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

The approach used to conduct the Monitoring Study consisted of the following components:

• document/administrative data review;

• preliminary interviews with key informants;

• site visits; and

• follow-up research.

2.1 Document/Administrative Data Review

We began by familiarising ourselves with documents detailing the GIS, their rationale and how they fit in the scope of the changes brought about by the EI Legislation. We also collected and reviewed documents and data provided by each of the sites.

2.2 Preliminary Interviews with Key Informants

Preliminary interviews with key informants at the national and regional levels were conducted. The main purpose of these interviews was to obtain information related to the rationale and early design of the GIS. Exhibit 2, presents the list of the preliminary interviews which were conducted. We also conducted informal interviews with Ken McDonald, Assistant Chief, I&C;, from Nova Scotia and Joe Besson, a Regional I&C; Officer in New Brunswick, to discuss issues of concern regarding the potential implementation of the GIS in the Atlantic Region.

2.3 Site Visits

We observed GIS at each of the sites visited (i.e., Lethbridge, Mississauga and York). Observing the GIS allowed team members to assess whether delivery style appeared to have any impact on the GIS models studied. Attending the GIS also allowed the consultants to better understand and contextualise the comments made later by focus group participants and interviewees. Through post-visit comparisons, we have attempted to determine whether there were differences in the way the GIS were received by participants based on factors such as deliverer, participant profile and approach used to deliver the GIS.

As part of the observation, GIS participants were asked to take a few minutes at the end of the session to complete a brief exit questionnaire. The exit questionnaire focused on participants' satisfaction with the content and delivery of the GIS as well as the message they received from the session.

During each site visit, three focus groups were conducted with GIS participants as well as one focus group with individuals who had not participated in a GIS. The focus groups with GIS participants were held to assess issues related to the perceived usefulness of the GIS, participant satisfaction and behavioural changes as a result of the GIS. The focus group with non-participants was held, in part, to determine whether there were major differences in reported behaviour and attitude towards finding and keeping employment between GIS participants and non-participants, and the extent to which these differences could be attributed to attending a GIS. In addition to the focus groups with GIS participants and non-participants, a group discussion was also held with the local GIS design and delivery team. The purpose of this discussion was to discuss issues related to GIS design and delivery as well as lessons learned and suggested improvements.

Interviews were conducted with the HRCC Manager and/or the third-party deliverer, as well as other key GIS personnel at each site. The purpose of these interviews was to address issues related to rationale, design, implementation and delivery, satisfaction, client monitoring and follow-up, and the accountability framework. Lessons learned were also discussed.

Lastly, follow-up research was conducted by telephone upon return from the site visits. The follow-up research was conducted to clarify some issues and complete missing information. This follow-up research involved individuals who had been interviewed while on site.

2.4 Limitations of the Methodology

There were some limitations to the methodology used to conduct this monitoring study of the GIS. These limitations include the following:

• Although survey questionnaires were administered to focus group and GIS participants, the results from these surveys should not be taken to be statistically sound. The sample size of clients is the main limitation. This "quasitative" research was used to add quantitative information to the more qualitative research;

• We were only able to observe one GIS at each of the sites. Potential variations in the respective sessions (such as by deliverer, location and client attitudes) are therefore not reflected in this report; and

• Each site examined has its own data collection method and way to calculate savings. While we have made efforts to make the presentation of the data as consistent between sites as possible, the reader should keep these differences in mind when reviewing the figures presented in this report.