1996 ANNUAL REPORT,
PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CONTENTS
Thursday 5 December 1996
1996 annual report, Provincial Auditor: Ontario Training and Adjustment Board
Ms Veronica Lacey, deputy minister
Ms Joan Andrew, assistant deputy minister
Mr Sante Mauti, director, workplace preparation branch
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président: (vacant)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
*Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
*Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South / -Sud PC)
*Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
*Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
*Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
*Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
*Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
*Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC) for Mr Fox
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1042 in room 228, following a closed session.
1996 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Colle): We will hear first from the Deputy Minister of Education and Training.
Ms Veronica Lacey: Good morning. My name is Veronica Lacey and I'm the very, very new Deputy Minister of Education and Training for Ontario. I'm particularly excited this morning because this is my first presentation to a formal body of the Legislature. On behalf of the ministry, I would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss the findings of the Provincial Auditor.
There are four fundamental principles that govern the way we manage the Ministry of Education and Training, and I would like to share those with you to give you a context and a framework for understanding the direction in which we are headed.
They are quality, service, accountability and affordability, and just a couple of minutes on each one of those themes.
First of all, quality: In education and training we believe that it is critically important to define the standards of performance in all our programs. We believe that, concomitantly, measurement and communications are also key aspects of quality performance.
Second, service: We have, as a ministry, a total commitment to deliver our services to our clients, those services that have been identified as priorities -- as priorities according to our needs and as priorities according to our ability to realistically deliver them.
Third, accountability: We believe that accountability denotes credibility, integrity, honesty and openness with our clients, and we believe that accountability is the fundamental link between service providers and our clients.
Finally, affordability: All these principles of course can only be delivered within the context that we can afford them, and so we believe that all our programs will be delivered in a cost-effective manner.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the issues that have been raised by the auditor. Following our presentation we would welcome questions from the committee members. I would like to turn to Joan Andrew, who is the assistant deputy minister of our training division. We also have a number of our colleagues from the ministry, so we are certainly prepared to answer any questions you may have.
Ms Joan Andrew: I'm Joan Andrew. I'm the assistant deputy minister with responsibility for training in the Ministry of Education and Training.
I believe you've been given a package of slides.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, we have that.
Ms Andrew: If you wouldn't mind, I could take a few minutes to go through those and just talk about where we are in terms of the reform of the training system and the particular highlights of how that reform and the Provincial Auditor's comments have come together.
Overall, the audit observations were that the ministry needed to eliminate the duplication between provincial and federal governments in areas of training, to continue the work of the ministry and local boards, to provide sound labour market information for effective decision-making and to improve our delivery system by moving to more results-based funding.
This is quite consistent with the ministry's directions. Over the course of last winter, we conducted a training review to look at our training system, and that was articulated I think in the ministry's business plan that was published last spring. Perhaps I can take some time just to bring you up to date with what we've done, the accomplishments and where we're headed, in a way, because I think it's quite consistent with the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor's report.
The training review that was conducted last winter recommended the elimination of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and the governing structure was eliminated last spring. Some programs were eliminated, and the remaining programs and staff were transferred to the ministry effective July 1 of this year.
We are managing a fiscal reduction of 38% over two fiscal years, this year and next year. Consistent with the government's commitment, training programs that provided subsidies to firms have been eliminated. Our focus on employment preparation is on youth and those people who are not eligible for federal training dollars funded through employment insurance, a significant part being social assistance recipients, but not exclusively.
The next chart just attempts to show in a diagrammatic way the links between the ministry's employment preparation and employers' support programs and those of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, economic development, trade and tourism and the links with the federal government. It's a graphic to try and make the linkages among the various partners in the system.
We are moving, as part of the training review, towards a much more integrated training system. We've been in the process this year of streamlining our own delivery system, making it more focused, more simplified and a lot more efficient, moving to a concept of a single start for unemployed people, with a focus on clients who are not eligible for federal programs.
We are pursuing federal-provincial arrangements in the area of training. I think the Premier is on record as saying we think the federal offer on devolution is a good first step but that the unfairness of the federal allocation system means that our first negotiations will be on the issue of fiscal allocations.
1050
We are moving to enhance an outcomes-based accountability system, building on some of the initiatives that were already under way in some programs and to encourage greater employer investment in training.
We've moved forward in integrating 14 employment preparation programs into a single program with four functions that will provide a single start to focus for our clients across the province. We are beginning a process of reforming the apprenticeship system and hope to have a consultation paper out shortly on that.
We have moved forward to creating an integrated and more coordinated training consulting service for firms based in the college system. We're moving forward with the federal government on the establishment of local boards, and some are now up and running. We've been working on developing an accountability framework, in particular with the college system for the delivery of the programs that they have responsibility for. We will have that in place by April 1 next year.
For workplace preparation programs, we took 14 separate programs and integrated them into a single program with one-start access for clients where we provide services based on client need. Previous programs often were formulaic programs based on your age: If you were under 25, these were the kinds of programs we had on offer. What the new programs will do is look at individual client needs and provide what they need, which is sometimes less than what was previously on offer and sometimes is more than what was previously on offer.
