Strategies Used by Employment Service Providers in the Job Development Process: Are they consistent with what employers want?

 

Dr. Luecking, President of TransCen Inc., was one of the keynote speakers at the Ontario Disability Employment Network’s Conference in Alliston this past November.  Dr. Luecking collaborated on this recently released technical report which focuses upon strategies used by job developers and how they resonate with employers.  Although this study was undertaken in the U.S,. it may contain lessons for providers of employment services here in Ontario as well.

We asked The Network’s Employer Champion Leauge member, Mark Wafer, who owns a number of Tim Horton’s stores in the Toronto area for his opinion of the study and this is what he had to say:

“This is a very well written article, in fact it mirrors very closely to what I say all the time about nurturing relationships with employers, using strategies that work for the business and following up constantly to ensure success.  Any time I speak with service providers this is the message I present.

This article would be a good handout to a lot of the service providers i have met recently who still use the same old charity approach.”

Mark Wafer

http://www.dol.gov/odep/ietoolkit/publications/500.pdf

June, 2011

1. Employer Misconceptions and Discrimination

 

Employer Misconception #1: Liability & Safety

Employer Misconception #2: Increased Costs

There are a number of cost-associated fears that employers express:

• the cost of accommodations;
• loss of productivity due to disability;
• lost time due to disability related illness;
• increased WSIB (noted above) and benefits costs; and
• increased time/cost of training and supervision.

Employer Misconception #3: Fear of the Unknown

Employer Misconception #4: Fear of Firing

Solutions to Employer Misconceptions and Work-Related Discrimination

 

Solution:  Accessibility for Ontarians with a Disability Act (AODA)

Solution: Dispel the myths and misconceptions – ‘stereotypes and bias’

Solution:  Needs Based Job Development Strategy

People who have a disability often require an employment agency job developer to ‘sell’ the client based on the critical needs of the employer.

The candidate and employer will need support services to assist the employer to integrate a person who has a disability into their workforce and to learn the specific skills of the job

Some employment agencies have made gains by addressing the perception of additional costs and supports through customer service programs that offer guarantees.

In addition, many organizations offer assistance to help transition an employee who is not meeting the job requirements to alternate employment.

 

Solution: On-the-Job Employment and Employer Supports

Working with the employer, employment staff develop a measurable plan to ensure, over time, the employee will achieve the essential skills of the job and become self sufficient in their work.  Employment staff may also assist the employer with workplace accommodations which may range from adaptive devices to successful workforce integration (co-worker relationships).  Supported Employment, this strategy provides assistance such as job coaches, job retention assistance, transportation training and/or assistance, assistive technology, specialized job training, and individually tailored supervision.

Solution:  Employer Education

Ongoing education and awareness is key to dispelling employer misconceptions.

2. The Nature of Disability

Nature of Disability Issue #1:  The Range and Scope of Disabilities

The range and scope of disabilities is vast.  Each disability presents its own challenges and barriers often requiring specific and unique accommodations and supports.  Further, each disability has a broad range of limitations, from mild to very severe, that may affect the individual’s level of independence.  Furthermore there are a large number of people who have multiple disabilities which can compound an individual’s limitations.  For the purpose of social participation and daily activity, including participation in the workforce, the severity and associated limitations of the disability defines the supports and interventions people need.

Often the disability, onto itself, poses other related barriers. For example a person who has an intellectual disability also may not be able to read or write; a person who is deaf may need a range of interpreter options (sign language, note takers, closed captioning); a person who has a physical disability may need accommodations for travel as well as physical accommodations within the workplace and a person with epilepsy may take medications which cause memory problems and need a procedures manual with personalized notes for reference. In each case, the interventions and supports required to achieve success on the job will be different.

Nature of Disability Issue #2: Individual Motivation

The life experiences of people who have a disability will have a significant impact on their vocational success.  Some individuals who have a disability have been programmed into a life of dependency and control by others. They lack self confidence, initiative and the motivation that drives independence, often relying too heavily on the support of others, even for the most basic of life’s tasks and decisions.  Many of the clients that Employment Agencies provide services for are not self directed. These individuals will not readily or independently: show up for appointments; read a job ad and forward a resume; follow verbal or written instructions that have multiple steps; understand the services and supports that are available to them; know how to exercise their rights; or, understand the demands and culture of a workplace. While some people who have a disability who are well educated and/or have a reasonable work history, may be self directed and able to access generic, mainstream supports, this is not the typical clientele that shows up at the doors of specialized Employment Agencies.  Readiness and willingness to work – motivation is one of, and arguably, the most important quality to ensure successful employment for this group.

 

Nature of Disability Issue #3: Limited Education and Work History

The level of education attained can be an indicator of success in the workforce.  The severity of a disability, regardless of type, can affect educational achievement.  People with severe or very severe disabilities are more likely not to have a high school diploma, and thus any higher education.  According to the 2010 Federal Disability Report 19.3% of individuals with a disability indicate that they feel their training is not adequate to become employed. Many people, especially those with a severe or very severe disability, also have limited or no work history.  Many people who have a disability were excluded from the student job market where they would learn their first lessons of responsibility and workplace culture. This is also when many people develop and formulate their career goals and expectations.  As such, they have no idea about what jobs or careers are suitable to match their skills and interests as they have limited exposure to the labour market.  Related work experience and education are the two key job match criteria for a hiring employer.

Nature of Disability Issue #4: Limited Capacity Due to Disability

A significant portion of working-age adults are not in the labour market at all as they do not have the capacity or ability to work due to their disabilities.  Some are significantly limited in the type of work they can do.  Others feel they cannot participate in the labour market simply because they do not have the ability to look for work.  It must be noted that individuals with a disability that are not actively looking for employment are not included in unemployment statistics but would be captured in the employment participation rate.

 

Nature of Disability Issue #5: Fear of Failure

Many individuals who have a disability have had limited employment experiences and many have had bad experiences or have tried jobs that failed. In addition, many people struggled to gain access to ODSP Income Supports and are hesitant to have this benefit put at risk. Irrespective of experiences, there is a very real fear of failure and the impact failure will have on their eligibility to regain ODSP Income Supports. People do not understand or, in some cases trust, the government’s rapid reinstatement policies.

Solutions to the Nature of Disability

Solution: Specialized Employment Agencies

Each intervention is unique and customized to the specific needs of the job seeker. Specialized Employment Agencies have developed expertise over the past 30 years. This has been driven by the needs of the individuals served and the lack of success provided by other models of service delivery. In the 70’s and early 80’s, everyone who wanted to work went to the Canada Manpower Centre. If you had a disability, you were referred to the sheltered workshop for a life of menial labour without pay. Since those days, much has been learned about specific strategies to assist people who have a disability to access the labour market so that they can be contributing members of society.

Solution: Facilitated Job Selection

To address the issue of limited education and work history it is important that the individual in this situation be provided with resources and support to identify realistic job goals. For these people job exploration/preparation programs are a necessity. This may include:

• Time limited pre-employment preparation programs

• Job trials to help assess individual’s suitability and interest in the job;

• Unpaid work experiences to measure the individual’s skills relative to the essential skills of the job;

• Interest testing and or formal skills testing; and

• Labour market research to ensure the job is available in the community.

At the conclusion of this phase the individual looking for work should have a realistic job goal in-line with their skills (or potential skills) and related work and/or life experiences. The goal, if available in their community labour market, must then consider the appropriate supports needed based on the individual’s disability and be something they are motivated to pursue.  Development of a realistic job goal is critical to securing and retaining work.

Solution: Motivational Interventions

A significant yet under acknowledged component of an Employment Agency’s work is assessing and building the individual’s motivation to work.  As noted above, motivation and personal independence is a significant contributor to retaining employment.  Due to the life experience of persons with disabilities, especially those with moderate and severe disabilities, Employment Agencies spend time working with clients to help them gain awareness of their motivational level and remove the barriers related to lack of independence, self confidence and other lifestyle related issues.  While the client is working toward greater independence, Employment Agencies will provide a degree of personal assistance. This will range from reminder calls prior to appointments to accompanying people to go to appointments and interviews and even intervening during and after these appointments.  Addressing motivational issues is not a focus of employment agencies dealing with the general public but is an important component of the support to successfully place people who have a disability.

Solution: Place and Train Model

Many community Employment Agencies have moved away from the traditional vocational rehabilitation ‘train and place’ model. The reality for people with a disability, who may have limited education and work experience, is that they are uncertain what to train for. In the past many of these individuals ended up in training programs that went on for years. Very few graduated and moved on to employment. In the mid 80’s, primarily prompted by the developmental sector, agencies started moving to the ‘place and train’ model. This model, based on the premise that people learned to work best in the workplace, proved to be much more efficient and effective. Supports are provided by the Employment Agency in the workplace in coordination with the employer.  The employee’s hours and responsibilities at work increase over time as their capacity and work skills improve.  Over time, this model has been adopted by many service providers supporting people with other disabilities and, in turn, other types of employment barriers.

Solution: Client Education

Often Agency staff spends considerable time educating clients about government regulations and policies; various programs and supports available; the ODSP Income Support system and the impact on benefits as a result of working; and what rights they have to services and supports.   This type of education is often necessary to provide some assurance to clients that the risk-reward to gain employment can be balanced (see System Barrier #1).

3. System Barriers

 

System Barrier #1: The Income Supports System

For an individual with a disability the risk-reward equation is out of balance.  People who have a disability and are recipients of the ODSP Income Support program loose $0.50 on every dollar earned (beyond the $100 monthly work incentive). Even though the person is always better off working, there exists a perception that ‘it’s not worth it”. The financial gain from work (which is often part-time for people who are getting their first job or re-entering the workforce) does not create an incentive to follow this path.  This perception is coupled with the fear that if the job does not work out, the person will not be able to get back on the income support system or will face delays that will put their well being at risk.

There are also some very real and legitimate concerns about what happens when a person declares employment income.

• Income fluctuations. People may, for various reasons, see great fluctuations in their employment income. At the same time people, living on the edge of poverty, tend to spend what they have. This combined with the lag in Income Support, due to reporting processes, makes for a very untenable result. People will often choose to live with less, but consistent, income in order to maintain security and stability.
• Impact on subsidized housing. When people report their income there is the possibility that they will loose their housing subsidy. When you combine the increased rental payments with the 50 cent on the dollar equation people may, in a very real way, be in greater financial difficulty.
• Employment Insurance. People who have a disability who have worked long enough to be EI eligible must exhaust that system of supports before returning to the ODSP system – both in terms of financial supports and employment supports. At this time the EI system does not have the capacity or ability to adequately support people who have a disability, particularly when it comes to employment supports.

All in all, people who have a disability often look at these variables and conclude that the risk of pursuing paid employment is not offset by the financial rewards.

System Barrier #2: A Patchwork of Funding

In Ontario there are 5 key government funding sources of employment programs for people who have a disability – MCSS ODSP-ES, MCSS DSA, MTCU Employment Ontario, Ministry of Health & Long Term Care and Service Canada.  Some Employment Agencies receive funding from only one government source while others access several and some access them all.  Agencies may also secure fee-for service business from private sources such as insurance companies and additional revenues from donations or foundations may also be solicited. This patchwork of funding is timely to manage, inefficient and inconsistent in its application. The reality however, is that some Agencies find this the only way to provide a ‘complete’ basket of services and supports that meet the needs of their customers – both employers and the people who have a disability they serve.

As an example imagine an Employment Agency within an organization that primarily serves a population of individuals who have an intellectual disability. To be viable and meet the needs of people requesting assistance they have secured funding from multiple sources.

• Job exploration/preparation is paid for by Service Canada Opportunities funding.
• Job Development and initial coaching is paid for by ODSP-ES.
• Wage subsidies and the Resource Centre are funded by Employment Ontario
• Once the ODSP-ES funding for job coaches runs out, on-going coaching, employer supports and trouble-shooting are covered by the agency’s Developmental Services funding as is assistance for career development and job advancement.
• The agencies quality assurance and marketing programs were also paid for with a combination of funding from the Developmental Services budget and private donations.

Remove any one of these funding sources or dramatically change the rules and two things happen: 1. Key elements of the service are at risk as is a successful outcome; and 2. The financial viability of the entire program is at risk as, over the years, there has become an inter-relationship of funding to support the overhead costs e.g. office space, staff, training programs, etc.

Many agencies, however, do not have access to all these funding mechanisms and, therefore, are not able to provide some of the critical supports and services their clients require. This often results in poor job retention by the client.

System Barrier #3: Lack of Policy Framework

Ontario lacks an overall policy framework that focuses on employment for people who have a disability. As a result, various ministries and their branches compete with each other and/or lack clarity about their mandate and funding parameters. This leads to the patchwork of funding described above. In addition, other disability programs often compete or undermine employment programs.  Historic service delivery models such as sheltered workshops continue. These programs have limited ability to move people through the service to employment and clients stagnate.  These programs tie-up employment related funding/resources for non-employment related outcomes and entrench people who have a disability to a life of dependency on social assistance.

New service delivery models such as individualized funding – Special Services at Home, Passport, etc. – are unregulated and allow people to do almost anything they want. In many cases as a way to ‘extend’ these resources, families and independent support workers are placing people in volunteer positions in private sector, for profit businesses. This emerging trend directly competes with other people who have a disability who are seeking real, paid employment. Employers who get free labour refuse pay for labour from what they see as the same source or labour pool. Responses like: “I don’t pay for those people any more. I get them for free” is a stated roadblock. This has become a much more prevalent issue in recent years.

Solutions to System Issues

 

Solution:  A Policy Framework that Frames and Coordinates Employment Supports

When it comes to day options and programs, Ontario needs a Policy Framework that crosses all Provincial Ministries and Departments that fund services, supports and programs for people who have a disability – MCSS DSA, MCSS ODSP-ES, MTCU Employment Ontario, Ministry of Health, Provincial portions of Service Canada, Municipal Employment Programs and Ministry of Education. This Policy Framework should place employment as the top funding priority for daytime supports and services for people who have a disability. It also builds in coordination and collaboration among all funding jurisdictions to ensure people who have a disability can access the services and supports they need. Often referred to ‘Employment First’, this policy framework:

• Focuses on integrated work at commensurate wages – “real work for real pay”
• Is not a ‘work for welfare’ approach whereby participation in work is required in order to access income support or that penalizes people for non-participation.

An ‘Employment First’ policy framework has been adopted in many US jurisdictions. For example, Employment First Policy was adopted in Washington State where it was reported in 2008 that 87% of people with intellectual disabilities receiving employment and day supports participated in integrated employment. [1] In Washington State this is primarily a policy framework for people who have an intellectual disability, however, we believe it would have similar impact across all disability types.

4. Employment Agencies

Employment Agencies for people who have a disability, although they exist to assist people to secure employment, may unintentionally contribute to the employment gap between people who have a disability and those without.

Employment Agency Issue #1: Limiting Service Offering

In today’s reality, Employment Agencies are often required to limit their service offering due to funding levels and contractual targets that are negotiated with the funder. The consequences of this are three-fold:

1. Customer service for the employer is limited. Agencies cannot afford to provide on-going coaching, trouble shooting, or implement employer satisfaction programs. This ‘place and run’ scenario has a negative impact on job retention.
2. Intentionally or not, people who have a disability are routinely screened ‘out’ of employment services if their disability and subsequent level of support is considered too costly. Even for those who are supported to find jobs, job quality and support for career advancement is not available. Employment preparation programs that assess a candidate’s skills and abilities to ensure a good fit and a better chance for job retention are less and less available.
3. Employment Agencies are weakened by failing infrastructure and lack the resources to invest in things such as marketing initiatives, staff training, planning, innovation, service quality and evaluation.

Employment Agency Issue #2: Lack of Effective Marketing Resources

Employment Agencies need marketing materials and strategies that specifically target the employer audience. This means allocating both financial and staff resources, on an on-going basis, to successfully educate business and gain their support for the hiring of people who have a disability.  Very few agencies have the resources or budget to develop marketing materials and programs.  Staff who work in the employment field are not necessarily skilled at developing sophisticated marketing campaigns or strategies.

Employment Agency Issue #3:  Lack of Focus on Employers

Businesses need assistance in various areas: creating organizational policies, procedures and planning related to hiring and accommodating workers with disabilities; orientation and training for employees, supervisors and managers; on-going trouble shooting when problems occur and, outplacement when needed. Without effective customer service and proper supports for the business, employee problems are often overlooked and not addressed until they have reached a crisis level and employment is terminated as a result. On-going communication and follow up with the employer will enhance job retention.  Employment Agencies need to respond to the needs of business as well as the needs of their clientele.  As such businesses must also be regarding as a client.

Employment Agency Issue #4: Lack of Infrastructure

Some Employment Agencies suffer the consequences of a lack of investment in their organization. The impact of the lack of investment compromises business practices that are essential to a vital and quality operation. While it would be untrue to say that all agencies suffer in all these areas, there are significant shortcomings in many agencies across the province. When revenue and thus investment is lagging the following business practices may be impacted:

• Lack of business or strategic planning;
• Minimal resources for staff training and skill development (beyond that which is legislated);
• Limited or poor quality assurance programs;
• Little focus on business innovation;
• Weak or non-existent service evaluation strategies; and
• Limited ability to explore diversification of business opportunities or revenue sources.

It is difficult to assess, with any certainty, agencies that provide quality services and achieve exceptional outcomes without examining how the system continues to undermine itself and its operating entities.

Employment Agency Issue #5: Lack of Standards and Credentials

Most Employment Agencies are staffed with well-qualified, trained employees who have specialized in social work and/or in providing personal supports. Social Services diplomas and degrees and Developmental Service Worker programs from a community college are generalist programs and provide very little training in employment services and no training in marketing or business.  As such, Agency employees must receive this training on the job.

Vocational Rehabilitation Canada (VRA) and the College of Vocational Rehabilitation Ontario are striving to develop professional designations and standards of practice and conduct within this sector.  Unfortunately, at this time, these organizations cater largely to those working within the sector that have university degrees or a ‘Masters’ designation.  In many Employment Agencies a college diploma is the standard for employees therefore, they cannot fully take advantage of this professional association.  Thus the services for people who have a disability are largely un-regulated.

 

 

Solutions to Issues Concerning Employment Agencies

 

Solution: Collaboration – Providing Enhanced Assistance to Business

Employment Agencies need to understand and respond to the needs of businesses as well as the needs of their clientele. There are examples of experiences and practices that demonstrate that superior results can be achieved when services and supports are provided in a collaborative fashion by Employment Agencies.  This includes marketing campaigns and education directed to the employer.   Further allocation or re-allocation of resources will be required to develop and sustain collaborative models.  Collaborative models should be expanded across the province in close cooperation with all funding bodies.

