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 first issue addresses the rationale for the program, which breaks into two sub-questions. The first asks how provincial programs and services align with the Employment Insurance (EI) Act and the Canada-Saskatchewan Labour Market Development Agreement (CS-LMDA), and the second addresses the relevance of Provincial Programs and Services (PPSs) to clients, employers, and the community.

3.1 How do provincial programs and services align with the EI Act and the CS-LMDA?

The Canada-Saskatchewan Labour Market Development Agreement transferred to the Province of Saskatchewan the responsibility to design and deliver employment programs and services through the Employment Insurance Account. As part of this Agreement, provincial programs and services (PPSs) had to be similar to those previously offered, and consistent with the principles, guidelines, and intent of the EI Act and CS-LMDA.

Table 2 below outlines the relationship between federal benefits (programs) and measures (services), and provincial programs and services. This table shows that provincial programs and services appear to align with the EI Act and the CS-LMDA.

The labour market development environment in Saskatchewan presents challenges for fully appreciating the extent to which provincial programs and services reflect all requirements of the EI Act and CS-LMDA. In comparison with the LMDAs that feature co-management, it is clear that the federal government has devolved considerable responsibility for designing and delivering labour market development services to EI clients. For those LMDAs that feature devolution, it is likely that Saskatchewan represents a significant "evolution of devolution", but this evaluation does not offer a comparison among LMDAs.¹²

Guided by the Saskatchewan Training Strategy and the Sector Strategic Plan for Post-Secondary (PSEST), the province is attempting to streamline provincial income supports and training programs and services available to unemployed, low-income, and disadvantaged people in the province. PSEST used the STS to broaden and simplify the process of accessing training and income supports by offering support services to all Saskatchewan residents, and basing eligibility for training on income rather than other characteristics (e.g., participation in Social Assistance, ethnicity, etc.). An example of broadening and simplifying services under the STS is the creation of the Provincial Training Allowance. This program creates a single income support measure that enables low-income people to participate in basic education or short (<8 weeks) skills training. It is conceivable that the Provincial Training Allowance (PTA) could support an EI reachback client who no longer qualifies for EI Part 1 (income support). The PTA allows income support for anyone whose income is low — EI reachback, active EI claimant, or Social Assistance recipient. Prior to the CS-LMDA, EI clients had separate income support programs and were more separated in their training.¹³

Integrating EI clients within training environments presents both opportunities and challenges aligning provincial programs and services with the EI Act and the CS-LMDA.

• An important advantage of adopting a unified training approach such as Saskatchewan has done is the ability to deliver a menu of programs and services to all clientele. The array of provincial training programs is relatively unchanged by the CS-LMDA. The Employment Programs (Work Placement, Community Works) and JobStart/Future Skills all existed prior to it. They serve a broad client base, including Social Assistance recipients, youth, the disabled, and the unemployed. The CS-LMDA has had little effect on program delivery for these interventions, although, the province is now an active participant in the delivery of labour market specific programming, given the addition of EI clients to its specific clientele.

  In Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology (SIAST) or regional colleges deliver skills training and basic education programs. A self-employment program and the Skills Training Benefit are the only significant changes introduced by the CS-LMDA. The self-employment program appears closely modeled on the federal self-employment program that previously existed. The Skills Training Benefit is only available to EI clients. It is the program that Saskatchewan developed to meet the federal Skills, Loans, and Grant Benefits of the CS-LMDA—(Annex 1).

• There are more significant differences relating to support services and income support programs for EI clients.
  • In conjunction with the CS-LMDA, PSEST has developed a Regional Services Branch structure and created 20 Canada-Saskatchewan Career and Employment Services (CSCES) offices. These centres provide services such as counselling, job order taking, resume writing, job searches, and workshops to all Saskatchewan residents seeking work or wishing to access training. EI clients can use the same services as others using the centres. In addition to providing services to clients, CSCES offices act as a hub for regional and human resources planning, and for coordination among service providers/partners (SIAST, regional colleges, CBOs) and employers.