We are moving to a funding mechanism with our contracted delivery agents based on outcomes. We've already terminated two or three programs that had relatively high costs with low results, and we're building on successes that I think the auditor noted in the report, on the youth employment counselling centres and Futures program. We're moving also on developing a common assessment tool to improve the portability of training across the various systems.
The next chart is an attempt to show diagrammatically the integration of the various programs into the one program with four key functions: information and referral, employment planning and preparation, on-the-job training and literacy, and basic skills training and upgrading.
The next slide takes the program funding for workplace preparation programs, with the exclusion of summer youth employment because the Provincial Auditor didn't look at those programs -- this was what would have been the Futures youth employment counselling centres' basic skills programs -- and charts where we were last year, this year and next year in terms of funding and in terms of the clients served and the changes in the average unit cost. By next year we will have significantly improved our unit cost and, with reduction in funding, be able to serve more clients than two years ago.
In terms of some results of the programs where we're trying to use the examples of best practice, the Futures program, which is a program for particularly employment-disadvantaged youth, 75% of those who had gone through the program were employed or in further training three months after the end of the program. For youth employment counselling centres, the employment training rate was 81%, and for help centres, which is a program aimed at older workers, it was 85%.
Moving now to programs that support employers in training their own workers, we have taken the Ontario skills development offices that were located in the community colleges and reformed them, and we will be integrating our adjustment advisory service, which is a service to help firms that are in the middle of significant organizational change, to provide service to them, and the apprenticeship system, which is regulated by the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act and its regulations, to move to a more integrated approach to providing service to employers for the needs of their workers.
We have a small amount of money to help industry sectors that come forward and want to take sectoral approaches to training to put together some of the standards and curriculum, but not to subsidize the ongoing training. The programs that provided ongoing subsidies to employers that were eliminated were the Ontario skills program, the training trust funds and the actual sectoral agreements that provided ongoing subsidies for training. They're being phased out over the course of this year.
The apprenticeship reform initiative that was announced in the business plan, and we'll start consultation shortly, proposed a more modernized, flexible and relevant apprenticeship system that could better meet the needs of new and emerging occupations. This will require an overhaul of the existing act and its regulations. We will be looking at new funding mechanisms for the in-school training part of apprenticeship, as well as alternative delivery methods. We've made some progress this year on looking at alternative delivery mechanisms and different ways of funding in-school, but the existing federal regulations that require people to be in school full time limit that. As they withdraw their funding, we'll have greater flexibility to look at new methods.
We are looking at a more streamlined and refocused front-line client service function across all our services to employers for training, and hope to have the revised apprenticeship system with the new legislation in place for 1998-99.
Right now, training assistance to firms and employed workers is through a network of offices in the college system called Ontario skills development offices that are being integrated with our adjustment advisory services and some of the work the colleges already do on contract training to provide one-stop location or one-start location for employers in their own communities. There is a greater emphasis on fee-for-service and revenue generation and a greater focus on accountability for outcomes.
The next page focuses on the changes in funding through the workplace support programs over last year and this year, and the changes in the client mix.
The next pages specifically deal with the recommendations the auditor made and how we're addressing those.
I think the first issue was the measuring and reporting of performance. We now have standards and indicators in place for most programs, and will have them for all programs shortly. The reforms we have already undertaken have provided us an opportunity to revise and strengthen the outcomes-based accountability measures.
In employment preparation reform we have recently undertaken a review, community by community, of service levels. In doing that review, we've integrated labour market information, previous service level performance and cost outcomes, and have increased our monitoring of service quality as we move through the reforms. The information management systems have been put in place to support the achievement of program objectives and we have reviewed the agency costs and outcomes during our decisions on reforming the system. We are developing outcome measures for apprenticeship, and outcome measures for the consulting services are being revised.
As I mentioned earlier, the ministry expects to sign a memorandum of understanding with the colleges to focus on an overall accountability process between ourselves and the colleges for the delivery of our programs.
1100
The second issue the auditor raised was the coordination of programs and services between ourselves and the federal government. We have expressed interest in coming to an agreement with the federal government to transfer responsibility for training to Ontario. As I mentioned, a fair allocation of the funds is a precondition to those negotiations. Ontario has about 35% of the country's unemployed, and the offer from the federal government at the moment is for somewhere between 25% and 27% of the training funds. That would be somewhere between $175 million and $200 million a year less to Ontario for training of unemployed people. We are focusing on streamlining the training system under our jurisdiction to focus the training expenditures on clients not eligible for federal training programs in the interim, so we will serve the unemployed who are not eligible for federal training programs. In Ontario, that's about 65% of the unemployed; about 35% are eligible for unemployment insurance.
We're moving to a shared assessment process with other jurisdictions, including the federal government, to try to reduce the amount of reassessment of individual clients as they move through the system. If we have a common assessment tool, it will save time and money. We are working jointly with the federal government on the local boards initiatives, and once they are operational, they will be responsible for leading a community planning process.
We are now using labour market information to support our policy and program delivery decisions, as recommended by the auditor. We are working particularly in Peterborough, which was the first area where a local board became operational, on a joint labour market profile with the federal government to facilitate decision-making at the local level. We are providing other support, including resource guides, to local boards for them to undertake some locally initiated research on their labour markets.
