|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
3.1 Relevance
Under the area of relevance, the processes that were used to determine the social and economic needs for each SI Program stream and individual projects were identified. Findings relating to the manner in which target groups were incorporated into each stream, the role of innovation, and linkages to client services were also identified. In the W/S stream, a Working Group comprised of 15 individuals representing a cross-section of interests and expertise was established to identify labour market needs and to play an advisory role in the development of program guidelines and criteria. The Working Group members brought a collective knowledge of skill shortages information and information about employment based training opportunities, as well as previous consultations and research undertaken. In addition, a process for community-based projects involving partnerships with employers was identified as a key element in developing innovative approaches. The design of W/S encourages local communities and industry to take more responsibility for their training needs by combining industry and community efforts and resources with public funding. Innovative programs match the employers' needs with the needs of the community. Partnerships were established with a variety of training deliverers, such as education and training institutions, community-based organizations, employers and industry, and private trainers. Work/Study projects are community and employer-driven and, as a result, are expected to have an increased probability of long-term employment. Innovation has been the primary criterion for approving projects under the W/S Program. The W/S Program prioritized equity groups representing the Saskatchewan working age population. W/S trainees are chosen by the project sponsors, and although sponsors are not required to train target group members, a project proposal which focused on target group members would be considered more favourably than if it did not1. Project sponsors were encouraged to identify and commit to recruitment targets for equity groups. Several individual projects designed for specific target groups, including First Nations people, people with disabilities, Métis Nation people, women, and people with other employment barriers, have been approved. The LMI Working Group was established with members representing a diverse cross-section of agencies and government departments that use LMI at various levels and/or have clients who use LMI. Projects were proposed in accordance with the goals and objectives of SI, and priorities were identified for projects. The LMI initiative attempted to identify both products and ways to use electronic means to provide ready access to clients, particularly those from target groups. Information available through electronic sources also has the potential to be more accessible to people with disabilities and other target groups who may have a more difficult time in accessing information through traditional places and formats. All target groups were represented in the LMI Working Group through participation by the Saskatchewan Labour Force Development Board (SLFDB) members. The needs of the labour force development target groups have been addressed in all three of the CS projects, primarily through the establishment of the partnerships and the extensive needs assessment process which was undertaken at the outset of SI. All three CS projects have a similar objective: to provide more accessible and comprehensive career and labour market information to their respective clients. For example, in the Regina Career Linx Project a value-added feature for clients and agency staff has been the focus on recruiting organizations that represent employers and involving them in the process of designing the project. In the past, career services delivery has been directed largely at work seekers with little involvement of employers. Key informant interviews indicated that the involvement of employers in the project is a significant improvement in the delivery of career services in Regina. In addition, community representatives have been involved in the development process of each project. For example, as part of its needs assessment process, the Rural Project conducted five focus groups with representatives from equity groups including people with disabilities, Aboriginal people, visible minorities, and women, as well as other stakeholders involved in community organizations and/or the delivery of career services. The other two projects conducted similar needs assessments to determine what gaps existed and how best to target their resources. All three SI stream projects were designed with the recognition that innovative career services and labour market information, training, and delivery approaches are necessary to meet challenging and varying social and economic development goals. 3.2 PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY 3.2.1 Infrastructure
Determination of Project Policies In all three SI streams, the Working Groups were responsible to determine their stream's specific vision and objectives, as well as to establish priorities and guidelines for individual projects. For example, the LMI initiative required that the Working Group identify gaps in the information most important to its organizations or constituents. They then proposed projects to meet the identified gaps. The Working Group members, and in particular the Co-chairs, oversaw and monitored their program's respective project implementation (see Appendix One for a complete listing of the roles and responsibilities for the positions involved in each SI stream). Human Resource Time Partners in the W/S Program were very involved and interested, and the W/S committee members were very committed. Partners and committee members spent considerable time supporting the W/S Program. During the initial stage of program implementation, the W/S Working Group members lacked a common understanding of their level of decision-making authority. The same significant time contribution by working group members also applied to the LMI and CS initiatives. In the