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

This Executive Summary presents the integrated findings of the three sites researched in the context of the Monitoring Study of the Group Information Sessions (GIS). These three sites were Lethbridge, Alberta and Mississauga and York, Ontario. Detailed findings on each of the sites are presented in separate reports. The methodology used to conduct this study consisted of preliminary interviews with key informants, review of documents and administrative data, site visits (observation of a GIS, focus groups with clients and local design and delivery teams, and interviews with key informants), and follow-up research.

Background

Shaping the Future, a Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) initiative whose objective is to introduce active interventions to help implement behavioural changes in employees and workers, introduced the concept of the GIS and the Group Service Needs Determination (GSND). These information sessions are intended to ensure that individuals are aware of their responsibilities under Employment Insurance (EI) and of the services available to them, and to support the requirements of Bill C-12. The strategy includes assisting individuals to return to work more quickly, reducing EI dependency and protecting the integrity of the EI account.

The main objectives of this GIS Monitoring Study were to study and document in detail the practical experiences of three Human Resource Centres of Canada (HRCC) with GIS and to summarise and publish findings with a focus on what works best, including best practices and lessons learned. As a monitoring study, the report does not attempt a comparison with other alternatives, but merely describes and tracks GIS activities, and assesses them against the objectives of the Shaping the Future initiative.

The three types of GIS researched in the context of this monitoring study were all formally introduced in 1995. The rationale for implementing GIS in Lethbridge and York was driven by a desire to efficiently inform clients of their rights and obligations with respect to Unemployment Insurance/Employment Insurance (UI/EI) in a consistent manner and to detect fraud and abuse of UI/EI. On the other hand, "Booster Sessions" (the sessions researched in Mississauga in the context of this monitoring study) were introduced to fill a gap in the services available to unemployed individuals in their eight to tenth week of Employment Insurance claims.

Despite the fact that the rationale for implementation was different among the three sites examined and that the three types of sessions were delivered at different points in an EI client's claim, they are all aimed at regular (i.e., Type 2) claimants. In all three sites, clients are directed (as opposed to invited) to attend GIS. This means that the sessions are mandatory and that failure to attend can have an impact on the benefits of clients who cancel without good cause or fail to report to the session. The three sites have procedures that allow them to determine whether a reason given for cancelling is "a good cause". Focus group participants in both Lethbridge and Mississauga reacted quite negatively to the tone of the letter, which they found threatening. It was suggested that providing more information on the objectives and content of the session in the letter would make participants more open to the upcoming sessions.

In both Lethbridge and York, the sessions are delivered by internal staff and last between 45 and 60 minutes. The full-day Booster Sessions in Mississauga are delivered by a third-party organisation, the Quality and Continuous Improvement Centre (QCIC), the originator of the concept of Booster Sessions. While the Lethbridge and York sessions are straightforward presentations on rights and obligations, and employment issues (e.g., programs and services available), the Mississauga session is much more interactive. The topics covered in Mississauga are strictly related to employment and employability. EI rights and obligations are not discussed in depth in these sessions.

Cost and Savings

The information related to the costs of co-ordinating and delivering GIS and to the savings resulting from the three types of GIS examined are summarised in the table on the following page. It must be stressed that the figures presented in the table must be interpreted with care. Indeed, none of the three sites track the costs of co-ordinating and delivering their respective GIS (other than the cost of the contract with the third-party deliverer in Mississauga). As a result, the costs presented in the table are only estimates. Because net savings were calculated by subtracting costs from gross savings, net savings are also estimated. Furthermore, full-year estimates sometimes had to be extrapolated, based on the information available for a few months.

Objective Achievement and Outcome

The objectives of the Shaping the Future initiative are the following:

• introduce active interventions to help implement behavioural changes in employees and workers;

• assist individuals to return to work more quickly;

• reduce EI dependency; and

• protect the integrity of the EI account.

Assessing the extent to which the three models are achieving these objectives is difficult to do given the nature of the objectives and of the research questions developed for this study. However, the findings of the monitoring study indicate that of the three models, the Booster Sessions are most effective at having an impact on the behaviour of clients in the area of employment search. However, given the focus of the York and Lethbridge models on EI Rights and Obligations, these two models are more likely to have an impact on behaviours such as the accurate completion of cards or preventing fraudulent use of the system.

The impact of the GIS on assisting individuals to return to work more quickly cannot be assessed with certainty using the findings from this study. However, to the extent that clients in all three sites are provided with information on available programs and services that can help them in their job search, it would be expected that the GIS would have some impact in this area. The Mississauga model, in particular, would be expected to contribute to the achievement of this objective given the site's objectives of motivating clients to maintain their job search and make it as effective as possible. A few instances were indeed given of clients who had taken steps to accelerate their job search or found work as a result of the Booster Sessions.

Assessing the extent to which dependency on EI is reduced is a very complex endeavour that can only be determined with longitudinal data, and is therefore out of the scope of this study.

The findings related to the number of Disqualifications and Disentitlements (D&Ds;) imposed as a result of GIS-related activities clearly indicate that all three models play an important role in protecting the integrity of the EI account.