Solution: Reward Positive Outcomes

While specialized services may need to be paid on a fee-for-service basis, government should find a way to reward positive outcomes – jobs. This should also include ways to recognize higher quality jobs – those with greater hours worked, better wages, benefits and working conditions as well as greater support needs for those with more significant disabilities. If organizations had a base budget to cover off essential infrastructure requirements and augmented this with financial incentives based on performance, we would likely see better outcomes in Ontario.

Solution: Profession Standards for College Graduates

Working with VRA and/or the College, Employment Agencies should adopt standards of operation, quality assurance measures and ethics and thereby provide sound training and credentials for employment service professionals who do not have a university degree but are currently working within the sector.

Solution: Invest in Employment Services

Dependency on Social Assistance and Income Support is rising at dramatic, if not out of control, proportions. Last year taxpayers spent over $3.3 billion on ODSP Income Supports. Yet, in spite of the recognition that helping people get into the workforce is key to managing this expenditure, the ODSP Employment Support budget for the same period was $55 million with only about $35 million of that going to direct employment supports for people who have a disability.

If government truly wants to see greater gains in employment for people who have a disability, they must take a hard look at the investments that are required.

In Summary

 

Through the exploration of employers, the nature of disability, income and employment support systems and employment agencies, this document has reviewed many of the issues which impact the disparity in the rate of gainful employment between people who have a disability and those without a disability.  Solutions, from the perspective of the agencies that currently serve people who have a disability have been developed to facilitate resolution to these long term and often chronic issues.

We hope that these insights provide information and an enhanced perspective regarding people who have a disability and their specific and sometimes unique employment support needs.  We also anticipate that Employment Ontario will consider this information as it relates to integration of people who have a disability into their future service delivery strategies.

Appendix A               The Path to Employment

Pre-employment Preparation

Assessment, Resume development, Interview skills, Employment Life skills, Training

Job Development

Finding the job, Employer engagement, self directed vs. assisted

Job Retention

Job Coaching, Trouble shooting, Employer assistance

Career development

Quality Assurance

Employer satisfaction

Candidate satisfaction

Evaluation & Improvement Strategies

Appendix B                Success Stories/best practice

 January 30, 2012

An overview of the services, supports and interventions that contribute to successful employment outcomes for people who have a disability.

It is important to note that the ‘path to employment’ is unique for each individual who has a disability and in no way should be considered linear. Not all people who have a disability will require all interventions that are described below, nor will they necessarily require these interventions in the order that they are listed.

It should also be noted that Employment Service Agencies must also look at employers and the business community as ‘customers’ of their services and supports.

The outcome of the ‘path to employment’ for people who have a disability is a successful match between a motivated job seeker and the needs of an employer that takes into consideration disability related factors that affect job options, job search strategies, negotiating the job, accommodations, support needs, job retention and career development.

 

 

Pre-employment Preparation

1.  Assessment – varies from very formal to informal. Sometimes the type of assessment will vary depending on the service options that the agency provides and/or the individual being assessed – the nature and type of disability, the agency’s familiarity with the individual and so on.

a/ Formal – Psycho-social, prescribed skills testing i.e. cognitive skills, motor skills, dexterity, job specific skills, etc.

b/ Informal – Often a more organic or intuitive means to learning about the individual’s skills, abilities and interests. Often this is done in conjunction with number 2 below – Employment Preparation.

c/ Review of client history – work experience, education, training, volunteer experience, personal plans and goals, etc.

d/ Workplace Assessments – Assessing a candidates potential to do a specific job or interest in a particular employment sector.

The outcome of the assessment will:

• Confirm that the job seeker is motivated to work;
• Identify factors that may influence the job seeker’s ability to search for and maintain work e.g. transportation limitations, attendant care needs, specific accommodation requirements, impact on current benefits etc.
• Create an inventory  the job seeker’s education, skills, experience, interests and social networks which are relevant to vocational exploration;
• Assess the job seeker’s capacity and tolerances for vocational training (formal or informal); and
• Determine the type of work to pursue or, if work is the best option for the client at this point in time.

The assessment phase establishes the job seeker’s work related attributes, confirms the job seeker is motivated to work and ensures the job seeker understands the implications of seeking, acquiring and maintaining work.

2. Employment Preparation – varies from ‘curriculum based’ programs to individual interventions by an employment counselor and/or formal training. These programs often help assess career goals and the supports and interventions the individual will require.

a/  Individual interventions – highly dependent on the individual client and how they present to the agency e.g. is their resume current, do they have relevant experience, do they have a realistic career goal, can a career path be mapped out and to what degree is the individual self-directed

b/  Curriculum based services – Many organizations provide a curriculum based job readiness program that will assist with resume development, interview skills, and employment life skills. Often this program is also used as a form of assessment – does the person show up regularly and on time, do they demonstrate reliability; have the ability to follow direction and informal skills? Do they have the right attitude? Are there barriers and challenges previously not understood? Can an appropriate job or career goal be identified, etc.?

c/  Training – is there specific occupational or career training required. In most cases the individual will be referred to the appropriate training program but often will need assistance to find the right training institute, go through the application and enrollment processes, organize financial support (if needed) and so on.

d/  Disability Specific Accessibility and Accommodation Planning and Preparation

Counseling related to the job seeker’s specific disability and implications in the workplace

Assisting the job seeker in assessing and determining what accommodations are needed in order to successfully maintain employment (e.g. – mode of transportation, communication access in the workplace, need for Personal Support Worker, etc.)

Prepare job seeker for possible workplace accessibility and attitudinal barriers they may face in the workplace, and how to problem solve these challenges.

Assist the job seeker in coordinating and setting up a natural support system; determining who can be involved in the circle of care; etc.

Counseling related to issues of disclosure, implications, Human Rights etc.

At the completion of the employment preparation phase job seeker will:

• Explore job options and preferences based on information gathered during assessment phase relative to the labour market within the community;
• Have acquired specific job and/or career skills related to a specific trade or profession;
• Address disability related factors that may impact work related performance;
• Develop job finding and job retention skills and behaviours;
• Develop knowledge and skills related to vocational options; and
• Gain job related experience.
• Be ready to pursue an appropriate and suitable job/career.

The employment preparation phase readies the job seeker to meet the needs of the employer by helping them become job ready.

Job Development  

1.  Employer engagement – Job developers need to educate employers and sell them on hiring people who have a disability.

a/  Educating Employers – employers need to understand the benefits that their business will derive from hiring people who have a disability. They also need to be educated about the viability of people who have a disability in the workplace.

b/  Disability expertise – agencies are often seen by employers as the ‘experts’ in disability and interact in a consulting capacity. This can range from providing accommodations information and assistance to training for supervisors and managers, to problem solving when issues arise.

c/  Pre-screening candidates – often employers look to the agency to pre-screen and select appropriate candidates for the job. Sometimes this can be to assess a small group of candidates to be interviewed and sometimes this can be to send a single candidate and by-pass the interview process altogether. In this respect the employer relates to the agency in the same way they relate to other private placement firms or temp agencies. To ensure a successful match this places a heavy burden on the agency to investigate and fully understand the employer’s workplace, work culture, specific job requirements, etc.

 

2.  Finding the job – One might well ask: “If people who have a disability were competitive in the labour market why would we need employment service agencies?” The reality, however, is that most people who have a disability who engage employment agencies are not self directed and many lack the necessary training and/or work experience that would make them truly competitive. They will need assistance to find the job.

a/  Job Development – Job development typically happens in two ways: 1. determine the client’s job/career goals and look for a suitable job; or, 2. mine forjob opportunities in the business sector (the goal of Employer Engagement strategies described in 1 above) and then look to your candidate pool for a suitable fit or match.

b/  Looking for work – often, people who have a disability require assistance to look for a job, make a call for an interview or even go to an interview independently.

Job Developers often: make the call to set up an interview; and, accompany the candidate to the interview. The agency is often selling a ‘package’ which consists of the client and the agency’s support services.

c/  Job Match – matching the candidate to the job is the most critical step in the process. Ensuring the client’s skills and abilities match the requirements of the job and that there is a good ‘fit’ between the client and the business in terms of workplace culture, meeting the employer’s expectations, the employer’s willingness to accommodate the individual, etc.

During the job placement phase the job seeker may:

• Have their essential skills matched with the needs of employers (traditional placement or job carving);
• Be presented to employers where there is potential to hire;
• Undertake a self-directed job search; and
• Get a job.

The outcome of the job placement phase is a competitive job for the job seeker.  During this phase a secondary client is developed – the employer.  The outcome for the employer is a successful hire. At the same time, a satisfied employer opens the door to ‘repeat’ business and/or referrals for the agency.

Job Retention

1.  Job Coaching – Can range from intensive training at the initial placement stage to minor accommodation assistance and to periodic interventions and retraining.

a/  On the job training – often employers rely on the agency to provide the initial job training due to situations where training may take longer than other employees or where productivity may be lower at the on-set of the job. The job coach should always be in a position to assess a phasing out of their services so as to not create a dependency on this service.

b/  Off the job issues – Many people who have a disability need assistance with other personal issues and/or skills in order to maintain their job. Some need transportation training to get to and from the job, assistance with financial reporting, housing and so on.

2.  Follow Up – Usually done as routine visits and/or phone calls that diminish over time.

a/  Provides customer service to the employer to ensure on-going satisfaction, retention for the employee and possible repeat business for future candidates

b/  Provides support to the employee to ensure satisfaction with the job and the individual’s career aspirations are being met E.g. increases in hours of work and wages, new skill development and potential job mobility within the business

c/  Trouble shooting and problem solving before issues become irreconcilable, leading to increased retention

During the job retention phase the employee may:

• Be provided with on-the-job supports to develop work proficiency;
• Have ‘arms-length’ support through a systematic check-in or trouble shooting system; and
• Observe that the employer is also being supported in accommodating the employee’s needs.

The outcome of the job retention phase is the new employee performing the duties of the job to the satisfaction of the employer thereby retaining the job independently.

 3.  Customer Service – Good employment service providers must see employers as their ‘customer’ and, as such, pay special attention to providing effective customer service. If the employer is happy and has his/her needs met, they are more likely to retain the employee and more likely to do repeat business with the service provider. Business operators tell us: “We’re experts at doing business; we’re not experts in disability”. From this perspective, business operators often look to the service agency as specialized consultants for their employee(s) who have a disability.

a/  Trouble shooting – Employers look to the service agency for assistance when issues arise on the job – poor performance, safety, poor or inappropriate behaviour, etc.

b/  Out-placement – It has been cited that the number one reason businesses don’t hire is the fear of firing. Businesses fear bad PR, Human Rights complaints and personal discomfort with firing or laying off someone who is already seen to be at a disadvantage. Many service agencies provide out-placement assistance. That is; they help transition an employee who is not working out into a job that is a better fit.

c/  Periodic Interventions – Workplaces evolve and the scope of a particular job may change. Often the agency will be called in to re-train the employee, realign the work station, etc. In cases where a disability might be periodic, cyclical or degenerative additional workplace accommodations may be required. Sometimes supervisors and/or managers will change and this may require re-orientation to the disability and/or accommodations.

4.  Career development – Many people who have a disability start out in entry level positions; part-time and at low wages, often without benefits. At the same time surveys have demonstrated that people who have a disability often do not advocate on their own behalf and quit their jobs out of frustration. People are afraid to ask for more hours, pay raises or opportunity to compete for more advanced jobs within the workplace. Employers tend to think that if nothing is said, everything must be okay. People who have a disability often need assistance and advocacy to assist them to progress within the workplace or to move forward along a career path. Sometimes this means changing jobs, as their capacity and experience improves.

Quality Assurance

1.  Evaluation & Improvement Strategies – Employment service agencies need to invest time and resources in effective quality assurance measures. The agency must ensure it has a continuous quality improvement plan and process in place.

 

2.  Employer satisfaction – The service provider must also ensure its customers are satisfied with their services. Formal employer satisfaction surveys and reviews can be implemented and often lead to repeat business as well as ensuring long-term success

3.  Candidate satisfaction – The service provider should perform formal reviews & satisfaction surveys with clients. This will ensure a career path is in place, job satisfaction & long term stability.

As noted in the introduction, this path is not linear and very few candidates require the all of these services and supports. For the Employment Service Agency, however, given the range of individuals they serve and the unique needs of these individuals, it is important that the complete range of services is available as determined by the candidates seeking employment.

These are the services and supports that will lead to the greatest number of successful employment outcomes for the greatest number and range of people who have a disability.

To view/download the full document in PDF format click here

Introduction

 

The Ontario Disability Employment Network (the Network) is a professional body of employment service providers that operate in Ontario. Our vision is that all people who have a disability in Ontario have access to the labour force and the ability to achieve meaningful employment. By ‘meaningful employment’ the Network subscribes to jobs that meet the requirements of the Employment Standards Act; are paid at commensurate wages and that add value to the economic and social well being of people who have a disability.

Member organizations represent all disability groups and types. Some are specialized (service one specific disability group) while others service a broader range of disabilities. They also represent agencies that access the full range of employment funding options – Ontario Disability Support Program Employment Supports (ODSP-ES), Employment Ontario (EO), Service Canada Opportunities Fund (Service Canada OF), Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC), Ministry of Community and Social Services Developmental Services Act (MCSS DSA) as well as private grants and donations. Some agencies access only one funding source, e.g. MCSS DSA funding, while others access multiple funding sources.

The Network facilitated, and participated in, group discussions with service providers, advocacy groups and service users from across the province. This is a summary of our findings.

Index

 

 

Executive Summary  ………………………………..  4

Principles and Values – Employment Services  ……………………………….. 4

Principles and Values – Income Support and Benefits ………………………………..  8

 

Features of Effective Services and Supports

Consistent Assessment and Case Management  ……………………………….. 9

Integrated pre- and post-Employment Services and Supports ………………………………..  10

Access to the Same Level of Services and Supports ……………………………….. 10

Strong Connections with Employers  ……………………………….. 12

 

Discussion Questions

How Can Employment Services be Made More Effective  ……………………………….. 13

Encouraging Greater Consistency  ……………………………….. 15

Standard Assessment Tools  ……………………………….. 16

Employment-Related Participation Requirements  ……………………………….. 17

Tools to Assess Work Capacity  ……………………………….. 18

Engagement Strategies and Incentives for Employers  ……………………………….. 18

 

The Options

Improved Provincial – Municipal Relations  ……………………………….. 19

Municipalities Deliver all Employment Supports ……………………………….. 20

Employment Ontario Delivers all Employment Services  ……………………………….. 21

Appropriate Benefits Structure

Adequacy and Wage Benchmarks ……………………………….. 22

Setting Rates  ……………………………….. 23

Health Benefits for All Low Income Ontarians  ……………………………….. 23

Two Rate Approach ………………………………..  24

Earned Income Supplements  ……………………………….. 24

Housing Benefits and Fairness  ……………………………….. 25

Discussion Questions – Disability Specific

Income Supplements for low-Income People who have a Disability ……………………………….. 25

Separate Basic Income Program for People with Severe Disabilities  ……………………………….. 26

Rate Structures

Rate Structures, Verification and Monitoring  ……………………………….. 26

Dietary Needs  ……………………………….. 27

 

Easier to Understand

From Surveillance to an Audit-Based System  ……………………………….. 27

Penalties  ……………………………….. 28

Risk Tolerance  ……………………………….. 28

Recommendations

Short-term (Immediate to 2 years)  ……………………………….. 29

Medium-term (2 years to 5 years)  ……………………………….. 30

Long-term (5 years +) ……………………………….. 31

Appendices/Attachments

Appendix A – Path to Employment

Appendix B – Barriers to Employment

Appendix C – MCSS Supported Employment Code Explanation

Executive Summary

The Ontario Disability Employment Network would like to commend the Commission for under-taking such an in-depth and detailed review of Ontario’s Social Assistance system. There are many concepts and ideas within the second discussion paper: Approaches for Reform that the Network supports.

Everyone seems to agree that the status quo is not acceptable and a major overhaul of the system is required. As the Commission stated; “we need to transform the social assistance system; small fixes will not be enough.” The challenge is to turn what some feel is the ‘impossible’ into manageable steps and actions that will move the system forward.

In the final chapter of this report, the Network has made 37 specific recommendations. These recommendations have been divided into short- (immediate to 2 years); medium- (2 – 5 years); and, longer- (5 years +) term actions. We believe these actions will help transform the employment service delivery system to one which is stronger, more responsive and more effective without de-stabilizing the lives of people who have a disability who depend on these services or the employment service agencies that have decades of experience to contribute.

Many of these recommendations will not require financial resources. Rather, we believe they will create immediate and transformative improvements to the system. At the same time, many of these recommendations will result in significant financial savings that can be re-invested in the system. With significant improvements to the employment services system, more people will be encouraged to pursue this option. The system, in turn, must build its capacity so that it can respond accordingly.

Principles & Values – Employment Services

First and foremost it is important to recognize that ‘employment services’ is more than just the transfer payment agencies that provide direct services to people who have a disability. Government Ministries that set policies, regulations, funding mechanisms and manage both people who have a disability who want to work and relationships with transfer payment agencies must also be viewed as ‘employment services’ in this context. To state that employment services are ineffective in Ontario, in turn, means that ‘Government’ is complicit in this ineffectiveness.

Affecting positive changes that will improve employment services and lead to better employment outcomes for people who have a disability, will require a collaborative effort by Government, employment service agencies, people who have a disability and business.

People who have a disability must be viewed as a distinct target group, separate from general welfare (OW) recipients. While they may share the commonality of dependence on the state for financial assistance and benefits, services and supports for people who have a disability are very different and highly specialized. So much so, that the degree of specialization is often unique and based on the specific disability. At the same time, disability is typically ‘for life’ as opposed to short term or intermittent.

We applaud the Commission for recognizing the essential elements of effective services and supports that must be available to people who have a disability. Many people who have a disability can work and want to work, provided they have access to effective services and supports.

These services and supports must be integrated and coordinated in order to achieve better employment outcomes. It must also be recognized that not all people who have a disability will need all of these services. Nor are they necessarily linear from a delivery perspective. People who have a disability must simply be able to access the services they need, when they need them.

As a general principle, the Network believes that government, whether provincial or municipal, should not be in the business of direct service delivery. Rather, it should retain the role of ‘service manager’ and contract direct services to third party delivery agents.

Assessments must not be used to determine eligibility or to screen people out. People must not be denied access to employment services and supports based on the severity of their disability. Assessments must be individualized and flexible as a means to assist people to determine a career goal and path and to identify the supports they will need to be successful. A variety of assessment tools and formats must be available ranging from pre-employment preparation programs and time-limited work experience programs to more formal assessments.

