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

1.1 Background

In May 1996, the Canadian government established a Federal Task Force on Disability Issues ("the Scott Task Force") to examine the role of the federal government in the area of disability. The Task Force, which included broad representation from the disability community, undertook a series of consultations and hearings across Canada, as well as research studies. The resulting report was entitled Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities: The Will to Act.

Among the issues addressed by the Task Force was the labour market integration of persons with disabilities. The Task Force found that work was among the top concerns of Canadians with disabilities, contributing to a sense of belonging, accomplishment and dignity. Moreover, with the right legislative mechanisms in place, it was found that many persons with disabilities could be integrated into the labour market and make an economic contribution to society. The task force further noted that more important than the disability itself were environmental and economic barriers to employment faced by those with disabilities.

The Task Force recommended that the government ensure that "mainstream" labour market programs accommodate persons with disabilities. However, since many persons with disabilities have not had a strong labour market attachment, they are not eligible for employment programs available under traditional Employment Insurance (EI) programs. To address this gap, the Task Force identified a need to target labour market programming specifically for persons with disabilities.

The Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities (OFPD) was established in February 1997 in response to this recommendation. The program is the responsibility of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) with the guidance of a national reference group. Among the major rationales for the program's implementation were the rising importance being placed on skills in the workplace and the large number of persons with disabilities who could benefit from assistance to (re-)enter the labour market, were this assistance available to them. Many Canadians with disabilities who are on social assistance would rather work, but do not normally qualify for public assistance integrating persons with disabilities into the workforce. The Opportunities Fund (OF) fills this gap.

Built into the OF is the obligation to regularly monitor the results of OF interventions. Toward that end, a three-phase evaluation plan was formulated. Ekos Research Associates Inc. was commissioned by HRDC to conduct Phase I of the evaluation of OF. This report describes the results of Phase I of the evaluation plan. Results from this phase will inform subsequent phases. These are the Mid-Term and the Summative phases.

1.2 Program Description

The objective of the Opportunities Fund Persons with Disabilities is to assist persons with disabilities prepare for, obtain and maintain employment or self-employment, resulting in increased financial independence.

Potential OF clients must meet certain criteria to qualify for assistance under the program. First, they must self-identify as disabled and wanting to work. Second, potential OF clients must be legally entitled to work in Canada. Third, they must be in need of assistance to prepare for or obtain employment or self-employment, though they do not necessarily have to be job-ready. Fourth, OF clients must be ineligible for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Finally, clients must commit to an action plan designed to assist them into employment or self-employment.

There are a number of guidelines that have been established for the funding of OF projects. OF activities must help individuals with disabilities move into paid employment or self- employment, provide for the sharing of practices and experiences, and augment and complement existing programming funded through other sources. OF activities should also provide for:

• the active participation of persons with disabilities and their organizations;
• leveraging of funds from other public and private sector sources;
• involvement from employers, unions, and other partners to develop employment opportunities;
• post-placement follow-up with participants and employers; and
• a balanced client strategy so that the full range of persons with disabilities are accessing the Opportunities Fund.

Another important OF guideline is that projects be accountable for results with respect to employment and cost-savings targets. Regarding employment, OF projects must state the number of clients who are expected to find employment or self-employment, with due consideration for the change in employment status, e.g., part-time employment is a success if the client had not been employed before the intervention. Each year, OF aims to reach 4000-6000 persons with disabilities, of which 40 percent are expected to be employed following the completion of their intervention. Regarding income support cost savings, there must be stated targets regarding expected cost savings to income transfer programs and private insurers.

What types of activities does OF fund? Activities can be similar in nature to employment activities funded by EI, such as targeted wage subsidies, job creation and work experience partnerships, training and self-employment assistance, but expanded to accommodate clients with disabilities. OF also funds workplace accommodation costs and the provision of adaptive equipment and personal supports to facilitate access to and integration into the workplace. (These costs may also be funded in association with the above activities.) In addition, OF funds implementation of action plans including prescribed EI Employment Assistance Services (EAS). However, OF does not fund the cost of the EAS services themselves, which are covered by the EI Act as services available to all (not just to EI clients).

