Data Counts
How federal policy can support actionable data on education
and workforce development
July 2014
1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Ste. 712
Washington DC 20036
P. 202.223.8355
E. info@WorkforceDQC.org
WorkforceDQC.org
0
Introduction
As our nation continues to face high unemployment, lagging postsecondary attainment and
constrained government resources, it is critical to ensure that human capital policies are effectively
preparing students and workers to prosper in a 21st century economy. Workforce Data Quality
Campaign (WDQC) contends that we cannot meet this challenge without inclusive, aligned and
market-relevant education and workforce data systems.
This document presents recommendations for federal action — both legislative and administrative
— that would support better data for accountability, transparency and program improvement.
These ideas were generated with extensive input from policy experts, state leaders, researchers,
employer advocates and practitioners across the education and workforce spectrum. Our unique
coalition of 11 national partners was instrumental in helping to shape the recommendations. They
are: Association for Career and Technical Education; Association of Public Data Users; Center for
Law and Social Policy; Council for Community and Economic Research; Data Quality Campaign;
Institute for Higher Education Policy; National Association of State Directors of Career and
Technical Education; National Association of State Workforce Agencies; National Skills Coalition;
New America Foundation; and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
WDQC’s legislative recommendations focus on improving the reporting of key outcomes, including
credential attainment and post-program employment, across federally-funded education and
workforce programs. We also propose restructuring federal grants for state longitudinal data
systems to incentivize the interagency collaboration needed to build and utilize inclusive data.
Legislation is a powerful tool to drive and sustain reform, but we recognize that crafting and
passing bills can take years. Therefore, WDQC outlines several actions the Obama Administration
could take now — without changes in law — to improve education and workforce data. Our
administrative recommendations are designed to assist in three goals:



Measure program outcomes to help educators, students, workers and policymakers make
smarter choices
Align education/training programs with labor market demand
Improve matching between jobseekers and open positions
Some of the legislative and administrative recommendations overlap, such as the proposal for a
national credentials directory. WDQC believes a directory could be set up without explicit statutory
1
authority, but having it codified in law would ensure that this project persists through changes in
agency leadership.
WDQC hopes that these recommendations start productive conversations about ways that federal
policy can encourage more accurate, comprehensive education and workforce data to help the
nation’s human capital policies succeed.
2
Legislative Recommendations
3
Credential Reporting
Problem:
Education and workforce programs do not consistently report different types of credentials
received by participants, especially non-degree credentials. It is difficult for policymakers to
understand whether these programs are helping to meet goals for postsecondary credential
attainment and analyze which types of credentials have value in the labor market.
Recommendation:
Whenever possible and appropriate, legislative requirements to report the credential attainment of
program participants should mandate reporting both degrees and non-degree credentials,
including those described below. All program reporting should specify the type of credential
earned to enhance transparency. Use of the terms “certification,” “license” and “certificate” should
be consistent across legislation.
While reporting requirements to improve transparency should include all types of credentials,
accountability measures defined in statute should not mandate inclusion of licenses and
certifications at this time. Reliable data on these credentials is currently difficult to obtain, so
mandating this information for accountability measures would be overly burdensome for
workforce and education programs, and would likely not provide accurate information. In addition,
accountability measures should focus on counting quality credentials that have labor market value.
The definitions below are illustrative and align with how these terms are currently being used by
federal agencies. Given how quickly the credential landscape is evolving, legislation could allow
federal agencies some flexibility to adjust definitions of these terms over time, provided that the
definitions continue to be consistent across agencies and programs.
Types of credentials
4
Certification: A credential awarded by a certification body, such as an industry association or
employer, based on an individual demonstrating, through an examination process, that he or she
has acquired the designated knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform a specific occupation or
skill. The examination can be written, oral or performance-based. Certification is a time-limited
credential that is renewed through a recertification process.
