THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The Joint Committee on

Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review

Report # 533

A Limited Management Review of the Department of Employment Security and the Administration of the Workforce Investment Act

Executive Summary

Introduction

In this review, PEER identified and described the changes that have occurred in both the structure and powers within the state’s workforce investment system since 2000. PEER reviewed the performance measures for both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Workforce Investment Act Program from 2000 forward, as well as the accountability of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security’s administration of the program at the state level. PEER also performed a limited review of recent organizational changes within the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) and to what extent MDES has addressed public access.

In performing this review, PEER sought to answer the following questions:

The following section provides answers to these questions.

Conclusions

What are the key players in the state’s workforce investment system and what role does MDES play?

Mississippi’s workforce investment system is a collaborative effort of key players at the state and local levels.

What factors precipitated the changes in the state’s workforce investment system?

The WIA of 1998 established the framework for the current workforce investment system in Mississippi with the consolidation, coordination, and improvement of employment and training programs through a one-stop delivery system, known as the Workforce Investment Network (WIN), with access points called WIN Job Centers. This act established requirements for state and local workforce boards, core and intensive services to be provided, and a performance accountability system for WIA programs.

The Mississippi Comprehensive Workforce Training and Education Act of 2004 replaced the Mississippi Employment Security Commission (MESC) with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security and consolidated six local workforce areas into four.

After passage of the 1998 and 2004 workforce legislation, what changes occurred in the state’s workforce investment system and in the MDES organization?

The federal WIA of 1998 shifted the major responsibility for resource allocation and programmatic decisions from the state level to the local level and combined the programs and services of Employment Services and Unemployment Insurance. In 2005, in addition to the shift from MESC to MDES, state legislation shifted administration of the Workforce Investment Act to MDES, consolidated the State Workforce Investment Act Board with the State Workforce Development Council, and modified the amount of unemployment insurance taxes collected from employers to establish a stable funding source for employment and educational training purposes.

MDES now serves as the interface for employers, job seekers, and workforce development partners at the local level through the service delivery network of WIN Job Centers. MDES is also the lead support agency for the administration of the State Workforce Investment Board’s functions. The local workforce areas have the ultimate authority in the physical location of the WIN Job Centers. The local workforce areas also have the responsibility to select the one-stop operators; in most cases, the one-stop operator selected is MDES.

Regarding specific agency organizational changes that occurred after the change in 2005 from MESC to MDES, MESC created a new layer of upper-level management. Then in 2008, MDES consolidated from three deputy directors to two deputy directors and added a second Call Center.

How has the performance of the state’s Workforce Investment System changed since 2001?

The efficiency of the state’s workforce investment system has increased since 2001 as measured by a decline in the number of employees providing services to a significantly increasing number of participants through the state’s workforce investment system and a significant decrease in the cost per participant served.

Also, since program year 2001, Mississippi has annually met all performance standards set by the Department of Labor for the common measures that the department uses to assess the adequacy of a state’s implementation of the Workforce Investment Act, with only two exceptions. However, the state’s performance relative to one important measure, the “entered employment rate” for participants in the state’s workforce investment system, has generally declined since 2001, despite a continual increase in the number of participants who have obtained a job during this same time frame. This decline may be attributable to the increasing number of participants served through the system.

While Mississippi’s workforce investment system experienced a net loss of twenty-one service delivery sites from 2000 through 2008, the number of participants served by the system increased by 1,468% during the same period, due in large part to implementation of one-stop service delivery sites combined with the increased use of online service delivery systems. “Mystery shoppers” hired by MDES to review the customer service experience at the state’s WIN Job Centers reported generally high levels of satisfaction, with some complaints regarding difficulty in finding the centers.

How has the performance of the state’s unemployment insurance program changed since 2000?

The shift from filing unemployment insurance claims at local offices to telephone and online programs began under the MESC and became fully implemented after the commission was dissolved and re-formed as the MDES.

Hurricane Katrina hastened the shift from filing claims at local offices to the current system of the MDES Call Centers. In April 2007 MDES opened the first Call Center in Canton to handle unemployment insurance claims and provide support services for WIA programs. While the MDES Call Centers became the sole means to file unemployment insurance claims in July 2009, PEER noted no negative impact on the public access or customer service.

What improvements could be made within the state’s workforce investment system?

While MDES continues to be in compliance with federal regulations and guidelines, MDES should strengthen its internal strategic planning, provide increased quality control of the data validation process at the WIN Job Centers, and provide more comprehensive performance reporting in regard to efficiency and effectiveness measures.

Recommendations

  1. Since MDES is the state WIA administrator, the agency should establish a state WIA policy requiring that a comprehensive needs assessment be performed by either MDES or the local workforce investment area, depending on the type of location and entity responsible for the placement of such location, in regard to the openings and closures of any public access service points. This needs assessment should be objective and clearly define the criteria utilized to ensure that maximum service coverage is achieved or maintained and that resources are used efficiently.
  2. Despite the fact that the WIA measure for customer satisfaction is no longer required to be reported to DOL, MDES should continue to utilize the mystery shop process to measure the quality of services provided through the WIN Job Centers. In addition, MDES should maintain historical data regarding the results of these mystery shops and ensure that the information is utilized in the strategic planning process to identify areas of improvement and potential best practices.
  3. MDES should evaluate its marketing strategies any time a partnership is formed with the potential to be utilized as a venue for the advertising of MDES programs and services in order to determine which methods prove to be the most effective in increasing employment opportunities or performance.
  4. Since MDES manages the WIA Eligible Training Provider List through an online system, it should track and periodically review which of these training providers are used more frequently than others and review reported performance levels of these training providers to identify best practices.
  5. MDES should consider adding the verification of eligible training provider choice to its annual data validation process for WIA participant files where applicable. Another option would be for the MDES to develop a survey instrument for the follow-up of any WIA participant who receives training from an eligible training provider to verify whether the provider was the participant’s first choice.
  6. MDES should provide the source data used to calculate the efficiency measures in its WIA annual report narrative. Including this information would be more consistent with the reporting of the WIA effectiveness measures and provide for a clearer understanding of how and where the efficiency measure was calculated when reviewed by an outside party, such as DOL or the Legislature. MDES should also include in its narrative report the number of unemployed individuals who are served as a percentage of the total unemployed population at the state and local workforce area levels.
  7. MDES should ensure that when the WINGS participant data collection and reporting system is fully operational, that it will have the capacity to report on the performance measures for efficiency and effectiveness for each individual WIN Job Center. In addition, once this is achieved, MDES should evaluate and compare the performance of the WIN Job Centers operated by MDES and those operated by the community colleges.

PEER Home Page         Full Text PDF (4,817K)