1. Employment Ontario Service Delivery
Framework
Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Updated: July 8, 2008

2. - 2 -
Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Context:
The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) engaged Deloitte to develop a
service delivery framework and related standards for Employment Ontario. As a part of this
engagement, Deloitte developed an integrated service delivery framework discussion paper,
which was informed by research from other jurisdictions and feedback from a broad range of
Employment Ontario stakeholders. It was made available to stakeholders across the
Employment Ontario network in February 2008. The discussion paper provides information
on integrated service delivery (ISD) concepts and outlines a potential service delivery
framework for Employment Ontario.
The Ministry recognizes that its stakeholders have a key role to play in determining the final
direction of the service delivery framework. Deloitte used the discussion paper as a tool to
seek input from stakeholders on options for integrated service delivery and support for a new
vision for service delivery.
This presentation is a summary of the combined feedback received from staff and service
providers during the February 2008 sessions. This input will be used to develop the Service
Delivery Framework.

3. - 3 -
Stakeholder Feedback Approach
The approach taken for the development of the Service Delivery Framework has been
consultative and collaborative. There were a total of 65 feedback sessions, and 130
responses collected on the online feedback tool.
The following groups provided feedback on the discussion paper:
25% of all Employment Ontario service providers, that included a cross section of the
Francophone and Deaf Communities
Partner organizations - MCI, MCSS, MEDT, SO, SC
MTCU Divisions - Postsecondary Education Division and Strategic Policy and Programs
Division
Approximately 50% of the Employment and Training Division staff

4. - 4 -
Themes from Discussion Paper Focus Groups
 Participants were pleased to be engaged and asked for their opinion
 Participants are enthusiastic about the direction of Integrated Service Delivery (ISD)
and recognize its value including looking across ministries
 All participants tried to think about the perspective of our customers
 There is a variance in participants views on how to best achieve ISD for employment
and training services
– There is still a tendency to view solutions through the lens of “program silos” (i.e., an
employment solution, a foundational skills solution, a training solution) rather than from a
system-wide perspective (i.e., linkages between service lines)
– TCU staff thought about ways to best manage service delivery while service providers thought
about ways to best deliver their services
– Local boards were seen as a key way to involve and plan for communities but there were
various opinions on who should be on the board and how much decision making or funding
they should do
 There is an appreciation that service delivery needs to be driven from both the
community as well as through a centralized provincial perspective to bring optimal
results

5. - 5 -
Strategic
Priorities?
Q. At the
provincial level,
how should
Ministries
collaborate to
integrate the
delivery of
employment and
training
services?
Branding
Q. How can a
more strategic
use of the brand
help to better
identify access
points and meet
expectations
about service?
Customers
Q. How can
pathways, or
other
mechanisms, be
used to organize
services?
 There was strong support for a single provincial governance
body with a mandate to drive the integration of services at a
Provincial level, but in the interim, a Collaborative Cross
Ministry committee could be set-up. MTCU should be the lead
in both approaches
 A strong single organization was recognized as a more nimble,
integrated, seamless and customer centric approach that gives
strong prominence to the Employment Ontario brand
 Some questioned whether government had the political will to
pursue a single organizational governance structure and
agreed that this approach requires a mandate
 Discussions with other Ministries should start today and
address issues such as responsibilities of a single
organization, privacy of customer data and completing a
service review to address duplication of services
 Service providers preferred that the Ministry pursue a Cross
Ministry Collaborative Committee over a single provincial
governance body in most cases. However, there was general
recognition that a single organization was a good long term
option, eliminating competition for funding and duplication of
services.
 With a single organization, service providers could spend less
time responding to different Ministry priorities (silos), focusing
more on what customers want
 Concerns about a single organization revolved around the time
necessary to establish it and the disruption to funding during
the transition period
 Service providers also have the impression that Ministries
would not favour the development of a single organization
because they want to maintain control over their programs
 Efforts should be spent building the service promise before
further visual identity strategies are pursued
 Considerations should be taken in how service
standards/service charters can support the brand service
promise, how to better define what is included within
Employment Ontario to different customer groups, creating
consistency of brand across channels
 Earning the right to use the brand was well received
 Service providers favoured the use of a common Employment
Ontario brand, but the service promise must be well defined
before further branding efforts are pursued. An affiliation to
Employment Ontario was important to support referrals across
the system.
 Some flexibility is required for regional branding efforts to
coexist and a strategy must be determined to address the
coexistence of service provider branding and other related
service branding (other Ministries i.e. Ontario Works)
 The service promise should consider the full customer lifecycle
and be supported with clear service standards
 Pathways and the service continuum can coexist
 Customer pathways must build in flexibility to address evolving
needs and provide them with choice in service offering
 Employer outreach strategies should be a priority. Employers
have valuable information about local market trends and info.
Employment Ontario should be positioned as a recruitment
agency
 Pathways and the continuum were viewed as two separate
constructs that could not coexist
 Service providers were concerned that the continuum
approach was too restrictive, not recognizing an evolution of
customer needs
 Pathways was a better received concept as long as
consideration was taken for customer states of transition
The following are summary findings of the feedback received from the discussion paper on the integrated service delivery framework
MTCU Service Providers
Stakeholder Feedback Summary

