All stakeholder feedback

Employment Ontario Service Delivery Framework

Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

Updated: July 8, 2008

- 2 -- 2 -

Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

Context:

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) engaged Deloitte to develop a service delivery framework and related standards for Employment Ontario. As a part of this engagement, Deloitte developed an integrated service delivery framework discussion paper, which was informed by research from other jurisdictions and feedback from a broad range of Employment Ontario stakeholders. It was made available to stakeholders across the Employment Ontario network in February 2008. The discussion paper provides information on integrated service delivery (ISD) concepts and outlines a potential service delivery framework for Employment Ontario.

The Ministry recognizes that its stakeholders have a key role to play in determining the final direction of the service delivery framework. Deloitte used the discussion paper as a tool to seek input from stakeholders on options for integrated service delivery and support for a new vision for service delivery.

This presentation is a summary of the combined feedback received from staff and service providers during the February 2008 sessions. This input will be used to develop the Service Delivery Framework.

- 3 -- 3 -

Stakeholder Feedback Approach

The approach taken for the development of the Service Delivery Framework has been consultative and collaborative. There were a total of 65 feedback sessions, and 130 responses collected on the online feedback tool.

The following groups provided feedback on the discussion paper:

25% of all Employment Ontario service providers, that included a cross section of the Francophone and Deaf Communities

Partner organizations - MCI, MCSS, MEDT, SO, SC

MTCU Divisions - Postsecondary Education Division and Strategic Policy and Programs Division

Approximately 50% of the Employment and Training Division staff

- 4 -- 4 -

Themes from Discussion Paper Focus Groups

Participants were pleased to be engaged and asked for their opinion

Participants are enthusiastic about the direction of Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) and recognize its value including looking across ministries

All participants tried to think about the perspective of our customers

There is a variance in participants views on how to best achieve ISD for employment and training services

– There is still a tendency to view solutions through the lens of “program silos” (i.e., an employment solution, a foundational skills solution, a training solution) rather than from a system-wide perspective (i.e., linkages between service lines)

– TCU staff thought about ways to best manage service delivery while service providers thought about ways to best deliver their services

– Local boards were seen as a key way to involve and plan for communities but there were various opinions on who should be on the board and how much decision making or funding they should do

There is an appreciation that service delivery needs to be driven from both the community as well as through a centralized provincial perspective to bring optimal results

- 5 -- 5 -

Strategic Priorities?Q. At the

provincial level, how should Ministries

collaborate to integrate the delivery of

employment and training

services?

BrandingQ. How can a more strategic

use of the brand help to better

identify access points and meet

expectations about service?

CustomersQ. How can pathways, or

other mechanisms, be used to organize

services?

There was strong support for a single provincial governance body with a mandate to drive the integration of services at a Provincial level, but in the interim, a Collaborative Cross Ministry committee could be set-up. MTCU should be the lead in both approaches

A strong single organization was recognized as a more nimble, integrated, seamless and customer centric approach that gives strong prominence to the Employment Ontario brand

Some questioned whether government had the political will to pursue a single organizational governance structure and agreed that this approach requires a mandate

Discussions with other Ministries should start today and address issues such as responsibilities of a single organization, privacy of customer data and completing a service review to address duplication of services

Service providers preferred that the Ministry pursue a Cross Ministry Collaborative Committee over a single provincial governance body in most cases. However, there was general recognition that a single organization was a good long term option, eliminating competition for funding and duplication of services.

With a single organization, service providers could spend less time responding to different Ministry priorities (silos), focusing more on what customers want

Concerns about a single organization revolved around the time necessary to establish it and the disruption to funding during the transition period

Service providers also have the impression that Ministries would not favour the development of a single organization because they want to maintain control over their programs

Efforts should be spent building the service promise before further visual identity strategies are pursued

Considerations should be taken in how service standards/service charters can support the brand service promise, how to better define what is included within Employment Ontario to different customer groups, creating consistency of brand across channels

Earning the right to use the brand was well received

Service providers favoured the use of a common Employment Ontario brand, but the service promise must be well defined before further branding efforts are pursued. An affiliation to Employment Ontario was important to support referrals across the system.

Some flexibility is required for regional branding efforts to coexist and a strategy must be determined to address the coexistence of service provider branding and other related service branding (other Ministries i.e. Ontario Works)

The service promise should consider the full customer lifecycle and be supported with clear service standards

Pathways and the service continuum can coexist

Customer pathways must build in flexibility to address evolving needs and provide them with choice in service offering

Employer outreach strategies should be a priority. Employers have valuable information about local market trends and info. Employment Ontario should be positioned as a recruitment agency

Pathways and the continuum were viewed as two separate constructs that could not coexist

Service providers were concerned that the continuum approach was too restrictive, not recognizing an evolution of customer needs

Pathways was a better received concept as long as consideration was taken for customer states of transition

The following are summary findings of the feedback received from the discussion paper on the integrated service delivery framework

MTCU Service Providers

Stakeholder Feedback Summary

- 6 -- 6 -

Service Providers Q. Which

collaboration mechanism best

suits an ISD model?