The fourth recommendation from the auditor dealt with funding and contractual arrangements with delivery agents. Our overall changes over the course of the last year have made the system more focused and I think more simple and cost-effective. We've reduced our unit costs by 10% this year from last year, and the targeted reduction for next year is for a 25% to 30% reduction in unit costs so we can serve more clients with the funding available. The first full contracted year with the new system will be starting in April. That will be the year for establishing benchmarks so that we can have the 1998-99 contracts tied to their success from the 1997-98 funding.
The literacy and basic skills model will start early in January, consulting on moving that system to a more consistent funding model based on results. We've spent the first part of this year -- well, from July onwards -- focused on the employment preparation side and we're now moving to the literacy and basic skills side.
In apprenticeship, we've been refining the seat purchase planning and scheduling to achieve funding for actual seat utilization, which was one of the recommendations in the auditor's report. We are looking, as part of apprenticeship reform, at different models for supporting the in-school part of apprenticeship, rather than seat purchase, to ensure greater stakeholder commitment to the system.
In monitoring of our delivery agents, we've put monitoring activity in place for the Ontario skills development offices using a management information system, and we are doing field monitoring for our adjustment advisory program to ensure that the level of training and the standards are met. We hope to integrate those two approaches as we integrate the two services.
New program management systems are being developed for employment preparation based on the systems we had in place for the Futures program, which was the model identified by the auditor.
We have in the course of our restructuring managed to devote some resources that were previously in other parts of the organization to increased monitoring in the literacy programs and to take into account high-risk situations, which I think was another recommendation of the auditor.
Apprenticeship monitoring will be addressed in the context of the new delivery models we hope to have in place by 1998. We can report that 90% of apprentices pass their examinations and achieve certification. So we are doing some work now, but the full development of a new monitoring system will follow from the development of a new apprenticeship system.
Standards for training services: We are expanding our existing standards and developing new ones. The integration of the programs will result in more consistent eligibility and needs criteria for client assessment. We'll be reporting requirements across our employment preparation program, building on those from the Futures program. We have been working on developing learning outcomes and a more goal-directed assessment tool for literacy and basic skills so we can focus people at where they're coming into the system, what they want to achieve and where they want to leave the system.
We are, as I said earlier, developing an accountability framework with the colleges, which are one of our largest delivery agents, and are working with them on a set of standards as part of that accountability framework.
The seventh issue addressed by the auditor was the apprenticeship program administration, particularly certificate renewals. The ministry and the Ministry of Labour are working together to improve the tracking of the certificate renewal issue. As part of our initial work, it has become clear that there are several legitimate reasons for the expiry of certificates that people have: no longer working in the field or the trade; they've moved. In fact, our initial research in tracking those renewals shows that a number of people have also died. So we are working on the issue.
The auditor also talked about raising the entry requirements for entrance into apprenticeship. We are doing some work on academic readiness to enable apprentices to identify their upgrading needs. I think we recognize that many people would like to increase the academic entry requirements for apprenticeship. We have to look at how to ensure access to apprenticeship for people for whom the traditional education system hasn't been the answer while balancing the need to increase their skill levels in basic math. Whether an across-the-board increase in the academic entry level requirement is the answer or not, I think we recognize the same problem. I'm not sure we think making everybody have a grade 12 requirement is the solution, but we recognize the issue and we'll look at that in the context of apprenticeship reform.
We are now tracking withdrawals and the reasons for withdrawals. In our alternative service delivery pilots we've been looking at how the increased flexibility of different modes of in-school delivery has increased people's motivation and persistence and borne fruit in terms of the withdrawal rate from apprenticeship going down somewhat.
We are looking at our information system and conducting an evaluation of the system's strengths and weaknesses. We will do an upgrading of it, but in the context of the apprenticeship reform when we determine exactly what the system will be tracking.
Just to conclude, a lot of the auditor's comments on the OTAB programs and our reform of the training system coincided. We still plan to continue further work to eliminate duplication between the federal and provincial governments, as well as duplication within our own system; to work as quickly as possible to provide sound labour market information to inform our program and funding decisions; and to achieve new levels of accountability through the revision of contracts, funding arrangements and standards with delivery agents and to increase our monitoring of those delivery agents.
1110
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Thank you for coming today and trying to respond to the auditor's queries regarding apprenticeship training and all that kind of thing. I'm a little disturbed in that you say you have a vision in terms of dealing with apprenticeship reform and a seamless integrated system, but I get an impression that it's not weaving together. I read this stuff and there doesn't seem to be a core value system or an overarching vision.
In your negotiations with the federal government, what kind of tracking are we doing for newcomers coming to Canada in terms of the lack of skills they have in the overall scheme of things? I see lots of them in my riding office who have come to Canada looking for a better opportunity at life with their families, but once they arrive here they seem to lose track of that.
What plans do we have for the continuation of apprenticeship people from one program to another when the housing sector of the economy has picked up? For example, I attended the apprenticeship graduation last night of Local 27 of the carpenters' union. Those folks have gone through four years and 5,400 hours of training, but it would appear, in talking to many of them, even with the low interest rates we have in the economy and a lot of other positive things, that not too many of them had jobs they were going to in the next month, which I find not surprising.