License: A credential that permits the holder to practice in a specified field. A license is awarded by
a government licensing agency based on predetermined criteria. The criteria may include some
combination of degree attainment, certifications, certificates, assessment, apprenticeship
programs, or work experience. Licenses are time limited and must be renewed periodically.
Certificate: A credential awarded by a training provider, educational institution or certification
body based on completion of all requirements for a program of study, including coursework and
tests or other performance evaluations. Certificates, as an academic award, are not time limited
and do not need to be renewed.
Types of credentials: umbrella terms
Industry-recognized credential: Industry-recognized credentials are either developed or endorsed
by a nationally-recognized industry association or organization or are sought or accepted by
employers within the industry sector for purposes of hiring or recruitment. The credential must be
awarded by an educational institution, licensing agency or certification body. Industry-recognized
credentials demonstrate core competencies and meet industry standards for specific industry
occupations. Examples of industry-recognized credentials include: associate and bachelor’s
degrees; apprenticeship certificates; occupational licenses (typically, but not always, awarded by
State government agencies); certifications awarded by certification bodies such as industry
associations or employers; and other certificates of skills completion for specific skill sets or
competencies within one or more industries or occupations.
Recognized postsecondary credential: A recognized postsecondary credential is a degree,
including an associate or bachelor’s degree, or a certificate (see definition above) awarded by a
higher education institution based on completion of all requirements for a program of study,
including coursework and tests or other performance evaluations. As an academic award, they are
not time limited and do not need to be renewed. [Please note that this term should not be defined or
used in such a way as to be synonymous with the term "industry-recognized credential," and should
not be used to represent the full range of credentials with value to participants in education and
workforce development programs.]
Credential Characteristics
5
Stackable: A stackable credential is part of a sequence of credentials that can be accumulated over
time to build up an individual’s qualifications and help him or her to move along a career pathway
or up a career ladder to different and potentially higher-paying jobs.
Portable: A portable credential is recognized and accepted as verifying the qualifications of an
individual in other settings – either in other geographic areas, at other educational institutions, or
by other industries or employing companies.
6
National Credentials Directory
Problem:
The proliferation of different types of credentials, especially non-degree credentials such as
certificates, licenses and certifications, is causing confusion among policymakers, career
counselors and employers. The quality and value of many of these credentials is unclear, so
knowing that participants in federally-funded programs have attained a certain type of credential,
while an important first step, is insufficient.
Recommendation:
The federal government should create a comprehensive directory of credentials that are typically
earned by participants in major federally-funded education and workforce programs. This directory
could include the name of the credential, the awarding body and the duration of the program of
study (for certificates). The directory could assign a code to each credential, which would allow
education and training providers to more easily report in a consistent way on the actual credentials
their graduates are earning. The Department of Labor’s online “certification finder” tool provides a
foundation for this effort, and states are already required to create lists of their occupational
licenses using Workforce Information Grant funds. Other federal agencies, like the Departments of
Education and Commerce, should assist in developing the directory.
The directory builds an infrastructure to assist all federally-funded education and workforce
programs in submitting aggregate reports on the specific credentials earned by their participants.
Over time, an option for “fill in the blank” reporting by programs would help to keep the directory
comprehensive and up-to-date. Detailed credential reporting would allow a more precise picture of
workforce system results, and the data could be used to identify priority credentials for
assessments of quality, including industry validation and analysis of specific credentials’ labor
market value using linked data sets.
7
Credential Measurement Pilot
Problem:
It is difficult for states, training providers and programs to get reliable data on whether graduates
of career-oriented education programs are obtaining licenses and certifications. Some education
and training programs survey their graduates to find out if they have successfully earned a
certification or license, but these surveys can be burdensome and may not be very accurate,
especially if they occur months or years after program completion. Certification bodies and
licensing agencies maintain individual-level data on attainment of these credentials, but it is not
usually shared and matched with student records or employment data. These data linkages would
enable richer and more complete analysis of education and training program alignment with
industry requirements, as well as provide evidence on which licenses and certifications
demonstrate value in the labor market over time.
