THE USE OF WAGE RECORDS IN WYOMING 1992 to 2002
Tom Gallagher, Research and Planning
Wyoming Department of Employment
DRAFT
Symposium on Labor Market Information Applications of Wage Records for
Workforce Investment
April 30 – May 1, 2002
Radisson City Center, St Paul, Minnesota
THE USE OF WAGE RECORDS IN WYOMING 1992 to 2002
Tom Gallagher, Research and Planning
Wyoming Department of Employment
Symposium on Labor Market Information Applications of Wage Records for
Workforce Investment
April 30 – May 1, 2002
Radisson City Center, St Paul, Minnesota
Developing a state based wage records program depends upon a commitment to basic research not generally funded in federal contracts and grants. The shift from traditional labor market measures, which focus on levels of employment, to stocks and flows analysis, requires a change in concepts and ways of representing ideas unfamiliar to labor market analysts and customers alike. Learning how to change a foreign product into a sought after resource with little funding is a difficult challenge unless the Research Office has or can obtain substantial support from the agency housing it. Perhaps the most difficult barrier is recognition of the cost of capacity building to produce comparison groups and controls in administrative data in order to account for competing influences on the labor market phenomenon under study. Expanding from descriptive to causal analysis has been the goal of the wage records program in Wyoming, along with securing funding to develop the agenda further. State and Federal workforce development initiatives provided significant impetus in the development of administrative data linkages and analysis. Currently, we sell statistical services to education, consultants, housing authorities, transportation planners, vocational education, workforce development councils, the legislature and others. This paper documents the lessons learned over the past ten years. One of the most important lessons is that the development of other states in this area of work, especially neighboring states, is a critical factor in ones own progress. At this point, it appears that wage records programs are most likely to develop where there are strong substantive working relationships among states at a regional level.
Executive Summary ii
Chapter II. Field Engineering 7
Executive Summary
Sometimes, new information is treated as a dangerous thing.
This paper was prepared in response to an LMI Director’s request for information regarding how the Research and Planning Section of the Wyoming Department of Employment develops and produces a wage records based information program. Discovering the answer to that question meant writing the history of its development. The following four chapters describe the lessons learned and surface strategies that we employ to develop and sustain the current system. One central fact needs to be kept in mind: beyond a certain stage of development, little progress can be made without direct and active working relationships with other State LMI Offices.
Chapter I describes some of the key historic phases through which the program has developed. Economic, demographic, and geographic factors helped drive the history of the current system along with the State’s somewhat uniquely developed Workforce Development governance structure. The growth of the program has rarely been linear and often there are few clear lessons. The early successes were internal to the Research Office. We increased our understanding (mostly) well before we published the research results. We focused on static descriptions and profiles before we attempted to assemble the pieces into a dynamic labor market model. And this is still the ambition – to predict labor stocks, flows, and retention. In order to accomplish this goal, we will need a new language, the ability to hold in abeyance all of the background assumptions we so readily and unknowingly bring to the research arena from the era of sample survey research, and the archaic academic experiences which draw upon them.
In contrast to the precision of architectural design, the wage records program has become a case study in field engineering (Chapter II). The overriding goal is the development of a comprehensive system supporting not just descriptive analysis but causal analysis as well. In this strategy, the eternal, global questions about labor supply, the growth of demand, and the migration of labor are frequently subordinated to the demands of the immediate market crisis. A strategy of field engineering is essential because many of our customers plan – but only episodically. They monitor labor conditions, but only when driven by pending crisis. In this circumstance, not all customers are treated equally, and in Chapter III, we identify some of the issues we use to manage the customer environment. In contrast to the way we like to think of our society, new knowledge, especially new information disseminated broadly among those with a human resource investment interest, is not necessarily a sought after commodity. Indeed, some institutions actively oppose its development. At the same time, the wage records program expands simply because it can efficiently be used to answer so many customer-based questions.
Finally, institutionalizing standards for confidentiality and accountability are essential for continued development of the wage records program (Chapter IV).
“Don Juan’s task, as a practitioner making his system available to me, was to disarrange a particular certainty which I share with everyone else, the certainty that our “common-sense” views of the world are final. Through … well-directed contacts between the alien system and myself, he succeeded in pointing out to me that my view of the world cannot be final because it is only an interpretation.”
A Separate Reality; Further Conversations with Don Juan
--- Carlos Castaneda
I. The Consequences of Being a Down-hill State
State LMI Offices generally do not have access to the types of data needed to respond to many customer needs and expectations for information and analysis. Unemployment Insurance wage records merged with other administrative records and integrated with survey data represent a comparatively inexpensive way to expand the inventory of information and add dimension to what we know about the labor market. This chapter provides a brief description of the development of the wage records program in Wyoming and presents an analysis of some of the barriers and opportunities accounting for its current scope and development.
In order to evolve effective ways of responding to customer needs, the Department of Employment’s Research and Planning (R&P) began downloading and archiving UI wage records from the Department’s main frame in 1993. The first download provided us with data for all of 1992 and the first half of 1993. We first published analysis of wage records in May of 1995. In that year, we also published our first analysis of educational outcomes using data from the University of Wyoming in cooperation with the University’s Department of Sociology and Statistics.
By mid-decade, we had moved our administrative data sets from a standalone personal computer to a server network configuration. And in 1996, we published our first analysis of earnings by age, gender, and industry based on wage records data merged to ES-202 files and Wyoming Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) drivers license records. As can be seen in Figure 1, today we have data sharing agreements with seven State LMI Offices, several state agencies and state and local educational institutions. We are also in negotiations with other state agencies to obtain copies of the new-hires directory and monthly (rather than annual access for OES purposes) access to state employee occupational, earnings, work status, and place of work and residence records.
Figure 1: Inventory and Selected Characteristics of Databases Maintained by Research and Planning
Information contained in each of the Wyoming Administrative Databases |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Database |
Years available |
Age |
Sex |
Education/Degree |
Residence location |
Work location |
Earnings |
SIC |
Occupa-tion |
SESA Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarterly UI |
1980 - 2001 |
|
|
|
|
x |
|
x |
|
Wage Records (WY) |
1992 - 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
|
|
Wage Records/QUI (CO) |
1994 - 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
x |
|
Wage Records/QUI (NE) |
1996 - 2001 |
|
|
|
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
Wage Records/QUI (ID) |
1995 - 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
x |
|
Wage Records/QUI (SD) |
1994 - 2001 |
|
|
|
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
Wage Records/QUI (UT) |
1998 - 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
x |
|
Wage Records/QUI (NM) |
1998 - 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
x |
|
Wage Records/QUI (TX) |
1998 - 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
x |
x |
|
UI Claims |
1992 - 2001 |
x |
x |
|
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
Vocational Rehabilitation |
1994 - 1999 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
x |
JTPA |
1995 - 1999 |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
x |
WIA |
1999 - 2000 |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment Service Applicants |
1994 - 1998 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
2002- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher Education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Wyoming |
1995 - 1998 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Casper College |
1992 - 2001 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Central WY College |
1997 - 1999 |
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Eastern WY College |
1997 - 1999 |
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Laramie County Community College |
1996 - 2001 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Northwest College |
1997 - 1999 |
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Sheridan College |
1997 - 1999 |
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Western WY Community College |
1997 - 1999 |
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Other State Agencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Department of Education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher/Professional Staff |
1992 - 2001 |
x |
x |
x |
|
x |
x |
x |
x |
Professional Teaching Standards Board |
1981* - 2001 |
|
|
|
x |
|
|
x |
x |
Department of Motor Vehicles (License) |
1996 - 2001 |
x |
x |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Wyoming State Board of Nursing |
1999 - 2001 |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
x |
Department of Family Services |
1996 - 1998 |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Perkins |
1998 - 1999 |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000 - 2001 |
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
* Most records start in 1981 although there are records from 1965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gaining access to DMV records represented a comparatively strait-forward process. Our Department’s UI work unit was accessing individual records for fraud and enforcement purposes. With the support of the Executive Director, we were able to negotiate a low-cost quarterly download of DMV records from the state’s mainframe. Other than coping with confidentiality issues, gaining access to wage records and DMV information and archiving them has not been problematic. Moreover, we began working with another work unit within the Department, Vocational Rehabilitation, to explore outcome reporting strategies.