LMI area, Working Group members committed significant time to Strategic Initiatives through involvement in sub-committees which worked to articulate and manage specific projects. This was in addition to their other on-going working group and regular work responsibilities. In the CS area, considerable time and effort were volunteered to all three projects by staff and representatives of community-based organizations. In addition the staff complement of eight which was hired to manage the three project streams of SI was fully subscribed. Linkages Between the Labour Market Information and Career Services Initiatives Close communication between LMI and CS has been taking place at the co-ordinator's level, with many initiatives to increase co-ordination in the two areas. In part, this is because focus groups determined that clients often do not distinguish between labour market information and career services. The decision to separate the two streams led to unanticipated difficulties in co-ordination. This is partly due to the different approach each has taken with respect to needs assessments. Unlike the other two streams, LMI did not conduct a formal comprehensive needs assessment. The Working Groups, the partners, and the staff of both LMI and CS recognized the importance of co-ordination between these two SI streams. This co-ordination is important at all program levels, especially in identifying opportunities for synergies in the future. 3.2.2 Administration
Timeliness In each of the SI Program streams, it readily became apparent that the amount of time and capacity (including human resources) required to develop and implement the program was not fully appreciated in the initial stages. In the W/S Program, insufficient allocation of program personnel, an inadequate application process, and lack of clear assessment procedures initially resulted in some delays in project approvals. Applicants expect reasonable timeframes for the assessment of, and feedback on, their proposals. In the case of the LMI Program, initial timelines did not factor in the time involved in partnership development nor in the development of appropriate policies and procedures. This negatively impacted on the time available for project implementation. In the CS Program, administrative delays resulted in shortened timelines for project implementation. The reduced time available for project development, implementation, and testing resulted from two factors: more time than expected was spent on developing the technology infrastructure required for new service delivery; and the community consultation process on which CS is built took longer than expected to complete. Complex programs like SI require a pre-operational design and development phase that includes the establishment of realistic timelines and the allocation of appropriate resources. Future timelines for new initiatives based on joint venture approaches should also incorporate, as part of their planning phases, the establishment and building of partnerships and the implementation of new processes and procedures. Flexibility In all three SI streams, the benefit of evolving policies and procedures was the flexibility this provided. A certain amount of flexibility in regard to project timelines has been important in all three SI initiatives. Standard Procedures In all three of the SI Program streams, initial delays in approving and implementing projects were caused by undeveloped policies, procedures, and processes. These delays have caused some frustration for the SI staff as a whole, some stakeholders, and/or certain portions of the public. Because the initiatives are new to the province and because they involved both orders of government, many of the administrative policies and procedures had to be developed as the projects progressed within each stream. While the flexibility of this approach has been beneficial in many ways, it has also resulted in some uncertainties. In the W/S Program, the lack of clear and concise written material contributed to a lack of applicant clarity around the criteria, the application process, and the timeframes involved in the assessment of, and provision of feedback for, proposals. Few policies and procedures were in place when the W/S Program began. Many of the administrative policies, procedures, reporting processes, and forms were developed or contributed by field staff of one or both orders of government to meet the needs of the W/S Program as it progressed. Incomplete procedures at the beginning contributed to delays and frustration for W/S applicants and staff. Policies and procedures drawn from each order of government were contradictory at times. This resulted in challenges for each order of government to adapt its policies to facilitate innovative and flexible programming. Adaptation of policies in government is never a single-step process, so further delays often result. A strength of the application process in the W/S Program was the introduction, at an early stage, of a concept paper, which helped to clarify the innovation criterion. The concept paper streamlined the application process by reducing applicants' time requirements and by producing feedback from the W/S Program more quickly. However, a weakness of the application process was the key criteria of 'innovation'; it was not clearly defined, thus causing some applicant confusion regarding eligibility. Streamlining the application process and clarifying the definition of certain concepts, such as 'innovation', would make the process easier for applicants of the W/S Program. Likewise, in the LMI stream, incomplete policies and procedures contributed to delays in the overall implementation process and created some frustration. For instance, contracts were perceived to move slowly through the system because there was no standardized format for required information. For LMI, staff saw the approval process identified in the Agreement as cumbersome and time-consuming. In addition, partners were unable to use the Labour Market Information gathered through the Labour Market Information SI pilots for annual planning purposes because policies and procedures for the release of documents