Recommendations:
Authorize federal funding for states to pilot the establishment of data sharing arrangements with
state licensing agencies and with industry associations and employers who award certifications,
and demonstrate linking this data with student records and employment data.
Administrative Data Requirements
8
Problem:
Education and training providers sometimes rely on post-program surveys to report the outcomes
of their participants, including employment and earnings. Surveys are time consuming and can be
unreliable, especially for measuring outcomes months or years after program completion.
Recommendations:
The following legislation should require federally-funded programs and training providers to use
administrative data, such as Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage data and other data accessible
through state or federal data systems, as the primary method of measuring employment outcomes
when reporting is mandated. These requirements would incentivize the development and
maintenance of inclusive state longitudinal data systems, and result in more reliable outcome
information being reported to policymakers and the public.
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title I: Maintain the language in law 29 USC 2871.
WAGE RECORDS.—In measuring the progress of the State
on State and local performance measures, a State shall utilize
quarterly wage records, consistent with State law. The Secretary
shall make arrangements, consistent with State law,
to ensure that the wage records of any State are available
to any other State to the extent that such wage records are
required by the State in carrying out the State plan of the
State or completing the annual report described in subsection (d).
Upon passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) on July 22, 2014, the bill
carries over language from the previous law requiring the performance measures to be calculated
using UI wage records. However, it appears that the language would apply to all programs in the
WIOA bill, including adult education and vocational rehabilitation. Under the previous Workforce
Investment Act, only Title I programs were subject to this requirement.
Workforce Investment Act Title II and Perkins Career and Technical Education: Add language
requiring that the eligible state agency receiving funding shall use quarterly wage records,
consistent with state law, to report on employment-related core indicators of performance in a
manner that ensures the privacy, confidentiality, and security of the data. When data contained in
quarterly wage records is incomplete or unavailable, reporting may utilize alternative sources of
information, such as surveys. States that are not using quarterly wage records as their primary
source of data for employment outcome reporting should include information in their state plans
about how they intend to improve their data infrastructure to make that possible.
9
Higher Education Act: Amend language in 20 USC 1092 — which specifies information that must be
disseminated to the public by higher education institutions eligible for student financial assistance
— to require that information on employment placement shall be calculated using quarterly wage
records, such as those maintained for UI operations by the state workforce agency, in a manner
that ensures the privacy, confidentiality, and security of the data. When data contained in quarterly
wage records is incomplete or unavailable, reporting may utilize alternative sources of information,
such as surveys. Schools should also be required to clearly identify the data source for employment
rates in their disclosures.
State Data Sharing
10
Problem:
More than 5 million workers have a job in a different state from where they live, according to
Census data. Education and workforce programs need access to wage records from all states to
provide a complete picture of employment outcomes for participants, especially over the long
term. The Wage Record Interchange System 2 (WRIS2), operated by the Department of Labor,
provides a way for states to share wage records for reporting on a variety of programs, but only 34
states belong to this system.
Recommendations:
Under the previous law, Workforce Investment Act Title I directed the Department of Labor to
establish systems to enable wage record sharing between states. The new law should add a
requirement that states receiving Title I funds shall participate in all data sharing arrangements
established by the Secretary, consistent with state law. Title I has broad waiver authority, so the
Secretary would be able to waive this requirement in extenuating circumstances. Waivers would
prevent this requirement from interfering with the full functioning of Title I programs, but addition
of the requirement in law would give the Department of Labor the authority and incentive to
actively encourage states to join and fully participate in WRIS2.
Federal Grant Recommendations
11
Problem:
There currently are two direct sources of grant support for state longitudinal data systems: State
Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) grants from the Department of Education (over $600 million
since 2005) and Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI) grants from the Department of Labor
($30 million since 2010). Some states report that having data grants from two different federal
agencies perpetuates silos in state government and results in development of data systems that do
not include important linkages between education, workforce and human service programs. In
addition, funding designated for workforce data is much smaller than for education data, and there
is no funding specifically for linkages with human service programs.
