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 of the report profiles the characteristics and experiences of EBSM participants. Section 2.1 is based on administrative data for all participants in the July 1996 to December 1998 period. Section 2.2 is based on the survey of participants conducted for this evaluation.

2.1 Administrative Data Profile of Participants

HRDC administrative systems relating to EBSMs consist of two primary files:

• Contracts File. This consists of information on the sponsors (and the project sponsored) for TWS and JCP. The primary purpose of the Contracts file relates to financial accountability but individual records also contain information on the project (e.g. expected number of participants and expected start and end dates). Non-financial data is not necessarily updated, however, as the project evolves.
• Intervention File. This file has a record for each individual participant. For JCP and SE, coverage is complete since there are direct financial payments (in addition to amounts paid in EI Benefits) to individuals. For TWS, however, there is no direct financial relationship between HRDC and participants and coverage of TWS participants on the Intervention File is incomplete⁸.

Determination of the number of participants in any given time period is thus inexact. In the time period April 1, 1997 to December 31, 1998, an estimated 7,029 new participants came into one of the three employment benefits addressed by this evaluation. JCP and SE participant counts are based on the Interventions file. The TWS counts below were obtained as follows:

• for TWS projects where there are participants on the Interventions file, it was assumed that coverage was complete and the No. of Participants field (no_of_part) on the Contract file was ignored;
• for TWS projects where there are no participants on the Intervention field, the no_of_part field from the Contracts file was used.

As noted in the table, HRDC information systems only specifically identify 1,004 of the estimated 2,161 TWS participants. Overall, 46% of TWS participants were on the Interventions file. This varied by region⁹ from a low of 32% in the Avalon District to a high of 59% in the Central District. Coverage for the other districts was 51% for Labrador and 56% for Western.

Table 1 also identifies the number of reachback clients as well as the number of Social Assistance Recipients (SARs) who participated by intervention and by region. These numbers are somewhat underestimated since whether the unknown TWS participants are reachback clients or SARs¹⁰ is unknown.

View Table 1

For the participant survey, not all of these individuals could be included on the survey frame. In particular:

• as noted, no information was available for 1,157 TWS participants;
• individuals for whom contact information was not available were dropped;
• individuals who would not have completed their intervention by the end of February 1999 were dropped;
• when multiple records existed for an individual, only one case was retained.

This left a total of 4,586 data records corresponding to participants who were known to have taken and completed one of the three interventions since April 1997. The survey frame also included 1,089 individuals who commenced an intervention between July 1, 1996 and March 31, 1997 (i.e. after the effective date of the new Employment Insurance legislation but prior to the effective date of the Labour Market Development Agreement).

Tables 2 and 3 provide data on the age (at the start of their intervention) and gender of these 5,567 individuals. Both the age breakdown of the clients and the gender breakdown vary by the type of intervention.

Age

The most notable result in Table 2 is that TWS participants are younger than other participants:

• 17% of TWS participants are under 25 and 38% are under 30;
• only 14% of TWS participants are 45 or older compared to 19% of SEB participants and 23% of JCP participants.

Also notable is that reachback participants are somewhat older than other JCP participants although this difference is not marked.

Gender

There is also variation by gender between programs. Overall, 66 percent of the participants were male which is slightly higher than for the EI population generally (61 percent of active EI claimants are male). The specific data for each intervention indicates that males are more likely to have participated in JCP. For TWS and SEB, more females have been enrolled (46% and 43% respectively) than their representation in the EI population (39%) would suggest.

Reachback Participants and Social Assistance Recipients

Table 1 indicates that 783 clients were classified as reachback clients in HRDC's information systems. This represents an estimated 11% of all participants. Table 1 also indicates that 1,015 participants had received Social Assistance in either the quarter their intervention started or the previous quarter. Despite the similarity in these totals, these are generally two distinct groups of clients as indicated in Table 4. The table indicates that only 24% of reachback clients had received Social Assistance in the quarter their intervention started or in the previous quarter. This compares to 17% of non-reachback clients having received Social Assistance in the equivalent time period.

Especially pertinent in Table 4 is that only 185 of 5,515 participants (3%) are recent SARs who were classified as reachback clients in HRDC data.

2.2 Survey Data Profile of Participants

Table 5 outlines demographic and social characteristics of participants as collected in the EBSM participant survey. As the table shows, Job Creation Partnership participants are more likely to live in small communities and have lower levels of formal education than participants in other types of interventions. Reachback clients are essentially similar to other JCP participants in terms of these characteristics.

