|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
A. Regional ProfileThe Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) encompasses 11 municipalities. The population has been increasing steadily and rose to 678,147 in 1991. This represents a 12% increase from the previous census in 1986. The largest growth in the RMOC during this period was in the east (the population of Cumberland increased 50%) and the west (the population in Kanata increased 36%). The RMOC differs from the rest of Ontario in a number of ways. The most striking difference is the strong public sector presence. As Ottawa is the national capital, there are three levels of government, which maintain their seats of power in the region: municipal, regional and federal governments. Changes in the public sector, such as federal cutbacks, have had a marked influence on the local labour market. There are also notable linguistic and cultural differences between the RMOC and the rest of Ontario. Approximately one-fifth of the RMOC's working population is francophone; in 1991, 19% of the population identified their mother tongue as French. As well, a small but growing proportion of the population identified a language other than French or English as their mother tongue (13%, compared with 10% with 1986). There are also differences with respect to education levels. The labour force in Ottawa-Carleton has traditionally been more highly educated than in other parts of the province. According to the 1991 Census, more than one-quarter of workers in the RMOC (27%) had a university degree compared with 16% for Ontario. Participation rates, however, do not differ significantly. Sixty-seven percent of the working-age population (i.e., aged 15 years and over) in Ottawa-Carleton actively participated in the labour force, compared with 66% for the province of Ontario in 1997. While the unemployment rate in the region increased fairly steadily during the late 1980s and early 1990s, it has remained fairly stable over the past four years (8%), and was still lower than the rest of the province in 1997. B. DescriptionDevelopmentWhen Ottawa-Carleton was selected as one of the 11 sites for the implementation of the jobLink Resource Centre Services early in the fall of 1994, an Interim Advisory Committee was assembled. Members of this committee were selected through a series of consultative sessions and represented the following sectors: service consumers; service providers; educators and trainers; organized labour; social action groups; ethnic and visible minorities; and employers. This committee prepared the funding proposal for the jobLink resource centres, which was subsequently approved by HRDC and MCSS. One of the recommendations of the funding proposal called for the creation of a jobLink Community Planning and Review Committee, which would assist in the implementation and ongoing operation of the resource centres. The committee was to include both governmental and non-governmental members. Non-governmental representatives included sectoral representatives and individuals who were current or recent users of social assistance. Composition of the committee was also to reflect the linguistic and cultural diversity of the community. The intent was to establish links and ensure ongoing communication in the community. The committee held its first meeting towards the end of May 1995. In September 1995, an existing employment resource centre in the east end of Ottawa became operational as a jobLink resource centre (RC); a few months later, in November, a second jobLink RC opened in the west end of the city at Lincoln Heights Galleria. The sites of the jobLink RCs were selected to be highly visible within the community, ensuring both street access and access via public transit. A third resource centre was established more centrally at 880 Wellington in 1996. As it was the only site that started from its inception as a jobLink resource centre, the resource centre located in the west end of Ottawa is the focus of this case study. As mentioned earlier, a resource centre had existed in the east prior to jobLink; it was relocated to improve visibility and accessibility and its services were modified to conform to the jobLink proposal. The third resource centre, although it offered services similar to the jobLink resource centres, was never funded under jobLink. The jobLink delivery model represented a distinct shift in focus from traditional one-on-one counselling towards a self-assisted delivery model, which provided only short term individual counselling. The resource centres were intended to provide a co-ordinated approach to service delivery for recipients of social assistance. Co-ordination would strengthen linkages in the community, which would, in turn, improve communication and facilitate referrals from jobLink staff to other community organizations and vice versa. The service objectives of the Ottawa jobLink resource centres were as follows:
Early on in the development of the resource centres, partnerships were viewed as an integral component of co-ordinated service delivery. They would be created within the community to ensure the flow of information regarding available programs and services. Partnerships were viewed as necessary to ensure that the RMOC did not duplicate existing services in the community, and to enable the provision of more in-depth, one-on-one counselling for clients with special needs through a system of referrals. The development of partnerships would, therefore, not only result in improved service for clients but would also serve to reduce or eliminate overlap among service providers. From the establishment of the Interim Advisory Committee during the initial planning stages to the creation of the Community Planning and Review Committee during implementation, working in partnership with community representatives has, in fact, been a key feature of the Ottawa jobLink resource centres. Outreach to the community was identified as a priority during consultations with community representatives and subsequently resulted in the creation of four community liaison worker positions. The intent was to develop linkages with the francophone and the ethnic and visible minority communities, as well as to develop linkages with disability groups and supported employment programs. Liaison workers served a number of functions, such as to:
Organizational StructureThe jobLink RC at Lincoln Heights has a full-time centre manager and maintains eight full-time employment counsellors, one full-time job developer, one part-time technical support staff and three full-time administrative staff. Until August 1997, there were also four liaison workers who divided their time among the city's three resource centres. The eight full-time counsellors provide a full range of employment services; however, they also specialize to some degree. For example, one counsellor might maintain contacts with employment organizations, another might focus on self-help activities, while another might develop expertise in designing workshops. The RC's job developer is part of a job development team within the RMOC's Employment Programs Division and acts as a liaison between the job development team and the RC. The job developer provides employment services to employers, for example, screening applicants and forwarding appropriate résumés for the employers' consideration. The job developer may also spend time with clients in preparation for their interviews. The part-time technical support staff is essentially one full-time person, shared equally among the three resource centres and provides technical computer support. At the outset, there were also two HRDC staff situated at the resource centre, working with RC staff; this arrangement was terminated when HRDC discontinued funding jobLink. The centre is premised on a team approach. All resource centre staff report directly to a centre manager. Staff meetings with the centre manager are held on a regular (weekly) basis, to discuss, for example, which workshops will be offered in a given month and who will present them. Meetings with staff from all three centres are held approximately four times per year. In addition to regular staff meetings, the Director of Employment Programs (RMOC) and the three centre managers also meet regularly, roughly every two weeks.  View Exhibit B1.1 While one of the strengths of the delivery system is that it is a co-ordinated approach among the three resource centres, each centre has a measure of control over the services it provides, and so is able to tailor its services to meet the specific needs of its clientele. For example, one centre might run a specific course only because the demand at that centre supports it. It will, however, be advertized at the other centres and clients from other centres may also attend. Client Programs and ServicesAlthough the RC was designed to focus primarily on self-assisted services, short term one-on-one counselling is available. Group counselling is also provided in the form of workshops, which cover various topics such as job search, interview techniques and résumé preparation. Basic computer training, addressing the fundamentals of word processing, is provided on an ongoing basis (weekly) to raise clients' skills to a functional level. Staff-assisted services typically include employment counselling, assessments and referrals (e.g., referrals within the jobLink RC as well as to other agencies such as the Women's Career Counselling). Maintaining partnerships and contacts with other organizations is also important, particularly with respect to referring clients with needs beyond the mandate of the jobLink RC. Employment counsellors are also required to spend a portion of their time "on call." There are typically two counsellors situated out in the resource area at all times, available to answer any type of question to clients using the self-assisted services (e.g., providing help with the computers, providing advice on a cover letter or résumés). A small childcare area, monitored by staff periodically, is also available for clients with children. The self-assisted services include the following:
Case ManagementUnder jobLink, service delivery moved away from a one-on-one case management type of approach to a more self-assisted delivery approach. This has meant that employment counsellors do not maintain an ongoing relationship with a single client; rather several counsellors may see the same client. If a client has no need of individual counselling or does not require help with any of the self-assisted resources, employment counsellors may have no contact at all, beyond an initial orientation meeting, with a particular client. The only criterion employed to screen clients is that they be receiving social assistance. Clients are generally referred to the RC by their caseworker or from other community organizations. A fair proportion of RC clientele, however, approaches the RC without a referral (i.e., roughly one-third of clients). Although no one on social assistance would be denied access to the resource centre, the RC has a focus on job-ready clients who are able to utilize self-assisted services, and so would not be appropriate for all social assistance recipients. Due to the high visibility of the RC store front, RC staff often receive queries about the centre from individuals not on social assistance. In the interest of maintaining a good relationship with the local community, a "one-time-only" day pass is issued to individuals who do not fulfil the screening criterion, but who have expressed an interest in accessing RC facilities. Management and AccountabilityWhile objectives and goals for the RC were initially set by the Community Planning and Review Committee, the Director of Employment Programs oversees the activities of the RC, whereas the RC manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations. The RC manager also has responsibility for authorising all expenditures. All expenses are submitted to the RMOC finance department and