|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
This chapter discusses the relevance of the Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) to the priorities of the federal and provincial governments. Further it discusses program design issues which may influence the achievement of these priorities. Information related to these issues is drawn from the qualitative activities. 2.1 Relevance2.1.1 Consistency with Intent of Employment Insurance (EI) LegislationThe Alberta Programs and Services (APSs) were generally considered to be consistent with the intent of the EI legislation by all sources we contacted. For example, they are seen to be compatible with the following guidelines of the Employment Insurance Act:
2.1.2 Alignment with Federal and Provincial PrioritiesManagers with Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) and Alberta Advanced Education and Career Development (AECD) commented that the programs and services being delivered under the LMDA were meeting the basic spirit and intent outlined in Part II of the EI Act. However, most managers suggested that although large strides had been achieved, there were still areas of improvement required in order to reach all of the goals of the LMDA. Priorities set for the LMDA and the activities in support of them are outlined below:
2.1.3 Commitment and Professionalism by HRDC and AECD Staff Are Dominant FactorsThe high degree of commitment and professionalism of those involved was a significant contribution to the success of the LMDA. The relationship between AECD and the HRDC Regional Office was a strong intergovernmental partnership that many respondents considered to be exemplary. A number of problems and issues were successfully resolved through the continued work of staff in both departments on a daily basis. Successes included the transfer of staff from HRDC to AECD, the resolution of complex accommodation issues and the provision of adequate information to support AECD in meeting audit requirements early in the transition process. HRDC managers commented on the integrity of AECD staff—how they had lived up to the spirit of the LMDA regarding such issues as language of choice, federal visibility, resources and evaluation. Overall, there was a good deal of faith in the relationship between the two organizations in Alberta and there was a general sense of respect on both sides. Senior managers praised delivery staff for their commitment to the clients and the professionalism they had displayed despite the uncertainties for them personally created by the LMDA. 2.2 Design This section explores LMDA design issues, particularly those related to the degree of stakeholder involvement in planning, French-language delivery arrangements, local flexibility in terms of program design and delivery, regional differences, and adjustment made to the LMDA since implementation. 2.2.1 Involvement of Groups in Planning Processa) Involvement of Internal Groups The LMDA brought with it monumental changes. Senior managers underestimated the number of implementation tasks involved and the myriad of details associated with them. The senior managers at AECD and HRDC stated that, despite extensive planning and preparation in the six months leading up to implementation, project planning efforts had been inadequate and had resulted in many issues being dealt with after implementation, as they emerged and on an emergency basis. Overall, senior managers were satisfied that some improvement or resolution had been achieved on a number of issues such as human resources, accommodations, and some systems problems. Interestingly, although a formal mechanism had been set up to resolve differences in the Agreement, issues tended to be addressed informally, and were often resolved in a pragmatic way. Despite a number of difficulties, the partnership between AECD and HRDC appeared to work well at the regional level. Consistent comments across all sites indicated that staff were not adequately prepared for implementation of the LMDA and there was limited or no consultation with them prior to its initiation. On November 1, 1997 many staff either "crossed the street" or walked in the same door as the day before only to find a new, sometimes confusing and often frustrating work environment where the rules were developed to deal with emerging circumstances and then communicated by e-mail. Of all sites, Calgary had the most difficult adjustment and over a year later, some of the issues associated with the transition were still fresh in the minds of staff. In spite of these factors, clients were served. We found little evidence of adverse client reactions and generally high ratings of satisfaction with staff and APSs. b) Involvement of External Groups There was no evidence of community consultation prior to the LMDA implementation although some consultation occurred afterwards (particularly in Calgary which set up a formal process to obtain input from smaller centres). Some delivery agents were involved in a limited way in terms of consultation prior to the LMDA implementation. No employers were consulted. Local Labour Market Partnerships (LLMPs) were just beginning to be implemented at the end of the evaluation period. LLMPs help foster local partnerships with businesses, labour and other community representatives to ensure that flexible, innovative and responsive programs are designed and delivered. While it is still early, it appeared that LLMPs were becoming a useful way of ensuring program responsiveness to EI clients. The use of partnership was evident in other ways as well. For example, the SE program was being contracted out to community