The Network believes that both Assessment and Case Management should be managed by the primary service provider with an option to contract out or purchase formal assessments where appropriate.

Capacity assessments, on the other hand, are fraught with problems and should not be considered at this time. There are many improvements and savings to the system that can be achieved before considering this question and approach.

Employment outcomes should be broadened to include a greater range of performance measures. The Network concurs with the conclusions of ‘When the Bough Breaks’ and believes these apply equally to people who have a disability. It is to everyone’s advantage to support people for a longer period of time. Given the nature of the labour market, people will need additional supports (beyond placement) to grow their careers and further reduce or eliminate their dependency on the income support system. Employers will be more open and willing to hire people who have a disability if they are confident that support will be available to them over the long term.

Employment service providers must be compensated for providing these additional supports through a more integrated funding system.

Should ODSP continue to be a primary support for people who have a disability in the future, they must put more emphasis on helping people prepare for and find employment. Services and supports must be better integrated and available from a single employment service provider with an option to outsource specific services and targeted interventions, I.E. formal assessments, skills training, etc. People who have a disability must also have access to mainstream services and supports that are available to others with employment barriers. They must have a choice as to where and when they access these services and supports.

Early intervention is the key to helping people bypass the Income Support system. It is critical that government give serious consideration and make strategic investments in youth employment initiatives. At the same time, employment service agencies must be compensated at the same level for supporting eligible non-income support recipients.

The Network strongly supports the Commission’s goal ‘to make recommendations that will respond to the work aspirations of people with disabilities and support their participation to the maximum of their abilities.’ However, we do not believe that people who have a disability should be compelled to work through mandatory participation regulations given the number of barriers that are beyond their control.

If conditions are favourable and quality services and supports available, many more people who have a disability will chose to pursue employment.

Strong connections with employers are critical to success. Employers must be seen as a ‘customer’ and additional resources are needed to adequately and appropriately service this customer. The greatest incentives for employers are often those that alleviate their fears and reduce their perceived level of risk. This, in conjunction with the trust and knowledge that the agency’s services are of high quality and available over the long term are often enough to convince an employer to hire.

More effort is needed in the area of employer education and awareness. While there is speculation that the AODA will enhance employment opportunities, there is also speculation that it may have a short-term negative effect as employers attempt to ‘duck’ government involvement and compliance requirements. Many of today’s, business-to-business campaigns like the Network’s Champions League and Rotary at Work, attempt to show businesses the ‘carrot, rather than the stick’ when it comes to the benefits of hiring people who have a disability.

Marketing to business should not be designed and delivered by government. Business is generally shy of government initiatives. Rather, government should support marketing initiatives developed and implemented by third party providers.

Revisions and improvements to the employment services system must ensure employment service providers spend more time on service delivery and less time on administration. Managing multiple service contracts, reporting relationships, data bases and accountability processes is not efficient and takes time and resources that could be better spent on delivering services and supports. This will require a single source funding relationship. Further administrative efficiencies can be gained by moving to an audit based accountability system for those people who have a disability who work.

Supported Employment, which has some distinct service characteristics, is defined as paid employment – ‘real work for real pay’. While it was initially launched as a strategy to engage people who have an intellectual disability in employment, it has been adopted by a much broader audience as a successful service technology. The Commission should not overlook the impact of the DS Sector and DS Branch of the MCSS in its review of employment services in Ontario.

The Network agrees that Government must make a greater investment in employment services for people who have a disability. Much of this investment can be found in the administrative efficiencies identified in this report. Investment is needed to increase the capacity of service providers as well as in professional development and innovation. Funding for employment service agencies need to balance core operating costs with performance-based incentives.

Once an effective operating environment is achieved, employment service providers that consistently under-perform should be phased out.

People in receipt of ODSP need greater incentives to work and the security that they will not be financially worse off by working or penalized if they fail in the workforce.

The Network strongly supports the Drummond concept that government must invest more money in people that need more support. At the same time, if Government wants to see more people get jobs, they must build the capacity of the employment service sector to respond. There is no value in assessing people as to their needs, if appropriate services and supports are not available.

The Network does not believe that employment services should be consolidated under EO. Fundamentally, we believe the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities does not have a good understanding of the unique needs of people who have a disability when it comes to employment services and supports. Furthermore, the types and amounts of services and supports people who have a disability need does not fit the One-Stop model that MTCU is mandated to provide. We strongly believe that under this model, people who have more significant disabilities will fall even further behind.

Irrespective of which delivery option is chosen, inter-ministerial collaboration is a fundamental requirement. All government ministries and departments that touch on any aspect of disability is in a position to positively or negatively impact employment outcomes for people who have a disability. One ministry or department should not be initiating programs or services that compete with or undermine employment options and opportunities.

Service participants and employment service providers must have significant input into what the new system should look like.

Principles & Values – Benefits

Adequacy levels are an overriding and dominating issue that needs to be addressed. As the Commission has pointed out, this exercise must unfold through a poverty-reduction lens. For people to consider pursuing employment there must be a sense of financial stability and security. In addition, consequences for failure in the workforce must be minimized or eliminated.

The Commission must look at the combination of income support and wages with improved incentives that encourage people to try working. Adequacy and financial stability/security must also consider; medical benefits, specific disability-related supports (E.g. special diet allowance), child care and housing. People with disabilities need the security of knowing that health benefits will be stable, irrespective of their status in employment or social assistance. In some cases the disability itself will result in a higher dependency on medical benefits.

The Network believes, in principle, that health benefits should be available to all low-income Ontarians. There is a cost of providing health benefits, but there is also a cost of not providing health benefits.

The Network does not support a two-rate approach. Instead, we support a system that ‘increases asset limits for an initial period of time when an individual first enters the program’.

There should not be a separate, basic income program for people with severe disabilities. Supplements, due to additional costs associated with the disability may be considered as should different services and supports. However, the Network and its members believe the notion of dividing disability into two groups based on employability has some severe consequences. The proposed concept will entrap people in the social assistance system for life.

While there is some concern that record keeping may be a bigger problem for people who have a disability, most people seem to be satisfied that, with proper support, people who have a disability should be held to the same standard as other citizens.

It is imperative that people understand the rules that govern the income support system. This includes those who manage the system, service recipients and the support organizations and advocacy groups that act on behalf of people who have a disability. Materials and documents related to the income support system must be available in plain language and in alternate formats.

Chapter 1: Reasonable Expectations and Necessary Supports to Employment

Features of Effective Services and Supports

We applaud the Commission for recognizing the essential elements that create effective services and supports. The overview of these services and supports is very much in keeping with those identified by the Network (see Appendix A – Path to Employment). The following reflects some of the comments/clarifications and recommendations from our constituents:

Consistent assessment and case management:

 

Assessments must be individualized and flexible. The type and intensity of assessment must respond to a variety of situations – the type and/or level of disability; career goals; degree to which the individual is self-directed; etc. Often, for people who have a disability, the most critical assessment is the determination of individual motivation, reliability and dependability (MRD). This is often determined through participation in pre-employment preparation programs. Pre-employment preparation programs are also valuable in assisting the service provider to get to know the candidate. This greatly assists in ensuring a good job ‘match’.

Work experience should also be considered a form of assessment and is often built into pre-employment preparation programs. Guidelines are needed to ensure work experience placements are time-limited and curriculum-based and not simply ‘free labour’ or never-ending.

Formal assessments are more common where the individual wishes to pursue a particular career goal, skilled trade or profession; or, where there is question about the stability of someone who has a mental health or medical disability.

Assessments must not be used to determine eligibility or to screen people out. Everyone who is motivated to work must have access to the employment delivery system. It is not uncommon to find employment for a highly motivated individual with an accommodating employer even though the severity of their disability may seem impractical or insurmountable on first encounter. In a 2003 study of over 2,500 people who had a disability and who engaged service agencies for assistance to find paid employment, the most successful disability group was people who have an intellectual disability. On a per capita basis, this group was the most successful at both getting jobs and in their job retention. (See http://www.odenetwork.com/library/employment-outcomes-project-report-sept-2003/ for details.)

Case management must be provided by the primary service provider. Again, this is an individualized and flexible service that is very dependant on the individual’s needs and ability to self-manage their services and supports. Case management is more successful when provided by the primary service provider as the service provider is a ‘constant’ in the employment delivery process and most often is the one that is setting up appointments and interviews and assisting the candidate to achieve their goals. Often third party case management is not readily available and typically is not responsive to the needs of the individual in a timely way. This service is best provided by those who work with the individual on a day-to-day basis.

In the early launch of ODSP ES, Assessments were routinely performed as a separate, stand alone service and often by third party assessors. Experience has shown that these assessments tended to be ‘formula-driven’, were often unhelpful to the employment process, irrelevant and rarely addressed the match between a motivated candidate and an available opportunity. Valuable resources were wasted when each individual was required to undergo a mandatory assessment by these third-party assessors. Third party assessments should be available by exception rather than the rule.

The Network believes that both Assessment and Case Management should be managed by the primary service provider with an option to contract out or purchase formal assessments where appropriate.

Integrated pre- and post-employment services and supports:

 

The Network agrees that outcomes ‘should be broadened to include performance measures related to pre-employment activities and addressing barriers to employment’ for people who have a disability. In general, it would be advantageous to support people for the long run and in a more holistic way. In this respect the conclusions of ‘When the Bough Breaks’ apply equally to people who have a disability.

Despite the funding limitations of ODSP-ES and EO, some service providers offer on-going support to people who have a disability and to employers through pre-employment preparation programs, job coaching and trouble-shooting. These service providers often have access to other resources and/or supports, financed by Service Canada, DSA or MOH funding. In addition they frequently address ‘off the job’ issues like housing, transportation, budgeting, financial reporting, etc. These service providers tend to have better employment outcomes than those who operate with only one funding source. (See http://www.odenetwork.com/library/employment-outcomes-project-report-sept-2003/ for details.)

Given the changing labour market, people who have a disability often enter the workforce in low, entry-level positions, often working part-time without benefits. While this is a good first step, in order to reduce and eventually eliminate people’s dependency on ODSP-IS, additional supports may be needed. This will help people grow in their career and/or assist them to get new or second part-time jobs. This is particularly important in the current labour market.

Access to the same level of services for people who have a disability:

 

ODSP must put more emphasis on helping people who have a disability prepare for and find employment. People who have a disability can work and want to work. They must have access to the same range of services, including skills upgrading and training as other groups, in addition to disability-specific services and supports.

People who have a disability need access to the full range of services and supports, from pre-employment preparation & training to job placement and post-employment supports. These services and supports must be better integrated and, in general, available from single source service providers. Employment service providers may need to outsource specific services for targeted interventions as needed; E.g. skill specific training.

We support the Commission’s conclusion that early intervention is important for people with mental illness. In fact, we believe early intervention should be seen as a critical investment for all people who have a disability. Early intervention is key to helping people bypass the Income Support system. People who have a disability often graduate from high school, college or university with little or no work experience, no practical experience for their resume or understanding of realistic career goals. The need for financial security while the individual is struggling to gain employment typically ‘drives’ them to the Income Support system and the longer a person is receiving ODSP-IS, the more difficult it is to help them leave that system.

Graduating from school with practical work experience raises the expectation that work is the next logical step for people who have a disability. Service providers are seeing more people who have a disability who are not in receipt of Income Support in cases where those individuals have had access to co-op placements, summer employment and after school jobs.

We appreciate the Commission’s goal ‘to make recommendations that will respond to the work aspirations of people with disabilities and support their participation to the maximum of their abilities.’ This aligns with the Network’s position that people who are motivated should have access to the labour market and the services and supports that will help them achieve this goal. However, we do not believe that people who have a disability should be compelled to work through mandatory participation regulations.

There still remain too many barriers, many of which are beyond the control of people who have a disability, to mandate participation. (See Appendix B – Barriers to Employment) Business and the labour market are not yet ready to support full participation and the service system does not have the capacity to support full participation. Current, government policy frameworks and funding do not support full participation and many families and individuals with disabilities are very risk adverse with respect to the loss of income support and benefits. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult and costly to force ‘motivation’ with people who have no desire to work. Who would be held responsible for a lack of success due to lack of motivation, and who would be covering the cost of providing these services?

At this time, active engagement in the labour market should be limited to and focused on youth through further development of youth employment programs and mandated work co-op placements while in school.

The Network would like to caution the Commission with respect to capacity assessments. This could have a number of negative impacts on the system. Assessment tools tend to be unreliable when it comes to determining employability and can create a dependency for life for many people who might otherwise work. Often the impact of disability changes, technology advances and new and creative ways to construct employment emerge. Additionally, opportunity often emerges when least expected. These opportunities should not be overlooked.

Finally, it is our experience that capacity assessments are often used to screen people out or to determine that people are too costly to serve. Assessors, particularly government case workers, are often out of touch with the business environment and the opportunities that may be available.

Strong Connections with Employers

 

The Network and its members strongly support the direction of the Commission with respect to employer engagement. Current funding models do not provide sufficient resources for effective marketing campaigns and often limit longer term coaching, trouble shooting and other interventions, customer service and quality assurance. The relationship with employers and the business community is critical in terms of creating employment opportunities, repeat business, and ensuring job retention, including career advancement and growth.

The connection with employers needs to be done at the local level. While there is a need for ‘big picture’ marketing and education campaigns, it is the relationship at the local level that ensures a strong relationship and that businesses trust the service agency and have access to the on-the-ground services and supports that both employees with disabilities and businesses need.

Business-to-business educational programs have proven to be successful and government should support these types of initiatives. Unfortunately, government-led initiatives like ‘Don’t Waste Talent’ have been less successful. Business operators tell us the message just doesn’t resonate with them.

There are mixed reactions to programs that provide incentives like tax breaks and wage subsidies to employers. Many of the Network’s members find that wage subsidy programs help create opportunities for people who have a disability but that these opportunities too frequently end when the subsidy runs out. As a result many don’t utilize wage subsidy programs or use them only as a measure of last resort. The principle is that when an employer pays the individual, they are, in essence, investing in that person and therefore more committed to a successful outcome. Wage subsidies may be considered legitimate where there is a real cost to the employer that is directly related to the disability.

The incentive for many employers is the trust that the agency’s services and supports will be available over the long term. The security of knowing that support is just a phone call away, is often all the reassurance the employer needs.

The Network recommends that an independent review of wage subsidy initiatives be undertaken. Such a study could examine which employers use wage subsidies and why, how many jobs were created as a direct result of wage subsidies and, what the job retention rate was after the subsidies ran out. With resources so scarce, we need to justify where they are spent and ensure they are being put to good use.

Discussion Questions

How can employment services be made more effective?

First and foremost it is important to recognize that ‘employment services’ is more than just the transfer payment agencies that provide direct services to people who have a disability. Government Ministries that set policies, regulations, funding mechanisms and manage both people who have a disability who want to work and relationships with transfer payment agencies must also be viewed as ‘employment services’ in this context. To state that employment services are ineffective in Ontario, in turn, means that ‘Government’ is complicit in this ineffectiveness.

Employment services must be coordinated and integrated at the government level as well. The Ontario Disability Employment Network strongly recommends that government create a policy framework related to employment for people who have a disability. Such a framework must set the parameters that all Ministries and departments that fund services for people who have a disability (not just employment services) must adhere to.

Recognizing that the implementation of a policy framework will be a longer term proposition, the Network recommends the Commission set out short-, medium-, and long-term goals. These might include:

• Creating an inter-ministerial committee with a mandate to look at employment issues, policy and funding as well as the relationship to other non-employment services for this target group (including Ministries of; Education, Training Colleges & Universities, Community and Social Services, Health and Labour)
• Enhance the provincial Accessibility Advisory Committee guidelines to include accessible employment (currently, accessible employment is not included in the provincial mandate for Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees)
• Including summer and after school employment for students in the new employment delivery system
• Create policies that any ‘new’ money allocated for daytime activity programs is to be directed toward employment programs
• Develop a transition strategy for existing sheltered workshops and day programs that want to convert to employment programs
• · Ensure other funding programs for people who have a disability do not conflict with, undermine or otherwise compete with employment programs (Currently individualized funding models for people who have an intellectual disability are largely unregulated and often used to establish unpaid work in the private sector. As recently as February 2012 the DS Branch of MCSS set out service code guidelines for its transfer payment agencies that not only condone, but promote, unpaid work in the private sector. Given the recent Human Rights case http://www.yorku.ca/ddoorey/lawblog/wp-content/files/Garrie-v.-Janus.pdf where a private business owner was found to be in contravention of Ontario labour law for such practices, it is difficult to understand why one branch of government would promote activities to its Transfer Payment Agencies that clearly contravene the law. (See Appendix C – MCSS Supported Employment Code Explanation)
• A mandate to provide co-op work experiences to all students who have a disability
• Review funding of day programs under the DS Branch and Ministry of Health to determine the extent to which these Ministries are supporting employment programs* The Commission should not overlook the degree and potential impact of these two funding streams if we are to achieve a single funding stream for employment services.

 

Along with this policy framework, the Network also recommends moving to a single source funding stream for employment services for people who have a disability. A move to single source funding will achieve efficiencies both at the service level and financially for both the Government and transfer payment agencies. The savings and efficiencies must then be reinvested in the service delivery system.

We must find ways to ensure employment service providers spend more time on service delivery and less time on administration. Service agencies that currently spend countless hours managing multiple funding contracts; administering several different databases; managing different reporting and accountability measures; and, managing relationships with various Ministry program officers, could redirect those resources into providing more services and/or creating effective marketing initiatives, training staff and managing quality assurance programs. Entire departments within Government Ministries that manage service contracts and client case workers could be reduced or eliminated, again, saving precious resources that could be re-invested into increasing and improving employment services.

There needs to be standards of practice for employment service agencies. Such standards go beyond current Ministry requirements and should include business practices such as: ensuring operators have annual work plans; marketing initiatives are in place; training and professional development for staff; quality assurance programs; client satisfaction programs; customer service standards; and, etc.

Recognizing there will always be resistance to standards, this will be minimized if they are developed by the sector in consultation with service participants, employers and government rather than being developed by government alone.

Government must make a greater investment in employment supports for people who have a disability. As noted in the Commission’s report, ‘there is little focus on helping people receiving ODSP prepare for, and find employment. Investments must be made in professional development and innovation. Since the advent of ODSP’s outcome based funding model, professional development has all but been eliminated. We are now seeing the consequences of this as staff skill levels are not maintained and turnover has meant many more people are working in the sector without the pre-requisite skills. At the same time, without innovation, and resources to encourage and support innovation, service models stagnate and new service technologies fail to emerge as people retrench around old ways of doing business. Since the advent of ODSP-ES, this has become the current state of the industry.

