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

5.1 Consistency with EI legislation, provincial and federal government priorities, HRDC national and regional priorities

The delivery of the EBSMs covered by this evaluation (JCP, TWS and SEB) has been done in a fashion that is entirely consistent with national guidelines. Indeed, while the LMDA stipulates that the Management Committee would initiate reviews of the appropriateness of the EBSMs and make modifications to enhance their responsiveness to local terms and conditions, no such reviews have occurred. Consequently, JCP, TWS and SEB continue to be delivered as they were prior to signing of the LMDA⁴⁰ and as laid out in the national guidelines⁴¹.

Key informants (both federal and provincial) considered these Employment Benefits to be appropriate to the province's circumstances and did not perceive a need for significant revisions. It was generally perceived that the tools offered sufficient flexibility to allow their appropriate use in all locations.

The perspectives offered by key informants for the three measures were as follows:

• Several informants noted that TWS and SEB were excellent and proven tools that were currently under-utilized in the province. In particular, severely depressed local economies in many areas of the province limit the use of these employment benefits, which are designed to respond to emerging opportunities. Several informants noted a need to improve the marketing of these tools so that their use is maximized.
• JCP was noted by informants and by some sponsors (in the case studies) as an improvement on previous "project" interventions. In particular, the implementation of this tool in the co-managed environment was seen as much better than make-work projects of the past for three reasons:
  • focus on economic development. The review of project applications focuses to a greater extent on economic development opportunities and infrastructure development. While these projects may not offer any short term advantages to participants, development of local economies — if successful — offers advantages to those communities and their members;
  • combating the cycle of EI dependency. Informants noted that since JCP earnings are non-insurable and may be minimal (depending on the individual's benefit rate), the cycle of being on a project every year was starting to break because of the decreasing appeal of projects⁴². One sponsor from an organization that had sponsored HRDC projects for several years noted that two current participants had requested time off for a job interview. In previous projects participants had not been seeking work since they were content to qualify for benefits as a result of their project employment. On another project, 4 individuals had to be replaced when they received employment.
  • sponsor contribution. Informants noted that the requirement for a sponsor contribution was a powerful disincentive for "make-work" projects. This was especially the case since in a co-managed environment, it was not possible for a sponsor to obtain funding from another branch of government as their "contribution".

Nevertheless, some informants remained sceptical about the value of Job Creation Projects for either economic development or for improving employment opportunities for individuals.

5.2 Directed toward labour market opportunities and economic development

Key informants also indicated an increased focus on labour market opportunities through Job Creation Partnership Projects and Local Labour Market Partnerships (LLMPs). Many of these investments are seen as long term rather than short term. As well, in communities where opportunities for future economic development have not yet been identified, projects that maintain or improve existing physical infrastructure are being supported to maintain a base on which to build in the future.

Respondents to the survey of front line staff were asked to rate their agreement with the statement "Employment programs are delivered in ways that are more appropriate to your local labour market than prior to LMDA". More than half agreed. In particular, 52 percent of staff at HRCCs and 60 percent of third party staff agreed with this statement. Many respondents commented that even more of a focus was needed on local economic development because local labour markets are so poor.

Front line delivery staff were asked whether they were aware of EBSM projects that were tied into local economic development. Most (87 percent) respondents were able to give examples of initiatives that have been tied in with local economic development.

5.3 Matched to individual needs of unemployed

Front line staff interviewed indicated that there are gaps in meeting the needs of unemployed individuals. When asked their agreement with the statement "The mix of programs and supports under LMDA meets the needs of unemployed individuals", only 40 percent of HRCC counsellors and 30 percent of those at third parties agreed. Further, when counsellors were asked about gaps in the current EBSMs in terms of their ability to meet the needs of unemployed Newfoundlanders, almost all mentioned gaps. By far the most commonly mentioned gap is that now they cannot help people who are not EI eligible and do not have reachback status. Some groups were commonly singled out as having a particular need including youth, parents returning to work, injured workers who want to retrain and the disabled. Counsellors also mentioned that they cannot do much for displaced workers with low education levels and that there is not enough money in the opportunity fund to do as much as is necessary for disabled people. Counsellors raised here again the issue of there being financial disincentives for SARs to take training. Finally some counsellors mentioned that they could no longer help people in dead-end jobs, particularly those in low paying part time jobs.

When asked what should be done to fill these gaps most suggest that there should be separate funding for non-EI eligible clients and, at a minimum, support measures such as counselling and job finding clubs should be open to everyone. Others indicate that the reachback time period should be extended. More youth programming, more ABE and literacy programs and more money for the opportunity fund were also suggested. Removing financial disincentives for SARs was also raised as a priority.

Key informant interviews approached this issue from a different perspective. Issues of eligibility were not discussed in any depth with key informants. Instead key informants were asked whether the increased focus on economic development and strategic economic sectors under co-management meant that there was a decreased focus on client needs. Key informants consistently noted that this was not a concern for two reasons:

• the focus on growing sectors of the economy provides individuals with the skills and experience that are expected to be in demand in future; and,
• the business plan targets for priority sectors have — at least to date — been set at moderate levels and do not impede the approval of strong applications for investments outside of these sectors.

5.4 Language of choice

Only one respondent to the participant survey indicated that the language he or she was most comfortable speaking was something other than English. This person's language of choice was French and service was provided in French.

Footnotes

40	Although these EBs do differ from interventions available prior to replacement of the Unemployment Insurance Act with the Employment Insurance Act.
41	Employment Insurance, Part II, Employment Benefits and Measures Tool Kit, March, 1996.
42	As well, HRDC is informing "repeat" sponsors that they are expected to avoid recruiting the same participants as had worked on an earlier project.