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 2016-17, local workforce development boards were evaluated on seven metrics. The placement and exit metrics focus on job seekers, while the business metrics focus on businesses served by the CareerSource Florida network.
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. The metric considered participants who:
Time to Earnings measured the number of quarters between the current quarter and the time when the same participants in the Unemployed Placement Rate metric either entered the system or last earned a wage. It answered the question: "How long have these participants been without a job?" Boards should aim for a low Time to Earnings rate.
Average Earnings measured the average post-exit earnings of all system exiters.
Cost per Employed Exit measured a local board's total formula funds expenditure divided by the number of employed exits from that local board. An employed exit was included in this calculation if he/she exited the system within the current fiscal year and showed a positive earning the quarter in which he/she exited. Boards should aim for a low Cost per Employed Exit rate.
Earnings per Dollar Spent measured the earnings of exiters as it relates to the local board's expenditures.
Business Engagement measured the number of customer satisfaction surveys a board sent through Salesforce to business accounts. (A customer satisfaction survey could be sent once every 90 days to a business account in Salesforce.) The number of surveys sent was the initial score for this metric.
Customer Satisfaction measured how satisfied business customers were with the services they received from a local board based on surveys distributed through Salesforce. The performance score was determined by the survey response rate, the expected response rate (either 25, 45 or 70 percent) and the average response to the first two questions on the survey:
A performance target was established for each metric for each local board. Performance targets for the placement and exit metrics were set using a statistical procedure that is objective and accounts for the socio-economic conditions in each local board service area.
Performance scores were calculated as follows:
For the placement and exit metrics:
An initial score was calculated per the description in the Metrics section above.
Additional credit was then added to the initial score of placement and exit metrics for serving these populations with barriers to employment:
Note: Boards received credit for more than one employed exit if a participant fell into more than one category.
For the business metrics, a final performance score was calculated per the description in the Metrics section above.
Actual minimum thresholds were calculated for each metric reflecting each board’s performance relative to its performance target.
Finally, a global performance score for each local board was calculated by adding together the performance scores for each metric.
Local boards were evaluated using the TIE approach if they achieve minimum thresholds that:
In the PFM, the minimum threshold is defined as the minimum threshold of performance for a given metric. The minimum threshold is essentially the percentage of the target that must be achieved to be evaluated for funding; it is a gateway to evaluation under the Target, Improve, Excel (TIE) approach.
The baseline minimum threshold is set at 75 to encourage boards to aim for at least 75 percent of their target, capped at 100 (or 100%) for a total of 700 points.
Local boards that met the minimum threshold guidelines described above were then evaluated and rewarded under the Target, Improve, Excel (TIE) approach:
Actual Minimum Threshold: The minimum threshold of performance achieved for each metric by each local board. It is a gateway to evaluation under the Target, Improve, Excel (TIE) approach, and can be thought of as a percentage of the performance target. In fiscal year 2016-17, local boards were required to achieve minimum thresholds of 50-100 points per metric totaling 525 or more when summed together.
Additional Credit: Additional points added to the initial score of the job seeker metrics (placement and exit metrics) for serving certain populations with barriers to employment. In fiscal year 2016-17, 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 seven metrics for a local board.
Global Performance Target: The minimum global performance score needed to receive Target funding. In fiscal year 2016-17, the global performance target was 700.
Initial Score: The performance score calculated for each job seeker metric before additional credit is factored in.
Minimum Threshold: The minimum threshold of performance expected for each metric by each local board. It is a gateway to evaluation under the Target, Improve, Excel (TIE) approach, and can be thought of as a percentage of the performance target.
Performance Score: The measurement of actual performance by a local board on a metric relative to the performance target set for that metric. The performance score includes any additional credit added to the job seeker metrics.
Performance Target: The expected performance in each metric for each local board.
Target, Improve, Excel (TIE): The approach used to evaluate local boards that have achieved minimum thresholds of 50-100 points per metric totaling 525 or more when summed together.