  • The CS-LMDA also led to the creation of the Skills Training Benefit (STB), a income support program that represents Saskatchewan's response to the federal "Skills, Loans, and Grants" component of the federal transfer. The STB provides support to EI clients for tuition and books for training and income support only to those clients with a demonstrated need. The amount of support is negotiated between the client and a counsellor at one of the Canada-Saskatchewan Career and Employment Services. The negotiated process between client and counsellor is used to facilitate a better match between funding and need. According to several provincial key informants, the creation of the STB went against the Saskatchewan Training Strategy's goal of streamlining income support in the province by blending existing income support measures into a single, non-categorical program (i.e., the Provincial Training Allowance). The PTA is the main provincial income support program available to provincial clients in basic education and short (< 8 weeks) skills training. It supplemented the student loan program that is available to qualifying clients for courses of more than 12 weeks in duration at a recognized post-secondary institution.

    Some federal key informants reported concerns that the PTA may offer less financial support than was previously available to EI clients during the pre-LMDA period. The province created the STB to address the needs of EI clients, adding to the array of income support programs available to adults undertaking post-secondary training.

    An important question for the evolution of the CS-LMDA is whether the STB should remain as is, and continue to use a negotiated process. An alternative is to consider moving the STB to a flat rate, such as the PTA. A third option would be to combine the PTA and STB to form a single income support program. Since the PTA is a provincial program, it is within its mandate to determine how its income support programs and services will be operated.

Table 2 above shows that it is possible to list Employment Benefits and Support Measures with provincial programs and services, and therefore, alignment exists. However, it is important to stress that EI clients co-mingle with all other "learners" in the province. The discussion above illustrates how the EBSMs available to EI clients before the CS-LMDA have been integrated into a broader labour market development system, and not merely devolved to the province. Therefore, the alignment is complex. The essence of this issue is whether the same EI clients can access the same programs and services under the CS-LMDA as before, and whether these programs and services meet the requirements of the EI Act, to which the response is unequivocally "yes."

3.2 How do PPSs meet the needs of EI clients, employers, and the community?

Within the training environment, the needs/interests of clients, employers, service providers, and community-based organizations intersect with PPSs in different ways. Even within these groups, diversity of need exists. For example, an EI client who takes an apprenticeship program and is unemployed only while in training has different requirements than someone with obsolete work skills. Some employers require skilled workers to train for long-term careers, while others seek temporary help from minimally trained workers. Service providers differ considerably, from SIAST and regional colleges to community-based organizations.¹⁴ The formative evaluation provides a sense of whether needs/interests have been met, as well as the remaining challenges that these groups face in using or delivering programs and services.

3.2.1 How PPSs meet the needs of EI clients

As mentioned above, EI clients have diverse needs. Some participate in longer-term programs such as academic upgrading, while others use short-term training for specific trade/job skills. For still other EI clients, the loss of employment can represent the beginning of a difficult cycle in and out of training and work. Finally, some report minimal interaction with the EI "system," as they appear to move relatively seamlessly between employment and training. Often these clients are in unionized trades, where hiring processes are highly formalized and unemployed workers are accustomed to waiting for the call back to work.¹⁵

Key findings regarding service to clients under the CS-LMDA are as follows:

• On balance, clients (n=216) claim service is the same or better under the CS-LMDA. Based on the client survey, 38 percent reported better service after January 1999 than before, while 39 percent said the level of service was the same. Nine percent (9 percent) said the service was worse, while 13 percent did not know. Only those who had experience both before and after January 1, 1999 responded to this question.¹⁶
• Key informants¹⁷ (n=41) disagreed on whether individuals received better service than before the CS-LMDA. Almost half of respondents¹⁸ (16 of 41) believe individuals are now better served. Reasons given by respondents were the introduction of "one-stop shopping," the assisted self-serve resources, and the fact that the public can now access services. However, a similar number was unsure, did not know, or gave no response, mainly because there are no benchmarks for comparison. The remaining respondents said individuals do not get better service. These key informants said disruption caused by changes have negatively affected or confused clients.¹⁹
• Many clients welcome greater opportunities to plan their careers. Some clients said they approached CSCES with a clear idea in mind regarding the kind of training they wished to pursue, and were able to train in that area. Others said they were uncertain about the direction they should take, and either selected a training course with the help of CSCES counsellors, or enrolled in programs specifically designed to expose them to a variety of training and employment possibilities. Most appreciate having the responsibility of making their own decisions, and planning a path that best suits them.²⁰
• Participants expressed satisfaction with the training they received, and believe it met their needs. Seventy-eight percent of clients (n=1,017) on the client survey reported that the programs and services they received during their most recent time on EI met "all" or "some" of their needs, while only 16 percent said that it "did not meet any of their needs."²¹ However, several focus group participants reported being placed in programs for which they were unsuited. These participants said CSCES is not adequately matching individuals' skills and interests with training and employment options.
• Most training meets the regional needs of clients. Although some participants believe training is not tied closely enough to local labour market opportunities (especially in small or rural markets where there are few jobs), several participants noted that identifying suitable areas in which to train is one of the main purposes of the case/action plan.²²
• Career counselling meets the needs of clients, though some were dissatisfied with the guidance they received. Eighty-two percent (82 percent) of clients (n=576) on the client survey reported that counselling met "all" or "some" of their needs, while 18 percent said it "did not meet any of their needs."²³ Focus groups support this finding, though the groups also amplified the negative experiences of some clients. Several focus group participants said they succeeded in spite of the guidance from their counsellor, who would not listen or guided them into training for which they were not suited. Overall, most EI clients report the counselling as a positive experience.
• Some participants affirmed that employers should direct the training process to ensure relevance to local labour market opportunities. A few participants commended regional colleges for taking direction from the private sector in providing training in relevant areas.²⁴
• Key informants agreed that the type of programs is similar to what was previously available, with the exception of the new CSCES offices. Many respondents said availability has increased, because programs and services are now available to a wider range of clients. However, a few believe that program criteria and policies have become more stringent under the province. There is a perception that the province is more "rules-oriented" than the federal government. Some key informants also noted that the public is confused over the difference between HRDC and Canada-Saskatchewan Career and Employment Services, or is unaware of changes since the CS-LMDA.

3.2.2 How PPSs meet the needs of employers

Employers are both directly and indirectly involved in provincial programs and services for EI clients. Most employers become directly involved with government training programs because they need some type of support (e.g., training subsidy, wage subsidy) to hire an employee. They become indirectly involved through sectoral planning, where industry associations often represent employers within a specific industry, and identify training needs and supports. In both cases, employers are not specifically concerned with training and supports for EI clients; they seek support for hiring new employees, whomever they may be. Employers' perspectives typically reflect the broader training environment, rather than EI programs specifically.

Key findings are as follows:

• Most of the 146 employers surveyed expressed satisfaction with the most recent EI client they hired. Seventy-four percent (74 percent) of respondents reported that the EI client they hired fit into their workplace.²⁵ Fifty-nine percent (59 percent) of employers said that programs/services met or exceeded their expectations. Of those who said their expectations "were not met" or were "partially met," 88 percent (35 of 40) cited a problem with the employee.
• Wage and training subsidies encourage some employers to specifically hire EI clients. According to the survey of employers, more than half of employers said they would not have hired EI clients without a government subsidy. Several participants in the focus groups stated they hired someone whose skills were not well suited to the job, but hired them because government support was available. Forty-seven percent (47 percent) of employers said that having programs specifically targeted to EI clients helped them locate employees.²⁶
• Employers indicate that the same, if not more programs are now available to them. Thirty-two percent (32 percent) indicate that there are now more programs available, while 33 percent remained neutral. Fifteen percent (15 percent) thought there were fewer programs, while a similar proportion did not know.²⁷
• Of the 146 employers surveyed, one-third stated that it is as easy or easier to get government support for employment/training programs since the CS-LMDA was implemented. Thirty-four percent (34 percent) reported that it is now easier to get government support for employment/training programs, while 33 percent remained neutral. Sixteen percent (16 percent) thought there were fewer programs, while 17 percent did not know or did not respond.²⁸
• PPSs have helped employers meet labour shortages. Over half of the respondents to the employer survey agreed that in the last two years, PPSs have helped them fill job vacancies (63 percent), fill skills shortages (50 percent), and meet human resource needs (54 percent).²⁹