People in receipt of ODSP need greater incentives to work (see chapter 2) and security that, if work fails, they will not be destitute. Employment service providers also need incentives and an understanding that excellence in performance will be rewarded. This comes with the caveat that a 13 week job is not the only performance indicator.

Once improved policy structures and funding frameworks are put in place, service providers that consistently underperform should be phased out.

While the Commission’s report takes an in-depth look at Income Support, including incentives to work, there needs to be a more detailed and comprehensive study of best practices in employment services to identify the key factors that contribute to superior performance.

What should the Commission recommend to encourage greater consistency in effective employment services and supports for social assistance recipients, while still allowing for local flexibility and innovation?

Some suggestions that have already been made will encourage greater consistency while allowing for local flexibility and innovation.

• Enhance the mandate of Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees
• Engage the employment service sector in the design and development of standards of practice
• Create a provincial resource that is designed to support innovation
• Better coordination between various departments of government by establishing an inter-ministerial committee on employment for people who have a disability

Additional strategies might include creating a Provincial advisory/oversight body. This could be similar to an ‘Ontario College of Employment Services’ with input from service participants, advocacy organizations, employers, service providers or their networks and Government. This body could be responsible for creating and monitoring service standards, addressing issues related to training and professional development, complaints and appeals, etc.

Alternately or perhaps, in addition, an advisory body of self advocates would be very helpful.

Further comment on consistency, local flexibility and innovation will follow in discussing the preferred delivery options.

 

 

Should standard assessment tools be used to identify people’s needs and match them to appropriate services and supports?

Every individual is unique, as are the circumstances that surround them – the nature of their disability, their life circumstances, personality traits, family environment, external environment and the opportunities before them. It is not realistic to expect a single, standard assessment tool that can assess the needs of all people and match them to the services and supports they need.

There are some basic principles that the Network subscribes to, with respect to Assessments. They are:

• Focus on ability, what the person has to offer rather than their limitations
• Assessment tools should not be used to screen people out
• Pre-employment programs are vital and, in most cases, provide important assessment information
• There must be flexibility and a variety of assessment tools available
• People should be able to request a re-assessment at any time

 

In general, there are two levels of assessments – one which assesses basic employability based on MRD (motivation, reliability and dependability) and a second that is more formal to assess skills and aptitudes for skilled jobs, trades and/or professional careers.

One of the critical factors related to assessments is that once an individual has been assessed as to their needs, they must then have access to the services and supports needed to be successful. Too often people are over assessed only to determine the appropriate services and supports are not available.

The Network strongly supports the Drummond concept that government must invest more money in people that need more support.

What should be considered appropriate employment-related activity participation requirements for people with disabilities? Should participation requirements for people with disabilities be different from those for other people receiving social assistance?

 

As previously noted, we do not believe people who have a disability should be forced to participate in employment. Many of the barriers faced by people who have a disability are out of their control. There are still many businesses that do not welcome people who have a disability as well as challenges in accessing the labour market. There are physical accessibility issues, transportation, personal support needs, etc that create barriers. In addition, it will take time to improve the employment delivery and income support systems in order to assure people who have a disability that the risk-reward scenario is in their favour.

Forcing people who are not motivated to work or insecure with other aspects of their lives, will drive up costs due to increased efforts by service providers, higher failure rates and poor job retention.

As previously noted, active engagement in the labour market should begin earlier while people who have a disability are still in school

If conditions are favourable and quality services and supports available, many more people who have a disability will pursue employment. Having said that, it is imperative that more emphasis is placed on demonstrating that employment is a viable outcome for people who have a disability.

One of the simplest things that could be done to increase efficiency is to grant eligibility for employment at the same time that eligibility for income support is determined. Time and time again, we hear about lost opportunities. Employment service providers have employers willing to hire and candidates available to fill those positions, but by the time the ODSP Case Worker determines eligibility for the participant the job is lost. This can take as long as six weeks and employers just won’t wait. This is a needless step. Given, under the current ODSP outcomes-based funding model, the risk is on the service provider (as to whether or not they receive funding), we are unable to ascertain why this step is necessary. It is time consuming, an administrative burden and causes a loss of many employment opportunities.

It should be noted that once we increase the demand for employment outcomes, we must be able to respond with appropriate services and supports. The service delivery system will need to build its capacity to respond to that increased demand. Mandatory participation would add significantly to that capacity requirement.

Our recommendation is that the Commission focuses on other barriers within the system e.g. improving the delivery system, increasing employer engagement and acceptance, income security, housing etc. With such improvements in place, this may be a reasonable question for the future.

Should a tool be developed to assess the work capacity of people with disabilities? If so, how should the tool be developed and how should it be used?

The Network believes that capacity assessments are fraught with problems and should not be considered at this time. There are many improvements and savings to the system that must be achieved before considering this approach.

 

What kinds of engagement strategies and incentives would be most effective in encouraging and supporting employers to hire more social assistance recipients?

As previously noted, the Network believes that an independent study on wage subsidies should be conducted. It is important to understand the level to which employers are also, if at all, investing in these employees and, therefore, vested in a successful outcome.

Alleviating employer fears with low risk options has had much success.

Some employment service providers have found that setting up time-limited work experiences has led to successful job offers. Often, at the end of the work experience, the employer is convinced that the individual can contribute to the workplace and commits to an on-going hire.

Some service providers offer options where they become the ‘employer of record’ for a short period. In these cases the service provider contracts with the employer and uses the contracted revenues to pay the individual. After a pre-agreed to time frame (4 to 6 weeks), the employer then decides as to an on-going hire.

Summer and after school employment has a double benefit. It is generally viewed by the business as a risk-free way to try a candidate who has a disability as there is an ‘end in sight’. At the same time, this offers valuable experience to a young person who needs to build their experience, capacity and expectations with respect to work.

Some agencies offer on-going support for as long as the candidate is employed including ‘out-placement’ assistance if the hire doesn’t work out. Many employers have told us that the greatest fear in hiring is the fear of firing. Alleviating this fear is a great relief to many employers.

In general, more work needs to be done to ensure and support employment service providers to view the employer as a ‘customer’. Work places and jobs evolve over time and employers look to the ‘disability experts’ for on-going support. On-going customer service, including job coaching, trouble shooting and longer-term support such as re-training must be available. Local service providers must have the capacity and resources to build strong relationships with employers.

Much more effort and work needs to be done on employer education and marketing initiatives. Routinely we hear about labour shortages and the need to boost immigration as a primary solution to these shortages. We need to replace this mantra with one that suggests ‘a ready and willing labour source already exists, here in your own backyard’.

Business to business models of educating and marketing work very well as evidenced by groups like Rotary at Work, the Network’s Champion’s League, JOIN’s Business Leadership Network and others. These initiatives should be supported and developed further. There is a role for service providers to coordinate and support these efforts. However, if government assistance is provided, they must be held accountable through measures that assess their effectiveness, such as the number of businesses that have hired and the number of people employed as a direct result.

In general, marketing to employers should not be designed and delivered directly by government. The business mindset is that they want government ‘out of their face’ and attempts by government to gain business’s favour are typically rejected.

 

The Options

 

Improved Provincial-Municipal/First Nations Collaboration

While there is always room for, and a need, to improve Provincial-Municipal/First Nations collaboration, the Network does not believe this will result in the desired outcomes necessary to make significant improvement in the delivery of social assistance and employment services.

It is clear that no one is happy with the status quo and that major improvements are required. As the Commission has stated; “we need to transform the social assistance system; small fixes will not be enough.” It is difficult to mandate and regulate collaboration and, based on past history, the Network’s members are not convinced this will achieve the wholesale changes we need to make to the system.

Still, inter-ministerial collaboration is a must. There are many Provincial Ministries that have a steak in employment and disability – Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour and others. There must be an over-riding employment policy framework that each of these Ministries will operate within, regardless of which Ministry has the lead responsibility for employment services.

Service participants and employment service providers must have significant input as to what this system should look like.

Municipalities Deliver all Employment Supports

Under certain conditions, this would be the first choice of the Ontario Disability Employment Network and its members. Rather than integrating ODSP and OW into the EO system, we believe the disability portion of EO – mandate and resources along with ODSP-ES, MCSS DS Employment programs, MOH Employment programs and Service Canada OF, would all be better positioned with Municipalities.

Municipalities are more in touch with local issues and tend to be more flexible and supportive of the people who live in their communities. This would have a positive effect with respect to the delivery of Income Support and the integration of child care and housing supports.

Municipalities also tend to be better connected to local businesses and the local labour market. We recommend that municipalities will need to increase their profile and collaboration with local Training Boards and Employment Sector Councils in order to achieve greater success.

We believe this model will work if the municipality becomes the service delivery manager. Municipalities will then contract with third party delivery agents. Not-for-profit agencies that specialize in disability should play a primary role in direct service delivery.

This will require all monies earmarked for disability and employment, regardless of source, be funnelled through the Municipality as a single funding source. This should include the Service Canada Opportunities Fund. Service Canada can determine what the money is to be spent on, but day-to-day management should be by the municipality.

As a general principle, the Network believes that government, whether provincial or municipal, should not be in the business of direct service delivery. Rather, it should retain the role of ‘service manager’ and contract direct services to third party delivery agents.

At the same time, people who have a disability must have access to mainstream employment supports provided by EO or other employment services. This will be particularly important to individuals who are self-directed or who want to pursue professional designations and/or certifications.

The key is to have a choice of service delivery agents and methodologies to ensure people who have more significant disabilities – people needing more intensive employment supports, those who need pre-employment preparation supports and those who are not self directed – have access to the labour market and are not screened out based on the severity of their disability.

The Municipality could be the primary point of access for people who have a disability. In this way, the Municipality will be the first point of reference for information about employment services and will provide referrals to the employment service providers.

We caution, however, that the concept of ‘job ready’ is highly subjective and can create its own barriers. Job Ready is often used as the rationale to screen people out and the concept overlooks ‘opportunity’ (the right place at the right time and/or the right ‘match’).

It also tends to lead to service options where people must be deemed ‘job ready’ before being referred into the employment stream and many valuable resources are spent on ‘getting people ready’. Experience has shown that many people are successful learning on the job when this is combined with time limited pre-employment preparation programs that work toward finding the right ‘match’ and effective job coaching supports.

We recommend, rather, that people are given ‘choice’ as to service providers/streams and that employment service providers are best suited to assess and determine ‘job ready’. As noted, this is often a case of matching the candidate to an opportunity available in conjunction with the service provider’s capacity to provide the necessary services and supports.

Employment Ontario Delivers all Employment Services

Consolidated Employment Supports under EO is the least desirable of the three options. The Canada-Ontario Labour Market Agreement was developed in 2005 and launched in 2008 with a commitment from the Federal Government of $1.2 billion over 6 years. As per the Agreement, persons with disabilities are to be one of the recipient groups of the services and supports funded through this Agreement. While some previous contracts that service agencies held with the Federal Government are still operating, we are now going into year 5 of a 6 year program and MTCU has not been able to establish a disability strategy.

Fundamentally, we believe the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities does not have a good understanding of the unique needs of people who have a disability when it comes to employment services and supports.

Furthermore, the types and amounts of services and supports people who have a disability need does not fit the One-Stop model that MTCU is mandated to provide. The EO model and resource base, as calculated on per unit costs of specified interventions, is not flexible enough, nor does it provide sufficient resources to support people who have a disability. As noted in the Drummond report, Government must invest more money in people that need more support. This concept is at odds with the EO method of operating where unit costs are based on interventions rather than on people.

One-Stop service models existed in the 70’s and early 80’s, known then as Canada Manpower Centres. Similarly, these Centres were not able to service people who had a disability. The majority of people who had a disability that went to Canada Manpower Centres looking for assistance were referred to sheltered workshops or specialized disability agencies. Their capacity to service this group, both in terms of available resources and expertise, was insufficient.

The Network has serious concerns that people with more severe disabilities will fall even further behind in this service model.

For the past two decades, the disability service sector has been phasing out sheltered workshops in favour of community-based employment and other community options. Sheltered workshops contribute to lifelong dependency on Social Assistance and generally provide menial and repetitive tasks with little benefit for participants. Government should continue to support efforts to phase these programs out, in favour of competitive employment. Transition supports may be needed to do so.

Regardless of options, there must be sufficient resources to provide the full range of services and supports for people who have a disability, as the Commission has so clearly identified. If a One-Stop model is chosen, there must be access to the specialized services and supports people who have a disability need.

Chapters 2 & 3

The Network focussed its discussions related to ‘benefits’ primarily on those issues that will reduce the barriers to employment. While many of the following questions are focussed on all income support recipients, the Ontario Disability Employment Network has responded specifically from a disability perspective.

 

 

Chapter 2

 

Appropriate Benefits Structure

Discussion Questions – General

Which adequacy & wage benchmarks should be used to set rates? Are there other measures that should be considered?

Adequacy levels are overriding and dominating issues that need to be addressed. As the Commission has pointed out, this exercise must unfold through a poverty-reduction lens. For people to consider pursuing employment there must be a sense of financial stability and security. In addition, consequences for failure in the workforce must be minimized or eliminated.

 

 

 

In looking at rates, the Commission must look at the combination of income support and wages with improved incentives that encourage people to try working. Adequacy and financial stability/security must also consider the total package including; income support, wages, medical benefits, specific disability-related supports (E.g. special diet allowance), child care and housing.

Even though the current system provides some level of financial incentives, the negative impact on subsidized housing often removes this incentive and can place the individual in a negative financial position.

If responsibility for the employment service delivery system were to move to the Municipality, it would be easier to manage an adjusted benefit structure that recognizes all financial elements of people who are in receipt of income support.

Once adequacy and the total financial package issues are addressed, the Commission should build in additional incentives such as an adjustment to the claw back formula or an earned income supplement.

Some incentives would be non-monetary. That is, if the system were easier to manage and understand and was more fluid, people would be more likely to pursue employment. (See discussion re: rate structures)

 

 

Should health benefits be provided to all eligible low-income Ontarians? If so, how should the cost be covered?

The Network believes, in principle, that health benefits should be available to all low-income Ontarians. There is a cost of providing health benefits, but there is also a cost of not providing health benefits.

People with disabilities need the security of knowing that health benefits will be stable, irrespective of their status in employment or social assistance. In some cases the disability itself will result in a higher dependency on medical benefits. In an employment setting, this may result in higher costs to the employer and such costs should be off-set in order that a person who has a disability is not seen as a greater financial burden than other employees.

Additionally, ODSP should review eligible prescriptions, relative to the disability-related needs of people who have a disability.

Government needs to look at revenue streams as a part of the resolution to this issue. It is unfair that each time government faces a revenue shortage that it is people who are most vulnerable who pay the price through cost cutting and cost containment measures rather than looking for new revenue sources.

Consideration should be given to folding the cost of medical benefits into the Ontario Health Tax base so that there is only one program of this type for employers to be concerned about.

Should Ontario use a two-rate approach, based on how long someone requires social assistance? If so, should there be exemptions from starting at the lower short-term rate?

The Network does not support a two-rate approach. Instead, the Network supports a system that ‘increases asset limits for an initial period of time when an individual first enters the program.’ Consideration should be given for people, disabled or otherwise, who run into emergency or dire, short-term difficulty. This will mean setting a maximum time limit on receiving financial assistance, e.g. 3 months, without having to reduce assets beyond a reasonable level. This might include maintaining a primary residence & vehicle (to a certain value), pension plan, registered education savings plans, etc. At the end of the time frame, the traditional asset rules would apply.

The concept of this approach is to assist people from falling into long-term dependency by not forcing them to liquidate, within reason, those assets that can help maintain their longer-term financial stability and independence.

This approach will require further study and consideration, in terms of establishing the right amount of support (insufficient support may not help people get out of their circumstances); how the length of time is determined; and, what assets are allowable and the appropriate limits of such assets.

Would an earned income supplement be a good mechanism to increase the incentive to work? If so, how should it be designed?

We have had a mixed response to this question from the Network’s members. Some think that while a tax-based program would be more universal and easier to manage, others believe the relief needs to be more immediate for people who live in poverty. People who live ‘hand to mouth’ need those incentives to be more immediate and responsive.

Other members feel that ‘a better-designed earned income supplement, with a higher actual value and later withdrawal as income rises beyond a reference wage’ would be effective, although the proof lies in the detail and the Network would like to see some proposals with realistic figures in order to fully evaluate the merits of this approach.

Still others believe that the Government should reduce the ODSP claw back amounts or provide greater cash bonuses to people who work. Members generally concur that tax based programs are not as much of an incentive as changing the claw back formula.

Other recommendations include improvements to educate service participants about the benefit system, simplifying the language and moving away from the intrusive and punitive surveillance system that currently exists.

Amortizing income and reducing administration in chasing down paper work would add great efficiencies to the system while making it easier on service recipients to manage their budgets. (See ‘How should the current rate structure be changed…’ Pg 26)

Would a housing benefit improve fairness and the incentive to work? If so, how should it be designed?

When considering personal and emotional priorities, a safe and secure place to live, personal health and food are paramount. People who do not have these three basic necessities are not generally well positioned to successfully pursue employment. The shortage of subsidized housing and loss of housing subsidies due to earned income is a deterrent to working. The Commission should address housing issues if it wants to see more people who have a disability pursue employment.

Housing subsidies should be managed as part of the total income security package. Reductions of housing subsidies should be on a sliding scale, initiated at a much higher level, where the combined family income of wages and income support is much closer to the reference wage or other poverty-level indicators. In this way, the housing subsidy would be reduced as the person or family makes there way beyond the reference wage or poverty level that is established.

Discussion Questions – Disability Specific

How should income supplements for low-income people who have a disability be designed and delivered? Should such supplements be provided outside the social assistance system?

Disability income supports need to be maintain as a distinct and separate system from other social assistance recipients. Income support for people who have a disability is not a short-term requirement – generally, disabilities are for life. People who have a disability should be seen as different from other social assistance recipients and resources should be directed at responding to the support needs of the individual due to their disability and the barriers that society has created for them, including the barriers to earn a reasonable income.

Should there be a separate basic income program for people with severe disabilities who are unlikely to generate significant earnings?

No. The notion of dividing disability into two groups based on employability has some severe consequences. As previously noted, emerging technologies, changing labour markets, improved service delivery technologies and greater employer acceptance will impact future job opportunities for people who have a disability. The proposed concept will entrap people in the social assistance system for life.

Discussion Questions – Rate Structures

The Network will answer the questions about changing the rate structure and moving from a surveillance system together as we believe the solution is inter-related.