However, progress in the development of Wyoming’s administrative data program has been neither steady nor linear. In 1995, the Governor used an Executive Order to implement Workforce Development. The Order called for a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the current workforce development system and a description of the manner in which the system interfaced with the market. Despite the fact that Council staff and members understood the potential represented by the wage records approach, and we were able to display the potential through cooperative arrangement with Vocational Rehabilitation, our efforts were largely unsuccessful.
Our failure to produce a comprehensive analysis of the workforce development system faced several barriers. First, an administrative records program in an LMI Office represents a potential threat to some agencies (and potentially, Sections within the SESA). Program administrators historically controlled all of the program processes and output information for which they are held accountable. Under the Executive Order, given the fact that wage records may not be released outside of the SESA, access to information would no longer be controlled by program managers and it would be made available to the Workforce Development Council. Second, many state agencies, the University, and the colleges lack an organizational feature as part of their administrative structure which parallels the research function of a SESA. These organizations lack an internal entity that can work with the LMI Office on co-equal terms. For example, colleges, as part of their administrative structure, lack research staff who can inform administrators about the viability of data sharing proposals, identify how the information may be of use to the college donating information, and identifying how colleges can exercise some control over the output. Finally, the Executive Order failed to provide a source of funding for R&P’s work; the agencies and colleges suspicious of our work were the same entities that were expected to fund it.
DMV and UI records, records that were not intended for use by the LMI Office to describe the business processes of the donating agency, could be obtained by us for statistical purposes. However, records that were intended for use in the description and analysis of the donating entities’ business practices and labor market outputs and outcomes were held close to the vest.
During this entire process, and continuing to today, R&P has had the strong support of the Department’s Executive Director and Workforce Development staff. This support has taken the form of resources, marketing, guidance, and crafting Workforce Development Council issues in a manner amenable to research using wage records. This support is essential but not sufficient to explaining the current development of the wage records program. One solution to this problem has been a willing partner in the form of a local Community College, and a small amount of Council funding to treat them as a customer. In this environment, the SESA LMI Office fills the research function for college administrators that is missing from the College’s organizational structure.
Passage of the Workforce Investment Act changed the impetus for some organizations and educational entities in terms of their willingness, and sometimes the requirement, to work with us to produce performance reports. But resistance is still formidable. For example, R&P prepares part of the annual report for vocational education using wage records. However, they were initially unwilling to provide us with the minimum demographic and educational information required to meet the system goals identified in the Executive Order.
All of the agencies and educational entities with whom we work are required to provide the basic variables to R&P that we need to produce the comprehensive system information to the Council as required by the Executive Order. A useful strategy has been to incorporate into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between a state agency and ourselves the requirement that any reports generated by us be developed at the request of the Workforce Development Council. This provision of the MOU (see Appendix A) provides the donating agency with at least some sense of control over what will be done in the way of reporting program process, output, or outcome information.
In the absence of an Executive Order, a mission statement, or statement of goals from the WIA five year plan legitimizing the LMI Office access to confidential information, the continued development of the wage records program would be more difficult. The successful expansion of the system appears to depend upon: exposure of the system’s potential to users, marketing to imaginative users with analytical skills, using a strategy of learning about customer business functions and how they envision using information to address their problems, and resources for research. Obtaining successful results from customer relationships, and consequently word of mouth marketing through informal customer channels, requires selecting a strategy for working with customers.
Wyoming’s natural resource based economy means that it is a state whose economy tends to experience rapid expansions and contractions. Expansions are generally inhibited by a lack of human resources and contractions are generally occasioned by public concern over the loss of human resources. Public concern seems most acute regarding youth, namely the loss of college graduates. It is believed that once these human resources leave, they are very unlikely to return. The strong national economy of the 1990s was matched in Wyoming by relatively slow growth during most of the decade, with stagnation during late 1995 and much of 1996. These underlying economic and demographic currents tended to produce an R&P client profile highly focused on the need for answers relating to migration and labor retention. The character of Wyoming’s economy has been a key driver in the types of problems we have been asked to work on as well as a factor in developing our partnerships with other states.
Understanding a particular labor market depends upon the capacity to develop information about the context within which it exists. The term “down-hill” state refers to states that typically export people. This means that if the strengths and weaknesses of ones own market is to be understood, information is needed about what draws people away. At the same time, understanding limitations to expansion means at least identifying where labor entering the state comes from. Entering into data sharing agreements with other states, in particular neighboring states that either provide labor and/or serve as destination states for out-migration, has become an essential part of our wage records program. A copy of the reciprocal data agreement we have with South Dakota is found in Appendix B. This is a second generation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Our first generation MOUs were time limited, contained more narrowly defined statements of purpose, and defined fewer variables.
Data sharing agreements between LMI Offices in the Plains and Rocky Mountain States tend to be designed primarily around facilitating labor market analysis. They facilitate the analysis of inter-state labor market areas, labor migration, the policy pertinent analysis of student, teacher, nursing, and prison guards, the competition for labor in general and the development and inter-state tracking of control groups. Although initially designed for performance reporting for specific programs, inter-state MOUs facilitate market analysis in general rather than serving limited program purposes of dubious value.
While the character of Wyoming’s economy and the scale of population movement have been a factor influencing the manner in which the wage records program has developed, there is another important reason to establish partnerships with other states. Not only can the experience of other State LMI Offices prove highly valuable, these partnerships are essential to the overall research strategy. Customers often want answers only to their own questions and/or focus only on their program specific population segment. However, our ability to conduct applied research depends upon the little appreciated fact that a prerequisite is the basic understanding of the behavior of wage records and linked databases. This is why it is critically important to each state’s wage records program to become involved with neighboring states, especially those with a similar view about the value of a wage records program. Sharing common research projects and/or sharing pilot and specialized results provides each state with the capacity to obtain basic knowledge without necessarily having to incur the cost of others mistakes. Through this vehicle, we can replicate research and learn to distinguish results that are an artifact of research applications rather than a function of the market processes of interest.
Replication in other states represents a strategy in which we can obtain some assurance that produced research results are a function of market forces and the workforce development system rather than a function of state specific theoretical or computational idiosyncrasies. From the customer’s perspective, replication represents an assurance that the research results produced by each LMI Office are “real” rather than an artifact of something unique to a particular Research Office.
Late in the last decade we had acquired a sufficient number of observations across DMV files and wage records, and enough experience to identify error patterns that we could realistically engage in the model based imputation of missing demographic and geographic data. All administrative data sets are characterized by update lags and time gaps between observations. Given enough auxiliary information and history among the files, it is possible to identify place of residence between the three year DMV renewal dates. With these developments, practical applications became more geographically relevant and therefore locally marketable. At that point, when the informed user accepted the modeled elements of the databases as a reasonable trade off between no or little reliable information, and a reasonable approach to analysis, we entered a new period of financial support.
As we crossed into the new decade, we can produce demographics and work experience information by place of work and place of residence. While there are some limitations to our strategies in terms of verifying decisions about who can be defined as a member of Wyoming’s workforce, the issues of geography and residency should prove themselves to be resolvable. That is, we now seem to have most of the pieces needed to incorporate variables associated with substate locality in dynamic descriptions of economic – demographic relationships. In addition, we have been able to incorporate more segments and data elements from the workforce development system into our archives and seem to be expanding the number of policy areas in which our research assistance is sought.
