Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

6.1 Summary

jobLink resource centres were an important component of the jobLink Ontario initiative introduced in 1994. The centres were designed to provide co-ordinated employment services to social assistance recipients in order to improve employability and encourage self-sufficiency. The jobLink Ontario initiative was terminated, however, less than two years later. Since that time, the jobLink resource centres included in this evaluation have sought funding from other sources such as municipal, provincial and federal governments. The simultaneous downsizing at HRDC also had a perceived negative impact on many resource centres because of reductions in available staff time and access to training funds. Not all resource centres have survived intact and the future of existing sites is uncertain given the significant changes that are occurring in provincial and federal government responses to employment issues. The introduction of Ontario Works at the provincial level and the future devolution of responsibility for training from the federal to provincial governments will be important factors in shaping the future of resource centres.

While the jobLink Ontario initiative has ended, the evaluation of resource centres initially funded by the program provides insights into partnership models for service delivery, program impacts from the perspective of the client, and benefits to the community infrastructure. An initial process evaluation of jobLink resource centres provided evidence on delivery issues. This study builds on this evaluation work and also includes the perspective of clients regarding their experiences with the resource centres. It is difficult to provide generalisable conclusions given the significant variations among the different sites, particularly after funding was terminated and centralized co-ordination or guidelines were removed. Nevertheless, some trends are clear. The following sections highlight study findings organized by issue.

Client Impacts

jobLink resource centres were initially established to provide services targeted to social assistance recipients. While SARs remain the primary client group for resource centres, many services are open to all community residents who are unemployed and seeking work. The client profile of resource centres depends to some extent on the location of the centre, with off-site centres drawing a broader mix of clientele.

The profile of current jobLink clients presented in the report confirms a need for employment assistance. Clients generally have sporadic experience in the labour market and high reliance on income transfers, leading to poor prospects for obtaining employment for these workers.

jobLink clients are largely motivated to visit the resource centres to obtain practical information or assistance finding a job. Information on job vacancies and job search assistance were most often mentioned as the kinds of services clients were looking for at the centre. The utilization of services was high (significantly higher than the comparison group) with almost all clients having accessed self-serve products and two-thirds receiving staff-assisted services. Reflecting their original motivations for visiting the resource centre, job bank kiosks and advice on job search were the most frequently used self-serve and staff-assisted services.

Satisfaction ratings of services are high to moderate with no significant differences in ratings between the participant and comparison groups. Self-serve products such as office equipment and the resource centre computer were very highly rated. Staff assistance on job search advice also received a high rating. Clients have found the information and services to be timely, easy to understand and easy to access. The majority of clients were also satisfied with the level of knowledge of staff. More than 80% of clients were satisfied with the resource centre overall.

Clients were somewhat less satisfied with the linkages to other local organizations through inventory listings or referrals from staff. Weaknesses in the resource centre were also identified in terms of the quality of information available, the types of services and programs offered by the resource centre and the referrals received through the centre. One in five clients indicated that obtaining information about what was available at the centre and waiting in line for assistance were barriers to using the centre. Lowest satisfaction ratings were for follow-up.

When asked to rate the benefits of the jobLink resource centre, the most important benefit from the clients' perspective was getting information about the job market. jobLink clients rated this benefit significantly higher than the comparison group. About one-third of clients felt that the resource centre had helped them to find a job. The comparison group provided higher ratings of the employment services they received in terms of helping them to upgrade their education.

While virtually all clients surveyed could be classified as in the labour force (either employed or interested in obtaining employment) and had actively searched for work, at the time of the interview, the current employment rate for the jobLink resource centre clients was only about 38% and only one in four were employed full-time. Forty-five percent reported that they were currently unemployed and looking for work. The relatively high unemployment rate reflects to a large extent the current competitiveness of the labour market in Ontario (about 9% unemployment). As well, the employment rates are a reflection of the client profile. A substantial proportion of clients — about one-half — lack recent work experience.

While jobLink participants initially showed more positive labour market outcomes than the comparison group, these differences largely disappeared when the multivariate analysis controlled for pre-existing differences between the two groups. Sociodemographic variables such as sex, age and marital status were important predictors of employment status. The greater likelihood that the jobLink participants were in the labour market (i.e., actively looking for work) was also an important factor. The multivariate analysis did, however, show a significant and positive advantage for the participant group in terms of number of weeks of employment during the post-program period (an eight-week advantage). This translated into a reduction in use of social assistance by the participant group during the post-program period (2.8 months).