• During the focus groups, some employers indicated they want training programs tailored to meet their needs. The main complaint from employers was that those hired for work placements/on the job training typically require a lot of training, often beyond the scope of support provided by the program. Further, employers often have to supervise or train these employees using experienced workers, which decreases their productivity. In the focus groups, some employers expressed the belief that government does not always recognize or compensate their contribution to the training process. Employers with less demanding training needs reported that three to six months was a sufficient period to decide whether an employee would fit into the company.³⁰

  The employer survey confirms this finding: 44 percent of respondents suggested increasing the length of the wage/training subsidy, while a similar proportion wanted the amount of the subsidy increased (43 percent). Many employers would not have provided any on the job training without a subsidy (55 percent).³¹

• Some employers in the focus groups desire greater program flexibility. According to several focus group participants, programs should be flexible in meeting employer needs. If the employee has higher needs (skill development, workplace support, language), the system should be able to adapt and help the employer either financially or by providing additional supports. The employer survey did not test this issue, and it should be revisited in the summative evaluation.³²
• Employers report program staff to be helpful. Based on the survey of employers, 75 percent agreed with the statement, "Program staff who provided assistance are knowledgeable and helpful."³³ Focus group participants said they are satisfied with the information they received from government upon receiving support to hire an employee. Those who had used the system more than once now understand how to apply for funding more effectively. Several employers reported that the CSCES counsellor provided excellent follow-up and support over the duration of the program.³⁴
• Employers have mixed views regarding program paperwork. Approximately the same proportion of respondents either agreed, disagreed, or remained neutral when asked whether "too much paperwork is involved when applying for programs," and whether "too much paperwork is involved when reporting on program outcomes." Twenty-three percent (23 percent) of employers suggested reducing paperwork/improving administration as a way to improve PPSs for EI clients.³⁵
• While most employers are satisfied with proposal "turnaround" time, a few indicate that this process should be faster. When asked to suggest any changes to the programs, 24 percent suggest reducing the time required by administration to "make decisions."³⁶ Participants in focus groups echoed this opinion.
• Employers are generally aware of CSCES, but some appeared unclear about the range of programs and supports available to them. Based on the employer survey (n=146), 27 percent of employers had visited a centre, 54 percent had phoned or faxed a centre, while 10 percent reported contact via the Internet. One-quarter reported no contact.
• Several employers who participated in the focus groups said that government should do more direct marketing to employers, and explain the range of options available. Employers claimed that government should help employers access support that would benefit them and potential employees. Passive marketing strategies (such as brochures) are not always effective, as they do not always capture an employer's attention. Furthermore, focus group participants reported that they have trouble distinguishing between programs (who they serve, who funds them). Most could not distinguish between federal and provincial employment programs.
• Employers are satisfied with CSCES services, but suggest a need to improve Internet-based resources. As indicated in Table 3, CSCES rated much higher with respect to "posting job vacancies" (3.8 out of 5), "applying for a training program" (3.8), "providing information about education/training programs" (3.7), and "locating potential employees" (3.5) than the HRDC web site and Saskatchewan web site.³⁷ This could indicate that employers prefer face-to-face contact, or it may indicate that Internet services need to be improved.

• Some key informants believe that PPSs have not yet fully addressed employer needs. Some of the ways that government is trying to address employer needs are: on-line job order/job matching system (n=8); employer participation in needs assessment/planning (n=9); program interventions linked to regional labour market realities (n=5); and increased funding to subsidize employment (n=5).

The scope of the CS-LMDA and PPSs targeted to EI clients is broad. While most employers and key informants (federal and provincial) believe that PPSs are successful, some suggested areas for improvement. For example, employers suggested additional program marketing, and tailoring of training subsidies and amounts to meet individual needs. During focus groups, employers supported the development of a training culture in Saskatchewan.

