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 section examines how LMPP funding was being used. It also examines several of the evaluation questions: What impacts did LMPP funding have on the projects? To what extent, if at all, would the projects have proceeded without LMPP funding? Was the cost-sharing requirement considered to be reasonable by all parties? Did the cost-sharing requirement limit the scope and potential of the LMPP? Was the level of funding per project sufficient to effect the desired results?

6.1 How LMPP Funding Was Used

The use of LMPP funding was consistent with the priorities and criteria of the program.

LMPP funding was used for five main purposes, which appeared to be consistent with the priorities and criteria of the program:

• Production costs of training and informational materials and final reports, including translation;
• Hiring experts, such as consultants, guest speakers, facilitators, and researchers;
• Marketing and advertising events, including producing and distributing promotional materials, printing costs, and web-site costs;
• Incidentals, such as administrative costs, telephone charges, rental of meeting rooms, travel, meal and accommodation expenses; and
• Subsidizing conference registration fees, providing bursaries and offsetting costs of union/employee participation.

6.2 Incremental Effects of LMPP

Survey responses indicate that most projects could not have been implemented without LMPP funding -- indeed, only a small percentage (5 percent) of the LMPP-funded projects would have gone ahead in the same way without LMPP funding.

It is important to note that the following findings are strongly supported by both management and labour. This agreement tends to support the credibility of the findings.

Among those surveyed, a little over half (51 percent) indicated that their projects would not have proceeded at all in the absence of LMPP funding. Another 44 percent indicated that their projects would have been limited in scope without LMPP funding.

The remaining 5 percent indicated that their project would have gone ahead in the same way without LMPP funding.

The case study analysis also found that the projects would have proceeded only in a limited capacity or would not have proceeded at all without LMPP funding.

The incremental effects of LMPP were particularly emphasized in terms of enabling labour's participation in the projects. For example, the final report of one case study noted that labour would not have been able to participate in such a large-scale and costly project had there not been matching LMPP funding.¹²

Key informants corroborated the general conclusion that most projects would not have proceeded or would not have proceeded at the same level or capacity without LMPP funding.

The available evidence suggests that the LMPP has additional incremental value in "leveraging" other sources of funding for projects.

LMPP was also seen as having additional incremental value in "leveraging" other sources of funding for projects, such as other levels of government, and private sector sources. For example, endorsement by the federal government was identified as a key factor that enabled a research organization to secure significant additional private funds to finance their proposed conference.¹³ Participants noted that "LMPP funding gave their projects credibility."

6.3 Cost Sharing

The general view of LMPP participants is that the cost-sharing formula for the LMPP is reasonable, although the cost-sharing requirement may be limiting in specific instances or for some projects.

The majority (81 percent) of labour, management and other participants surveyed indicated that the cost-sharing formula for the LMPP was reasonable. At the same time, however, a number of participants¹⁴ reported that the cost-sharing requirement was reasonable in general but had limited the scope of their specific projects (as shown in Figure 6). These limitations were attributed to a lack of funds for follow-up activities and costs incurred by labour participants having to pay their own way to meetings.

The case study analysis also generally indicated that the cost-sharing requirement was reasonable and did not limit the potential or scope of most of the projects. In six of the 21 case study projects, however, participants indicated that the cost-sharing requirement had negatively affected their project. Explanations for why the cost-sharing requirement was limiting for some projects included factors such as: difficulties in obtaining matching dollars in certain sectors; extra costs incurred by large-scale projects; and concerns that labour-management contributions far exceeded 50 percent.

Concerns raised about the cost-sharing requirement originated more from labour participants than management participants.

Most participants described the cost-sharing requirement as reasonable and not limiting, but there were notable concerns surrounding this requirement among labour participants. Only 67 percent of labour participants agreed the cost sharing was reasonable, as compared to 83 percent of management participants. This pattern may point to a lack of funds available to labour groups in comparison to management participants, or a need for additional flexibility in the cost-sharing requirement for the labour workplace parties.

The case study analysis corroborated the conclusion that labour participants have more concerns about the cost-sharing formula. In a small number of case study projects, this problem was addressed by the employer providing internal matching funds and using LMPP funds to offset costs to workers. In another project it was noted that it was particularly difficult for unions to participate due to financial constraints: "If a project is significant enough to obtain the $100,000 limit, the 50/50 formula can be a deterrent in many cases: partners may find it difficult (resources, staff) to match funds. There should be more flexibility, for example, on a sliding scale, up to 65 percent for LMPP to 35 percent for partners."