agencies with strong business and government links, such as Community Futures, Business Development and Economic Development. This appears to be an appropriate way to assist fledgling entrepreneurs by accessing the knowledge base and well-established networks in local communities. After implementation, community consultations to determine program needs began to occur in a number of Regions. Two results of this process, identified in the case studies, were contracted francophone services in Edmonton and the expansion of bilingual services in Banff. Linkages were also being developed among third party delivery agents. In some areas, the delivery agents had developed informal networks to discuss shared issues related to client services. Partnerships, networking and community collaboration were evident in Alberta, even in the early stages of the development of the LMDA. These were already having a positive impact on program design. c) Involvement of Non-EI Eligible Individuals Eligibility for EI Part II funds for employment benefit programs is restricted to unemployed individuals who are EI clients at the time they start their LMDA activities: those with a current EI Part I claim (active claimants) and those eligible through reach-back provisions based on their former EI benefit status. Those who are not eligible for EI Part II funds may still benefit from services provided through CEAS and JP. Thus two other categories of unemployed individual have become involved to some extent: Supports for Independence (SFI) recipients and Other Albertans, a category which encompasses everyone else. Early feedback from key informants suggests that these latter two groups are beginning to benefit from the wider spectrum of services now offered as a result of the LMDA. Another potential impact is a lowering of average costs per participant through the sharing of overhead expenses. LLMPs are also a mechanism through which the impacts of LMDA funding may indirectly impact those who are not eligible for Part II funding. LLMPs provide support to community partners to identify, develop, and implement labour force adjustment and human resource strategies. Non-EI clients may also benefit from these strategies. 2.2.2 Delivery ArrangementsThe LMDA envisioned a network of delivery arrangements which would best meet LMDA requirements while making use of local infrastructure and available staff. Three types of configurations were envisioned:
Alberta's response to the provision of delivery arrangements far outstripped the tentative plans laid out in the LMDA. It appeared to embody the desire of management and staff to provide a broad, made in Alberta network of services across the province. a) Co-located Services The most comprehensive delivery model was the Canada-Alberta Service Centre (CASC) which would provide access to labour market programming, including both National Employment Service functions (assessment/service needs determination, employment counselling, labour exchange services for job vacancy information and labour market information) and APSs. In communities where the infrastructure and staff were available, access to both provincial and (remaining) federal labour market programs and services would be available through a common front end which would provide reception, screening, needs determination and information functions offered by both federal and provincial staff operating under common job descriptions. Supervision of the common front end would be conducted by AECD. Other services in this co-located work environment would be determined by the Region (e.g., in some cases Alberta Family and Social Services was co-located). Originally, five locations were considered for this configuration. At the time of the evaluation there were a total of 18 CASCs. Three co-located sites were developed previously as part of a provincial demonstration project. Fifteen more had to be created. The more than three-fold expansion of CASCs, beyond the original scope envisioned in the Agreement, demonstrated the very strong commitment of the Alberta Government to provide LMDA services as widely as possible. b) Use of Alberta's Infrastructure In 12 locations where AECD Career Development Centres (CDC) already existed and HRDC did not have a sufficient infrastructure to support the LMDA, the CDCs were used to provide access to federal and provincial programs and services through a single point of access. In addition, on April 1, 1999, the Youth Employment Services Centre in Edmonton (formerly co-located with HRDC) was closed and became instead a contracted service called Youth Connections, which was described as a CDC. c) Contracted Services As a third option, when neither Alberta nor Canada had a significant physical infrastructure or available staff, services were contracted with community-based delivery agents. At the time of the evaluation, eight of the ten locations (as identified in the Agreement) were using this service configuration, and at least some contracted services were being provided to an additional 14 communities. As a result, this approach doubled the capacity of the original plan, allowing the Regions to provide LMDA services more broadly. 