Service Delivery ModelQ. Which model would fit better in

a specific community?

Strong support for both community planning and service provider contract mechanisms to collaboration with service providers

Referrals among service providers must be addressed to prevent service providers keeping customers. Collaboration could be enhanced with this improvement

Embed standards for service delivery and collaboration into every service provider contract on a consistent basis

Service providers should maintain some level of community planning within their contractual arrangements

Service Provider Contracts was the chosen method of collaboration.

Developing a code of conduct for service providers was suggested many times and funding decisions should be based on delivering against this code rather than the number of customers served. Outcome models are favoured for evaluations

Any collaboration mechanism should build on current effective collaboration mechanisms among service providers

Delineate responsibilities of service providers and local boards with respect to community planning and coordination.

MTCU favoured the “lead provider” (Hub and Spoke) over the distributed model but recognized that one model can not fit all communities. Community size must be recognized and may necessitate a different delivery model

The lead provider was preferred for the following reasons:

Customer centricity

Better potential for follow up and follow though

Easier to report on outcomes

Eliminates customers “shopping around”

Allows organizations to specialize

The distributed model was considered status quo, too broad with too many choices, leading to customer confusion

Alternative approaches were also considered such as bringing all service delivery in house, each community picks their own service delivery model and creating EO access centres that provide all services to all customers

Service providers favoured the distributed model over the lead provider (Hub and Spoke). Many were concerned that the Lead Provider model introduced too many unknowns and preferred status quo features of the distributed model

Recognition that one model will not fit for all communities was also voiced

Concerns with the lead provider model included: “I do not have time nor capacity to learn about all services”; “customers will be intimidated to enter one facility for service”, “how do you decide who the lead provider is”, “individual needs evolve so completing a one time action plan may not be relevant”

Service providers preferred the distributed model because it better enables no wrong door, provides choice to customers and allows needs to be addressed in holistic manner and addresses needs of barriered customers

Developing a referral system to reward referrals across the network and ensuring enforcement was a top priority



Stakeholder Feedback Summary continued (2)

- 7 -- 7 -

ChannelsQ. Are some

channels better suited to

meeting the needs of

particular customer

segments?

Customer Service

StandardsQ. What service standards need to be in place to

provide seamless integrated service?

Channels must be supported by service standards

Technology must support integrated channel strategy; information must be available and easily retrievable

Staff require training on all channels to support channel integration efforts, referring customers to web and phone when appropriate

Recognize that web based services are not available everywhere, so there are limitations

Service providers welcomed the concepts that customers should be directed to the web and phone first (before in person)

In person should be reserved for highly barriered customers

All channels must provide adequate support for special needs/interests groups

Centralized call centers must have strong knowledge of service provider service models and full scope of services

Service standards were welcome but there was consensus that a phased approach is best; MTCU service standards should be established first and then standards should be developed for partners such as service providers

The introduction of service guarantees was well received

Standards must be customer focused; recognizing customer needs for service such as technical assistance hours to be improved and improve hours of operation for in person

Outcomes should remain separate from service standards. Outcomes should focus on interventions, recognizing that it takes much longer to achieve outcomes than standards. Standards must support branding and the service promise

Minimum levels of standards should be established as well as a system to capture progress towards higher levels of standards




Governance Q. What could a

community-based

organization look like, and who

should be involved?

To what degree should decision-making happen

at the community

level?

Develop an employer engagement strategy, giving employers community planning and accountability

Local board should be more citizen driven than government driven, but MTCU should be the facilitator and monitor

Composition of local boards to include members such as municipalities, chambers of commerce, mayors and councilors and special interest/needs groups

Implement a term to participation on local boards

Mandate of local boards must be redefined and enforced to ensure consistency of activities across communities re community planning

Disband local boards when mandate is not met

Provide an honorarium for all participants

Address overlapping roles between service providers and local board

Create smaller boards with larger geographic coverage areas

Boards should be comprised of employers represented by associations and chambers of commerce. No one employer has the time to devote. Incentives should be provided to increase participation and engagement.

Service providers should also have representation on boards

Composition should be relevant to the community needs. Rural communities could have farmers represented

Local board responsibilities should include scanning the environment, identifying gaps and encouraging community partnerships – no decision making or funding responsibilities

- 8 -- 8 -

OrganizationQ. What can we do to organize

ourselves around our

customers at the point of service

delivery?

