From: Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services

Subject: Ontario Works Implementation: Phase 1 Update:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to update City Council on the progress of Ontario Works (O.W.) implementation to date, the issues that have affected implementation, and steps the Social Services Division will take in 1998 to complete implementation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate direct financial implications.

Recommendations:

AIt is recommended that:

(1) the Province be urged to change the current method for establishing participation targets by developing a formula for setting targets which focuses on program results, and which takes into account both the capacity of local communities to provide placements and the service needs of the local client population; and

(2) that the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.@

Background:

On June 12, 1996 the Minister of Community and Social Services announced the launch of Ontario Works, the Province=s mandatory welfare to work program. Shortly after its launch, Metro Council authorized the Community Services Department to negotiate an Ontario Works Business Plan with the Ministry. A Business Plan was required of all municipal delivery agents as a first step in implementing the O.W. program. The Department=s Business Plan was submitted to Council in January 1997, and subsequently approved. A detailed submission was provided to the Province in March 1997, which was approved in July.

The Social Services Division is currently in the process of implementing Ontario Works. Since the launch of the program, the Department has continually provided Council with up-to-date information and analysis, and sought necessary direction. This report describes the progress of Ontario Works implementation to date, and discusses the key issues which have affected the implementation process. Issues and activities related to the next phase of implementation are also discussed.

The Broader Context of Social Assistance Reform:

When the term social assistance is used, it has historically referred to the General Welfare Assistance (G.W.A) Act and the Family Benefits Act (F.B.A.). Both Acts were passed more than thirty years ago. G.W.A. has been delivered by municipalities, and provided income support to employable people who were not expected to be out of the labour force for extended periods. Some municipalities, notably Toronto, have also provided employment supports to clients to help them return to work, even though these services were discretionary under the G.W.A Act. The Family Benefits program, delivered by the Province, has provided benefits to disabled people, or people who were not employable, such as seniors and single parents.

In June 1997, responding to a long standing recognition that these programs had been overwhelmed by major changes in the economic and social environment, the Province tabled new legislation in the form of the Social Assistance Reform Act (S.A.R.A.). In July 1997, the Department reported to Metro Council on the details of the new legislation (Human Services Committee, Clause 2, Report 10).

Passed in November, S.A.R.A. is the umbrella legislation under which important changes to social assistance are being made:

The O.W.A. forms the basis for a completely new approach to delivering employment supports and income support to employable people. A primary goal of the Act is to assist clients become self reliant through employment. The O.D.S.P.A. focuses solely on persons with disabilities. Appendix A provides a brief description of G.W.A. and F.B.A.

The Ontario Works Act, plus the regulations accompanying the Act, are expected to take effect May 1, 1998. The O.D.S.P.A. will not be proclaimed until later in 1998. It is clear that the new O.W.A. regulations will potentially affect every area of operations, with substantial impacts for the Social Services Division. Upon their release, the Division will report to Council on the impact and extent of the changes.

I. Introduction:

The Community Services Department has aimed, within the provincial program framework, to develop an Ontario Works delivery system which meets the employment and training needs of social assistance recipients in the City. The Department=s Business Plan was guided by principles approved by the former Metro Council, and supported by community agencies and organizations (see Appendix B), and by the knowledge, gained from extensive experience delivering social assistance and employment programs, that clients want to work and become independent of assistance

There are three distinct program components under O.W.: Employment Supports, Community Participation and Employment Placement.

(a) Employment Supports (E.S.):

Employment Supports replaces and consolidates many of the employment services and programs for social assistance recipients previously funded by the Province. It includes approved activities, including those initiated by clients, that support participants= efforts to become job-ready, and find the shortest route to paid employment (e.g. structured job-search assistance, job-specific skills training). Supports such as child care and Employment Related Expenses (E.R.E.) are also available. Communities and public, non-profit and private-sector organizations can be involved in delivery locally.

(b) Community Participation (C.P.):

Under Community Participation, clients can update their work experience and work-related skills, build basic networks, enhance self-confidence and benefit the community through unpaid placements sponsored by community agencies and/or public, non-profit organizations. It includes approved self-initiated placements proposed by a participant.. Participants can normally spend no more than six months at any one approved placement, and no more than 70 hours per month in placements.

