How States Manage Eligible Training Provider Lists: Findings from a State Survey

“To ensure that customers are using federal funds for high-quality programs that will help them obtain a job in an in-demand field, WIA requires training providers to have their programs reviewed and approved to be included on the ETPL….While WIA provides a basic structure for these processes, states and local workforce investment boards (WIBs) have a great deal of flexibility in implementing ETPLs….Limited information is available on the variety of ETPL practices, requirements, and policies and on how states are administering and managing their ETPLs. Although researchers have examined these dynamics through case studies in a small number of states, a more comprehensive understanding requires a systematic overview across states. IMPAQ International, LLC fielded the web-based ETPL Coordinator Survey…Forty-six states completed the survey between May and June of 2014” (p.vi).
“The three primary purposes of the survey include:
•    Providing an overview of how ETPLs are managed and administered across the United States
•    Assessing how states collect, use, and report eligible training provider (ETP) program information
•    Identifying challenges in ETPL management and administration” (p.vi).
“To address these goals, the survey covered a number of topics including:
•    Responsibility for managing state ETPLs
•    Specific criteria considered in determining program eligibility for inclusion on ETPLs
•    Data used to certify programs for inclusion on ETPLs
•    Frequency of updates to the lists
•    Responsibility for updates to the lists
•    Inclusion of training programs from other states on ETPLs
•    Removal of programs from the lists
•    Availability of program performance information for potential training customers
•    Challenges faced by states in managing their ETPLs” (p.vi-vii).

(Abstractor: Author)

“Key Findings Related to Characteristics of ETPL Administration: • The states retain considerable control in conducting key tasks associated with the ETPL. • About a quarter of responding states have no statewide requirement for how often they update the ETPL. • Over half of all responding states require training providers listed on another state’s ETPL to go through the same application process an in-state program would go through (p.12). “Key Findings Related to Collection of ETP Program Performance Data: • The majority of responding states rely on self-reported data from training providers to determine initial eligibility and to measure program performance after initial eligibility. • Waiver and non-waiver states use similar types of data to measure program performance… • The most frequently cited factor influencing decisions about which data to use to measure performance was the availability of the data” (p.36). “Key Findings Related to Reporting ETP Program Performance: • Of responding states, 61 percent make ETP program performance information publicly available. Among states that do not currently make this information available, over half have efforts underway to do so. • Waiver states are less likely to report performance information than non-waiver states. • In general, performance information is not complete across ETP programs. • A majority of responding states update publicly reported information about ETP programs at least once a year” (p.40). “Key Findings Related to Challenges Associated with ETPL Tasks: • Getting new providers onto the ETPL and including enough qualified providers are relatively easy for states. • Respondents rated collecting quality data about program performance as the most difficult task. • Tasks associated with state and local coordination are relatively easy” (p.48). Key Findings Related to Rigor of ETPL Standards and Practices and Quality of Program Performance Reporting: • “Non-waiver states are more likely to have rigorous ETPL standards and practices than waiver states” (p.52). • “States with moderately rigorous ETPL standards and practices tend to have the most WIA exiters, followed by more rigorous states” (p.52). • “Non-waiver states are more likely to have higher-quality program performance reporting than waiver states” (p.60). • “States with higher-quality program performance reporting also tend to have more rigorous ETPL standards and practices” (p.60). (Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

• Last Updated:
• Created:
• Resource Publication Date: 2015
• Author(s): Kracker Selzer, Amy and Eyster, Lauren
• Organizational Author(s): Impaq International
• Funding Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration
• Resource Availability: Publicly available
• Posted by: Wesley Peterson
• Posted in: Workforce System Strategies