Organizational structure should support service delivery model (a lead integrator in the community) and as such, whenever possible, organize in one location.

Develop a Ministry wide referral system to address today’s issues with referrals

Clear points of contact (MTCU) should be established for service providers and customers

Organizational roles should support the regular collection, analysis and use of customer feedback to continuously improve

Front line staff should come together on a regular basis to share best practices, customer insights and solutions to customer challenges with broader set of staff

Organize by customer – employees should be dedicated to a customer group (individuals, employers and communities) and become experts on their needs

Expand the recognition and rewards program to reward new behaviours required for integrated service delivery

Facilitate networking among service providers to share leading practices and continuously improve

Support employer outreach strategies to actively engage employers and have continued participation




Service Delivery

FrameworkQ. How are the building block

elements best integrated

within the framework?

Starting with the customer is a good approach and customer pathways is innovative

Concerns about where Apprenticeship services fall within the framework, how service align (vs. programs) and flexibility of the framework when economy is in a downturn, for example.

Engaging employers and communities will be keys to success of this framework

Consideration must be taken into how specialized service providers (literacy & education) fit into the model

The service delivery framework is well integrated but must be supported with the following:

Brand service promise that outlines expectations of all stakeholders

Effective referral network and system to reward referrals

Participation of all customer groups to ensure customer centricity

Service standards to support the brand service promise and outline expectation for service deliverers

Knowledgeable staff on the full range of offering

Consistent community level planning and coordination

Francophone Community Feedback

- 10 -- 10 -

Francophone community feedback

Two feedback sessions were held with a cross-section of the EO funded Francophone community to gather their perspectives. For many of the discussion topics, the francophone community reflected the views of the majority (and were reflected in the previous section).

The following summary reflects the unique perspectives of the Francophone community.

- 11 -- 11 -

Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Francophone Community

Strategic Priorities?Q. At the provincial level, how should Ministries collaborate to integrate the delivery of employment and training services?

BrandingQ. How can a more strategic use of the brand help to better identify access points and meet expectations about service?

CustomersQ. How can pathways, or other mechanisms, be used to organize services?

Huge Marketing campaign brand and slogan – clear messaging, clear client expectations– brochures, website, radio, local media, high schools, hospitals. Include success stories

Make sure staff and service providers understand and are trained on what the brand promise is and how it will/should affect customer service, upgrading and evaluation

Consistent and uniform standards across EO. Phased , staged implementation. Put funding into contracts to allow marketing and training dollars

Francophone 1-800 service that refers to Anglophone organizations

Local resource needed to market programs and services to francophone community

Service provided by Francophones to Francophones

General consensus that service providers in their respective communities would be in the best position to determine what plans would best meet the needs of their client base

• There was a large consensus on the need for cross collaboration between ministries and other levels of government.

• MTCU should be responsible (lead role) for all employment and training services with inter-ministerial committee for governance. Clear rules and accountability

• There was not universal acceptance of one model. Some thought with a single organization governance structure that service providers would lose their independence, which ultimately could result in limited if any competition. They felt they could eliminate duplication. They felt that this model was similar to the old system of silos and had a higher cost associated to the effectiveness of it. A cross-ministry committee was popular but not realistic. You would need all ministries to share the same vision, mandates and priorities to be effective. Collaboration protocols needed.

Service Delivery ModelQ. Which model would fit better in a specific community?

The French community were split between the benefits and challenges of a lead provider (hub and spoke) and a distributed model, however they identified several criteria that are important to the French community:

well-known and efficient access point is a suitable solution for the Francophone community

ensure various services in French, not bilingual or English services, but French services

must be supported by a management model that supports Francophones

Primary provider must be a bilingual or a Francophone agency

A “single outlet” always ends up Anglophone; it depends entirely on the person hired; hiree must believe and understand Francophones will be better served in French.

The challenge for Francophones depends on the region and the community – are there enough organizations capable of providing quality employment services?

- 12 -- 12 -

Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Francophone Community

Customer Service StandardsQ. What service standards need to be in place to provide seamless integrated service?

Services standards must ensure that all customers/clients are treated with respect. All programs offering government services ought to have service standards that comply with the Human Rights Code ensuring that services are free from bias and prejudice and that clients do not face systemic barriers such as sexism, racism or ablism in accessing service

should simply be able to measure the referral of Francophone customers by Anglophone organizations

Governance Q. What could a community-based organization look like, and who should be involved? To what degree should decision-making happen at the community level?

If it concerns the Francophone community, its specificity should be taken into account in any decision-making.