It is important to note that an employer will, by economic necessity, focus first on the needs of the firm, followed by the needs of EI clients. This is a critical issue, as the needs of employers and the needs of clients (or government as a representative of those clients) may not coincide. Employers want to hire the person with the most appropriate skills, but government may specify that a training subsidy can only be used for an EI client. This divergence of requirement is not easily resolved, but it lies at the root of why some employers have a muted interest in supporting training programs for economically disadvantaged persons. Further, some employers stigmatize the "EI" label as identifying someone unable to find work on their own.

3.2.3 PPSs and the interests of the community (service providers)

The evaluation framework includes a question about the extent to which the PPSs are relevant to the needs of the community. The concept of community is very broad, and in consultation with the Joint Evaluation Committee, we elected to interpret community as the various service providers. Under the CS-LMDA, this includes SIAST, regional colleges, and various non-governmental and community-based organizations that play an important role within the Saskatchewan training environment.

• SIAST and regional colleges (RCs) deliver most provincial training. They also collaborate with government, consult on program design and delivery, and often participate in regional needs assessments.
• Medium-sized service providers, such as Dumont Technical Institute and Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, provide training and support predominantly for Aboriginal persons.
• Community-based organizations tailor services to specific groups (e.g., people with disabilities, recent immigrants, Aboriginal persons, women), or find niches that other providers do not fill.
• Private trainers deliver "niche" training services or compete with SIAST and regional colleges to provide technical training.

Based on several focus groups, service providers report few complaints regarding the transition of programs and services for EI clients from the federal government to the province. Given that most trainers also provide programs and services for other provincial clients (primarily Social Assistance clients), trainers are utilizing the same networks and programs as they do for EI clients.

Service providers' perspectives on the CS-LMDA include the following:³⁸

• The proposal process is very similar. In the pre-LMDA period, either trainers collaborated with HRDC when developing a program, or they would respond to a call for proposals. This process is similar under the CS-LMDA; however, several respondents noted that the province is more willing to provide funding upfront. They prefer this process when setting up their courses.
• The province has implemented a follow-up process, similar to that of the federal government. Follow-up is a costly process, and some would see lengthier follow-up as a burden on trainers. Currently, trainers complete follow-ups after four months.
• EI clients are reportedly a small proportion of their service load. Service providers seldom (if ever) provide training specifically for EI clients. The majority of clients are on Social Assistance (SA), although EI and SA clients often attend the same classes. Service providers submit proposals for generic training, of which a portion of the participants will be EI clients. Similarly, the grants used by trainers are for overall training overheads and costs, and not specifically for EI clients. It is impossible to separate the EI client share of a grant or contract for a training program.
• Mixing clientele with different needs can be difficult for trainers, as SA clients often require more counselling and personalized attention. The mixture of clients can make it difficult for trainers to deliver one program, when students have a wide range of needs and abilities. This suggests that more streaming may be appropriate.
• Prior to the LMDA, the federal government typically funded service providers (primarily CBOs) on a project-by-project basis. By comparison, the province commonly provides core money, as well as project-based funding. According to service providers, core funding stabilizes the training environment and makes it easier for trainers to consider longer-term training strategies. Stable funding also enables long-term planning and development of support services. Previously, most projects were on a contractual basis, making it difficult to plan in the long term. Finally, some service providers argued that continued long-term funding would make it easier to retain quality staff and provide better and continuous services to clients who cycle in and out of work.
• Several respondents noted that pre-LMDA, EI training allowances were easier to understand. Under the LMDA, the mixed training environment coupled with the variety of income support programs has confused some trainers. For example, clients in the same program could receive STB, PTA, or EI Part 1 benefits. Rules for income support programs differ, and trainers are asked by clients to explain why certain rules (such as attendance) apply to some students and not to others. Referrals to CSCES would resolve this.
• Philosophies differ regarding job search. During the pre-LMDA period, the federal government required mandatory job search. Under the LMDA, the province typically does not require people to search for work. The province often does not know who is an EI eligible client until the client applies for training or uses a service. This issue reflects the split in responsibility for EI Part 1 benefits (eligibility determined by the federal government) and Part 2 (programs and services provided by the province).
• Service providers see CSCES offices as effective. CSCES offices do a good job of directing clients to appropriate training, and have good referral processes in place. Overall, CSCES offices have functioned well in their role, and they have been proactive in communicating with service providers and accommodating their needs.
• According to several service providers, CBOs get less support and funding than regional colleges and SIAST. Several trainers maintain that government does not fully recognize the important role that CBOs play in the training environment. The province intends its new contracting strategy to offer multi-year support to CBOs to meet the needs of specific clientele. This should address many of the concerns expressed by these CBOs.
• Counselling is more developed and defined under the LMDA. Clients typically come to service providers with clearer goals and with career plans in place. Most counselling is on a one-to-one basis, a further benefit for EI clients.
• Trainers suggested listing the range of programs offered on the provincial web site. This would include who is offering the program, where it is located, etc. Providing a centralized list would match clients and trainers.