and distribution of LMI products had not been developed and agreed upon. In the CS stream, an initial lack of common understandings about administrative policies, procedures, and processes contributed to inefficiencies. The ability to develop and implement projects effectively and efficiently has sometimes been hampered by government administrative requirements that arose in the early stages of SI, and by uncertainties in the areas of technology infrastructure, official language requirements, and communication guidelines. Two Orders of Government The federal and provincial governments have worked together successfully at the operational level to increase co-ordination of services and reduce duplication. The relationship between them has been strengthened through SI, as both orders of government work as equal partners towards shared interests and common principles both in policy development and management areas. In the W/S Program, many policies, procedures, reporting processes, and forms were developed or contributed by one or both orders of government to meet the needs of the program as it progressed. In the case of LMI, the required administrative time and resources have increased due to the necessity of going through both federal and provincial administrative processes, to move LMI projects through the system. The CS Program has also spent considerable time resolving issues that required multi-level approval, such as secondments or the application of Official Language policies. SI contract discussions overlooked responsibilities for translation costs associated with complying with federal government requirements related to Official Languages. French translation of LMI products is regarded as a federal responsibility by the provincial government. The scope of website translation requirements needs to be clarified. It is anticipated that one focused and streamlined provincial training and employment skills development strategy, which includes access to employment opportunities and CS and LMI, will reduce duplication. However, during the transition period, the operation and involvement of two very separate bureaucracies will continue to take more time and resources than would be the case if only one order of government were planning and implementing the SI Program. In the future, when two orders of government which operate within two independent and distinct systems and infrastructures commit to co-ordinating and collaborating, ways must also be found to expediently co-ordinate the dual systems while maintaining and respecting their individual integrity. 3.2.2 Communication
Co-ordination The W/S Program involved several meetings: Working Group meetings as required, monthly SI Co-chair meetings, weekly management team meetings, monthly approval committee meetings, and regular staff meetings. The LMI initiative involved several working group meetings, as well as monthly SI Co-chair meetings. In the CS Program, there was a series of Working Group meetings to discuss how funding for Career Services could be allocated within the province to best meet social and economic needs. There were regular meetings consisting of the project co-ordinator, the project managers, and the partner representatives. The purposes of these meetings were to update the Working Group members on the progress of the projects and to identify areas where additional support could be provided to pilot projects. Communication with Stakeholders The W/S Program found that appropriate communication with stakeholders increased their understanding of, and support for, the W/S projects. In addition to the regular meetings held in the W/S Program, a regular progress report was sent out to project partners, informing them of the project's progress. Partners engaged in specific pilots and labour market stakeholders were also able to communicate electronically through E-Mail and Extranet. One way in which stakeholder communication could be improved is by better dissemination of new programs, such as W/S, to be given to the community service agency staff. This could be accomplished through presentations as well as other mechanisms. Better dissemination of information would enable community service agencies to promote the program and effectively answer any public inquiries they receive. The LMI Program found that some stakeholders expressed an interest in receiving more regular updates on labour market information research findings for certain projects, such as the Sector Studies. A document that summarizes the LMI projects and identifies their respective client groups should be distributed to stakeholders, as this would assist in creating common understandings of the LMI initiative. In the CS Program, each project had its own method(s) of communicating with stakeholders. In the Rural Project, weekly telephone contact and regular meetings were maintained between two half-time project facilitators. The Northern Project effectively used memos for updating the information officers. Lastly, the Regina Project published a newsletter to keep those interested informed. Public Awareness and Relations The W/S Program directed the following forms of communication to the general public:
In addition, the W/S Program sent a newsletter entitled 'Work/Study Update' to partners and other stakeholders. The tremendous response from potential applicants to external communication about the W/S Program indicates strong receptivity to this type of training initiative and can be taken as an indicator of the effectiveness of the communication strategies used. The project co-ordinator of the LMI initiative began circulating the 'LMI Update' newsletter to keep Working Group members informed on the progress of pending and approved projects. Because it was so successful at keeping people informed, it was later expanded to both W/S and CS. In fact, circulation of the newsletter was expanded to include all SI staff and, later, PSEST executive directors, and others. In addition, communication plans are to be developed during the next phase to create user awareness of the various LMI products. In the CS Program, Working Group members and other stakeholders were kept apprised