ethnic group do you most closely identify yourself? (n=1214)

African American/Black 14.7% 15.6% 13.6%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%
Caucasian/White 74.5% 73.9% 75.1%
Hispanic or Latino 4.2% 4.4% 4.0%
Native American 3.0% 2.7% 3.3%
Other 2.1% 1.9% 2.4%

37. Please feel free to write any additional comments regarding your re-employment program in the space below or on back.

Thank you for your assistance!

Eligible Training Provider Issues

Eligible Training Provider Background

The WIA principles encourage more choice for customers and, overall, a more market-oriented training system. Bringing training vendors--the suppliers of training services--into the system so that customers can have access to them is an essential element of making these principles real. Eligible training providers are training vendors who have applied to a workforce board to receive training funds under WIA and have been approved by the board and the state to do so. These providers face a variety of issues as they move into the WIA system, issues that the workforce boards and One-Stops must understand and take into account in operating the system. These issues include, among others, the approval process, a need for information about the WIA training market, a new customer focus, requirements to provide program and performance information, and how to respond to the new market conditions.

Training Provider Approval

For a training vendor to become an eligible training provider under WIA, they must complete a process by which a local workforce board gives approval to them to provide specific programs and in which the state agency verifies performance information. This involves several steps and all levels of the system within a state.

The state develops application requirements, including performance levels, that programs not eligible under the Higher Education Act nor a registered apprenticeship program must meet in order to become initially eligible. The state must set minimum levels of performance for all providers to remain subsequently eligible and the locals can adjust these upward. It is also the responsibility of the designated state agency to create a list of eligible training providers compiled from the submissions of the local boards. Those providers who have been approved by the local boards and have had their information verified by the state are added to the list. The state then has the responsibility to disseminate widely the list of providers. WIA is silent on the mechanism to be used for dissemination, but many states are developing or examining the use of web-based systems that can be easily accessed by One-Stops and individual participants. WIA also requires that consumer reports on performance and cost be provided, but is silent on how this will be accomplished.

Local Board responsibilities include:

The application and approval process must elicit commitments from applicants to provide performance information, subject to audit, as required by WIA. If the process is too complex or time consuming, training providers will be less likely to apply. For example, where a training provider operates across the jurisdictions of multiple workforce boards, submission of several applications and adherence to slightly different procedures could be seen as too burdensome. If so, it might result in fewer applications than the workforce boards may hope to receive. On the other hand, if the process fails to obtain the necessary commitments to assure that complete, accurate performance information is provided, then the system will not be able to equip individual participants with what they need to make informed decisions.

Need for Market Information

It is not inevitable that training vendors will flock to the new system. Instead, they will need certain types of market information to make the decision on whether to apply to become eligible training providers and which training programs they will apply to have included.

Providers will want to know how many participants are likely to receive ITAs, what amount of money each ITA will include, and what range of training services will be allowed by the workforce board and the state. Also, they will need financial and regulatory information; any limitations on fees; contracting processes, if any; record-keeping requirements for accepting the vouchers; data collection and reporting requirements; and the application and approval process. They will also need information on how customers may connect with eligible providers, such as referral processes, and the types of marketing opportunities that will be available.

Such information will help providers calculate whether the time and expense necessary to apply is likely to be recovered through the business they could do. For workforce boards and One-Stops that are eager to attract a large number of providers, furnishing this type of information will be a part of the process of doing so.

The WIBs or One-Stops must be responsible for acquiring, organizing, and disseminating information for both consumers and providers.

A New Customer Focus

Under JTPA, the degree of individual choice about the use of training providers varied widely, but in virtually all cases, WIA should result in increased customer choice. This means that staff will play a different role in the decisions about what kind of training is needed and which provider will be used. For the eligible training providers, this means a dramatic shift in who their customer is. Instead of working to understand and meet the needs of JTPA staff, as they often have needed to do in the past, they will have to understand and meet the needs of individual WIA participants.

The responses of the providers must be understood by the staff who operate the system. They must address such issues as:

It is likely that training vendors will communicate among themselves about the WIA system and will attempt to influence its development and operation. While there is nothing untoward about such an effort, it is essential that the workforce boards and One-Stops be aware of it. While the interests of the training vendors and participants overlap, they are not identical. Those who operate the WIA system must assure that the interests of the participants are effectively represented.

Providing Program and Performance Information

WIA requires that all eligible training providers furnish information about their courses of study and program outcomes. This program and performance information has at least two uses. Workforce boards and states will use it to determine subsequent eligibility and individual participants to inform their training decisions. If the system provides for easy comparison of the performance of a relatively large number of providers, then eligibility becomes less an issue; the choices of the individuals are likely to skew in the direction of those who perform well.

Many proprietary schools have collected performance information in the past, however few have ever had to generate verifiable information that will track against UI wage records. Still, for many of them, the WIA requirements may be less a departure from business as usual. For community colleges and other public sector providers, there is wide diversity of experience-- some have limited experience with it, others have none. Under WIA, programs eligible under the Higher Education Act or registered under the National Apprenticeship Act at community colleges or proprietary schools must meet the requirements of locally developed applications, which will generally not require performance information. Programs which are not HEA-eligible (or registered under the Apprenticeship Act) --whether offered by a community college, proprietary school or community-based organization -- will have to provide performance information as per state-developed requirements. But providers of all programs must provide the same performance information after the first year or period of initial eligibility. They will also have to meet state or locally adjusted standards to remain eligible. as other providers.

Types of program information valued by participants is likely to be quite broad. What might be critically important for one may be inconsequential for another. For example, a participant with limited financial capacity may care most about price, while one with limited transportation may value geographic proximity more highly. A participant who needs to support a family may care most about wages at placement, while one who is less confident in his or her ability may be most focused on completion rates.

Market Responses

If the market for particular services includes several providers and if WIA allows them to charge market rates, those providers will compete for the business of the ITA-eligible WIA customers. This competition may take several forms, including marketing and price.

Some providers may want to communicate as much information about themselves as possible through the eligible training providers list and the Consumer Report system. If the list is web-based, the state and workforce boards may decide to link the record of a provider directly to that provider's website. This would provide a marketing channel that would otherwise be closed to the provider. Another communication vehicle that providers may wish to use is marketing or advertising at or near the One-Stop. Workforce boards and One-Stop operators will need to deal with the issues that this raises. For example, on-site advertising could be a valuable revenue source, but could also raise equity questions such as whether smaller, cash-poor providers may be disadvantaged relative to their larger counterparts. Near-site advertising is probably beyond the direct control of a One-Stop, but staff will need to be prepared for customers responding to these advertisements.

Other providers will want to compete on price. Since this information is already included in the mandatory information, it will be kept as part of the eligible training providers' list and the Consumer Report system. It will be important to allow changes to the list to be made easily and frequently to capture the benefits of such price competition. The benefits will accrue to the customers, who will be able to afford more training within the limits of the ITA, and to the WIA system that will be able to serve more customers with the savings based on any price competition. Some JTPA offices have in the past limited voucher payments to the lowest level charged by any provider of a particular training. This strategy of price management may control costs, but it also creates a risk of limiting the number of providers who participate in the system and of making WIA training a "lowest-common-denominator" system.

In general, providers are likely to be quite creative in their responses to the more market-oriented WIA system. The exact responses cannot be anticipated, but they must be monitored and understood so that the staff can play an effective role in assisting customers.

It is important to understand that the WIA system itself is part of the marketplace and that vendors will respond to the way WIA is implemented. If the states and workforce boards establish straightforward procedures, respond to problems quickly, and pay their bills on time, then they will have a positive effect on creating a functioning market. If not, they may impede the emergence of the training market that is so important to the strengthening of their regional workforce.

CMA Issue Paper: Vendor Perspectives and Likely Impact

The Use of Vouchers in Adult Worker Retraining:

Vendor Perspectives and Likely Impact

Prepared by

Public Policy Associates


Corporation For a Skilled Workforce

October 1998

Table of Contents


Institutional Purchasing Versus Individual Choice

Vendor Certification

Market Dynamics



Vendors are providers of training or other services to customers of the adult worker retraining system. They deliver services that are critical to accomplishment of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) mission--which is to move workers into jobs at attractive wages as quickly as possible.

The use of vouchers in the JTPA system has profound implications for vendors and their relationship with JTPA. The Career Management Account (CMA) Demonstration Project, which tested a variety of approaches to vouchers at 13 JTPA sites across the nation, included groups of 200 participants in voucher experiments for a period of about one and a half years. Despite its limitations, the demonstration provided some insight into how vendors may perceive and react to a broadened use of vouchers and how these perceptions and reactions may change the relationship between the vendor community and the JTPA system.