The whole thing of one-stop shopping: If I'm unemployed, an older worker or a younger person who has been out of school, it would appear to me that it's almost hopeless trying to figure out how to access some of these programs. For example, why haven't we managed so far to put stuff on the Internet or have the unemployment insurance in the community colleges combined with the information when I go to find out what I can get into or not into? It seems to be all over the road and it's very discouraging, from people I've talked with who come to my constituency office.
Those are just three of the basic issues that perhaps you could deal with in a much more comforting and reassuring way than I've heard in this presentation.
Ms Andrew: There is a fundamental issue between the federal government's responsibility in the areas of training and the provincial government's responsibilities in the areas of training, and I don't want to diminish that. The federal government has announced that by 1999 they will no longer be involved in the area of training and they are offering to devolve their labour market programming to the provinces. Ontario has said we're quite interested in doing that. That reform will mean that individuals who are unemployed in Ontario can go to one location to begin to get services for their needs.
Right now, it is true that the federal government has identified its clients as those unemployed people who are on employment insurance, they now call it, and that's about 36% of the unemployed people in Ontario; the other unemployed clients are the responsibility of the provincial government. There is still a fundamental distinction between the federal government and the provincial government for how those two things work.
The Premier has indicated that we are interested in taking responsibility for training programs, but he's interested that a fair fiscal arrangement is a precondition for that. The service delivery of integrating the front-line services for people on UI and for other folks will flow from that agreement, but that agreement will only come when the fiscal negotiations have been finalized. That's the first point I think you were making.
We are working through the establishment of the local boards, because they will have responsibility for coordinating both federal and provincial training in their own communities. The establishment of local boards is to be able to begin a planning process where people from local communities look at what both levels of government have to offer and start to plan it better for their communities. We have been working hard with the federal government on making that front-end planning work better.
The question about newcomers to the country and their skill level: I think the Premier has indicated that this is more the responsibility of the Ministry of Citizenship, but the Premier has also indicated that he wants a better integrated system, because it's the federal government's responsibility in the area of immigration, a more integrated system for the settlement of newcomers.
That right now is primarily the responsibility of the federal government. We try and work with them on issues where it's related to trades training and those things. We have initiated, as part of the apprenticeship system, a prior learning assessment and recognition of foreign credentials so we can look at the training and credentials people have received outside Canada and recognize them and determine how much more training people will need specifically within the context of apprenticeship. But until the bigger issue of federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction is sorted out, the complete integration of front-line services won't be possible.
The one-start service I was talking about that we will have in place: We spent this year doing the reorganization, and by April 1 next year anybody, an older person, a younger person, will be able to go to any of our offices and get access to the service we provide. It still will be focused on those people who are not on UI and who aren't eligible for federal programs until we make an agreement with the federal government, but as I said, that's about 65% of the unemployed people in Ontario. We'll have a network across Ontario that will have technological hookups between community agencies, the college system, school boards.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): We required a review and we shut OTAB down, the governing structure, partly because the only thing it produced was paralysis. If you look around this room, this is about the size of an OTAB meeting, 25 people more or less, but the downside was that we had an eight and eight and eight structure, eight being labour, eight being business, and eight being equity groups. Now, the LTAB is the same governing structure. My first question is, what monitoring would take place that we don't have the same failure there? Second, I understand the agreement for the funding of LTABs is $4 million between the federal and provincial governments. What are the specifics? Is there a copy of an agreement? What are we committed to? Are we committed to LTABs, that kind of thing? Those are my two questions.
1120
Ms Andrew: The governance structure for local training boards is slightly different from the governance structure for OTAB, where local communities can recommend structures that better meet their own needs with specific community representatives. It is different from the OTAB structure, and the membership can range from anywhere -- on local boards I believe it's from about 16 people to about 25, depending on community needs.
Each local board will be subject to a contract between the federal and provincial governments and themselves for the delivery of specific items related to local labour market information, recommendation of specific training programs in their communities, those kinds of things. We will monitor the ongoing progress of the boards and are committed, with the federal government, to a review of them by next summer if they haven't produced results.
Mr Skarica: And the specifics of the federal-provincial agreement? I still don't know what they are.
Ms Andrew: The specifics of the agreement were to develop local training boards that would provide an ability by local communities to coordinate their own labour market training and advice to both levels of government on how to best deliver training programs in their communities so that the needs of those communities were specifically met. I don't have the rest of the text of the agreement with me, but I can provide it to you.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Thanks for your presentation. I wonder if I could get back to first principles here on some of the things the auditor identified, particularly around results. What you could perhaps more clearly indicate are the future results we could expect to mark employment preparation success. For example, when we're looking at a three-month market, which is a shorter period of education, I think there's a gap between what people would like to believe can be done in terms of training and what we get from that. What do we really get in terms of enhanced employability? Is there a grasp the ministry has on this in terms of what we can look at?
I'm particularly interested too in what happens when you take the per capita funding down from $1,500 to $1,100, and that isn't really addressed in your report. Can we expect a higher failure rate because of that? Do we really believe that those efficiencies are going to be reflected in results? But my question is mainly focused on what you think the future results to give credibility to provincial training programs will be. What kind of indicators are going to be possible under some of the various reforms that your document indicates are under way?
