APPENDIX C

SERVICE GAPS

An objective of the Pathways to Work Research Project was to report on barriers to employment that a) cannot be addressed by organizations within Kings County with the mandate to do so and b) to report on what barriers cannot be addressed because there is no organization to do so.

In Kings County there are a wide variety of services and programs available for individuals seeking to enter the workforce. As outlined in Theme Chapter 2: Employment Services –there are five main Employment Assistance Service organizations operating in Kings County. Each organization serves a specific target group: persons with an intellectually disability, persons with disabilities, African Nova Scotians, mental health consumers and unemployed Canadians. Within these five there is a variety of other groups that are also served: at risk youth, older workers, Employment Insurance attached persons and those who are under the Employment Supports stream of the Employment Assistance and Income Assistance program provided by the Department of Community Services. In many cases our participants in the Pathways to Work Research Project fell within more than one of the above categories at a given time, and in fact, categories such as unemployed Canadians encompasses all those we spoke to.

Each of the five agencies receives provincial, and, for some, federal funding, to run employment assistance services. These five are considered 3^rd party service providers as they provide services as recommended or approved through funding by the provincial and/or federal governments. In addition to these five primary providers there are a number of other educational, social service, and health care-based agencies that provide employment services. However, their mandate tends to be limited in its focus on employment in comparison to the five mentioned above.

Understanding what barriers cannot be addressed by organizations within Kings County with the mandate to do so is difficult for three reasons a) many organizations facilitate a wide variety of programs and provide them to individuals that may not strictly fall under their mandate, b) service providers have some level of discretion in how employment services are provided, and c) funding steams are subject to some variance in how they are administered. In many cases organizations that have the primary mandate to work with a specific target group such as those with mental health concerns, also provide services to individuals that fall outside of this group. This may be due to a liberal understanding of the people who comprise the target groups, or it may be due to organizations running programming that may not solely address the barriers of their target group. Disability is one such term that can apply to a very wide range of challenges and subsequently people.

To complicate matters further, in interviews with 3rd party service provider staff and representatives from government agencies we were made aware that there is often discretion in how services are rendered and how funding is administered. Program funding streams themselves have a range of ways in which they are applied to the client based on the context of that client. In discussions with provincial department staff we were made aware that the mechanics of many funded programs are not shared with clients or in some cases 3^rd Party service providers until after a funding agreement has been signed if at all. Consequently the information we were able to access in order to understand exactly what services are available to address employment barriers is at best incomplete.

While the scope and scale of services is largely regulated there may be different resources provided to very similar individuals based on that person’s context and staff discretion. While flexibility is a central recommendation to how service should be provided in this report, the current system with all the different employment services with different mandates, practices and organizational cultures makes a detailed analysis of gaps very difficult. A full analysis of where gaps exist in current service provision would require a much lengthier study than the Pathways to Work Research Project and would also necessitate a) direct access to government departments in charge of dispersing funds for employment interventions, and b) intensive study of 3^rd party service provider practices.

Based on the above restrictions in order to a) report on barriers to employment that cannot be addressed by organizations within Kings County with the mandate to do so, and b) report on what barriers cannot be addressed because there is no organization to do so. This chapter uses only information that can be verified in the public domain, i.e., available program funding descriptions taken from provincial and federal government websites. The program descriptions are of specific funding streams that are a) administered directly through the responsible government department, or b) through 3^rd Party service providers. Program funding largely defines the activities that an organization in Kings County can carry out and can serve as a base line understanding of what is available in the County.

Most programs have a variety of services that can be captured under one name, for example the Employment Assistance Services program[1] which allows recipients of this funding to cover the cost of delivering the following employment services:

• Sharing and interpretation of Labor Market Information
• Employment Needs Assessment
• Career Planning
• Employment Counseling
• Diagnostic Assessment
• Job Search Skills
• Job Finding Clubs
• Job placement services
• Case Management
• Follow-up with participant
• Developing and assisting in a Return to Work Action Plan

To further this example, if we look at just one of the potential interventions listed we see that there are additional services being offered within it:

  Job Finding Clubs[2]

• Resume and cover letter development
• Job interview skills
• Personal development
• Job development
• Job search skills development
• Networking skills
• Referral for skills or education upgrading

In essence each funding program typically has several services being provided under which there is a whole other set of services. Given this there is the opportunity for extreme variety in how each service is provided based on the staff delivering it and the flexibility under which staff may work. An analysis at the individual service provider level is therefore highly complicated.

