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 chapter discusses findings related to the following:

• the extent to which local labour market and economic development plans were integrated during the implementation of EBSM;

• partnership issues; and

• whether EBSM meet the needs of communities.

There was consultation conducted at the local level concerning the economic and labour market needs of communities and how EBSM in general could address these needs.

A majority of community partners reported having been consulted on the needs of their community during the implementation of EBSM. Consultations were both formal and informal, with informal consultations taking place on an ongoing basis with community partners that have a close relationship with local HRCCs. Many HRCCs also reported working with local or regional economic development bodies in planning the delivery of programs.

Community organizations that did not have close working relationships with the HRCCs generally reported that they had not been consulted on the implementation of EBSM but had been informed about the changes to the EI legislation. In some areas, HRCCs reported that they chose not to involve community partners in EBSM planning given the coming implementation of the LMDAs because they did not want to create unrealistic expectations on the part of the community organizations.

While the majority of community partners reported having been consulted on the local economic and labour market plans, not as many indicated having been consulted on the mix of employment benefits and support measures that should be used to integrate these plans. The great majority of HRCCs consulted reported that the five main measures and benefits examined in the course of this evaluation (TWS, SE, Training, JCP and EAS) were all available in their community. However, the link between availability of intervention and the communities' economic development needs was not always apparent. HRCCs felt that they would be in a better position to adjust their next business plans to the economic needs of their communities since they would have a year's worth of experience working under EBSM.

The extent to which partnerships exist at the local level between HRCCs and other relevant organizations in the community appears to be linked to two main factors: the length of the relationship between HRCCs and community partners, and the personality of individuals (both management and staff) within HRCCs. The organizations which have had an ongoing relationship with their local HRCCs for a number of years were generally satisfied with the relationship, although the partnerships might not be as two-sided as they would like. Community partners often reported that the extent to which partnerships existed between the HRCCs and others in the community also depended on individual managers' and staff's commitment or comfort with a partnership approach. These two factors have apparently had an impact on the extent to which community partners felt consulted prior to the implementation of the various EBSM in their community.

Despite relatively high levels of satisfaction with current partnerships, a number of community partners felt that there was a need to increase the efforts put into developing partnerships. Indeed, some organizations that had been identified as community partners by HRCCs reported that they did not feel like partners at all. In their view, being partners meant more than communicating regarding funding. In many communities, the use of LLMPs does reflect a true partnership approach. Rather than driving the agenda of a project and providing all of the funding, HRDC was only one of a number of partners at the table under many LLMPs. Other partners contributed in-kind resources and funding, and were active partners in developing the project. LLMPs were seen to be an effective mechanism to draw partners together to address specific labour market issues.

A few interviewees also mentioned the need to obtain more input on the part of individual employers (as opposed to umbrella groups such as the Chamber of Commerce) into the identification of local labour market needs. With downsizing, the interviewees at the HRCC level felt they had been less preoccupied with the needs of employers than the needs of unemployed individuals. In some areas, it was felt that HRCCs needed to either take more time to find out about community needs, or play a bigger role in bringing the community and industry together to identify needs. The lack of HRCC staff available to develop partnerships and the lack of resources on the part of community partners were cited as examples of impediments to developing partnerships. HRCCs explained that their community partners still looked to HRDC to provide the funding rather than coming to the table as a partner willing and able to contribute financial or in-kind resources. In addition, the uncertainty about the future delivery of EBSM created by the signing of the Labour Market Development Agreements made it difficult for some HRCCs to continue to develop partnerships.

At this stage, the impact of EBSM on the development of long term employment is anecdotal as many of the activities are in the early stages. Indeed, a majority of interviewees mentioned that it was too early to evaluate the potential of the EBSM interventions to contribute to the development or creation of long term employment in communities. However, based on survey results, potential for long term employment looks good. Interviewees also felt that LLMPs would also play an important role in the development of long term employment. Furthermore, the phasing-out of block purchase training and increasing use of individual purchases were said to contribute to better meeting the needs of local labour markets.

So far, the impacts of various EBSM interventions on communities have not only been felt in the area of employment but also in the area of social development. Interviewees said that JCP contributes to the social development of communities since the program is used primarily by not-for-profit organizations. JCP allows these organizations to have individuals working for them whose wages they might not be able to afford otherwise.

Some interviewees mentioned that training institutions and organizations operating in the voluntary sector had known for a while that HRDC would gradually decrease its funding to them. A few interviewees believed that these cuts had negatively affected these organizations (e.g., some training institutions are struggling to maintain their operations and some are left without core or project-specific funding).²⁶ On the other hand, others believed that cuts in funding had forced training institutions to respond to labour market needs as opposed to offering blanket training to anyone eligible.

Footnotes

26	For example, some organizations who cannot access JCP anymore because of the change in focus are now struggling.