How should the current rate structure be changed to reduce complexity?

 

Should the social assistance system move from a surveillance approach toward an audit-based system of verification and monitoring?

 

The Network envisions a reporting and rate structure that is like an equal billing process, similar to one used by Ontario Hydro or Enbridge Gas Company. That is: a system where people report their income monthly and their ODSP Income Support payments are calculated and adjusted annually. This should incorporate the following features:

• The individual will report any major income adjustments adjustments (up or down) or other change in life circumstances that would ‘trigger’ an equal billing re-calculation.
• A deviation factor/range can be pre-set. In the event that a monthly report exceeds this range an equal billing re-calculation is triggered.
• In the event that an individual misses a monthly report, an average is calculated based on the previous 3 months to determine if any adjustments are required.
• Income reporting & social assistance payments will be reconciled annually (validated by a copy of the individual’s annual T4 slip) This means service agencies will no longer be required to chase down paperwork for every candidate on every pay period, which is the current practice
• Overpayments and required reimbursements will be calculated and paid back on a similar ‘equal billing’ basis.
• This will be an automated, computer-driven system which will create significant administrative efficiencies.

 

In conjunction with this ‘equal billing’ system, the Network recommends moving to an ‘audit’ based system. Such a system should be applied in similar proportion to current tax audits and people who are audited should be entitled to the same rights of legal council and the ability to ‘negotiate’ re-payments in the same way other people negotiate tax settlements.

We believe that together, these changes will achieve a number of outcomes:

1. This will be much easier to administer, creating significant savings within Government. These resources can then be re-invested in service delivery.
2. This will be more efficient for service providers, allowing them to spend more time on service delivery and other operational activities that benefit the people they serve.
3. This system will be more dignified and less intrusive for people who have a disability.
4. People will have a more consistent and stable income stream.
5. This will streamline rules and be much easier to understand as equal billing is a familiar concept.
6. This will also reduce administrative errors, which are not uncommon, that trigger letters that threaten to ‘cut people off’.
7. Other efficiencies may be found through this change, allowing for greater investment in employment services for people who have a disability.

 

Should the special dietary needs for all low-income people, including those receiving social assistance, be addressed through the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care?

This may be a consideration longer term but at this juncture, why get another level of government involved? This change is not deemed by the Network to be a critical issue that demands immediate attention.

Chapter 3

Easier to Understand

Discussion Questions – Managing Risk

As noted, the Network believes that an audit system would be more efficient, much simpler and less intrusive. Along with this there must be reasonable ways to deal with overpayments and other potential abuses. Our concern is that Government tends to adopt the points they like and leave others out. To move to an audit system in isolation of the other items discussed would be unfair and could cause undue hardship to the people intended to be supported.

It should also be noted that abuses are not necessarily in the hands of the recipients. Administrative errors and mistakes are often made by the Ministry’s own staff as well.

What penalties would be required and feasible in an audit-based system?

As noted, overpayments would be reclaimed on an ‘equal billing’ basis, presumably over the following 12 month period or longer if deemed appropriate. Deliberate abuses should be dealt with within the legal framework.

What is the right level of risk tolerance, in either the current system or an audit-based system?

The current system seems to work on a presumption that abuses are rampant and people need to be kept in check. There is a cost to both a surveillance and an audit system. One would wonder, however, what this cost is and how much of our resources are going into the current surveillance system. When reviewing ‘risk tolerance’ we would be better informed if we knew what the cost of monitoring is, relative to the cost of presumed abuses.

The Network recommends that the Commission undertake a study that looks at the cost of monitoring vs. the number (and cost) of abuses that exist. In this way Government can assess the level of risk involved and build an appropriate audit system.

It is imperative that people understand the system and the rules that govern the income support system. This includes those who to manage the system, service recipients and the support organizations and advocacy groups that act on behalf of people who have a disability.

Materials, guidelines and guide books must be developed in plain language and alternate formats so that everyone can understand the rules and regulations.

Consideration should be given to support third party aides who can guide people though the income support system. These guides could also act as advocates in the event of audits and/or reviews.

While there is some concern that record keeping seems to be a bigger problem for people with disabilities in an audit based system, most people seem to be satisfied that people who have a disability should be held to the same standard of accountability as other citizens. In moving to an annual reconciliation, based on a T4 slip, this risk factor would be reduced greatly.

Ontario Disability Employment Network

Recommendations

Recommendations – Short-term (immediate to 2 years)

1. Disability supports – both income and employment – must be maintained as distinct and separate from other income support recipients I.e. OW. Disability is a life-long issue and a great number of the barriers faced by people who have a disability is beyond their personal control.
2. Government should support business-to-business educational and marketing initiatives. These must include accountability measures to validate their achievements and effectiveness.
3. An independent study of wage subsidy initiatives should be undertaken to determine if this is an effective use of resources. The study should review who uses subsidies and why and the percentage of people who retain their jobs once the subsidy is exhausted.
4. An independent study of ‘best practices’ in employment supports should be undertaken to learn about creative and innovative approaches and how these can be replicated in the employment services sector.
5. Create an inter-ministerial committee with a mandate to coordinate employment for people who have a disability as well as the integration of employment services with other non-employment disability departments and programs.
6. Enhance the provincial mandate for Accessibility Advisory Committees to include accessible employment. This will by timely considering the introduction of the AODA Integrated Standards.
7. Modify the eligibility requirements for ODSP Employment Supports such that once an individual is deemed eligible for ODSP Income Support, they are automatically eligible for employment supports, eliminating the need for employment service agencies to get additional approvals prior to assisting these individuals to find employment.
8. Streamline the approval process for people who have a disability who are not in receipt of Income Support so that they are not forced to become Income Support recipients in order to access employment services.
9. Conduct a review of funding for day programs within the MCSS DS branch and MOH, to determine the extent to which these funds are financing employment programs.
10. Review other funding programs for people who have a disability and ensure they don’t conflict with, compete or undermine the objectives of employment services e.g. individualized funding, DS supported employment service guidelines, etc.
11. Create a provincial resource to support innovation.
12. Municipalities should begin to engage and collaborate with local Workforce Development Boards and Employment Sector Councils.
13. Ensure better education for people who have a disability and their advocates to ensure they understand how the Income Support system works and the effects of earned income on their income supports and benefits.
14. Materials and guidelines must be developed in plain language and alternate formats to assist everyone to understand the rules and regulations related to the income support system.
15. Create a system of third-party aids (or bolster and expand upon the APSW concept) who can guide people through the income support system to ensure everyone knows and understands the rules and regulations.
16. Eliminate the ‘punitive’ approach to people who make mistakes in income reporting.
17. Housing subsidies should be managed as part of the ‘total’ income security package. Reductions of housing subsidies should be on a sliding scale and initiated when the combination of income supports and wages is much closer to the reference wage or other poverty-level indicators. To earn extra income from wages is pointless if it triggers an off-setting increase to costs.
18. Do not create a separate basic income program for people who have more severe disabilities. The negative consequences of such a move far outweigh the benefits.
19. The Network does not believe that moving the special dietary allowance to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care is a critical issue at this time.
20. The Network recommends the Commission undertake a study to determine the cost of monitoring income support abuses vs. the number and costs of abuses that have been reported in order to assess an appropriate response and level of risk management.

 

Recommendations – Medium-term (2 to 5 years)

1. Government must create an employment policy framework that sets out the parameters – policies, programs and funding – that all ministries and government departments must adhere to.
2. Government must move to a single stream of funding for all employment services for people who have a disability and this funding should be managed by municipalities. This should include ODSP-ES, MTCU EO (disability funds), MCSS DS employment funding, MOH employment funding and Service Canada Opportunities Fund. This should be done under a discreet and protected framework specified for the delivery of employment services for people who have a disability. Municipalities must become the service delivery manager and contract out the delivery of direct services to third-party delivery agents that specialize in providing employment services for people who have a disability.
3. Develop and include youth employment programs – summer and after school jobs – as a legitimate stream within employment services for people who have a disability.
4. Create policies that direct ‘new’ investments for daytime support services to prioritize those programs and initiatives that promote employment and/or employment preparation
5. Create a transition strategy to assist existing sheltered workshops to transition to employment programs
6. Create a provincial mandate that all school boards must ensure co-op work placements for high school students over the age of 16.
7. Support and work with the employment service sector and service participants to establish standards of practice for employment service agencies.
8. Further investigation is needed with respect to incentives and the Income Support/earned wages balance. Today we still seem to have more questions than answers. Focus on fixing those aspects of the system that can readily be improved.
9. Consider changing the asset rules and limits for people newly entering the Income Support system.
10. Provide further studies and consultation on an ‘earned income supplement’ approach. Propose some realistic scenarios, with dollar values included, to help fully evaluate the merits of this approach.
11. Change the reporting and rate structure to a technology-based system that mirrors an ‘equal billing’ process similar to that which is used by utilities companies. The potential savings from this action alone will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions. These precious resources can be re-invested in the delivery system to help more people get into the workforce.
12. In conjunction with this ‘equal billing’ system, Government should move to an audit-based accountability system. This will also create substantial savings in government efficiencies and in the service system that can also be re-invested in the service delivery system.

 

Recommendations – Longer-term (5 years +)

1. Investigate the potential and benefits of establishing an ‘Ontario College of Employment Services’ for people who have a disability as a possible oversight body. This could include an advisory body of service participants, employers and government.
2. Investigate and consider an accreditation process for employment service providers to ensure service quality and conformity to established standards of practice.
3. Further study is needed with respect to crating a health benefit program for all low income Ontarians. In principle the Network supports this move but more details are needed in terms of how this will be financed and the impact of this benefit.
4. Assess and evaluate the impact of the actions taken in the short- and medium-turn recommendations, and resulting changes to the employment and income support system for people who have a disability.
5. Establish the next level of strategic analysis and actions necessary to continue to improve the employment options for people who have a disability.

Appendices

Appendix A – Path to Employment

See attached

Appendix B – Barriers to Employment

See attached

Appendix C – MCSS Supported Employment Code Explanation

See attached

2011 has been a great year that has provided the Ontario Disability Employment Network the ability to make strides in government relationships, engage other partners, and develop new initiatives and opportunities to make a difference for persons with disabilities seeking employment.

The following represents the highlights of our accomplishments over the past year and our commitment to being a unified voice for our membership. This has been achieved through the volunteer efforts of our Board of Directors, a one-day per week Executive Director and, of course, the contributions of our members.

We would like to take this opportunity to again thank our sponsors and patrons. As you may know, the Network has made a conscience decision not to pursue government funding, so that our advocacy efforts are not limited or impeded. The Network’s revenue sources come from membership dues, revenue from events and training sessions and a few organizations that have generously donated financial and in-kind contributions to help the Network continue its valued work.

It is important to the Network that we continue to remain responsive to the issues that matter most to you as we continue to meet the challenges that face us in finding and maintaining employment for people who have a disability. We are interested in getting your feedback along with your direction and support. This will assist the Network to continue to be a success and a strong voice for the employment services sector.

Joe Dale
Executive Director

Debbi Soucie
Co-Chair

Bob Vansickle
Co- Chair

Communications
We have had the opportunity over the past year to develop a number of avenues to spread the message of the Network and also encourage conversation and provide a forum to engage others when issues/concerns have arisen.

• Website – we partnered with eSSENTIAL Accessibility Inc. in May which is a web browser for persons with a disability. This has ensured access to our website is more efficient and effective.
Special acknowledgement goes out to our volunteer contributors, Aerin and Jimmy Guy of SpaceRace! (http://gospacerace.com/), who make having a website possible for the Network. Our site is located at http://www.odenetwork.com/
• Twitter – for the past year we have been sharing news and updates on twitter and you can connect with the Network at http://twitter.com/#!/odenetwork
• Facebook – we are up and running on Facebook with a page that will provide opportunities to share information and engage in conversations. We can be found at http://tinyurl.com/6scvzj2.
• LinkedIn Group – we now have an Ontario Disability Employment Network group where opportunities are available to share resources and converse on topics of interest. Connect with us by going to http://tinyurl.com/7gkewxr.
• Email – we can be contacted also at odenetwork@cogeco.ca

Government Relations
It is essential that our member organizations continue to be able to deliver quality employment services and therefore the Network has been instrumental this year in developing strong and engaging relationships with government.

ODSP-ES
• In May the Board of Directors of the the Network became aware of the ODSP-ES evaluations that were being conducted by Cathexis Consulting. It came to our attention, however, that a number of our members were concerned about providing contact information for the employers they work with. THE NETWORK broached this issue on behalf of the membership with the consultants and ODSP. As a result, Cathexis took a different approach to gathering information from employers.
M.P.P. Election Strategy

• The Network developed a tool kit that was made available to services providers to assist them in getting the attention of the candidates for the provincial election in October and also provided key messages that targeted access to services including specialized services, greater investment in employment services and an ‘Employment First’ Policy framework.

Social Assistance Review Commission
• On August 25th the Network submitted a report and presented a PowerPoint presentation to the commission which was very well received and this relationship continues with the Commission’s interest in receiving input from the Network as their work unfolds. At the Network’s Conference and AGM that was held in November Leah Myers, Executive Lead, of the SAR Commission presented an overview of the Commission’s findings and dialogue about how we can help more people who have a disability get into the workforce. A number of the recommendations that the Network made at the August 25th meeting were adopted into the Commission’s findings and recommendations.

The Network’s ‘Employment Ontario Task Force’
• As EO deliberates on its ‘disability strategy’ it was apparent that their policy staff had a very superficial understanding of disability, the barriers facing people who have a disability with respect to accessing the labour market or the services and supports they need to be successful. The EO Task Force created two documents which were presented to the policy leads at MTCU – Barriers to Inclusion and Path to Employment.
• Along with these documents, the Network has attended a number of meetings with the ADM of MTCU and her staff team. This has resulted in the slowing down and delays to implementation of the disability strategy as they consider appropriate service options.
• More recently, the Network has been requested by MTCU to act as a reference group to the Employment Ontario team that is responsible for their disability service strategy.

MCSS
• The Network continues its efforts in building relationships with ODSP and ensuring policy issues are brought to the Ministry’s attention. The Network has met with ODSP Directors Norm Helfand and more recently with the new Interim Director, Patti Redmond. Some of the issues discussed included the conflict of people supported under the DS branch that are working in private businesses without wages or at less than minimum; the inconsistency in back-dating ODSP applications across the province; the impact of modernization on referrals; challenges of the wage verification process; file review processes; and, the need to develop ‘service standards’ for the sector.
• The Network also had direct meetings and correspondence with the ODSP ‘Modernization’ unit.
• The Network continues to gather and promote input from our sector and shares this with MCSS.

Ontario’s Speech from The Throne
It must also be noted that the Network received an invitation by the Honourable David Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario in November to attend the Speech from the Throne, which was graciously attended by two of our Board members and Employer Champion League member Mayor Mike Bradley of Sarnia.

Employer Engagement and Marketing Initiatives
This area is extremely important not only to the Board, but also our members. It is vital that we develop opportunities and initiatives that will continue to improve the participation of people with a disability in the workforce. We have found that ‘employer champions’, as recognized through the Network’s Champion’s League, is a vital and effective way to extend our capacity and gain positive results.

Champion’s League
Finding and working with Champions is a tremendous help to moving forward and creating positive changes in the employment situation for people who have a disability.
• At our second annual AGM and Conference we were able to recognize and acknowledge a new Champion, Mr. Dennis Winkler who, as an employer, fit the criteria of someone deserving to be part of the Champion’s League.
• Our past Champion’s League recipients continue to demonstrate the value in hiring people with a disability and the work being done in our sector. The formation of this league has provided a venue to continue to promote and plan initiatives to advance the work being done on behalf of persons with disabilities.
• The Champion’s League continues to receive strong support from Ontario’s Lieutenant Governor, David Onley. The League continues to hold strategy meetings with His Honour regularly at his offices at the legislature as well as participate in events geared to promote hiring to the business community in Ontario such as Rotary at Work and others.

Mayor’s Challenge
• Once again this year we have had the support of Mike Bradley, Mayor of Sarnia. His dedication and willingness to speak on behalf of the Network and its membership to other organizations and mayors has continue to provide an awareness and has challenged other communities start “Doing the Right Thing” by including a person with a disability in their workforce.
• Organizations across the province continue to approach their mayors to also put into action the need to respond to the hiring of persons with disabilities.
• A Mayor’s Challenge Toolkit has been made available on our website for Network members.

Other Niche Opportunities
Each of the Champions has continued to explore new opportunities. Joe Hoffer has been instrumental at gaining access to the Ontario Police Services Board and the Law Society of Ontario. We plan to exploit these opportunities in the coming year with strategies that will help bring education to these two major organizations. This will lead to further employment opportunities for people who have a disability.
• Mark Wafer has worked tirelessly to promote inclusive hiring practices through the Rotary at Work program. He has put in countless hours and helped expand this program to four districts of the province and is in discussions with three more. This has directly resulted in over 130 hires with very little staff input on the job development side. This leaves organizations free to use their resources on finding a good match and in follow up supports. The Network is currently in discussions with Community Living Ontario about taking on future responsibility for Rotary at Work under the Network’s umbrella.

Media
Our continued success and the importance of having a voice are integral in getting the attention from the media on issues and perspectives that the Network and our members have. We had a number of opportunities throughout the year to engage the media.
• The continued recognition of the members of the Champion’s League in newspapers and trade publications and their great work with employing persons with a disability was highlighted in local newspapers.
• The Mayor’s Challenge and the ongoing media coverage of Mayor Bradley continues to draw attention to the benefits to hiring persons with a disability.
• The work that went into ensuring that our members and the people we support had a voice during this year’s provincial election.

Membership
We believe the Network has been able to work very hard over the last year to provide our members with the many benefits of their membership with us. We are a member-driven organization and our strength is with the membership. Please share all the information that has been provided in this review with other colleagues and encourage others to join Ontario’s only Provincial Network that continues to work on behalf of employment service providers. In addition the Network has been a part of some other initiatives.
• We have been able to provide a voice at committee levels (Canadian Disability Policy Alliance, ODSP Action Coalition, Canadian Association for Supported Employment, Community Living Ontario, JOIN and others).
• Executive Director Joe Dale has done a number of speaking engagements in the Niagara Region, Ottawa, North Bay, Belleville, London, Toronto and others.
• Provide training opportunities to our members. Co-sponsored with Southwest Employment Network ‘Job Developers Roadmap’ in May and then our own AGM and conference ‘Champions for Change: Leadership in Workforce Development’ in November.
• The Network hosted a forum in April – ‘Creating a Common Voice’, which gave regional networks and provincial organization the opportunity to take the first steps in having a unified voice to represented the needs of people who have a disability when it comes to accessing the workforce.
• Received recognition by JVS Toronto as one of their community partners at their 9th Annual Strictly Business Awards Luncheon in May.