The reported utilization of public support, particularly social assistance, is quite high among both the client and comparison groups. This is not surprising given that most individuals would be clients because they were on social assistance. About one in five clients believed the resource centre had helped them to end their dependence on social assistance.

The current financial situation of clients and the comparison group is generally poor. Average household incomes are well below the average in Canada and the majority of respondents reported that they had difficulty in living on their current income. The majority of all respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with their current level of financial security.

Cost-Efficiency/Effectiveness

There is a lack of evidence collected in this evaluation to make a definitive judgement on the cost-efficiency or effectiveness of jobLink resource centres. In terms of organizational efficiency, jobLink resource centres were expected to result in savings through collocation of agencies and partnership arrangements, with organizations providing in-kind contributions such as staff time, computers and other equipment (e.g., job banks). The resource centres included in this evaluation have a variety of organizational arrangements. In Ottawa, no collocation arrangement was implemented; however, the resource centre has established partnerships consisting of in-kind contributions in order to provide specialized workshops for clients. In Sudbury Central, an initial partnership established with multiple agencies has now dissolved. In Toronto and Windsor, however, partnerships have been effective in pooling resources to provide integrated services to clients at one site.

According to process evaluation information and the data collected in this evaluation, cost of service varies considerably depending on the types of services provided, client volumes and the proportion of clients receiving self-directed versus staff-assisted services. As well, there are vagaries in the way sites calculate costs and count clients served. The cost per client served for Windsor was $199, for Ottawa $74, and for Sudbury Central the cost was $12. No cost figures were available for the Toronto sites. An overall average based on these figures is $95.

Cost-effectiveness of resource centres was also expected to be achieved in the longer term as social assistance recipients are assisted in finding jobs and attaining self-sufficiency. Sustainable employment leads to reduced costs for public support such as employment insurance and social assistance. According to the survey data, the success rate for jobLink clients — measured in terms of the proportion that are currently employed — is 38%. Based on the efficiency ratios noted above, we could extrapolate to calculate a cost per employed client of about $250.

Partnerships

Local municipalities, MCSS and HRDC are key partners in most of the resource centres examined here. Roles and responsibilities of government partners include providing funding, day-to-day administration of the resource centre (usually the municipal level) and providing linked services (e.g., HRDC literature and job bank listings are made available to the resource centre, and specialized expertise may be provided on a case-by-base basis by other partners).

In addition to government partners, most resource centres have sought partnerships with community-based organizations. These include, for example, local employment assistance agencies (perhaps targeted to youth or disadvantaged groups) and education institutions such as community colleges. In these cases, partnerships involve service delivery, with partner organizations providing particular services to clients/sub-groups of clients depending on their area of expertise. Partnerships with community-based service organizations may be based on service contracts, with third-party organizations providing services on a fee-for-service basis or staff members providing on-site services on a regular basis at the resource centre. Less work has been conducted on developing partnerships with industry in terms of leveraging contributions or in developing employment placements/opportunities for clients.

In some centres, partnerships have extended to the implementation of local advisory committees, which are closely involved in establishing resource centre goals and objectives and strategic decision-making. In Ottawa, an Interim Advisory Committee was assembled to prepare the proposal for the jobLink centres. Based on the success of this committee, the proposal recommended establishing a jobLink Planning and Review Committee, which would assist in the implementation and on-going operation of the resource centre. Members of this committee represent both service consumers and providers, as well as employers and members of organizations serving ethnic and visible minorities. The process evaluation of Windsor and Sudbury indicated that advisory committees could have benefits in terms of identification of community needs and enhancement of ownership. On the other hand, in communities that have not established local advisory committees, the resource centre engendered resentment among some community stakeholders initially, particularly if this level of involvement was initially promised but not delivered. Some resource centres noted that the short timeframes in which to establish the centres did not lend itself to extensive consultation and involvement of community partners.

According to key informants, the development of partnerships and the integration of services are demanding in terms of management and administration. Housing services and staff within the same organization presents challenges to blending the varying mandates, policies, levels of organization, skills and experience, reporting relationships and cultural expectations. This requires significant communication and clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities. While most resource centres use a team approach, it is important to have effective management in order to overcome resistance from "outside" or partner organizations and avoid fragmentation of services. A clear vision of goals and objectives and commitment of partners and staff to the vision are also paramount.

Community Impacts

Community impacts identified in the evaluation terms of reference include: enhancement of services/increase in service infrastructure; integration of services/creation of seamless one-stop shopping; and reduction in duplication of services. In terms of the first category — enhancement of services — key informants generally believed that resource centres had enhanced services by providing walk-in access to employment services that had not been available before. The evidence from the survey of clients indicates that the resource centre was the primary source of assistance for most clients — only one in five accessed other types of services or assistance that did not involve the resource centre.