In this paper, the differences between the traditional and voucher approaches are explored, vendor responses are discussed, and implications for the role of JTPA are noted. Finally, key issues of staff reorientation and training are articulated.

Institutional Purchasing Versus Individual Choice

A key distinction between the traditional Title III system and the use of vouchers is that, with vouchers, individual customers have much greater latitude in selecting the specific vendors who will provide their training. Viewed from the vendor perspective, this means that the individual JTPA participant becomes the customer.

In any market, sellers attempt to carry out transactions with buyers. The adult worker retraining market is no exception. However, if a JTPA agency purchases training slots in bulk through a procurement process, or if it maintains a very narrow list of certified training vendors, then, from the vendor's point of view, it is the JTPA staff that is the customer and not the individual participant.

The shift to individuals as the customers has a variety of implications for vendors. Instead of cultivating relationships with JTPA staff, they must consider marketing to individuals. Instead of focusing on the institutional perspective on training needs, they must anticipate the desires of individuals. Instead of focusing on system-wide timelines, they must respond to the schedules of individuals.

Despite the small scale of the CMA demonstration, such responses were observed at many of the 13 sites. For instance, in Palm Beach, some vendors wanted more of an opportunity to advertise and get their information directly into the hands of the CMA customers. Several referenced new materials and products they had developed to advertise more effectively to individuals. In Baltimore, vendors who formerly provided class-size training were encouraged to submit proposals and redesign their programs to accommodate individual schedules. According to staff at that site, subcontractors could no longer depend upon their agency to fill their classes. Instead, they had to begin rethinking how they did business.

Vendor Certification

If choice is to be meaningful, the range of available choices must be as broad as possible. The freedom to choose from all vendors in a local training market is quite different from selecting one of a few on a list of pre-certified vendors. The response of vendors to the certification process appears to depend on the complexity of the process and the size of the market to which certification provides access.

In order for choice to be meaningful to individuals and participation attractive to vendors, the process of being added to the list must be relatively simple. On the other hand, the JTPA system must be aggressive about policing fraud and abuse among vendors. This means that management of the certified list is a critical function of a voucher system.

The broadening of the numbers and types of vendors certified, as well as the process for being included, is very important in creating a positive perspective among vendors. If the scale of voucher activities increases substantially, vendors will become highly motivated to be included in such a list. Also, individual customers will need a relatively simple process for "nominating" a vendor for inclusion. The CMA demonstrations showed this was possible. At the Phoenix CMA site, 14 new vendors were added over the first four months of the demonstration. The certification process took less than two weeks. In Oklahoma, the number of training vendors expanded from about 50 to more than 160. Of the limited number of vendors who were included in the study, very few complained about the certification or approval process.

In addition to the number of vendors who are certified, the types of vendors is also important to customers. The Georgia CMA site liberalized the vendor qualification process to meet the needs of CMA clients seeking unconventional or high-skill training.

Massachusetts utilized a statewide registry developed as a result of a Request for Qualifications solicitation issued by the Massachusetts Service Delivery Area Directors Association. This approach addressed the potential problem of dealing with vendors who operate in multiple service delivery areas. The Massachusetts demonstration sites maintained an outcomes report on regional vendors which was available to customers, and there were many references to its extensive use during site visits. According to staff, procurement of training became smoother and more streamlined within the CMA model.

Market Dynamics

An important influence on vendor perspectives about vouchers is the process through which a JTPA office operates the voucher system. Payment processes are of great concern to vendors, as is the competitive framework within which they must operate. JTPA offices also face the question of whether they will continue to be providers of service as well as managers of the voucher process. The answer may influence both the range of activities of the JTPA operation and the perspective of vendors about it.

Vendors care a great deal about getting paid for the services they provide, but timeliness of payment varied greatly across the CMA sites. As noted above, some sites accelerated payment processes substantially. However, there were problems with the payment processes at some sites. In New York City, for example, vendors who had been certified to provide services and were selected by a customer for specific training were forced to wait as long as a year to receive payment. Staff, vendors, and customers were equally frustrated with the problem. But this difficulty did not seem to be specific to the voucher system. Rather, it appeared to be endemic to the large NYC bureaucracy. However, the consequences may be more problematic in a voucher system. While not nearly as severe as the New York City problems, vendors to the Atlanta CMA program reported that the system was "smooth but slow." In Texas, dissatisfaction was expressed with the site's 60- to 90-day payment cycle. In general, vendors seem to expect payment on a timely basis, which commonly means 30 days.

Such difficulties inevitably sour vendors on accepting vouchers in the future--which will ultimately narrow the range of available providers. With volume purchases, vendors may be willing and able to wait for payment. However, when training decisions are made by individuals, the vendors may decide that the voucher has little value because of the inherent time lag in payment. Since the nature of the relationship between the vendor and JTPA is a function of the transactional decisions of vendors, they may simply reject vouchers from future customers after having a few negative experiences.

Another reality of the shift to a market-based system is that some vendors will prosper while others may suffer or even fail. These differences are clearly reflected in the perspectives held by vendors about the merit of the shift. A powerful illustration is the dependence of some vendors on relatively large-scale contracts to provide training. Such a vendor may have gotten to the point where a substantial fraction of the organization's income is derived from JTPA services. The loss of such a revenue base--or even uncertainty about its continuation--can be devastating. In New York City and elsewhere, community-based non-profit organizations have been given notice that they will need to begin to compete for JTPA work based on performance. The response has been politically difficult for the agencies that have taken such positions.

The Florida CMA site, on the other hand, decided that it would no longer be a provider of services. This very different approach illustrates an almost purely market-making role for the JTPA organization. As described in that site's final report, internal Basic Readjustment Services were discontinued early in the program because the "availability of these in-house services was influencing the customers in some way and prevented outside providers from participating in the program. By outsourcing (the services), the RESTART staff was able to concentrate on facilitating 'customer choice,' overseeing the voucher process, and monitoring the use of the Career Management Accounts."

A dramatic shift in the role of JTPA implies the need to equip staff to play a new role. If the agencies are to be credible and effective in dealing with vendors, they will need to understand the issues and responses that are likely to be elicited from those vendors as a result of the shift to a market-based approach. This suggests the need for staff to be exposed to research and training materials that address such issues. It will be critically important to help them understand how the shift in the JTPA role changes the nature of their jobs and to equip them to do that job well. This is, perhaps, the most important precursor to a successful voucher system.


The Congress and Administration have moved toward vouchers because they are different from the current system, and the response of vendors represents one of the key differences. This difference requires the JTPA system to play a role in organizing the training market, rather than simply purchasing services. The following are the key elements of this role:

Establish clear criteria for inclusion on a certification list

Implement a relatively easy and fast process for certification

Require that all vendors provide performance data, subject to audit

Police vendors aggressively for misrepresentation or fraud

Provide high-quality information to consumers and vendors

Process payments quickly

While some of these elements are similar to current JTPA activities, they would be carried out in a different context. The response of vendors will depend upon the manner in which this role is carried out. If JTPA staff are clear with vendors that they will no longer be the primary customers of the vendors, then vendors are likely to understand and adjust to the shift to a market-based voucher system.

Role of Workforce Boards and One-Stops

The Leadership Role of Workforce Boards

The workforce investment system under WIA emphasizes informed customer choice, system performance, and continuous improvement. The eligible training provider process involves several key strategic choices that can either advance or impede achievement of these goals. State and local boards will work together to create the performance accountability measures for the eligible training provider application process and to develop a list that identifies two types of providers: those initially eligible and those subsequently eligible. As workforce boards, in partnership with states, set the limits on identifying training providers whose performance qualifies them to train adults and dislocated workers, they can do so in ways that make the training market more robust or less so.

Establishing and maintaining the free flow of accurate, useful information between eligible training providers and participants is perhaps the most critical leadership role. Without this essential ingredient, it is just not possible to stimulate a more robust training market. The key policy decision that states and workforce boards must make is whether the number of eligible training providers will be constrained or relatively large. It is only when they choose the latter course that customer choice has real meaning.

Other policy decisions that shape the nature of the WIA system include the performance standards for inclusion on the eligible training provider list, the range of occupations that are considered to be "demand occupations," and the level of encouragement and support that is provided to staff to implement a truly market-oriented system.

At each decision point, the states and workforce boards must understand that they can exert leadership that will influence not only the WIA system, but the entire training market and therefore the labor market of the region.

