APPENDIX 1: DATA LANDSCAPE
Table of Contents
Introduction
The 10 Big Ideas
Digging Deeper
- Measure what matters to workers, capturing a full range of job quality indicators
- Center equity in measurement
- Increase mandatory human capital data disclosure
- Link public and private data to gain new insights into the quality of jobs
- Leverage business data to demonstrate the return on investment from good jobs
- Revise data systems to include and support the non-W2 workforce
- Strengthen workforce system metrics to deliver results for workers and businesses
- Use public and private spending to measure and strengthen equity and good jobs
- Strengthen state and local capacity for data-driven decision-making to advance good jobs
- Invest in strengthening job quality measurement
Understanding the Impact
Appendices
Acknowledgements
![5](https://familiesandworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/5.png)
The charts below capture a sample of the analysis conducted by the performance and commercial working groups. They outline some of the key sources reviewed by the working group members; the metrics currently included in those sources and their use cases; as well as data and access gaps and limitations. While this information is not meant to be exhaustive, it offers a snapshot of some of the key data sources relevant to job quality and an understanding of how the working groups structured their analysis.
Data sources
Performance Data Landscape
WIOA Programs
Includes Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Employment Service, Vocational Rehabilitation, Native American, and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs
Metrics(s) Included | Current Use Cases | Data Limitations | Access Limitations |
Performance metrics include: Employment Rate 2nd Quarter and 4th Quarter after Exit, Median Earnings, Credential Attainment, Measurable Skills Gain, and Effectiveness in Serving Employers. Data on demographics as well as barriers is also collected but not considered a performance metric. Information on services delivered is also collected as a participant moves through the program. |
Data are primarily used for state and local performance measurement for WIOA programs. Compliance influences the formula funding received by the workforce board. Each state is required to establish a “state adjusted level of performance” in the state plan. Indicators are identified in WIOA Section 116, but the levels are determined through negotiation between states and the Secretaries of Labor and Education.
Local workforce boards, and their Americas Job Center operators, collect and maintain the data. |
Data collection is influenced by what is required in federal or state regulations. Collection is performed by service providers; who is enrolled and what data are collected is tied to what is incentivized. For example, the primary metric is placement, so service providers are disincentivized to enroll individuals who will not be placed quickly. Additionally, as information on only one barrier is required, not all data about an individual is routinely captured. States can add additional collection requirements beyond what is included in the federal regulations. This results in variance by state.
Each local area or state has their own database. Roll up at the federal level is performed through data extracts using the Participant Individual Record Layout (PIRL) template. Some states publish data on a regular basis but when and how varies greatly. DOL publishes data at the system and the state level each year. |
Only individuals directly supporting the WIOA program or state administrators have direct access to the data as it includes participant demographics, contact information, and the details of the services received. Many states do not permit the use of an API (e.g. California), so data cannot be pushed to/pulled from the data system easily. |
Tags: Stability, Wage, Mobility
TANF
Metrics(s) Included |
Current Use Cases |
Data Limitations |
Access Limitations |
The primary performance metric is Work Participation Rate (WPR) which requires states to ensure that 50 percent of TANF-receiving families with a work-eligible adult – and 90 percent of families with two work-eligible adults – be engaged in a minimum number of hours of work or other qualifying activities. Some states have gone beyond the WPR and added additional performance measures for their state but this is not standardized across the country. Common measures include new placements, ongoing employment, wages, wage gains, and employment retention. Data on demographics is also collected but not considered a performance metric. Information on services delivered, along with the individual’s eligibility status, are also collected as the participant moves through the program. |
Data are primarily used to ensure that individuals remain eligible for program services and secondarily to determine program outcomes.
Counties and TANF service providers collect and maintain the data. States and territories must provide information on families receiving and formerly receiving assistance for each sample month in a quarter. |
Data collection is influenced by what is required by federal or state regulations. Collection is performed by service providers; who is enrolled and what data are collected is tied to what is incentivized. For example, the primary metric is work participation rates, so service providers will regularly see individuals move on and off their caseload as they become ineligible.
Data extracts are sent quarterly to the US Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Family Assistance. HHS publishes data at least annually. |
Program level data are limited to staff supporting TANF. States have access to wage data for verification purposes but are often limited in how they may use these data analytically. Additionally, many states do not have access to employment data for former TANF recipients. |
Tags: Stability, Wage
SNAP/SNAP E+T
Metrics(s) Included |
Current Use Cases |
Data Limitations |
Access Limitations |
Primary performance measures include the number and percentage of current and former participants in unsubsidized employment AND their median quarterly earnings during the 2nd and 4th quarter after completion of participation in SNAP E&T; who completed a training, educational or work experience, or an on-the-job training component; or who fall within certain demographic criteria. Data on demographics is also collected but not considered a performance metric. Information on services delivered, along with the individual’s eligibility status, are also collected as the participant moves through the program. |
Data are primarily collected to determine if the individual remains eligible for SNAP services and secondarily to track the performance of the program itself. States administer SNAP; however, data are normally collected by a local provider. |
Data collection is influenced by what is required in federal or state regulations. Collection is performed by service providers; who is enrolled and what data are collected is eligibility requirements. State data are transmitted to the federal government through required reporting. The Health and Human Services Office of Family Assistance collects and analyzes data on caseloads, expenditures, work participation, and more. HHS provides reporting on trends system wide each year. |
Program level staff supporting SNAP E+T for their area. Each state is encouraged to develop their own system, and access is managed at the state level. |
Tags: Stability, Wage, Mobility
For additional government survey-based data sources, refer to:
- Urban Institute’s “Measuring Job Quality Current Measures, Gaps, and New Approaches” report (pages 18-19)
- The Workforce Data Quality Campaign’s “Classroom to Career: Leveraging Employment Data to Measure Labor Market Outcomes” report (page 4)
Additional Resources and Efforts Consulted
JQMI Working Group members and advisors shared and drew on many existing initiatives and reports to inform their work, including:
The Coleridge Initiative ⧫ U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation’s Jobs and Employment Data Exchange (JEDx) ⧫ WorkRise ⧫ Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab ⧫ The Policy Lab at Brown University ⧫ University of Chicago Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice’s Employment Instability, Family Well-being, and Social Policy Network (EINet) Working Papers ⧫ University of Buffalo School of Management’s U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index ⧫ Institute for Higher Education Policy’s Envisioning the National Postsecondary Data Infrastructure in the 21st Century – Classroom to Career: Leveraging Employment Data to Measure Labor Market Outcomes report ⧫ Many Americans Are Struggling and Need Better Information to Make a Comeback – Workforce Information Advisory Council ⧫ The Society for Human Resource Management ⧫ J-PAL North America Worker Prosperity Initiative ⧫ U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index ⧫ Urban Institute’s Do No Harm Guide: Applying Equity Awareness in Data Visualization and Measuring Job Quality Report ⧫ The Aspen Institute’s Job Quality Tools Library