(c) Employment Placement (E.P):

Employment Placement supports job ready participants through placement into unsubsidized, competitive employment, and assists participants interested in self-employment to develop business enterprises. Recipients must not be in receipt of any other wage or training subsidy. A recipient may not be registered with any one placement agency for more than 10 months.

Ontario Works also introduces a completely new method of funding program administration costs, which are compensated on a fee for performance model. This means that the Province reimburses municipalities based on provincially approved participation targets in each program component. Payment for services is provided on a unit of service basis, per participant per year. There is no base budget. The funding structure imposes a penalty if targets are underachieved by more than 10 per cent.

Given the extensive service and financial monitoring and reporting requirements for the delivery agents under O.W., the Province developed Ontario Works Technology (O.W.T.) to support the delivery of the program. It is the only technology that the Province will fund.

In previous reports, the Department identified a number of fundamental concerns related to the design and implementation of Ontario Works, including:

. the rapid time frames that the Province has established to fully implement the program;

. the arbitrary process the Province has established for setting and approving participation targets;

. the capacity of O.W.T. to support the delivery of Ontario Works in Toronto given the size of the caseload, and the overall effectiveness of the technology.

These are still pressing concerns. They will be addressed below, among other issues that have impacted Toronto=s implementation process.

II. Program Implementation Update:

To date, Toronto=s implementation process has been successful. Initial 1997 participation targets for the Employment Support component were exceeded, although service targets were not met for C.P. and E.P., due to the preparation time necessary to effectively organize the community infrastructure necessary to implement these components.

As noted, the Province has mandated extremely tight time frames for implementation. This has placed substantial pressure on the City for several reasons:

. the size of the social assistance caseload, averaging 94,000 cases in 1997, and the consequent scale of the delivery structure, incorporating 14 offices and over 1700 staff;

. the need to rapidly create a basic infrastructure to deliver the program, including providing extensive training to over 1,400 staff in the Social Services and Children=s Services Division and contracting with numerous community organizations to deliver services to clients; and

. the need to communicate the program to the large number of community groups and delivery partners which the Department must work with to implement the program in Toronto.

In response to these realities, the Social Services Division has phased-in O.W. implementation, with an initial focus on establishing the necessary program infrastructure to deliver O.W. effectively.

Ontario Works Technology:

O.W.T. was obtained from the Province in late July 1997, rather than April 1, as originally scheduled, subsequently pushing back implementation of the program. Technology installation and testing began immediately in preparation for implementation of the Division=s pilot O.W. site.

Initial Pilot and Roll-out:

After extensive preparations, and with access to O.W.T., the Division began implementation of O.W. at its pilot site, the Rogers Road office, on July 30, 1997. Following successful completion of the pilot phase, between September 1 and November 20, 1997, the Ontario Works program was implemented in 13 of 14 Area Offices. The final Area Office, which has experienced site limitations, is anticipated to be operational in May 1998.

Staff Training:

Staff training to support program implementation proceeded throughout the latter half of 1997, focussing on three 3 key areas - eligibility determination, and technology and program requirements. In total, over 1,300 staff were trained in the Social Services Division in 1997. Staff received between 5 and 10 days training per person, representing 7,297 staff training days, or the equivalent of 49 full-time positions.

Procurement Processes:

Delivery of Ontario Works necessitates the involvement of a wide range of community agencies and organizations. In 1997, the Division focused resources on developing a rigorous procurement processes for all three components, in accordance with Provincial guidelines. A large scale, and hence lengthy, procurement process was required to identify service providers from the city=s substantial agency/private sector base. Over 2, 000 profit and non-profit organizations were contacted. Over 200 proposals were received, reviewed and responded to. Service contracts were established with a range of providers in each program area. Time intensive approval processes were needed to ensure quality control and compliance with Provincial program requirements.

Participation Targets:

As noted, the Division exceeded its 1997 targets for the Employment Support. 1997 C.P. and E.P. targets were 2,500 placements and 230 client placements respectively. In the case of C.P., actual placements were not initiated until late in 1997, and less than 20 placements were achieved by the year=s end. In E.P., no placements were achieved in 1997 since the procurement process was not completed. 1998 service targets are listed in Appendix B.