It is very difficult to integrate specific needs at the end of the decision-making process instead of doing it at the beginning. The needs of the Francophones should be considered at the beginning of decision-making processes.

The bilingual control parameters must be validated by Francophones; grants should only be financial, since it stimulates discussion.

Francophones should have access to training sessions in French.

Creation of partnerships (e.g. French consulate and Poss.ca) enabling greater dissemination of information.

OrganizationQ. What can we do to organize ourselves around our customers at the point of service delivery?

If governance is well established at the outset and wants to represent the community and the population, there have to be seats that are designated bilingual. If the person in charge does not understand the reality of La Francophonie, he is not “representative”.

There is no guarantee of representation for Francophones, even where demographics would suggest it.

We have designated areas that are legislated as bilingual so we can expect the local decision-making bodies in these areas to be bilingual. The whole thing has to be integrated

There was consensus at one session that the Francophone service providers have to be organized around customers at the point of service

Service Delivery FrameworkQ. How are the building block elements best integrated within the framework?

Include full Francophone community in integration strategy

Concern over how integration will evolve – that it will lose momentum

Francophone services are always a carbon copy of English language services. These do not necessarily meet the needs of the Francophone community

Deaf Community Feedback

- 14 -- 14 -

Deaf community feedback

One feedback session was held with the deaf community to gather their perspectives. There was a great deal of feedback on the complexity of the discussion document itself and how it did not serve the deaf community.

Lessons-learned from this experience would recommend that the views of this community are important and engagement plans with this community need to be planned early in the process.

For many of the discussion topics, the deaf community reflected the views of the majority (and were reflected in that section of the report).

The following summary reflects the unique perspectives of the deaf community.

- 15 -- 15 -

Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Deaf Community

ChannelsQ. Are some channels better suited to meeting the needs of particular customer segments?

The use of a website does not serve the Deaf stream would also not work because many of our beginner learners are not able to read English.

CustomersQ. How can pathways, or other mechanisms, be used to organize services

Agencies servicing Employment Ontario need to be educated about the Deaf stream and the options available for potential Deaf learners.

Employers must be educated in what it means to have a Deaf individual employed with them. They also need to understand that Deaf people have many skills and talents that can benefit a company.

Strategic Priorities?Q. At the provincial level, how should Ministries collaborate to integrate the delivery of employment and training services?

Ministries should ensure that accessibility requirements are integrated into the delivery of employment and training services to meet the visual language needs of the Deaf and Deaf-Blind community. Accessibility for both Deaf/Deaf-Blind (D/DB) with other disabilities into the whole system to break down barriers in the future which would be cost savings now and in the future.

One main contact agency (e.g. Deaf Literacy Initiative) needs to be established and all Ministries made aware that this is the organization to be contacted. Ministries are to provide plain language resources and official documents.

BrandingQ. How can a more strategic use of the brand help to better identify access points and meet expectations about service?

Visual marketing in American Sign Language would be necessary for some to understand what Employment Ontario is about. Employment Ontario needs to offer accessible communication, Videophone accessibility, the use of TTY’s, etc. for people who want more information about services.

Service Delivery ModelQ. Which model would fit better in a specific community?

We would recommend a third approach (neither the lead model nor the distributed model) Model C - A provincial Deaf and Deaf-Blind committee would exist. A main agency with in-depth knowledge about the Deaf community and Deaf individual’s needs must be used as a main point of contact for all levels of government and for all communities throughout Ontario.

Services within the Deaf Stream should be grouped together.

- 16 -- 16 -

Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Deaf Community

Customer Service StandardsQ. What service standards need to be in place to provide seamless integrated service?

Include a s standard that ensures services are provided in ASL or with interpreters.

Ensure that all services are accessible to all customers in order to have a fair outcome. If services are not accessible, it will be impossible to measure their usefulness and success.

Governance Q. What could a community-based organization look like, and who should be involved? To what degree should decision-making happen at the community level?

One Deaf organization should oversee the planning of this type of structure.

All Deaf organizations in individual communities need to be involved in community decision making.

Anyone involved in the planning must have knowledge and understanding of the needs of the Deaf.

Community planning tables could partner with Deaf Literacy Initiative (DLI), as DLI could lead the Deaf and Deaf-Blind stream.

OrganizationQ. What can we do to organize ourselves around our customers at the point of service delivery?

Empower yourselves with knowledge of Deaf issues and needs. Deaf individuals need to be hired to work in various communities across Ontario.

Service Delivery FrameworkQ. How are the building block elements best integrated within the framework?

All levels of the building blocks need to have knowledge of the Deaf stream. They need to be coordinated in their design, day to day operations and performance management.

All stakeholder feedback

Documents

Transcript of All stakeholder feedback