Ms Andrew: The outcome measures that we spoke of there are not at three months of training; they're three months after someone's left training.
Mr Kennedy: I understand that, but I find that inadequate. I'm just wondering, what in future is the ministry looking at? When it comes down to these kinds of things, those of us who have been out in the field looking at the outcomes of this see money thrown up against a wall hoping it will stick; there are programs that people cycle through. I'll give you an example: 25% of the people who used food banks last year went through a training program, went through some type of government training program. Fewer than 5% of them found employment as a result. Half the single parents dropped out partway through the programs.
I don't mean that to be anything except an illustration of the need to have credible results to show. I'm just wondering, because the auditor has identified that as a shortcoming, what is the ministry working on in terms of specific kinds of results we might expect a year from now or as these things start to get pulled together?
Ms Andrew: As part of the review of training, we actually cancelled a couple of the programs that had lower results. The Transitions program, which was a voucher program that had been provided in Ontario for older workers, had quite low results -- about half the people who benefitted from Transitions actually regained employment after using the program -- so that program was terminated. We kept the program models that were focused on youth and their return to jobs or further training at the rate of about 75% or 80%.
What we're hoping for, with the expansion of what we're talking about for next year, is retaining the kind of success we had under those programs where we tracked people to look at models that have produced results for relatively low cost. We think that for fairly disadvantaged youth, a 75% employment rate or further training is quite a good outcome. We will do representative sampling on the longer term. We do follow-up at three months for everyone and then we will do some representative longer-term follow-up, but following everyone who's been in a training program over the course of time can be expensive. If that's specifically what --
Mr Kennedy: It's getting there, because then we're looking at the difference between, say, $1,100 a year and $6,000 in the education system. We want to make sure we're not just going to cycle people through five different training programs when they could have been enhancing their education, for example, having a durable skill set that means they wouldn't be just part of what is increasingly a flexible workforce but doesn't really meet the needs of the new economy.
I don't believe we'll maintain public support for training programs unless we can hone in on what is actually accomplished over a longer period of time. I'm just encouraging you, that that is the heart of the problems these kinds of programs face. We had an incremental program in the past sort of nudging people along, keeping them busy when the labour market conditions were different, but these are different times now. The question is, can you, in the training programs at your disposal, materially affect the outcomes of people's employability? Unless there's a firm measure of that, I'm questioning it.
Ms Andrew: If you're going from 100% unemployed to 75% employed --
Mr Kennedy: Three months after the program, is that right, when you say 75%?
Ms Andrew: Yes, three months after they leave our training programs. That's a material impact on someone's life, I would think.
Mr Kennedy: The cost-benefit, depending how long that employment lasts, the durability of it and so on -- to me, something more compelling would still be required in terms of being able to really demonstrate to people that that kind of outcome is worth the public dollars that are involved, and better than.
The other thing is just looking at the universe of need here, which I haven't heard reference to, and I think when we look at the efficacy -- for example, we talk about a transition program. That universe is older workers having a harder time getting into the workforce, so the target is going to be different there and the target in Peterborough might be different from Metro. In terms of setting those targets, it's not just a question of the number of unemployed people we get into the workforce at the lowest cost. It's got to be: How do we get the productivity of those older workers? What is the best way we can adjust that so it's available to the economy? How do we deal with younger workers in terms of getting them their first experience?
Again in terms of results, I'd be more persuaded if there were some recognition that there are harder, tougher jobs for the government or for anyone trying to assist older workers than workers at different stages of their career and so on. In the push to save dollars here, are we trying to get a one-size-fits-all result or are those kinds of considerations within each program going to be reflected in future results that the ministry shows?
Ms Andrew: We've moved away from programs that had one-size-fits-all and we're trying to move to a program where we get to identify the individual client's needs -- maybe I wasn't clear enough about that -- in moving to the employment preparation program. Our previous program said, "If you're under 25 you need this, this and this and you'll go through that," and it may not have met those clients' needs, or "If you're over 45, this is what you get and this is what you'll do." We're now integrating the program, so we have four fundamental services.
The first one is information and referral, because that's what some folks need. They need information on how to find jobs, where to get jobs and referral to other supports in their community, like access to child care or information for injured workers. The second part of it is assistance with employment preparation and job search, résumé writing, interview skills, those kinds of things. Some people need work experience and on-the-job training and some people need literacy and basic skills.
The system we've moved from was a patchwork of one-size-fits-all programs. If you met the criteria by age or by characteristic you went through a one-size-fits-all program. We're moving to a system of community starts where you can go in and get access to counselling and assistance to identify what your particular need is, and then a program that meets those needs. It is, however, focused on people who are not eligible for employment insurance, in an effort to reduce the duplication overlap with the federal government, which has identified that it will only provide assistance and training programs to people on unemployment insurance.
1130
Mr Kennedy: I understand they're going back three years now, in some cases. Is that not correct?
Ms Andrew: That doesn't help youth, who largely have never been on -- it is a help for older workers who are long-term unemployed.