Recommendations:
Structure: The federal government should award a single competitive federal grant designated for
state longitudinal data systems.
Purpose: Grants should fund data system development, system improvements and tools that
enable data usage. Basic systems maintenance should not be an allowable use of grant funds, so
those costs would be covered by state funding and/or portions of federal education and workforce
program grants designated for infrastructure and administration.

Development. All states have K-12 longitudinal systems and many have some capacity to
link this data with longitudinal data on early childhood, postsecondary and workforce
programs. However, there is still a need for many states to create more linking capacity to
allow data matching between information already collected for individual programs, such
as Trade Adjustment Assistance, apprenticeship, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program employment and training.
Legislation authorizing federal data grants should include requirements based on the
COMPETES Act, but to be more inclusive, it should specify that state data systems must
include linkages between early childhood, K-12, postsecondary, workforce and human
service programs, as well as wage data. (See Attachment 1 for sample language.) Grant
funds would cover the costs of linking additional programs and/or institutions (such as
private nonprofit and for-profit colleges) and adding more data fields.

Improvement. Grant funds would help pay for operational improvements, such as making
more data collection automated and upgrading security protections.
12

Usage. Grant funds would pay for creation of automated processes that make safeguarded
data publically available through reports, dashboards or aggregate data sets. Funds could
also be used to train teachers, career counselors, workforce program managers,
businesses, state employees and policymakers in data literacy. Finally, funding would
support the design of scorecards for consumers, feedback reports for educators and
program managers, dashboards for policymakers, and to conduct research and evaluation
needed to answer high-priority policy questions.
Governance: Legislation should mandate that the grant be jointly administered by the
Departments of Education and Labor, with substantive input from the Department of Health and
Human Services and other federal agencies that oversee programs which are part of the education
and workforce development continuum. The law should specify that grant management must be
conducted by an independent office made up of detailed staff from the Departments of Education
and Labor, similar to the former School to Work program.
Appropriations: Funding for the grants should be evenly split at the federal level between the
Departments of Education and Labor, and administrative budgets for both agencies should include
adequate funding for grant oversight and technical assistance. The even split would signal that
both agencies need to have an equal and collaborative role in grants management. At the state
level, funding does not have to be split evenly between state agencies or activities related to
education or labor programs. States may have flexibility to spend funds across the education and
workforce spectrum depending on their needs and priorities.
Eligibility: Grants should be awarded to both states and consortia of multiple states participating in
the development of regional longitudinal data systems. Governor’s offices must apply for the
grants and include a plan for disbursing funds to state agencies and ensuring that state agencies
are coordinating work on the data system. States that previously received SLDS or WDQI grants
may only be eligible for future grants if they effectively used prior funds, or present strong plans to
improve on past experiences. Priority should be given to applicants that:



have an inclusive interagency council with a track record of effectively overseeing and
promoting use of the data system;
demonstrate support from the state legislature for allotting state funds to sustain the data
system after the federal grant period ends, as well as for governance structures, defined
roles and responsibilities, and established policies and procedures that ensure the privacy,
security and confidentiality of data while using the data to improve outcomes; and
involve school districts, higher education institutions, job training and human service
providers and other stakeholders that will collect and use state longitudinal data system
information in the grant planning process
13
14
Attachment 1
In 2007, the federal America COMPETES Act codified 12 “Required Elements of a P-16 Education
Data System.” In 2009, the federal American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) required
states, as a condition of receiving State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF), to commit to building a
data system which consists of these elements. The subsequent cycles of the federal Statewide
Longitudinal Data Systems program have required grantees to include these elements. The
language below is a modified version of the COMPETES Act elements, expanded to require data
across the education and workforce spectrum. (Changes to the current elements are in italics.) This
language could be included in authorization for a unified state data system grant program.
