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

The purpose of this chapter is to present a descriptive profile of activities which have been sponsored by the Opportunities Fund to date, including program clientele and interventions. The data presented rely largely on the survey of project sponsors conducted as part of the evaluation. Note that within this survey, two distinct sponsor groups were identified: organizations providing work term experiences under OF (usually a targeted wage subsidy program), and organizations that coordinated or brokered services to multiple clients. The two groups responded to many of the same items on the survey; however, separate modules were also developed for each group to reflect their varying roles in the program.

HRDC was the main source of awareness of OF (45 percent) among the sponsoring organizations. This may have been a result of the initial mailing to organizations which introduced the program or through outreach at the local level. Other sources of awareness of the program included: professional associations (19 percent); colleagues (13 percent) and clients (12 percent) (Exhibit 3.1). Those respondents who heard about the program through another disability organization could be categorized under the "professional association" or "colleague" response categories.

Referrals were the most common method that project sponsors used to attract potential clients; 49 percent cited referrals from other organizations representing persons with disabilities, 33 percent had referrals from the HRCCs, and 13 percent from social services/welfare. Over one-third did not use any specific marketing to promote their OF programs and services to potential clients (Exhibit 3.2). In the discussion groups, several project participants learned about their OF-funded project through a newspaper/magazine ad.

(c) Motivations for Participation

Organizations

For the majority of organizations who provided a work term under OF, the main reason for participating in the program was a conviction to help persons with disabilities (52 percent).

The work placements, however, were also meeting a need for the organization itself. Overall, 29 percent of organizations stated that the main reason for participating in the program was a work requirement or the need for new recruits. One in ten organizations cited the wage subsidy was the main reason for their participation. Within this group, private sector organizations were more likely than non-governmental organizations to name the wage subsidy as the primary reasons for participation (17 percent compared to 2 percent of NGOs). NGOs on the other hand were more likely than private sector employers to state that a work requirement was the primary reason for participation (Exhibit 3.3).

Participants

For participants, the main reason for participating in the Opportunities Fund was to improve their employment prospects. Those who participated in the discussion group discussions described a wide variety of services and activities in order to achieve their employment goals. These activities ranged from simple purchase of equipment or workplace modifications to skills upgrading and training to work term experiences with the help of a job coach. Several of the participants were pursuing self-employment.

The survey results presented in Exhibit 3.4 provide a broad profile of the organizations involved in the Opportunities Fund.

As mentioned above, the database of OF contracts was composed of two types of organizations, those that provided work experience to OF clients and organizations involved in coordinating or brokering services for OF clients. Based on the survey responses, the groups were quite evenly split with 48 percent of respondents falling into the former category and 52 percent into the latter.

The majority of organizations that contract with HRDC under the Opportunities Fund are non- profit sector organizations (62 percent). Thirty percent of organizations classified themselves as private sector and 6 percent were public sector organizations (e.g., colleges) .

The regional profile of project sponsors indicates that 20 percent were located in the Atlantic provinces, 18 percent in Quebec and 21 percent in Ontario. Twenty-one percent of respondents were located in the Prairies and 20 percent were from British Columbia.

Fifty-nine percent of organizations had agreements with HRDC that were less than $10,000 in value. Forty-one percent of agreements were over $10,000. Two-thirds of third-party organizations had a single agreement with HRDC under the Opportunities Fund. Fourteen percent of organizations reported having two agreements and 13 percent reported having three agreements or more. Among organizations that coordinated and delivered programs and services, 63 percent stated the projects were new and 36 percent stated the projects were based on an existing program.

While Phase I of the evaluation could not include a survey of OF participants, some information on the profile of individuals using the program was gathered through the survey of project sponsors. Since the profile data was obtained at the organization level, these data may not necessarily reflect the profile of individual participants. This information is presented below.

Nature and Severity of the Disability

For delivery organizations that provided a work term, the most frequently cited type of disability of the employee(s) placed was mental (41 percent), followed by mobility (35 percent) and agility (17 percent) (Exhibit 3.5). Hearing impairment or sight impairment was cited by 14 percent and 10 percent of the organizations respectively. Note that the nature and severity of the disabilities reported are based on the self-reported perceptions of the sponsors.

In terms of severity of the disability, 46 percent of work term organizations assessed the severity of the disability of their employee as mild, 39 percent reported the disability as moderate and 9 percent stated it was severe. Compared to the distribution of clients for organizations that coordinated and delivered programs and services, individuals with severe disabilities are substantially underrepresented (approximately by half) in work placements and those with mild disabilities are overrepresented by a factor of nearly two. The lower participation of those with severe disabilities in work terms may be due to the risks to existing income supports involved in establishing employment.

For organizations that coordinated or delivered programs and services, the most common disability for their client group was mental/intellectual disabilities (72 percent), followed by mobility (53 percent), agility (29 percent), sight impairment (29 percent), hearing impairment (26 percent) and speaking impairment (18 percent) (Exhibit 3.6). Another two percent of the organizations stated they served all client groups. Some key informants noted that some types of disabilities were underrepresented in local OF programming to date.