This services gap review will therefore look at what services and interventions are available to receive funding (For a full listing please see the Employment Program Table in Appendix D) or what services can be funded under the described programs and compare these to the barriers to employment indentified by Pathways to Work Research Project participants. These are program funding streams that are offered through various levels and departments of government. This is not a compendium of all employment services available in Kings County and does not include programs or services that are a) planned, b) provided through 3^rd party service providers although they may be available or c) those geared towards newcomers or youth. Funding programs that are geared towards organizations or agencies have been included to indicate what services they are able to provide.

The barriers that Discouraged Job Seekers face are wide in scope and variety. The following list highlights the barriers that participants identified. They have been distilled down from theme Chapters 1-9 which provide detailed descriptions of employment barriers, for ease of comparison. Chapter 4 Government Policies and Practices has been left out as it covers barriers that cannot be addressed at this level of analysis. It examines central policies to social services such as Income Assistance rather than employment service related barriers which are examined here. The barriers listed in Table 1 were ones that were brought up often but not necessarily by each participant. For example a barrier like low literacy did not apply to those with post-secondary education.

Table 2 takes the basic information about what programs are funded or are currently active in Kings County, taken from the Employment Program Table in Appendix D and organizes it according to the type of service or intervention. Based on program descriptions each program is divided according to its main function such as Work Experience, Employer Incentives and Self-Employment. The table identifies the specific intervention or service, the target group for the service or intervention and the name of the program funding stream. As stated earlier one program funding stream may include several services or interventions so some programs are repeated. For ease of reading several acronyms and shortened names have been used to identify the target groups

a)  PWD –refers to Persons with a Disability

b)  Older Workers – refers to those aged 55+ seeking employment

c)   ES Eligible Clients – refers to people who are within the Employment Services stream of Income Assistance

d)  EI Insured Participants – refers to anyone who is defined as having Employment Insurance attachment by Section 58 of the Employment Insurance Act. This means individuals for whom:

i.  an unemployment benefit period has been established or has ended within three years prior to the date of requesting assistance; or

ii.  a benefit period that included a maternity or parental claim has been established within five years prior to the date of requesting assistance, after which you remained out of the labor market in order to care for a newborn or newly adopted child and are now seeking to re-enter the labor force.

In Table 3 Barriers and Program information were compared to see if there are any gaps in service. This table identifies a) the barrier, b) the funding stream that addresses the barrier, and c) the groups served and not served by the program funding stream

Table 4: Employment Barriers not Addressed by Available Funding Streams
Barrier Area	Barrier Description	Barrier addressed by 3rd Party Employment Service Provider
Employment Services	Limited knowledge of who inclusive employers in the area are	Yes
	Lack of services for those who are looking to enter/re-enter professions (excluding skilled trades)	No
	Unable to navigate service options without assistance	Yes
	Incomplete or outdated information on employment support, crisis support and financial support programs	No
Job Properties	A perceived lack of security in available jobs can put those on government supports in financial crisis	No
Social	Lack of supportive social networks to amongst other things provide support in the job search process	No
	In Kings County a bad reputation is difficult to hide due to the size of the area	No
	Perception that many employers do not want to hire those not originally from Kings County	No
Functional	Accessing reliable and affordable transportation	No
	Limited funds to purchase necessary items or suitable clothing for job interviews and day to day work	No
	Limited ability to pay for adequate diets	No
Stigma	Perceived discrimination in the hiring process based on a variety of physical and social factors (Disabilities, Age, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Criminal record, mental health, being reliant on government supports and/or being unemployed)	Yes