6. - 6 -
Service
Providers
Q. Which
collaboration
mechanism best
suits an ISD
model?
Service
Delivery Model
Q. Which model
would fit better in
a specific
community?
 Strong support for both community planning and service
provider contract mechanisms to collaboration with service
providers
 Referrals among service providers must be addressed to
prevent service providers keeping customers. Collaboration
could be enhanced with this improvement
 Embed standards for service delivery and collaboration into
every service provider contract on a consistent basis
 Service providers should maintain some level of community
planning within their contractual arrangements
 Service Provider Contracts was the chosen method of
collaboration.
 Developing a code of conduct for service providers was
suggested many times and funding decisions should be
based on delivering against this code rather than the
number of customers served. Outcome models are
favoured for evaluations
 Any collaboration mechanism should build on current effective
collaboration mechanisms among service providers
 Delineate responsibilities of service providers and local boards
with respect to community planning and coordination.
 MTCU favoured the “lead provider” (Hub and Spoke) over the
distributed model but recognized that one model can not fit all
communities. Community size must be recognized and may
necessitate a different delivery model
 The lead provider was preferred for the following reasons:
 Customer centricity
 Better potential for follow up and follow though
 Easier to report on outcomes
 Eliminates customers “shopping around”
 Allows organizations to specialize
 The distributed model was considered status quo, too broad
with too many choices, leading to customer confusion
 Alternative approaches were also considered such as bringing
all service delivery in house, each community picks their own
service delivery model and creating EO access centres that
provide all services to all customers
 Service providers favoured the distributed model over the lead
provider (Hub and Spoke). Many were concerned that the
Lead Provider model introduced too many unknowns and
preferred status quo features of the distributed model
 Recognition that one model will not fit for all communities was
also voiced
 Concerns with the lead provider model included: “I do not have
time nor capacity to learn about all services”; “customers will
be intimidated to enter one facility for service”, “how do you
decide who the lead provider is”, “individual needs evolve so
completing a one time action plan may not be relevant”
 Service providers preferred the distributed model because it
better enables no wrong door, provides choice to customers
and allows needs to be addressed in holistic manner and
addresses needs of barriered customers
 Developing a referral system to reward referrals across the
network and ensuring enforcement was a top priority
The following are summary findings of the feedback received from the discussion paper on the integrated service delivery framework
MTCU Service Providers
Stakeholder Feedback Summary continued (2)