Implementation of Separate Program Components:

A. Employment Supports:

All clients with mandatory participation requirements under O.W. are initially enrolled in the E.S. component. For the period of September 1 - December 31, 1997, the Division=s target was to enroll an average of 22,000 participants per month. These targets were exceeded. The average number of monthly participants for 1997 was 43,370.

The Skill Development option under this component enables clients to enroll in short-term training courses in order to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to return to work. A Request For Proposal to identify service providers was initiated in September 1997, and finalized in December 1997. In this phase:

. 43 qualified training providers were selected through the process;

. 36 signed service agreements are in place and 5 more are being finalized, giving clients access to 182 training courses; and

. to date, 1470 referrals have been made to agencies providing qualified training courses.

B. Community Participation:

Guided by the principles endorsed by Metro Council, the Division has sought to create value added placements that demonstrably assist clients. The procurement process is ongoing. To date:

. over 120 organizations have expressed interest in becoming Ahost sites@ for client placements;

. 26 signed service agreements are in place representing 137 potential placements;

. 62 placements have been filled representing over 4000 hours of community service activity per month; and

. placements obtained to date average 65 hours, and provide meaningful training and upgrading opportunities to participants in a range of areas (e.g. computer programming and training, word processing, and administration related activities).

Additional placements have been reviewed and approved, but are pending signed service agreements or actual client placement.

C. Employment Placement:

This component is designed to enable private and non-profit job placement agencies to assist job ready clients to secure sustainable paid employment. The self-employment option offers clients the opportunity to develop and start their own business enterprises.

Through the procurement process:

. 23 organizations were selected from among the 256 agencies who received a Request for Information; and

. signed service agreements are now in place with 12 organizations and staff are in the process of identifying clients for referrals to these organizations.

III. Issues Impacting Implementation:

A number of key issues affected the implementation process, and impeded the Division=s ability to implement the CP and EP components rapidly without seriously compromising program quality. Many of these issues, most of which are related to basic program design, will continue to affect the Division=s capacity to deliver the Ontario Works program in Toronto.

Participation Targets:

The levels at which participation targets are set is crucial under Ontario Works since funding is provided based on the number of participants in each program component. At this point, however, targets have been set in an arbitrary way across the entire province. For the Department, the key issue is that one has experience in setting targets for these new program components. In addition, targets are being established based on a rigid provincial approval process which does not consider the capacity of the community to provide placements, or the service needs of Toronto=s client population.

An informal survey undertaken by the Division indicates that most of larger municipalities in the Province have just initiated the C.P. and E.P. component, and that they are only slowly obtaining placements. Most agreed that the targets mandated by the Province are not realistically achievable in the short term. They consequently also expressed substantial concern about their ability to meet targets, and the threat of financial sanctions if they did not.

Front line workers are increasingly diverting time from helping people find work to enrolling clients in the O.W. program, and to performing tasks that move people into C.P. or E.P. activities so that participation targets can be met. This is occurring because targets are based on levels of service activity, and not results.

Ironically, at this time, the caseload is declining, and many clients are using the Division=s resources, such as Employment Resource Centres, to move into jobs as the labour market improves. However, the Division receives no credit, or incentive, under the current structure of Ontario Works for these successes. The implication in the current context is that a declining caseload may in fact penalize the Division because there will be fewer people to participate in O.W. activities. It also means that those who are most job ready find work and exit social assistance, leaving a larger proportion of hard to serve clients, such as older workers and people who have substantial employment barriers.

The Division will continue to advocate at the staff level with the Province to establish service targets which focus on results rather than activities, which recognize the community=s and client=s capacities, and which take into account the outcomes which are achieved in the program.

Program Prescriptiveness:

By its design, O.W. is highly prescriptive. To date, an inordinate amount of Divisional staff time has been spent negotiating what program guidelines mean, and how they are to be implemented. Delivery agents need more latitude in interpreting and implementing these guidelines to account for the vastly different circumstances facing municipalities across Ontario. The Division will continue to identify areas where greater operational discretion is required, and seek greater flexibility.