3.2.4 Community involvement in regional needs assessments

A second aspect of how the CS-LMDA meets the needs of communities can be seen in the regional needs assessment process.³⁹ These exercises involve a high level of community participation and are intended to support community decision-making. They are environmental scans that focus on particular sectors (e.g., mining, the motion picture industry, agriculture), groups (e.g., Aboriginal persons, youth, people with disabilities), or the design and delivery of programs and services (e.g., Basic Education, Bridging). These have important implications for EI clients, but EI clients are typically not the focal point for the research.

At this stage, it is difficult to determine whether the CS-LMDA and the needs assessments meet the needs of communities, simply because it is unclear what is meant by "community." For this evaluation, we define community as the organizations that participate in the local/regional needs assessment process. From this limited perspective, it is possible to identify accomplishments in terms of regional and local training needs assessments and the sectoral planning process. It is also important to note that the training needs assessments and sectoral planning processes predate the CS-LMDA. In effect, the Agreement incorporated a pre-existing planning process in which EI clients are not targeted specifically, but can expect to indirectly benefit from assessments and sectoral planning. At this early stage, no systematic evaluation exists to assess the contribution of these two processes.

The following provides an overview of these processes to date:

• Training needs assessments in different regions/communities have different goals. Our review of recent needs assessments identified the following goals:
  • providing support for identifying emerging jobs and training needs for local labour markets;
  • identifying training strategies to support specific sectors;
  • identifying industries and employers that have difficulty hiring and maintaining skilled workers;
  • improving access to programs and services; improving the delivery of PPSs;
  • assessing responsiveness to the needs of equity groups; fostering strong working relationships with community and regional partners;
  • determining resource allocation at the regional and sub-regional level;
  • maintaining current labour market information.

These goals all relate to PPSs generally, but EI clients are not the focal point.

• The CS-LMDA has changed the training needs assessment process, simply because regional CSCES offices now direct the process. Pre-LMDA, the main agencies involved in this process have typically included the province, HRDC, SIAST, regional colleges, and key industry representatives. With CSCES now having responsibility for the training needs assessment budget and approach, the process has changed in some regions. As this process continues to evolve, regions will likely adopt their own techniques most suited to the needs of the region.
• The regional needs assessment process contributes to the development of partnerships. Organizations most commonly involved in the assessment process include CSCES, SIAST, regional colleges, HRDC, Social Services, industry associations, First Nations and Métis representatives, employers, economic development organizations, health organizations, school representatives, and community-based organizations. Key informants who have been involved in the process cite stronger partnerships as a result, although some observed that it can be difficult to meet the needs of all partners, because each may have different interests. For example, training deliverers are often most interested in identifying the immediate demand for training to fill courses, whereas government may take a more long-term and broader perspective of regions' training needs. Government must also look at the needs of different client groups (EI clients, Social Assistance clients), and devise strategies to increase self-sufficiency and reduce dependency on income support. These strategies must integrate services while meeting the needs of diverse clientele.
• The provincial government has identified specific regional and provincial sectors. As of the 1999/2000 fiscal year, sectors of focus include: Agriculture, Mining, Forestry, Tourism, Motion Pictures, Outfitting/Eco-tourism, Trade and Retail, Export Manufacturing, Implement Manufacturing, Healthcare, Justice/Corrections, Information Technology, Food Processing, Trucking, Textiles, Recording Industry, and Aviation. It is likely that EI clients have received training in some or all of these sectors, but the focus of the planning process is industry sectors and specific target groups.
• Some target groups are the focus of the planning process. Three main groups form the focus of several regional assessments: youth, First Nations/Métis Nation, and persons with disabilities. These are also target groups of HRDC. Other assessments identify women, older workers, recent immigrants, small businesses, and the Francophone community. It is possible that EI clients present a less pressing challenge compared to these other groups, especially in the North, which is why the regional and sectoral planning process has not targeted them.
• Employers who have participated in the regional needs assessment support it as it currently operates. As noted in Table 4 below, employers (n=146) view the process as effective. Identifying industry/sector skills needs, planning workplace adjustment, developing training solutions, and developing programs and services all rated 3.7 or more on a 5-point scale. However, note that few respondents (approximately 9 percent) were able to respond to these questions. This suggests that only a minority of employers know of these processes. Typically, participants tend to be active in business and industry associations, which attract only a minority of employers.

