|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
This chapter presents the findings related to the following main themes:
Each of these headings is discussed in detail below. Readers interested in obtaining more information on the systems issue can refer to the revised Information Systems Report dated September 30, 1997. 3.1 Local Implementation and Delivery Findings related to the following topics are discussed in this section on local implementation and delivery:
The major findings related to each issue are presented in boxes, followed by explanatory text.
Despite the potential for duplication of programs at some levels, duplication was reported to be minimal. It was believed that the Labour Market Development Agreements would help address the issue of duplication of federal and provincial programs in the provinces where those agreements have been or will be implemented. Because some SARs would be eligible to participate in an EBSM intervention, they would have access to both federal and provincial programs, some of which might be very similar. The potential for duplication exists for the Targeted Wage Subsidies and Self-Employment programs, in particular. A Review of Programs for Integrating Social Assistance Recipients Into the Workforce identified at least 7 such provincial programs (3 of which were joint provincial-federal efforts, and 3 of which were available from the same province).3 Interviewees also reported that Industry Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and provincial ministries all have Self-Employment programs in place in the Atlantic. It was also reported that some Employment Assistance Services (e.g., resume preparation, job finding clubs) were duplicated within communities. While the same client would not have access to programs at both the federal and provincial levels, the assumption of interviewees was that administrative costs would be reduced if one type of program was available from a single level of government.
The advantages of local flexibility for the HRCCs include the following:
Based on the feedback from interviewees, the benefits of local flexibility (i.e., local decisions to invest in clients for results) appear to outweigh any drawbacks. However, flexibility was reported to be difficult to accept by some staff who felt more comfortable using a "rule book" or who have difficulty accepting that clients might have access to different services based on where they live or even on their case manager. Some staff, especially those who now combine roles, also felt that they lacked the training and tools to operate within the new system. While Regions generally support local level flexibility, they also appear to have had more difficulty adapting to it than HRCCs have. The difficulty for them comes from determining how to provide advice to HRCCS without infringing on their flexibility or telling them what to do. Difficulty also results from uncertainty as to whether to intervene when HRCCs take action which Regions feel, will result in failure (e.g., approving more projects than their budget allows). Local level flexibility can lead to confusion among community partners and clients. This confusion among clients and community partners stems from anticipated inconsistencies in the type and range of services available between and within provinces/territories. Local level flexibility also poses challenges to, and leads to frustrations for, community organizations that serve an area encompassing numerous HRCCs with different priorities and ways of doing business (e.g., different monitoring requirements). These organizations have to be aware of these different priorities and requirements when preparing proposals in order to adapt them to the HRCC to which it is being submitted, even if the proposed project covers the entire area they serve.
Case management can be described at a very broad level by its two main components. One of these components is similar to a conceptual counselling function, whereby assistance is tailored to each individual's needs until an employment result is achieved. The other is a tracking and co-ordination function whereby client progress is documented on the Client File and tracked until the employment result is registered. Case management starts on the Client File with commitment to a return-to-work action plan and ends with the employment result. At the end of the assisted services (with completion of plan), the Client File is kept open for the results data collection (automatically determined for clients returning to work before the end of the benefits entitlement or through a follow-up 12 weeks after the intervention, as co-ordinated by the case manager). Except for its co-ordination and tracking feature, case management was generally not viewed as a new function for HRCCs, especially for staff who had been fulfilling a counselling function prior to the implementation of EI. Two of the major issues related to case management were that it takes time of which the remaining staff have very little and that the systems do not support it efficiently (entering data is also a time-consuming process). Results-based accountability tracking is therefore under-reported. Lack of resources was the most frequently mentioned reason for the lack of follow-up of clients who do not return to work before the end of their entitlement period. The follow-up appears to be very inconsistent across the HRCCs interviewed (some do extensive follow-up while others do very little). Unless resources are specifically assigned to the tracking and inputting of data, this task will likely not get done. Some HRCCs have dealt with the issue of case management being time-consuming by having third-parties conduct this function (including conducting the follow-up and, in some cases, achieving results).
According to the majority of interviewees, most EBSM participants would have an action plan. On the other hand, the majority of the clients who participated in the focus groups reported not having one. One explanation for this inconsistency is that clients are either unaware of having an action plan or cannot remember having developed one. For example, a client might have agreed to complete a course. While the HRCCs might view this as having an action plan - and entered related information in NESS - the client may not be aware of this. All respondents to the survey of participants were sampled on the basis that they were case managed (i.e., had an action plan in NESS). Survey respondents who had participated in a counselling session were asked whether they had prepared an action plan. Survey results indicate that while only a minority of respondents have attended a counselling session (29.5%), the majority of those who did have prepared an action plan (70.5%). The majority of those who reported having prepared an action plan felt that this plan was important4 (34.6%) or very important5 (43.6%) in helping them get back to work. Findings indicate that it would be possible to follow up and capture results for clients who participate in an EBSM intervention and have an action plan entered in NESS. However, it also appears that clients do not necessarily know what an action plan is or that they have one, even though NESS may indicate that they do. While clients may be aware of the need to take a given course of action, and commit to it, "action plan" is a term with which they are not necessarily familiar. "To be considered for case management, a client must commit to a return-to-work action plan."6 Findings indicate that from a counselling point of view, it may be beneficial for clients' understanding of their responsibilities under case management for action plans to be more clearly defined.