2.2.3 Client AssessmentWith the implementation of the LMDA, a number of changes were made to the assessment process formerly used by HRDC. Generally, the assessment process used for the LMDA was seen as a strength that Alberta had brought to the negotiating table. This process was expanded from its traditional SFI population to cover the assessment of all EI clients. Clients were sent through one of three levels of assessment to the service or program most appropriate for them, depending on the anticipated level of their interaction with the LMDA. These included Level 1—Initial Screening (mainly self-directed); Level 2—Service Needs Determination (limited advice and short-term services); Level 3—Workability Assessments (for all clients seeking funding for training or further education, and included needs assessment, goal setting and a return-to-work action plan, followed by financial eligibility determination and referral to an APS). All stakeholders indicated that the screening and assessment processes were appropriate in most cases and were felt to be better than those offered in the past. In particular, satisfaction with screening was high on the part of participants in CEAS and TOJ who indicated that they had learned useful information about themselves as a result of the process. Feedback from third party agents indicated that better placements were occurring in SE programs. A few concerns regarding assessment were identified:
While generally referrals to the APS appeared to be appropriate, delivery agents did report some inappropriate referrals and suggested that there had been an overall decrease in the number of referrals received. Although some employers indicated frustration with the number of participants requesting information interviews as part of the process, most were generally pleased about the match between clients and training positions. A major issue was emerging just as the evaluation was being conducted. A policy change had been implemented that AECD program staff were to get out of the business of assessment and to contract it instead to third party agents. This change was spearheaded in Calgary where staffing shortages had already caused bottlenecks in the assessment process. It was much too soon to determine the effect of this change, but the initial staff response was negative. 2.2.4 Language of ChoiceSenior managers reported that providing adequate bilingual services in Alberta had been a concern prior to the LMDA. They also added that AECD had done a lot of work to ensure that these services were available, especially in areas of significant demand (those requiring services in French), according to the Official Languages Act. HRDC managers were unanimous in their praise for the way Alberta had addressed this issue—an example of how they are living up to things. Francophone service is available in a number of locations across Alberta using a variety of delivery mechanisms:
Based on our review, French language services are available in a number of sites through bilingual staff and contracts involving third party service providers with French-language capabilities. Through our qualitative data collection activities, we identified one individual who had not been able to receive service in the language of their choice, at the time they wanted the service. (The bilingual staff person was already serving another client. Rather than wait, the client chose service in English.) In our quantitative survey, only two individuals identified requesting programs or services in French. Both reported no problem in accessing these programs or services in the language of their choice. Our overall assessment is that Alberta had more than met its commitment to provide francophone services under the LMDA. 2.2.5 Local FlexibilityStaff views were mixed about the degree to which local decision making was fostered under the LMDA. On the one hand, administration of the LMDA in Alberta was perceived to cause a more bureaucratic system with more paperwork, more rigid funding and contracting guidelines, and greater centralization. On the other hand, there appeared to be more local authority for programming decisions which resulted in greater program flexibility. Some senior managers believed that different Regional Directors had different approaches to expenditures and one suggested that field staff had more authority to make decisions than they were currently exercising. This lack of standardization was also evident to contractors who held contracts in more than one region. 2.2.6 Regional Responsiveness/DifferencesWe observed differences in the way APSs were delivered across regions. The first area of variation reflects differing treatments for several APSs, notably:
The expected level of financial contribution by participants toward the cost of their interventions was a second observed difference across areas. The requirement for a $1,350 contribution was treated differently by region. In Edmonton, adherence to the requirement appeared to be strict. However, all SW participants (typically multi-barriered clients) were exempted from it. In Calgary, no APS received exemption but staff appeared to manage by exception through the use of the Special Circumstances category. In such cases, the $1,350 contribution could be waived. Management at both the senior and site levels believed that regional responsiveness was essential in the implementation of LMDA programs and services. Broad program guidelines and encouragement for a flexible interpretation at the local level may account for these differences or adaptations across regions. On the one hand, these observations may reflect appropriate implementation and accommodations to meet the particular needs of the local level. On the other hand, these observations may reflect inappropriate implementation and a lack of common vision across sites. Generally, despite the broad program descriptions in the program binder, we found interviewees could not make clear distinctions among APSs and a great deal of confusion existed. Given the evidence, we are unable to assess whether differences, reflect appropriate implementation and adaptation to meet special needs, or inappropriate implementation and a lack of common vision. (Sample sizes for our survey of participants are insufficient to detect differences in success for clients across different program treatments.) You may wish to re-visit this issue in the summative evaluation. Regardless of the reason, the marked regional differences create equity concerns. Participants may not have the same access to APSs or funds across regions. 