Table 3 above indicates that there are in fact several barriers that are not being addressed by current program funding. These are isolated in Table 4 above. This table adds an additional piece of information, whether the barrier is addressed by any of the five 3^rd Party Employment Service Providers in Kings County. This is based on interviews conducted with representatives of the five organizations. As was mentioned earlier there is some discretion in how service is rendered at the 3^rd Party service provider level. To some extent these ‘additional’ services are based on the mandate of the organization. An example of this would be organizations that have marginalized populations as their target groups, such as people with an intellectual disability, persons with disabilities, mental health consumers or African Nova Scotians. These organizations, by virtue of getting members of these groups engaged in the community provide advocacy functions. Having successful clients of each organization in the community is assumed to help in educating people as to the value of these marginalized groups. Consequently the barrier of stigma is being addressed indirectly or directly depending on the organizations approach. This should not suggest however that the barrier has been removed. Rather as is the case with stigma, a community wide (or broader) approach is needed. A broader based education program may be necessary to fully address and remove the barrier of stigma.

As the table indicates there are barriers that are not currently being addressed through funding programs or through the mandate of the five 3^rd party service providers in Kings County. A further description of the barriers listed in Table 4 as not addressed follows:

Number 3. Professional based services for those who are:

a) members of a profession,

b) have post-secondary education and training,

c) require assistance meeting certification standards for a new profession such as professional exams.

Several participants complained about the generic nature of the services they received. Those with professional backgrounds were frustrated by an apparent lack of knowledge on how to enter or re-enter the professional workforce.

Number 5. Incomplete or outdated information on employment support, crisis support and financial support programs.

This barrier addresses the concern that there is no centralized, complete, and up-to-date source for information about:

a) All possible options regarding employment support at the local, provincial and federal funding levels for all people and target groups,

b) All possible crisis support programs and services for meeting physical, financial and emotional challenges,

c) All possible options and consequences about government based financial support programs.

Often participants spoke about not being able to find, interpret or rely on the accuracy of information about employment, crisis and financial support programs. Service providers themselves were often unable to verify direct questions about employment, crisis or financial support programs in Kings County.

Number 6. A perceived lack of security in available jobs which can put those reliant on government income supports in crisis.

This barrier refers to:

a) The perceived insecurity of jobs in the current job market

b) The problems that insecurity represents for those people reliant on government income supports who once they leave income supports may face periods of income support ineligibility if they need to return to them.

Participants often felt that entering the workforce was a gamble as there was no guarantee of long term employment and that entering could put them at risk of losing the income support they received from the government, if only temporarily.

Number 7. Lack of supportive social networks to amongst other things provide support in the job search process.

This barrier addresses the concern over:

a) Not having access to support networks that may provide, physical, financial or emotional support

b) Lacking encouragement in the job search process

Participants emphasized the role being connected to others involved in the labour force played in getting a job. They often spoke of the negative impact of not feeling a part of their community, such as the loss of self-confidence or reduced social skills.

Number 8. In Kings County a bad reputation is difficult to hide due to the size of the area.

This barrier refers to residents of Kings County who are known to have:

a) an illness or disorder that may make working difficult,

b) a criminal history, or

c) exhibited undesirable behaviour.

This barrier may be addressed for those who are part of a special needs group, such as Canadian Mental Health Association due to the advocacy lens of that organization, but those who are not connected to an organization or lack an individual to advocate for them are at a disadvantage.

Number 9. Perception that many employers do not want to hire those not originally from Kings County.

Participants, employers and service providers all agreed that not being known in the community, not having a history in the area, decreased the likelihood of being hired.

Number 10. Accessing reliable and affordable transportation.

Those who become enrolled in certain employment services programs are eligible to receive funds to cover the cost of transportation. However, these costs are not intended to be long term and unless the individual can arrange transportation for themselves the barrier remains.

Number 11. Limited funds to purchase necessary items or suitable clothing for job interviews and day-to-day work.