Just over 20 percent of the organizations that delivered programs and services had additional criteria for participation in their OF project. Of the small number of projects with additional program criteria, the most common criteria were related to sex (52 percent), age (26 percent), aboriginal status (18 percent), and vocational rehabilitation (12 percent).

The largest percentage of clients (46 percent) served by organizations that coordinated programs and services were assessed based on the perceptions of the project sponsor as having a moderate disability. Approximately 26 percent of the clients served had mild disabilities and 21 percent were reported as having severe disabilities.

The survey examined the status of OF clients in terms of their prior work experience and use of social transfers. Among organizations who were providing work term experiences, only 15 percent reported that their OF employee had worked for them in the past.

The majority of project sponsors reported that none of their participants were EI recipients (75 percent) or they did not know the EI status of their participants (12 percent). Thirteen percent reported that some of their participants were EI clients. Based on the survey results, it would appear that most project sponsors were adhering to the program criterion that the participants not be EI eligible. This is a crude indicator, however, since the question only asks about EI recipients and does not tap the full range of EI eligible clientele. This issue is best addressed through the analysis of administrative data since third party organizations may not fully understand or know the EI status of their clientele.

Our expectation that the majority of OF participants would be social assistance recipients (SAR) was not fully confirmed. While 14 percent of project sponsors indicated that they did not know whether any of their clients were social assistance recipients, 45 percent stated they had no SAR participants and 42 percent indicated that at least some of their participants were SARs. The status of this large portion of non-EI/non-SAR clients is unclear. Based on discussion groups with participants, a portion of clients may be Workers' Compensation or CPP/ Disability claimants or possibly have other sources of support such as family. An accurate profile of OF clients will not be possible until a survey of participants is conducted during the later stages of the evaluation.

Note that this high incidence of participants who are not social assistance recipients may pose significant problems for the design of the mid-term and summative evaluations, particularly in identifying an appropriate comparison group for OF participants. The primary sampling frame for the comparison group may still be based on a social assistance recipient database, however, alternative sources may have to be sought for comparison cases for non-SAR/ non-EI OF participants.

3.2 Benefits and Measures Offered

For delivery organizations that provided a work term, the main types of services or activities offered were on-the-job training (78 percent) and the workplace experience (71 percent). Formal training was relatively rare (13 percent) (Exhibit 3.7). The average work term was over six months (29 weeks) (Exhibit 3.8). A majority of work terms were less than six months in duration (56 percent) and one in five were less than three months. The work placements with private sector firms tended to be shorter than work placements in organizations from the non-governmental sector (an average of 26 weeks versus 32 weeks).

Among organizations that coordinated and delivered programs and services, the focus of activities was on improving the employability of participants through services related to finding employment or improving skills and experience. The most common services offered were job placements/work experience (64 percent), employment counselling/job search advice (64 percent), and training programs (including pre-employment programs) (63 percent) (Exhibit 3.9). The next most common activities included targeted wage subsidies (39 percent), labour market information (39 percent) and assistance for self-employment (35  percent).

The delivery of services such as employment counselling and labour market information was almost exclusively provided by the organizations funded under OF themselves (as opposed to other partners). In terms of training, three-quarters of the funded organizations stated they provided the training themselves, while 20 percent reported delivery by a college or university. A similar proportion of the funded organizations were also responsible for the delivery of self-employment assistance (72 percent), with the second largest category being other NGOs. The activities least likely to be undertaken directly by the OF-funded organization were job placement/work experience and the targeted wage subsidy. Approximately 61 percent of the funded organizations stated they provided the job placement/work experience to the participants themselves, while 35 percent indicated employers. The delivery of the targeted wage subsidy was largely undertaken by the funded organization (59 percent) however the HRCC was indicated as the delivery agent by 23 percent of the organizations that delivered programs and services. It is unclear whether respondents meant that their own organization had hired an OF employee or they were simply acting as brokers for job placements with external employers.

(a) Project Costs

Reflecting the flexibility of the OF program, organizations that coordinated and delivered OF used their funds to cover a wide variety of costs (Exhibit 3.10). The kind of costs covered under OF that were mentioned most frequently by surveyed project sponsors were participant wages at a job (55 percent), special devices or support related to the disability (50 percent) and tuition/course fees (46 percent). The next most frequently mentioned responses were: transportation (36 percent); other expenses such as child care (20 percent); and staff salaries (17 percent). Detailed information on the proportion of OF funding that is being used for administrative versus program costs was not collected in this evaluation.

Virtually all organizations providing work terms received wage subsidies through the Opportunities Fund (Exhibit 3.11). Training costs were reported as a cost covered by OF by 18 percent of the organizations and 15 percent reported OF covering the cost of special devices or supports for participants. Only 6 percent reported other costs such as child care expenses and 1 percent reported transportation costs as being covered by the program.

The length of time for sponsors to receive approval for their project was relatively short. (Exhibit 3.12). More than one-half of respondents received their approval in one month or less (61 percent) and only 14 percent reported their approval taking four months or more. Approval time increased with the value of the contract. Virtually all project sponsors found this approval period to be acceptable (86 percent). Stakeholder groups frequently noted a key benefit of the program was the ability to get up and running quickly with little red tape.