7. - 7 -
Channels
Q. Are some
channels better
suited to
meeting the
needs of
particular
customer
segments?
Customer
Service
Standards
Q. What service
standards need
to be in place to
provide
seamless
integrated
service?
 Channels must be supported by service standards
 Technology must support integrated channel strategy;
information must be available and easily retrievable
 Staff require training on all channels to support channel
integration efforts, referring customers to web and phone when
appropriate
 Recognize that web based services are not available
everywhere, so there are limitations
 Service providers welcomed the concepts that customers
should be directed to the web and phone first (before in
person)
 In person should be reserved for highly barriered customers
 All channels must provide adequate support for special
needs/interests groups
 Centralized call centers must have strong knowledge of
service provider service models and full scope of services
 Service standards were welcome but there was consensus
that a phased approach is best; MTCU service standards
should be established first and then standards should be
developed for partners such as service providers
 The introduction of service guarantees was well received
 Standards must be customer focused; recognizing customer
needs for service such as technical assistance hours to be
improved and improve hours of operation for in person
 Outcomes should remain separate from service standards.
Outcomes should focus on interventions, recognizing that it
takes much longer to achieve outcomes than standards.
Standards must support branding and the service promise
 Minimum levels of standards should be established as well as
a system to capture progress towards higher levels of
standards
The following are summary findings of the feedback received from the discussion paper on the integrated service delivery framework
MTCU Service Providers
Stakeholder Feedback Summary continued (3)
Governance
Q. What could a
community-
based
organization look
like, and who
should be
involved?
To what degree
should decision-
making happen
at the
community
level?
 Develop an employer engagement strategy, giving employers
community planning and accountability
 Local board should be more citizen driven than government
driven, but MTCU should be the facilitator and monitor
 Composition of local boards to include members such as
municipalities, chambers of commerce, mayors and councilors
and special interest/needs groups
 Implement a term to participation on local boards
 Mandate of local boards must be redefined and enforced to
ensure consistency of activities across communities re
community planning
 Disband local boards when mandate is not met
 Provide an honorarium for all participants
 Address overlapping roles between service providers and local
board
 Create smaller boards with larger geographic coverage areas
 Boards should be comprised of employers represented by
associations and chambers of commerce. No one employer
has the time to devote. Incentives should be provided to
increase participation and engagement.
 Service providers should also have representation on
boards
 Composition should be relevant to the community needs.
Rural communities could have farmers represented
 Local board responsibilities should include scanning the
environment, identifying gaps and encouraging community
partnerships – no decision making or funding responsibilities

8. - 8 -
Organization
Q. What can we
do to organize
ourselves
around our
customers at the
point of service
delivery?
 Organizational structure should support service delivery model
(a lead integrator in the community) and as such, whenever
possible, organize in one location.
 Develop a Ministry wide referral system to address today’s
issues with referrals
 Clear points of contact (MTCU) should be established for
service providers and customers
 Organizational roles should support the regular collection,
analysis and use of customer feedback to continuously
improve
 Front line staff should come together on a regular basis to
share best practices, customer insights and solutions to
customer challenges with broader set of staff
 Organize by customer – employees should be dedicated to a
customer group (individuals, employers and communities) and
become experts on their needs
 Expand the recognition and rewards program to reward new
behaviours required for integrated service delivery
 Facilitate networking among service providers to share leading
practices and continuously improve
 Support employer outreach strategies to actively engage
employers and have continued participation
The following are summary findings of the feedback received from the discussion paper on the integrated service delivery framework
MTCU Service Providers
Stakeholder Feedback Summary continued (4)
Service
Delivery
Framework
Q. How are the
building block
elements
best integrated
within the
framework?
 Starting with the customer is a good approach and customer
pathways is innovative
 Concerns about where Apprenticeship services fall within the
framework, how service align (vs. programs) and flexibility of
the framework when economy is in a downturn, for example.
 Engaging employers and communities will be keys to success
of this framework
 Consideration must be taken into how specialized service
providers (literacy & education) fit into the model
 The service delivery framework is well integrated but must be
supported with the following:
 Brand service promise that outlines expectations of all
stakeholders
 Effective referral network and system to reward referrals
 Participation of all customer groups to ensure customer
centricity
 Service standards to support the brand service promise
and outline expectation for service deliverers
 Knowledgeable staff on the full range of offering
 Consistent community level planning and coordination

9. Francophone Community Feedback

10. - 10 -
Francophone community feedback
Two feedback sessions were held with a cross-section of the EO funded Francophone
community to gather their perspectives. For many of the discussion topics, the francophone
community reflected the views of the majority (and were reflected in the previous section).
The following summary reflects the unique perspectives of the Francophone community.