It may be that different types of projects or circumstances may warrant different types of cost sharing or perhaps a more flexible application of the cost-sharing requirement.

6.4 Adequacy of LMPP Funding

The evidence indicates that funding levels were adequate for some projects but not others.

About two-thirds (67 percent) of the surveyed participants indicated that LMPP project funding was adequate, while another 25 percent indicated that funding was inadequate.

In just over half of the case studies, case study participants noted that the level of funding had been sufficient to achieve the desired results. In the remaining case study projects (just under half of the projects), some or all of the participants reported opportunities lost as a result of limited funding.

Key informants were also likely to see the funding provided as a factor limiting some important projects.

6.5 Larger Scale Projects

The case study analysis indicated that the level of LMPP funding may be insufficient for larger scale national projects.

In the case of four of the case study projects, the level of funding was not fully sufficient to support a large-scale, national project. In another case, the project had to be redesigned and did not achieve its expected results (as discussed in Section 5.1). Comments in this area included:

• "Regional events such as these seminars are far more time-consuming than other projects, and travel costs are extremely high by comparison."
• "[There was] not proper funding to accommodate simultaneous translation. Quebec people did not have the right kind of translation [...] we could have distributed far more." and
• "It was a high-cost project that had a big agenda and capacity."

Key informant interviews corroborated this concern. One key informant commented: "The cost of living and of doing business has risen substantially since LMPP was introduced, but the funding level has not kept pace. [For example] Some projects require an independent researcher whose cost to the project can be prohibitive."

The concern about funding limitations for large-scale projects points towards a need to re-examine the project funding cap for the LMPP (at least in certain circumstances) and to consider more flexible funding arrangements. In the case of large-scale projects, it might be more appropriate to consider assessing project costs in relation to the range of benefits: for example, some projects may warrant greater support where the benefits are greater.

6.6 Issues Concerning Sustainability

A key concern that emerged from the research was the lack of momentum in sustaining results once the projects were completed.

Sustainability was an issue mentioned by 64 percent of participants. These responses came from participants in workplace, conference and research projects. Among workplaces — the largest group of projects — 68 percent of participants raised sustainability issues. Fewer participants in conference projects (55 percent) and research projects (58 percent) raised questions about sustainability. Interestingly, "other" projects, which blended different types of approaches, such as conferences involving workplaces etc., reported still higher concerns with sustainability issues: 75 percent. This across-the-board expression of interest in sustainability reflects the focus of all of the projects, regardless of type, on change in the workplace. These findings match a quantitative follow-up sub-study in which the evaluators asked a sample of workplace participants specifically about sustainability issues. In the follow- up survey of 30 workplace respondents, 40 percent indicated that sustainability of program benefits was short or medium term, and only 17 percent indicated that impacts were permanent.

Additionally, sustainability was an issue raised in several case studies by all three types of projects, which supports these findings. The case study analysis noted that the projects had produced desired results, but that funding was not available to ensure the long-term maintenance of these results, and other mechanisms for funding follow-up seem to be lacking. Comments from case study project participants included:

• "The level of funding was sufficient to provide only a 'first-level' of training in interest-based approaches. Ongoing training is key to sustaining the initiative."
• "Nowadays you have to have more, especially if you want to see it go on."; and
• "[There was not enough funding for] ongoing maintenance of the project. [There was] adequate funding to get it started, but to keep the ball rolling was beyond the scope of the funding."

These concerns raised in case studies were reaffirmed by a re-examination of the survey data, which showed close to half of participants expressed concerns on sustainability issues.

Concerns regarding sustainability point to an area where the LMPP and its funding criteria could be re-examined and revised to address concerns about longer-term sustainability. This is not to say that funding for LMPP projects should be long-term, but rather that consideration should be given to modifying pilot project funding and criteria to ensure that the funding encourages or maximizes the sustainability of results.

Footnotes

12	Towards Greater Accountability: Introducing Work-teams into Automobile Dealerships.
13	First International Forum on Disability Management.
14	Of participants who responded, 25 percent reported that project scope was negatively affected by limited funding, and 24 percent indicated that limits were seen to be the result of cost sharing.