2.2.1 Pre-program Situation

Participants were asked a series of questions about their situation before participating in the program and their motivation for participating. There are some differences between the participants of the different programs. Respondents provided the following information about the 12 months prior to their program participation:

• Full-time school attendance. Targeted Wage Subsidies participants are the most likely (29 %) to have spent time in school in the 12 months before participating in the program compared with 16 percent of SEB participants and 12 percent of JCP participants. Almost all of these participants were in school full time. Reachback clients were somewhat less likely than other JCP participants to report attendance at school with only 10% reporting 1 or more months at school in the 12 months before entering the program.
• Full-time employment. Self-Employment Benefit participants are the most likely (64%) to have been employed full time at some point in the 12 months before starting the program. This compares with 44 percent of TWS participants and 46 percent of JCP participants having been employed full time at some point during the year before starting the program. For reachback clients, only 35% reported a period of full-time employment in the preceding 12 months.
• Lack of Unemployment. SEB participants are the most likely (41%) to report 0 months of unemployment in the 12 months before commencing the program. For TWS participants surveyed, 25% reported 0 months employed and for JCP, 23% did. Among reachback clients, 16% did not report any period of time unemployed. Presumably, many of these individuals experienced periods of unemployment of less than 1 month. Others may have not included their waiting time to get into an intervention in the pre-program 12 months. Since this result had not been anticipated, the questionnaire did not investigate this situation. Clarification of this surprising finding should be an important goal for the summative evaluation.
• Out of labour force. A very small group of participants identified time out of the labour force in the 12 months prior to their participation. Specifically, only 5% of JCP participants, 4 % of SEB participants and 3% of TWS identified any period of time when they were a homemaker or otherwise out of the labour force for reasons other than school attendance. Among reachback clients, 7% reported some time out of the labour force with about half of these identifying the entire 12 months as out of the labour force.

Those who had been unemployed at some point during the year before participating in the program were asked how many hours they spent looking for work in a typical week. JCP participants tended to report having spent the longest, reporting a median of 10 hours per week compared with 8.6 hours for SEB participants and 5.6 hours for TWS participants.¹⁶ By far the two most common job search methods were checking at the HRCC (whether using job boards, kiosks or job banks) and sending out resumes and applications.

Respondents were also asked why they thought they had been unemployed during this period. A large majority of 86 percent of respondents mention high unemployment rates or a lack of jobs as the reason. Only 6% cited their occupation or training as the issue and only 2% cited lack of experience.

Table 6 outlines how participants first heard about the program and the main reason why they decided to participate. As the table shows:

• TWS participants were much more likely to have found out about the program from the employer while JCP participants (especially reachback participants) became aware of the program from a notice in an HRCC or employment centre; and,
• JCP participants (especially reachback participants) were the most likely to have participated in order to increase their income.

Participants were asked whether the experience they gained through the program has made them more employable. Most responded positively. Specifically, 84 percent of TWS participants, 78 percent of SEB participants and 74 percent of JCP participants say yes. When asked in what way, almost all respondents say either that they now have the work experience or that they now have specific work experience in a particular field. However, since only 2% had identified lack of experience as a reason for their pre-program unemployment, these very positive results must be discounted somewhat. Sections 2.2.2 and 3.1 provide results on participant's actual post-program experiences.

2.2.2 Post-program Situation

A series of questions was asked to assess the work patterns of participants once they finished the program. Table 7 outlines some of the key results.

Participants who have found employment since they finished the program were asked what job search method led to their job. JCP participants were more likely to have found their job through an HRCC than were the participants of other types of programs.

In addition to finding employment, returning to school for additional training is sometimes considered a successful outcome. About 10% of participants (8 percent of TWS, 11 percent of SEB and 7 percent of JCP participants) have returned to school full or part time since they finished the program. For half of these TWS participants and 42 percent of these JCP participants the training is related to their work experience from the program. For virtually all of the SEB participants who subsequently took training, the training relates to their business.

Participants who are unemployed were asked why they think they are unemployed. For all interventions, participants cited economic conditions above all other reasons. Overall, 85 percent of respondents give a high unemployment rate or general lack of jobs as the main reason. TWS participants are slightly less likely to give this answer with 73 percent giving this reason compared to 86 percent of JCP participants and 79 percent of SEB participants. Among unemployed TWS participants, 13 percent say a lack of demand for people with their skills or training is the reason compared with just 3 percent of JCP participants giving this answer.

2.3 Employers/Sponsors

The evaluation also included a survey of 98 employers/sponsors. Specifically, interviews were conducted with 59 TWS employers and 39 JCP employers/sponsors.