Length of Time to Implement Project

Most organizations also reported a relatively short implementation phase; approximately 25 percent reported that it took one week or less between approval of their project and enrolling participants in their project. Just over half (56 percent) reported the implementation as taking one month or less. Less than one quarter took four months or more to implement (Exhibit 3.12).

Virtually all respondents reported that their projects served one community/municipality (53 percent) or region (40 percent). Only 3 percent were regional in scope and another 3 percent of projects were national in scope.

Almost all organizations coordinating or delivering programs and services developed individual plans for all clients (83 percent) or at least for some clients (2 percent). Fourteen percent of organizations claimed never to have developed individual action plans with clients.

Almost all organizations that coordinated or delivered programs and services intend to monitor clients. Eleven percent indicated they did not intend to conduct any follow-up. Over half of the organizations conducting a follow-up (56 percent) stated they would conduct this follow-up every three months, 15 percent stated the interval would be more than three months, and another 14 percent stated the follow-up would depend on the individual needs. Unfortunately, these follow-up data will not be maintained centrally, representing a lost opportunity for monitoring and lessons learned analyses.

Note that in the discussion groups, some stakeholders/delivery organizations mentioned that there was confusion in some cases as to which organization was responsible for follow-up with clients. These respondents also noted that there were often few resources to conduct frequent and/or extended follow-up contacts.

Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of the organizations that coordinated or delivered programs and services acknowledged their agreements with HRDC included targets for the results of their project. Of those that had targets, 89 percent indicated these were employment targets and 30 percent indicated targets to reduce reliance on social assistance/income transfers.

The majority of surveyed project sponsors have either one (43 percent) or no participants currently (12 percent). Nearly one-third expect to have no more than one participant (Exhibits 3.13 and 3.14). As can be expected, the most common response for private sector organizations was to expect only one participant (51 percent) (given that their involvement was more likely to be limited to providing a work term), while for NGOs only 21 percent expected only one participant.

The decision to delay the participant survey at this formative evaluation stage was vindicated by the fact that the vast majority of the participants have not completed their program — 70 percent of project sponsors indicated that at the time of the survey no participants had completed their intervention. Any outcomes at this stage are still too early to assess.

Project sponsors' overall rating of satisfaction with the Opportunities Fund was very high: 87 percent were satisfied with OF overall and 67 percent were very satisfied. Only 4 percent expressed any dissatisfaction with the program.

Respondents were asked if they experienced any challenges or difficulties in implementing their OF project. Approximately two-thirds did not indicate any specific difficulties. Fifteen percent indicated communications or information problems (e.g., guidelines unclear), 12 percent indicated funding delays, and 6 percent stated that the program implementation had been rushed. When asked to suggest improvements to the program, 44 percent did not offer any improvements, 24 percent suggested more information on the program, and 16 percent suggested longer term funding.

Virtually all project sponsors indicated they would participate in the program again (96 percent). Nearly all of the organizations (96 percent) that provided a work placement would recommend participating in OF to another organization. Only 2 percent would not.

Reflecting the overall satisfaction ratings, the ratings of various aspects of the program were also relatively high (Exhibit 3.15).

The highest average ratings were for the amount of funding provided, both the overall project funding and the amount of the wage subsidy. The next highest ratings were for the support provided by HRDC, monitoring and reporting requirements, the application process, and the flexibility of the program for experimentation. The types of activities and costs funded by the program were among the next highest ratings, as was the aptitude and skills of the work term employee.

The lowest ratings all related to information dissemination. After adjusting for the "don't know/no response", 70 percent were satisfied with the opportunities to share information and experiences with others working in the field. The lowest rating was for the availability of information about OF. Only 62 percent were satisfied with the availability of information, while 24 percent were dissatisfied. Private sector organizations had the lowest ratings; 33 percent were dissatisfied with the availability of information while this figure was 19 percent for NGOs. A lack of clear information and communications on the OF was also identified as a weakness by stakeholder/delivery organizations.

OF participants who were contacted for this evaluation expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the program. While most individuals were in the early stages of their intervention, they were very satisfied with the flexibility of the program to fund the kinds of services and activities they needed to become employed. For some, participation in programs where other participants were disabled raised their level of comfort. Participants had found the application process devoid of the kind of "red tape" that was often perceived to be associated with a government program. Finally, the follow-up was perceived to be highly valuable, providing participants with access to an individual on whom they could rely for support or advice.

In terms of program weaknesses, several participants noted some difficulties in accessing OF without jeopardizing existing income support and benefit coverage (e.g., from social assistance or CPP Disability). In several of the discussion groups, an issue was also raised around the coordination of activities and programs related to persons with disabilities. Participants suggested that it would be useful to have a single point of contact where individuals could be made aware of their options available through different programs. Also, insufficient program information and a lack of sensitivity on the part of some trainers (working for organizations which traditionally train people who are not disabled) were identified as weaknesses.