Mr Kennedy: I understand the targeting and the menu of things you're trying to make available and even a progression there. As legislators we need to understand the problem you're addressing. I hope there will be some focus on the assumptions here. In some cases there are not the jobs, therefore part of what needs to be recognized is that X% of over-50 workers are not getting jobs on their own and X% with assistance are getting them. We may find that to be a good enough social or economic return to continue that kind of program. We need to see what the problem is you're addressing.
There's a stutter step involved for anybody starting out in terms of where they're coming from. We've got university students now going back to college to try and get employment skills, and we also understand that in a flexible environment more and more employers are using government programs to set up specific skills that they used to train on their own, which is another issue for us. Those are the kinds of things we would find, if addressed, more persuasive in terms of supporting programs like this. We would want to know that those are a part of your targeting: What is the universe of need out there? What are the results you can achieve against it?
The auditor is looking at a narrower base of things, but I think as legislators we would like to see what can be done. We don't believe everything can be done; we don't believe that's possible. We would like to know, especially when you're being asked to do this with fewer dollars, what effectiveness we can expect, and you haven't addressed the question, will you be more effective with fewer dollars, which I would like to know. Those other reference points are what we would expect to see from the ministry as it develops this program.
Ms Andrew: Our expectation is that we will be more effective in employment preparation because we will have a more flexible set of tools we can use to identify individual need instead of having a range of programs that were a fixed menu, if you will, and some of them quite high-cost fixed menus. We will spend most of next year in contracting with people to test out the outcome measures to make sure we've got it right, to fine-tune the system, and beginning in 1998-99 the agents who actually deliver this program will have their funding tied to their effectiveness in these outcome measures. We're in a transition, over the next 18 months, of moving to an outcomes-based contracting system with the agencies that deliver these programs.
The Vice-Chair: I just have a question of clarification here. On page 9 -- Mr Kennedy referred to it -- it says, "75% of clients employed, in" the Futures program "in education or training...." Could you give us the breakdown on how many of them are employed, how many are in education or training? It's ambiguous in terms of how many are actually employed.
Ms Andrew: Sante Mauti, the director of the program area responsible, has the detailed data. If I could just say, though, for Futures clients between 16 and 25 we consider return to education as a successful outcome, if they choose -- these are young unemployed people who have left the school system -- to go back to school to further their education.
The Vice-Chair: I know, as Mr Hastings says about the carpenters who were out of work, it's just the percentage of people who are employed as a result of these programs that I would like. Can you give it us in Futures, for instance?
Mr Sante Mauti: Yes. About two thirds of that number are in jobs. About another third go back to the regular post-secondary system in school. The other third --
The Vice-Chair: In the Futures program, right?
Mr Mauti: In Futures. The other third go on to other training. Some of this is preparatory training. It could be, for example, some pre-qualification for apprenticeship or other training programs.
The Vice-Chair: And then the next one, the YECC?
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Excuse me, Mr Chair. That just added up to four thirds.
Mr Mauti: I'm sorry. Two thirds of those clients go on to employment. Of the remaining third, half go to school, half into other training.
The Vice-Chair: And then in YECC?
Mr Mauti: The YECC is aimed at clients who have a bit more skills. They don't need as much of an intensive intervention like Futures. That 81% is virtually -- about three quarters, 75% to 80%, are placed in unsubsidized jobs at three-month follow-up. Then it's a similar split with the remaining clients: About half go on to formal training or half go back to school.
One of the objectives of these programs for a lot of youth, because they are focused on youth, is to get them back into the post-secondary system. Many of the agencies have links with the school boards and have alternative education programs and programs through the Independent Learning Centre to get clients back and earning credits.
The Vice-Chair: So 75%, three quarters of 81% are employed?
Mr Mauti: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: And the last one, the help centres: Of 85% of the clients, how many are employed?
Mr Mauti: I don't have the breakdown for help centres. I can give this information back to the committee afterwards.
The Vice-Chair: Sure, no problem.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Veronica, congratulations on your appointment at a time of really merging crises, perhaps, a very challenging time in education. I'm sure you will not only survive the day but that you'll do better than break even higher each following day.
Madame Andrew, I recognize the style; I need your help. At intervals you quote the Premier to emphasize, to make a point. When we were the government, and I'm quoting the Premier of today, when we talked about Ontario not getting its fair share in dealing with new arrivals, with immigrants, in terms of shared programs, ie, training, Mike Harris was the third party then, as we are now, and he used to say: "Stop whining. You're the government now." For four years and nine months that same record came through, and throughout.
In your relationship -- we're talking about a shared program -- with the federal government there is an evolution. In fact, the neighbouring province of Quebec, among others, has recently overemphasized the need to have sole jurisdiction over training programs. They claim they're responsible for education, and training is given as one of the tools to defend oneself and cope with society.
What do you see in the immediate future? The federal government has responded, "Yes, we could be sympathetic, so let's look at some mechanism for transition." How would this change the program, in your view? What kind of duplication would be avoided? What kind of supplementary latitude would it give provincial jurisdictions over training if you were to have sole jurisdiction? Please don't quote the Premier.
Ms Andrew: It's really Mr Hastings's point, that if you're unemployed in Ontario right now you have to know what programs you're eligible for. You go to federal offices if you're eligible for some and to our offices if you're eligible for others. I think that sole jurisdiction by the provincial government would enhance the system in a number of ways.