The Changing Operational Role of One-Stop Staff

An individual training account-based system is truly a paradigm shift. This transformation equates to new and different administrative burdens and new staffing roles. The role of case manager in this One-Stop system changes from decision maker to coach and facilitator. Staff are expected to assess skills and readiness and coach clients on courses of action that would hopefully lead to strong labor market attachment. Staff must manage new individual payment arrangements and new forms of paperwork, develop and maintain ongoing relationships with clients, be accessible and able to coach them, and maintain working relationships with vendors.

Since staff members are expected to play a role significantly different from their previous one, they need to access a new set of tools when communicating with customers. If existing staff members are to effectively implement a voucher system, it is essential that they both understand and feel comfortable in their new role. One-Stops should invest in training early on to prepare staff for greater responsibilities in assessing customer needs and to ensure adequate transition to this system that is more focused on customer choice and decision making in providing training services. Staff members should receive support in making these changes through learning networks and technical assistance.

Similarly, in order for participants to benefit fully from the voucher program, it is imperative that they understand how the system operates, what their responsibility is, and what choices are available to them. Participants should participate in a comprehensive orientation session and should be required to develop, and receive approval for, a re-employment plan that provides a rationale for their career/training choices, as well as support services necessary to attain their goals.

Many changes follow a voucher program's shift of authority from staff to customers. Not only does the role of staff shift to guiding or supporting a research and planning process carried out principally by the participant, but the perspective of vendors changes from viewing staff as their principal customers to focusing on individual participants as customers. Even state and federal policy makers will need to adjust their thinking, as the responsibility for outcomes inevitably shifts from staff to their customers--accountability mechanisms must address this change.

As the use of individual training accounts expands through implementation of the Workforce Investment Act, staff and leadership must think carefully about their future planning and activities. Leaders must send a clear message to staff regarding the changes that are in store and the administrative support that will be provided to make an effective transition to a new operating system.

CMA Issue Paper: Promoting and Sustaining Change in Organizations Implementing CMAs


of Change:

Promoting and Sustaining Change in Organizations Implementing Career Management Accounts

Prepared by

Public Policy Associates


Corporation For a Skilled Workforce

October 1998

Table of Contents


Organizational Change: Steps to Success

Institutionalizing Change: The Employment and Training System Perspective


Appendix A: The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change



In order to increase the "staying power" of future demonstration projects, this paper addresses change management from the following two perspectives:

1. Organizational: This paper outlines strategies that have been developed by business theorists for the introduction of new concepts into an organization. Based on these theories, a number of steps are suggested in response to the Career Management Accounts (CMA) experience.

2. Employment and Training System: A generic service-delivery model is offered, and a review of CMA experiences in that context suggests a focus on a few system-level supports.

The premise of this paper is that public programs must be able to introduce and test new ideas efficiently in order to maximize opportunities in an era of limited public funds.

Defining "Institutionalization of Change"

Thomas Harvey, a business management theorist, defines the institutionalization of change as the "integration of a change effort into the mainstream of the organization so that its continuance is at least as certain as that of any other activity in the organization."(1) In addition, Harvey lists the following fundamental determinates of institutionalizing change:

Planning and preparation


Congruence with mission

Environmental sensitivity

Clarity and simplicity

Unpretentious realism

Sufficient, not indulgent, resources

Strong, central leadership

Reduced individual, proprietary interest

Of these factors, the planning and preparation requirement is highlighted as the primary requirement for success. Reflections on the CMA experience to date can be classified as planning and preparation for the future.

The Employment and Training Environment

As the Workforce Development Act is implemented, one of the primary issues facing the public employment and training system will be the extent to which the service providers are able to embrace individual training accounts as a way to organize service delivery. The experience to date suggests that the concept is acceptable on its face but that a great many questions will arise as system-wide implementation proceeds. This relates to the wide latitude in interpretation of the concept. In that context, the Department of Labor (DOL) will be called upon to both facilitate and manage change across a service delivery landscape that is becoming more localized and decentralized.

Along with job training reform legislation, a number of environmental factors are pushing service delivery systems towards local design and variability. The following factors illustrate this point:

Without question, the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) is the dominant factor pushing service delivery design to the state and local levels (i.e., devolution).(2) DOL-administered welfare-to-work money places service delivery authority with local JTPA providers for services to the economically disadvantaged.

Career centers are being implemented without a presumed service deliverer. Local decisions are being made about service delivery structures in order to meet a set of objectives outlined by the DOL (universality, customer choice, integration, and performance accountability).

Unemployment insurance (UI) benefits automation de-couples the relationship between benefits payment offices and employment service offices.

UI profiling--the mechanism for early identification of need and referral to re-employment services for unemployed workers--pushes local services integration but does not prescribe roles.

In this environment, drawing upon the CMA experience to refine the individual account concept, to discern next steps, and to provide a knowledge base for new implementers is the only choice.

Organizational Change: Steps to Success

There are a number of prescriptions and checklists that have been prepared by leading business theorists on change management (as noted above and in Appendix A). A subset of specific actions, suggested after the review of the CMA experience, is outlined in the following discussion.

Articulate the Vision

As articulated by John Kotter, experts on organizational change agree that a clear vision is an essential element in promoting healthy change within systems:

"Vision plays a key role in producing useful change by helping to direct, align, and inspire actions on the part of large numbers of people. Without an appropriate vision, a transformation effort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing, incompatible, and time-consuming projects that go in the wrong direction or nowhere at all."

Source: Kotter, John P., Leading Change, Harvard

Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

Implementation of a service delivery structure based on the individual account model in a decentralized environment, without the development of a unified vision and message, will result in "a thousand blooms" and little commonality. The CMA experience, in which 13 demonstration sites from across the country experimented in various ways to design and implement career management accounts, provides strong evidence of the effect. This paper is not based on the premise that such a result, in and of itself, is undesirable. Simply, if the opposite result is being sought, some attention to the message and the messenger will be required.

State the Degree of Freedom

An organization's orientation to change can range in degree from organizational development to quality management to business process reengineering. Those three concepts can be outlined as follows:

1. Organizational development emphasizes the importance of communications, the use of formal data collection techniques, and the need for participation in adapting organizational operations to the ever-changing environment.(3)

2. Quality management suggests a higher level of proactivity and refers to programs and initiatives that emphasize incremental improvement in work processes and outputs over an open-ended period of time.

3. Reengineering (also known as business process redesign or process innovation), in contrast, refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radically redesigned and improved work processes in a bounded time frame.(4)

It would be appropriate to characterize the CMA demonstration, by and large, as an exercise in incremental change. However, when viewed from the perspective of the continuum described above, the research team found considerable variation among sites. Oklahoma and Maine, for example, basically masked the "new" program and melded it without a seam into the existing service delivery framework. Florida, on the other hand, established a distinct program outside of the current structure. Arizona's expedited enrollment process and, to some degree, its service options were largely unique for CMA.

While configurations at both ends of the continuum may be acceptable and even desirable, an up-front declaration and continued communication on the "degree of freedom" would make it clear what degree of change is intended as the norm. If one outcome is favored over the other, variability in the field will be reduced by the broadcast of that message.

The importance of clear communication was emphasized in the Final Report for the Greater Cincinnati Career Resource Network (September 25, 1997, p.2.), which stated:

"The CMA planning process was greatly enhanced by the guidelines issued by USDOL. Specifically, the flexibility, creativity, innovativeness, and more relaxed regulatory requirements allowed program operators to explore a wide range of opportunities and concepts... As a result, new systems for financial control and program management were successfully implemented, mainly the issuance of individual checkbooks from which to pay for customers' training expenses and greater choice in obtaining necessary supportive services."

Find Champions and Provide a Platform

Exactly who will be the leaders as the employment and training world reorders itself is not entirely clear. Federal regulations, without question, will define a relevant set of parameters. Champions of individual accounts are another matter. Local policy boards are sure to have an increased presence in the coming years. The necessity for those agenda-setting boards to understand both the vision and the nuances associated with individual accounts suggests, at a minimum, a leadership role for the DOL in the dissemination of policy and program information surrounding individual accounts. Given the increasingly local nature of the system, those that are continuing with a form of the CMA model developed during the demonstration, or those that have independently started to implement individual accounts, are candidates to be champions.(5) With a strong statement of vision and an expectation of change fixed at the federal level, local champions will provide the credibility and details on implementation that is needed to overcome the natural resistance to change. Every effort should be made to establish and expand over time a community of natural leaders.

Promote Cultural Change

Government reinvention authors David Osborne and Peter Plastrik suggest that a successful strategy to transform an organization's culture must "change people's experiences, their emotional commitments, and their mental models."(6) But they warn that "changing an organization's culture is not a science. The process cannot just be planned and implemented; it cannot be engineered. It contains too many variables."

