1 / 27

Texas Workforce Commission- Missing Link Project

Texas Workforce Commission- Missing Link Project. Missing Link Project Update TAIR Annual Conference February 6, 2008 James Loiselle Hiwot Berhane. Agenda. Background ICF Approach Overview of Results Limitations Questions/Comments. Background.

carlyn
Download Presentation

Texas Workforce Commission- Missing Link Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Texas Workforce Commission- Missing Link Project Missing Link Project Update TAIR Annual Conference February 6, 2008 James Loiselle Hiwot Berhane

  2. Agenda • Background • ICF Approach • Overview of Results • Limitations • Questions/Comments

  3. Background Job creation and economic development a statewide priority • Industry clusters facilitate this by: • Helping Texas efficiently monitor workforce conditions • Bringing attention to industries and jobs key to the State’s growth Purpose of project: • Develop master database linking DWAs, CIPs, and WECM courses • Provide a common set of linkages to bridge the gap between employers and workforce trainers

  4. Aligning WECMs, CIPs, and DWAs – A Stepwise Approach(8 Total Tasks) Step 1: Project Kick-off Step 2: Edit and verify DWA to CIP links made by TWC/LMCI staff Step 3: Link DWA statements to WECM courses Step 4: Gather SME Input to Refine and Validate Ratings

  5. Task 1 – Project Kick-Off • Gathered information regarding CIP, DWA, and WECM data sources • TWC provided database of 411 ‘technical’ CIP codes with unverified linkages to DWAs and SOC codes.

  6. Database Structure of ‘Mechanical’ Linkages Provided By TWC • CIP CodeRelated O*Net Occupations DWA 1 • DWA 2 • DWA 3 • DWA 4

  7. Task 2 – Edit And Verify CIP and DWA Database Structure • ICF reviewed linkages made by TWC staff between the O*NET occupations and CIP codes • Remaining non-technical CIPs were removed from the original database • Outcome: Database of 384 ‘technical’ CIP codes with unverified linkages to DWAs and SOC codes.

  8. Task 3 – Link DWA statements to WECM courses • Decided: Linking DWA to WECMs → best way to demonstrate a link between a DWA and a CIP • Developed one Access database for each of the 384 CIPs • Created a specialized Access ‘form’ within each database to aid the rating process • Conducted ratings of each DWA to WECM relationship for each CIP • Outcome: Complete ratings for all potential DWA to WECM relationships in every CIP-specific database

  9. Task 3 – Link DWA statements to WECM courses *Note 1: 4461 WECMs were provided by TWC in original database. After 127 duplicates were removed, 4334 WECMs remained. **Note 2: Individual DWAs, by nature, were typically linked to multiple CIPs.

  10. Task 3 – Link DWA statements to WECM courses • CIP CodeOccupations • Course 1DWA 1 • Course 2DWA 2 • Course 3DWA 3 • Course 4DWA 4

  11. Task 3 – Link DWA statements to WECM courses

  12. Task 3 – Link DWA statements to WECM courses • Intent was to identify WECMs where knowledge or skill related to DWA could be obtained. • Distinguishing Yes/No ratings sometimes difficult so rules developed for raters/ SMEs:

  13. Task 4 – Gather SME Input to Refine and Validate Ratings • Gathered input from SMEs to refine/validate the DWA to WECM ratings • Assigned databases based on SME area of specialization. • SMEs reviewed three types of ‘Maybe’ ratings to change the ‘Maybe’ ratings into Yes/No ratings. • SMEs reviewed existing Yes/No ratings. • SME selection, use, and affiliation described on subsequent slides. • Outcome: Verified ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Special Topic’ rating for each DWA to WECM relationship.