Ontario Works Technology:

Significant problems have been and continue to be identified with the technology, from a design, performance, and validity perspective. These problems have increased workloads and impacted negatively on implementation efforts. At this point, O.W.T. still does not function as a supportive tool in the service planning interview with clients, which increases the time staff require simply to enroll clients. Neither does it not provide necessary information to manage the program, on either a short or longer term basis. These problems are being faced across the province, and other municipalities are experiencing substantial problems obtaining up-to-date and accurate information about basic program statistics.

Program Design:

Basic program design has acted as a barrier to rapid implementation in several ways:

. onerous Provincial guidelines have contributed to an inability to recognize self-initiated CP placements; and

. limited financial rewards for E.P. agencies, combined with the substantial investments required of agencies who wish to participate in this component, means a limited number of organizations are prepared to accept the financial risks of becoming a service provider.

These factors continue to negatively affect the Division=s capacity to generate large numbers of placements.

Community Issues:

Ontario Works remains a controversial program in Toronto. A number of community advocates in Toronto, such as the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and North York Fight Back, have aggressively opposed the program. As a result, some agencies have been reticent to become Community Participation hosts. Others have been reluctant to be involved at all in the early stages of Ontario Works. This has clearly limited the Division=s ability to sign-up agencies as Community Participation Ahosts@.

A related issue involves the unwillingness of many clients to allow the voluntary activities they are currently participating in to be considered as a community participation placement. Clients have indicated they do no wish to disclose they are receiving assistance.

IV. Phase 2 of Implementation: Key Activities in 1998:

The Division=s focus in 1998 is to move from implementation to full-scale operation of Ontario Works. In this context, a number of key activities will occur:

(a) all Ontario Works eligible clients will be enrolled in the program, including family heads, spouses and adult dependents;

(b) beginning May 1, 1998, single parents with school aged children will have mandatory participation requirements, and will be enrolled in the program;

(c) staff will work with existing C.P. host organizations to maximize the number of placements, and to identify and implement strategies to engage more organizations in the C.P. host role, including service clubs and public sector organizations;

(d) further efforts will be made to more effectively communicate requirements and benefits of program to clients and the community;

(e) the third release of the Province=s O.W.T. will be implemented, hopefully resolving some of the existing problems with the technology, and the Division will implement additional automated tools (Intranet) to support staff in managing the program more effectively; and

(f) the Division will continue to refine and streamline internal administrative procedures, including exploring new ways to streamline the participation agreement process.

Phase two of the Skills Development procurement process will also be completed in 1998. To address service gaps identified at the end of the first phase, 110 agencies were invited to respond to a Request for Proposals. Pending review of the 40 proposals received so far, agencies will be selected to provide specific employment preparation and training programs.

Since March 1997, Divisional staff have been meeting with Human Resources Development Canada (H.R.D.C.) staff from the Toronto region to strengthen arrangements related to the delivery of employment related services. Steps are being taken in a number of key areas to better co-ordinate the delivery of services to support social assistance clients (see Appendix D).

At the same time as phase two activities are being implemented, the Division will take on responsibility for managing single parent and foster children cases currently in receipt of Family Benefits. Overall, as a result of legislative changes and the transfer of single parent cases, it is anticipated an additional 26,000 cases will be added to Toronto=s caseload.

A Joint Provincial-Municipal Planning Implementation Group has been struck to oversee the transfer of F.B.A. cases, comprised of senior staff from both the Provincial M.C.S.S. Area Office and the City of Toronto. An implementation plan is now being developed. In accordance with Provincial time frames, the aim is to commence the transfer in mid-year, and complete the process by the end of 1998, subject to the resolution of key issues. The Division has factored the new caseloads into key budget decisions, and into estimates of the need for child care and other supports. However, there will be additional workload implications related to the transfer process, affecting a host of administrative and service delivery functions.

Conclusion:

The Division is working actively with the Province to resolve ongoing issues related to Ontario Works, including increasing the effectiveness of Ontario Works Technology, establishing a flexible process for setting realistic participation targets, and addressing program prescriptiveness. The Division will report out on the implications of the new O.W.A. regulations and the transfer of Provincial single parent cases as more information becomes available.