A final and most difficult barrier to overcome in the development of a wage records program at the state and local level has to do with the unquestioned assumptions we make about the way the labor market and workforce development systems work and why they function as they do. The concepts and language of labor economics are based on traditional static measures of market levels in systems in which time is taken as an implicit given and interpretation of these statistics is fully institutionalized. On the other hand, when working with wage records, the present is almost always defined and specified explicitly relative to the past and future. Measuring the current stock of labor only becomes possible to the extent that we can measure the flow of labor between the present, the past, and the future. In practice, this means that we develop the pieces for subsequent full analysis in discrete units. We then identify the characteristics and typical behavior pattern of each element. And then we assemble these items in relationship to one another and set them in motion. Describing parts of the analytical framework while holding in abeyance traditional background assumptions governing the process to which these concepts will eventually be applied is a necessary prerequisite to the successful use of wage records.
While habit makes it tempting, simply transferring the language of the CPS or other familiar systems to wage records based descriptions tends to confuse rather than clarify the new territory administrative records represents. One of the first tasks anyone using wage records needs to undertake is to unlearn the concepts associated with the analysis and measurement of stocks, or levels, in a time series. Most of us developed our labor market analysis careers by using a count or an estimate of labor supply, or demand, by linking together monthly or quarterly snap-shots of employment establishment or household survey data. When we change the unit of measure to wage records, we still maintain an interest in profiling each quarter’s level of employment. However, the far more interesting potential is the analysis of the flow information between time periods.
Shifting from stocks analysis to stocks and flows analysis in the context of inter-state data sharing agreements has the effect of adding enormous dimension to the research. However, we initially made the mistake of pirating the language, and therefore concepts, from existing systems in an attempt to force what is at first alien phenomenon into a familiar language. Merging alien and familiar concepts into a familiar language simply leads to confusion. We seem to communicate more clearly with each other and customers if we adopt new language strategies which distinguish wage records analysis from anything else.
II. Field Engineering
The process of building an administrative records system is a process of field engineering in an opportunistic setting where position is everything. There are few formal models[1] for the development of integrated systems and little time to build one because the justification for acquiring data is often based on how quickly one can respond to the data suppliers’ need for tabulations and analysis. The overriding effect of developing this strategy is the change in the number and types of customers we work with.
The goal of our Research Office is developing the capacity to move from descriptive research and analysis to causal analysis. Accomplishing this goal means:
* accessing and controlling the data elements encompassing the population of human resources, firms, and events making up the universe of interest
* having the physical capacity to store and protect those data sets
* acquiring the human capital and supporting resources in the Research Office who can competently utilize the elements we have assembled
Because our goal is the capacity to conduct descriptive analysis, and subsequently produce causal analysis, successful development of the system does not depend upon the willingness of any particular program (e.g. Carl Perkins, ABE, WIA, etc.) to partner with the LMI Office. Rather, it depends upon the ability to gather universe information on the supply of workers and employers, and their characteristics.
As we acquire the ability to control more and more competing explanations for market effects (e.g. interstate data sharing agreements that allow us to account for wage differentials) the reasons for working with us increase. For example, our inability to track former prison guards to work destinations in other states was at one point the announced reason for the Department of Corrections (DOC) not working with us in monitoring turnover. Our data sharing agreements with seven states now invalidate this concern. In effect, we have positioned ourselves to address DOC’s personnel issues as well as the interests of many other customers.
Positioning also means marketing, and networking with decision-makers and other researchers within similar arenas --- especially those who have the capacity to adapt the examples of our published work to their particular area of need. This informal network of analysts and decision-makers, it appears, have become advocates. In one way or another, they convey the message that the LMI Office can address their problems (see Appendix C).
Marketing also means publication of results from our research. All of the contract agreements we have with consultants, colleges, and program operators permit the publication of results. The process of developing research and evaluation results for publication is probably best developed in a cooperative environment with the data supplier. This strategy appears to be effective in trust building.
Until we begin to see more LMI Offices step forward with an account of what they are learning and how they proceed, we are pretty much stuck with one set of anecdotes. The constant that binds these anecdotes, and that distinguishes them from many other research activities LMI Offices engage in, is that they always involve the use of confidential information, and they nearly always have a political consequence.
We like to think that what LMI Offices produce raises the overall stock of knowledge and that everyone benefits. This implies that everyone has an equal stake in changing the current state of affairs based on new knowledge. However, it must be remembered that some institution always has a vested interest in the current state of knowledge. And sometimes, institutions have a greater interest in the current state of knowledge, and who has access to it, than they do in the unregulated development of more information. In the initial study of prison guard turnover (conducted in 2000), for example, it was found that guards who went to work outside the prison setting were often earning less than they had when working for the State. This information, along with guard exit interviews conducted by the Legislative Service Office (LSO), led to the recommendation that DOC make major management changes. In effect, the increase in knowledge resulted in a shift in authority away from the DOC in the Executive branch, to the Legislature and LSO. A shift in authority and a loss of control is not something every agency manager is comfortable with.
Analysis we completed with the Nursing Association during the last legislative session could be viewed as having the effect of changing the locus of authority as a function of more information. In the matter of perhaps a month, working with the Association, we produced more factual information about the work experiences of nurses in Wyoming than was previously available from all institutions affiliated with the health care field combined. Historically, these entities were the authoritative source of information about the shortage of nurses, enjoyed the prestige of that authority, and because of it, were able to influence the manner in which the issue was dealt with.
Wage records based analysis, and its distribution to the legislature, changed the institutionalized understanding about where information concerning a critical labor shortage could, and potentially should come from. These entities may have lost some authority, and potentially the control over how state government will deal with an issue in which they have a vested interest. New knowledge can challenge the organizational structure of existing authority and influence. (Consequently, part of the positioning strategy is to always make the overture to work collaboratively with any vested interest as often as the opportunity presents itself.) By changing access to, and control over, information about a critical market problem, wage records analysis frequently changes the balance of (or democratizes information about) influence. This consequence is best planned for.
The strategy of developing universe information permits the development of several outputs (as distinct from the quantifiable outcomes or benefits from it) sought by our Workforce Development Council. Wage records linked to the ES 202 and DMV files were used to create the profile of workers in Wyoming found in Table 1. Program participants in a state incumbent worker program supported by the Workforce Development Training Fund are found in Table 2. And Table 3 provides a tabular description of JTPA/WIA participants. Tables 2 and 3 are developmental tables and are intended simply to portray who is served across programs in the context of comparable information about the larger workforce.
Multiple reporting platforms for each federal and state program encompassing varying time frames, from fiscal to program and school years, prevent our Council from gaining a consistent overview of who it is that the workforce development system serves and where the people it serves fit in to the overall context. Eventually each client group for the system as a whole (including employers) will be grouped in a standard way and this information shared with the Council.
Ultimately, this strategy serves a second purpose. The second purpose is to lay the foundation for causal analysis. Normally, we develop component pieces individually, and as you will see in the papers focusing on turnover, and quasi-experimental design and multivariate analysis, we subsequently set the pieces in motion.
[1] An important exception is Jack Douglas’ “The Social Meanings of Suicide,” Princeton University Press 1970, a critique of Emile Durkheim’s and others, use of official statistics.
Table 1: All People Working in Wyoming at Any Time During 2000 |
||||||||
|
|
Age Group |
|
|
|
|
Table Total |
|
|
|
<25 |
25-34 |
35-44 |
45-54 |
55+ |
N/A |
|
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing |
Count |
1,186 |
1,086 |
1,006 |
822 |
568 |
995 |
5,663 |
|
Row % |
20.9% |
19.2% |
17.8% |
14.5% |
10.0% |
17.6% |
100.0% |
Mining |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal Mining |
Count |
383 |
729 |
1,679 |
1,841 |
530 |
196 |
5,358 |
|
Row % |
7.1% |
13.6% |
31.3% |
34.4% |
9.9% |
3.7% |
100.0% |
Oil & Gas Extraction |
Count |
1,815 |
2,670 |
3,815 |
2,600 |
932 |
1,528 |
13,360 |
|
Row % |
13.6% |
20.0% |
28.6% |
19.5% |
7.0% |
11.4% |
100.0% |
All Other Mining |
Count |
306 |
564 |
954 |
969 |
427 |
258 |
3,478 |
|
Row % |
8.8% |
16.2% |
27.4% |
27.9% |
12.3% |
7.4% |
100.0% |
Total |
Count |
2,504 |
3,963 |
6,448 |
5,410 |
1,889 |
1,982 |
22,196 |
|
Row % |
11.3% |
17.9% |
29.1% |
24.4% |
8.5% |
8.9% |
100.0% |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Building Contractors |
Count |
1,113 |
1,598 |
1,646 |
1,115 |
365 |
1,161 |
6,998 |
|
Row % |
15.9% |
22.8% |
23.5% |
15.9% |
5.2% |
16.6% |
100.0% |
Heavy Construction |
Count |
1,241 |
1,865 |
2,376 |
1,464 |
834 |
3,394 |
11,174 |
|
Row % |
11.1% |
16.7% |
21.3% |
13.1% |
7.5% |
30.4% |
100.0% |
Special Trade Construction |
Count |
2,309 |
2,950 |
2,976 |
1,751 |
891 |
2,345 |
13,222 |
|
Row % |
17.5% |
22.3% |
22.5% |
13.2% |
6.7% |
17.7% |
100.0% |
Total |
Count |
4,663 |
6,413 |
6,998 |
4,330 |
2,090 |
6,900 |
31,394 |
|
Row % |
14.9% |
20.4% |
22.3% |
13.8% |
6.7% |
22.0% |
100.0% |
Manufacturing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
2,340 |
3,004 |
3,965 |
3,434 |
1,776 |
1,257 |
15,776 |
|
Row % |
14.8% |
19.0% |
25.1% |
21.8% |
11.3% |
8.0% |
100.0% |
Transportation, Communications, & Public Utilities (TCPU) |
|
|
|
|||||
Total |
Count |
1,004 |
2,462 |
3,881 |
3,666 |
1,887 |
1,087 |
13,987 |
|
Row % |
7.2% |
17.6% |
27.7% |
26.2% |
13.5% |
7.8% |
100.0% |
Wholesale Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
1,160 |
1,989 |
2,458 |
1,970 |
999 |
632 |
9,208 |
|
Row % |
12.6% |
21.6% |
26.7% |
21.4% |
10.8% |
6.9% |
100.0% |
Retail Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food Stores |
Count |
2,496 |
1,143 |
1,584 |
931 |
538 |
838 |
7,530 |
|
Row % |
33.1% |
15.2% |
21.0% |
12.4% |
7.1% |
11.1% |
100.0% |
Auto Dealers & Service Stations |
Count |
3,029 |
2,297 |
2,436 |
1,557 |
1,112 |
1,532 |
11,963 |
|
Row % |
25.3% |
19.2% |
20.4% |
13.0% |
9.3% |
12.8% |
100.0% |
Eating & Drinking Places |
Count |
11,414 |
4,167 |
3,072 |
1,505 |
935 |
5,160 |
26,253 |
|
Row % |
43.5% |
15.9% |
11.7% |
5.7% |
3.6% |
19.7% |
100.0% |
All Other Retail Trade |
Count |
6,042 |
3,930 |
3,845 |
3,199 |
2,059 |
2,718 |
21,793 |
|
Row % |
27.7% |
18.0% |
17.6% |
14.7% |
9.4% |
12.5% |
100.0% |
Total |
Count |
22,981 |
11,537 |
10,937 |
7,192 |
4,644 |
10,248 |
67,539 |
|
Row % |
34.0% |
17.1% |
16.2% |
10.6% |
6.9% |
15.2% |
100.0% |
Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate (FIRE) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Total |
Count |
1,140 |
1,971 |
2,520 |
2,232 |
1,367 |
669 |
9,899 |
|
Row % |
11.5% |
19.9% |
25.5% |
22.5% |
13.8% |
6.8% |
100.0% |
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hotels & Other Lodging Places |
Count |
3,342 |
2,903 |
2,812 |
1,276 |
1,008 |
5,721 |
17,062 |
|
Row % |
19.6% |
17.0% |
16.5% |
7.5% |
5.9% |
33.5% |
100.0% |
Business Services |
Count |
2,920 |
2,602 |
2,318 |
1,615 |
1,028 |
2,347 |
12,830 |
|
Row % |
22.8% |
20.3% |
18.1% |
12.6% |
8.0% |
18.3% |
100.0% |
Amusement & Recreation Services |
Count |
943 |
1,195 |
650 |
439 |
325 |
1,150 |
4,702 |
|
Row % |
20.1% |
25.4% |
13.8% |
9.3% |
6.9% |
24.5% |
100.0% |
Health Services |
Count |
1,440 |
2,660 |
3,610 |
3,131 |
1,329 |
1,027 |
13,197 |
|
Row % |
10.9% |
20.2% |
27.4% |
23.7% |
10.1% |
7.8% |
100.0% |
Social Services |
Count |
1,404 |
1,744 |
1,568 |
1,494 |
896 |
614 |
7,720 |
|
Row % |
18.2% |
22.6% |
20.3% |
19.4% |
11.6% |
8.0% |
100.0% |
Engineering & Management Services |
Count |
699 |
1,133 |
1,249 |
1,143 |
524 |
785 |
5,533 |
|
Row % |
12.6% |
20.5% |
22.6% |
20.7% |
9.5% |
14.2% |
100.0% |
All Other Services |
Count |
2,645 |
2,983 |
3,010 |
2,418 |
1,607 |
1,900 |
14,563 |
|
Row % |
18.2% |
20.5% |
20.7% |
16.6% |
11.0% |
13.0% |
100.0% |
Total |
Count |
13,393 |
15,220 |
15,217 |
11,516 |
6,717 |
13,544 |
75,607 |
|
Row % |
17.7% |
20.1% |
20.1% |
15.2% |
8.9% |
17.9% |
100.0% |
Government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Govt. Public Administration |
Count |
357 |
1,199 |
1,720 |
2,382 |
1,185 |
90 |
6,933 |
|
Row % |
5.1% |
17.3% |
24.8% |
34.4% |
17.1% |
1.3% |
100.0% |
State Govt. Other |
Count |
714 |
1,104 |
1,501 |
1,816 |
945 |
232 |
6,312 |
|
Row % |
11.3% |
17.5% |
23.8% |
28.8% |
15.0% |
3.7% |
100.0% |
Education |
Count |
547 |
752 |
798 |
1,146 |
616 |
222 |
4,081 |
|
Row % |
13.4% |
18.4% |
19.6% |
28.1% |
15.1% |
5.4% |
100.0% |
Local Govt. Public Administration |
Count |
1,573 |
1,698 |
2,665 |
2,448 |
1,374 |
714 |
10,472 |
|
Row % |
15.0% |
16.2% |
25.4% |
23.4% |
13.1% |
6.8% |
100.0% |
Local Govt. Other |
Count |
1,976 |
4,529 |
8,392 |
10,307 |
4,997 |
1,492 |
31,693 |
|
Row % |
6.2% |
14.3% |
26.5% |
32.5% |
15.8% |
4.7% |
100.0% |
Education |
Count |
1,314 |
3,221 |
6,255 |
8,386 |
4,075 |
997 |
24,248 |
|
Row % |
5.4% |
13.3% |
25.8% |
34.6% |
16.8% |
4.1% |
100.0% |
Total |
Count |
4,620 |
8,530 |
14,278 |
16,953 |
8,501 |
2,528 |
55,410 |
|
Row % |
8.3% |
15.4% |
25.8% |
30.6% |
15.3% |
4.6% |
100.0% |
Not Available |
Count |
83 |
149 |
105 |
93 |
60 |
283 |
773 |
|
Row % |
10.7% |
19.3% |
13.6% |
12.0% |
7.8% |
36.6% |
100.0% |
Grand Total |
Count |
55,074 |
56,324 |
67,813 |
57,618 |
30,498 |
40,125 |
307,452 |
|
Row % |
17.9% |
18.3% |
22.1% |
18.7% |
9.9% |
13.1% |
100.0% |
Prepared by Douglas Leonard - Wyoming Department of Employment - Research and Planning Section, 3/18/2002. |
Table 2: 1999 and 2000 WDTF Participants Appearing in 2000 Wage Records (859 Total Participants) |
||||||||
|
|
Age Group |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
<=24 |
25-34 |
35-44 |
45-54 |
55+ |
N/A |
|
Agriculture |
Count |
1 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
|
14 |
|
Row % |
7.1% |
7.1% |
35.7% |
35.7% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Mining |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
|
Row % |
75.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
25.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Row % |
42.9% |
57.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Manufacturing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
11 |
26 |
21 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
67 |
|
Row % |
16.4% |
38.8% |
31.3% |
9.0% |
3.0% |
1.5% |
100.0% |
Transportation, Communications & Public Utilities (TCPU) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Total |
Count |
8 |
10 |
25 |
5 |
|
2 |
50 |
|
Row % |
16.0% |
20.0% |
50.0% |
10.0% |
0.0% |
4.0% |
100.0% |
Wholesale Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Row % |
50.0% |
33.3% |
16.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Retail Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
104 |
108 |
71 |
64 |
18 |
1 |
366 |
|
Row % |
28.4% |
29.5% |
19.4% |
17.5% |
4.9% |
0.3% |
100.0% |
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
7 |
15 |
6 |
10 |
2 |
|
40 |
|
Row % |
17.5% |
37.5% |
15.0% |
25.0% |
5.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
51 |
45 |
28 |
13 |
4 |
|
141 |
|
Row % |
36.2% |
31.9% |
19.9% |
9.2% |
2.8% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
