|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
With respect to program rationale issues, the focus of this evaluation has been on the extent to which the principles and approach of the Opportunities Fund reflect the original intention of the program and established best practices in this area. In addition, this chapter also examines the extent to which there is a continued need for the program based on the needs and profiles of persons with disabilities in Canada and current programming. The existing literature offers a strong rationale for programs to assist those with disabilities to enter the labour market and also supports many of the program features of the Opportunities Fund. This chapter also addresses implementation issues, in particular, adherence to the program principles in practices, targeting, outreach, leveraging, partnerships and monitoring and accountability. 2.1 Program Relevance and Rationale (a) Program Relevance As mentioned in the previous chapter, the catalyst for the Opportunities Fund was the Scott Federal Task Force on Disability Issues. During its consultations, employment was identified as a top concern and the Task Force noted the many barriers faced by persons with disabilities in attaining employment and independence. The employment challenges experienced by Canadians with disabilities were also evident in the literature reviewed for this evaluation. For example, the labour force participation rate of persons with disabilities (56 percent) was considerably lower in 1991 than the respective rate for persons without disabilities (81 percent)1. Conversely, the unemployment rate is higher among persons with disabilities, regardless of sex, age, education or occupation. Based on data from the 1991 HALS (Health and Activity Limitation Survey), Fawcett (1996) estimates that over half of persons with disabilities could have entered paid employment if barriers were removed. Evidence of the consequences of marginalization of persons with disabilities in the labour market is the relatively high incidence of poverty. This is especially the case among those with severe disabilities. The literature suggests further that issues around employment for persons with disabilities will become even more important in the future (Fawcett, 1996). The incidence of disability rises with age, implying a rising incidence of disability in the future as the large baby boomer generation grows older, suggesting the continued need for programs to assist persons with disabilities to integrate into or remain in the labour force. While the Scott Task Force asserted that all labour market programs should be inclusive for those with disabilities, it also identified a need for additional measures to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. The Task Force report noted that the reforms to Employment Insurance (EI) and the Human Resources Investment Fund (HRIF) resulted in a loss of eligibility among persons with disabilities for active employment measures. Because persons with disabilities often do not have the labour market experience to gain the insurable earnings necessary for access to EI-related measures, the Task Force recommended the creation of a fund to "provide innovative approaches to integrating individuals with disabilities into the labour force". The Opportunities Fund was established to respond to the recommendations of the Scott Task Force around labour market integration. According to key informants and the literature, the OF is based on a rationale that includes both equity and efficiency arguments. On the one hand, the Fund attempts to address some of the attitudinal and physical barriers that have disadvantaged individuals with disabilities in the past from actively participating in the world of work. For equity reasons, individuals with disabilities should have fair access to programs and opportunities in the labour market and should be able to enjoy the sense of belonging, dignity and independence that is associated with work. In terms of efficiency, the Opportunities Fund is also intended to provide individual and societal benefits by increasing the financial independence and self-sufficiency among persons with disabilities through paid work. The inclusion of persons with disabilities also maximizes the labour market pool and the number of Canadians who are able to make a productive contribution to the economy and to society. Key informants generally agreed that the federal government has an appropriate role to play in labour market programs for individuals with disabilities. Respondents noted that services available to persons with disabilities are uneven across provinces, with some provincial governments providing dedicated employment programming targeted to individuals with disabilities, while other provinces have very little available. The federal government was also perceived to have a responsibility under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure equity of opportunities for all citizens. Finally, respondents identified the federal government as having a leadership role to play in this area. This leadership was defined as providing resources, skills, moral persuasion and focus to encourage and supplement this type of programming. The potential for duplication and overlap between the Opportunities Fund and other provincial or federal programs was addressed in the key informant interviews and stakeholder discussion groups. While respondents acknowledged that there may be some overlap between OF and provincial programs (due in part to confusion stemming from many recent changes in federal and provincial programming), consultation and exchange among those who deliver the program attempt to guard against duplication or competition for resources. However, several respondents from within government noted that there was a potential for duplication in the future with the establishment of the Employability Assistance for Persons with Disabilities (EAPD) program (formerly the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons program). While not yet fully implemented, the EAPD will focus on providing employability services to persons with disabilities on a cost-shared basis with the provinces. It is possible that the program will provide similar types of services to a similar target group, though the EAPD does not have many of the features embodied in the OF (e.g., involvement of disability groups). While some key informant and discussion group respondents from the stakeholder groups noted that the need for programming in this area is so great as not to preclude a number of different programs, nevertheless there may be a need to examine structured methods of co-ordination and linkages between these two programs in the future. (b) Rationale for Program Design There are several key features of the Opportunities Fund which distinguish it from other programs available to persons with disabilities including:
Findings from the literature review, key informant interviews and discussion groups support these key program design features. The literature review2, for example, indicated that the most effective labour market interventions are those that directly involve persons with disabilities. This involvement refers both to including persons with disabilities in determining the types of assistance required and making their own decisions regarding the purchase and direction of personal support, as well as having persons with disabilities, or their representative organizations, participate in the design and implementation of programs serving the workforce needs of persons with disabilities. The qualitative research also strongly supported the effectiveness of having direct involvement of persons with disabilities in the delivery of the program. The OF has attempted to include the disability community through the establishment of a National Reference Group composed of representatives of national organizations devoted to disability issues. This reference group, drawn from the Scott Task Force Reference Group, has been integrally involved in the development of the program guidelines, as well as in overseeing the implementation of the program and its evaluation. The involvement of this group is also intended to ensure the ongoing relevance of OF over the life of the program. At the local level, the involvement of the disability community is uneven and depends to some extent on the experiences and prior partnerships with the HRCC. Some respondents from the disability community felt there was an over-reliance on established or mainstream organizations and not enough outreach to local-level groups. Other key informants expressed concern about the expertise of HRDC/HRCCs to adequately serve the community of persons with disabilities, given the experience, sensitivity and knowledge that these respondents felt was required to provide effective services to persons with disabilities. Several respondents from the disability community felt it was important to further enhance their involvement at the local level in terms of building capacity within disability organizations to develop and deliver programs. Others also suggested greater involvement in setting priorities and approving projects at the local level (though other respondents noted the potential conflict of interest in this approach). The literature review and key informant interviews provide support for the second key feature of OF — the use of individualized services and action plans. The literature clearly indicates that programs designed for persons with disabilities must recognize the great variation within the client base (HRDC, 1997). Moreover, in many cases, a holistic approach is required to effectively integrate persons with disabilities into the workforce. The needs of a person with a disability can be wide-ranging: employment may be impossible without assistance in a number of areas including transportation, housing, housekeeping, attendant care, income support and training. As a result, there is a need for flexible programming for clients with disabilities and the need for individualized interventions. Individual action plans ensure that clients are able to assess their needs and also can increase the self-esteem and confidence of participants as they begin to undertake action planning and interventions. The focus on employment outcomes and monitoring of clients was found to be an important feature of effective interventions. Combining early intervention with case management and follow-up of clients with disabilities further enhances the value of the intervention. During the key informant interviews and stakeholder discussion groups it was noted that there is some friction between two of the guidelines: maintaining a balanced portfolio (that is, representing the full range of disabilities across OF projects and including clients who are comparatively less "job ready") and producing measurable results and maximizing the number of clients who become employed and self-sufficient. Stakeholder/ delivery organizations in some centres felt there was too much focus on the latter principle — employment results — at the expense of the former — achieving a balanced portfolio. This creates pressure to select clients who are more job ready and to avoid persons with more severe disabilities. Just as the widely varying characteristics of the population of persons who are disabled and their circumstances must be considered when assessing what level and type of assistance is required, so must this variation be taken into consideration when measuring the impacts. Reasonable expectations for employment results must be maintained based on the employability of the clientele served by the program and the intervention when measuring success. While the overall expectations of the program are a balanced portfolio and reasonable employment targets, it is possible that this message has not been clearly communicated in all centres. That the guideline on employability does not specify a timeframe was viewed as positive by many respondents. This issue could also be resolved by establishing targets at the local level to ensure a balanced portfolio. The interfacing of OF with other programs, particularly EI Part II, the final key feature of OF discussed here, is supported to the extent that there is an increase in the efficiency of use of OF funds. The use of EI Part II funds was intended to conserve OF resources by directing clients to use these Employment Assistance Services prior to the more active labour market services offered by OF. Persons with disabilities who are EI eligible are also directed to services provided under EI Part II and under HRIF3. While this approach is intended to enhance the efficiency of OF, it may be prudent to examine the extent to which HRIF and EI Part II programming has proven to be fair, appropriate and accessible for persons with disabilities. The Scott Task Force noted that HRIF programs must be inclusive for those with disabilities. Ideally, this programming would reflect the principles identified in the literature as associated with success and which are reflected in the OF approach. Some key informants and discussion group participants believed that EI- eligible clients (including "reachback" clients who have used EI in the last three years) should be included under OF. The extent to which "mainstream" services such as the Employment Assistance Services funded under EI Part II are accessible for persons with disabilities is particularly important given that this may be an early point of contact for clients with disabilities. Past evaluation research has shown that timing is critical to successfully integrating persons with disabilities into work and society. This was the lesson learned from the experience of the National Vocational Rehabilitation Project associated with CPP (Disability) in Canada, as well as the General Accounting Office in its examination of US programs (HRDC, 1997). 