(a) Each State agency shall establish and maintain a self-appraisal
system for job service operations to determine success in reaching goals
and to correct deficiencies in performance. The self-appraisal system
shall include numerical (quantitative) appraisal and non-numerical
(qualitative) appraisal.
(1) Numerical appraisal at the local office level shall be conducted
as follows:
(i) Performance shall be measured on a quarterly-basis against
planned service levels as stated in the State Program and Budget Plan
(PBP). The State plan shall be consistent with numerical goals contained
in local office plans.
(ii) To appraise numerical activities/indicators, actual results as
shown on the Employment Security Automated Reporting System (ESARS)
tables and Cost Accounting Reports shall be compared to planned levels.
Variances between achievement and plan shall be identified.
(iii) When the numerical appraisal of required activities/indicators
identifies significant variances from planned levels, additional
analysis shall be conducted to isolate possible contributing factors.
This data analysis shall include, as appropriate, comparisons to past
performance, attainment of PBP goals and consideration of pertinent non-
numerical factors.
(iv) Results of local office numerical reviews shall be documented
and significant deficiencies identified. A corrective action plan as
described in paragraph (a)(6) shall be developed to address these
deficiencies.
(v) The result of local office appraisal, including corrective
action plans, shall be communicated in writing to the next higher level
of authority for review. This review shall cover adequacy of analysis,
appropriateness of corrective actions, and need for higher level
involvement. When this review is conducted at an area or district
office, a report describing local office performance within the area or
district jurisdiction shall be communicated to the central office on a
quarterly basis.
(2) Numerical appraisal at the central office level shall be
conducted as follows:
(i) Performance shall be measured on a quarterly basis against
planned service levels as stated in the State Program and Budget Plan
(PBP). The State plan shall be consistent with numerical goals contained
in local office plans.
(ii) To appraise these key numerical activities/indicators, actual
results as shown on the Employment Security Automated Reporting System
(ESARS) tables and Cost Accounting Reports shall be compared to planned
levels. Variances between achievement and plan shall be identified.
(iii) The central office shall review Statewide data, and
performance against planned service levels as stated in the State
Program and Budget Plan (PBP) on at least a quarterly basis to identify
significant Statewide deficiencies and to determine the need for
additional analysis, including identification of trends, comparisons to
past performance, and attainment of PBP goals.
(iv) Results of numerical reviews shall be documented and
significant deficiencies identified. A corrective action plan as
described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section shall be developed to
address these deficiencies. These plans shall be submitted to the ETA
Regional Office as part of the periodic performance process described at
20 CFR 658.603(d)(2).
(3) Nonnumerical (qualitative) appraisal of local office job service
title III activities shall be conducted at least annually as follows:
(i) Each local office shall assess the quality of its services to
applicants, employers, and the community and its compliance with Federal
regulations.
(ii) At a minimum, nonnumerical review shall include an assessment
of the following factors:
(A) Appropriateness of services provided to applicants and
employers;
(B) Timely delivery of services to applicants and employers;
(C) Staff responsiveness to individual applicant and employer needs;
(D) Thoroughness and accuracy of documents prepared in the course of
service delivery; and
(E) Effectiveness of JS interface with external organizations, i.e.,
other ETA funded programs, community groups, etc.
(iii) Nonnumerical review methods shall include:
(A) Observation of processes;
(B) Review of documents used in service provisions; and
(C) Solicitation of input from applicants, employers, and the
community.
(iv) The result of nonnumerical reviews shall be documented and
deficiencies identified. A corrective action plan that addresses these
deficiencies as described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall be
developed.
(v) The result of local office nonnumerical appraisal, including
corrective actions, shall be communicated in writing to the next higher
level of authority for review. This review shall cover thoroughness and
adequacy of local office appraisal, appropriateness of corrective
actions, and need for higher level involvement. When this review is
conducted at an area or district level, a report summarizing local
office performance within that jurisdiction shall be communicated to the
central office on an annual basis.
(4) As part of its oversight responsibilities, the central office
shall conduct onsite reviews in those local offices which show
continuing internal problems or deficiencies in performance as indicated
by such sources as data analysis, nonnumerical appraisal, or other
sources of information.
(5) Nonnumerical (qualitative) review of central office job service
activities shall be conducted as follows:
(i) Central office operations shall be assessed annually to
determine compliance with Federal regulations and to assess progress
made on annually established work plans established for central office
staff.
(ii) Results of nonnumerical reviews shall be documented and
deficiencies identified. A corrective action plan that addresses these
deficiencies shall be developed.
(6) Corrective action plans developed to address deficiencies
uncovered at any administrative level within the State as a result of
the self-appraisal process shall include:
(i) Specific descriptions of the type of action to be taken, the
time frame involved and the assignment of responsibility.
(ii) Provision for the delivery of technical assistance as needed.
(iii) A plan to conduct follow-up on a timely basis to determine if
action taken to correct the deficiencies has been effective.
(7) (a) The provisions of the JS regulations which require numerical
and nonnumerical assessment of service to special applicant groups,
e.g., services to veterans at 20 CFR 653.221 through 653.230 and
services to MSFWs at 20 CFR 653.108, are supplementary to the provisions
of this section.
(b) Each State Administrator and local office manager shall assure
that their staffs know and carry out JS regulations, including
regulations on performance standards and program emphases, and any
corrective action plans imposed by the State agency or by the ETA.
(c) Each State Administrator shall assure that the State agency
complies with its approved program budget plan.
(d) Each State Administrator shall assure to the maximum extent
feasible the accuracy of data entered by the State agency into ETA
required management information systems. Each State agency shall
establish and maintain a data validation system pursuant to ETA
instructions. The system shall review every local office at least once
every four years. The system shall include the validation of time
distribution reports and the review of data gathering procedures.
