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

Eleven unique reasons for job separation are captured on the ROE form. Table 1 uses data on the most recent COEP survey respondents to examine the distribution of EI recipients, receipt rates and eligibility by the reason for job separation.

Almost two-thirds of all reasons for job loss are the result of a layoff or someone quitting. However, while individuals who quit comprise 27.2 percent of all reasons for job loss, individuals who quit and collect EI comprise only 5.7 percent of all EI recipients. In Table 1, a higher percentage in column 3 (as compared to column 1) indicates that EI rules are more favourable for that particular job loss reason than for reasons where column 1 has a higher percentage.

Comparing columns 2 and 3 of Table 1 indicates that the COEP survey question regarding the reason for job separation provides results that are reasonably similar to the reasons reported on the ROE form. The COEP survey question excludes work sharing, apprentice training and leave of absence as possible reasons for job separation. Although the results from the two data sources are similar, the correlation between the ROE reason and the reason given on the COEP survey is not 100 percent. The fact that individuals respond to the COEP survey whereas employers supply the results from the ROE form is one reason for this discrepancy. There may also be some degree of survey recall bias in the COEP survey, as respondents are questioned 9-12 months after job loss. Also, the incentives for an employer to complete the ROE form in a particular way may also be contributing to the discrepancy. An employer and an employee may agree to report the employee as being laid off, when in fact the reason for job separation is not a layoff. This is advantageous to the employee, as collecting EI by reason of a layoff is easier than by reason of a dismissal or quitting. Most of the analysis presented in this report is based on the reason for job separation that was stated on the ROE form.

Table 1 shows that layoffs are the reason for job separation for more than half (58.6 percent) of all EI recipients. This reason for job separation is examined in more detail in the next part of this report. Other reasons to be examined in more detail include return to school, injury or illness, quits, dismissals, and pregnancy or parental reasons. The rest of the reasons are not examined in more detail in this report because, aside from the "Other" category, they account for only 3.7 percent of all EI recipients.

Table 1 also shows that EI receipt rates are roughly in line with expectations. For example, the highest EI receipt rates occur for individuals collecting EI due to pregnancy or parental reasons, apprentice training and work sharing. The lowest EI receipt rates occur for individuals leaving their job to return to school or quitting. According to the definition of EI eligibility, job leavers in these two categories should not be able to collect EI because leaving a job for either of these two reasons constitutes a voluntary job separation. However, as discussed in the next part of this report, there are certain circumstances that can enable individuals in these two categories to collect EI. Special circumstances can also apply in the case of a dismissal.

The fifth column of Table 1 indicates that EI receipt rates increase as the number of consecutive weeks of unemployment increase (except in the cases of work sharing and apprentice training)¹.

The last column of Table 1 provides the eligibility rates, which are based on having an adequate number of hours to qualify for EI benefits in the given economic region. Those employees leaving jobs due to apprentice training, retirement, work sharing or for pregnancy or parental reasons have the highest EI eligibility rates. Those leaving jobs because of a dismissal, a return to school, or quitting have the lowest EI eligibility rates.

Table 2 shows the results from a statistical estimation (using a probit model) of the probability that a worker receives EI after a job separation. The independent variables include the different reasons for job separation as well as an EI reform variable for each job separation reason. The first column shows the estimated difference in the probability of receiving EI benefits for each reason for job separation compared with being laid off (layoffs are used as the control group for the purpose of estimating the probabilities of receiving EI in the case of each of the other reasons for job separation). P values are used to test for the significance of the results, and these values are shown in column two. Any P value less than 0.100 is considered to be significant for this analysis and the other statistical estimations presented in this report. Table 2 and all other statistical estimations in this report provide 90 percent confidence intervals.

The first set of results shown in Table 2 indicate that those returning to school, taking a leave of absence, quitting or retiring are far less likely to collect EI than those laid off. Workers leaving a job for pregnancy or parental reasons are more likely to collect EI than laid-off workers.

The second set of results shown in Table 2 (columns 5-8) give the probability that a displaced worker will collect EI after EI reform as compared to the pre-EI reform period. The analysis shows that those leaving their job due to a leave of absence are far more likely to collect EI after EI reform. The "Other" category also shows a significant change, although this finding is difficult to interpret given the general nature of the category.

Footnotes

1	This result may be due to small sample sizes, but an exact explanation is not available at this moment.