Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

Evaluation of the Employment Insurance (EI) system must include consideration of EI benefit accessibility. For the past three years, reports have examined the rate at which EI benefits are collected. Last year, a report took a closer look at the reasons for the non-receipt of EI.

The current report considers the accessibility issue from another perspective by examining the relationship between the receipt of EI and the reason for job separation. Specifically, this report:

• Provides an overview of the reasons for job separation and examines EI receipt and eligibility rates for each reason; and
• Provides a more detailed analysis of the six main reasons for job separation (layoffs, return to school, injury or illness, quits, dismissals, and pregnancy or parental) and includes a discussion of the rules surrounding each reason as well as the expected impact on the receipt of EI.

Data and Methodology

This study uses data from the Canadian Out-of-Employment (COEP) survey and EI administrative data from the Record of Employment (ROE) database and Status Vector (SV). Information on the reason for job separation is reported by the employer on the ROE form and is also collected from the former employee by the COEP survey. Although the COEP survey question provides responses similar to the reasons reported on the ROE, the information is not always identical. Therefore, most of the analysis presented in this report uses the reason for job separation that was indicated on the ROE form, as the administration of EI is reliant upon the ROE reason for job separation.

The analysis in this report focuses on the most recent COEP survey respondents (i.e., workers who had a change or interruption in their employment activity at some time during the period from October 2000 to September 2001). The analysis also compares COEP data for this most recent period with COEP data for the periods immediately preceding the 1996 EI reforms (1995Q3 - 1996Q2) and following the 1996 EI reforms (1997Q1 - 1997Q4). In the case of two of the reasons for job separation (quits and dismissals), the analysis also uses the ROE and SV data to examine the possibility of a "regional’ effect due to Human Resource Centre (HRC) managers.

Main Findings

The overview analysis indicated that a layoff was the reason for job separation for more than half (58.6 percent) of all COEP survey respondents in the most recent period (2000Q4 - 2001Q3) who received EI. The next largest category was pregnancy or parental reasons (10.5 percent).

Comparing EI receipt rates by reason for job separation indicated that individuals listed as returning to school, taking a leave of absence, quitting or retiring were less likely to collect EI than those laid off. Workers leaving a job for pregnancy or parental reasons were more likely to collect EI than laid-off workers.

The detailed analysis of the six main reasons for job separation indicated considerable differences by gender, age, family type and region. For example:

• Males accounted for almost two-thirds (64.3 percent) of those laid off, 60.5 percent of those who quit, and 58.6 percent of those dismissed but accounted for only 54.7 percent of all EI recipients;
• Females accounted for 90.7 percent of EI recipients who left a job for pregnancy or parental reasons, 61.6 percent of those who left a job due to injury or illness, and also 61.6% of those returning to school, but accounted for only 45.2 percent of all EI recipients;
• Youths (15-24 years of age) accounted for 44.9 percent of EI recipients with "return to school" recorded on their ROE, 19.1 percent of those dismissed, and 17.8 percent of those who quit their jobs, but accounted for only 12.4 percent of all EI recipients;
• Single individuals without children accounted for 43.3 percent of EI recipients who quit their jobs, compared with 27.8 percent of all EI recipients;
• Single individuals with children accounted for 23.6 percent of those dismissed, 13.1 percent of those who were out of a job for pregnancy or parental reasons, and 9.2 percent of those who quit, but accounted for only 8.5 percent of all EI recipients; and
• Individuals in rural areas accounted for more than one-quarter (25.1 percent) of EI recipients who were laid off and only 3.2 percent of those with "return to school" recorded on their ROE form, but accounted for 19.2 percent of all EI recipients.

In the case of EI receipt rates, the detailed analysis for the six main reasons for job separation indicated that:

• Youths were less likely to collect EI than the prime age group (25-54 years of age) when the reason for job separation was a layoff or a return to school. Also, they were less likely to collect EI than the prime age male group when the reason for job separation was either quitting or dismissal.
• Seasonal workers were less likely than non-seasonal workers to collect EI if the reason for job separation was a layoff or a return to school.
• The longer the consecutive weeks of unemployment, the more likely a person was to collect EI when the reason for job separation was a layoff.
• A higher unemployment rate led to a lower EI receipt rate when the reason for job separation was pregnancy or parental reasons.
• For the most recent period, EI receipt rates were lower for those who were laid off, returned to school or quitting, compared with the EI receipt rate for these categories during the post-EI reform period.
• A substantial portion of those who quit receive EI due to mitigating circumstances. This is higher for those who are dismissed. There is some evidence to suggest that Human Resource Centre (HRC) managers in different parts of Canada varied in how they approved EI claims for individuals quitting their jobs. This is more noticeable in the case of dismissals, where EI receipt rates vary more widely.
• In some cases the accuracy of the reason for job loss may be an issue. Comparisons of the responses given on the COEP survey and the ROE form showed large discrepancies in such categories as dismissals and return to school. The greatest area of agreement was for maternity.