Over four-fifths (85.9%) of respondents who received their counselling services from a third-party organization said they had prepared an action plan, against two-thirds (67.9%) of respondents who had received these services from an HRCC. The majority of the survey respondents who reported having prepared an action plan said that they had either designed the plan themselves (45.5%) or discussed and agreed to the action plan's steps with their counsellor (44.9%). As shown in Exhibit 3.1, those who had received their services from a third-party were less likely to report that they had designed the plan themselves than those who received these services from an HRCC (37.85% versus 46.1%). On the other hand, those who had received the services from a third-party were more likely to say that they had discussed and agreed to the steps with their counsellor (54.3% against 43.9% for those who had received their services from an HRCC). The implication is that third-party organizations probably spend more time assisting clients in the development of their action plan than HRCC staff does.  Overall, almost two-thirds (63.2%) of respondents who had an action plan reported that someone had followed up on the progress of this plan. Almost three-quarters (72.7%) of participants who had received counselling services from a third-party reported that someone had followed up with them on their action plan, compared to 59.6% of respondents who had received the services from an HRCC. Few focus group participants reported having an HRCC counsellor or case manager who followed up on their progress.
The majority of, but not all, HRCCs interviewed for the formative evaluation reported that NFA had been implemented and was currently being used by staff. Those who had only recently started using NFA did not have much experience to report. A few reported that they were not currently negotiating (although they had in the past) because they had very little or no Part II money left.  The majority of training focus group participants and survey respondents reported that they had not negotiated a contribution to the cost of their training. As shown in Exhibit 3.2, only one-quarter (27.9%) of these survey respondents reported that they had negotiated a contribution. Many of the HRCCs reported using tools (e.g., booklets and pamphlets, balance sheet) to help both their staff and their clients negotiate financial assistance. Many HRCCs reported having guidelines, while some even had policies, on their approach to NFA. A number of HRCCs started out with a flat rate and eventually moved to full negotiations. Where HRCCs do not use any guidelines, staff identified the potential for inconsistencies between the approaches used by individual staff as a concern. Interviewees explained that, typically, the clients' current income (e.g., spousal income, child support, pension) and expenses (incremental cost of participating in training only or all expenses) were examined during the NFA process in order to assess the contribution that they can make to the cost of their training. They also reported that NFA was generally accepted as a positive process. However, some staff still feel uncomfortable negotiating assistance, even with training. Uneasiness about using NFA was felt to be particularly strong among staff with a counselling background since negotiating is not part of their previous skill set. Survey participants who negotiated their participation to the cost of their training were asked how satisfied they were with the process. Almost two-thirds reported satisfaction, with one-fifth (21.5%) being satisfied7 and two-fifths (40.5%) being very satisfied.8 Generally, participants in the focus groups with community partners and third-party deliverers also reacted positively (except for the Ottawa participants) to the concept of NFA. They felt that this process would contribute to limiting abuses and making clients more committed to their training.
In extreme situations where clients are unable to contribute anything to the cost of their training, HRCC interviewees explained that the negotiated contribution could be fairly minimal. Interviewees explained that contributing even a token amount, is important for clients to get a sense of ownership over the outcomes of the training and be more committed to it. Only in a few cases was it reported that NFA limited access to training for clients without the means to contribute since training was then denied. As a matter of fact, of the survey respondents who reported that they were no longer participating in training (84.2%, or over four-fifths), only 0.9% reported that it was because they could not afford to pay. Respondents to the survey of non-participants were asked why they had not participated in an employment program or used employment services. Only 2% reported that it was because they could not afford the fee. Most (40.9%) said the reason was that they had found employment. 3.2 Third-Party Service Delivery This section discusses the findings related to the use of third-parties to deliver services.