What costs are covered under OF? For individual OF clients, living expenses, dependent care and the cost of attendant care may be covered. Also covered are costs associated with transportation, the cost of accommodation for training, the cost of training, as well as the costs of purchasing assistive equipment (e.g., hearing aid, large monitor) enabling persons with disabilities access to work. Income allowances may also be provided for in OF projects, as well as the cost of self-employment assistance, including training and advice. For employers, OF will cover the costs associated with modifying the workplace to accommodate participants and provide wage subsidies to employers as an incentive to hire participants. As for third party coordinators, OF covers the costs associated with implementing an action plan for participants through Employment Assistance Services under the EI Act and overhead costs (e.g., consultant and operational costs).

Delivery of OF is decentralized mainly via HRDC regional offices, with a small proportion of the budget reserved for national projects. Regional offices developed their own implementation strategy based on a national template which includes descriptions of the regional environment, the key partners, local and regional consultations that have been undertaken, the clients, priorities for activities, results targets, the service delivery mechanism, and the communication strategy. Based on their regional funding strategy, regional offices distribute all or a portion of the funds, at their discretion, to parent or local Human Resource Centres of Canada (HRCCs). HRCCs may, in turn, contract with third party organizations to deliver services to clients.

There is considerable variety among communities in the way they have elected to manage OF funds. Some communities, for example, have identified one organization locally to take the lead in delivering OF based on consultations and referrals from other organizations. Others have established or used pre-established partnership committees to guide the usage of OF funds. A third model is the distribution of OF funds through a mixture of individual and multi-service organizational contracts.

In Quebec, OF is managed by the Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes handicapées (CAMO). Founded in 1993, the CAMO is managed by many representatives including people from the three levels of government, NGOs, the business community and trade unions. CAMO basically determines the orientation of OF in Quebec and approves projects submitted by individuals and organizations in that province. This process is done in partnership with many stakeholders, at the provincial level and local levels, in cooperation with partnership committees from each of the Quebec administrative regions. With OF, the CAMO has hired project officers who establish links between the organization and the administrative regions. These officers play a key role in project selection and follow-up and are responsible for the linkages between the CAMO and local partnership committees.

National project activities include those under Employment Assistance Services and Labour Market Partnerships which cannot effectively be funded through one region and meet OF guiding principles. Priorities for national projects include having consumer control, addressing the needs of the "doubly disadvantaged", and harmonization with regional implementation strategies.

The total OF budget is $90 million, allocated equally over three fiscal years, 1997/1998 to 1999/2000. While OF was announced in February 1997, most program activity did not commence until October 1997 to permit time for consultation, needs assessment and program development and design. As a result, $10 million has been reprofiled from 1997/98 to 1998/99 due to lower than expected expenditures. Funds come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF), which means earnings received by OF clients are insurable earnings. Of the annual budget of $30 million, 10 percent each year has been allotted for national projects. In addition, a matching amount ($3 million) each year comes out of EI Part II for pan-Canadian activities that are national or multi-regional in scope and support the integration of all individuals (regardless of EI status) into employment.

1.3 Evaluation Objectives and Issues

The main goal of Phase I of the Opportunities Fund evaluation is to assist in understanding issues surrounding the design, implementation and delivery of the program in its first year, with a view to identifying areas for improvement. The evaluation describes which activities are being delivered to generate intended outputs, to whom and how the interventions are being delivered, and in partnership with whom.

Phase I of the evaluation addresses 12 evaluation questions. The 12 evaluation issues are listed in Appendix A. They are briefly described here under four headings: rationale, implementation, impacts, and cost-effectiveness.

The major rationale questions addressed in this evaluation are whether there is a continued need for OF and whether the program reflects its basic principles' underpinning. To address these questions, we relied on program-related documentation and the views of key informant interview respondents. The logic of the program design was also examined given the lessons learned from other programs aimed at persons with disabilities.

The second set of questions is concerned with the implementation of the program. In answering these questions, we sought to determine whether the program was delivered according to regional and national implementation strategies developed on the basis of pre-program consultations. We also examined the extent to which approved projects reflect guiding principles. A final question was the extent to which proper information was being collected to permit future program evaluation activities. Several lines of evidence were used to address these issues, including discussion groups, key informant interviews, case studies, surveys and program documents.

