U6A1-24 - Part II - Job Description and Delivery Model

Institute for Policy Studies

248

the

249

broad outlines. Administration was partly devolved to th

250

profit vendors may

251

after

(7)

252

1

program’s goal is to maximize long 1 0∆= − 0

∆

programs began duri

Act of 1993 (GPRA), the JTPA system was designed primarily by

253

The JTPA program included a performance management

254

term

July 2000, the performance management system was modified in

255

• The entered employment rate; •

•

•

unsubsidized employment.

•

•

•

256

based performance

practitioners established to advise the Employment and Training

developing the performance management system felt that under

257

the

A

258

1

1

y Families (TANF). A finding that participants have “better”

259

reliable data on

260

261

1

∆

262

1 ∆ Gay and Borus (1980)

Employment in quarter after program, before

263

1 ∆

term

264

1 ∆

before after

measures and program impacts.

265

1 ∆

“hard to serve.” Both the predicted impacts and the hard

ing taxpayer) or to

266

the

267

268

based contracts

269

the

270

enrolled treatment group members

the

271

sites should immediately terminate participants who are employed

employment at termination to measuring it 90 days after termination.

272

273

management systems in employment and training programs is a

s devote time and effort to

274

OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

have suggested

outcome

275

•

•

would provide a

•

•

276

outcom

277

278

management system designer consists of attempting to anticipate,

fact

279

performance management system. An individual or firm might adopt

(9). WIA became law in 1998 but was not implemented until 2000.

280

the WIA performance standards system.

(24). See Training and Employment Notice (TEIN) 31

281

282

283

284

th

285

286

Public Administration Review. 58(4): pp. 307

287

1988. “Establishing a Performance Management System for Targeted