2.2 Program Implementation (a) The Implementation Process As described in the previous chapter, the implementation of OF is highly decentralized. Funding is provided to regions which have, in turn, developed models for the distribution of funds at the local level. Prior to allocating funds, all regions were required to develop a strategic plan outlining the key priorities for the area, planned activities, anticipated results and organizational involvement. Key informants agreed that projects were generally implemented in accordance with regional and national strategies. Feedback both from designers and from those responsible for the implementation of OF indicated that where there were weaknesses in implementation. These were largely with respect to information dissemination. The program was underway very quickly and little time was afforded organizations to become familiar with the program. As well, there were some concerns about raising expectations about the program beyond the level of funding that was available. A mass mailing of 2,500 was conducted to established disability organizations to publicize the program and members of the national reference group were expected to promote the program among their constituents. However, the survey of sponsoring organizations revealed that the lowest levels of satisfaction were for the information initially available about OF. Key informants, as well, believed that the dissemination of information and outreach to organizations could have been better at the outset of the program. Inadequate promotion of the program was also identified as a weakness by OF participants. In the discussion groups, many participants mentioned that awareness of the program was poor and these individuals expressed concern that many persons with disabilities who could benefit from OF were not currently being reached by the program. In particular, individuals with a disability who are not involved with an established organization or who are not well represented by their association may potentially be unaware of the program. Some stakeholders/delivery organizations believed that there was a lack of structured information/training on the program to help HRCCs in program delivery. Combined with the considerable flexibility and discretion in the program, this was viewed by some as having had consequences in terms of the application of the program guidelines. The individuals noted that there were discrepancies across locations in terms of the interpretation of the guidelines and the types of projects approved. Some key informants found these inconsistencies to be major problems, while others regarded them as symptoms of the "growing pains" one typically sees in the early stages of new programs. Another aspect of information dissemination is sharing of experiences and practices among organizations participating in OF. Some stakeholder/delivery organizations noted that they met informally to share information at the community level and some groups noted that they had plans in place for sharing lessons learned, such as through the Internet. At this stage of the program, there have been very few opportunities for sharing information about lessons learned, and under the national projects, finding success stories. However, based on the key informant interviews and the input received from the fax-back forms, it is too early for the sponsors to have enough experience with OF to comment on lessons learned. It should be noted that OF is currently exploring options for sharing of practices using an Internet site. A feasibility study, including community consultations, is currently underway. (b) Adherence to Guiding Principles In the survey of sponsor organizations, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which a number of the guiding principles of OF described their project (Exhibit 2.1). Half of the eight principles which were probed received very high ratings (85 percent to 92 percent agreement), including active participation of persons with disabilities and their organizations in delivery, helping individuals with disabilities move into employment, activities producing measurable results, and activities adding to and complementing existing programming. Strong but less enthusiastic ratings were provided for sharing of practices and experiences and post-placement follow-up of clients and employers. The most challenging guidelines to implement revolved around establishing partnerships with the private sector. Working with partners such as employers and unions and leveraging funds from other public and private sector sources received the lowest ratings with 68 and 50 percent of respondents respectively stating that these guidelines described their project. The views expressed by delivery agents in the discussion groups are generally consistent with these survey results. One of the recommendations of the Scott Task Force was for a fund which would provide for innovative ways to integrate persons with disabilities into the labour market. While the OF is intended to be innovative in process, the notion of innovation is not included in the program funding guidelines due to concern about the potential to exclude "tried and true" approaches that have been found to be effective in the past. Several key informants from organizations delivering the program have noted, however, that the program has, in some cases, focused on familiar practices at the expense of new or creative strategies to encourage employability. This may be linked in some centres to the perceived pressure to achieve employment targets. Exhibit 2.1 "Please rate the extent to which you feel each of the following statements describes your project."