For the third group of evaluation questions, effects and impacts, in this, the formative stage, we were able to obtain only early readings on impacts, as the program is still in its infancy. The impact areas include labour market skills, employment, earnings, the action plan, income-transfer dependence, and quality of life.

For the final evaluation issue, cost-effectiveness, this evaluation sought to address the question of whether or not the program (projects) succeeded in leveraging funds from other program sources. We also examined the extent to which OF funds filled gaps and complemented other funding sources, which is one of the OF guidelines.

1.4 Methodology

Phase I of the evaluation of OF consisted of five components: a literature and document review, key informant interviews, case studies, a survey of third party delivery organizations, and discussion groups. Each of these is briefly described in turn.

The review of literature and documentation served two purposes. First, the review set the context for the study by describing the basic economic and labour market environment in which the program was born in order to establish a rationale for the program. The literature review included government data analyses (particularly the Health and Activity Limitations Survey) and other independent studies. The second purpose of the review was to enable a thorough understanding of the program under study. For this, we reviewed program documentation including policy manuals, reports, statements and operational guidelines.

For the key informant interviews, a total of 22 interviews were conducted with different respondent types in order to get wide ranging views on the issues from all perspectives. The respondent types included non-governmental organizations who are members of the national reference group; HRDC headquarters representatives; HRDC regional representatives; representatives from other similar programs aimed at persons with disabilities; non-funded OF applicants; and local HRCC representatives. Among the issues addressed in the interviews were the rationale for the program; the implementation of the program and consistency with guidelines; effectiveness of partnerships and leveraging; and impacts of the program on clients and organizations.

Five case studies were conducted, one of a national project, one of the Quebec umbrella organization, and three of regional/local projects in Victoria, Red Deer and Toronto. Each case study was based on two information sources: (1) administrative data on finances, clients and employers, and impacts/results of the project, and (2) three to five one-to-two-hour interviews with project respondents, including the manager and clients of the project, the local HRCC official, and external stakeholders and partners. Among the issues addressed by the case studies were leveraging and partnerships; the effectiveness of program delivery and partnerships; short-term impacts on clients and organizations; the quality of follow-up on projects and clients; and lessons learned. Case study illustrations are presented throughout the text. Highlights of the case studies are presented in Appendix B.

For the telephone survey of third-party delivery organizations, 253 interviews (out of 520 organizations) were conducted with organizations that provided work term placements for OF clients or that coordinated and managed services for clients. Respondents were drawn from the OF projects database. Issues covered in the survey interviews included program activity (e.g., number of participants and partnerships created) and evaluative information such as satisfaction with the program, whether or not needs were met, and short-term employment and quality-of-life outcomes. A "faxback" form was designed to enable respondents to provide detailed feedback on such issues as gaps in programming for persons with disabilities, best practices, and suggestions for improvements to the Opportunities Fund.

For the discussion groups, 14 small discussion groups were conducted with participants and delivery agents/stakeholders to provide in-depth information on all evaluation topics. Groups were led, in either English or French, by Ekos moderators in: Halifax, Rouyn/Noranda, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Red Deer and Vancouver. Sessions lasted approximately one to two hours. The groups ranged in size considerably, with an average of about six to eight per group.

While Phase I of the evaluation of the OF Fund has attempted to collect information using multiple lines of evidence, a number of caveats should be noted. First, the program has only recently entered the implementation stage. Issues related to impacts and effects and lessons learned could not be fully addressed at this stage. Second, the views of OF participants are only represented in a limited way through a small number of discussion groups. Participants' views on delivery and, in particular, impacts and effects are therefore very preliminary at this time.

1.5 Organization of Report

There are four additional chapters following this one. Chapter 2.0 addresses questions related to program rationale and program implementation, particularly with respect to the established program guidelines. Chapter 3.0 examines initial program delivery results, including, for example, take-up, project activities and satisfaction. Chapter 4.0 presents findings related to program impacts and effects and cost-effectiveness. It should be noted that, as this is Phase I of the evaluation and the program is in the very early stages of delivery, information related to these issues is preliminary. Chapter 5.0 presents a summary and formative evaluation conclusions.