recorded; monthly reports are generated and distributed to both the Director of Employment Programs and the RC manager to indicate the status of the RC budget. While information was available regarding client participation in workshops and individual counselling, there was initially no tracking of the use of self-assisted services and little evaluation of outcomes beyond anecdotal evidence. Although aggregate numbers with respect to traffic flow have been captured (i.e., how many clients have visited the resource centre), there was no method available to track how often a specific client used the resource centre. With the introduction of Ontario Works, clients have been issued a personal identification card, which can be read electronically each time they enter the resource centre. This method is also able to track electronically the activities and services utilized by RC members. According to managers at the RC, the next step is to link the RC clients' data to the departmental central database to facilitate the measurement of the outcomes and effectiveness of the services provided. Client needs are identified and feedback is solicited via a number of methods. Client needs are initially assessed during an orientation session. These needs are noted and any trends are subsequently communicated during staff meetings. Feedback regarding workshops is collected via assessment forms, which are provided to all workshop participants. Clients also have an opportunity to provide general comments by filling out resource centre evaluation forms, which, although not compulsory, are anonymous and readily available to all clients. Key informants generally acknowledged that, although it was an objective of the RC, not much had been accomplished in the way of implementing an evaluation system. Key informants were also quick to note, however, that funding for the jobLink RC ceased before evaluation issues could be addressed. ResourcesThe RC is funded by two main sources of revenue: municipal and provincial funding. Provincial funding actually derives from two separate programs — a provincial contribution to a municipal employment program and jobLink funds. Funding is also provided by Human Resources Development Canada for the provision of services for HRDC's Employment Assistance Services clients (i.e., clients who have exhausted their Employment Insurance). Exhibit B1.2 presents the approximate budgets for the RC for 1996 and 1997.
RC expenditures include staff salaries and benefits, rent and other operational expenses (e.g., office expenses, printing, and travel for clients). Exhibit B1.3 presents RC expenditures for 1996. In 1996, there were 2,713 new clients and 12,517 visits to the centre. This translates into a cost of $74 per client served.
PartnershipsAs noted earlier, partnership has been a key ingredient of the Ottawa jobLink resource centres. Partnerships have been developed on several levels to meet a variety of needs. The establishment of the Community Planning and Review Committee represents a partnership of the diverse players within the Ottawa-Carleton community and has served to raise the profile of the jobLink resource centres, ease the co-ordination of services and improve the flow of information among service providers. The RCs have also gained a better appreciation of the mandates and activities of the various community organizations. The partnerships forged by the liaison workers with community-based organizations have served a similar function with respect to raising the profile of the RC and improving the flow of information. Another of the perceived outcomes of these partnership activities has been the increased focus on the client. In previous years, organizations that shared the same client group both tended to view the same clients as "their clients." Partnership has eliminated this tendency. One key informant likened it to relinquishing ownership of clients ("when we met together, the issue was no longer whose client is this, rather, how can the needs of this client be served"). It is ironic that one of the anticipated outcomes of partnerships was the elimination of duplication of services; in the recent funding environment, duplication has been less of an issue as opposed to closing the gaps in service delivery. Many partnerships have been sought in order to pool dwindling resources, for example, the sharing of expertise among organizations via the provision of in-kind services. At the resource centre level, several partnerships have been formed with community-based organizations to serve just this purpose. The RC has tried to link with organizations with specialized activities that serve the same client group (e.g., organizations serving people with disabilities, visible minorities, women's organizations, and employment services). For example, one community-based organization currently provides the RC with on-site computer workshops in exchange for employment services workshops for its clients. Strengths and ChallengesKey informants were united in their belief that the RC has successfully achieved its objectives. There is no doubt that the RC storefront Lincoln Heights provides a highly visible and accessible entry point for employment-related services. The self-assisted services at the RC, such as word processing, fax and printing services, provide clients with the tools to engage in a job search. Additional support in the form of short term counselling and workshops is also available. Although on a fairly small scale, service and clients are marketed to employers via the activities of a job developer. A few employers who had used the RC to hire staff were interviewed and they indicated that they were very satisfied with the employment services provided by the job developer. It had been extremely useful to employers to have someone screen résumés for them, resulting in savings in both time and money. Employers were also pleased with the quality of the candidates forwarded to them. It is believed that co-ordination has been achieved