The following examples, identified during the CMA demonstration evaluation, help illustrate this point. The experience of the NOVA Private Industry Council, which, independent of the CMA demonstration, voluntarily implemented individual training accounts, suggested that the power of a single idea(7) (i.e., customer focus) and a few tools (Baldrige Award criteria, the Enterprise, and customer satisfaction surveys) were sufficient to move away from the ingrained focus on program procedures. In Massachusetts, the presumption that CMA would allow case managers to move away from extensive case documentation toward more counseling opportunities drove acceptance throughout the organization. Streamlining was cited as an attractive and coalescing feature in a number of other sites including San Bernardino, Cincinnati, and Oregon.

Show That It Works

The ability to demonstrate "short-term wins" is cited as a strategy that erases doubt and builds momentum. The Training Development Corporation in Maine started down that path with the production of two videos in 1997--one about the available services and one about the development process underlying implementation of the CMA. In Atlanta, the "initial success of the CMA software encouraged staff to consider using the program to track other client flow activities." (Final Report, July 1, 1997, p.6.).

Communicate Throughout the System

Communication "early and often," and across all levels of the organization, is a practice advised by the masters of organizational change. During the evaluation team's site visits, a great deal of interest in what the other sites were doing was encountered. The grantees' conference phone calls were widely characterized as useful to the grantees. An electronic workspace for posting comments, questions, or findings would be useful in the future.

For communication beyond the sites themselves, the program managers are an ally in the task. In Massachusetts, the Corporation for Business, Work and Learning (CBWL) will be sharing "with other regions of the state the experience, lessons learned, and tools(8) developed through the Career Management Account Project." (Final Report, August 1977, p.8). In Missouri, SDA II reported that workforce development professionals from other areas of the state who became aware of the ICMA project through the project team's presentation at the Heartland Conference said they felt the team's approach was the one the state should replicate because it built on the strengths of what was already done. Informed debate can lead to informed choice.

It is important to note that experience with accounts extends beyond the 13 demonstration sites and interest is growing. The evaluation team visited two additional service delivery areas--the Thumb Area in Michigan and the NOVA Private Industry Council in Sunnyvale, California--to learn more about the vouchering efforts being implemented under the current JTPA structure. The Thumb Area reported a high level of inquiries. Continuing to build the discussion around the CMA experience and its counterparts will maximize the public investments to date and frame the ongoing discussion.

Communicate Externally

External communication is an essential part of organizational and cultural change because it provides a reality check and, hopefully, validation. The executive director of the Lower Merrimack Valley Regional Employment Board in Massachusetts has noted that the CMA demonstration project provided evidence to the local business community that steps were being taken to rationalize the delivery of employment and training services. The Thumb Area in Michigan has reported similar results. Its voucher program, The Tool Chest, has clarified service delivery for business members of the local workforce development board and, in turn, allowed them to speak more forcefully to the larger business community.

Institutionalizing Change: The Employment and Training System Perspective

The purpose of the Career Management Account Demonstration was to assess whether individual career management accounts could accomplish the following:

Increase customer choice in an administratively feasible manner

Allow maximum flexibility in customizing services and service delivery to the needs of the individual dislocated workers

Expand the resources and sources of assistance that are available to the worker

With these stated goals, and the designation of the Title III population as the target group, further interpretations of the concept and the service delivery structure were site specific. In other words, the CMA demonstration grant opened the door for change across the full range of the grantees' operations. The list of service components and support systems shown in Table 1 offers a generic service delivery model (also see Figure 1.). It is accompanied by a few examples of the types of activities undertaken under the CMA umbrella to demonstrate the diversity of activities spawned by CMA.

Table 1: CMA Generic Service Delivery Model and Activities
Service Components Grantee Activities
Recruitment UI profilees were targeted in Georgia and Oklahoma, among others. New York targeted a deliberate mix of high- and low-skill workers for independent and group programs, respectively. California had a large percentage of highly-educated participants.
Intake/Program Enrollment Arizona expedited CMA enrollment to maximize training time. In Ohio, the first-year selection process was guided by a customer's need for "supportive services not normally funded under Cincinnati's Title III grant."
Assessment Florida used a self-directed, automated assessment tool.
Basic Readjustment Services Massachusetts assigned internal cost figures to these activities and charged the customer's account. Missouri allowed for outside procurement, but it was rarely, if ever, used.
Retraining A tendency for short-term training was evident in Florida. Texas and Arizona did not restrict training to high-demand occupations. Maine started with the target of long-term training, defined as 12+ months, and then reduced the threshold to six months.
Support Services

(e.g., transportation)

Support service payments were placed in an ATM account in Oregon.
Job Placement Texas permitted the use of $650 for a job search.
Job Retention Arizona offered up to $500 as an incentive for completion of six months of continuous employment. Maryland offered a 30-day retention incentive.
Support Systems

Grantee Activities

Tracking/Reporting Massachusetts integrated its tracking into the statewide JTPA tracking system.
Financial Account statements were utilized heavily in Oklahoma and Missouri. CMA forced the integration of two systems in Maine. Maryland developed a system from scratch. Ohio used the checkbook model with the intent of streamlining the vendor payment process.
Customer Satisfaction Florida surveyed customers about program activities as well as surveying the vendors themselves about the program. Focus groups were convened in Massachusetts and Texas.
Labor Market Information Maine customers repeatedly cited LMI-use in development of the career plan.
Service Vendor Information Oklahoma extended their training vendor list across state lines. Florida tapped into an automated state-level performance measurement system. Maryland reinvented its vendor registration process.

The division of service components and support systems in the representative model is intended, in part, to suggest that configuration and management of the service components are primarily the province of the local program operator. The major feat of an individualized service strategy is to move away from a strictly sequenced set of actions to the use of a mix of components on an as-needed basis.(9) The underlying process for accessing the service components and management of those activities varies greatly site-to-site according to design, the respective players, and the availability of local community services. Because of the local variation, little state or federal action regarding service components can be suggested to promote system-wide change.

A closer look at the system support activities, on the other hand, suggests more fertile ground for state or federal interventions that can apply across programs and speak to system-building. Table 2 illustrates five such support systems. Evidence exists as a result of the CMA demonstration that common development activities were undertaken in three of the five listed systems--suggesting that some economy of scale or routine might exist. However, variation in reported CMA experience with regard to the last two listed support systems (tracking/reporting and financial) suggests that technical assistance in these arenas is a more complex undertaking.

Table 2: CMA Service Delivery Support System Design Experience
System CMA Experience
Customer Satisfaction The DOL's emphasis on customer satisfaction measurement was readily embraced. Each site independently developed customer satisfaction measures and some sites convened focus groups to comment on service delivery. The tendency for "homegrown" tools represented a substantial investment of time and resources. Because of the variation in form and content, the evaluation team had to suggest distribution of a common tool by mail as the project was in its final stage. Future efforts could impose the requirement for use of a common tool, while allowing for local modification beyond the base to capture additional content.
Labor Market Information There was extensive use of labor market information by customers as they made their choices among occupations, training options, and service vendors. Most programs used the resource centers and materials that were associated with regular Title III processes. As the DOL expands its electronic service delivery offering (America's Job Bank, Talent Bank, Career InfoNet, and Learning eXchange), promotion of those tools and training sessions for local staff would be a wise investment that could lead to further tailoring of the data to meet local needs.
Service Vendor Information There were many variations among CMA sites on the collection and use of training vendor information. State education departments' lists were most frequently cited as source data, but many sites referenced local refinements. Massachusetts was the clearest about the local role, including the maintenance of a database. The Florida site made a state-level longitudinal database available to customers. Maine coached its customers on what to ask during visits to training vendors in order to be an informed consumer. Student feedback in Maryland led to a shift in training vendors (which the students then helped select). The development and testing of some protocols, standards, and procedures in this arena should be considered to support individual accounts in the marketplace.
Tracking/Reporting Citing an extensive effort to develop an adequate tool, Massachusetts started with off-the-shelf packages (Quicken and Timeslips). As the result of an RFP process, Massachusetts ended up with modifications to its statewide SPIR reporting system to track credits and debits, time spent on direct and indirect services, and an account statement. Texas used the CMA experience to inform development of its PALADIN system, a financial management system being implemented with its One-Stop Career Center system.
Financial Maine used a proprietary financial system (Platinum) and its own case management system (ACMS). Integration of these two systems to produce customer account statements exceeded the term of the grant. Maryland created a spreadsheet application as it moved from ten vendors to over 50 and certification exam fees were cited as problematic in that system.