2.2.7 Delivery ConcernsThere were relatively few problems identified related to the delivery of the LMDA, despite the significant changes resulting from its implementation. Much of this success is attributable to the strength of the delivery staff and degree of collaboration at all levels. However, areas of concern do exist. These are documented below. a) Lack of Clear Administrative Guidelines Staff in the field were not adequately prepared for the transition—and transitions were significant. To an extent, staff felt that management occurred by e-mail as a management response was developed to deal with each emerging issue. Although it may have been unrealistic to believe that administrative guidelines could be created which anticipated all eventualities, staff felt that too many were created in reaction to events. Staff, who may have been accustomed to referring to a policy manual for direction, found reference to a string of e-mails both time-consuming and more difficult for them. They found keeping up with emerging developments and policies a problem. b) Increased Contract Management Implementation of the LMDA resulted in a dramatic increase in the volume of contracts to be managed and a significant increase in the administrative burden. For example, prior to the Agreement, the AECD office in Calgary had managed 15 training contracts a year and served approximately 6,000 clients, most of whom were receiving SFI. With the implementation of the Agreement, the office took over 120 contracts from HRDC and provided service to approximately 32,000 additional EI clients. Over time, the HRDC contracts began to run out and new contracts had to be developed according to both the new APS specifications and the Alberta government's Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The RFP process was new to many contractors who had formerly worked with HRDC. It proved to be a significant change for them as well as for the staff who managed the process. At all case study sites, we received extensive feedback on the contracting process from both groups. Generally, staff and contractors agreed that the RFP process made the whole skills training system more accountable by making it more transparent, fair and open, as well as more market driven. However, staff saw two disadvantages to the process:
c) Contractor Concerns Contractors had many concerns over contracting. Most were related to issues of accountability (see Chapter 3), particularly related to the deliverables or the fee-for-outcome method of payment, specified by the Alberta government in their contracts. They voiced concern that the ability to write a winning proposal did not necessarily imply delivery of good service to clients. They also worried that the process forced them to be competitors in a skills training world where collaboration was the norm and considered a professional commitment. To balance these views, contractors also indicated that they found AECD staff approachable and believed that many of their concerns could be resolved through discussion. d) Privacy and System Issues Client confidentiality and privacy were being respected in the field, according to feedback received at the case study sites, but the unanticipated consequence of compliance was that information sharing was hampered and timely service hindered. Once the Agreement had been signed, a key issue related to privacy remained which proved to be a great irritant for staff. This related to access to the list of active claimants. While AECD staff wanted access to the list for early identification and strategic targeting of potential service users, HRDC was unable to provide it because of concerns for client confidentiality. With such a list, AECD staff or their third party service providers could contact eligible individuals and determine potential need for APSs. This proactive approach could potentially:
Third-party delivery agents, like AECD staff, do not have access to active claimant lists. As a result, they do not have information on potential clients for their services. However, the implications for them are potentially more significant as their contracts are based on deliverables. The inability to contact potential users may adversely impact achievement of their targets. Concerns over confidentiality also prevented AECD staff or contractors providing information to HRDC Investigation and Control Officers to allow them to initiate potential disentitlement actions. Potential overpayments of EI benefits may have been a consequence. Negotiations on information and data sharing re-opened soon after the LMDA was signed and were not resolved as of March 1999. Specific areas of negotiation include access to and interpretation of data on EI claimants, two-way sharing of results information or outcome data and a mechanism to notify HRDC about client refusals so that follow-up procedures can be implemented.
| |||||||
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060126233733im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060126233733im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060126233733im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}