Marketing, however, is an issue that was raised in several sites with respect to building infrastructure. New resource centres, particularly those that are located "off-site" (i.e., are not located in a social assistance office or co-located with an established agency) must build a clientele. This requires promotion and strong links with referral sources such as caseworkers and other community organizations, as well as direct promotion to clients in order to ensure broad access. This was somewhat less problematic for resource centres that employed a storefront approach or were located in a mall.

The sustainability of resource centres in the longer term with the termination in funding, however, is unclear. While the focus of Ontario Works on increasing self-sufficiency would seem to fit with resource centre objectives and activities, funding of activities is an ongoing issue.

In terms of integration of services, the collocation of organizations has been only moderately successful. In Windsor, for example, while the HRCC and resource centre is in the same building, only the municipal employment services are co-located. In Ottawa, no collocation agreement could be arranged. According to the process evaluation, community-based organizations sometimes resist collocation arrangements out of fear of losing funding. Integration of services is often accomplished through staffing arrangements, which entail staff from partner organizations providing services on-site at the resource centre on a regular basis. Key factors for successful collocation include clear articulation of roles and responsibilities of partners and communication within the office with respect to procedures and goals and objectives.

Key informants agreed that there are significant benefits to service integration for clients. Collocation arrangements allow clients to access a variety of services at one site. This increases the likelihood that clients will utilize the various employment services and also decreases the cost and inconvenience for clients. As reported in the process evaluation, collocation can also have benefits for staff in terms of informal training and professional development among the representatives from different agencies.

Reducing duplication was expected to be a positive outcome as resource centres improved co-ordination and integration of services provided by various levels of government. According to the process evaluation of jobLink Resource Centres, there was little needs analysis research conducted prior to the implementation of jobLink. As a result, many communities did not have a clear understanding of the gaps in services or the extent of duplication. The elimination of duplication is probably the least clear of the impacts of resource centres. Key informants generally believed that recent reductions in government funding for employment services, as well as funding cuts among NGOs meant that gaps in services were more likely to be a problem than duplication.

Case Management

While the focus of resource centre activities is on social assistance recipients, most centres can and will provide assistance to other groups as well such as employment insurance recipients and other unemployed individuals (e.g., youth). While some resource centres initially experimented with a referral process, clients are now drawn from a variety of sources. Welfare worker referrals are still the most frequent source of information about the resource centre, however, word-of-mouth is also important. In the Ottawa West RC, roughly one-third of clients are "walk-ins"; this was attributed to their highly visible storefront location.

The resource centres examined in this evaluation provide a wide variety of self-serve and staff-assisted products and services to clients. Self-serve products typically include job listings, office equipment, and public access computers and labour market information. Staff-assisted services include assistance in planning and conducting a job search, general employment counselling, and referrals to other organizations.

Interviewees agreed that the quality of staff — skills and ability to deal effectively with clients — were key to the success of the resource centres. The process evaluation of jobLink resource centres and the evaluation of the Toronto jobLink resource centres identified staff training as an important issue. Uneven service in some resource centres was attributed to a lack of attention to staff training and development issues. Staff require both technical skills to assist clients with computer-related skills and access, and softer skills related to assessment, coaching and conflict resolution.

Monitoring and tracking of resource centre clients is usually conducted using customized databases or, in some smaller centres, manually. All resource centres have a registration form upon which the client record is based (this may be limited to staff-assisted clients only). While the registration forms can be unique to the centre, information that is collected includes: basic tombstone information, sociodemographic variables such as sex, age, education and language, and work history. Resource centres also collect information on client employment activities, though this is largely limited to staff-assisted services such as participation in workshops, referrals and so on. Use of self-serve products is not rigorously tracked by the resource centres. As well, while resource centres generally produce monthly statistics and quarterly reports on throughput indicators such as service utilization and client volumes, there is less emphasis on tracking outcomes related to employability.

The extent to which clients are monitored varies from centre to centre. One centre monitors clients every three months. The Windsor Resource Centre conducts regular satisfaction surveys with clients. From the perspective of clients, the follow-up procedures are currently not sufficient — this aspect had the lowest satisfaction rating among the items tested. Although attendance at workshops and individual counselling are monitored in Ottawa, there has been no method to monitor the use of self-serve services. The use of a suggestion box, however, has provided some feedback from clients.