For one thing, we have jurisdiction over education. It would make linkages between employment counselling and education and post-secondary education closer. I think you'd find there would be savings because, in rationalizing the front-line infrastructure of referral training, overheads, those kinds of things, you could find efficiencies in the system.
Right now we have two parallel systems. You could probably serve the same number of unemployed people and provide the same level of training to more people by integrating the management of the infrastructure, if you want to call it that. We have two systems.
It would also support our provincial economic development directions, the training supports directions in economic development, and it would reflect an integrated perspective to dealing with our social and economic policies within the provincial government. I think that's the major benefit. But I really think probably the primary benefits would be to individuals who in their own communities could go to one location.
1140
Mr Pouliot: During your presentation, certainly more than once you referred to the fact that you're not getting an equal share, that you're not getting the same percentage of federal funding as other jurisdictions do. In fact, you're severely, dramatically lagging behind. That tone would indicate to me that in order to do a complete or a better job, you would need more funding. Otherwise, there would be no need to refer to the lack of it.
You're about to get hit, education is, big time. This is not a secret. You don't need to be much of a speculator. You don't need to have been around here a long, long time. The government is in a bind. I know you can't say this, but I sure can and I will. They're on the hook to find a supplementary $5.4 billion. You will notice it on your paycheque, because that's where it begins to impact, on the people who make more, who take home more money than people who make a substantial living here.
So they've got to deliver. They've got to cut. Where you cut is where the money is. The money's in health, in education and social assistance, and in transfer payments. Now they have a commission. They're asking us to sit till midnight, then they've got three additional months of sitting, but we get paid for that. That's not a problem; we represent people. That's our job.
Interjections.
Mr Pouliot: I didn't interrupt you during your time.
They're going to cut big time -- I'm on the finance committee as well -- about $3 billion. As I read in the paper, education might be one of the focuses. Education and training are the same thing; they go hand in hand. So you're not going to get more money. Your client group, given the economic cycle, when the bad times start coming -- it doesn't have to be a recession, just a slowdown in the US in the first or second quarters, and then bang, it crosses the border, inevitably. We're one-tenth the size and they're our neighbour.
Then you have higher tuition fees, so people, they dislocate; they can no longer belong to the system. More pressure. Then you also have more difficulties because transfer partners will get substantially less money. When you compound these things and then you add up what is perhaps the catalyst, which is the ever changing, it creates a great deal of anxiety. Traditionally we used to be able to reconcile, to recognize the good times and bad times and to adjust. But it changes so quickly now and you have such an emphasis on a marriage of the muscle, the robotic and the computers, if you wish, and the brain.
Since 1981 we had expediency to reconcile, to do something -- put people to work, do training, get them out the door, do something with them -- because we had an acute recession. Now we have a recovery, albeit that it's based on exports, but it's a recovery. In the transition, we still have the same difficulties as we had, but what quick adjustment do you have to do?
I look at why the program was put in place. I look at the different sectors. That was in 1991. I look at the marketplace needs for trained people in 1997, next month, and I see your mandate. It means so much less than when I was sitting on those committees in 1991.
What has changed? You're not adhering to your mandate. If I was to take you to task through the Provincial Auditor, not value for money but in terms of looking at all the different sectors and looking at the headings and saying: What does that mean? What have you got under this program? Do you feel that your role has changed significantly, and where do you see further changes in the near future --
The Vice-Chair: Sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt. You can maybe contemplate your answer in the next round. To give everybody a fair chance, we'll go around one more time, four minutes each.
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you for the presentation here today. Congratulations, Ms Lacey. We look forward to working with you during your term and I'm sure they will be very interesting times.
I'd like, perhaps from Ms Andrew, a better definition just to follow up on Mr Skarica's point. It's my understanding that you will table with the clerk a copy of whatever memorandum exists between our government and the federal government detailing the arrangements that exist.
I note that the Peterborough LTAB is up and running. I wonder if you would also table a copy of that contract.
Thirdly, you had mentioned the Transitions program. I appreciate your bringing that up because I've had a couple of queries from within my riding. I don't know whether the committee would have a general interest in that program, but at least to myself, if not to the committee, I wonder if you would be kind enough to give the sort of background information to which you alluded. It was a program with less spectacular results than some of the other three that you've alluded to today, so that I'd have some background information to deal with those queries if any others come in. I'd be grateful.
The line of questioning I'd like to take is slightly different than what we've had so far. As we've gone through the auditor's report, different groups in the last two years, what I sometimes don't see in some of the presentations that come before us are some of the specifics that I would have thought the auditor was suggesting should arise in responses to his recommendations. I look at your fourth audit issue number, "Funding and Contractual Arrangements with Delivery Agents," and as far as it goes it's very detailed and I appreciate the explanations that you've given. But I look back at one line in the auditor's report where, "The average funded cost per contact hour for colleges was $8.67 versus $3.73 for school boards." That's under the heading of "Funding for Literacy and Numeracy programs."
I guess my question would be that given that the auditor himself has recommended: "To help ensure that programs and services are delivered in a more economical, efficient and effective manner, the ministry should revise funding and contractual arrangements...so that funding levels are determined by: achievement...the actual level of service provided...where appropriate, the use of a competitive tendering process...."