through the 'Career Services Update' newsletter and through presentations at meetings. Because the Working Group members represented career service providers throughout Saskatchewan, informal word-of-mouth communication generated substantial interest. After the terms of reference for the projects were developed, requests for proposals were sent to stakeholders involved in career services delivery. Communication Strategy In the W/S Program, the federal and provincial governments jointly developed the communication policy in order to reflect a common message. The project officers worked with the project sponsors to ensure that their external communication adhered to the policy. Communication should be directed towards the public only after the administrative infrastructure is in place to respond to all inquiries. Therefore, the timelines for new programs should incorporate sufficient pre-operational time to develop a communication strategy in order to have it in place when necessary. In the LMI Program, a communication specialist has been hired to assist in developing and implementing a communication strategy. A marketing strategy is also being developed to inform the general public of the Saskatchewan Partnership Website, which is a provincial initiative. For the CS Program, communication must also be co-ordinated with the Saskatchewan Training Strategy in order to present consistent messages to the public and to help improve service to clients. CS projects will have the support of the new SI Information Officer in co-ordinating communications and ensuring that CS communications comply with federal and provincial government guidelines. 3.3 Program Success 3.3.1 Partnerships
The Strength and Effectiveness of the Partnerships In the three SI streams, all of the partners had to work together to find common ground and reach compromises. In addition, all three streams found that it takes a significant amount of time to establish partnerships and to obtain commitments from project partners. Therefore, it is important to allocate sufficient and appropriate human and financial resources to build partnerships, and significant time to build the trust that is needed for true partnerships to evolve. In all three SI streams, the sustainability of the partnerships depends on the benefits and value partners receive, as well as on the level of commitment they make in terms of in-kind and financial resources. Additionally, the Working Group members and other stakeholders have developed informal networks, shared existing information, and benefited from the access to new information in all three streams. In the W/S Program, existing partnerships have been strengthened. Project sponsors had to develop their partnerships before applying to the W/S Program. Partners are contributing to training through in-kind contributions, such as unpaid work and/or the donation of equipment, facilities, and other non-financial contributions, as well as financial contributions. Education and training institutions are working more co-operatively with industry to develop and deliver training for long-term employment. Employers are making commitments to actively train employees. Organizations are working together and managing their workloads through partnering. Partnerships are developing new approaches to deliver apprenticeship training. Some organizations are working together to deliver training even though their W/S projects were not approved. In some instances, partnering agencies that were expected to provide participant financial support were not engaged early enough in project development to ensure their participation. This led to circumstances where income support for participants was unavailable and is an issue which warrants attention in future, similar programs. The partnerships in the LMI initiative have created a better understanding for the partners about each other's labour market information requirements. The networks that developed have increased partner collaboration on projects other than SI. Relationships among partners are more trusting and less adversarial. In particular, the Sector Studies are helping to strengthen partnerships between industry and training institutes, which will contribute in the long term to training that more closely matches job requirements. Some of the challenges that the LMI initiative's partnerships have had to overcome are:
In the CS Program, innovative partnerships have been established, and in cases where the partnership already existed, formalized. The new partnerships have a learning curve regarding the organizational and communication channels of each partner organization. This lengthens the time required for all partners to become comfortable with one another and establish the synergy of an effective working relationship. A Broad Perspective In all three streams, the broad perspective brought by the various representatives of partnering organizations and other stakeholders enhanced the projects. In W/S, this broad perspective increased the effectiveness of the training projects. In CS, the partnerships' global view ensured that rural and northern needs, as well as urban needs, were kept at the forefront. In LMI, the many different perspectives of the stakeholders allowed a common service delivery model to address diverse needs. Increased Access In all three SI streams, the access to available resources has improved. In the W/S Program this means that individual training projects have better access to resources. In the LMI initiative, partners have increased access to technical expertise and to identical information through co-ordinated databases. Both programs are expected to increase efficiency. In the CS Program, technology is being used to provide career services to people who previously did not have access to them. The multi-media focus and linkages among partners via WAN and Internet technology is viewed as an effective and innovative method for collecting and delivering career services to a wider audience dispersed over large geographic areas, particularly in rural and northern Saskatchewan. Increased use of, and encouragement to use, the latest technology is an advance for career