15 |
20 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
41 |
|
Row % |
36.6% |
48.8% |
7.3% |
4.9% |
2.4% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Not Available |
Count |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Row % |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Grand Total |
Count |
206 |
231 |
160 |
105 |
30 |
4 |
736 |
|
Row % |
28.0% |
31.4% |
21.7% |
14.3% |
4.1% |
0.5% |
100.0% |
Prepared by Douglas Leonard - Wyoming Department of Employment - Research and Planning Section, 3/18/2002. |
Table 3: WIA Participants (1999 & 2000 Calendar Years) Appearing in 2000 Wage Records (895 Total Participants) |
||||||||
|
|
Age Group |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
<=24 |
25-34 |
35-44 |
45-54 |
55+ |
N/A |
|
Agriculture |
Count |
5 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Row % |
71.4% |
28.6% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Mining |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
22 |
10 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
45 |
|
Row % |
48.9% |
22.2% |
13.3% |
15.6% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
29 |
13 |
12 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
61 |
|
Row % |
47.5% |
21.3% |
19.7% |
6.6% |
3.3% |
1.6% |
100.0% |
Manufacturing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
22 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
35 |
|
Row % |
62.9% |
17.1% |
11.4% |
2.9% |
5.7% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Transportation, Communications & Public Utilities (TCPU) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Total |
Count |
6 |
11 |
8 |
10 |
1 |
|
36 |
|
Row % |
16.7% |
30.6% |
22.2% |
27.8% |
2.8% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Wholesale Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
12 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
23 |
|
Row % |
52.2% |
13.0% |
13.0% |
13.0% |
8.7% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Retail Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
176 |
22 |
14 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
228 |
|
Row % |
77.2% |
9.6% |
6.1% |
4.4% |
1.8% |
0.9% |
100.0% |
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
4 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
12 |
|
Row % |
33.3% |
25.0% |
8.3% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
136 |
33 |
35 |
20 |
11 |
4 |
239 |
|
Row % |
56.9% |
13.8% |
14.6% |
8.4% |
4.6% |
1.7% |
100.0% |
Government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Count |
56 |
9 |
13 |
7 |
2 |
3 |
90 |
|
Row % |
62.2% |
10.0% |
14.4% |
7.8% |
2.2% |
3.3% |
100.0% |
Not Available |
Count |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Row % |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
Grand Total |
Count |
468 |
113 |
96 |
66 |
24 |
10 |
777 |
|
Row % |
60.2% |
14.5% |
12.4% |
8.5% |
3.1% |
1.3% |
100.0% |
Prepared by Douglas Leonard - Wyoming Department of Employment - Research and Planning Section, 3/18/2002. |
III. User Characteristics and the Field Situation
From the series of encounters with customers, it seems possible to identify key variables and types of situations that re-appear with regularity and that, given the latitude, guide our decisions in how we work with them. This guidance has remained implicit in the development of our administrative records program. We will try here to codify these elements of the “field” in which we conduct our engineering.
One of the critical elements in any customer relationship, whether they are donating program data or not, is to obtain an identification of the concepts of interest – the “what” if you will, rather than the “how.” Some customers approach a research problem in terms of satisfying themselves that a question could be answered by mentally designing the components, and the manner in which they are to be manipulated. This problem tends to arise with all customers whether Ph.D. consultant or city planner. Illustrative examples of customers grappling with the issue of stating their interests in a useful way are found in the second half of this chapter.
The customers we most often encounter generally represent a client group found in the first column of Figure 2. Or, as is often the case with economic development, they represent an industry segment within a particular geographic area. Sometimes they are interested in the effect of educational inputs on market interactions, identified in the second and third columns of Figure 2. We are frequently simultaneously conducting several analyses across a number of paths and different levels of interaction represented in Figure 2.
Almost uniformly, customers are interested only in their own target segment or client group across a single path of analysis. Comparative analysis, the use of analytical controls, or the use of control or comparison groups to account for competing explanations for observed outcomes, are for the most part foreign concepts, and certainly not additional costs worth incurring. Given the opportunity, and we have had a few, we always elect to work first with customers who understand the purposes of research design. For others interested in outcomes analysis, rather than simply description, we usually try to explain the advantages of including controls. Their receptivity to these proposals generally provides us with an indication about how realistic the customer’s expectations are.
Each of the following characteristics, issues, and questions about the customer and/or the field situation is used to set our research priorities.
1. Are the goals of the project consistent with our primary roles in data collection and estimation, in support of labor market analysis, or the workforce development system?
2. Is the customer or client willing? Willing customers are more open to providing documentation, interpretive insights, and making themselves available to answer questions.
3. Is there an organizational imperative for the client to produce an administrative records based result?
4. Is there an organizational imperative (contract, legislative mandate) real or implied for our Section to produce the same or related outputs?
5. Is the project data rich both in content and quality?
6. Is the customer a good manager of data and related systems?
7. Does the project present us with the opportunity to showcase our capabilities or extend our capacity to conduct new types of research?
8. Does the project allow us to maintain momentum? The project may not be the most attractive. However, given the balance of activity in the field, it may allow us to maintain our direction and expand the scope of our experience.
9. Is the client’s decision making centralized? Some projects involve program staff with little research background but decision-making authority while the technical background resides in staff with little authority. In other situations, the project lead for the customer’s interests is not empowered to make critical decisions.
10. Do any of the principals have an overwhelming background? Sometimes the consultant is too knowledgeable about survey research or the way analysis should be conducted to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of administrative databases.
11. Does the client have clear articulated goals? (Are they familiar with our previous work?)
12. Does the customer provide funding, and to what extent is its use restricted?
13. Is the customer interested in applying the results to produce an identifiable outcome?
14. Does the customer realize that the scope and scale of the data provided to us represents the limit of the services we can provide to them?
