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

3.1 Sociodemographic Profile

(a) Age

POWA participants' age at the time of the layoff was nearly 59 years on average. Approximately two-thirds of participants (63 per cent in Regime 1 and 65 per cent in Regime 2) were between 55 to 60 years of age at the time of their layoff, with the remaining one-third being over 60. The relatively low percentage of workers in the higher age category reflects their lower participation rate in the labour market. Currently, Regime 1 participants are 65 years of age on average and Regime 2 participants are 63 years of age on average.

(b) Gender

Males substantially outnumber females among POWA participants. In Regime 1, 79 per cent of participants were male versus 21 per cent who were female. This unusually high incidence of male program participants would appear to be due to program targeting toward large layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries which have historically had a male-dominated workforce. This male/female ratio improved under Regime 2, with 31 per cent of the participants being female. Part of this increase may be explained by a reduction in the required years of work experience introduced under Regime 2 (from 15 to 13 years of age over 20 years prior to layoff). However, at least half the increase in the female participation rate is due to the impacts of other program changes (e.g., the dollar-for-dollar pension deduction) which reduced the program take-up rate for males.

(c) Education and Skills

POWA participants have low levels of formal education. Seventy-eight per cent of the Regime 1 participants and 75 per cent of the Regime 2 participants did not graduate from high school. A large proportion did not even attend high school; in Regime 2, 34 per cent had only a primary school level education. This lack of schooling was not compensated by trade certification. Approximately 81 per cent of the participants reported no trade or professional certification.

Considering the low levels of formal education and certification, it is not surprising that POWA participants were not optimistic about their skills and chances of finding re-employment. Forty-eight per cent of POWA participants strongly disagreed with the statement that at the time of the layoff they felt they would have no problem finding a good new job and 56 per cent strongly agreed that their skills were only useful in the same industry.

3.2 Prior Labour Market History

The majority of POWA participants had prior labour market experience exceeding the requirement of the program. The majority of participants had been employed 19 years on average of the 20 years prior to their layoff. In terms of total years in the labour force, 80 per cent of Regime 2 participants had worked for more than 30 years.

The majority of POWA participants (65 per cent in both Regimes 1 and 2) were employed in the manufacturing sector at the time of their layoff. Within the manufacturing sector, the largest number of participants are from labour intensive manufacturing industries (e.g., leather, textiles, clothing and furniture). There was a large decline in the "other primary" sector category from Regime 1 and Regime 2 from 16 per cent to seven per cent. The largest increase was for research-based manufacturing (e.g., heating equipment industry, aircraft and aircraft parts industry, electrical and electronic products industries) which increased from 10 per cent to 17 per cent between Regime 1 and Regime 2.

POWA participants appear to be drawn from industries which typically have a lower skilled workforce and in which one would expect workers to have difficulty in the labour market following a layoff. For example, workers in the labour intensive manufacturing industries the largest manufacturing category among participants were substantially less likely to be classified in the zero benefit category, indicating they are more likely to come from jobs with lower benefits and pay.

Unemployment insurance (UI) records and prior information on job separations indicate that POWA participants had a highly stable employment history prior to their layoff. While participants had two or more prior layoffs since 1987, most of these appear to have been temporary. Most of the POWA participants had received no UI since 1987 (64 per cent in Regime 1 and 51 per cent in Regime 2) or had received UI for only one to thirteen weeks (15 per cent for Regime 1 and 19 per cent for Regime 2).

One year prior to the layoff, Regime 1 POWA participants earned approximately $32,000 and Regime 2 earned $28,000. There was little difference between the older and younger workers within each regime.

3.3 Layoff/Employer Characteristics

As dictated by the program criteria, POWA participants tend to come from mass layoffs (70 per cent of participants were from layoffs involving more than 100 workers). There was also a high concentration of older workers in layoffs served by the program with the proportion of older workers well exceeding the requirement of the program; on average participants came from layoffs where 20 per cent of laid-off workers were between 55 and 64 compared to eight per cent which is required by the program. Virtually by definition, POWA participants also tend to be drawn from larger companies. The average company size was over 500 employees in both regimes. Nearly 60 per cent of participants came from companies with more than 200 employees. POWA participants were drawn mainly from plant closures rather than layoffs 94 and 87 per cent of participants under Regimes 1 and 2 respectively were drawn from plant closures. The majority of POWA participants (71 per cent) reported receiving advance notice prior to their layoff 17 weeks on average. A similar proportion received some layoff-related payments at that time.

3.4 Region and Community Size

Under Regime 1, Ontario and Quebec accounted for approximately 84 per cent of certified applicants. This increased to 88 per cent under Regime 2. The dominance of Ontario and Quebec is due to the fact that these two provinces account for the majority of the types of layoff assisted by POWA. The absence of framework agreements in some provinces is another reason why Ontario and Quebec account for the vast majority of certified applicants.

Community size is considered to be a key predictor of older workers' ability to find suitable employment following their layoff. A substantial proportion of POWA participants come from small communities (i.e., population under 30,000). Under Regime 1, nearly 48 per cent came from communities of 30,000 or less and only 25 per cent came from larger communities of 100,000 or more. While there was a slight increase in the participation of certified applicants from larger communities under Regime 2 34 per cent from communities of 100,000 or more the majority still tend to come from smaller size communities.