11. - 11 -
Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Francophone Community
Strategic Priorities?
Q. At the provincial level,
how should Ministries
collaborate to integrate the
delivery of employment and
training services?
Branding
Q. How can a more strategic
use of the brand help to
better identify access points
and meet expectations
about service?
Customers
Q. How can pathways, or other
mechanisms, be used to
organize services?
 Huge Marketing campaign brand and slogan – clear messaging, clear client expectations– brochures, website, radio, local
media, high schools, hospitals. Include success stories
 Make sure staff and service providers understand and are trained on what the brand promise is and how it will/should affect
customer service, upgrading and evaluation
 Consistent and uniform standards across EO. Phased , staged implementation. Put funding into contracts to allow marketing
and training dollars
 Francophone 1-800 service that refers to Anglophone organizations
 Local resource needed to market programs and services to francophone community
 Service provided by Francophones to Francophones
 General consensus that service providers in their respective communities would be in the best position to determine what
plans would best meet the needs of their client base
• There was a large consensus on the need for cross collaboration between ministries and other levels of government.
• MTCU should be responsible (lead role) for all employment and training services with inter-ministerial committee for
governance. Clear rules and accountability
• There was not universal acceptance of one model. Some thought with a single organization governance structure that service
providers would lose their independence, which ultimately could result in limited if any competition. They felt they could
eliminate duplication. They felt that this model was similar to the old system of silos and had a higher cost associated to the
effectiveness of it. A cross-ministry committee was popular but not realistic. You would need all ministries to share the same
vision, mandates and priorities to be effective. Collaboration protocols needed.
Service Delivery Model
Q. Which model would fit
better in a specific
community?
 The French community were split between the benefits and challenges of a lead provider (hub and spoke) and a distributed
model, however they identified several criteria that are important to the French community:
 well-known and efficient access point is a suitable solution for the Francophone community
 ensure various services in French, not bilingual or English services, but French services
 must be supported by a management model that supports Francophones
 Primary provider must be a bilingual or a Francophone agency
 A “single outlet” always ends up Anglophone; it depends entirely on the person hired; hiree must believe and understand
Francophones will be better served in French.
 The challenge for Francophones depends on the region and the community – are there enough organizations capable of
providing quality employment services?

12. - 12 -
Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Francophone Community
Customer Service
Standards
Q. What service standards
need to be in place to
provide seamless integrated
service?
 Services standards must ensure that all customers/clients are treated with respect. All programs offering government
services ought to have service standards that comply with the Human Rights Code ensuring that services are free from
bias and prejudice and that clients do not face systemic barriers such as sexism, racism or ablism in accessing service
 should simply be able to measure the referral of Francophone customers by Anglophone organizations
Governance
Q. What could a community-
based organization look like,
and who should be involved?
To what degree should
decision-making happen at the
community level?
 If it concerns the Francophone community, its specificity should be taken into account in any decision-making.
 It is very difficult to integrate specific needs at the end of the decision-making process instead of doing it at the
beginning. The needs of the Francophones should be considered at the beginning of decision-making processes.
 The bilingual control parameters must be validated by Francophones; grants should only be financial, since it stimulates
discussion.
 Francophones should have access to training sessions in French.
 Creation of partnerships (e.g. French consulate and Poss.ca) enabling greater dissemination of information.
Organization
Q. What can we do to
organize ourselves around
our customers at the point
of service delivery?
 If governance is well established at the outset and wants to represent the community and the population, there have to
be seats that are designated bilingual. If the person in charge does not understand the reality of La Francophonie, he is
not “representative”.
 There is no guarantee of representation for Francophones, even where demographics would suggest it.
 We have designated areas that are legislated as bilingual so we can expect the local decision-making bodies in these
areas to be bilingual. The whole thing has to be integrated
 There was consensus at one session that the Francophone service providers have to be organized around customers at
the point of service
Service Delivery
Framework
Q. How are the building
block elements
best integrated within the
framework?
 Include full Francophone community in integration strategy
 Concern over how integration will evolve – that it will lose momentum
 Francophone services are always a carbon copy of English language services. These do not necessarily meet the
needs of the Francophone community