What’s Next?
• To continue to build our organization with more membership.
• Provide training and networking opportunities for the sector.
• Build on the great work that has been accomplished through the Mayor’s Challenge and the Champion’s League.
• To continue with strategies for employer engagement.
• Look for other funding opportunities and private fund resources that share the same goals and objectives of the Network to ensure sustainability.
• To build on the work that is being done with government relations and ensure that policy and funding issues do not become the barrier to employment for people who have a disability.
• To continue to be responsive to the needs of our members. Please share what is important to you and how we can help.

From the Board of Directors of the Ontario Disability Employment Network we want to extend our thanks for your continued support in our journey to make positive changes for Ontarians who have a disability and are seeking employment.

We wish you much success in 2012 and look forward to the consolidated effort by this Provincial Network and its members to continue to remove barriers to employment for people who have a disability and our primary objective; to find meaningful and sustainable employment for those we serve.

“Public Services for Ontarians: A Path to Sustainability and Excellence” (aka ‘the Drummond report’) from the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services was released on February 15th, 2012.  Click here to read the full report.

View/Download the entire document in PDF format here

Note: Portions of this document have been adopted, with permission, from Community Living Ontario’s 2011 Provincial Election Action Kit

• Political Action by Charitable Organizations                    .…………………………………. 2
• Strategies for Members – Campaign 2011                  ………………….……………………. 3
• Prepare a Media Strategy                                               ………….……………………………. 3
• Working with the Media                                                 ………….……………………………. 4
  • Overview                                                                ………………………………………. 4
  • Making Your Message Newsworthy                 ………………………………………. 4
  • Writing a News Release                            ………………………………………………. 5
  • Preparing to be Interviewed                    ………………………………………………. 5
  • The Interview                          ………………………………………………………………. 6
  • Tips for Working with Television & Radio Reporters       ………………………. 7
  • Organizing a News Conference                            ……………………………………. 7
  • Other Opportunities for Media Coverage                 ………………………………. 8
• Recommended Approaches to Candidates                 ………………………………………. 9
  • Letters to Candidates                     ………………………………………………………. 9
  • Phone Calls to Candidates                      ………………………………………………. 9
  • All Candidates Meetings                         ………………………………………………. 9
• All Candidates Meetings and Candidates at the Door                 ………………………10
• After the Election                              ………………………………………………………………10
• Feedback                                   ………………………………………………………………………10

• Appendices

1. Key Messages – Background and Details                            ………………………………11
2. Sample Letter to Candidates                              ………………………………………………15
3. Face to Face Questions for Candidates                                ………………………………17
4. Fact Sheet – Disability and Employment                           ………………………………19
5. Election Campaign Checklist                            ………………………………………………20
6. Media Interview Request Form                                  ………………………………………22
7. Election Campaign Feedback Form                          …………….…………………………23

Political Action by Charitable Organizations – Do’s and Don’ts
Charities are given special legal status because of their purposes which promote the good of the community. Legally, this status means that the financial and other resources of charities should be used for one or more of their charitable objects. Charities get some tax exemption and can issue tax receipts for donations if they are registered with Revenue Canada.
To the extent that charitable status is important, there are some things a charitable organization should not do in the context of an election. Taking some actions might well put the charitable status of the organization in jeopardy.

A charity should not use any of its financial or human resources to contribute to or campaign for any candidate or political party.

This, of course, does not limit people who are served or supported, members, volunteers or staff from engaging in political activity including running for office on their own time and with their own money, except that Board members and staff should, and in some cases are required by organization’s policies, disclose any such activity to the organization.
Some other examples of do’s and don’ts are:

Allowed as a Charity

Not Allowed as a Charity

Taking part in lawful public policy debate at meetings or through the media Visiting a candidate to discuss issues Submitting questions to a candidate about issues Asking questions at public meetings Developing positions on particular issues and forwarding them to candidates or parties Providing plain language information for self advocates and members Encouraging people to vote Monitoring the accessibility of polling places Providing transportation

Illegal activity at public demonstrations Picketing for or against a candidate or party Erecting signs for or against a candidate or party on the charity’s property Endorsing a candidate Telling self advocates and members who to vote for (personally or in writing) Promising to reward or punish people for voting any particular way

Possible consequences of “crossing the line” or even appearing to cross the line:

• Public criticism and loss of donors
• Complaints to Election Authorities; the Charities Division of the Attorney General; and/or Revenue Canada leading to investigations and potential loss of charitable status
• Possible litigation for improper use of charity assets

 

-  Put your key message in your headline and in the first sentence of the release.   Make it brief and easy to understand.  Often, journalists will decide in the first sentence or paragraph whether this is a story they will cover.
-  Your release should answer the questions, who, what, where, when and why?
-  Avoid covering more than one or two issues in your news release.  Choose the topic/issue that most directly affects people with disabilities, rather than your organization.  If possible, your release should fit onto one page.
-  Make it look neat and easy to read.  Each release you send should have a similar look to it.  Your logo and name should be large.
-  Include the name and phone number of a contact person at the bottom of your release.  That person should be comfortable answering the media’s questions and be able to speak credibly on behalf of your organization. Make sure that the designated spokesperson is accessible by phone to the media.
-  It is helpful to send the news release to an individual reporter, rather than to the publication or broadcast outlet newsroom.   Your organization should have an up-to-date media contact list.  To establish a list, call each media outlet and ask for the name of the Assignment Editor (daily newspapers), the Editor (weekly newspapers) or the News Director or Assignment Editor at radio and television stations.  Don’t forget local magazines.
-  In cases where there are only a few media outlets receiving your release, you may wish to deliver them yourself to give you the opportunity to meet a reporter. Establishing a personal relationship with a reporter can often lead to better coverage.  If you are unable to personally deliver the release, fax it to members of the media.  Faxing implies urgency and ensures that most media outlets receive it at approximately the same time.
-  When you know the release has been received, follow-up with a phone call to ensure it has been received by the most appropriate person.  Ask if there is any further information they require and use this opportunity to “sell” them on the importance of this story – not to you, but to the public.

Whether you have solicited news coverage or are unexpectedly approached by the news media, it always pays to take the time to plan for each media interview.
-  If a reporter calls you unexpectedly and wants to interview you immediately, explain that you have some business to attend to, but say you will call them back within a specified amount of time.
-  Ask what the reporter’s deadline is.  Call them back as quickly as you can – always before their deadline.
-  Make sure you have their name, phone number, publication/station/program.
-  If the interview is for broadcast, ask how the interview will be used.  It may be used in its entirety as a feature, or be cut into short “clips” or “bites” to be used as part of newscasts.  You can then judge the length of your answers accordingly.
-  Ask if they will be interviewing anyone else for this particular story and if they know when this story is expected to run.
-  Tell them when you will call back.
-  Plan what you want to say – your message, the facts and examples to back your position up and answers to questions you think the reporter may ask.

(See Appendix 6 – Media Interview Request Form)

-  Assume the reporter you talk to knows very little about disability and employment issues.  Keep the information you provide very simple, unless the reporter requests more complex information.   Avoid using jargon or short forms they may not understand.
-  Be message driven, rather than question driven.  While you do not want to avoid answering a reporter’s questions, try to use the questions as an opportunity to convey your main message and information you think is important.   Use ‘bridging’ to answer a question in a manner that allows you to steer the interview in the direction you would like to take it. For example:
Question: “Doesn’t government already fund employment programs and supports?”
Answer: That is true, but when you consider that last year taxpayers spent over $3.3 billion dollars on income support for people who have a disability and roughly $35 million on employment supports, how can we expect to see significant improvements of labour market participation for this group. If we want more people to reduce their dependency on the income support system and become contributors to the tax base, we must invest in the services and supports that will achieve this outcome. 49% of people who have a disability are still unemployed – that’s more than 6 times the national average.  Let me give you some examples.”
Other bridging phrases -“That is not true…here’s what you should know.”
“That is worth considering and may be true, but have you considered…?”
“I think there’s a more important point to be made here…”

*  Do not ask to speak “off the record”.  Assume everything you say, even in offhand remarks, could be tomorrow’s headline!
*  Try to make the interview as relaxed for you and the reporter as possible.  In all but very exceptional cases, the media is not out to “get” anyone.  They have a job to do – find out what the story is and tell it.  Help them do their job in any way you can.
*  If you don’t know – say so.  Then tell them you can help them to find the information they require.
*  Be pleasant.  Never appear angry or defensive.

-  Be prepared.  Time passes very quickly when you are being interviewed for a “longer” radio or television segment.  What may seem like a long time – ten or fifteen minutes – never seems like enough time when it’s done.   Make sure your strongest points are made at the beginning and try to repeat them again in the middle and at the end of your interview.  People often remember the first and last things they hear.
-   Television reporters (and newspaper photographers) look for highly visual stories.  The more action/color/crowds you provide, the more likely you are to get coverage.
-  Watch out for the dreaded, “Ums.”  Speak clearly and slowly.
-  On TV, appearance does count.  A pleasant, confident demeanor and a neat, professional look will ensure that your message is carried without distraction.

-  Depending on the importance of your announcement, you may consider holding a news conference.  In many cases, if the announcement is not a major one and if there is nothing visual to offer photographers, a simple news release sent to the media is enough to achieve your goals.
-  If you hold a news conference, time it to suit the deadline of the media outlet most important to convey your message.   If you want same day television coverage on the evening news, aim for early afternoon.  If a morning newspaper is most important, avoid morning news conferences.  Newspapers dislike running “old” news on the front page, so if a story has already run for a full day on radio and television, you will not likely get as good coverage in the paper the following morning.
-  If you are holding a news conference, choose a room that will look full according to the number of people you are inviting.  Encourage as many of your employees and clients to attend as is possible.

Follow-Up
-  If a reporter has done a good job, take the time to pick up the phone and tell them that you appreciate their work.  Reporters don’t like to think that they are advocates for organizations, but they do like to know that they have told the story in a fair and accurate manner.  If you have received positive response as a result of their story, let them know.
-  Save newspaper clippings, as well as video and audio tapes of interviews.  They can sometimes be used to forward to other reporters who are considering doing a similar story.

Other Opportunities for Media Coverage

Radio Talk Shows – Call your community radio stations to determine if they have interview or phone-in programs.  If they do, ask to speak to the producer.  Tell her/him that you would like to forward some information that may be of interest for a future program.  If he/she is agreeable, arrange to call back after the producer has had time to review it to see if an interview might be arranged.  Offer to provide other guests, such as prominent employers and employees who have a disability.
Local Television or Cable Shows – Many local television stations have interview programs that focus on news or feature stories.  All community cable stations carry programs that feature stories of local interest in the cities/towns they serve.  Again, call stations for the names of the programs and speak directly to the producers to “make your pitch.”
Editorial Boards of Newspapers – For major issues, a meeting with a local newspaper’s editorial board can be very productive.  While these discussions vary, they are often more for increasing the newspaper’s awareness of an issue, rather than to produce a story.  Your organization may wish to partner with other organizations with similar goals to discuss the broader issue of the impact of so many people who have a disability being out of the workforce.
Save these opportunities for very important issues and go prepared to answer some tough and penetrating questions.  Be sure to include employers, self-advocates and even family members.
Op-Ed Pieces – These articles are called “op-ed” because they run on the page opposite the editorial page.  Often, newspapers are looking for opinion/information pieces that are written by prominent or outspoken members of the communities they serve.  Put together a strong idea and an outline, call the newspaper’s editor or managing editor and “make your pitch.”  The key to a strong op-ed article is to focus on human issues, tell stories with emotional impact and make your issues easy to understand.
Letters to the Editor - This is a simple way to show your local newspaper the importance of disability issues to their readers.  Whenever coverage is given to issues relating to people who have a disability, encourage members to send response letters to the editor.  In those letters, members can express their own views, their thanks to the newspaper for recognizing the importance of these issues and their gratitude or displeasure at the actions/statements of others.  Letters must be brief (two paragraphs maximum) and must be signed.

3. Recommended Approach to Candidates

A. Letters to Candidates
Send a letter to each candidate that briefly describes the issues related to the key messages and inform the candidates that they will receive a phone call to discuss issues related to employment services for people who have a disability.  Ask the candidates for a commitment to meet with the organization’s representatives prior to the election, and/or, in the coming months if they are elected.Include with the letter:
-  Key message backgrounder (Appendix 1 – Key Messages: Background and Details)
-  Local fact sheet of accomplishments, statistics on those served and impact on your community of the issues raised by our key messages.  Include a local contact name and phone number.
-  Stories of individuals related to key messages (include photographs where possible)
-  Employment and Disability Fact Sheet (Appendix 4)

B.     Phone Calls to Candidates
-  Request for Meeting – If not possible discuss  issues on the telephone
-  Request for support
-  If unwilling to meet during the campaign, request a commitment to meet after the election (should they be elected) to discuss action
If you do not have time to meet with all candidates, give priority to those who are most likely to be elected.

C.    All Candidates Meetings
-  Call candidates or local newspaper to determine dates/times of meetings.  Because some meetings deal with specific issues, only those meetings of a general nature or those dealing with social service/disability issues need to be covered.
-  Assign a delegation, including prominent employers, self-advocates and possibly family members to attend each meeting and, when possible, make a statement and pose a question to candidates regarding key messages. (Appendix 3 – Face-to-face Questions for Candidates)
-  Provide delegation with the Ontario Disability Employment Network’s  materials about All Candidates Meetings
-  Consider hosting an all candidates meeting in cooperation with other social service or disability groups in your community.

Opportunity: All candidates meetings and door-to-door canvassing by candidates are an excellent way to get our messages on the agenda. The more often they hear our message, the more likely they are to see our issues as important issues in an election campaign and once the new government is formed.
Approach: Whether in an all candidates meeting or at the door, it is best to stick to one issue or question, and to keep it relatively simple. The door-to-door canvass, however, can provide the opportunity to have a longer conversation. In a very few minutes, you can make several powerful points with a candidate and give her/him a chance to respond.
Caution: It is very important that your organization not be seen as supporting one candidate or party over another. As an individual, of course, you can be as political as you want. However, if you associate your actions with that of the organization, caution is very important. When asking questions, it is perfectly all right to say “I believe…” or “Our organization believes….” followed by a statement and question. (See Appendix 3 – Face-to-face Questions for Candidates)

-  The Ontario Disability Employment Network will contact Party Leaders and prominent politicians to request a meeting to discuss actions to be taken in future by the Network and by government to address key issues.
-  Members should contact newly elected MPP’s to request a meeting to discuss action to be taken in future.

4. Feedback

Don’t forget to keep the Network informed about your election strategy – meetings, media coverage, follow up and responses from political leaders. It will be important to the Network to know who our allies are and where the opposition sits when it comes time to pursue our key messages and issues with the new government. Your experiences will also give other members incentive to join the campaign.

The Network would also like your feedback on how useful you found this package. Did it help? Did it serve your needs? Do you think a consistent media strategy from the sector is helpful?
Please take a moment to complete the Feedback Form found in Appendix 7.

Appendix 1

Key Messages – Background and Details
Issue 1: Access to Services and Supports


Background
Currently the ODSP Employment Supports program provides subsidies to employment agencies that assist people who have a disability get into the workforce. These agencies are paid in two primary ways. There is a set fee based on the achievement of a job. This amount is $1,000 if the person is assisted to find a job and stay in that job 6 weeks; and a further $6,000 if the person lasts an additional 7 weeks for a total of 13 weeks on the job.

In many instances this places the service agency at risk. What if the cost of providing service exceeds $7,000; what if the person quits or looses the job prior to the 13^th week? The agency could work with an individual for months and not receive any compensation whatsoever.
Ultimately this lands on the back of the person who has a disability. The agency’s first task, when a new client shows up at their door, is to assess the potential cost of providing service and the risk of the person not lasting in the position. If they assess their cost will exceed $7,000 or the risk too great they are more likely to decline service to that individual. For many people who have a disability this means further discrimination based on the severity of their disability.

The second payment scheme under ODSP Employment Supports is a monthly fee for each month the person stays on the job. For people who are Income Support recipients this amounts to 50% of the Income Support savings for that individual or $250 per month, whichever is greater. This is intended to provide incentive to the service agency to find ‘better’ jobs – more hours of work per week at higher wages = better compensation for the agency.
This makes sense in theory however it also contributes to further discrimination for people with more severe disabilities and barriers. Generally speaking, people with more severe disabilities have higher support needs which represent higher costs. At the same time, these individuals often enter the workforce in part-time, entry-level positions. In this scenario, the agency is faced with higher costs and lower revenues. Again, this is not a good business model for the service agency.

More recently, Service Canada has entered into a Federal/Provincial Labour Market Agreement with Ontario, downloading certain disability support programs and resources. This has landed with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and will soon roll out under the Employment Ontario banner. Employment Ontario has maintained the former Service Canada programs which currently provide funding for some Accessible Resource Centres and a wage subsidy program.

EO has not yet released its new Disability Service Strategy however our understanding, at this point, is that they will integrate disability services and supports into generic, one-stop EO Centres that will service all people looking for work. Given that the Canada Manpower Centers of the 70’s and 80’s could not provide services to people who have a disability, we are afraid that the new EO model will not do any better.

The range of disabilities along with the range of interventions and supports that specialized agencies have developed over the past 30 years cannot be replicated under one roof. In the 70’s and 80’s when a person with a disability showed up at a Canada Manpower Centre they were referred to the local sheltered workshop. Even today, where only a few sheltered workshops exist, this represents an old service model that takes resources to operate and continues to entrench people who have a disability into a life of dependency on the Income Support system.

Our Message
We believe that all people who have a disability who are motivated to work should have access to the services and supports they need. These services and supports should not be denied or limited based on the severity of the individual’s disability. This must also include access to a range of specialized disability support agencies that have the expertise to provide supports for a particular disability. All people who want to work should be supported to do so. That’s in everyone’s interest.

Issue 2: Greater Investment in Employment Services and Supports
Background
In the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Ontario Government spent over $3.3 billion dollars on ODSP Income Support for this sector of our population. This has been growing at over 5% per year and will continue to escalate at even greater levels into the future. In the same period, the government’s budget for ODSP Employment Supports was $55 million dollars on, of which only $35 million was spent on direct supports to help these people get into the workforce. Clearly the results are a reflection of the investment.