(c) Leveraging and Partnerships When queried about the use of OF in combination with other assistance programs such as EI or Workers Compensation, 58 percent of project sponsors indicated no other assistance programs were accessed compared to 34 percent who reported delivering OF in combination with other programs. When asked about the other programs that had been used, 69 percent of project sponsors reported provincial government programs, including Social Assistance (Exhibit 2.2). Most of this provincial government involvement in terms of assistance programs likely preceded the OF funding and does not necessarily represent leveraged funding. Approximately 10 percent of the organizations delivering services reported using EI to complement the OF. (Note that these data are based on a small number of cases.) While the intent of OF was to use EI Part II resources where possible, relatively few organizations reported delivering their programs in combination with EI.
There has been only limited involvement from employers, unions and other partners to develop strategic employment opportunities. When asked more broadly about establishing partnerships to deliver the Opportunities Fund, 65 percent of project sponsors stated partnerships had been established to deliver programs and services. In terms of the types of partners, the most frequent response was other non-profit/voluntary organizations representing persons with disabilities (70 percent), followed by the provincial government (40 percent), other non-profit organizations (34 percent) and employers (25 percent) (Exhibit 2.3). There has been a low level of union involvement, both as partners and in the development of strategic employment opportunities.
Two-thirds stated that partner contributions included advice or expertise, 44 percent were involved in service delivery, and 32 percent provided employment experience (Exhibit 2.4). Initially, 46 percent of project sponsors indicated they had received funding through their partners. However, when probed again specifically for in-kind versus a financial contribution, the percentage reporting either financial or in-kind funding rose to 55 percent, with 31 percent receiving a financial contribution and 45 percent receiving an in-kind contribution from their partner. The statistics surrounding the amount of the financial contribution have a wide margin of error due to the small percentage who received a financial contribution and the large percentage of recipients who did not know or would not state the amount received (27 percent). Just under half (47 percent) of those providing a dollar estimate stated the dollar amount was under $25K and 30 percent reported amounts exceeding $50K.
(d) Targeting Based on the evidence from this evaluation, the program appears to be reaching the intended clientele. Across all sponsors and delivery agents, there is a wide range in the nature and severity of the disabilities of the OF clients (one of the guidelines of the program). The only issue which was raised in the evaluation with respect to targeting was the possible misinterpretation of the meaning of "balanced portfolio". Some key informants suggested that the principle of a balanced portfolio is sometimes misinterpreted to mean that initiatives with a cross-disability focus should be given priority. This interpretation is incorrect as the intent is to achieve a balanced portfolio across all projects, not in each project. Several representatives from stakeholders/delivery organizations and some HRCC representatives believed that the eligibility criteria could be extended to include EI- eligible clients and those who are currently employed but who require assistance to continue working. These respondents felt that often these individuals could benefit and be better- served by the coordinated assistance provided by OF. Although these individuals are eligible for EI Part II services, several respondents believed that EI-eligible individuals had not been able to access resources under EI Part II. (e) Monitoring and Accountability One of the key issues that was to be addressed at this formative evaluation stage was the extent to which sufficient information is being maintained for program accountability and to permit the conduct of the summative evaluation study which plays an important role in accountability. There are three types of information that are maintained on the Opportunities Fund program. These are:
At this stage of program implementation, the availability of program and monitoring data has been irregular. Contact IV is a relatively new platform that is being used by HRDC and, as a result, the procedures are unfamiliar. While technical problems have been a barrier to the smooth implementation of Contact IV in some cases, concerns were also noted by respondents about the extent of delays in receiving information at the corporate level. The forwarding of data from third parties to HRCCs and then from HRCCs to NESS is not occurring as quickly as had been hoped. These delays are largely attributed to resource constraints and competing priorities, particularly at the HRCC level. The survey of project sponsors also indicated that a relatively small proportion of the organizations that deliver OF programs and services would appear to be using Contact IV to track information on their clients (Exhibit 2.5).
Only half of surveyed organizations were aware of Contact IV (49 percent) and less than half of those aware of the package stated they were using the software to maintain information on their OF clients (43 percent). Overall then, 21 percent of organizations that coordinate and deliver OF programs and services are using Contact IV. The reasons for not using the software were diverse but the most common reason was inertia (not set up yet — 40 percent). Discussion group participants also mentioned concerns around confidentiality of the information and the extent to which Contact IV was able to collect information on the qualitative or non-labour outcomes of participation in OF. The reviews of those organizations that had implemented the software were mixed. 35 percent were dissatisfied and 39 percent were satisfied. (Note that these data are based on a small number of cases.)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060126172513im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060126172513im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060126172513im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060126172513im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}