California has completed its state-level WIOA performance negotiations with DOL for Program Years 2026 and 2027. These statewide goals are the benchmark for the next round of Local Area negotiations, but they are not automatically each Local Board’s final goals.
Source + trust record
Source checked as of September 18, 2026. Primary authority: EDD WSIN26-04 and WSD19-11.
Check result: California negotiated state-level PY 2026 and PY 2027 performance goals with DOL in May 2026. The published goals cover Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth, and Wagner-Peyser indicators. Local Area negotiations remain a separate process informed by state goals, local conditions, participant characteristics, and the statistical adjustment framework. This AI-assisted brief does not receive human legal or compliance review. Official sources control.
WDB decision strip
| Status | Action | Primary owner | Current timing | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE GOALS FINAL · LOCAL NEGOTIATIONS NEXT | MODEL + NEGOTIATE | WDB Director + Performance Leadership | PY 2026 and PY 2027 local negotiation cycle | Adult · DW · Youth · Performance management |
The bottom line
Use the state goals as a negotiation anchor, not as a substitute for your Local Area’s evidence.
EDD says Local Area goals will be negotiated for the same five WIOA Title I performance indicators, considering California’s state goals, local economic conditions, participant characteristics through the Statistical Adjustment Model, and continuous improvement. Local leaders should enter negotiations knowing both their recent actual performance and the structural factors that may make a statewide benchmark easier or harder locally.
California’s negotiated state goals
| Indicator | Adult PY26 / PY27 | DW PY26 / PY27 | Youth PY26 / PY27 | Wagner-Peyser PY26 / PY27 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment Q2 | 68.0% / 68.5% | 70.5% / 71.0% | 70.5% / 71.0% | 60.0% / 60.0% |
| Employment Q4 | 65.5% / 66.0% | 70.0% / 70.0% | 70.0% / 70.5% | 60.0% / 60.0% |
| Median Earnings Q2 | $8,500 / $8,500 | $10,500 / $10,800 | $5,000 / $5,000 | $9,000 / $9,000 |
| Credential Attainment | 68.5% / 69.0% | 74.0% / 75.0% | 60.5% / 61.0% | N/A |
| Measurable Skill Gains | 72.5% / 72.5% | 66.8% / 67.0% | 66.7% / 66.7% | N/A |
What changes at the local level
| State provides | Local negotiation adds |
|---|---|
| Negotiated California benchmarks for PY 2026 and PY 2027. | Local participant characteristics, economic conditions, prior outcomes, and Statistical Adjustment Model effects. |
| Five performance indicators for Adult, DW, and Youth. | Local goals that may differ from the state percentages after negotiation. |
| State policy framework under WSD19-11. | A local performance-management plan for reaching the negotiated levels. |
Prepare for negotiation in four views
- Actual performance: show recent Local Area results by program and indicator, including trend and data quality concerns.
- Adjusted context: understand the local economic and participant factors likely to influence the Statistical Adjustment Model.
- Operational drivers: identify what staff/provider behavior actually moves each indicator, such as service intensity, training completion, credential capture, exit timing, employer connection, and follow-up.
- Risk range: model an expected, strong, and stressed performance scenario so leadership understands what a proposed goal means operationally.
Do not manage only to the negotiated number
A Local Board still needs to distinguish three different questions: whether the data are accurate, whether the program is meeting the negotiated target, and whether customers are achieving strong outcomes. A favorable performance score can coexist with weak raw outcomes if the benchmark is low, while a missed target can sometimes reflect unusually difficult participant or economic conditions. Management should use all three views.
Operational considerations for WDBs
- Build a one-page local performance baseline before negotiations begin.
- Review data quality and source documentation before debating goals.
- Understand which local characteristics may influence the Statistical Adjustment Model.
- Separate state goals from proposed local goals in board materials.
- Translate the final negotiated goals into provider, MIS, and program-management routines rather than leaving them as an annual reporting exercise.
Watch out
- State goals are not automatically local goals.
- Do not negotiate from a single year’s result without trend and context.
- Do not make a program change to solve what is actually a data-quality problem.
- Do not confuse a performance score with a raw outcome rate.
Source authority
EDD WSIN26-04 — State Negotiated Performance Goals, PY 26-27
WSD19-11 — State Level Performance Goals and Local Area Negotiations
Status: California negotiated the state goals with DOL in May 2026. EDD states that it will negotiate Local Area levels for PY 2026 and PY 2027 using state benchmarks, local conditions, participant characteristics, the Statistical Adjustment Model, and continuous improvement. Source checked September 16, 2026.
Response
[…] annual performance-score notices, CalJOBS reporting, and state oversight. The site’s briefs on WSIN26-04 · State Negotiated Performance Goals and TEN 03-26 · PY 2025 Performance Accountability are the current-year operating layer; TEGL […]