This barrier refers to the inability to pay for and receive in a timely manner:

a) Suitable clothing for job interviews

b) Clothing and equipment required to work

This service was present in Kings County in the past and based on conversations with participants it should be re-established to meet the needs of those who are on fixed incomes.

Number 12. Limited ability to pay for adequate diets.

There are many social service and non-employment related organizations that provide emergency funds to cover these types of needs. However, many participants and service providers indicated not knowing how or where to access them.

REFLECTION                                                     

One of the central issues we faced in investigating gaps in employment service provision was that of getting accurate, accessible and up-to-date information. The current system of service providers and funding programs is not transparent nor to a large extent understandable. All of the data used for this analysis on programs is almost certainly incomplete: that is, there are additional services, eligibility criteria and administrative factors that are either a) not easy to locate, b) not written in an accessible way to those outside of the field of employment services, c) simply not available to anyone outside of the offices of the responsible government departments or d) simply a matter of different work practices in different organizations. Over the course of many interviews with the five Kings County employment service providers we asked about what they “did”. This was often met with incredulity, as the answer was so complicated that they did not know where to begin. Simply describing what a 3^rd party service provider did was daunting even for those who were administering the services. The frequently cited uncertainty around how programs function etc. may be due to the continued impact of reorganizing services within the province and the downloading of services from the federal to provincial government. It may also be due to the multiplicity of funding streams available and the varied and at times laborious eligibility criteria for those receiving and those administering the funding.

The confusion by both service providers and recipients reflects several issues a) assisting people with gaining employment is a complex undertaking thus the inability of service providers to simply answer what they ‘did’, b) service is and needs to be varied and client-based to address the complexity of the issue, c) the way in which service providers and funding partners are supplying information to the public is not direct and lends itself to a wide variety of misunderstandings/misinterpretations.

There is an obvious need for a spectrum of employment assistance services as many people face very specific barriers, such as mental health. In a system that is amalgamated and centralized those with more extreme barriers will likely be the last to be provided assistance as they may require the most time and may be less likely to “graduate” from the system to employment. Specialist service providers such as those who deal with a specific challenge/disability or demographic group provide those who cannot compete alone in the labor market a chance at success. For the Discouraged Job Seekers we spoke to they also identified a number of special services:

1. A need for services geared towards professionals,

2. A need for clear, concise, up-to-date and accessible information on what options are available to them regarding employment, crisis and financial support services,

3. A need for confidence in the labor market and that they will not be penalized as a result of entering it,

4. A need for places and groups that can connect them to social networks for work and personal development,

5. A need to be reassured that the labor market is open to them regardless of who they are or where they come from,

6. A need for accessible and reliable transportation, in any form, that does not place a financial burden on the user,

7. A need to have access to basic resources for jobs searching; being able to dress appropriately and have a diet that can support the physical and mental strain of job searching.

Whether parts or all of these service needs are being met by local organizations or 3^rd party service providers is unclear. The need to be reassured about a Discouraged Job Seeker prospects in the job market is likely a central part of what an employment counselor does, however it is not an explicit service. A need for job finding resources such as reliable transportation falls outside of the mandate of all service providers with the exception of provincial and federal departments. This funding is however tied to specific programs and does not provide a long-term solution to a job seekers transportation barrier. The one factor that is most significant is the lack of accessible, clear and up-to-date information. While individual organizations take it upon themselves to maintain information about what they do there is to the best of our knowledge no person or group responsible for insuring employment, crisis and financial support information is maintained for the county. Based on our interviews with participants it was clear that many had either a) outdated, b) incomplete or c) wrong information about what services and programs were available and how to access them.

Another central message we got from participants was that it was more about how the service is provided rather than whether it is, i.e., the need people expressed to have someone to listen and pay attention to what they need, to be treated as an individual rather than a client, having the sense that support is available when it is needed not based on forms, appointments or program timelines. Being supported in the community was equally important to being supported at work. Being able to blur the lines between support at work and at home is vitally important the Discouraged Job Seekers who participated in our research returning to the labour force.