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

In this chapter, we present evidence concerning the relevance of Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs) in terms of their consistency with the Employment Insurance (EI) Act, the Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) and Yukon Territorial Government (YTG) priorities, their relevance to the needs of clients, employers and the community and their reach and accessibility. Evidence of the relevance of the EBSMs is drawn primarily from key informant interviews, focus groups and survey findings.

2.1 Consistency with EI Act, the LMDA and Yukon Government Priorities

Among those key informants who were aware of the LMDA, LMDA programs and services were perceived to be consistent with the EI legislation. A number of third-party respondents remarked that small modifications have been made to programs in order to better meet the needs of the Yukon and that these changes have contributed to a sense of consistency of programs with the priorities of the YTG. These modifications primarily involved methods of dealing with small-market size issues and adjustments to meet the needs of specific community groups, and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3(d).

2.2 Relevance of EBSMs to Clients, Employers and the Community

Overall, third-party providers, clients and employers felt the programs and services were meeting their respective needs. Aspects of the service delivery approach which were felt to be particularly relevant to the needs of the clients included the negotiation of financial assistance to clients (i.e., based on client need, fosters more client involvement thus enhanced commitment) and services that address all aspects of clients' employment situations (i.e., from soft skills such as communication and pointers on appearance to job search skills and matching). Among government respondents, program strengths were thought to include flexibility in program eligibility, staff expertise in setting up programs and dealing with available resources, a good connection with the community, and more job coaching available to clients.

One aspect of the service delivery that some government respondents perceived to be a strength was the friendlier atmosphere at Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), although this view contradicts that held by clients and other government respondents who reported poor client relations at HRDC (for example, lack of one-to-one counselling). Clients perceived the service delivery from federal government facilities to be "rough" and "cold" because of the environment at the Human Resource Centre of Canada (HRCC) (i.e., roped-off lines to stand in), the heavy reliance on computers (i.e., some clients are intimidated and uncomfortable using computers) and the perceived lack of ability and/or preparedness of staff to deal with clients' emotional needs. As well, some third-party respondents felt that these factors have led to less personalized services and may discourage clients from participating. It is important to note, however, that one-on-one services to clients are contracted to third parties, a fact that may account for this general perception of service delivery from the HRCC.

The reliance on third parties to deliver services was also felt to increase the relevance of programs for clients because these organizations have closer connections to the community and have an understanding of local needs; and clients may be less intimidated by their smaller scale and more personal, hands-on approach. Nonetheless, stakeholders and third parties noted several factors which may impact on program relevance and effective service delivery, including:

• gaps in services provided and clients served (programs to address basic and soft skills, programs in outlying areas, the eligibility for programs and services, long-term interventions for clients to ensure their success);
• aspects of the design and delivery of programs (for example, need for more emphasis on program content and client needs rather than the volume of clients served, definitions of success as employment that do not take into account the quality of the employment);
• the coordination of program delivery (for example, need to "ladder" programs to build upon skills taught in other programs, need to approach service delivery holistically, different government agendas) and the loss of other benefits (i.e., disability or Social Assistance [SA]) when clients participate in programs;
• partnering (for example, working more closely with First Nations to coordinate program delivery, the lack of joint planning between departments);
• communications (for example, facilitating the exchange of client and other types of information between third parties and government departments, communication between management and front-line staff, third parties better informed of the overall service delivery structure and programs delivered under the LMDA); and
• resources (for example, third-party respondents requiring more training in program administration, need to hire more staff at HRCCs, erroneous perception of a reduction in funding for LMDA programs).

Employers felt the relevance of programs was limited by the fact that many participants leave following the end of programming (i.e., employers were looking for long-term employees) and the cost and time associated with bookkeeping for the programs. In addition, a number of employers felt that the programs were less relevant because most programs take place in winter which is a slower time for most employers. It is important to note, however, that programs would be less beneficial to clients if they were delivered during peak seasons, as clients require assistance the most during the off-season when jobs are scarce. One area in which employers felt the programs were working well for them had to do with the quality of the workers. In general, employers felt the relevance of programs could be improved if they could hire participants during peak seasons, if HRDC could respond faster as to whether funding is available to cover an employee, if the period of funding for job placement programs (for example, Targeted Wage Subsidies [TWS]) were made longer, if more clients were eligible for programs and services, and additional funding was available to help employers keep staff through maternity or sick leave.