(d) REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A STATEWIDE P–16 EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM.—
A State educational agency which receives a grant under this section shall ensure
that the statewide longitudinal data system maintains, at a minimum, the following
elements:
(1) PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 EDUCATION, POSTSECONDARY
EDUCATION, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND EMPLOYMENT.—With respect to
preschool through grade 12 education, postsecondary education, workforce
development, and employment—
(A) a unique statewide student identifier that does not permit a
student to be individually identified by users of the system;
(B) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program
participation information;
(C) student-level information about the points at which students
exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P–16 education
programs;
(D) the capacity to communicate with higher education, workforce
development, and employment data systems; and
(E) a State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and
reliability.
(2) PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 EDUCATION.— With respect to
preschool through grade 12 education
(A) yearly test records of individual students with respect to
assessments under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b));
(B) information on students not tested by grade and subject;
(C) a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to
students;
(D) student-level transcript information, including information on
courses completed and grades earned; and
(E) student-level college readiness test scores.
15
(3) POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION.—With respect to postsecondary
education, data that provide—
(A) information regarding the extent to which students transition
successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education, including
whether students enroll in remedial coursework;
(B) information on student progress through their postsecondary
studies, including student-level transcript information from all institutions
attended, including information on remedial and college-level courses
completed and grades earned;
(C) attainment of postsecondary certificates, degrees, certifications,
and other industry-recognized credentials; and
(D) other information determined necessary to address alignment
and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education.
(4) WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT–Data that provide information on
participation in workforce development and job training programs, including services received,
training providers used, and credential attainment; and
(5) EMPLOYMENT- Data that provide information on workers’ employment
status, earnings, and industries for the entire period of their participation in the labor market.
16
Administrative Recommendations
17
Data Sharing and Matching
1) Interagency letter encouraging data sharing. Issue an interagency letter from Department of
Education (ED), Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to governors promoting cross-agency data sharing in the states. Ideally, the letter would
come with guidance clarifying how to share data while complying with the Family Educational
Rights and Protection Act (FERPA) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) confidentiality laws, and
on the approved uses of Wage Record Interchange System 2 (WRIS2), DOL’s cross-state wage
record data sharing system. Department of Commerce could also join the letter to encourage
trade associations and employers to share data on industry-awarded certifications when
appropriate.
2) Promote and improve WRIS2. Commit to interagency promotion of WRIS2 for reporting on
employment outcomes for non-DOL programs, such as Perkins Career and Technical
Education, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Employment & Training (SNAP E&T), and investigate how WRIS2 is
currently being used by states. DOL may have access to basic data on queries. How many
states are submitting queries? Are states responding to queries? What are the match rates?
Right now a few states that are using WRIS2 are reporting poor match rates, so the
Administration should help figure out whether the exchange system is working properly.
3) Pilot federal wage data matching. Pilot reimbursable agreements with Social Security
Administration (SSA) tax data and/or Census Bureau Local Employment Dynamics (LED) data
to match student and program participant data with wage records. These pilots could
demonstrate feasibility and data security, and help set up a standardized process for federal
agencies, states and researchers to submit individual records and get aggregate employment
outcomes from SSA and Census. DOL is already working on a pilot for its Trade Adjustment
Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program (TAACCCT) grantees in a
few states to match student records with SSA data.
4) Improve utility of IPEDS data. Develop and release a crosswalk to show equivalencies between
the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Unit ID, a number assigned to
each institution that reports to IPEDS, and the Office of Postsecondary Education ID, a number
assigned by ED when institutions become eligible for Title IV financial aid. This crosswalk would
facilitate matching IPEDS data with information on default rates, repayment rates, and loan
and grant volumes.
18
Program Reporting
5) Ensure consistency of data across programs and training providers. Use appropriate guidance
and regulation to ensure that all federal education and training programs, such as Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), Perkins, adult
basic education, SNAP E&T, TANF and vocational rehabilitation are consistently reporting
data, including data on employment outcomes.