Characteristics of Employers

Table 8 provides data on the characteristics of the firms and organizations surveyed. These data are primarily based on survey estimates. The exception is that data on the number of individuals placed with the employer/sponsor is derived from HRDC administrative data. Notable results are as follows:

• 95% of TWS employers were private firms. By contrast the majority of JCP sponsors/employers were not for profit (51%) with only 23% private firms and 26% municipal government.
• TWS employers generally have a small number of full-time employees — 52% have four or less employees and an additional 18% have 5 — 9 full-time employees. JCP employers are even smaller with 71% having 4 employees or less.
• TWS typically involve placement of one individual with 72% of employers having only one participant at a given time. Only 5% of TWS employers had 5 or more participants. By contrast, larger projects are the norm for JCP with 44% of participants involving five or more participants.
• the jobs in both TWS and JCP appear to be largely incremental or growth related. The large majority of employer/sponsors of single participant projects (82% for both TWS and JCP) indicated that the hiring was for a new position. For multiple participant projects this is likely to be more the case. JCP hirings appear to be largely incremental with 82% of employers/sponsors with a single participant indicating that no one would have been hired without the subsidy. Conversely, deadweight loss appears to be a concern with TWS since 46% of employers indicated they would have hired the same individual without the subsidy.

Satisfaction of Employers

Employers were asked to rate their satisfaction on a 10-point scale with the quality of the match between the participant's skills²² and the organization's needs. As can be seen in Table 9, employers were generally satisfied with the skills of the participant. For TWS, 79% of employers surveyed rated their satisfaction 8 or more on a scale of 0 to 10. For JCP, satisfaction was slightly lower with 71% of surveyed employers rating their satisfaction at 8 or more.

Employers rated their satisfaction with HRDC administration even more positively with 89% rating their satisfaction at 8 or more and only 1% rating satisfaction at 3 or less.

TWS employers were satisfied with the amount of the wage subsidy. Specifically, 66% considered the amount of the subsidy about right and 25% considered it a bit low. Only 9% said the subsidy was way too low and no respondents said it was too high. Finally, a large majority (81%) of employers considered the value of the participant's work to be very good.

Participant Retention

Table 10 provides data on the extent to which participants were retained throughout and after their projects.

In this respect, the two interventions are very different. The majority (58%) of TWS employers continued to employ the participant at the time of the survey and several others (19%) had retained the participant after the end of the subsidy. For JCP these outcomes were very uncommon with only 8% of participants still employed at the time of the survey while 79% ended their project employment at or before their scheduled completion date compared to 23% of TWS participants.

Table 11 provides information on why employment ended in those cases where the participant was no longer employed with the project employer. For both TWS and JCP, the lack of work was the most common reason. For JCP, the inability to pay the participant once HRDC funding ceased was also commonly cited.

For those TWS participants who continue to be employed by the project manager, 91% continued in the same job while 9% had new duties. In terms of salary, 62% were paid the same salary as they received during the subsidy period and the remaining 38% received an increase in salary.

Training Provided to Participants

Table 12 provides data on training provided by employers. As can be seen, TWS employers (85% versus 51% of JCP employers) more commonly provided on-the-job training. Other types of training investments were relatively uncommon (23% for TWS and 18% for JCP).

Footnotes

8	There are two important transactions that are required to ensure financial accountability. First is the verification that an individual is eligible to participate in TWS. Second is the cessation of EI benefits for active claimants who are hired by an employer who receives a wage subsidy. These transactions are handled locally and apparently do not depend on an individual being on the Interventions file.
9	Note that the resulting distortion of the survey frame has introduced some bias to the sample of TWS participants. In particular, the Avalon district is substantially under-represented.
10	Specifically, the number of SARs given is the number of individuals who received Social Assistance (or whose spouse received Social Assistance) in either the quarter their intervention started or the preceding quarter.
11	Categories are based on age on the day that the intervention was scheduled to start. For example the 20 — 24 group includes those individuals who were scheduled to start their intervention on their 20th birthday up to those who were scheduled to start on the day before their 25th birthday.
12	%'s may add to less than 100 due to 'don't know' or refusal to individual questions.
13	Results are weighted to adjust for sample design. N is the actual number of individuals interviewed relative to each intervention. Note that counts in the Appendices will vary from these due to the effects of weighting.
14	Note that TWS participants from the Avalon district were underrepresented in our survey since they were under-represented on HRDC's Interventions file (see Table 1).
15	Overall, 59% of those who identified themselves as a member of a visible minority also self-identified as an Aboriginal person.
16	Note that the range of hours given varies substantially therefore there is a high standard deviation around the mean. For this reason the median is reported.
17	This question was not asked of SE participants who were presumed to participate in order to establish a business.
18	Averaged over those participants who have had one or more jobs.
19	Based on HRDC administrative data for 1,209 TWS projects and 685 JCP projects.
20	Asked only for one participant projects.
21	Asked only for one participant projects which consists of 26 TWS projects from the survey.
22	For multi-participant projects, the employer was asked this question in regard to a specific participant who had been selected at random.