Interest in account-based payment methods for service components is likely to increase given the following factors:

Emergence of one-stop career centers, with an emphasis on information brokering as a distinct role

Recent passage of the federal legislation that incorporates accounts ("Individual Training Accounts") into the service delivery structure

Natural evolution toward individualized service in a technology-enabled world

With a few CMA sites retaining elements of their CMA account structure for the current delivery of Title III services--and other service delivery area programs incorporating individual accounts into their service delivery mix--the opportunity to support and sustain a community of interest exists.

From the global perspective, the DOL can use information and context to maximize the acceptance of a new manner of service delivery across the diverse set of local service organizations that comprise the employment and training system.

From a program management perspective, strategic investments and design of a select number of functional support systems can promote a degree of uniformity across the broader employment and training system. More importantly, centralized development of those systems in a manner that will allow local adaptations (i.e., open systems standards) will save scarce development dollars.

Appendix A: The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change

1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency

Examining the market and competitive realities

Identifying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities

2. Creating the Guiding Coalition

Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change

Getting the group to work together like a team

3. Developing a Vision and Strategy

Creating a vision to help direct the change effort

Developing strategies for achieving that vision

4. Communicating the Change Vision

Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies

Having the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of employees

5. Empowering Broad-Based Action

Getting rid of obstacles

Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision

Encouraging risk-taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions

6. Generating Short-Term Wins

Planning for visible improvements in performance, or "wins"

Creating those wins

Visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible

7. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change

Using increased credibility to change all systems, structures, and policies that don't fit together and don't fit the transformation vision

Hiring, promoting, and developing people who can implement the change vision

Reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents

8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

Creating better performance through customer- and productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management

Articulating the connection between new behaviors and organizational success

Developing means to ensure leadership development and succession

Source: Adapted from John P. Kotter, "Why Transformation Efforts Fail," Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995, p.61.


Section Three: Implementation Models

Design Elements for Demonstrations

Common Elements

The ITA Demonstration Projects will include several common elements. In addition, the demonstration will test several variations on how individual training accounts may be implemented across the country. While some of the design elements will constrain the design of the demonstrations to some degree, there are many other elements that are not specified here. These include, for example, the provider eligibility criteria, payment mechanism, participant enrollment and assessment processes, and role of community-based organizations as training providers. The approach to such issues is left to the discretion of the applicants.

All Adult Training ITA participants will be included. With the enactment of the Workforce Investment Act, a broader range of customers--dislocated workers, those seeking to leave welfare, adult learners, and even the employed--will be eligible for ITAs. To meet the needs of a diverse customer base, systems may consider redesigning the assessment process. For example, one site in the CMA project used a fast track for those who had already chosen a training area, a middle track for those who had narrowed selections to two or three choices, and a high-need track for those who needed extensive counseling to select a career field. In serving a broad range of customers, the increased self-direction and motivation among the "more-capable" customer enabled case managers to focus more time and energy on those who needed more intensive assistance.

  • What triggers the ITA?

An ITA is triggered by development of an Individual Employment Plan including an assessment process and selection of a training program after consultation with a case manager. In developing an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system, it is important to give the customer control over expenditures, to ensure that customers have the ability to make their own choices. Regardless of the payment mechanism selected, it should allow the customer to trigger payment.

  • Will participants know the amount of the ITA?

Participants will be informed of the dollar amount available in their ITA and available from other sources, such as the Pell grant, all subject to local and state policy. Customers at CMA Demonstration sites who knew that they would have access to a fixed amount, and knew what the amount was at the outset, appeared to behave differently than those not empowered with this information. They made conscious calculations about how to allocate their voucher across competing needs (e.g., tuition, books, tools, transportation) and tried to get the most for their money. The CMA Demonstration also indicated that customers have more awareness of, and a greater sense of responsibility for, their decisions when they can see exactly how much money has been spent to assist them in upgrading their skills or becoming employed. In order to raise their awareness and increase responsibility, participants should regularly receive statements that report the funds they have accessed from their account and those that remain.

  • What provider information must be received and disseminated?

Verifiable program-specific performance, cost, and any other information consistent with WIA requirements and State procedures, must be received and disseminated to participants through the consumer reports system. The burden of submitting information falls on the providers while the State is responsible for verifying that information and the State or localities are responsible for disseminating it. Providers are responsible for submitting program-specific performance information on the completion rate, placement rate, and wages for all its students and the placement, 6-month retention, 6-month wages, and credentials for its WIA clients. States and localities can request additional performance information, as well as any other information that they identify as being necessary for customers to make informed decisions about training providers and their programs.

  • How will new providers be brought in?

Inclusion of new providers must be allowed easily and quickly, with participants allowed to "nominate" new providers. If customer choice is to be a meaningful principle within the changing workforce development delivery system, then the range of available training choices must be broad. In the CMA Demonstration, it was possible for customers to influence the adding of additional approved vendors. However, it tended to be a cumbersome process because of staff fears of fraud and abuse. To enhance choice for customers and make participation attractive to providers, the application and approval process for programs and providers must be relatively simple but policed aggressively to minimize abuse. States and localities may want to explore expedited application and approval processes with appropriate safeguards.

  • How will providers be paid?

Training providers must be paid on a timely basis, that is, within 30 days, whether for one payment or for several benchmarked payments. Payment delays can result in vendor reluctance to accept voucher customers. Methods for paying for the training and other approved expenditures varied among the CMA Demonstration sites. One site set up a checkbook that gave customers a sense of control over funds as well as a way to track their individual account expenditures. This method requires some level of training in its use. One CMA site authorized credit card payments while another issued purchase orders.

  • How will staff learn about ITAs?

Staff will receive orientation and training regarding the ITA process and the role they will play in implementation. For an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system to effectively enable customers to make good career and training choices and to access all available sources of funding, special attention must be devoted to staff training and customer orientation. Since staff members will be expected to play a role significantly different than their previous one, they will need to communicate differently with customers, and they must understand and feel comfortable in their new role. Staff members should receive support in making these changes through learning networks and technical assistance.

  • How will customer satisfaction be determined?

Sites must agree to administer a common customer satisfaction survey to all participants to determine their level of satisfaction with the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system. The CMA Demonstration revealed that the freedom to choose a career direction contributed significantly to customer satisfaction and commitment. Asking participants to shape their own future appeared to build greater investment, buy-in, and ownership. Nonetheless, customers still needed institutional support and guidance and their views on the nature and quality of services need to be ascertained at multiple points in time.

  • How will staff satisfaction be determined?

Sites must agree to administer a common customer satisfaction survey to all staff. Asking staff to provide input into the development of the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system will help build greater investment, buy-in, and ownership. ITA Demonstration sites must administer a customer satisfaction survey to all staff to determine their level of satisfaction with and commitment to the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system.

Variable Elements

In addition to the Common Elements described above, there are several other elements of the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration design that are at the discretion of the applicant. The U.S. DOL is looking for applicants who are interested in aggressive and creative approaches that fall within the parameters of WIA. Some examples of these considerations are presented below:

Under WIA, the state or local Board may impose limits on ITAs, including limitations on the dollar amount and/or duration. There may be a limit for an individual participant that is based on the needs identified in the individual employment plan. There may be a policy decision by the state Board or local Board to establish a range of amounts and/or a maximum amount applicable to all ITAs.

  • Who approves the ITA? Is it the counselor, a person other than the counselor, or a committee that must approve the ITA?

Each local Board will determine, within the bounds of state policy, the approval process for an ITA. Depending upon local policy, the ITA may be approved by an individual participant's counselor, by a committee, by a representative of the local Board, or other mechanisms. This process will reflect what is determined locally to provide the appropriate balance between accountability for training funds with effective customer service.

  • What career direction is allowed? Does the customer have the final authority to choose a career direction so long as credible job opportunities exist? Is career direction limited to demand occupations as defined by WIB?

Although agency staff may inform and facilitate career decisions, the ultimate decision should rest with the customer, however, the extent to which customers are empowered to make career and training choices may vary across ITA systems. Shifting to an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system requires staff to turn over much of the control that they previously had over customer career paths and training. This will likely present the greatest challenge for existing staff shifting to an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system. An important consideration in developing an ITA/Eligible Training Provider system is what the staff response should be if an individual fails to conduct a thorough analysis of the labor market or if staff believes he/she is making unwise choices.

  • How is informed customer choice provided? What is the role of the case manager?

Training services must be provided in a manner that maximizes informed consumer choice in selecting an eligible program. Each local Board, through One-Stop centers, must make available to customers the state list of eligible training providers and consumer reports that include the performance and cost information described in WIA. The case manager's role is to provide customers with guidance and feedback appropriate to their needs that can help them understand their choices prior to the customer's selection of a training provider.

