Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

• This section highlights examples of delivery integration being tested or implemented in various states. The discussion focuses on:
• local office integration;
• data integration; and,
• centralized printing of cheques.

• In most states, local UI offices have been co-located with Employment Services for a number of years. As indicated in Table 1, about 60 percent of the states have co-located all or virtually all of their local offices for UI and Employment Services.
• In a number of states (e.g., Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island and Vermont) the front-line staff is being cross-trained to work on both UI and Employment Service functions.

• States are now focused on the concept of one-stop centres, which deliver a wide range of programs and services at a single location. The Department of Labour is supporting this type of integration by awarding grants for the planning and implementation of one-stop career centres.
• These centres would provide access to the services and information offered under a wide array of employment, training and education programs -- including initial assessments of skills and abilities, self-help information relating to career exploration and skill requirements for various occupations, and labour market information.
• These centres include either UI programs or access to UI services (e.g., through a VRS).
• States are planning to include various programs in addition to the core Department of Labour programs. Examples include Food Stamps, Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Education and community programs.
• As of January 1995, 19 states have received planning grants and 9 states have received implementation grants.

• Data sharing is generally done through formal agreements at the state level.
• These agreements provide a basis for sharing data among state agencies in respect of UI, Employment Services, child support and other state agencies.
• At the present time, data sharing still involves some batch access systems rather than online access.

• States generally have the capacity to generate large operational and evaluation data bases. Also, there is a growing interest in developing common intake systems.

• The general view is that automated systems facilitate the development of data entry and retrieval systems. Also, increased automation can assist in the building and operating of common data bases and single in-take systems.
• Where ES and UI data are currently on different systems, however, establishing a common data base can involve re-writing the existing systems. This can be a costly process.

• The ITSC is preparing an assessment of electronic data interchange (EDI) technology for UI applications. This project is focused on Workers Compensation in Florida and wage reporting pilots in Texas. The ISTC is also preparing guides to selecting EDU communication services.

• As indicated in Table 1, most states make use of central printing for the printing of UI cheques. Many of these centres also print the cheques for other unemployment programs, and some print cheques for all state programs (e.g., Florida).
• The general view is that the central printing of cheques works well, especially when combined with high volume laser printers.