  14. Task 4 – Gather SME Input to Refine and Validate Ratings Selection and Use of Project SMEs: • SMEs selected based on knowledge of technical CIPs under study. • CIPs clustered into 28 ‘Program Areas’ (e.g., Mathematics and Statistics, Visual and Performing Arts, Engineering, Construction Trades). • SMEs asked to indicate ‘areas’ of expertise using defined program clusters. • SMEs used to resolve ‘Maybes’ where raters had questions about CIP/ WECM content and/or technical aspects of work being performed. • 32 SMEs were used to rectify ‘Maybe’ ratings across all CIPs and verify Yes/No ratings • SMEs included technical college faculty, university grad students, and education/work specialists from 10 organizations including ICF.

  15. Task 4 – Gather SME Input to Refine and Validate Ratings

  16. Aligning WECMs, CIPs, and DWAs – A Stepwise Approach(8 Total Tasks) Step 5: Identify and Add Missing DWAs for Each CIP Step 6: Conduct roll-up for DWA to CIP linkages Step 7: Link DWA statements to WECM courses Step 8: Create master database

  17. Task 5 – Identify and Add Missing DWAs for Each CIP • Reviewed each CIP database to determine whether additional DWAs should be added • Compared the original list of linked DWAs to the full list of DWAs provided in O*NET, which were clustered into program (CIP) groups • Outcome: All relevant DWAs represented in CIP to DWA linkages.

  18. Task 5 – Identify and Add Missing DWAs for Each CIP • CIP CodeRelated O*Net Occupations • Course 1 DWA 1 • Course 2 DWA 2 • Course 3 DWA 3 • Course 4 DWA 4 DWA 18 DWA 18=Newly identified DWA currently addressed through WECM but not originally linked to CIP through ‘mechanical’ linkages conducted by TWC.

  19. Task 6 – Conduct Roll-Up for DWA to CIP Linkages • Used roll-up strategy to define relationships between DWAs and CIPs. • DWAs considered linked to a CIP (i.e., assigned a ‘Yes’ rating) if linked to one or more WECMs related to the CIP. • CIPs considered not linked (i.e., assigned a ‘No’ rating) if not linked to any WECMs related to the CIP • Outcome: ‘Yes’/ ‘No’ rating indicating DWAs linked to each CIP

  20. Task 7 – Conduct Quality Control Check of Databases • Reviewed each CIP database to verify all ratings accurate, structure and content of the databases sound, and redundancies removed. • Removed duplicate WECMs, verified variable/field name consistency, and updated forms to facilitate data read, edit, and present functions. • Outcome: Final databases for each CIP.

  21. Task 8 – Create Database of Identified Linkages • Created a user-friendly, searchable master database that incorporates and reflects the new and edited relationships between WECM Courses, CIP codes, and DWAs. • Outcome:Final master database combining all linkages across CIPs, DWAs and WECMs while providing easy search capability.

  22. Results- Deliverable Overview

  23. Deliverable Category 1 • 309 CIP Databases with 3 tables and 2 forms each. Sample shown below: Tables Forms CIP150305 CIP150305 CIP150305_RollUp WECM_w_CIPinfo_listofsocs_Master WECM_w_CIPinfo_listofsocs_Master

  24. Deliverable Category 2 • Consolidated Database with 309 tables each representing one CIP.

  25. Navigating a CIP Database - 521904 • Select Forms on Objects menu > Open WECM_w_CIPinfo_listofsocs_Master • View CIP details, related WECMs with details, and related DWAs with ratings

  26. Limitations of Deliverables • O*NET DWAs are sometimes vague, incomplete, and/or not aligned with the needs of Texas industries limiting the application of results • WECMs do not cover the gamut of skills trained within CIPs across schools, just common ones. Course and program content varies across locations to meet local needs limiting the reliability of linkages • SMEs used were from academic community rather than industry so results may be biased to educators point of view • Accuracy of deliverables dependent on currency/validity of source crosswalks (e.g., SOC-CIP, DWA-SOC, WECM-CIP crosswalks)

  27. Contact For any additional information or questions, please contact: James Loiselle Research Specialist Texas Workforce Commission (512) 491-4974 james.loiselle@cdr.state.tx.us

More Related