13. Deaf Community Feedback

14. - 14 -
Deaf community feedback
One feedback session was held with the deaf community to gather their perspectives. There
was a great deal of feedback on the complexity of the discussion document itself and how it
did not serve the deaf community.
Lessons-learned from this experience would recommend that the views of this community
are important and engagement plans with this community need to be planned early in the
process.
For many of the discussion topics, the deaf community reflected the views of the majority
(and were reflected in that section of the report).
The following summary reflects the unique perspectives of the deaf community.

15. - 15 -
Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Deaf Community
Channels
Q. Are some channels better
suited to meeting the needs of
particular
customer segments?
 The use of a website does not serve the Deaf stream would also not work because many of our beginner learners are
not able to read English.
Customers
Q. How can pathways, or other
mechanisms, be used to
organize services
 Agencies servicing Employment Ontario need to be educated about the Deaf stream and the options available for
potential Deaf learners.
 Employers must be educated in what it means to have a Deaf individual employed with them. They also need to
understand that Deaf people have many skills and talents that can benefit a company.
Strategic Priorities?
Q. At the provincial level, how
should Ministries collaborate to
integrate the delivery of
employment and training
services?
 Ministries should ensure that accessibility requirements are integrated into the delivery of employment and training
services to meet the visual language needs of the Deaf and Deaf-Blind community. Accessibility for both Deaf/Deaf-
Blind (D/DB) with other disabilities into the whole system to break down barriers in the future which would be cost
savings now and in the future.
 One main contact agency (e.g. Deaf Literacy Initiative) needs to be established and all Ministries made aware that this is
the organization to be contacted. Ministries are to provide plain language resources and official documents.
Branding
Q. How can a more strategic
use of the brand help to better
identify access points and meet
expectations about service?
 Visual marketing in American Sign Language would be necessary for some to understand what Employment Ontario is
about. Employment Ontario needs to offer accessible communication, Videophone accessibility, the use of TTY’s, etc.
for people who want more information about services.
Service Delivery Model
Q. Which model would fit better
in a specific community?
 We would recommend a third approach (neither the lead model nor the distributed model) Model C - A provincial Deaf
and Deaf-Blind committee would exist. A main agency with in-depth knowledge about the Deaf community and Deaf
individual’s needs must be used as a main point of contact for all levels of government and for all communities
throughout Ontario.
 Services within the Deaf Stream should be grouped together.

16. - 16 -
Stakeholder Feedback Summary – Deaf Community
Customer Service Standards
Q. What service standards
need to be in place to provide
seamless integrated service?
 Include a s standard that ensures services are provided in ASL or with interpreters.
 Ensure that all services are accessible to all customers in order to have a fair outcome. If services are not accessible, it
will be impossible to measure their usefulness and success.
Governance
Q. What could a community-
based organization look like,
and who should be involved?
To what degree should
decision-making happen at the
community level?
 One Deaf organization should oversee the planning of this type of structure.
 All Deaf organizations in individual communities need to be involved in community decision making.
 Anyone involved in the planning must have knowledge and understanding of the needs of the Deaf.
 Community planning tables could partner with Deaf Literacy Initiative (DLI), as DLI could lead the Deaf and Deaf-Blind
stream.
Organization
Q. What can we do to organize
ourselves around our
customers at the point of
service delivery?
 Empower yourselves with knowledge of Deaf issues and needs. Deaf individuals need to be hired to work in various
communities across Ontario.
Service Delivery Framework
Q. How are the building block
elements
best integrated within the
framework?
 All levels of the building blocks need to have knowledge of the Deaf stream. They need to be coordinated in their
design, day to day operations and performance management.