Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada Government of Canada
    FrançaisContact UsHelpSearchHRDC Site
  EDD'S Home PageWhat's NewHRDC FormsHRDC RegionsQuick Links

·
·
·
·
 
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
 

6. Impacts on Communities


Although not a primary focus of the formative evaluation, this chapter identifies impacts of the Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) at a community level. It should be noted that the formative evaluation addresses impacts during the LMDA's first year of implementation. In that year, considerable effort was devoted to the devolution of programs and services to the province and to ensuring that clients were served. A consequence is that less emphasis has been directed at developing the community-level linkages and infrastructure that may help promote community impacts.

6.1 Involvement of Community in Planning Process

Community representatives were not involved to any degree in the planning process related to the LMDA. Third party service providers have been involved to some degree. Some of these service providers are not-for-profit organizations who represent various interest groups within the community. However, it remains the case that broad community based input did not occur related to the implementation of the LMDA. Community input did occur in rural areas around Calgary after the LMDA was launched.

6.2 Labour Market Impacts

The LMDA has resulted in labour market impacts that will bring effects at the community level. Our findings identify statistically significant increases in the hours of work for participants under all Alberta Program and Services (APSs), under Job Placement (JP) and Skills Development Skill Training (SDS), all programs excluding Career and Employment Assistance Services (CEAS), and for reach-back clients. Earnings per year also increase significantly for all APSs excluding CEAS, and SDS.

These are significant positive findings so early in the life of the LMDA.

Findings of a statistically significant reduction in hours worked for active claimants and reductions in earnings for active claimants and CEAS participants are likely short run phenomena. Longer term impacts are likely to be more positive.

Our qualitative assessment did not find evidence of unfair competition resulting from implementation of the APSs. There were a limited number of negative comments about Training on the Job (TOJ) and Skills for Work (SW) projects. These programs may create unfair advantage if the training inputs by the partnering firm are insufficient to justify the compensation to employers for training.

The Self-Employment (SE) program did result in new business formations and in improvements to some existing self-employment enterprises. However, there was no suggestion that these created unfair disadvantage to existing firms.

6.3 Mobility

The APSs may affect the mobility of participants. This effect may either be positive or negative for the community where the interventions occur. Our regression results identified no significant difference between non-apprentice participants and comparison group members with regard to the trade-off they would make if obtaining a good job meant moving from their community. As a result, no impact is expected for the mobility of clients.

The vast majority of apprentice and non-apprentice clients have remained within the communities they were living in at the time of their APS. Seventy-nine percent of apprentices have not moved and a further 12 percent have moved within the same community. Nine percent have moved from their community—4 percent to another community within a one hour drive and 5 percent to another community more than a one hour drive from the first community. Eighty-eight percent of non-apprentices have not moved since their APS. Seven percent have moved within the same community. Four percent are now in another community within a one hour drive and 1 percent have moved to another community more than a one hour drive from the first community.


[Previous Page][Table of Contents][Next Page]