A number of HRCCs reported using third-party service deliverers, very often in order to deal with the lack of resources that have resulted from downsizing. Employment Assistance Services, in particular, are being delivered by third-parties in order to cope with an expanded pool of clients who require services and HRCCs' decreasing capacity to serve them. In some cases, HRCCs are also using third-parties to deliver services which staff feel uncomfortable delivering (e.g., Negotiated Financial Assistance). The use of third-parties was reported as being limited in some Regions because of the upcoming Labour Market Development Agreements and uncertainties regarding the approach that would be used to deliver employment services in the respective provinces. The majority of third-party deliverers who have been asked to case manage clients did not anticipate major difficulties doing this, as long as this responsibility was accompanied by funding from HRDC that would allow them to allocate resources to this activity. It was reported that some HRCC staff and union representatives had difficulty accepting the use of third-party service deliverers because of the seeming contradiction (cutting staff and then using third-parties to deliver services that HRCCs can no longer offer as a result of a lack of sufficient staff). On the other hand, other staff saw using third-parties to deliver services as a way to deal with the extra workload that cannot be picked up by their HRCC.
Each HRCC has its own contracting process for third-party service delivery. The process (e.g., programs available, where to obtain information or submit a proposal, the criteria or requirements) can be particularly confusing for third-parties who do not have an established relationship with one or more HRCCs. The various requirements used by different HRCCs make the process even more confusing to these organizations. Aside from the issue of unclear contracting process, third-party deliverers also mentioned the following related difficulties:
While third-parties had a number of concerns related to the contracting process, they realized and acknowledged that HRCC staff usually did the best they could to work within a system that, despite recent changes, can be relatively inflexible.
The majority of third-party deliverers described frequent monitoring and follow-up activities, but reported various requirements for reporting results to the HRCCs with which they had contracts. One consistent requirement appears to be the need for organizations involved in the delivery of training programs to report absenteeism to HRCCs. Contact IV, the case management software, was being used or was expected to be used by many of the third-party deliverers consulted in the conduct of this evaluation. In mid-August, National Headquarters reported that Contact IV was being used by approximately 700 third-parties, with plans to expand usage to 1,100 third-parties by the end of September. According to the NHQ representatives interviewed at that time, implementation was well under way in British Columbia and most of the Eastern Regions. Implementation in Ontario was said to be lagging. New Brunswick, where the LMDA has been implemented, has apparently asked HRDC permission to use Contact IV for case management. Two Regions, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, are using their own monitoring systems (Convertor in Alberta and Client Adjustment Tracking System (CATS) in Newfoundland and Labrador). Alberta will reportedly be using Contact IV once the new version becomes available. CATS had been implemented during the early days of The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy (TAGS) and is therefore well established among third-parties. It was reported that work was being done to find a way to upload data from CATS to Contact IV and then to NESS. 3.3 Quality of Services This section of the report presents the findings related to the perceived quality of services delivered by both HRCCs and third-parties, and satisfaction of clients with the services delivered.
Based on the findings from the qualitative research conducted for the formative evaluation, client satisfaction with services appears to be linked to two main factors: ease of access to services and service deliverers, and quality of the services provided once they were accessed. Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction using a 5 point scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied Once individuals have accessed the services provided by HRCCs, especially personal services such as counselling, the quality of the services provided was perceived to be high. Clients, both individual clients and community organizations, who had developed a close relationship with one staff member at the HRCC tended to be particularly satisfied with the quality of the services delivered. Comments about HRCC staff included that they provided positive service in a friendly environment, and that they took time to understand their clients and encourage them. However, numerous individuals consulted (clients, community organizations and employers) commented on the difficulties they had experienced getting in touch with someone at their local HRCC. The most frequent complaint was that it was nearly impossible to reach someone directly, that messages had to be left on voice mail and that it often took a long time for messages to be returned. A few community partners commented that they were now bypassing the telephone entirely when trying to contact someone at the HRCC. They found that they obtained responses more quickly when sending requests by fax. The lack of staff appeared to contribute to clients having difficulty obtaining accurate and consistent information, and to their overall impression that staff was ill-informed and that the system was disorganized. Inconsistencies in information were also a concern stated by community partners who dealt with many HRCCs. Community partners were also concerned that clients would suffer because of the increased reliance on technology (e.g., voice mail, job banks), especially if there is no staff available to help clients use this technology. The fact that the quality of services was generally perceived to be high but that access to HRCC services was a major area of dissatisfaction could explain the moderate overall satisfaction levels of survey respondents. Indeed, only slightly over half of survey respondents (56.4% of participants and 53.3% of non-participants) expressed satisfaction with HRCC services. Gorey et al. used a panel study to evaluate the City of Windsor's Special Services and Children's Services Branch from 1990 to 1994. Their background research into studies of client satisfaction with human service programs indicated that "consistently high satisfaction ratings have been observed across all of these service domains, ranging from 65% to 99% 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied'."9 Using this range as a benchmark indication of client satisfaction with human service programs would therefore indicate that survey respondents were only moderately satisfied with the level of service received from their local HRCC. It should be noted that the majority of people who made the comments noted above also acknowledged that HRCC staff was under a great deal of pressure to do more with less as a result of downsizing. Many of the individuals consulted stressed that while they understood that HRCC staff was doing the best that they could under the circumstances, they did not like the situation. Some community partners felt that the cutbacks being made to the HRCCs meant they had to pick up the slack. For their part, HRCC staff reported that their major impediment to providing quality service, in addition to downsizing, was the new roles they have had to combine with their existing role. For example, many staff now combine the roles of both counsellor and project officer. However, many staff consulted felt ill-prepared to take on a new role and believed this was having an impact on the quality of the services they could deliver to clients. For example, some staff who used to provide counselling services only felt uncomfortable negotiating contracts with third-parties. Of all respondents to the survey of participants, 56.4% rated their level of satisfaction a 4 or 5, a moderate level of satisfaction. As demonstrated in Exhibit 3.3, overall satisfaction levels were highest among participants in the Atlantic provinces and Québec and lowest in three of the four Western Regions (British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba).  Exhibit 3.3 also shows that satisfaction with the employment services received was greater among participants of all provinces, except for Manitoba, than it was among non-participants. A likely reason would be that participants' active involvement in an intervention that might lead to employment contributes to satisfaction.
