Goodwill, The Amity Group MTCU MARKET SOUNDING PRESENTATION - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Goodwill, The Amity Group

MTCU MARKET SOUNDING PRESENTATION

Introduction

Thank you

This is an innovative and collaborative approach Provider input is critical to success and we appreciate the chance to share and exchange ideas

Our Context

We want to learn more to inform a decision about whether we would apply to be an SSM and if so, whether we would apply alone or in partnership We see this day as a learning and sharing opportunity and a chance to help design the transformation We hope for colleague/provider feedback as well as Ministry feedback on our presentation

About Us

Who we are

• Goodwill’s mission is “Changing Lives Through the

Power of Work”

• Goodwill, The Amity Group does that by

strengthening employment readiness, facilitating the return to work of job seekers, and serving as a resource for employers to attract talent

• We offer a full suite of MTCU and MCCSS

Employment Services for a broad range of job seekers and employers

Employment Services

Our Locations

Career Centre Mil ilton Bur urli lington Oa Oakville Bran antford Ham Hamilton GO GOODWILL GR GREAT LAKES NIA NIAGARA GO GOODWILL GO GOODWILL GR GREAT LAKES

Our History

Goo

• odwill

ll The Amity Group

Founded in Boston in 1902 by Methodist Minister Edgar J. Helms The Amity Group was founded in Hamilton in 1935 to help those Goodwill collected used clothing and household goods from the who had lost work during the great depression. Initially a wealthier areas of the city, then trained and hired those less social club, it soon turned to helping them earn a living by fortunate to mend and repair them. The goods were then refurbishing and selling used goods, especially furniture. resold or given to the people who repaired them. In the 1950s and onwards Amity evolved to increase its focus on The Goodwill philosophies of “not a charity but a chance” and sup upporti ting indi ndivid idual als wit ith di disab abil iliti ties by by pr prov

• vidin

ing servic ices that hat “a hand up not a hand out” were born. would ld lead to

• emplo

loyment.

Goo

• odwill

ll, The e Amity Group

In 1973, The Amity Group became a member of Goodwill Industries International. Our name changed to Goodwill, The Amity Group. Our work continues to include our thrift stores and our focus remains helping employers find people and people find employers and The dignity and independence that comes with a job.

Our Network

5 Goodwills in Canada 161 Goodwills across North America Partnerships in 13 countries

Impact

A track record of securing full-time, well-paying, meaningful employment for job seekers Successful relationships with a wide network of employers and sectors Experience with a wide range of client demographics including youth, newcomers, people with disabilities, those transitioning from the criminal justice system, individuals in career transition, etc. A history of outperforming contract targets with MTCU and MCCSS in both regions

Input for Discussion

• 2. Service

System Manager Definition Role les

“It will be helpful to further define the roles/ functions to be played by the SSM versus the System Steward/Ministry. While much is described in the documents provided, many details (and areas

• f potential overlap) remain to be defined [such as

planning and data collection]. In addition, as the Ministry’s role is expected to evolve over time (as indicated in the documents) the starting and ending states would be useful to know to the extent that some of the functions would transition to the SSMs during the evolution. This will enable those applying to be SSMs to have a clear sense of what their scope, authority, and accountability will be over time and assess their capacity to respond.”

13

• 4. Service

Delivery Model and Service Provider Management

14

Capacit ity build ildin ing

“Several current Ministry functions will transition to the SSMs in the new model, including system management within a catchment, third-party funding administration (essentially transfer payment agreements), labour market data collection, integrated reporting, etc. Given that the model has not operated this way in the past, these would be new functions for any provider (at least

• n the scale contemplated). What supports might

the Ministry provide to build capacity and drive standardization where required across the province? Options from our point of view include planning days/sessions/workshops with all SSMs; seconding Ministry staff; and providing tools and templates but we would appreciate knowing the Ministry’s [and colleague provider] thoughts on this consideration.”

• 3. Service

System Manager Selection Process (Vendor Requirements)

Fle lexibil ility for Service Provid iders

“As BC did, with respect to service providers, it will be important to require the SSMs to outsource a high percentage of the service delivery during the prototypes and the early province-wide roll-out such that a viable Employment Service ecosystem continues to exist. This is important because if any subcontracted service providers (or indeed, any SSMs) are not meeting targets there must be enough options remaining in the community that other providers can be sourced in subsequent phases.”

15

• 4. Service

Delivery Model and Service Provider Management

16

Fundin ing

“In considering how [the funding framework] might be developed, we would encourage consideration of the following factors:

• The ec
• ecosystem. For reasons already outlined, we strongly

recommend that enough funding in the early years be available such that a smaller but still viable service provider pool can exist.

• Fu

Funding for

• r retention. While job placement is one step on the

employment journey, retention must be a shared priority and incentivized accordingly. MCCSS’s current ODSP retention incentive framework could serve as a model [though perhaps with more up front funding and a shorter than 33 months follow up time horizon].

• The ab

abili ility to to ac access ss ad additio ional l fu funding to to ena enable

• verperfor
• rmance (such as for more people placed, sustained
• utcomes for previously long-term unemployed clients, etc.)

Australia’s system may provide models.

• Bala
• Balance. Recognizing that reducing expenditures over time

(through Ministry and service provider attrition and the finding of efficiencies) is one likely objective of this transformation, that must be balanced with the recognition that costs (including compensation, which for the non-profit system participants is already relatively low compared to other sectors) do increase with time. Given the likely concentration of providers in future years, multiple years with no funding increases will create a serious strain on the system and could put the objectives at risk.”

• 4. Service

Delivery Model and Service Provider Management

17

Fle lexibilit ity for Service Provis ision

“With respect to service solutions and job seekers, the SSM should have the flexibility to meet individual client needs for them to achieve success. For instance, imagining that there might be a base unit of funding for each individual served, additional discretionary funds should be available to meet more complex needs than could be met with the base unit only. If a Deaf job seeker needs a sign language interpreter for a job interview and for the first days of training, that additional investment should be provided for as it can make the difference between landing – and keeping – the job or being hired at all. Sufficient funding for these supports also ensures those with complex needs are genuinely taken in for service and that “creaming” doesn’t add to their barriers. As long as targets are being met within overall envelopes, this type of latitude is important to drive successful and sustained

• utcomes.”

• 3. Service

System Manager Selection Process (Vendor Requirements) Negotia iated RFP

“We would encourage the Ministry to consider a negotiated RFP process or the like. The traditional RFP tends to have so many detailed specifications that – while good at enabling apples-to-apples comparisons and generating defensible award decisions – it does not allow for much mutual problem-solving or the submission

• f more innovative approaches which might fall
• utside the specifications but would still provide

a solution and perhaps an even better one. While basic parametres, scope, etc. will be critical for potential SSMs to be able to respond, leaving some specifics open to providers’ proposed approaches may yield richer results.”

18

Discussion and Questions