service providers and clients. Continued development and updating of the technology will play a critical role in sustaining and enhancing dissemination of career services information to this wide audience. Leveraging Costs and Reducing Duplication The fact that partners in the SI streams are working collaboratively rather than independently in their efforts to meet labour market needs, is expected to reduce duplication. Partnerships are able to lever existing resources to offer on-the-job training. If industry is willing to take on more responsibility for training and to update equipment, there is vast potential for cost-savings on equipment, facilities, and/or materials for educational and training institutes. In the CS Program, the use of technology to disseminate career services information to career service providers and client/target market groups has been challenging. Over the long term, it is expected to be beneficial by improving access and efficiency as well as reducing waste and duplication. 3.4 Program Cost-Effectiveness 3.4.1 Finance
Resources Many of the traditional administrative costs have been contributed and/or absorbed by the partners. For example, program design was done with stakeholders on their own time and at their own expense. The federal/provincial management of the SI Program has been accomplished by existing staff members who have other primary job duties and responsibilities. Required equipment and office space has been contributed by the province. The costs for administration and start-up have been more than the amount that was initially budgeted. An appropriate level of human and financial resources is needed to ensure timeliness and effectiveness to meet client expectations for quality service. The LMI Initiative Working Group has not been able to pursue all of the projects suggested by stakeholders because of limited time and resources. In light of the limited resources that were allocated for co-ordination and management, LMI has accomplished a substantial amount of work in a short period of time. Additional resources would increase the ability to manage and implement projects on a timely basis. LMI projects are being designed to minimize future updating costs in the area of the pilot should it be continued and/or integrated into the overall LMI system, which the province operates. In the Career Services Program, resources and funds were committed to ensuring that the needs assessment process could be completed by each of the pilot projects. However, the amount of time and level of human resources required to use this approach within a community partnership context, and subsequently, to implement pilots, was not fully appreciated. Partners Partner organizations in the W/S Program absorbed the costs incurred by the W/S Working Group members, who contributed their time and took on tasks associated with the Working Group in addition to their existing duties. Partner organizations in the LMI and the CS streams contributed human and financial resources that leveraged the funding provided by SI. Funding Allocations A total of $5,916,771 was allocated for W/S projects. Of this amount, $4,190,208 (70.8%) was committed to approved projects as of September 17, 1997. Sponsor and partner contributions (approximately 58% of the total value of approved pilot project training funding of $9,968,451) demonstrate how SI funding succeeded in levering significant contributions to supplement public funding. Partner contributions have benefited W/S projects. The model developed through W/S partnerships approach is a positive and effective one. A total of $2,200,000 was identified in the SI Contribution Agreement for the LMI stream. As of September 1997, nineteen projects had been approved, with total contracted value of $1,530,500. The working group has prioritized requirements for LMI products and balanced identified needs within the available budget. Their process was facilitated by the LMI Project Co-ordinator's initial estimates of appropriate funding allocations for specific LMI projects. In CS, each of the three projects received $1 million and was responsible for determining funding allocations within this budget for both the pre-operational and operational phases. In future initiatives, when allocating funds, the differences within regions and geographic distances should be considered. Costs to operate a partnership model in rural and northern areas are greater and need to be factored into funding formulas. Flexibility In each of the three streams, the development of policies and procedures as the initiatives evolved helped build in a level of flexibility in meeting program requirements. The W/S Program provides its share of project funding in advance in order to cover expenses projected for the first three months of the pilot projects. Project sponsors submit financial statements for which they are reimbursed based on a work payment and milestone achievement schedule. W/S project officers verify expenditures by examining bills, cheques, and other financial information during site visits every three months. The project officers allow for some flexibility in terms of timelines for the remittance of monthly financial statements from project sponsors. In terms of flexibility, the LMI initiative has been able to provide funding, as needed, once actual costs have been determined. This makes the funding allocation process effective. As already stated, each CS Program received a set allocation total. Projects were allowed to carry excesses or apply shortfalls, which may have arisen during the pre-operational phase of the project to their respective operational budgets. The forthcoming summative evaluation will assess the impacts of the SI Program, while this portion of the formative evaluation has assessed the cost effectiveness of the development phase of the program.
| |||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060127010140im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060127010140im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060127010140im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060127010140im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}