As shown in Exhibit 3.4, participants in the Self-Employment program reported the greatest over-all levels of satisfaction, with three-quarters who reported satisfaction with services (33.9% reported being satisfied and 40.9% reported being very satisfied).  These high levels of satisfaction among SE participants might be due to the sense of control that Self-Employment focus group participants reported from operating their own business. High levels of satisfaction among this group might also be related to the fact that SE participants typically receive much assistance and support, often one-on-one, during the developmental stages of their business. Three-quarters (75%) of SE survey respondents reported satisfaction with the assistance they received through their participation in the program (23.6% rated their satisfaction a 4 and 52.9% rated it a 5). These findings were echoed in the focus groups with SE participants. One-on-one and personalized assistance was frequently mentioned by focus group participants and interviewees as the basis on which other interventions should be built. This assistance was believed to be particularly needed for individuals who might not be as resourceful as others. There was an expressed concern that the usefulness of self-serve tools, for example, is limited for these individuals and that what they need is one-on-one assistance to help and guide them through the steps of finding employment.
Respondents to the survey of participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the income or financial assistance received. Findings are illustrated in Exhibit 3.5. TWS respondents rated their level of satisfaction a 4 or 5 in a proportion of 53.5%, compared to 65% for JCP participants. This could be due to the fact that while TWS participants receive a wage paid by the employer and partially subsidized by HRDC, JCP participants continue to receive their Income Benefits up to the end of their Benefit period (which can be topped up at the discretion of the employer and/or the HRCC). Before entering into a contract, TWS participants are thus likely to have expectations for a salary that might or might not be met in this contract. JCP participants, on the other hand, are aware of the amount of their benefits and probably have few expectations concerning the income they will receive during the period of their intervention.  Self-Employment and Training participants were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the income from their business and the financial assistance received, respectively. Half (51.6%) of SE respondents reported being satisfied with the income that they received from their business (24.2% rated their satisfaction a 4 and 27.4% rated it a 5). Two-thirds of training survey respondents reported satisfaction with the financial assistance received while on training (19.4% rated their satisfaction a 4 and almost half, 46.7%, rated it a 5). Compared to other respondents, training respondents more frequently expressed high levels of satisfaction (i.e. rated their satisfaction a 5) than any other group of survey respondents.
Comments on satisfaction with third-party services were provided most frequently by training and SE participants. SE participants, as was discussed above, were generally very satisfied with the assistance they obtained from third-party deliverers. Comments about their high levels of satisfaction were made both in the focus groups and survey. Training survey respondents also reported high levels of satisfaction with the training in which they participated and services they received from the training organization. In fact, levels of satisfaction on these two components were higher than on any other aspect measured. Eighty-five percent of training survey respondents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the training they received (23.6% rated their satisfaction a 4 and 62.2% rated it a 5), and in a proportion of 83.5% for the services provided by the training organizations (26.5% rated their satisfaction a 4 and 57% rated it a 5). Satisfaction with these two aspects was high across all Regions. While a majority of focus group participants reported having gained something from the training in which they participated, a number of focus group participants reported that the usefulness of the training had been limited for them. A number of participants reported feeling out of place in their class. These participants felt that greater attention in selecting training participants would decrease the likelihood of such situations occurring. Some focus group participants also commented on the inadequate content of their courses and on the competence of some teachers when explaining moderate satisfaction with their training. 3.4 Communication This section discusses how the availability of EBSM interventions and changes from the UI to the EI system were communicated.