I don't see a specific response in your section of the presentation. I guess my question would be, why in blazes would we give a single dollar's worth of business to a community college if the school boards can deliver the same services for literally $5 per hour less? While we have community colleges in many communities, we certainly have school boards in all communities, so our ability to deliver that program seamlessly across Ontario would seem to me to be more easily facilitated if we standardized with one sort of program and did that via the school boards, unless the colleges came down and met that cost standard. What specifically is being done to address that concern that was raised by the auditor?
Ms Andrew: Specifically on that issue, we are releasing a paper in January on literacy basic skills. We inherited programs that were originally funded by different ministries, and to be honest, we recognized different costs. It's not necessarily what it costs, it's the costs we recognized, and we did recognize more generous costs in the colleges than in the school boards. To be clear, though, only somewhere under half the school boards offer the literacy program, so it wouldn't be available from all school boards; only about 70 in the province offer the program. All colleges offer it. So there would be some issues of availability.
But we are launching a process in January to rationalize, or whatever you want to call it, what costs we would recognize for literacy training, what we would pay, to come to a much more common standard across the various providers of literacy training for what we would pay for. We might pay different amounts for different levels. There are levels 1, 2, 3 and 4. The auditor's comment was about levels 1 and 2, which is up to grade 8, I believe, literacy level. You might have different costs for the higher-end training than for the lower-end training, but we undertook between July and now the rationalization of the youth employment infrastructure first, youth employment counselling centres, Futures. Agencies that are going to continue with us have been notified, and those that aren't have now been notified. That happened earlier this week.
We've done the preliminary work within the ministry on the literacy funding model and we're going out for consultation with our providers because there are also community literacy providers who make quite wide use of volunteers and there's literacy work that takes place that employers support and subsidize. So we do literacy training in a variety of ways, and I think that's good, in Ontario. We need to go out and consult and make sure the models we've thought about would meet the needs of the various ways we provide literacy training.
The Vice-Chair: Sorry to interrupt.
Mr Gilchrist: Just two seconds. Can I just ask that a copy of that January report, when it comes forward, be tabled with the committee as well, please.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning. I just have a brief question with regard to your comments on the federal government getting out of training at the end of 1998, was it?
Ms Andrew: It's in 1999. I think it's April 1999.
Mr Crozier: Okay. So in the near future. There's been a lot of debate, I think both inside government and outside, as to the extent that the federal government should be in training. If I have read it correctly, the debate would be more that it seems logical that it should be provincial for the reasons you've said, because we're responsible for education in general.
Has that been a unilateral decision on behalf of the federal government or was that decision arrived at at least with some preliminary discussion with the province, that we're both working towards that goal?
Ms Andrew: I think it's been under general discussion for a long time that this is an area of overlap and duplication and some realignment of jurisdictions. The announcement by the federal government that they were getting out of training by 1999 was unilateral, and they then made an offer to the provinces for the transfer of funds. The initial announcement was unilateral, but it's been in the works --
Mr Crozier: There seems to be some general agreement that that's at least the right direction to go, as opposed to the provinces giving the federal government responsibility for training. Is that a reasonable observation?
Ms Andrew: I would think so, yes.
Mr Crozier: Are we done?
The Vice-Chair: You've got to go vote for your --
Mr Crozier: Oh, thank you, Chair. I'm done.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Mr Pouliot.
Mr Pouliot: On page 99, 3.08 of the auditor's report:
"Detailed Aaudit Observations, Measuring and Reporting Performance:
"OTAB's accountability requirements were defined both in legislation and in its memorandum of understanding with the Minister of Education and Training."
Then in the second paragraph it says, "The OTAB board of directors, through its strategic planning committee, had condensed its 18 legislated responsibilities into eight strategic directions or areas of responsibility."
One of the eight areas is access and equity. Can you give me one or two real-life examples of how it would apply?
Ms Andrew: How the OTAB board of directors applied their access and equity?
Mr Pouliot: Yes, please. Because I understand by way of philosophy that there have been some draconian changes, so what ever happened to access and equity under OTAB? What's happening to it, Madam?
Ms Andrew: I don't have specific examples of the OTAB board of directors' access and equity policy. I did not work at OTAB. I would have to go and check the files. I'm sorry.
Mr Pouliot: I just wish to point out for the record that when we were the government we insisted that access and equity be a priority, one of the eight strategic directions. It's obvious by all accounts that that lot over there, the new government, the Progressive Conservative government that we have, don't want access and equity. I just want this to be recorded in Hansard. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Try to answer that. Maybe Ms Lacey would like to try. No, I'm being facetious.
Ms Andrew, would you like to try and comment on Mr Pouliot's questions?
Ms Andrew: I can go back and look through our files for examples of the access and equity initiatives of the OTAB board if that's the committee's pleasure, and produce some examples.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, or you could just contact Mr Pouliot himself to have a discussion.
Thank you both very much for coming. I think it's helped us understand this transition that's taking place, and I hope we can, with the auditor, be of help.
I know we would like to go and vote; Mr Crozier has a motion.
We are going to have a subcommittee meeting because of the new session coming in January, so we'll be contacting you for a subcommittee meeting.
Thank you very much again, and the committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1156.