There are a number of gaps in the current system. Perhaps one of the greatest is in the lack of investment in prevention. It is well understood that it is more difficult to get people off the income support system, once they’re on it, than to provide alternatives to help them avoid the income support system altogether. One area that will have a positive, long-term impact is to invest in youth.

Kids who have disabilities are frequently excluded from the workforce in the same way as adults who have a disability. Most graduate from high school with very little work experience if any. They don’t have any idea about what type of jobs they are interested in or are suitable to them, or any concept about workplace culture, responsibilities, etc. These kids are headed straight to the ODSP office to sign up for Income Support.

Currently most Boards of Education are cutting back on work co-op programs and co-op placements for students who have a disability. At the same time there are very few funding strategies that help kids with disabilities get summer jobs and after school jobs. There is a significant gap in programs and supports for employment programs for kids who have a disability; programs that can prepare them for the world of work.

Our Message
If we want to: raise people out of poverty; contain Income Support expenditures; and, increase contributions to the tax base, we must do more to help people who have a disability get into the workforce. We must invest in the services and supports that will help people who have a disability gain entry to the workforce.

We must also develop strategies and programs to help kids get into the workforce sooner, giving them access to the same experiences as their non-disabled peers. Kids who have a disability must have summer and after school jobs so their transition to the working world is more natural.

Issue 3: Ontario Needs an Employment First Policy Framework

Background
Funding for employment supports is extremely fragmented and inefficient. Currently there are five different Ministries and Government Departments that fund services and supports to help people who have a disability get into the workforce. This does not include Worker’s Compensation, Employment Insurance, CPP or private insurers. These funding bodies are disconnected. All have different eligibility criteria, rules and regulations, reporting procedures, different data collection systems that are not integrated or compatible and most critically, different types of services and supports that they will fund. There is no relationship between them from an operating perspective.

At the same time, some of these Ministries also fund programs that are based on old service delivery models that perpetuate a dependency on social assistance for people who have a disability. Some even fund programs that directly compete with and undermine the objectives of those programs and services funded to help people who have a disability get into the workforce.

The system is extremely hard to navigate for people who have a disability and service agencies are often not able to access the resources and services that people need in order to be successfully employed.

Our Message
When it comes to day options and programs, Ontario needs a Policy Framework that crosses all Provincial Ministries and Departments that fund services and programs for people who have a disability – MCSS DSA, MCSS ODSP-ES, MTCU Employment Ontario, Ministry of Health, Provincial portions of Service Canada, Municipal Employment Programs and Ministry of Education. This Policy Framework places employment as the top funding priority for daytime supports and services for people who have a disability

• It focuses on integrated work at commensurate wages – “real work for real pay”

• This is not to be confused with a ‘work for welfare’ approach whereby participation in work is required in order to access income support and people are penalized for non participation.

Appendix 2

Sample Letter to Candidates

Your letterhead or logo

Date:

Dear:  (candidate for provincial election)
On behalf of _____(your organization)__________________, we are writing to request an opportunity to speak with you before the October 6^th election. There are matters of great urgency that affect the lives of many people in our community, and we want you to know about them.

People who have a disability comprise over 16% of the population in Ontario. At almost 2 million people, this group is our largest minority. According to a recent report by the conference Board of Canada this will grow to 20% by the end of this decade. At the same time, people who have a disability are disproportionately excluded from the labour market. Statistics Canada reports that 49% of people who have a disability are unemployed – over 6 times the National average. This also means most of these people live in poverty.

Access to Services and Supports

People who have a disability can work and want to work. There are many studies and reports that validate that, with the right services and supports, people who have a disability can make a significant contribution to the workforce. Currently there are many limitations and restrictions that deny access to the necessary services and supports people need to help them get into the workforce. Often, people are refused access to the services and supports they need based on the severity of their disability. At other times service agencies cannot access the right services and supports for job seekers due to restrictive funding models. There is a trend to move to ‘generic’ employment centers in Ontario. Generic service models have not been effective in the past and continue to excluding people who have a disability from the workforce.

Ontario must ensure that all people who have a disability, who want to work, have access to the services and supports that will help them achieve this goal. They must also have access to the network of service agencies that provide the specialized services and support they need?

Investing in services and supports that will help people who have a disability get into the workforce

Last year, the provincial government spent over $3.3 billion dollars on ODSP Income Support for this segment of our population. This has been growing at over 5% per year and will continue to escalate into the future. In the same period, the government spent about $35 million dollars on ODSP Employment Supports to help these people get back into the workforce. If we want to: raise people out of poverty; contain Income Support expenditures; and, increase contributions to the tax base, we must do more to help people who have a disability get into the workforce.

Ontario must invest more resources into the supports and services that will help people who have a disability become contributing citizens of this province?

An Employment First Policy Framework

Funding for employment supports is extremely fragmented and inefficient. Currently there are five different Ministries and Government Departments that fund services and supports to help people who have a disability get into the workforce. This does not include Worker’s Compensation, Employment Insurance, CPP or private insurers. These government funding programs each have their own mandate, rules and regulations, eligibility criteria, reporting, data systems and so on. There is no relationship between them from an operating perspective.

At the same time, some of these Ministries also fund programs that are based on old service delivery models that perpetuate a dependency on social assistance for people who have a disability. Some even fund programs that directly compete with and undermine the objectives of helping people who have a disability get into the workforce.

Ontario needs a Policy Framework that coordinates the efforts of all Ministries and Government Departments and that places employment as the top funding priority for day supports and services for people who have a disability. This must be developed in consultation with the disability sector – service providers and people who have a disability.

If you are elected what will you do to help people who have a disability get into the workforce and become contributing members of Ontario?

Will you:

• Improve and ensure access to the specialized services and supports that people need to be successful in the workplace?
• Increase the investment in employment services and supports for people who have a disability?
• Help create a policy framework that prioritizes employment when it comes to government spending on disability services (other than housing and residential supports)?

I look forward to your response as I weigh my voting options for the upcoming election. If you would like more information on any of these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

 

Sincerely,

 

(Your Name)

(Contact information)

Appendix 3

Face to Face Questions for Candidates

We are trying to focus our efforts on a few issues. Here are some straightforward questions you can ask candidates if they come to your door or if you are able to attend an ‘All Candidates Meeting’.

People who have a disability comprise over 16% of the population in Ontario. At almost 2 million people, this group is our largest minority. According to a recent report by the conference Board of Canada this will grow to 20% by the end of this decade. At the same time, people who have a disability are disproportionately excluded from the labour market. Statistics Canada reported that 49% of people who have a disability are unemployed – over 6 times the National average. This means most of these people live in poverty.

Access to Services and Supports

People who have a disability can work and want to work. There are many studies and reports that validate that, with the right services and supports, people who have a disability can make a significant contribution to the workforce. Currently there are many limitations and restrictions that deny access to the necessary services and supports people need to get into the workforce. Often, people are refused access to the services and supports they need based on the severity of their disability. At other times service agencies cannot access the right services and supports for job seekers due to restrictive funding models. There is a trend to move to ‘generic’ employment centers in Ontario. Generic service models have not been effective in the past and contribute to the disenfranchisement people who have a disability thereby excluding them from the workforce.

Is your party prepared to ensure that all people who have a disability, who want to work, have access to the services and supports that will help them achieve this goal and to preserve the network of service agencies that provide the specialized services and support these individuals need?

Investing in services and supports that will help people who have a disability get into the workforce

Last year, the provincial government spent over $3.3 billion dollars on ODSP Income Support for this sector of our population. This has been growing at over 5% per year and will continue to escalate at these levels in the future. In the same period, the government spent about $35 million dollars on ODSP Employment Supports to help these people get back into the workforce. If we want to: raise people out of poverty; contain Income Support expenditures; and, increase contributions to the tax base, we must do more to help people who have a disability get into the workforce.

Is your party committed to investing more resources into the supports and services that will help people who have a disability become contributing citizens of this province?

 

Creating an Employment First Policy Framework

Funding for employment supports is extremely fragmented and inefficient. Currently there are five different Ministries and Government Departments that fund services and supports to help people who have a disability get into the workforce. This does not include Worker’s Compensation, Employment Insurance, CPP or private insurers. These government funding programs each have their own mandate, rules and regulations, eligibility criteria, reporting, data systems and so on. There is no relationship between them from an operating perspective.

At the same time, some of these Ministries also fund programs that are based on old service delivery models that perpetuate a dependency on social assistance for people who have a disability. Some even fund programs that directly compete with and undermine the objectives of those programs and services funded to help people who have a disability get into the workforce.

Ontario needs a Policy Framework that coordinates the efforts of all Ministries and Government Departments and that places employment as the top funding priority for day supports and services for people who have a disability.

Will your party commit to working with the disability sector – service providers and people who have a disability to create an Employment First policy framework for Ontario?

Appendix 4

Fact Sheet – Disability and Employment

• 16.5% of Canadians live with a disability. In Ontario, this represents over 1.9 million people. This is predicted to grow to 20% by the end of this decade. This represents the largest minority in the province.

• While the numbers vary according to the source, a significant number of people who have a disability are currently out of the workforce.

• StatsCan reported that 49% of people who have a disability are unemployed.

• Human Resources and Skills Development Canada cite the unemployment rate for people who have a disability at 10.4% vs. the National average of 6.8%.

• In 2010/11, the Province spent $3.3 billion on Income Support for people who have a disability. This has been growing at over 5% per year.

• In the same period, the Ministry of Community and Social Services budget for ODSP Employment Supports was $55 million, of which about $35 million was spent on direct supports for people who have a disability who were attempting to access the labour market.

• People who have a disability are a viable source of labour. Studies and reports show:

*  90% of people who have a disability scored as average or above in terms of performance on the job – DuPont
*  86% have better than average attendance – DuPont
*  97% rate as average to above average in terms of safety on the job – DuPont
*  46% of people who have a disability work harder than other workers – Harris
*   39% of people who have a disability are more reliable than other workers – Harris
*  People who have a disability are 5 times more likely to stay on the job – Pizza Hut
*  Informal reports from employers also demonstrate people who have a disability to be more loyal and to have a positive affect on employee morale and customer appreciation

• The Conference Board of Canada is predicting a one million worker shortfall in Canada

• In January, 2011, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses cited that in a survey of members, 34% reported shortage of skilled and semi skilled workers to be their number one business constraint and a further 13% reported shortage of unskilled labour as their primary business constraint.

Appendix 5

Campaign Checklist

Task	Person(s) Responsible	Timeline
Preparation
*  Form an Election Strategy Committee
*  Prepare a fact sheet that contains bullet points outlining the severity of the impact of the issues raised by our key messages in your community
*  Identify individuals who have personal relationships with members of the media and with provincial politicians
*  Identify a key spokesperson, empowered to speak on behalf of your organization
*  Determine dates of all-candidate meetings and assign people to attend
Media Strategy
Prepare media package that includes: *  Key message handout fact sheets (provided in part 2 of this kit) *  Local fact sheet of accomplishments *  Statistics on challenges/problems created by underfunding in your community. *  Local news release or note that includes name and phone number of local contact *  Information sheet on the individuals who have agreed to tell their stories (include photographs where possible *   Follow-up calls to media including request to meet with local editorial board to discuss issues Political Strategy *  Letters & package of info to each candidate(see draft) *  Follow-up phone calls to candidates – where appropriate, request for meeting *  Determine dates of ‘All Candidates Meetings’ *  Assign Delegation to attend All Candidates Meetings *  Consider hosting an All Candidates Meeting in cooperation with others Follow Up Report your election campaign activities to the Ontario Disability Employment Network Government Relations Committee at gparker@waypointcentre.ca along with any response from the media or candidates Post-Election Contact each newly elected MPP to request a meeting to discuss specific action to be taken in future Follow Up Let us know about any follow up meetings and responses. Contact our  Government Relations Committee at gparker@waypointcentre.ca

 

Appendix 6

Media Interview Request Form

Date:   ____________________

Time:  ____________________

Name of reporter: ___________________________ Contact #

Publication/Station:           __________________________________

How will this be used? ______________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Others being interviewed: __________________________________

Facts/Statistics to support my main message:

Examples (such as stories about people affected):

Other messages (if time allows):

How Did It Go/ Follow-up?

Appendix 7

Election Kit Feedback Form

After using the election kit, please take a few minutes to complete this form and return it to Ontario Disability Employment Network.  Your comments will help us improve our election package for future campaigns.

I found the following pieces of the election kit helpful: _________________________

I did not find the following pieces of the election kit particularly helpful (suggest improvements if any):

I would add the following elements to the kit: ______________________________

I would remove the following elements from the kit: ________________________________

General comments: ___________________________________________________________

 

Please return completed form to: gparker@waypointcentre.ca

Read the entire report here

Introduction

The Ontario Disability Employment Network is a professional body of employment service providers that operate in Ontario. Our vision is that all people who have a disability in Ontario have access to the labour force and the ability to achieve meaningful employment. By ‘meaningful employment’ the Network subscribes to jobs that meet the requirements of the Employment Standards Act; are paid at commensurate wages and that add value to the economic and social well being of people who have a disability.
Member organizations represent all disability groups and types. Some are specialized (service one specific disability group) while others service a broader range of disabilities. They also represent agencies that access the full range of employment funding options – Ontario Disability Support Program Employment Supports (ODSP-ES), Employment Ontario (EO), Service Canada Opportunities Fund (Service Canada OF), Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC), Ministry of Community and Social Services Developmental Services Act (MCSS DSA) funding and private grants and donations. Some agencies access only one funding source, e.g. MCSS DSA funding, while others access multiple funding sources.
The Network facilitated a number of group discussions with service providers, advocacy groups and service users from across the province. This is a summary of our findings.

Issue 1: Reasonable Expectations and Necessary Supports to Employment

Ontario Needs an Employment First Policy Framework

Ontario needs a Policy Framework that crosses all Ministries and Departments and that places employment as the top funding priority for day supports and services for people who have a disability. Employment First has been adopted in many US and international jurisdictions. Washington State reported that in 2008, 87% of people with intellectual disabilities participated in paid employment.
o This is not to be confused with a ‘work for welfare’ approach whereby participation in work is required in order to access income support and people are penalized for non participation.
o Employment First focuses on establishing funding for employment supports and services as a top priority for all investments in day support services.
o It focuses on integrated work at commensurate wages – “real work for real pay”
o It is inter-ministerial. This would affect all ministries and government bodies that fund programs for people who have a disability – MCSS DSA, MCSS ODSP-ES, MTCU Employment Ontario, Ministry of Health, Service Canada, Municipal Employment Programs and Ministry of Education
• Inter-jurisdictional – currently certain funding blocks compete even within the same ministry e.g. Individualized Funding models within MCSS allow people to be placed in private sector industry without wages, thereby competing with potential wage-paying jobs.
• This would require common definitions and standardized practices – e.g. jobs for people who have a disability must be wage driven i.e. real pay for real work and at commensurate levels. Volunteerism in the private sector, beyond reasonable internships should be prohibited.
• An individual’s access to employment services and supports should not be limited or denied based on the severity of their disability. People who have a disability are often denied access to services and supports on the basis that the cost of supports exceeds the subsidy available to the service agency. The current system forces agencies to assess: “will it cost me more to find you a job and keep you there than what government is going to pay me?” before they agree to provide service.
• Career development and job enhancement must be supported. Many people who have a disability enter the workforce on a part-time or temporary basis, while they are gaining skills and increasing their capacity. In the current system, once an individual is placed there are no resources available to help that individual progress on the job, to find a new or better job or, to find a second or even third job that may be required in order to become financially independent. If the goal is to help people get off the Income Support system, supports and services must be available to help them.
• See http://tinyurl.com/3otcydh for an overview of the US Employment First model.

Here’s Why Ontario Needs an Employment First Framework

People Who Have a Disability Can Contribute to the Workforce
People who have a disability can work and want to work. When it comes to community participation employment is typically the first choice for this group when appropriate supports are available. The number of individuals who actively pursue employment will grow if there are incentives in place and the barriers and disincentives are removed.
Many studies and reports confirm that people who have a disability can contribute in the workplace. They bring value added features and are a viable labour source.
Given the demographics – 16.5% of Ontarians have a disability – and the economics – $3.3 billion annual expenditure on ODSP-IS, growing at 5% per year – it is imperative that we find ways to help more people who have a disability get into the workforce and reduce their dependency on the IS system.
While we need to do a better job at employer engagement and education, generally, employer awareness and acceptance is on the rise. Coupled with predictions of acute labour shortages, conditions to advance the employment of people who have a disability are favourable.