6.2 Conclusions

In sum, resource centres provide employment services to clients who are in need of assistance to improve their job prospects. The survey data clearly indicate that the jobLink group had far greater access to employment services and programs than the comparison group. While some of the benefits of resource centres appear quite modest — less than one-third say the resource centre helped them to find a job — this must be interpreted in light of the challenging profile of the target client group. The survey results indicate that while the jobLink client group showed a significant employment advantage compared with the comparison group, this was due to pre-existing differences between the two groups. There are, however, positive benefits attributable in terms of length of unemployment and type of employment found in the post-program period.

In terms of the operation of the resource centres themselves, jobLink has led to the development of partnerships, greater integration of services and enhanced community capacity. However, funding issues, difficulties in effectively managing partnerships and efficient monitoring have posed barriers for some centres and led to weaknesses in delivery. As well, the movement away from a case management approach to a more self-serve model in some centres will have an impact on resource centre's ability to assist the full range of their clients' needs. Greater communication, both within offices and with clients, as well as continued community development, were identified as key elements for future success.

6.3 Recommendations

1. Collocation

The jobLink initiative was intended to involve various levels of government and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) to provide integrated services to social assistance recipients. While physical collocation was not achieved in many of the sites included in this evaluation, the collocation of organizations is reported to lead to numerous benefits.¹³ Collocation offers many advantages both to organizations (e.g., increased efficiency, staff collaboration and sharing) and to clients (e.g., expanded availability of services, "one-stop" access to programs). The use of various self-serve products and referrals by participants interviewed for this evaluation suggests that clients themselves desire access to the broadest possible services offered by adjacent organizations. Future initiatives that aim at developing the employment resource centre model should give careful consideration to collocated arrangements among governments (federal, provincial and municipal employment services) and community partners. The collocation may involve varying levels of integration from itinerant collocation of staff to greater integration and sharing of resources and management/administration.

2. Service Provision

The evidence gathered in this evaluation suggests that jobLink participants were very satisfied with the self-directed and staff-assisted services they received. While the move to greater self-directed services was viewed as positive and provides expanded access to employment support services, it should also be noted that many participants did not appear to be adequately equipped to make use of some of these services on their own. For participants, the most significant gap in programming was information on the types of services that were available at the resource centre and initial orientation/support on how to best make use of the services. The case management approach, whether conducted by the resource centre itself or a third-party organization, should consider a process for assessing clients' needs/skills prior to referral to an employment resource centre. As well, future efforts in providing self-directed services to unemployed clients should include orientation sessions and access to staff support in the employment resource centre itself. This implies a need for highly trained staff who are familiar with the resources available, highly computer literate and have strong case management/counselling skills.

3. Local Advisory Committees

Several of the sites that were included in this jobLink evaluation had difficulty in establishing local or community advisory committees. However, in areas where local advisory committees were functioning, the committees proved to be very important in the success of the site by broadening ownership of the initiative and pooling expertise. Committees, composed of community representatives, are also important in examining areas of service needs and duplication to create a more seamless infrastructure. Finally, involvement of community partners ensures that clients receive appropriate referrals when necessary. In future initiatives, the importance of and capacity necessary for establishing successful partnerships should be explicitly recognized. This includes for example, recognition of the human resources necessary to maintain partnerships, development of the particular skill sets (e.g., negotiation) and early involvement of the appropriate partners in the community.

4. Role of Industry

The role of industry was quite limited in all of the sites included in this evaluation. Yet, involvement of local business would present opportunities for leveraging of contributions and development of employment opportunities for clients. Dedicated positions for job developers were not consistent across the sites. It might be useful to harmonize the job development efforts of resource centres with those of other organizations that are also approaching employers to establish links for future client employment (e.g., local schools and colleges looking for co-op placements).

5. Data Collection

As indicated in the description of the methodological approach for this evaluation, the conduct of this study was hampered to some extent by lack of access and availability of program and participant-level data. The formative evaluation of jobLink noted that there were significant vagaries in the data collected by various jobLink sites (e.g., caseloads, financial information). This presents barriers in examining outcome measures across sites (e.g., cost per client served). Follow-up procedures should also receive increased attention in the planning of employment services and sufficient resources allocated to this activity. Finally, the current evaluation encountered difficulties in assembling a satisfactory sampling frame for the survey of jobLink participants due to confidentiality concerns on the part of the sites. In future initiatives of this nature, it would be useful to secure permission for release of information from clients at the time of the intervention to permit evaluation research in the future.

Footnotes

13	See, for example, KPMG Project Report, CASC Process Review — Moving Towards an Integrated Service Delivery System, Edmonton, Alberta, 1997.