15. What is the probability that the customer represents a long-term and stable relationship as part of the workforce development system or a key source of data?
Given the fact that our “field” is simultaneously filled with a number of different customers and data partners at any given point in time, we need some mechanism of organizing our efforts. The fifteen points listed above play an important role in setting our priorities. In the balance of this chapter, we review elements of three case histories that illustrate selected problems associated with some of the issues enumerated above.
While customers come to us with many different characteristics, some customers represent longer-term relationships. As a result R&P is involved in an increasingly complex set of inter-organizational relationships. If LMI is to serve as the common language among components of the workforce development system, then administrative records represents one area in which the development of that common language is likely to occur.
Figure 2: Framework for the Analysis of Labor Dynamics with Administrative Records |
|
|||||||
Unit of Analysis: |
|
|
Interactions: Workforce |
|
Interactions: |
|
Unit of Analysis: |
|
Individual |
|
|
Development System |
|
Market |
|
Firm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable Type |
|
(A)Formal Systems |
|
(1)Industry Use |
|
Variable Type |
|
Level of Analysis |
|
|
|
Hi Turnover |
|
|
Level of Analysis |
|
|
Time Space |
|
UI |
|
Hi Retention |
|
Space Time |
|
|
|
|
Education / Training |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Stop* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Development |
|
|
|
|
|
Individual |
|
|
Hi Use Lo Use |
|
|
|
|
Firm |
Characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
(2)Individual Use |
|
|
|
|
Cohort Analysis |
|
|
|
Enter from Exit to |
|
Cohort Analysis |
|
|
Goal/Strategy |
|
|
|
Hi Market Attachment |
|
Goal/Strategy |
|
Demographic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry |
Segment |
Obtaining |
|
(B)Informal Networks |
|
|
|
Obtaining |
Segment* |
|
a living |
|
|
|
|
|
Human Resources |
|
Social Group |
(minimize |
|
Neighborhood |
|
(3)Geo-community Use |
(minimize cost) |
Industry |
|
|
cost) |
|
Ethnicity |
|
Firm/Individual |
|
Retention |
Cluster |
|
|
|
Community |
|
Migration |
|
(pay, benefit, |
Mfg Association |
Client Group |
Multiple job |
|
Association |
|
Market Survival |
|
training) Policies |
|
UI Claimant* |
holding |
|
Fraternal Organization |
|
Birth Death |
|
|
Client Group |
TANF |
Job Changing |
|
Class |
|
|
|
Recruitment |
Small Business |
Student* |
Obtaining |
|
Interlocking Directorates |
|
|
|
Strategies |
|
(Carl/Perkins) |
Training |
|
Vertically Integrated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporations |
|
|
|
|
|
Population |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Market |
|
|
|
Communications |
Obtaining Information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dynamic mediated by WFD |
|
|
Start Here |
||
Start Here |
|
|
(e.g. Sec 122d) and market signals |
|
|
|
||
TNG (3/02) WYDOE |
|
*Funding for analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
The major customer for wage records analysis is the workforce development system. In Wyoming, the Workforce Development Council has responsibility for all One-Stop programs as well as all other components of the workforce development system. Section 136 (c)(B) of WIA states that local levels of performance shall be determined relative to “the specific economic, demographic, and other characteristics of the populations to be served in the local area.” The focus on local information is mirrored throughout the balance of the workforce development system. Since performance measures for WIA, and other programs, are increasingly based on wage records, it seems prudent to measure local economic and demographic dynamics based upon a wage records strategy. Further, it is difficult to determine how local LMI could efficiently be developed through other techniques.
Some customers have goals that are highly consistent with WIA’s focus on local LMI. Some of these customers have financed small-scale research projects that have the additional benefit of assisting us in developing our capacity to produce localized LMI. One of these entities is local economic development. Publishing commuting pattern data for a transportation planning consulting firm[1] led to additional contract work for a local Northeastern Wyoming economic development agency. Staff from this local economic development entity recently sent the following email:
Hi Tom -
I just wanted to let you know that I have talked to Randy Brxxxs in Cheyenne
and Tim Stxxxx in Laramie about the commuting study. Hopefully they will be
contacting you about completing one for their areas. Also if you all
complete the commuting patterns for the state will you please let us know.
If you think of any other data that might help us in our grant and economic
development efforts please contact me.
Thank you,
Erin Alsxxx
CCEDC/NEWEDC
ena@vcn.
307-686-0000
www.ccedc.net
www.newedc.net
The Northeastern economic development agency has a very specific agenda of applying for Economic Development Administration (EDA, US Department of Commerce) grants. Successful applications are based, in part, on the ability of applicants to demonstrate that a potential grant recipient county is a destination county for workers commuting from economically “distressed” counties. Our ability to anticipate this customer’s needs, and those to whom she is recommending our services, is partly a function of our ability to keep up with information about EDA grant requirements, and partly a function of the customer base’s ability to communicate their needs to us. Subsequent steps have been taken with Northeastern Wyoming economic development and additional contract work is in negotiation.
The publication of the commuting analysis for the Teton County labor market area also seems to have sparked the following request from their local housing authority:
Teton County Housing Authority 2/15/02 Request
Ok...
This is probably very convoluted... So please call me if you need more
information. I tried to include our "objective" (very grammar school, I
know) at the end of all the ballyhoo so you could see what our purpose
is.... Hopefully this will help you. Sources of data are going to be
important... as are certain limitations of the data, so if you could flag
anything you know is going to be missing or misleading in any data sources
... just let me know when you write back with a quote.
Number 1 we definately need so could we get a price on that separately?
We definitely need income quartiles for the purpose of seeing the
distribution under and around the imaginary median income number that is
skewed by those people with billions.
1. Part 1: income in 5 income breaks (0r ten?)
by number of people (all Teton County)
for most recent year
Part II: (all Teton County) each person by SSN tallied by their total
combined multi-job or single job salary broken out....
Objective: to see what HH income is for buyers so we can set prices.
2. and then Sic by the 5 income breaks by year
for instance
1999
less than 10k 10-20 21-30 Total
construction 2(1%) 4 (3%) 20(10%) 26 (100%)
FIRE
etc.
etc.
Percentages 7% 10%
by Quintiles/???
(or what ever)
Objective: to see what the largest industries (ie retail, service and
construction) are paying
3. the number of people who worked in Teton County then left (time series
on SSN's)
and if possible could we see how may jobs those people work?
like... 5000 people left between 1999 -2000 and 60% had one job, 20% had
two jobs, 20% had three jobs ??? So what number of in and out people...how
many jobs by people?
Objective: Are transient workers more likely to work more than one job? (my
guess is no)
And then the same analysis by SSN's of people that are employed year after
year in TC...
This would help us chip away at the huge "job" number and low people
number... we need to fill in the discrepancy between jobs and people...
commuters are one piece, but numbers commuting in from Idaho are
nonexistent, illegal workers?...an estimate at best, and the large number
of people who live year in and year out with four different seasonal
jobs.... this is what we want to know.
Objective: What percentage and number can we subtract from the CBP count
for multi-job holders...
4. Pursuant to above analysis what are the real incomes then of the human
beings in Teton County THAT WORK? We look at data that shows x number of
people employed in retail, at x average wage? What does the yearly salaries
from multi-job combinations of people add up to? This is actually
complicated because if you don't know the time on these jobs you won't know
if they were concurrent or new jobs. People who worked 3 jobs in 2000
account for X number of people, X percentage of labor force, and made an
average of x$... Is it possible to run what field constantly overlap, X
percent of people with two jobs worked in service and construction and had
an average yearly combined wage of X????
If we could run it off tax reports that would be great.
5. We still are interested in what percentage of our population is
commuting. (I know impossible because of Idaho)
Thanks,
Cindy Norxxx
TCHA
307-732-0000 (p)
307-732-0000 (f)
As the result of this email, and several subsequent discussions and emails, we initiated a small contract with the Teton Housing Authority. The first three issues were addressed in the contract.