through partnerships by improving the communication among community organizations. One of the only weak areas identified by key informants was with respect to evaluation of outcomes. Although the self-assisted and staff-assisted services can be evaluated through client feedback, outcomes are difficult to evaluate unless clients are tracked beyond their use of the RC. This will be remedied, however, with the new electronic tracking system. With respect to equal access for all social assistance recipients, it is important to realize that the RC is designed to assist job-ready clients, and that there is a portion of those on assistance who would not benefit from the RC. These clients may feel ready to seek employment; however, they may not actually be ready to enter the job market in terms of skills. The issue essentially comes down to funding. Some key informants indicated that they would like to be able to provide more in-depth assistance to those who require it, however, it is extremely labour intensive and costly. According to key informants and focus group participants, key strengths and factors of the success of the RC include the following:
At the time interviews were conducted, the RC was undergoing considerable change: an HRDC Human Resource Centre (HRCC) was scheduled to open next door to the jobLink RC and the implementation of Ontario Works was imminent. The proximity of the HRCC to the jobLink RC has interesting implications given the distinct mandates of these two centres; both offer employment services, yet one serves only Employment Insurance (EI) clients and the other only social assistance recipients. When notified of the decision to locate an HRCC next door, jobLink staff expressed concern regarding the potential for client confusion and frustration; they believed that it was inevitable that clients would want access to both resource centres and would not understand why it would be denied. To avoid such a situation, discussions have been held and an agreement has been reached regarding accessibility for clients and the sharing of resources and services. Most recently, an agreement has been reached between the resource centre and the HRCC to physically collocate. The joint centre will be operational in fall 1998, and will bring together the services and resources of both organizations to serve the general public (including EI and SA recipients) who are in need of employment supports. It is anticipated that this collocation will reduce the stigma expressed by some clients, as the new centre will not be identified with the social assistance client group specifically. Notwithstanding the ever-present challenge to obtain funding for the resource centre, the implementation of Ontario Works poses a number of challenges for the RC. One of the main differences under Ontario Works is that participation at the RC will cease to be voluntary. Both key informants and focus group participants expressed concern regarding the impact that increased participation, due to compulsory attendance, would have on services. With the implementation of Ontario Works, however, these initial concerns have not been realized as the majority of RC clients continue to utilize the services and resources voluntarily. The jobLink RC delivery model represented a movement away from long term one-on-one counselling to more self-assisted services with some staff-assisted services (e.g., short term counselling, group counselling). There is a fear that the implementation of Ontario Works will result in a further reduction of staff-assisted services due to increased participation. Citing delays due to line-ups or breakdowns in equipment, focus group participants believe that jobLink resources are already stretched to their limit; they anticipate that Ontario Works will cause further delays unless more equipment and staff are provided. The transition from voluntary to compulsory participation also was considered to have implications for security. The open concept of the RC is vastly different from the locked doors and Plexiglas of social assistance offices. Both key informants and focus group participants speculated whether security precautions would be required under compulsory participation. Should this be the case, the friendly atmosphere of the RC would be seriously compromised. These initial concerns have not been borne out. While referrals from welfare workers have certainly increased, client incidents at the resource centre with respect to security have been minimal. On a final note, both key informants and focus group participants expressed a desire to see the RC evolve and expand its current mandate. Focus group participants tended to concentrate more on the scope of the services provided, whereas key informants focused on the scope of the target client group. While they understood that it is difficult to tailor services to the individual given resource limitations, focus group participants wanted to see staff-assisted services expanded. It was acknowledged that the resource centre was doing an excellent job of providing the tools and some basic skills to conduct a job search. Participants felt, however, that some services needed to be more tailored to the varying skill levels of the client. This would entail providing services both to clients with intermediate level skills (e.g., a self-employment program) as well as providing services to clients with more specialized needs (e.g., longer term, one-on-one counselling). The mandate of the RC should also be expanded to include all members of the general public, not just social assistance or EI recipients. One of the challenges for the RC, particularly in light of funding cuts, will be to foster the evolution of the jobLink RC into an accessible resource centre for all members of society, regardless of employment or assistance status.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060127011709im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060127011709im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)