In addition, encourage states and education/training providers to supply information to
consumers and the public on the education and employment outcomes of program
completers. A broad array of providers use federal funds, including Pell grants, student loans,
WIOA vouchers, TANF dollars and SNAP E&T funding, and so could be required to share this
information. Information should be provided both by institution and by program of study, and
the information about different types of providers should be consistent, or at least
complementary, to avoid confusion by consumers and the public.
Definitions of outcomes, as well as definitions of subpopulations (veterans, low-income, etc.)
should be as consistent as possible across programs and provider types, and align with the
Common Education Data Standards (CEDS). Reporting consistency makes it easier for
programs to share data and collaborate on common goals, and presents federal policymakers
with a better understanding of the overall results they are getting for investments.
Under the new WIOA, the Departments of Labor and Education, according to the bill, must
work together to develop templates for states, local areas and training providers to report
program outcomes. Training providers must report key outcomes for all their students, not just
those receiving funding through a WIOA program.
6) Improve reporting on different types of credentials. Mandate reporting for transparency
purposes on both degrees and non-degree credentials in federal regulation and guidance
whenever possible and appropriate. Program reporting should specify the type of credential
earned to enhance transparency. Use of the terms “industry-recognized credential,”
“certification,” “license” and “certificate” should be consistent across agencies and programs.
We recommend aligning the use of these terms with the definitions developed by the
Interagency Committee on Expanded Measures of Enrollment and Attainment (GEMEnA).
7) Create a national credentials directory. Build capacity toward requiring all federally-funded
education and workforce programs to submit aggregate reports on the specific credentials
earned by their participants. Programs can report the name of the credential, the awarding
19
body, the duration of the program of study for certificates, and the number of participants
receiving such a credential (if the number is large enough to protect individual privacy). Federal
agencies (ED, DOL, Commerce) could collaboratively use this information to create a directory
of the most common credentials earned by participants across a range of federal programs.
Over time, the directory could be coded so programs can more easily report the specific
credentials their participants receive, rather than having to write out the credential name. This
detailed credential reporting would allow a more precise picture of workforce system results,
and the data could be used to identify priority credentials for industry validation.
8) Make credential attainment a WIOA common measure. Issue guidance from DOL to make
credential attainment one of the common measures for its job training programs for purposes
of performance accountability. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
suggested that credential measurement has gotten less accurate since it was dropped from the
common measures. Training & Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 4-13 already requires
programs to report credential attainment, and adding it to the performance accountability
system would provide greater incentive for programs to report accurately. The new guidance
should:
 Exempt participants in on-the-job training and other forms of work-based training from the
performance measure calculations, as they are less likely to result in credentials, but are
valuable activities for some participants and should not be dis-incentivized.
 Define “credentials” so programs are only getting credit for quality credentials with labor
market value.
 Consider whether certifications and licenses should be required as part of the credential
attainment measure, given that it is difficult for programs to obtain data for credentials
obtained outside the education system.
9) Enable sharing of certification data. Work with employers and industry associations with
popular certifications to figure out how to share individual-level data so it can be linked to other
state and federal data sets, while still protecting individual privacy. Linkages would allow
education/training programs to ensure they are properly preparing students to pass certification
exams, and enable analysis of which certifications have positive impacts on employment and
earnings.
10) Monitor efforts to enhance UI wage records. Follow ongoing research and current state pilots
(e.g. Nebraska) that explore enhancing UI wage records to include occupation and hours
worked, which would provide better data on program completer outcomes, including trainingrelated employment. Articulate to businesses ways that they may benefit from reporting this
data if it leads to more accountable job training system.
20
Consumer Information
11) Leverage eligible training provider waivers. Leverage the approval process for WIOA waivers
that allow an extension of initial eligibility for eligible training providers to encourage states to
develop systems to report on training provider outcomes. Currently, waivers are awarded to a
majority of states, which lessens incentives to measure program outcomes and develop
consumer scorecards. DOL could consider cancelling waivers for states which have data
sharing agreements in place to report employment outcomes using wage records. For states
without data infrastructure to facilitate employment outcome reporting, DOL should grant
waivers only to states that submit an adequate plan to develop this infrastructure.
