The Performance Funding Model was designed to help drive stronger performance by measuring local workforce development boards on customized, agreed-upon goals, reflecting Florida-emphasized workforce development priorities, with aligned economic rewards for achievement.
In fiscal year 2015-16, local workforce development boards were evaluated on four short-horizon metrics. The first three short-horizon metrics described below focus on job seekers, while the fourth one is business focused.
Unemployed Placement Rate measured the proportion of participants who did not have any earnings in the previous quarter but had earnings in the current quarter. This metric focused on job seekers who have gone long periods of time without a wage and are particularly in need of finding employment. The metric considered participants who:
Time to Earnings 1 measured the number of quarters between the time when the same group of participants in the Unemployed Placement Rate began earning a wage and the time when they either entered the system or last earned a wage. It answered the question: "How long did it take these participants to find a job?"
Cost per Employed Exit 1, 2 measured a local board's total formula funds expenditure divided by the number of employed exits from that local board during the fiscal year. An employed exit was included in this calculation if he/she exited the system within that fiscal year and showed a positive earning the quarter in which he/she exited.
Business Engagement measured the number of customer satisfaction surveys a board sent through Salesforce to business contacts. A local board received credit in fiscal year 2015-16 by sending the survey, regardless of whether the survey was completed or the response was favorable. The survey asked three questions of the business contact, and each business contact could only be sent one survey every 90 days. Note: Although response rates had no effect in fiscal year 2015-16, they were a factor in how targets were set for fiscal year 2016-17. The lower a board's response rate in fiscal year 2015-16, the higher its target in fiscal year 2016-17.
First, a performance target was established for each metric for each local board.
Throughout the year, local boards received points for their performance on each metric.
At the end of the fiscal year, a performance score was calculated for each metric, reflecting each board's performance relative to its target.
Additional credit for serving certain populations was factored into the performance score of the placement and exit metrics.
A global performance score for each local board was then calculated by adding together the performance scores for each metric.
For those local boards that met the minimum threshold for each metric, the TIE approach was used to evaluate and reward performance as follows:
Additional Credit: Additional points added to the initial score of the Unemployed Placement Rate, Time to Earnings and Cost per Employed Exit metrics for serving certain populations with barriers to employment. In fiscal year 2015-16, additional credit was provided for serving:
Employed Exit: For the purposes of the Performance Funding Model, a job seeker who earned a wage in the quarter in which he/she exited.
Global Performance Score: The total sum of performance scores for all four metrics for a local board.
Global Performance Target: The minimum global performance score needed to receive Target funding. In fiscal year 2015-16, the global performance target was 400 (100 points in each metric added together).
Minimum Threshold 1: The minimum threshold of performance for a given metric. In fiscal year 2015-16, the minimum threshold was a performance score of 75 or greater.
Performance Score: The measurement of actual performance by a local board on a metric relative to the target set for that metric.
Performance Target: The expectation set for performance in each metric for each local board.
Target, Improve, Excel (TIE): The approach used to evaluate local boards that have met the required minimum threshold on each performance metric.
1 A minimum threshold of 66.66, instead of the intended 75, was inadvertently used in the calculations for the Time to Earnings and Cost per Employed Exit metrics.
2 Florida's strengthening economy and lower unemployment rate resulted in fewer Floridians seeking services from local workforce development boards compared to the prior year. For this reason, CareerSource Florida provided a 20-percent adjustment for economic conditions to each board's target for the Cost per Employed Exit metric during this inaugural year. (For more information, see FY 2015-2016 Cost per Employed Exit Targets.)