People and Employers Need Supports

• There is a commonly accepted ‘basket of services’ that people who have a disability need to draw upon to achieve and retain employment. Not all people who have a disability require all of the services. We prefer the ‘shopping cart’ approach where the services can be tailored and provided individually according to need. These include:
o Assessment
o Pre-employment preparation
o Skills training
o Case management
o Job development
o Job coaching
o Assistance for the employer – accommodations, awareness and sensitivity training, job coaching, trouble shooting, out placement and customer satisfaction
o Assistance with off the job issues – income reporting, transportation training and assistance, budgeting, etc.
o Crisis intervention & trouble shooting
o Re-training when job changes occur

The Current System of Funding Services and Supports is Fragmented and Disjointed

• The current system of funding employment services and supports for people who have a disability is fragmented, hard to navigate and harder still to manage. It is inefficient and contributes to the barriers facing people who have a disability who want to access the workforce.
• We have 5 principal funding sources of employment services and supports for people who have a disability in Ontario – MCSS DSA, MOHLTC, MCSS ODSP-ES, MTCU EO and Service Canada OF.
• These funding bodies are disconnected. All have different eligibility criteria, rules and regulations, reporting procedures, different data collection systems that are not integrated or compatible and most critically, different types of services and supports that they will fund. Some even undermine the outcomes of others.
• The following is a brief snapshot of the various funding sources and what they cover
o MCSS DSA & MOH – Employment programs and supports are optional under these funding streams however, many transfer payment agencies ‘choose’ to utilize some of their funding allocation to provide employment supports. Where they do, they can offer the full range of services and supports as they see fit although there is no accountability for an employment outcome or the quality of service offered. Many of these organizations offer good employment programs since they have greater flexibility and built in infrastructure although their capacity is limited, often as a result of providing more intensive services and supports. On occasion we see placements at less than minimum wage as this is not regulated. Typically these service providers are able to provide job coaching as a core service component.
At the same time, we now see a proliferation of ‘volunteer’ placements in private sector business under MCSS DSA individualized funding models like Passports, SSAH and so on. This greatly undermines employment opportunities as businesses that get free labour will seldom hire from this candidate pool at full wages. As these individualized funding models grow this is becoming a significant barrier to paid employment.
o MCSS ODSP-ES – Pays for job outcomes only with limited payment for job retention. This model forces employment agencies to discriminate against individuals based on the severity of their disability. While this is not overt, it is a reality. If the agency determines the cost of providing the necessary supports is greater than the revenue/subsidy provided, they are reluctant to engage that individual.
While the program is intended to be flexible, allowing service providers to do ‘whatever they believe is needed to achieve the outcome’, the finances just don’t add up. This model does not provide the service provider with sufficient resources to cover infrastructure costs, or to provide assessments, pre-employment training & preparation or intensive job coaching. Most notably the regulations and corresponding subsidies for career advancement activities – job changes, finding new or second jobs, etc. is extremely limiting. This model often leaves people stranded in part time, low paying jobs, with only a minimal reduction in their dependency on the Income Support system.
o Service Canada Opportunities Fund is limited to assessment, case management and pre-employment preparation programs. Even here, current contracting of assessments and case management to one central agency adds to the chaos of service delivery, navigating the system, management and effectiveness. In most cases, it is more efficient to have the agency responsible for service delivery be responsible for the assessment and case management functions.
o Employment Ontario – Currently EO provides funding for some Accessible Resource Centres and a wage subsidy program. EO has not yet released its Disability Service Strategy however our understanding at this point is that they will integrate disability services and supports into the generic, one-stop EO Centres that will service all people looking for work. Given that the Canada Manpower Centres of the 70’s and 80’s could not provide services to people who have a disability, we’re not convinced that the new EO model will do any better. This feels very much like putting a square peg into a round hole.
The range of disabilities along with the range of interventions and supports that specialized agencies have developed over the past 30 years cannot be replicated under one roof. In the 70’s and 80’s when a person with a disability showed up at a Canada Manpower Centre or VRS office they were traditionally referred to the local sheltered workshop. Even today, where a few sheltered workshops still exist, this represents a service that takes resources to operate with no chance to reduce the Income Support dependency of those who attend them.
o While EI and CPP provide income support, they do not have the capacity or the expertise to provide employment assistance to people who have a disability.
• Some examples of organizations that achieve the best outcomes are those that access several of the funding sources identified above as a way to provide the full ‘basket of services’ people need. Many, however, are limited by having access to only one funding source.
• The challenge and the risk however, is that besides the heavy management and administrative burden, this also creates a ‘house of cards’ effect. Due to the inter-dependency of services and overheads, an agency’s entire service is at risk if any one funder changes their funding format or commitment.
• The other critical impact relates to the individual seeking employment supports. Their ability to navigate the system is extremely challenging when all the required services are not available in one location or with one agency.
• In moving to the generic Case Worker model that the Modernization has initiated, government has lost a direct link to expertise about employment for people who have a disability and related issues. This suggests that government should be doing more outreach with the employment sector and consider establishing an Employment Sector Council.

We Need to Ensure Good Job Matches and ‘Fit’

• Successful employment is not always a result of formal skills training and/or the level of disability. It is more often determined by factors of motivation, attitude and ‘fit’. The right employer, the right accommodations and supports, the right candidate, confidence in the service provider and the right time in the right place.
• Government should not be the body that determines employability. Government doesn’t have the expertise or resources necessary.
o To ensure continuity and success assessment, Employment Planning and Case Management needs to be with the service provider that is doing the job development and providing the on-going supports
• Most employment service agencies agree that at least a basic employment assessment is needed to assess an individual’s:
o Motivation
o Work related life skills
o Reliability
o Ability to get to and from work
o Skills, interests and aptitudes
• Many people who have a disability have limited work experience. For these individuals, Job Readiness training is beneficial. This should be time limited and curriculum based. There are effective models available.
• In some cases, people who have a disability may need more formal assessments which should be available from specialists.
• Specific skills training should be available to those who need or want it.

We Must Invest in Employment

• If government wants to see more people get into the workforce, they must invest in the necessary services and supports that will help make this happen.
• Last year MCSS spent over $3.3 billion in ODSP Income Support and about $55 million on Employment Supports of which about $35 million was spent on actual employment supports for individuals, primarily job development and coaching.
• Government must invest in co-op education and placements for students with disabilities
• Invest in student jobs. Just as in adulthood, students with disabilities are often shut out of the job market. Just like other kids, students that have a disability need summer jobs and part-time, after school jobs starting at the legal student working age. This will ensure a natural progression into the labour force once the student leaves the education system.
• An investment in youth is an investment in the future
o We need a research project to demonstrate the impact of student employment. Does student employment increase the expectation of a job as the first and natural choice upon graduation? Does student employment reduce the individual’s longer term dependency on the ‘system’?
• Invest in employment service providers. Recent funding models have stripped away layers of infrastructure in employment service agencies. While it is easy to say that not all agencies are equal in the quality of their services or their outcomes, it is difficult to lay blame. Agencies have lost the financial base that supports activities like: Staff training and development, marketing and employer awareness programs, assessment to ensure a good fit for the candidate and longer term job coaching to assure better job retention. Employment service agencies should have some level of base funding in combination with an outcomes-based incentive.
Working within the constraints of these funding programs is difficult. Even more difficult is the opportunity to be creative and innovative. There is a lack of resources to apply to essential business operating components like: Innovation, Marketing, Research and Evaluation. These business elements have not been evident since the changes to ODSP-ES in 2006. We are now seeing the beginnings of employment agencies stagnating and faltering as a result.

We Need to Engage Employers to Maximize Job Opportunities and Retention

• The service agency plays a significant role in job retention. The agency must recognize the need to provide customer service for the employer, not just persons with disabilities. The agency staff must understand and respect what the employer needs to get out of the relationship with the employee who has a disability and their role in providing appropriate supports and assurances to the employer.
Employers establish strong relationships with service agencies that provide good customer service. This has ‘saved’ many jobs at risk due to problems in the workplace; garnered repeat business; and, helped get job opportunities for many individuals who others may have considered unemployable. When the employer trusts the service provider they are more likely to ‘take a chance’ on candidates with more significant disabilities.
• Service providers must ensure their candidates are the right ‘fit’ for a given job. The job match or ‘fit’ is critical to a successful placement. Given that many people who have a disability have limited work experiences and education a basic assessment and pre-employment service is necessary. This ensures the service provider fully understands the skills, abilities and support needs of the individual. These assessment and pre-employment programs should be of short duration and curriculum based.
• Beyond starting with the right ‘fit’ at the point of placement, the ‘coaching model’ has had the greatest impact on job retention. Employers often tell us their expertise is in business, not disability. They look to the service agency as the disability ‘expert’. When things in the workplace change either with the individual or the workplace they want the assurance the agency will be there to provide assistance. Agencies must be able to ‘afford’ to provide this on-going job coaching when needed.
• Through employer focus groups we have learned that the number one reason employers don’t hire people who have a disability is the ‘fear of firing’ or “what if it doesn’t work out”. Employers fear Human Rights complaints, bad PR and the personal remorse of putting someone with a disability out on the street. In response many service agencies provide ‘guarantees’ that they will be available to the employer for as long as the individual is employed with them. While this may not, in reality, turn out to be a significant amount of support for each individual client, in total, the agency must have the resources available to offer this guarantee.
Some organizations also provide out-placement services. That is the promise to say; “if it doesn’t work out, we’ll help you release this employee and we’ll help them find alternate employment”. This has been a very effective strategy but again, the agency needs resources to provide this service.
• Job openings must be filled quickly. When an employer identifies an opportunity it is because they have a need. If the service provider cannot connect a candidate within a few days, sometimes even a few hours, the opportunity is lost. Application and approval processes through ODSP Case Workers, Developmental Service Ontario offices and other access vehicles often stand in the way of the expediency the employer needs. These processes must be streamlined and more efficient than the current experience.
• Much greater emphasis needs to be placed on effective marketing strategies. There are new and emerging models that have had significant success. These are based on peer-to-peer models whereby experienced business champions promote the benefits of hiring people who have a disability to other business owners and operators. Several examples of this model are in play across the province, most notably Rotary at Work, The Mayor’s Challenge and the Lieutenant Governor’s Champion’s League.
• Government cannot do the marketing or drive employer engagement. Employers look to service agencies as a ‘supplier’ of services and they develop relationships with suppliers that they trust and that work for them.
• In some cases an employer’s benefits costs may increase, when the employee with a disability has a higher benefit usage due to their disability. In these cases, the employer should be compensated for the increase in costs.
• There is a need to retain disability ‘specialists’. The range of disability and effective interventions requires a significant level of expertise. Many organizations have spent 30 to 50 years developing this expertise and it should not be abandoned.

We Need Standards of Practice

• Employment service operators must demonstrate competency and accountability. Standards and operating practices should be established and employment agencies should be held accountable to meet them. These should address issues of:
o Consistency and stability
o Service Quality
o Outcomes and quality of outcomes
• We need to establish a sector-driven initiative that will:
o Establish service quality indicators
o Establish standards of operating for service providers
o Credentials for staff
o A peer review process
o Research the potential role that accreditation might play
• Currently there is only one community college that offers a specialized stream for employment service employees. This should be developed and expanded. Alternately we need to design training for employment service staff that:
o Develops greater business sensibilities
o Leads to skills based credentials
• Employment service staff must have the right training, skills sets and core competencies:
o Sales
o Marketing
o Business applications
o Public Relations
• Evaluate and cull – Build an effective evaluation process that includes consumer and employer input.
o Establish best practices and share experiences and learning with others
o Track data and service agency outcomes and publish results
o Assess the quality of service and the quality of the outcomes – jobs with career potential, jobs in growing sectors, full time jobs, jobs with benefits, etc.
o Employment Agencies should have CQI programs in place
o Withdraw funds from agencies that consistently under perform

Moving to an Employment First framework will raise concerns and fears in the employment service sector. A change of this magnitude will require careful implementation and considerable input from all stakeholders.

Issue 2: Appropriate Benefit Structure

Employment Incentives and Disincentives

• First and foremost people who have a disability should not be faced with the Ontario Works model requiring people to have an employment path in order to be eligible for Income Supports. This is not feasible for many people who have a disability, particularly given the restraints and limits on employment supports.
• Many people may require support and assistance to get into the workforce long before they have depleted their assets to the point of eligibility for Income Support. These individuals must have access to employment supports and the service agencies must be compensated for providing these supports at the full amount. There is no justified rationale to suggest that the agency’s costs will be lower for this audience.
• Currently one disincentive is that people who work risk loosing their subsidized housing. Housing subsidies must be adjusted to ensure that working does not penalize the individual’s access to subsidized housing or that ‘rent geared to income’ is established at a more reasonable level.
• People living at or below the poverty level tend to spend everything they’ve got, just to get by month to month. At the same time, people who are trying to enter the workforce often do so with temporary or irregular hours. When an individual works a lot of hours in one month, their combined income – ODSP and Wages – will often be spent on items that have been neglected. With current reporting processes, this will reduce their income from ODSP in the next month. If in that second month the individual doesn’t earn as much from their employment, they find themselves in a financial crisis. This financial irregularity is common for people who have a disability. Amortizing income over a greater time frame, perhaps annually, rather than monthly will reduce this impact. Consideration for reporting on the same basis as others through T4/Income tax reporting should be evaluated. This would also reduce administration costs within government.
• Reinstatement of employment supports should be automatic for persons with disabilities who lose their jobs. Currently, once an individual has qualified for EI, they must access and exhaust that system of supports before returning to an ODSP-ES employment program. The reality, however, is that EI does not have the expertise or capacity to support people who have a disability. While there are considerations where an EI representative can write a letter on behalf of an individual, declaring they don’t have the capacity, this process is inconsistent and cumbersome at best. Once an individual has qualified for ODSP-ES, this should be automatic should they lose their job and chose this service option.
• ODSP needs to do a better job of educating people who have a disability and their families about the impact of employment earnings on Income Support. We still routinely encounter individuals and families who think they can not earn more than $160 per month and that their eligibility for income support and benefits will be lost if they earn more.
• Consideration should be given to making health benefits available to those who have an eligible disability but don’t qualify or don’t need income support. We have seen cases where people have to quit their jobs and apply for ODSP-IS because they couldn’t afford their medications.
• The claw back formula needs to be adjusted. Considerations include:
o Mirror the OW formula where the first 25% of earnings is free and clear
o Consider starting the IS claw back at $700/month of earnings
o Consider a ‘grace’ period of 3 months employment earnings (typical employment probationary period) before any claw backs begin
o Set a target income level with combined income and wages that will raise the individual beyond the poverty level
• There is a need to educate and promote the economic benefits of greater disposable income and to illustrate that people are financially better off when working.
• The current structure and rules does not support self-employment. Business assets should be viewed differently while the business is active. This can be reviewed when and if the business ceases to operate and assets are dissolved.
• Consider telephones or a phone system as an essential benefit in order to connect people to employers
• Make transportation subsidies available to job seekers. Ensure this is flexible and relates to regional conditions and situations.
• People who have a disability need access to the same range of services and supports that others access e.g. MTCU Candidates, OW Candidates, Second Career, etc.; specifically: access to training opportunities, paid bus fare for employment services and programs, wage subsidies at the same level, etc.

Other Barriers

• Couples rules vs. Singles – people are penalized for being in a relationship. This needs to be addressed.
• Benefits
o Automatic for life when not available elsewhere. This needs to be promoted more fully as many people have a great fear of loss of benefits
o Supplements for employers to offset higher costs of some users
• Eliminate family income threshold for co-payment of ODSP-ES
• Childcare benefits need to be adjusted for people with disabilities
o “generally they can’t take advantage of this benefit”
• Change rules regarding OSAP. Once a person receives OSAP they are no longer eligible for ODSP-IS or OW.

Income Target Considerations

• Independent research should be conducted to illustrate employment as an indicator of health and the broader economic impact to society of having so many of these individuals out of the workforce. This could help make the case for greater investment in employment services and supports.
• Use the ‘market basket’ costs to determine benefit levels with consideration for cost of living increases
• Consider basing benefits – food and shelter – based on regional average cost rather than the same rate across the province.
• Accommodate subsidized housing regulations with a sliding scale that is more incentive based
• Identify the poverty line as the point at which claw backs take place

Assets

• People should not be required to delete all their assets in order to be eligible for ODSP-IS. To do so entrenches people into a state of life-long dependency.
• Asset limits should be raised across the board to allow people to have an ‘emergency’ fund.
• There should be a ‘temporary’ or short term assistance program for people who have a disability. This should have a different set of rules in terms of assets & needs tests. This could be seen as support to help someone ‘get on their feet’ or help them over a hurdle while they pursue employment or to help them avoid a longer term dependency on Income Support.

Issue 3: Easier to Understand

• All documents, forms, formats, applications, etc. should be available in plain language and alternative formats
• Consider reducing reporting through strategies like the income amortization option
o Reporting could be annual or semi-annual vs. monthly
• Provide support – interveners, interpreters, etc. – to help people understand what is available and processes. Consider a peer support service to help people understand the rules and navigate system
• Simplify/Streamline the system and rules and people will be more inclined to understand
• Build education and awareness
o Create one document that speaks specifically to employment and the rules about ODSP-IS and benefits when someone becomes employed – Highlight the benefits of generating employment income
o Provide training for advocacy groups, service providers and recipients on the basic rules of what happens to IS when people work. Hold ‘information sessions’ the way EI does when promoting their back to work strategies and services
o Create a server network system where information, regulations and guidelines are posted regularly.
• Simplify the application process and provide help for people with disabilities to apply
• Create one-stop information space. Every person on Income Support should receive a booklet identifying all community resources and programs that relate to getting a job.
• Educate and build awareness within ODSP Case Workers and staff
o Many Case Workers do not understand the importance of work, what services and supports are available to people or the impact of employment earnings on IS.
o Modernization process is not working in larger centres. The lack of specialization has set back referrals and job outcomes.
o Work toward consistency in the application of rules e.g. some regions allow back dating of applications for ES and some do not.
• People on Income Support should not have to reapply to be eligible for Employment Supports. This adds time and administrative burden to everyone. People on Income Support should be fast-tracked without personal interviews.
• Process for determining and individual is not eligible for ODSP-IS should be more transparent and the rationale for turning down the application should be noted in the correspondence.
• Individuals should be given a choice of formats by which they receive information e.g. mail, email, voice, language options, etc.
• Greater flexibility is needed for income reporting e.g. people should not have to report ‘no income’ each month, there should be a process where income is consistent month to month without requiring a monthly report, etc.

Issue 4: Viable over the Long Term

• The number of people who have a disability in receipt of Income Support is significant and demographic trends suggest this group will grow as a percentage of the general population. It would seem that the principal way to reduce the burden on the Income Support system is to place greater emphasis and investment on helping more people who have a disability get into the workforce.
• Having said that, there is also a suggestion that this is as much a ‘revenue problem’ for government, more so than a spending problem. If business stimulation can encourage greater business success and profits, tax revenues will increase accordingly.
• As Ontarians, we must take a broader perspective on the economic impact of employment and disability. We must look at this issue as a means to strengthen Ontario’s communities; both by engaging all citizens to make a contribution to the tax base by working, and to by containing expenses without that containment landing on the backs of people who have a disability. Employment is the best solution.
• There is increasing need to fund research. This is not done in any effective manner in Ontario.
o Track employment outcomes
o Research and analyze ‘best practices’ and share this knowledge
o Prepare a cost benefit analysis for employment programs and outcomes
• Reinvest a portion of ODSP-IS savings in the employment support system
• Look for savings within the system without placing a greater burden on service providers or people who have a disability
o By eliminating eligibility processes for ES for people already on IS
o By changing monthly reporting to a less cumbersome process
o Re-think ODSP-ES file audit and monitoring processes. Why is this needed when ODSP only pays based on outcomes.

Issue 5: An Integrated Ontario Position on Income Security

Income Security
• All people in Ontario should be guaranteed a degree of income security, one that provides a minimum standard of living. This should be achieved through a combination of Income Support and earnings. A minimum standard should be set and adjusted to cost of living accordingly.

Integrated Employment Supports and Services

• EI and CPP should be able to contract disability services from existing employment service agencies.
• People should be able to access both systems based on individual need.
• Transition from OW to ODSP is time consuming and difficult. People are often in ‘wait’ mode and unable to access any services or supports. Employment Supports should be available at this time.
• People who have a disability in receipt of ODSP should be able to access the same range of supports available to OW recipients and EI e.g. skills training, Second Career, etc.

Featuring an introduction by Professor Stephen W. Hawking, this 349 page document is the first-ever World Report on Disability.  Information includes global estimates and looks at the status of people who have a disability world-wide.  This document explores the many barriers experienced by people who have a disability, and the negative effects resulting from such barriers.

Click here to view a PDF of the document