The regional needs assessments are processes rather than outcomes. They vary in form and activity, based on the direction of regional CSCES offices. Using key informant interviews, a review of assessments and sector plans, and the employer survey, we conclude that these processes appear to meet the needs of communities. At the very least, these processes help strengthen partnerships, and ideally create opportunities for EI clients to find work in growth sectors of the economy.

Some regions are clearly more advanced in using the planning processes than others. As we note above, the regional planning process existed before the CS-LMDA. For example, the sectoral plan for forestry is the culmination of well over a decade of consultation.

3.3 Summary on rationale for the CS-LMDA

The Canada-Saskatchewan Labour Market Development Agreement replicates the services to EI clients that existed before enactment of the Agreement. Provincial programs and services align with the Employment Benefits and Support Measures. The province has created the Skills Training Benefit specifically to increase the income support available to EI clients.

Interviews and surveys with key informants, EI clients, employers, and service providers confirm that PPSs are relevant to their needs. In general, clients and employers accept the services, and express satisfaction with the service they receive. The "regionalization" of service delivery through CSCES centres is welcome for many clients.

Footnotes

12	See Bakvis and Aucoin (op.cit.) for a more detailed discussion of co-management and devolution approaches to labour market development agreements. The New Brunswick LMDA is an example of another province that has created a comprehensive labour market development program, into which the EBSM defined in the Employment Insurance Act have been integrated.
13	Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) tended to use more purchase of training and contracting with private trainers. PSEST favours using SIAST and regional colleges to deliver training to all learners.
14	Community-based organizations typically serve specific groups that require intensive assistance over a longer period of time. Examples include Aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, and recent immigrants.
15	Dyads and focus groups with clients revealed many stories supporting this, indicating an important reason why EI clients may not use programs and services to retrain or find new jobs.
16	Client survey: 216 clients out of 1,250 were asked this question.
17	Except where noted, the term "key informant" refers to all respondents: federal, provincial, and those from community-based organizations.
18	We do not distinguish between federal, provincial, or other types of respondents in reporting these findings. As qualitative evidence, counting the numbers of different types of respondents would produce a false sense of precision.
19	Source: key informant interviews.
20	Source: client focus groups.
21	Client survey: 1,017 clients out of 1,250 were asked this question.
22	Source: client focus groups.
23	Client survey: 576 clients out of 1,250 were asked this question.
24	Source: client focus groups.
25	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
26	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
27	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
28	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
29	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
30	Source: employer focus groups.
31	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
32	Source: employer focus groups.
33	Source: survey of employers, sample size n=146.
34	Source: employer focus groups.
35	Source: survey of employers.
36	Source: survey of employers.
37	HRDC web site refers to sites such as the WORK Place. The Saskatchewan web site refers to sites such as SaskNetWork or the PSEST site. The survey listed the CSCES without any references. Clients may have accessed an HRDC web site and/or a Saskatchewan web site, and/or printed material at the location.
38	Source: service provider focus groups. Groups included representatives from community-based organizations, SIAST, and regional colleges, encompassing both major centres and rural areas.
39	The term "region" refers to a large center such as Regina, or one of the administrative regions as defined by PSEST.