However, this email is noteworthy on two other accounts. First, had we in place an agreement equivalent to the MOU found in Appendix B with Idaho. Had Idaho been using DMV files in conjunction with wage records, we could have involved the Idaho LMI Office in a joint analysis of the Teton County, Wyoming, and Teton County, Idaho, labor market areas. This arrangement would have allowed us to address issue number five in the Housing Authority’s list of requests.
Second, although the customer is still specifying relationships between variables, she has also been maneuvered from only specifying how the LMI Office should manipulate data, to explaining the purposes of their request. She also has begun to identify the assumptions they are using to configure relationships among variables, and the concepts they wish measured. Once we move the customer from specifying “how” the work might be accomplished to “what” they want to achieve, we are in a much better position to design the product that they can use.
Maneuvering the customer to work at the conceptual level in specifying their concerns and questions is an essential step in permitting Researchers to develop viable and acceptable ways to answer user questions. A purpose in enumerating user and field characteristics used in setting our work priorities is to develop ways to better serve them. Customers presenting us with computational proposals often seem not to have worked through at the conceptual level the type of information that would address their questions. At this stage in our development, we are trying to outline a user manual or check list for customers to facilitate description of the problem they want solved.
Clearly, part of that manual needs to be comprised of the basic definitions of occupation, firm, industry and many of the other building blocks we tend to take for granted.
Sometimes it appears that customers purposely seek to conceal their overall agenda. In other cases, it appears that they need to work out the manner in which the measures and variables should be operationalized and arranged to answer the often-implicit questions they are seeking to answer. The client, in some cases, is interested in playing the role of analyst rather than the role of customer. Teaching people to be good customers is essential, but sometimes very problematic.
Some customers are so focused by a certain set of background assumptions that the role of student is no longer part of their repertoire. Recently, we provided services to two sets of consultants for the analysis of interstate teacher migration and turnover. This work was largely conducted through merging of confidential teacher files, wage records, ES 202 data, and inter-state matches. The State Department of Education financed our work. However, the analysis proved unsatisfactory in many respects.
Despite providing the consultants with background orientation materials, the consultants developed all of the cross tabulations strategies with little apparent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the wage records approach. Description and hypothesis testing were conducted using strategies grounded in conventional, conversational views about how the world works, rather than on exploratory strategies in which measurement results are used inductively to shape theory and subsequent data manipulation.
For the consultants, in most cases, if the results of our matches and tabulations did not fit with the proposition or hypothesis implicit in consultant specified variables, the results were ignored. Alternative cross tabulation schemes we developed were adopted by one consultant but not the other. Earnings gains for out-migrating teachers were specific to a particular gender and age group. Middle aged male (high school) teachers had materially higher earnings following out-migration. Earnings for females of middle age were largely unchanged or decreased following out-migration. These results were apparently not within the scope of the analysis nor part of policy development because they were never published. This finding, however, raises the following consideration: If migration, except for the brief period after college graduation, is a function of household decisions made relative to the female age period associated with child bearing and career choice, and the age period associated with male based career choice, then we would expect to see the same earnings differences between the genders at middle age following migration regardless of occupation that we found for teachers. The test of this proposition requires a control or comparison group. And an answer is possible because we have the universe of workers and many of their characteristics. Finding the time and resources to conduct the research, however, is a problem.
The elements of these three case studies illustrate how some of the questions enumerated at the beginning of this chapter are sometimes answered in the context of working with several customers at the same time. If we recognize these issues, make them explicit, and realize that we are using the answers to guide our actions during the process of field engineering the system, we are more likely to rationally approach customers and manage our responses to attain common ends.
IV. Confidentiality and Public Accountability
Above and beyond the normal security conditions associated with confidentiality issues, there is a need for a conscious strategy relating to privacy and confidentiality when obtaining and working with administrative data from other agencies and other Sections within a SESA. However, there are few institutionalized safeguards or protocols within the State Research structure providing for either security or accountability. These failures both inhibit the development of data sharing agreements and could prove fatal to LMI programs based on the use of administrative records. In addition to involving the concern over the privacy of individuals, data sharing agreements imply a joint liability between the sending and receiving entities. Therefore, there is a need to develop, articulate, and institutionalize confidentiality and privacy protections in Research Offices beyond those already in place.
Educational institutions and State and local agencies have their own confidentiality protections for the data they may share with a Research Office. Each entity is quite likely to be represented by an attorney versed in the institution’s particular confidentiality statutes and, in the case of federally funded agencies, the related federal statutes and regulations. Due simply to the function of the job, the attorney is unlikely to be as knowledgeable about the agency or institution’s requirements for human resource planning or accountability that can be addressed through research strategies based on records matching. Opening an initiative with another state agency means conducting the appropriate research into governing statutes and planning and accountability requirements, as a first step.
Overriding all data sharing discussions between state agencies are concerns for the protection of the privacy of employer information, and in the case of persons, their civil liberties as well. When opening discussions with another institution it is often useful to have available information about the confidentiality and security requirements Research Offices and their parent agency must meet as well as copies of contracts with any similar institution. As our Research Office obtains more agreements between agencies, colleges, and commissions overseeing professional licensure, these issues have become less often the focus of overt concern.
One strategy that appears to facilitate the ongoing acceptance of data sharing agreements with the Research Office in Wyoming is publication of research results and an explanation of the data matching mechanisms used to achieve these results. Publication of results is not simply treated as information dissemination, we also attempt to communicate the value-added justification for data sharing as an aspect of public accountability. If we are to claim that data sharing benefits outweigh data sharing risks, it seems that we need to constantly demonstrate beneficial outcomes.
Unfortunately, beyond State UI statutory requirements and the BLS Commissioner’s Orders on Confidentiality, there is no institutional structure supporting awareness among Research Offices of current or historic issues related to confidentiality and privacy. The concepts of statistical standards of performance, including the obligations for public accountability, confidentiality, and privacy are substantially underdeveloped among State LMI Offices. The failure to systematically address these issues is perhaps the largest single system-wide threat to the long-term expanded use of wage records
[1] Krista Gerth, Tony Glover, and Carol Toups, “Labor Market Areas: Connecting Place of Work to Place of Residence with Administrative Data, Wyoming Labor Force Trends, September 2001, <http://lmi.state.wy.us/0901/a1.htm> (March 19, 2001).
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYMENT TAX DIVISION, RESEARCH AND PLANNING SECTION AND
THE WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1. Parties. This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MOU") is made and entered into by and between the Wyoming Department of Employment, Employment Tax Division, Research and Planning Section [Agency], 246 South Center St. Casper, Wyoming 82601 (Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2760, Casper, Wyoming, 82602), and Wyoming Department of Education [WDE], whose address is Hathaway Building, 2nd Floor, 2300 Capitol Ave. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0050.
2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is solely statistical and includes: providing the Agency with Carl Perkins vocational education student data for use in a) producing core indicator outcome measures for WDE for use in improving educational program outcomes and, b) producing summary statistical labor market reports supporting state administration of the Workforce Investment Act (P.L. 105-220) and the Governor<s Executive Order 1998-1.
3. Term of MOU. This MOU shall commence upon the day and date last signed and executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this MOU, and shall remain in full force and effect until terminated. This MOU may be terminated, without cause, by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice, which notice shall be delivered by hand or by certified mail.
4. Payment. No payment shall be made to either party by the other party as the result of this MOU.
5. Responsibilities of Department of Employment. Agency shall:
A. Use vocational student information gathered from WDE merged with Agency wage records and employment information from other states and federal entities to produce summary statistical outcome reports.