General Manager, Social Services Division

Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services

Appendix A: Changes to Social Assistance in Ontario

Social Assistance In Ontario:

Until December 1997, Ontario had a two-tiered Social Assistance system. Municipal Governments had a mandatory responsibility to deliver General Welfare Assistance. Family Benefits (F.B.A.) was delivered by the Provincial Government through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

General Welfare Assistance was designed for persons who were more likely to be in need of short term financial assistance, while the Family Benefits Allowance was geared towards assisting people with long term needs. The Provincial Government was responsible for administering both the General Welfare Assistance Act and The Family Benefits Act.

Responsibility for delivering G.W.A across Metropolitan Toronto was assumed by Metro Government in 1966.

The program provided support to all residents of Toronto who met the eligibility criteria for under the General Welfare Assistance Act.

The December 1997 caseload was 92,348 cases. Out of that total, 50.5 per cent. applied for assistance because of an inability to obtain employment, 26.1 per cent. were single parent families, 9.1 per cent. were in school, 7.6 per cent. were on for reasons of short term illness, 4.9 per cent. for long term illness and 1.8 per cent. were in other categories (ie. aged, foster care, etc.). Of the people on assistance in December, about 49,600 were children under the age of eleven. Over the twelve months of 1997, the Division provided services to an estimated 330,000 individuals.

Eligibility:

G.W.A. eligibility was based upon need. It provided the necessary resources to sustain, usually on a short term basis, a basic standard of living and care. Eligible clients received a basic allowance, which varied according to the size of the family unit. A shelter allowance was paid to those with shelter costs, based on family size and actual rental costs up to a maximum amount.

The needs test looked at:

- residency; applicant must be legally entitled to stay in Canada

- asset levels; and

- income in relation to monthly allowance

Program Elements:

G.W.A. was composed of four elements: General Assistance, Supplementary Aid, Special Assistance and Mandatory Special Necessities.

General Assistance: provided basic living allowance on a monthly or bi monthly basis.

Supplementary Aid: paid at the discretion of Municipalities for extraordinary cost to people who receive other government benefits, such as Family Benefits or Canada Pension.

Special Assistance: paid at the discretion of Municipalities for extraordinary costs to anyone in financial need.

Mandatory Special Necessities: provided by Municipalities to all eligible persons for diabetic or surgical supplies and medical travel and transportation.

In addition to the basic financial components of the program, several other mandatory items were provided to clients on G.W.A. Eligibility for the items listed below was based on individual criteria for each item:

* These items were included as special necessities under the legislation:

$ diabetic supplies $ medical transportation

$ surgical supplies $ ostomy supplies

The G.W.A. Act allowed for municipal discretion, bound by some Provincial parameters, in some policy areas. Assets levels are an example of this. It was up to the individual municipality to set asset levels for their area.

Employment and Other Support Programs:

Under General Welfare Assistance, Toronto used its discretionary authority to develop a wide range of programs and supports to assist clients who were seeking employment, including: education, training, job search supports, employment/self-employment, voluntarism, and personal adjustment programs. Many of these services were provided through purchase of service arrangements with community providers, or through referrals to community agencies. To provide these supports, the Division introduced a range of initiatives, such as Employment Resource Centres (E.R.C.) in social services offices and co-location and development of service delivery partnerships with community agencies and other government providers.

The Social Services Division also developed program and services to support other client groups, including:

Municipal Cost Sharing

Under G.W.A., municipalities shared program and administration costs as follows:

General Assistance

(Excluding sole support) 20%

Supplementary Aid 20%

Special Assistance 50%

Administration Costs 50%

Municipalities were not responsible to share the costs of sole support parent cases or cases where the recipient has not been a resident of Ontario for a least 12 months.

Relationship Between Family Benefits and General Welfare Assistance Programs:

Over time, the General Welfare Assistance delivery system provided an entry point to a wide range of other income support programs, including F.B.A., Canada Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation etc. Although disabled and permanently unemployable persons in need could apply directly to the provincial system, they were normally first served through the G.W.A. system, due to immediate financial need.

II. Family Benefits (F.B.A.)

F.B.A. was delivered and funded exclusively by the Province.

Eligibility:

F.B.A. eligibility is based upon need and categorical eligibility (single parent, blind, disabled or permanently unemployable person, foster child(ren) and persons 60 years and over), and provides

allowances and benefits on a long term basis. Similar to G.W.A. an basic and shelter allowance are paid to eligible clients.

Other benefits provided include: