Ontario Works Demonstration Projects

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated May 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding thereto the following words:

"that the membership of the Sub-Committee be appointed by the new Community Services Committee at its meeting on June 17, 1999; and further that CouncillorsRobDavis and George Mammoliti be invited to participate as members of such Sub-Committee;".

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to provide Members of the Committee with the addresses of the agencies listed in her report dated May 5, 1999, the geographic areas of the City of Toronto they serve, and the names of the Executive Directors and Board Members for each agency.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (May5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report updates City Council on the Ontario Works (O.W.) Demonstration Projects approved by City Council in July 1998, and discusses the establishment of a process for evaluating these Projects. A new proposal recently submitted to the Social Services Division by the Learning Enrichment Foundation is also briefly reviewed. Finally, the report discusses the creation of a sub-committee of Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee to support the Division's consideration of new blended models, pending the outcome of the evaluation process.

Financial Implications:

No changes are required to existing budget allocations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a Sub-Committee of Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be established to support the Division's consideration of new blended models, pending the outcome of the evaluation of the current Demonstration Projects;

(2)consideration of the new Learning Enrichment Foundation proposal be deferred until the evaluation of the current blended model Demonstration Projects is completed, and the impacts assessed;

(3)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services update the Community Services Committee on the progress of the evaluation in the fall of 1999; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

O.W.'s three program components provide opportunities for clients to be engaged in a variety of activities which lead to jobs, or which increase their employability. The Employment Supports (E.S.) stream includes activities such as basic education and training, job specific skill training and a range of other supports including child care and employment related expenses. Under Community Participation (C.P.), 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 non-profit organizations. It includes approved self-initiated placements proposed by a participant. The Employment Placement (E.P.) stream supports job-ready participants in placement into unsubsidized, competitive employment and assists participants interested in self employment develop business enterprises.

As the Department has noted in previous reports to Council, the initial funding model under O.W. inhibited the movement of funds between these program streams. This, in turn, limited the City's ability to allocate funds to support activities, such as training, that were required to assist clients move into jobs. It also limited the City's ability to develop and fund projects that would blend O.W. program streams and integrate service delivery to better meet client's needs.

In mid-1998, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (M.C.S.S.) indicated it would allow greater flexibility under the O.W. program guidelines and funding formulae. This flexibility would permit local delivery agents to explore integrated service delivery proposals from community agencies.

In response to these changes, Toronto Social Services (T.S.S.) committed to work with contracted community agencies to undertake a limited number of demonstration projects blending training, experiential learning opportunities, supported job search assistance and placement into jobs. At that time, a number of community-based organizations, including the Learning Enrichment Foundation (L.E.F.) and Goodwill Industries, had expressed an interest to staff from M.C.S.S. and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department in developing demonstration projects under O.W. that would test blended models of service delivery.

Subsequently, in its June 30, 1998, report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, the Department recommended that T.S.S. develop and fund projects which provided a blended approach to service delivery under the E.S. and E.P. program streams of O.W. City Council approved initiation of these projects at its July29, 1998, meeting. Council further indicated that the continuation of the projects in 1999 was contingent upon satisfactory evaluation, and the availability of Provincial funding.

Following Council approval, the Department engaged in active discussions and negotiations with L.E.F. and Goodwill Industries regarding project proposal development and implementation. Contracts were subsequently signed with both agencies.

The introduction of the demonstration projects is one Divisional response to meeting the continuum of needs of a changing social assistance caseload. The Division has also undertaken other strategies to respond to caseload changes and the enhanced flexibility allowed by the Province under O.W. program guidelines. Chief among these are the changes that have been introduced to the E.P. stream, discussed in Appendix 1.

This report describes the basic features of the blended models being delivered by L.E.F. and Goodwill Industries, and provides an update on the progress of the projects. The evaluation of the projects is then discussed. Recently, L.E.F. has submitted a new proposal which, given its scale and scope, has implications for the E.P. component and the Division's overall service delivery model. This proposal and its implications are briefly reviewed in the context of the existing demonstration projects and their evaluation.

Discussion:

(I)Demonstration Projects: Description and Update:

Through the two Demonstration Projects, the Division will assess the degree to which the integration of different interventions under the three O.W. streams will:

-improve clients' prospects of obtaining and sustaining employment;

-reduce the time clients stay on assistance; and

-provide adequate funds to agencies to deliver programs while ensuring the Division realizes cost savings as clients move into jobs.

The projects share certain common elements. The terms of both Goodwill's and L.E.F.'s agreements with the City include:

(1)negotiated and agreed upon performance standards;

(2)funding structures that provide financial rewards for meeting performance standards but limit funding if there is non-achievement of these standards;

(3)standard maximum time frames for client involvement in the Projects; and

(4)standard and clearly specified reporting requirements.

In addition to these common elements, there are a number of key differences in the range of services clients can receive and the way the Projects are funded.

(a)Range of Services:

In the Goodwill Project, client referrals are made to defined skill training courses based on the T.S.S. caseworkers assessment of client need. This is followed by job search and placement support. In the L.E.F. Project, based on a further assessment of client need, a determination is made about the range of services to be provided, which can include training and C.P. placements, again followed by job search and placement support.

(b)Funding:

Goodwill is funded in two ways: first, the agency is paid for individual training courses taken by clients (costs vary depending on length and content of courses); second, a flat fee is paid for each client that obtains and sustains employment. All fees are paid in arrears.

Funding for the L.E.F. Project is based upon a set fee per client which does not vary with the type or number of services provided. In addition, fees are paid for each client who obtains and sustains employment. A significant portion of the fees are paid in advance.

The following section provides more detailed information about key aspects of each of the service delivery approaches, and briefly updates the project status.

(A)Goodwill Industries Demonstration Project:

Project Description:

The Goodwill Demonstration Project blends the provision of training with job search assistance and supports. This Project was developed and implemented to assess the benefits, from a client and cost perspective, of linking training courses to job search supports and placement assistance within one agency.

Client referrals are made to approved skill training courses based on the service plan negotiated between the T.S.S. caseworker and the client. Goodwill is responsible for screening clients and determining if they will be accepted for participation in specific courses. If accepted, the expectation is that the client will continue to work with Goodwill for up to four months to find a job following completion of the course.

The Goodwill Project will serve a maximum of 115 clients. The maximum length of time for client involvement is ten months: this includes a six-month limit for skill development or training courses and four months for supported job search and placement assistance. The actual amount of time the client spends with the agency depends on the specific training undertaken.

The negotiated agreement with Goodwill includes a performance standard that 70 percent of participants in the Project will obtain jobs no later than four months after clients enter the job search phase. These participants must generate sufficient employment earnings to exit social assistance for a minimum of six months.

Funding:

Funding for the Goodwill Project is based on negotiated costs for training plus pre-determined fees for each client who obtains and sustains employment. Payment for the training portion of the Project is to be made following each client's successful completion thereof. To date, Goodwill is eligible for payment of approximately $124,000.00. In addition to the costs for training, a set fee is payable once a client obtains a job and further set fees are payable at three months and six months following the client's start of employment. All fees are payable in arrears.

If Goodwill achieves the performance standard agreed to, whereby 70 percent of clients obtain jobs within the specified time frame, then it will receive approximately $248,000.00, or $2,125.00 perclient, over the length of the Project. There is also a provision whereby, if the negotiated performance standard is not met, Goodwill is responsible for reimbursing to the City three and six month fees for each unsuccessful participant.

Current Status:

As of the end of April 1999, the following is the reported status of clients in the Goodwill Demonstration Project:

(a)40 participants have obtained employment;

(b)23 participants have completed formal program involvement with the agency or have left the program for other reasons, and were not employed at the time of exit;

(c)18 participants are still receiving training or have not moved into the job search phase of the Project; and

(d)34 participants are in the job search phase of their involvement in the Project.

(B)The Learning Enrichment Foundation (L.E.F.) Demonstration Project:

Project Description:

The Learning Enrichment Foundation Project is a broad based model of service delivery. L.E.F. will build upon the initial assessment completed by T.S.S. caseworkers and, in conjunction with the client, assess the range of services that are required. Clients can potentially receive career exploration assistance, participate in a C.P. placement at L.E.F., undertake formal job specific skill training or computer-based training. In addition, all clients receive a two-week self-marketing workshop followed by a maximum of four-month of supported job search and placement assistance.

This Project was developed and implemented to assess the benefits, from a client and cost perspective, of linking the independent assessment of client need with the provision of a range of service options to clients within one organization.

The Project will serve up to 500 clients. The maximum length of time for client involvement is ten months: this includes up to six months for activities other than job search (i.e., career exploration, Community Participation, skill training and self-marketing workshop), and four months for supported job search and placement assistance. The actual time a client is involved in the Project depends on the specific services accessed.

The negotiated agreement with L.E.F. includes the performance standard that a minimum of 400 participants will obtain jobs no later than ten months after the client's formal registration in the Project. These 400 participants must obtain jobs that generate sufficient earnings to exit social assistance for a minimum of six months.

Funding:

Funding for the Project is based upon a set fee per client. The fee does not vary with the type or number of services provided. Under the terms of the agreement with the City, 65 percent of the overall fee is to be paid to the agency monthly during the client registration period. In 1998, L.E.F. received $951,600.00 for the 500 clients that it registered in the Project. The payment of the remaining fees will be based on clients' success in obtaining and sustaining jobs.

If L.E.F. achieves the performance standard agreed to, whereby 400 clients obtain jobs within the specified time frame, it will receive approximately $1,361,500.00 or approximately $2,725.00 perclient. If the agreed upon performance standard is not met, L.E.F. will be responsible for reimbursing fees pre-paid by the City for each unsuccessful participant.

Current Status:

As of the end of April 1999, the following is the reported status of the 500 clients registered in the L.E.F. Demonstration Project:

(a)122 participants have obtained employment;

(b)120 participants have completed formal program involvement with the agency or have left the program for other reasons, and were not employed at the time of exit;

(c)6 participants have completed formal program involvement with the agency or have left the program for other reasons, and have subsequently obtained jobs;

(d)26 participants are still receiving training or are in the self-marketing phase of the Project; and

(e)226 participants are in the job search phase of their involvement in the Project.

(II)Demonstration Project Evaluation:

The two Projects described above represent different approaches to delivering and funding services. Given the number of clients still actively engaged in programming at both Projects, it is too early to make determinations and comparisons on the success of these approaches. The Division is committed to evaluating the Project outcomes, and to assessing the benefits of these blended models, as directed by City Council.

The majority of clients will have completed their involvement by the fall of 1999. Initial evaluation findings will therefore be available in the later Fall. However, as explained below, the evaluation cannot be completed, and final results obtained, before the Spring of 2000.

To oversee the evaluation process, the Division is currently establishing a Steering Committee comprised of representatives of the Project agencies, M.C.S.S. and the City. One of the first tasks of the Steering Committee will be to initiate a Request For Proposal process to seek an independent evaluator. This individual will work with the Steering Committee to both develop the evaluation framework and implement the evaluation of the Projects.

As part of its deputation at the April 22, 1999, meeting of the C.N.S. Committee, L.E.F. requested that certain items be included in the evaluation. The Division concurs with a number of these items, and agrees with L.E.F. that collecting all relevant data related to the Projects, comparing cost-effectiveness between blended models and other interventions, and assessing job placement and retention rates, should be a core function of the evaluation.

By the fall of 1999, formal programming to all participants will be complete, and the first indicators of client success will be known (i.e., those clients who obtained jobs through participation in the Project). However, as noted by L.E.F., integral to the achievement of performance standards at both Projects is client job retention. Final job retention results will not be fully known until six months following the end of the formal programming period. Therefore, final determination of the success of the Projects cannot be completed until the spring of 2000.

Success in relation to negotiated performance standards is one key aspect of the evaluation. However, the stated intent for implementing the Demonstration Projects and completing an evaluation was also to determine if these service delivery approaches respond to O.W. clients' changing needs, reduce client length of stay on assistance and represent a cost-effective means of delivering services from an agency and City perspective. This aspect of the evaluation will also be important given the continuing changes to caseload composition and Divisional responses to these changes.

The results of the evaluation will inform and shape the future design of the Division's programs, as well as a provide a basis for determining how other blended approaches may be beneficial to delivering services to a changing client population.

(III)L.E.F.'s New Blended Model Proposal:

In March 1999, L.E.F. submitted a new three year proposal for the delivery of a blended model of service delivery under O.W. which integrates the Community Participation (C.P.) and Employment Placement (E.P.) streams. All clients would complete a C.P. placement at L.E.F., which, depending on client need, may include training. Following their C.P. placement, clients would receive job search/self-marketing instruction, followed by supported job search and placement assistance. For clients, maximum length of time in this new project would be ten months. L.E.F. is requesting a guarantee of at least 1,500 clients per year with whom they can work. The Department submitted a brief report, entitled "The Learning Enrichment Foundation Proposal Submission" to the April22,1999, Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee meeting.

Payment would incorporate fees associated with client participation in C.P., payment for job search instruction and then payment of fees that split the social assistance savings of clients who obtain and sustain employment. Under the proposed payment model, the Division will pay L.E.F. $1,955.00million annually for three years. L.E.F. also indicates that it will experience a cash flow shortfall of $875,000.00 in the first year of operations.

There are a number of issues that the Province and the Division have noted in reviewing L.E.F.'s new proposal. These include the following:

(a)L.E.F. is requesting a multi-year funding commitment. This is not consistent with the current provincial funding formula. Provincial officials have confirmed that, under O.W., the Division cannot make funding commitments beyond one year to any service provider.

(b)L.E.F. is requesting a guarantee of 1,500 clients per year to be serviced under the new proposal. It is not possible for the Division to guarantee an exact number of clients to any of the agencies it works with under O.W. (fluctuations in caseload alone make this not feasible). The Division does not guarantee referrals under any O.W. contract arrangements.

(c)All available child care fee subsidies in both the O.W. funded stream and the regular funded stream are currently being utilized. As a result, waiting lists of O.W. clients requiring child care support are being developed. Without additional funding from the Province, there will continue to be an insufficient supply of child care subsidy spaces to meet client needs.

Until such time as the results of the evaluation of the first two Projects are available, it would be premature to proceed with new, large scale, blended approaches to service delivery. Given that O.W. funding is shared on an 80/20 Provincial/Municipal basis, any significant expansion of demonstration projects by the Division must be undertaken with Provincial concurrence. Without Provincial commitment, the City would be at risk of assuming responsibility for 100 percent of the costs of such projects.

For these reasons, it is recommended that consideration of the new proposal submitted to the Division by L.E.F. be deferred until the completion of the evaluation of the existing Demonstration Projects.

(IV)Future Blended Model Proposals:

The Division is committed to exploring and developing new service delivery approaches, and to expanding or refining its service delivery network to respond to changing caseload demographics and client needs. As stated above, the results of the evaluation of the current Demonstration Project will be pivotal in assessing whether blended models are effective, and how other blended approaches may be beneficial to delivering services to a changing client population.

At the same time, the Division is conscious that there is a wide range of agencies, located in different parts of the City and serving different client groups, that would potentially be interested in submitting proposals to explore innovative ways of delivering services to social assistance clients. At its April 22, 1999, meeting, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee discussed the need to ensure that agencies across the City had the opportunity to put forward their proposals for consideration in any future process. The Division agrees that the potential development of new demonstration projects should be done in a way which invites participation from a range of appropriate agencies.

Ultimately, the Division's plans to pursue new blended models, and the time frames for doing so, will be governed by the results of the evaluation, and emerging program needs. If the Division pursues new demonstration projects, it is committed to establishing a process for inviting proposals from appropriate agencies from across the City. It is recommended that a sub-committee of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, comprised of three Councillors, be established to support this process. Staff will keep the Sub-Committee informed as to the progress of the Projects and the evaluation, and report on the outcomes of the evaluation. It is also important to ensure that M.C.S.S. staff have input into this process.

Conclusion:

In 1998, T.S.S. funded Demonstration Projects with Goodwill Industries and the Learning Enrichment Foundation, which provided a blended approach to service delivery under the E.S. and E.P. program streams of O.W. This report updates Council on the progress of these Projects. At this stage, given that both Projects are still proceeding, it is too early to provide an assessment of their effectiveness.

However, the Division is proceeding to undertake an evaluation of the Projects to determine the degree to which they are successful in meeting the performance standards agreed to with the respective agencies. The evaluation will also provide the Division with critical information about the overall viability of a blended approach to delivering services to O.W. clients.

L.E.F. recently submitted a new three-year proposal to the Division for the delivery of a blended model of service delivery under O.W. which integrates the Community Participation (C.P.) and Employment Placement (E.P.) streams. However, until such time as the results of the evaluation of the first two Projects are available, it is premature to proceed with any new, large scale, blended approaches to service delivery.

Ultimately, if the Division pursues new demonstration projects, it is committed to establishing a process for inviting proposals from a range of appropriate agencies across the City, consistent with its efforts to ensure that services are accessible to different groups of clients in different locations. As a means of supporting this process, it is recommended a sub-committee of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be established.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar

General Manager, Social Services Division

Tel: 392-8952

--------

Appendix 1

Improving Delivery of Employment Placement Services:

In 1998, Social Services staff and the community organizations contracted to deliver the E.P. component of O.W. identified a number of issues and concerns:

(a)In general, E.P. referrals represented a harder to serve client population than anticipated. Many clients who were being referred to E.P. did not have the requisite job search skills to readily access the labour market without first receiving instruction on basic job search techniques.

(b)the funding model under E.P. did not enable agencies to provide E.P. clients with the job search instruction they required in order to get a job and limited the success of clients and the agency's ability to obtain funding.

(c)the geographic location of agencies did not promote ease of access to this O.W. component living in different parts of the City. A potential need to broaden the E.P. service delivery network was anticipated in response to the increasing number of clients with child care and other obligations, and stated client preference for accessing services locally.

In response to these concerns, an enhanced model of E.P. service delivery was introduced in 1999. While this model is still geared towards the job-ready social assistance recipient, it enables agencies to provide and receive financial compensation for the provision of basic job search instruction at the beginning of client registration in E.P. As part of this change, the purchase of structured job search services was removed from the Skill Development Option and incorporated as part of the E.P. program delivery. As a result, an additional six agencies were added as E.P. delivery agents, improving the Division's capacity to serve clients and accessibility to services across the City.

These changes reflect the Division's ongoing commitment to improving delivery of programs and services under O.W. They also serve as an important point of reference for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the blended models of service delivery being explored through the Demonstration projects.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Paul Born, Canadian CED Network; and submitted a copy of a publication, entitled "Promoting Excellence in Community Economic Development";

-Ms. Eunice Grayson, Executive Director, and Mr. Donald C. MacDonald, Chair, The Learning Enrichment Foundation;

-Mr. Peter Boswick, Interim Personnel;

-Mr. Fergie Brown, Member of the Board of Directors of The Learning Enrichment Foundation;

-Mr. Joe Valvasori;

-Mr. Peter Frampton, and submitted a brief from Lasso Communications Inc.; and

-Mr. Sean Boyle, Brenloy Realty;