Members of the Employment Implementation Co-ordination Committee (EICC) reported that the committee had been very hands-on in the early stages of implementation (e.g., held weekly conference calls). Issues for discussion were requested from HRCCs and the Regions would report back to them on the outcome of the discussions. The EICC also identified staff training needs and created working groups to deal with this issue. Based on our involvement in reviewing TAGS, it would appear that the early and close involvement of the EICC in EBSM implementation, as well as representation from the Regional committee, have made this implementation much smoother than would have been the case otherwise. Where problems or difficulties were experienced, it was believed that it was due to a break in or lack of continuous flow of communication from the EICC to Regions, and from Regions to HRCCs.
HRCCs frequently reported communicating changes related to EI and EBSM through information sessions with clients. Over half (58.1%) of survey respondents reported having received information from an HRCC about the services they most recently used. In Ontario, a number of HRCCs are delivering Group Information Session (GIS) which can make attending an information session mandatory subsequent to filing a claim for Employment Insurance. Other means of information dissemination included radio, newspaper or television advertisement as well as the provision of information by HRCC staff (e.g., during counselling sessions). Employers can also be a source of information on interventions such as Targeted Wage Subsidies and Job Creation Partnerships. Despite this variety of communication means, focus group participants frequently reported a lack of information regarding the interventions available that could help them get back to work. One of the most frequent complaints was that clients had to ask about the interventions available as opposed to being proactively informed about them. Focus group participants often mentioned finding out about interventions through word-of-mouth. Community partners echoed the view that their clients were not well informed about available interventions. One concern expressed by community organizations was that it was only the most resourceful clients (i.e., those who might be the least in need of an EBSM intervention) who find the information. In addition to feeling ill-informed about interventions in general, some focus group participants also appeared to lack information on the specifics of the interventions in which they were participating. A number of JCP participants, in particular, were not aware that their employer was supposed to give them some time to look for employment towards the end of the JCP project.
One of the most frequent means of informing community organizations about the changes related to the implementation of EI was also information sessions. One-on-one communication between organizations who have had a long-lasting relationship with HRCCs (by telephone or personal visits) was also frequently identified as an additional means of information. In addition, community organizations often belong to networks through which information about available or new programs is rapidly disseminated. Obtaining information was apparently more difficult for organizations who did not have established relationships with HRCCs. Even organizations to whom information about the changes had been disseminated reported getting conflicting information depending on whom they talked with within HRCCs. A number of them felt that this was due to HRCCs not fully understanding themselves the changes associated with EI and the programs available under it. 3.5 Client Selection and Targeting This section presents the findings related to the selection and targeting of clients for EBSM interventions.
Individuals eligible for participation in an intervention are reachback clients and those for whom an EI claim period has been established. The clients and community organizations consulted often stated that these criteria were too restrictive and that individuals whose weak attachments to the labour force (such as youth, persons with disabilities10 and immigrants) would not make them EI-eligible were being ignored under the new Legislation. It was felt that, generally, access to programming for these groups was increasingly limited, at both the federal and provincial levels. It should be noted that interviewees mentioned the existence of a new Opportunities Fund that would be specifically dedicated to persons with disabilities. However, they did not know much about it at the time of the interviews and provided few comments on the Fund. In addition, there are a number of labour market transition programs available to youth under the Youth Employment and Learning Strategy that are designed to improve their future employability.11 The extension of EI eligibility to reachback clients was viewed very positively by the great majority of HRCCs, clients and partners consulted, since it expands the pool of clients eligible to receive employment benefits and support measures.
A number of Regions reported that it had been difficult for HRCCs to build a balanced client portfolio (i.e., a balance of types of clients (e.g., little versus much education) and of clients for whom results can be achieved both in the short term, and medium to long term) in a context where results were emphasized. An issue of concern was that HRCCs would "cream" by targeting clients whose chances of finding employment were greatest, therefore increasing their chances of achieving results in the short term. Since unemployment rates are highest among individuals with less than a high school diploma,12 one would suspect that if creaming was occurring, unemployed individuals with relatively high levels of education would be targeted by the HRCCs. A comparison of survey results for participants and non-participants do show that there might be "creaming" done by HRCCs. Exhibit 3.6, shows the odds that an individual with a university education would be an EBSM participant. However, it would make sense that having a university education would increase the odds of being an EAS user since EAS users have to be self-sufficient enough to find their way in a self-serve environment. It is also known to HRDC from previous evaluation studies that SE participants tend to be more highly educated than other participants. In addition, the large number of participants in training interventions would limit the opportunities for major differences in education to be observed. The two areas where survey results would support the theory that there is some "creaming" being done at the local level are JCP and TWS.
Although the importance of having a balanced portfolio was integrated into communications early in the life of EBSM, the new focus on results was emphasized so much that the former message was not received as clearly as the latter. As a result, some Regions had to review their communications and stress that short term results should not be pursued to the detriment of assisting clients whose results would come in the longer term. It was felt by these Regions that HRCCs had now incorporated this message and were applying its principles.
While HRCCs generally did not report having targeted specific groups to receive EBSM interventions, a number stated that they had (e.g., youth, persons with disabilities, displaced and older workers, women, single parents, immigrants and Aboriginals). Of all these, youth tended to be the group most often identified. While some HRCCs reported that they had targeted specific groups for EBSM interventions, the results of the survey of participants indicate that this practice is probably not wide spread. Indeed, less than 5% of survey respondents self-identified as an Aboriginal person (4.3%), visible minority (3.9%) or person with a disability (1.6%).13 However, youth does appear to make up a significant proportion of EBSM users: almost one-third (31.0%) of survey respondents were between the ages of 16 and 30, and one-half (49.1%) were between the ages of 31 and 45. It should also be added that HRCCs appear to be targeting repeat EI users for EBSM participation. Indeed, three-quarters of participants who responded to the survey reported that their last EI claim had not been their first, compared to half of non-participants. This issue is discussed further in Section 4.2, Reduction of Dependency on EI. A few HRCCs have developed client targeting plans based on community needs strategically identified during the consultations with their community and the subsequent development of their business plan. For others, the approach to targeting clients has been less strategic. It was felt that historical data was lacking to facilitate the prioritization by HRCCs of specific client groups. In addition, some HRCCs reported focusing on specific groups of clients (i.e., active EI claimants only) simply because they had run out or were running out of money to deliver EBSM interventions for the remainder of the fiscal year. 3.6 Cultural Change This section discusses the extent to which EBSM has resulted in a cultural change in HRCCs' way of doing business, including the use of case management and NFA, and the extent to which a management structure based on results has been implemented and accepted.
The extent to which interviewees reported a cultural change in HRCCs' way of doing business varied. A number believed that other factors working in conjunction with EBSM have brought about changes (e.g., maintaining/increasing quality of service with fewer resources). However, local level flexibility was a positive change attributed to EBSM, specifically the opportunity for local level offices to increasingly make their own decisions, which they have embraced wholeheartedly. While an increased level of effort for developing and maintaining partnerships, especially with employers, was identified as a need in some areas, an increased commitment to partnerships (e.g., in the form of increased consultation) has also been identified as positive.
Accountability for results is something that is reportedly well accepted at the HRCC level, even though there is still reticence on the part of some staff to only work with EI-eligible and reachback clients and lose "the entitlement mentality" (i.e., the concept that clients who work the required number of weeks to be EI eligible are entitled to receiving benefits as opposed to having a responsibility for looking for another job). Community partners reported that they had noticed a greater focus on results on the part of HRCCs. Some organizations have adapted or changed the clientele they served in order to obtain results. Consequently, community partners believed that some clients were "falling through the cracks." Interviewees also frequently expressed concerns about the possibility of inaccurate data being inputted into HRDC's systems that will be reflected in the results. The lack of follow-up and the strain placed on limited staff to enter data in the systems were identified. Other systems-related issues are expanded upon in Section 3.8. There appears to be quite a bit of confusion at the local level concerning how results are calculated and, very importantly from management's point of view, what they mean and how to use them once they have been reported.
Given that achieving results was an entirely new process, targets for employment and unpaid benefits to the EI account were set using a top-down approach by establishing benchmarks based on 1994 and 1995 data. These data came from the following two sources:
These benchmarks were adjusted to budgets, including re-investments, and given as minimum targets to be set through a bottom-up process beginning in 1998-99 and informed by results. The establishment of targets was, in part, driven by the need to have set targets before entering into LMDA negotiations with the provinces, by the Shaping the Future exercise (Shaping the Future refers to $105M in incremental unpaid benefits for 1996-97) and by the need to report to Management Board on result-based achievements. The Regions used various approaches to set targets for HRCCs and consulted the local level to varying degrees. A minority of Regions set targets in consultation with local managers, taking into consideration local economic factors. Regions generally set targets for HRCCs using an allocation or resource-base model (e.g., if one HRCC receives 25% of budget, it is expected to achieve 25% of the Regional target). Some Regions explained to HRCCs how targets had been set and a number asked the local level for feedback. While generally not consulted in the setting of targets for the local level, HRCCs generally felt that the targets set for them were realistic and that they would be able to achieve them. The top-down approach used by the Regions to set targets for HRCCs for 1997-98 did not seem to be an issue for them since the HRCCs lacked the experience they felt they needed to establish targets for the first year of EBSM. While it could be argued that Regions and HRCCs should have been consulted during the target setting exercise, the little experience they had, especially at the local level, might have made it difficult for them to set their own targets. However, after over a year of working under an accountability framework that focuses on results, the Regions and HRCCs should theoretically possess the information that would allow them to set local targets that factor in local economic conditions for the year 1998-99, as planned. 3.7 Official Languages This chapter presents the findings related to official languages. The main themes covered in this chapter include the following:
Despite downsizing, clients continue to be able to access services in the language of their choice from HRCCs. The majority of survey respondents reported that they received information about services and services in the language of their choice. Overall, 92.1% of survey respondents in general (including participants and non-participants) indicated that they had received information about employment services in their language of choice. EBSM participants were more likely than non-participants to have received information about employment services in the official language of their choice (97.3% versus 86.9%). We also looked at the findings for EBSM participants from an official language minority community (prefer French in all provinces except Québec and prefer English in Québec). Please note that the sample size becomes very small in many of these provinces (e.g., less than 30 respondents in each of the following provinces: B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I.). Of those participants in an official language minority situation, 97.8% received employment services information in their preferred official language. This is very similar to those participants not in an official language minority situation, where 98.6% of participants received service in the language of their choice. Offices reported being able to provide bilingual services in those offices required to do so, and some non-designated bilingual offices also demonstrated a capacity to serve clients in a minority official language. The more bilingual the community, the more likely clients were to be able to access services in the language of their choice. However, their ability to receive services and interventions from third-parties in the language of their choice may be limited due to the fact that the delivery of services and interventions in the language of choice of clients is not a consistent contractual requirement. In instances where services are available, this is more likely to be the result of a decision made by the organization rather than a requirement placed upon it by the HRCC. It was suggested that services in a minority official language were easier to obtain in larger centres than smaller ones because larger centres were more likely to be staffed by bilingual personnel. However, some smaller communities with a significant number of minority language members reported that they were better served than the larger centres because the HRCC and community organizations were staffed by individuals who reflected the language composition of the community, and because there were close linkages between the HRCC and the community. The availability of interventions in both official languages was more of an issue of concern than the availability of primary services. In some minority official language communities, it proved difficult to identify focus group participants whose mother tongue was the minority language and who had participated in an EBSM intervention. This indicated that members of the minority official language community are probably not participating in the interventions to the extent that they could. HRCCs and third-party deliverers indicated that, in some instances, attempts had been made to offer an intervention, particularly training or a training component, but that there had been insufficient demand to warrant offering the training course. Even members of minority official language populations themselves, such as Anglophones in Sherbrooke, indicated that one reason they did not access interventions was because they were not being proactive enough in requesting them. A number of HRCCs serving communities with language populations other than English or French indicated that they had little demand for French services, but more so for other languages. Demand was also thought to be influenced by the knowledge level of potential participants. Minority language organizations indicated that their constituents were less likely to pursue information from an organization which did not provide primary service in their own language. For instance, if information on TWS or SE is not being provided by a Francophone delivery agent, then Francophones might be less likely to know about these interventions. Others stated that there is a limited comfort level in making enquiries in one's second language, causing people to be less proactive in requesting information. Minority language community members supported this hypothesis by agreeing that individuals are more likely to go to institutions or organizations to obtain information if the information is given in their primary language. Lack of minority official language employers in the community is also a limiting factor in the use of interventions. It is difficult for Anglophones and Francophones living in a minority situation to use TWS, JCP and even make the most of some EAS, such as job finding clubs, if there is limited employment available in their language of choice, or if they cannot communicate with the employer in their language to secure employment. For example, providing services in French to a Francophone interested in participating in a TWS placement in an Anglophone community might not be an issue, but finding a placement that will allow this person to work in French might be. Of the interventions being delivered by third-parties, the one most accessible to members of official language minority communities is EAS. Obtaining EAS services in a minority language was not a problem for clients. In order to build better information and access links between providers and users, HRCCs are beginning to partner with minority language institutions and organizations to ensure that services are provided to minority language community members. LLMPs, for instance, are being used as a partnering tool to help address the service and labour market needs of minority language populations.
Under the changes associated with EBSM, HRCCs appear to have expanded their consultation with community players who represent the needs of official language minority communities. Evidence of this was found in speaking with HRCCs that serve substantial minority language communities, such as those which exist in Québec and Ontario, that are taking steps to deliver EBSM through partnerships with community organizations that serve these communities. The new approach under EBSM has given HRCCs the flexibility to broaden their consultation with these communities and expand the services, which they deliver through third-parties, who are closer to the needs of the minority language community which they represent. However, where official language minority communities exist but are smaller in size, and where the HRCC possesses a bilingual service requirement, there did not appear to be a particular focus by the HRCCs on involving the minority language community in planning for the ongoing needs of this group.
Survey respondents reported being generally satisfied with the services that they received in the language of their choice. Overall, 92.1% indicated that they had received information about employment services in their language of choice. Except in New Brunswick and Québec, where 37.2% and 91.4% of respondents identified French as their preferred language in which to receive information, over 90% of respondents across Canada reported preferring English. Three-quarters (74.4%) reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the information that they had received. Satisfaction levels by Region are presented in Exhibit 3.7. Exhibit 3.8 shows the proportion of people who received services in their language of choice.
On occasion, there might arise isolated complaints. Just 5% of survey respondents who did not receive services in their preferred language indicated that they had lodged a complaint when they did not receive employment services in their preferred language. Reasons for complaints might include: difficulties communicating with a client in French or English; difficulties obtaining application forms in the desired language; having to deal with a process to get into a program which takes longer for a minority language applicant because a bilingual person has to review the application or because the intervention is not immediately available; or having an intervention delivered by an individual who is not of the same language group and who may not be able to empathize with the needs of minority language participants.
Although the vast majority of participants reported receiving training in the official language of their choice, minority official language participants, especially in rural and remote areas, reported that the lack of availability of training in their language of choice, including language training, was a major gap in service delivery. Many participants who were bilingual accessed the training in the majority language. Otherwise, training may be offered to minority language community clients but they may have to travel greater distances than majority language clients in order to obtain it. If there is no labour market demand for Francophone or Anglophone employees with a particular skill, that training is not likely to be available. The perception that HRDC does not pay for language courses was also identified as a factor that limited their improved employability. Without the language skills of the majority population, members of minority language communities indicated that their chances of finding employment were greatly inhibited. The inability to access training was also found to have an impact on participants' access to other interventions such as SE, where there is often a course or training component given in support of the client's goal of establishing their own business.
The majority of HRCCs reported receiving limited demand for services in a minority official language. At least 90% of participants, with the exception of New Brunswick respondents, reported preferring to receive services in the language of the majority. In New Brunswick, over one-third of respondents reported preferring to receive services in French. We also looked at the results according to which language the participants speak most often at home. Within Québec, of those participants who speak English at home, 97% preferred to receive information about employment services in English. However, outside Québec, 47.1% of participants who speak French most often at home prefer to receive information about employment services in French. Low demand can be attributed to a number of factors:
One community organization stated the views of others succinctly when it noted that in order to communicate information to a minority language population and ensure its awareness of programming, it would not be enough to "have the information sitting on a shelf. You have to go out into the community."
It was reported that Francophones in Ontario and Anglophones in Québec need better access to labour market information to understand how they can meet employers' needs and fit into the labour market. In the interviews conducted, no HRCC, community partner or third-party deliverer indicated that they had addressed the issue of integrating members of minority official language communities into their local labour force. 3.8 Systems A systems assessment was conducted during the course of this evaluation, using the following four specific HRDC systems:
A systems report was prepared based on experiences using these databases during the months of June and July 1997. The conclusions presented in the systems report are summarized here. This section also presents some of the systems-related findings of the qualitative portion of this evaluation.
The following high-level conclusions have been reached from the review of systems in relation to the adequacy of systems for summative evaluation:
As a result of downsizing, a number of HRCCs stated that they did not have the resources necessary to enter information in the systems as it became available. Given this situation, interviewees questioned whether results could be measured at the national level. Some interviewees reported that, nationally, it had been stated that only 50% of case managed clients had been entered in the systems. It follows that accompanying results would not show up in systems. This is compounded by the fact that some information would likely not have been captured during the roll-out of Contact IV to third-parties. Another quoted figure was that 50,000 more clients were identified as having participated in an intervention, nationally, than the number who were reported as having an action plan. This information stresses the need to put a priority on assigning resources to the tracking and inputting of data in order for the information on results to be accurate.
Another issue that needs to be dealt with in view of the monitoring of results is follow-up of clients to record the employment results of all participants, except those who have returned to work before the end of their benefit entitlement. Some HRCCs reportedly conduct systematic follow-ups while others do very little. The key reason cited for limited follow-up, was a lack of resources. While some HRCCs have dealt with this issue by using third-parties to deliver the case management functions, others simply are not following up with clients. The majority of third-party service deliverers reported collecting information on clients in the context of monitoring and follow-up activities. However, the information that they report back to their HRCC varies based on individual HRCCs' requirements. Many third-party service deliverers reported collecting more information than was requested by their HRCC. Some of them reported that they had taken it upon themselves to provide their HRCC with client data because very little was required of them in this respect. This begs the question of how data will be available to HRDC at the time of the summative evaluations if there is not a common base of information that is forwarded from third-parties to HRCCs.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060126230128im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060126230128im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060126230128im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060126230128im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}