12) Add earnings data to the College Scorecard. Add earnings information of graduates to the
College Scorecard using National Student Loan Database System (NSLDS) data matched with
SSA data. This would be data aggregated by institution. Although institution-level data is not
as useful as program-level data for students and NSLDS is limited to students who received
federal financial aid, the data would signal the importance of thinking about post-graduation
earnings when considering postsecondary education and would be the first step towards
gathering even better data.
13) Assess effectiveness of state consumer scorecards. Assess whether state consumer scorecards
and other consumer-oriented tools, including those based on real-time LMI, are helping to
improve choices, and identify which data elements and type of presentation is most helpful. It
is important to conduct consumer testing and focus groups, as well as empirical analysis of how
use of these tools influences choices and outcomes. This is a major gap in the work being done
in states that federal agencies or their contractors could help to fill.
14) Publish loan repayment rates annually. ED published repayment rates in 2010, and regularly
publishes cohort default rates. Repayment rates can be a better measure than cohort default
rates of students’ ability to pay back federal loans. Cohort default rates count students in
deferment, forbearance or income-based repayment plans as being in good standing even if
they are not reducing their debt. On the other hand, repayment rates capture whether
students are actually repaying their debt. This information can help students select schools,
and increased transparency might encourage institutions to calibrate education costs to
students’ future earning potential by reducing price and/or helping students prepare for jobs
that pay high enough wages to enable students to repay their loans.
21
Labor Market Information
15) Highlight states using real-time labor market information. Lift up examples of states using realtime labor market information (LMI) to enhance job matching and align education programs
with labor market demand.
16) Expand technical assistance on real-time LMI. Replicate the technical assistance project that
Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) regional offices in Chicago and San Francisco
are conducting to help states adopt real-time LMI tools. ETA spent $200,000 on a contract to
provide technical assistance to MN, IN, OR and AZ. The technical assistance contract includes
funds to purchase tools if needed from private vendors, so that at the direction of the states,
the consultants can buy vendor licenses without going through complicated state procurement
processes.
17) Focus on regional and user-friendly labor market information. Make the production of more
regional and user-friendly LMI a priority for existing resources at Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
ETA and Census. DOL should ensure that it is meeting all of its duties for providing employment
statistics under 29 USC 49l-2. A newly established unit at the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC,
will focus on producing data for regional districts, so could be a partner in these efforts. To signal
commitment to better data, BLS and ETA could revise their annual performance goals to include, in
BLS’ case, data other than Principal Federal Economic Indicators, and in ETA’s case, goals related to
Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI) and its National E-Tools program. At present, ETA has
goals only for its training programs and unemployment services.
A new Workforce Information Advisory Council is established in the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act. The Secretary of Labor must formally consult with the Council at least twice a
year to address the evaluation and improvement of the nationwide and statewide workforce
and labor market information systems. The Council, appointed by the Secretary, would include
state experts on workforce programs, labor market information and economic development, as
well as representatives of business and the research community.
18) Update CIP-SOC crosswalk. Update the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) to
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) crosswalk so that it is more user-friendly and
includes emerging occupations. For some occupations, appropriate application of the
crosswalk may vary by regions, so federal agencies should encourage state Departments of
Education and Labor to work together to interpret and apply the crosswalk. An expansion of
22
the crosswalk that would be useful to employers is tying both programs of study and
occupations to specific credentials, especially certifications awarded by industry. This
expanded crosswalk would allow states and regions to create better supply/demand models to
determine whether the education pipeline is meeting labor market needs.
19) Use competitive grants to incentivize data usage. Ensure that solicitations for competitive
education/training grants, such as TAACCCT and the Workforce Innovation Fund, incentivize the
use of statistical data (e.g. labor market info) to align proposals with labor market demand.
23