  • Who has final authority on selection of the training provider? Within the boundaries of the training plan, does the participant have final authority to select a training provider? Can the counselor reject a customer's selection of a training provider?

WIA regulations state that an individual selects a training program after consultation with a case manager. However, the challenge in developing a successful ITA/Eligible Training Provider system is delineating the appropriate role for staff in a program that accommodates a great deal of customer choice and authority. A variety of approaches may be used to assist customers in making good career choices and selecting appropriate training programs. Determining the limited but legitimate instances where a case manager might reject the participant's choice and identifying an appeals process for individuals are some areas that will need to be addressed.

  • What can the ITA pay for? How may ITA funds be used?

An ITA may pay for a narrow or broad range of services, but not for intensive/supportive services prior to the determination of need for training and selection of a training program (though some states and local areas could set up accounts for intensive/supportive services).

Clearly, tuition and fees can be funded by ITAs, and many states and locals will permit ITAs to be used for equipment, tools, books, transportation, or other costs (even training-related child care or living expenses) that raise the probability of successful completion of training. Locals will also have to assure that case managers and providers of training are accessing the full range of funds that are available (including Pell grants) and that can be used to fund many of the same expenses as an ITA.

Evaluation Designs


The evaluation of the ITA Eligible Provider Initiative will generate valuable information about alternative ITA/Eligible Provider models which will assist states and localities by providing guidance for the implementation of more promising models that have the greatest likelihood of producing positive impacts for participants. The evaluation of the ITA Demonstration will be conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, with the assistance of Social Policy Research Associates and Decision Information Resources.

The ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative includes the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration, in which a set of 10 to 12 sites will design and implement their own models for providing ITAs to individuals seeking training from local Workforce Investment Act agencies. The evaluation of the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration will entail an implementation and process analysis of the activities at the pilot sites based on two rounds of in-person visits to each site.

Another part of the ITA/Eligible Provider Initiative is the ITA Experiment, which will be used to test different ITA models for adult workers to determine their impacts on participant outcomes. The ITA Experiment will be based on a classical experimental design, with random assignment of eligible individuals to the alternative models. The models to be tested will be based on information from early-implementing WIA sites, as well as previous experience with training vouchers in the Career Management Account Demonstration and other related programs. All of the selected models will be tested in each of the approximately six sites. Local operation of the experiment will begin on July 1, 2000. The evaluation of the ITA Experiment will include an implementation and process analysis based on three rounds of in-person visits to each of the six sites. The evaluators will also examine how outcomes vary for participants under different models based on administrative data and data collected from a follow-up survey.

Section Four: Technical Assistance

Technical Assistance Services

Extensive and on-going technical assistance services will be available to the demonstration sites. A tentative listing of services is provided below. The actual offerings may vary depending upon the expressed needs of grantees. The description of technical assistance services includes three basic categories: Learning Network Services, Site-Specific Customized Services, and State and Regional Policy Development Services.

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated (PPA) and Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW) are assisting the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in providing technical assistance to grantees.

Learning Network
ITA/Eligible Training Provider listserv. As an ongoing means of creating a learning exchange among participants, an ITA/Eligible Training Provider listserv will be established. Grantees will be invited to post a question, problem, or insight and invite comment from all others.

Talent bank networking services. Resource people from across the nation who have and are willing to share special knowledge about the use of vouchers in adult worker retraining will be recruited to join the talent bank. Grantees seeking assistance from the talent bank will be connected with appropriate talent bank members based on site needs and the availability of relevant resource people.

Issue briefs. As the demonstration project develops, particularly useful approaches to design elements and solutions to common problems experienced across sites will be shared in short, concise issue briefs. These short papers will be disseminated through the listserv and posted on the DOL's web site.

Regional and national learning conferences for grantees. Each grantee will, as a condition of the grant, be expected to participate in a series of learning conferences and workshops. These will be structured to inject knowledge into the entire demonstration and to encourage and support dialogue among grantees. It is expected that grantees will participate in three to four of these sessions each year.

Site-specific Customized Services

Site-specific customized services will enable sites to successfully address the technical requirements of ITA implementation. This is a tentative list of offerings currently under consideration by the U.S. DOL. U.S. DOL will continue to gauge the needs of grantees and the system and will adjust the actual scope of site-specific services accordingly.

Planning and Management Issues

The first set of customized services will focus on the planning and management issues related to establishing eligible training provider systems:

Implementation Planning -- Identifying all of the issues that need to be addressed to efficiently move forward with implementation of eligible training provider systems.

Case Management Process Design -- Developing a process for identifying client needs and providing the appropriate level of services related to individual case management.

Case Manager Training Needs Assessments -- Conducting assessments of staff competencies and identifying development needs related to case management roles and responsibilities.

Case Manager Training Module Design -- Developing appropriate learning activities to address case manager training needs.

Constructing the account, payment process and use -- Identifying all of the technical elements involved in establishing an effective individual training account system.

Systems Development Issues

A second set of customized services will focus on the design and implementation of eligible training provider systems:

ITA Expenditure Report System Design -- Identifying technical elements involved in establishing an expenditure reporting system.

Eligible Training Provider Selection Process Development -- Providing options to states and localities in establishing appropriate procedures for identifying eligible programs and in creating guidelines for helping clients select appropriate programs for needed services.

Eligible Training Provider Performance Information and Consumer Report system Design -- Identifying options for technical elements involved in establishing an appropriate system for reporting performance, linking administrative records, setting performance levels, verifying performance data and displaying eligible training program and provider consumer information.

Regional and State System-Building

In addition to providing site-specific, practitioner-focused technical assistance, the PPA/CSW Team will be available to facilitate regional and state system-building policy discussions including:

Again, this is a tentative list of offerings currently under consideration by the U.S. DOL. U.S. DOL will continue to gauge the needs of grantees and the system and will adjust the actual scope of technical assistance services accordingly. All of the TA services will be available to and through regional DOL offices. The team will focus on building the capacity within the regional offices to deliver relevant information to states, workforce boards, and One-Stops within their regions. During this capacity-building phase, it is expected that the role of the TA team will begin at a fairly intensive level and diminish over time as regional staff gain experience and expertise.

Technical Assistance Providers

DOL has selected Public Policy Associates, Incorporated (PPA) and Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW) to provide technical assistance to grantees. These firms were previously selected by DOL to conduct the CMA Demonstration Project Evaluation. PPA and CSW have a solid history of working together on workforce development and employment and training related projects. As an integrated consulting team, PPA and CSW will offer very strong internal capacity, quick response and effective support to meet the needs of the ITA demonstration sites. This support will supplement technical assistance services already available through the DOL Regional Offices and other contractors grantees might access using DOL monies.

(Note: A complete listing of the DOL Regional Office representatives can be found in Section Six of this briefing book.)

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated

119 Pere Marquette Drive, Suite 1-C

Lansing, MI 48912-1231

Phone: (517) 485-4477

Fax: (517) 485-4488


Public Policy Associates, Incorporated is a national public policy research, development, and evaluation firm based in Lansing, Michigan. The firm serves clients in the public and private sectors at the national, state, and local levels by conducting research and analysis that supports informed strategic decision making. The PPA staff is comprised of professionals with extensive experience and credentials in the areas of workforce and educational policy, quantitative and qualitative research methods, complex data analysis, and strategic consultation.

Corporation for a Skilled Workforce

2890 Carpenter Road, Suite 1600

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Phone: (734) 971-6060

Fax: (734) 971-6688


Corporation for a Skilled Workforce is an Ann Arbor-based, not-for-profit organization that specializes in facilitating systemic change in the workforce development field. CSW works extensively with national policy makers, states, and communities to develop and implement new strategies and organizations to respond effectively to changing needs. CSW focuses in particular on the development of One-Stop career centers, workforce boards, WIA implementation, and labor market research and analysis. CSW's partners include veteran innovators from the state and local levels.

Role of Demonstration Sites in Technical Assistance to Others

The sites selected to participate in the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration will be expected to collaborate, connect, participate, and share their lessons and insights with other grantees. In addition, grantees will be expected to serve as learning laboratories so that the lessons from the demonstration can be shared throughout the nation. Specifically, the sites selected as grantees will be expected to participate in a variety of activities including:

Additional assurances can be found in Section V of the SGA.

A complete copy of the SGA for the ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration is provided in Section Five of this briefing book.

Section Five: Proposal Development

SGA/Federal Register Notice

The full SGA document is available at the following web site:

Other Federal Guidance Information

Appendices to the SGA document are available at the following web site:

Section Six: Additional Voucher Background Information

Research Report: Career Management Account Demonstration Project Evaluation

This research study was conducted by Public Policy Associates, Incorporated (PPA) and Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW) under a contract with the U.S. Department of Labor.

In early 1995, the U.S. DOL offered interested SDAs a financial incentive, in the form of demonstration grants, to design and implement voucher-style programs for training dislocated workers. This demonstration project, known as the Career Management Account (CMA) Demonstration, was conducted at 13 different JTPA sites including:

1. Arizona: City of Phoenix

2. California: San Bernardino County

3. Florida: Palm Beach County Private Industry Council

4. Georgia: Atlanta Regional Commission

5. Maine: Training and Development Corporation

6. Maryland: Office of Employment Development

7. Massachusetts: Corporation for Business, Work and Learning

8. Missouri: SDA II Private Industry Council

9. New York: New York City Department of Employment

10. Ohio: City of Cincinnati Employment and Training Division

11. Oklahoma: Eastern Workforce Development Board, Inc.

12. Oregon: The Oregon Consortium

13. Texas: Central Texas Council of Governments

The demonstration sites were authorized to provide services under the CMA for two program years. The basic eligibility standard for the CMA programs was Title III eligibility. Beyond that, the sites varied substantially in their participant selection criteria.

The multi-site evaluation conducted by PPA/CSW provides a rich source of information about the promises and challenges involved in implementing voucher-style training programs. A copy of the evaluation report is being provided to information session attendees as a separate document. Additional copies of the report are available from DOL/ETA.

Research Report: Vouchers Under JTPA: Lessons for Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)

This research study looked at nine JTPA sites that used vouchers or voucher-like approaches. The paper, which was done by John Trutko and Burt Barnow under a contract with James Bell Associates, will soon be available at the ETA website.

  • All nine sites used a "constrained choice" model featuring:
    • assessment/counseling to determine appropriate training,
  • training limited to high demand occupations,
  • screening of vendors for cost, quality, and satisfactory JTPA client placement rate, and
  • approval by counselor alone or by several SDA staff on the training proposed by the client.
  • No pre-established accounts were used for payment, but rather an individual referral and "voucher" for pre-approved training was used.
  • The sites offer examples of some other variations around which key policy choices have to be made:
  • Voucher cost and time limits - Options:
      • •Some SDAs had caps on expenditures per participant.
  • •In all cases, vouchers had dollar limit based on training and vendors identified.

• Vouchers were issued for single term or semester, renewals for longer- term training.

  • Payment variations:
      • •Some paid for entire cost shortly after client enrolled (as for private pay students).
      • •Some made partial payments at several points: after enrollment, contingent on continued attendance, completion, and placement.
  • Screening of programs for inclusion on the list: Used RFP/RFQ process
  • •Some limited training to high-demand occupations.
  • •Some screened vendors on the basis of cost of tuition.
  • •Most asked for information on and screened the vendor as an organization, as well as on the programs.
  • •Much variation in degree of rigor in reviewing and approving the application--one site conducted site visits to each vendor with an industry expert and SDA staff person. Some SDAs took all vendors unless they had a very poor track record.
      • •Some sites had an expedited application and approval process for new programs that individual customers identified.
  • Listing of information on programs:
      • •Some SDAs had developed program/provider directors (in hard copy notebook form).
  • •Some involved in developing automated directories. One site had an Internet-based listing for over 1,500 training programs.
  • •General program performance data was not available for most programs, but in the instances where it was, there was no attempt to verify what providers had submitted. There was monitoring of some programs on quality dimensions and outcomes for JTPA clients
  • Customer/client involvement:
  • •One site allowed the client to research three possible programs and then bring them to the counselor for further discussion and final approval.
      • •Clients were usually restricted to occupations in demand, though exceptions were made if the individual participant could show that he or she will get a job after completing training.

• The SDA counselor or other staff exercised final approval in all sites.

  • Results:

Client outcomes: Program staff thought that placement and earnings outcomes were about the same as under contract training, but that there was much higher customer satisfaction.

Providers: The voucher system generally brought in many providers and programs that in many cases were new to the SDA. It often changed the blend of providers.

Costs: Startup raised costs initially. In some cases, more individuals received training but at a lower per-person cost.

  • Some learnings from this research for ITA implementation under WIA:
    • Need for high-quality assessment and high levels of involvement of counselors with clients.

• This was important to maximize quality choices for all clients, but particularly for the 5 to 10% of customers who made what were considered inappropriate choices, either in overestimating their own skills or choosing occupational areas for which there was too little demand.

There is a need for continued monitoring of performance by providers. In areas where there are many training providers and programs, this will be a challenging task.

  • Other practical concerns raised by program operators in regard to implementation of ITAs and the eligible training provider system under WIA that may be similar to those you will wrestle with when you implement ITAs and customer choice:
    • Targeting: Which clients will get ITAs?

Amount/Time Limits: How will the size of ITAs be established? For what period of time?

Utilization of ITAs: Can participants combine programs or use "leftover" money in ITA accounts for other training or supplies?

Out-of-WIB Training Programs: How to monitor training programs in distant sites that may not be within the geographic area of the WIB? What to do if local WIB does not concur with all the options available on the state-approved list?

Participation of Providers:

• Community colleges and some other vendors may resist taking attendance and providing placement services (which they would need to do if contingent payments are used and to provide data on overall accountability).

• CBOs may experience problems if they are planning to offer class-sized training. They also may not be as sophisticated at marketing as other providers.

• One lesson for WIA system is the need to work with vendors but also to assure neutrality/level playing field in referral process.

ETA Regional Offices

REGION I - Boston

Robert Semler

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

JFK Federal Building, Room E-350

Boston, Massachusetts 02203

Commercial (617) 565-3630

Fax Number (617) 565-2229

REGION II - New York

Marilyn Shea

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

201 Varick St., Room 755

New York, New York 10014

Commercial (212) 337-2139

Fax Number (212) 337-2144

REGION III - Philadelphia

Edwin Strong, Jr.

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

PO Box 8796

3535 Market Street, Room 13300

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Commercial (215) 596-6336

Fax Number (215) 596-0329

REGION IV - Atlanta

Toussaint Hayes

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

Atlanta Federal Center, Room 6M12

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Commercial (404) 562-2092

Fax Number (404) 562-2149

REGION V - Chicago

Byron Zuidema

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

230 S. Dearborn St., Room 628

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Commercial (312) 353-0313

Fax Number (312) 353-4474

REGION VI - Dallas

Joseph Juarez

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

Federal Building, Room 317

525 Griffin Street

Dallas, Texas 75202

Commercial (214) 767-8263

Fax Number (214) 767-5113

REGION VII - Kansas City

Herman Wallace

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

City Center Square

1100 Main Street, Suite 1050

Kansas City, Missouri 64105

Commercial (816) 426-3796

Fax Number (816) 426-2729


Thomas M. Dowd

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

1999 Broadway Street, Suite 1780

Denver, Colorado 80202-5716

Commercial (303) 844-1650

Fax Number (303) 844-1685

REGION IX - San Francisco

Armando Quiroz

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

71 Stevenson Street, Room 830

PO Box 193767

San Francisco, California 94119-3767

Commercial (415) 975-4610

Fax Number (415) 975-4612

REGION X - Seattle

Michael Brauser

Regional Administrator

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, Washington 98101-3212

Commercial (206) 553-7700

Fax Number (206) 553-0098

ITA/Eligible Training Provider Glossary

This section provides a glossary of key terms that relate to ITA/Eligible Training Provider programs and services. The glossary is organized alphabetically.

Career Management Account (CMA)

A Career Management Account is a term that was used in a recently completed U.S. DOL demonstration project involving the use of vouchers to pay for training provided to dislocated workers who qualified for services under Title III of JTPA. The demonstration project was conducted prior to passage of the WIA.

Consumer Report

A Consumer Report consists of key information on the performance outcomes of all training and education providers in the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system.


The customer is defined primarily as a program participant who is eligible to receive training services through an Individual Training Account. Training vendors, employers, and staff are also considered valued "customers" of the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system.

Core Services

Core services are services that One-Stop Career Centers are responsible for providing for all adults and dislocated workers under WIA. Core services include initial assessment of skill levels, job search and placement assistance, provision of labor market information, provision of information about the performance and cost of education and training providers in the area, career counseling, information about filing unemployment compensation claims, assistance in establishing eligibility for welfare-to-work programs, information relating to the availability of supportive services such as child care and transportation, and follow-up counseling services after someone becomes employed. The WIA mandates that there be universal access to core services.

Eligible Training Provider

An eligible training provider is an organization, entity or institution, such as a public or private college and university, community-based organization, or proprietary school whose application has been approved by the local workforce board and submitted to the state for inclusion on the state list of to provide training services through the use of an Individual Training Account.

Eligible Training Provider List

An eligible training provider list is a statewide compilation of providers that are approved to provide services through the One-Stop system. These lists contain consumer information, including cost and performance information for each of the providers, so that participants can make informed choices on where to use their ITAs.

Eligible Training Provider Approval Selection

Eligible Training Provider Approval Selection is the method for approving training providers' programs to be initially eligible (if the program is not HEA-eligible or an apprenticeship program) and to be subsequently eligible (for all programs) using criteria such as completion rates, placement rates, earnings or wages, and other performance indicators, as determined by the state.

Individual Employment Plan

The individual employment plan is an ongoing strategy jointly developed by the participant and the case manager that identifies the participant's employment goals, the appropriate achievement objectives, and the appropriate combination of services for the participant to achieve the employment goals.

Individual Training Account (ITA)

An ITA is an expenditure account established on behalf of a participant.

Intensive Services

Intensive services are services that local Boards are responsible for providing for adults and dislocated workers under WIA. Intensive services may include specialized assessments of individual skill levels and service needs, individual or group counseling and career planning, development of an individual employment plan, short-term job-readiness activities, literacy activities related to basic workforce readiness, and paid or unpaid work experience.

Local Board

Local Board means a local Workforce Investment Board established under WIA sec. 117 to set policy for the local workforce investment system.

Targeted Customer

A targeted customer is a participant that is determined to be "more capable" of utilizing the ITA/Eligible Training Provider system to choose a training provider. Some CMA sites focused on using vouchers to serve customers that appeared to be better able to handle the voucher process--customers with recent labor force attachment, stronger work history, and more education. However, with the enactment of the Workforce Investment Act, a broader range of customers--dislocated workers, those seeking to leave welfare, adult learners, and even the employed--are eligible for ITAs.

Training Services

Training services is a special category of services that local Boards are responsible for providing to adults and dislocated workers under WIA. Training services may include occupational skills training, on-the-job training, job-readiness training, adult education and literacy activities, cooperative education programs, training programs operated by the private sector, skill upgrading and retraining, entrepreneurial training, and customized training conducted by an employer.

Training Market

A training market reflects an approach with vendors selling training directly to individual participants rather than through intermediary organizations.

Universal Services

Universal services are services available to every individual through the One-Stop system including information about job vacancies, career options, relevant employment trends, job search techniques, resume writing, and access to the Consumer Report information gathered on training institutions in the area through the eligible training provider process.


Vendor means an entity responsible for providing generally required goods or services to be used in the WIA program. These goods or services may be for the recipient's or sub-recipient's own use or for the use of participants in the program.


A voucher is a document that is exchangeable for training services.


DOL WIA Implementation Web-Based Resources

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Plain English Version)

Summary of Workforce Development Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998

(P.L. 105-220)

Implementing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (White Paper)
WIA Interim Final Regulations

WIA Interim Regs Q&As


Planning Resources - Individual Training Accounts

Planning Resources - Eligible Training Providers

WIA Implementation Training Introduction (Slide Show)

Research Reports

Kenny, Cynthia "Survey on Selected Services for Dislocated Workers under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA): Use of Skill Grants/Vouchers and Reemployment Services for Profiled Workers in Title III Programs Across the Nation" National Association of Counties, June 1997.

Padden, Jeffrey D., John Austin, Nancy Hewat, Larry Good, and David Toombs. Career Management Account Demonstration Project Final Report, U.S. Department of Labor/Public Policy Associates, Incorporated and Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Trutko, John and Burt Barnow, "Vouchers Under JTPA: Lessons for Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), U.S. Department of Labor (Forthcoming)

Background & Commentary

Good, Larry and Sam Leiken, "Individual Training Accounts: Old Wine in New Bottles or a New Vintage." Workforce Investment Quarterly. National Governors' Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices. Volume V, Issue 4, 1998. NGA: Washington, D.C., 1998.

Maguire, Sheila, "Surviving, and Maybe Even Thriving, under Vouchers." Public/Private Ventures, New York, NY, (Forthcoming)

Sayner, Steve, "Key Implementation Decisions Affecting Low-Income Adults Under the Workforce Investment Act." Center For Law and Social Policy Washington, DC, August 1999.

Sheets, Robert G., "Federal Strategies for Building a Comprehensive Workforce Preparation System in the United States: A Demand-Side, Market-Based Approach." Paper prepared for the Training Subcouncil of the Competitiveness Policy Council, DeKalb, IL, August 24, 1992.

Steuerle, C. Eugene, Van Coorn Ooms, George Peterson, and Robert D. Reischauer, Eds. Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services, Brookings Institution (Forthcoming)

Section Seven: Information Session Evaluation Form

DOL ITA/Eligible Provider Demonstration

Information Session Evaluation Form

Please rate the following items (circle one rating for each item listed):

Poor Average Excellent

Session Information 1 2 3 4 5

Session Materials 1 2 3 4 5

Presenter(s) Methods 1 2 3 4 5

Presenter(s) Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

Overall Session 1 2 3 4 5

Please comment on the following:

  1. The most important thing I learned from this session is:
  1. Other important things are:
  2. The most important decision I have made is:
  3. I feel differently now because:
  4. The session would be better if:
  1. Other Comments:

Thank you for your feedback!

1. Harvey, Thomas R., Checklist for Change: A Pragmatic Approach to Creating and Controlling Change, Allan and Bacon, Boston, MA, 1990, p.108.

2. "There is no single model of a work first program. What defines such programs is their overall philosophy: that any job is a good job and that the best way to succeed in the labor market is to join it, developing work habits and skills on the job rather than in a classroom... Beyond this common philosophy, however, work first programs vary significantly in the services they offer, the sequencing of their activities, the extent to which participation is required and enforced, and even their goals and approach." (emphasis added). [Brown, Amy, Work First: How to Implement an Employment-Focused Approach to Welfare Reform, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, March 1997, p.11.]

3. Bresnick, David, Managing Employment and Training Programs: Making JTPA Work, Human Services Press, New York, NY, 1986, p.132.

4. Malhotra, Yogesh. (1996). Business Process Redesign: An Overview [WWW document]. URL To provide a sense of gradation on the scale, this author lists the difference between quality management and business process reengineering:

Quality Management Business Process Reengineering
Level of Change Incremental Radical
Starting Point Existing Process Clean Slate
Frequency of Change One-Time/Continuous One-Time
Time Required Short Long
Participation Bottom-Up Top-Down
Typical Scope Narrow, within functions Broad, cross-functional
Risk Moderate High
Primary Enabler Statistical Control Information Technology
Type of Change Cultural Cultural/Structural

5. Kofman, Fred and Peter Senge, "Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations", in Chawla, Sarita and John Rhenish, e's., Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, 1995, pp.34-35. The authors note: "Leadership takes on important new meanings in learning organizations. In essence, leaders are those building the new organization and its capabilities. They are the ones 'walking ahead,' regardless of their management position or hierarchical authority... It has been proven again and again in military campaigns that the only leader whom soldiers will reliably follow when their lives are on the line is the leader who is competent and who soldiers believe is committed to their well-being."

6. Osborne, David and Peter Plastrik, Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA, 1997, p.269. The authors list tools to accomplish the three goals as well (Tools for Changing Habits; Tools for Touching Hearts; and, Tools for Winning Minds, pp.269-277).

7. Osborne and Plastrik (1997, pp.274-275), in their review of Peter Senge's work in The Fifth Discipline, note the power and role of attractive ideas:

"Creating governing ideas has important effects on organizational culture:

It helps employees align their energy toward common goals.

It energizes the organization, because it speaks to employees' dreams--their need for meaningful achievements.

It helps organizations shift from bureaucratic control to employee self-control."

8. The Corporation for Business, Work and Learning lists in its Final Report the following products/tools developed as a result of the CMA project:

Model of Service

Voucher Management System (automated account management and tracking integrated with participant demographics)

Training Vendor Performance Report

Catalog format

Customer satisfaction survey tools

Focus group facilitation guide

Emphasis on residual products from the operation of a demonstration can be indicated at the front-end of the grantee selection process and reinforced through the periodic reporting process.

9. While "self-service" and "customer choice" may rightfully be associated with some of the service components, the overwhelming majority of program operators felt that their management of the overriding process was required given the public nature of the funds.

Back to Top