B. Safeguard and maintain the confidentiality of all information received from WDE in accordance with the Privacy Protection Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (5 USC Sec. 552a.); the Social Security Act, (42 USC Ch. 7, Sec. 902 et seq.); the Family Educational and Privacy Rights act ( 20 USC 1232g) and Section 309 of the Workforce Investment Act (P.L. 105-220). Agency agrees that confidential information will not be disclosed to any other agency or party. No data will be reproduced in any form that identifies an individual or employer.
C. Maintain all employer and individually identifiable data in secured areas and on computer files accessible only by authorized individuals.
D. Require all Agency employees or agents who will have access to WDE information to sign a Confidentiality Agreement.
E. Designate an employee representative to act as the contact person for communications concerning the purposes of this MOU.
F. Provide statistical reports to WDE upon request. Costs for the reports shall be agreed upon by the parties prior to the provision of reports and will be based upon approximate actual costs to the Agency for such services. Copies of all published reports will be provided to WDE.
G. Produce summary statistics related to labor market dynamics and outcomes in written form for public consumption as requested by the Workforce Development Council.
H. Destroy all personally identifiable information received from WDE pursuant to this MOU when it is no longer needed for the purposes for which it is requested.
6. Responsibilities of Wyoming Department of Education. WDE shall:
A. Provide the Agency with electronic copies of the current and prior two years of student data for all available vocational students.
B. Provide the Agency with current student data for all vocational students during the first full week of (month to be provided here by WDE).
C. Designate a representative with whom Agency staff can consult on an as needed basis.
D. Provide documentation for technical information relating to the vocational student file and notify Agency of substantive changes to the files’ content.
E. Provide the following variables for each vocational student record: ssn or student identification number identifier, ssn or student number, date of birth, gender, race, resident status, state of origin, county of origin, gpa, academic program, school or institution code, degree or certificate type, major, cip, hours, standing, start term date, graduation date, last name, first name, middle name (documented equivalents are acceptable).
F. Provide spread sheet examples identifying the computations to be applied to each variable, and the variable identification, in statistical reports the Agency is to provide to WDE for outcome measures.
G. Ensure that Agency statistical reports and analysis reproduced by WDE and its contractors include source citation referencing the AWyoming Department of Employment, Research and Planning (R&P) and the date the statistical report was produced as provided by R&P.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT,
EMPLOYMENT TAX DIVISION AND
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
1. Parties. This Memorandum of Understanding [hereinafter referred to as "MOU"] is made and entered into by and between the Wyoming Department of Employment, Employment Tax Division, 246 South Center St., Casper, Wyoming 82601(Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2760, Casper, Wyoming 82602) [Agency], and the South Dakota Department of Labor [SDDL], PO Box 4730, Aberdeen, South Dakota 57402-4730.
2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to identify workers on the Wyoming and South Dakota wage record reporting system who are former students of post-secondary past participants in state training programs, or workers in the state. Information from wage records shall be used to determine where workers are employed. The impetus for the comparisons programs is placement results, labor market analysis, the Carl Perkins Act, as amended, and the Workforce Investment Act (PL105-220), in order to improve the quality of information used to evaluate the success of graduates and training program participants and programs. The results of this program will be used strictly to generate statistics for career information and educational and training program purposes. Personal identifying information generated by the program will not be used to make decisions concerning the rights, benefits or privileges of specific individuals.
3. Term of MOU. This MOU shall commence upon the day and date last signed and executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this MOU, and shall remain in full force and effect until terminated. This MOU may be terminated, without cause, by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice, which notice shall be delivered by hand or by certified mail.
4. Definitions. For purposes of this MOU:
A. "Reciprocating State" shall mean the state whose unemployment compensation data, state wage information the Requesting State seeks information from; and
B. "Requesting State" shall mean the state whose Department of Labor/Employment would like to collect wage and other administrative data on graduates of its public post-secondary institutions, training program completers, and/or labor market participants.
5. Payment. The anticipated costs are minimal. It is anticipated that the costs of billing and collection of costs would exceed the actual costs of providing the requested information.
This agreement is a non-financial agreement and the parties shall not be obligated to reimburse the other party for costs.
6. Responsibilities of the Parties
A. Compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974. The parties shall conduct the computerized records comparison hereunder pursuant to the provision of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (PL 100-503) and Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (PL105-220).
B. Both parties shall maintain and shall permit any authorized representative of the other party to inspect and copy portions of its records and other primary source documents and data compilations as is deemed necessary by each state agency to determine whether the other party is properly performing hereunder, complying with all terms, conditions, and provisions of this MOU.
C. Requesting State’s Obligations
1) The Requesting State will provide a diskette to the Reciprocating State containing a text file with the following record information and file format:
a) Social Security Number
b) Name if available (last, first, middle initial)
2) Identifiable records created during the course of the comparison program will be destroyed by the Reciprocating State as soon as they have served the program purpose and any legal retention requirements. Destruction will be by shredding, burning or electronic erasure.
3) Each of the Requesting State's requests for a follow-up comparison under this program will be in writing to the Reciprocating State's contact person and will include a statement that the computerized records comparison program has been conducted in compliance with this MOU and a request concerning any changes in the comparison program procedures.
4) The Requesting State shall maintain all records locally and will make said records available for the Reciprocating State's inspection and copying during normal business hours upon ten days' written notice.
5) The Requesting State shall notify the Reciprocating State of reports using Reciprocating State data and shall make a copy of such report available to the Reciprocating State in a timely manner.
6) Requests will be made on a quarterly basis.
D. Reciprocating State’s Obligations. File should be fixed-width ASCII text file. If data not available or re-disclosure of confidential data, then blank filled. Include multiple wages records if have multiple employers for quarter.
1) Unemployment insurance wage records and other administrative data will be compared to the records submitted from the Requesting State.
SSN Alpha 9 characters
Last Name Alpha 30 characters
First Name Alpha 30 characters
Middle Name Alpha 30 characters
Year Alpha 4 characters
Quarter Alpha 1 character
UI account # Alpha 15 characters
Qtr. Earnings Numeric 8 numbers(whole dollars)
Industry (NAICS) Alpha 6 characters
Ownership Alpha 1 character
State ID (FIPS) Alpha 2 characters
County ID (FIPS) Alpha 3 characters
Resident of state Yes or No 3 characters
Enrolled in State Yes or No 3 characters
Type of Enrollment Alpha 30 characters
2) The Reciprocating State will perform the comparison of the Requesting State records to administrative data.
3) The Reciprocating State's obligation to provide information is contingent upon the availability of the information within its own computer system.
4) The Reciprocating State shall not be liable for any and all damages, including consequential damages, arising from inaccuracies in the information provided.
Appendix C: LMI Advocates
Wyoming Legislative Service Office
213 State Capitol Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Telephone: (307) 777-7881 Fax: (307) 777-5466 E-mail:
lso@state.wy.us Website: http//legisweb.state.wy.us
Memorandum
Date: November 26, 2001
To: Members, Management Audit Committee From: Program Evaluation Staff
Subject: Preliminary Follow-up Information
Turnover Among Correctional Officer Staff
At the July meeting, members directed LSO staff to provide updated information about turnover among correctional officers at the Wyoming State Penitentiary. The Committee asked the following question: Did the pay raises that went into effect in July 2000 lead to higher correctional officer retention and reduced turnover at the Wyoming State Penitentiary? Members asked for this information by December 1, 2001, as a preliminary to the follow-up scheduled for the Spring of 2002 on the report Turnover and Retention in Four Occupations.
We worked with two agencies to fulfill this request. First, we asked the Department of Corrections to respond to a series of specific points from the original report, and to provide the most recent data possible. They sub-contracted
part of the research and submitted a lengthy response with attachments, all of which are included as Attachment A.
Second, we contracted with the Department of Employment, Research and Planning Section (R&P), to provide wage and employment data and analysis regarding the individuals who terminated employment as correctional officers since the July 2000 pay raise went into effect. Our summary of their research is included as Attachment B and contains more detail than we include here…