In terms of their relevance to the community overall, government respondents generally felt that the mix of programs and services provided under the LMDA was fairly consistent with the local community labour market and economic development plans. Recent community consultations have led to recommendations on what programs and services are required most by the community. Thus, respondents noted that it is common for less successful programs to be modified, more successful programs to receive more funding and for some programs to be dropped or redirected if the market cannot support them. Examples of recommendations made on the basis of the community input include ensuring that appropriate budgets were in place to support TWS, the addition of a computer training component to Starting Points programs, components to address life skills issues in all EBSMs, increased support for Local Labour Market Partnerships (LLMPs) and new Employment Assistance Services (EAS) projects to address community-specific needs.

2.3 Reach and Accessibility of EBSMs

The survey results provide an indication of the degree to which different groups within the population are able to access the LMDA programs. A review of survey findings shows that the demographic composition of EBSM participants is very similar to that of the comparison group, suggesting that the EBSMs are being made available to all groups that require services.¹⁶ In fact, the survey findings suggest that Aboriginal and disabled clients account for a higher proportion of program participants than comparison group members (i.e., LMDA eligible but not participating). Similarly, a number of key informants felt that all equity groups were being served and reported that a number of programs exist to meet the needs of different equity groups, including the Challenge program (for persons with disabilities), Starting Points program (which some felt is more accessible to First Nations groups and is also delivered in French), and a proposed Older Worker Project.

Qualitative evidence nonetheless suggests that some gaps in the client groups served, as well as in the types of programs and services offered, are perceived to exist. The perceived gaps in client groups served include persons with disabilities, seasonal workers, older respondents, non-Whitehorse residents and First Nations. In addition, lower labour market attachment among some equity groups may mean that they have lower rates of Employment Insurance eligibility and are thus less likely to be eligible for EBSM programs and services. It is likely that some of these gaps, however, have more to do with the range or volume of services specifically designed for these client groups than with the availability of programming, as programs do exist to meet the needs of some of these client groups (for example, Challenge Program for clients with disabilities, Older Worker Project, etc.). It is also important to note that some of the perceived gaps, such as non-EI eligible clients and, in particular, previously self-employed, under-employed, the employed wanting to quit for training and those returning to the workforce (i.e., homemakers), may go beyond the scope of the LMDA. It is important to acknowledge that the eligibility for programs and services under the LMDA is restricted by the EI Legislation; thus commentary about gaps for non-EI eligible individuals may speak more to general labour market issues and needs rather than specifically to the design of the LMDA programming.

Perceived gaps in the types of programs and services provided included basic high school education and basic life skills training, as well as too much emphasis placed on trades-related training and not enough on other job skills such as office work and professional services. As well, some third-party deliverers felt that, although programs and services within Whitehorse were available in a timely fashion, this was not the case in outlying communities, where some programs (for example, Job Finding Clubs (JFC), resume writing, etc.) might be delivered only once or twice a year, or not at all. Market size and resource issues are likely the source of difficulties in trying to deliver programming in outlying communities, although government key informants noted that efforts will likely be made to address the needs of clients in these locations (for example, through the EAS program as well as a YTG initiative to increase access to technology in all communities). It is also possible that poor marketing and promotion of programs and services may have contributed to the perception of gaps because clients are simply unaware of the range of services offered.

2.4 Summary

The needs of clients, employers and communities were perceived to have been well met by LMDA programs and services, and the use of third-party delivery agents and community consultations were thought to contribute to the relevance of the EBSMs. In some instances, however, a lack of understanding of the role played by EBSMs in the range of employment programming in the territory (for example, increased use of third-party providers in service delivery, targeting EI clients and need for programming in the off-seasons) may have contributed to perceptions that EBSMs were less relevant in some areas (for example, HRCC not responding to clients' emotional needs, program eligibility, timing of wage subsidies). Nonetheless, a number of factors were identified that may decrease the relevance of programs and services, including gaps in services provided and clients served, aspects of the design and delivery of programs (for example, emphasis on volume of clients served, definitions of success as simply employment), the need for coordination of program delivery, the need for more partnering (for example, with First Nations), communications problems (for example, information sharing between government, third parties and stakeholders), and resource issues (for example, need for training, supports for partnership). Qualitative evidence also suggests that some gaps in the client groups served, as well as in the types of programs and services offered, are perceived to exist.

Footnotes

16	A more appropriate comparison of participant and comparison group demographics would be to compare these characteristics for the full populations. The lack of administrative data for these groups on key variables (i.e., education, equity group status, etc.) made such a comparison impossible.