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 reviews the LMDAs impacts on B.C. communities and its partners. In particular, it reviews community impacts in terms of changes in employment, social infrastructure, community involvement, resident mobility and volunteerism. It also reviews the impacts of JCPs specifically.

A. Impacts on Communities

1. Employment Impacts

The objectives of EBSMs are to assist individuals to prepare for, obtain and maintain employment. Communities are assisted when these objectives are achieved for the individuals who make those communities their homes. Employment results to date have been positive. Based on the results of a survey of 1,200 clients who participated in an EBSM before March 31, 1998:

• Seventy-five per cent of those no longer participating had found employment.

• Those who had finished participating under SE were most likely to have found (or created) work (90%).

• Eighty-six per cent of all SE participants had started their own businesses, of which 25% had hired one or more employees to work with them. At the time of the survey (September 1998), 96% of those who started a business were still running the business.

• Fifty-five per cent of those who had ended a TWS continued to work for their TWS employer when the EBSM support ended.

At the time of the survey:

• Sixty-five per cent of past participants were employed.

• The percentage employed by EBSM participated in ranged from 82% for SE to 44% for EAS.

2. Enhancement To Social Infrastructure

LLMPs are intended to increase the resources in a community devoted to social goals. To date there is little evidence to show that social infrastructure in communities is increased through EBSMs. There are specific instances of this occurring, such as a youth centre in one case study site. However, it is not clear how much of the youth centre is financed through HRCC EBSM funding and whether the centre would have proceeded had that funding not been available.

3. Community Involvement

It appears that, to date, city councils and other community organizations are not involved much with EBSMs. Other organizations, such as third party service providers and colleges, were involved with HRDC programming prior to the introduction of EBSMs. That involvement does not appear to have changed radically.

4. Mobility of Residents

Sixteen per cent of those participants contacted have moved since their intervention ended. The highest proportion of moves were in the North (21%), especially Terrace (24%). Fourteen per cent of comparison group members have moved since the date when the participant they were selected to represent should have completed their training. Areas with the highest proportion of moves were again the North (19%), including Terrace (18%). We cannot say, with certainty, that moves were outside of the community where the individual resided at the time of the intervention.

Thirteen per cent of the telephone numbers we attempted for participants were not in service compared to 19% for comparison group members. This higher proportion of disconnected services may indicate moves outside of the community. A more likely explanation is that the telephone numbers for comparison group members are less current than for participants.

Respondents to our surveys were asked to assess their degree of agreement with the statement, "I would turn down a good paying job if I had to move from my community to get it." A seven-point scale was used to assess agreement, where one means "strongly disagree" and seven means "strongly agree." Participants are slightly more likely to agree to this statement with an average score of 3.5 compared to an average score of 3.4 for comparison group members.

In our regression analysis participation in an EBSM was found to have a significant negative effect on mobility (at the 0.1% level of significance). Participants were 0.4 points (on a seven-point scale) more likely to want to stay in their community than they would have been without participation. Current claimants were more likely to want to stay (at the 0.2% level) by 0.5 of a point. There was not significant effect for reach-back clients. By EBSM, the only significant result was for SE (at the 0.1% level). Participation increased the reported agreement with the statement by 0.9 points on a seven-point scale. Potentially, participation under an EBSM is viewed as a substitute for moving from the community to obtain employment.

5. Volunteerism

Through our surveys of participants and comparison group members we identified the proportion of individuals who volunteered. Twenty-seven per cent of participants have volunteered for community organizations since their EBSM ended. This compares to 23% of comparison group members in the same period. The average number of hours per month spent volunteering in community organizations was 18 hours and 12 hours, respectively, for participants and comparison group volunteers. As a result, participants are slightly more likely to volunteer and spend more time per month, on average, volunteering. This greater volunteerism by participants may be as a result of participation in an EBSM. However, there could be other unobservable factors which influence both participation and volunteerism.

Forty-three per cent of those participants who had volunteered report spending more time volunteering now than they did before their involvement in their EBSM. This is stronger evidence of the effect of participation on volunteerism; however, it remains indicative but not conclusive.

6. Impacts Of Job Creation Partnerships

Job Creation Partnerships (JCPs) are community-based work opportunities projects. The objectives statement for JCP reads, "To create sustainable employment in the local community and to create meaningful work opportunities for unemployed clients."

JCP involves partnering with an employer or not-for-profit organization within the community. These partners are encouraged to top-up the EI Part II supported wage to the prevailing levels for the occupation in the community. Overhead, equipment and training costs may be provided for not-for-profit partners.

JCP is not a high profile EBSM. Staff time required to market and to form partnerships with community members has limited its use. A requirement for ministerial approval for HRDC contributions in excess of $150,000 has apparently not been a factor in limiting its implementation. The average contract award is less than 20% of this limit.

Examples of the type of activities supported under JCP include:

• In one case study site, one of the JCPs has been helping clients enhance their skills. It has helped clients with self-confidence, development of job specific skills and more general work skills. It provides them with work experience along with how to find contract work and create jobs on their own.

• In another case study site, one of the JCPs has been helping clients become trained and continue to work. It has helped clients by training them for new jobs in their old company (from which they had been laid off the previous winter). This led to (more) permanent positions for two individuals. However, additional training will be needed by these individuals in the future.

The first site has many JCPs, particularly with not-for-profits organizations; some in combination with TWS (consolidated administration). Almost 30% of its budget is devoted to the program. In addition to overhead support, JCPs allow not-for-profit organizations to take on projects they might not otherwise have been able to do.

Partners may provide training (academic or on-the-job) and work experience-in new/emerging/expanding skill areas. This is expected to lead to long-term employment for clients (which is not necessarily provided by the contractor).

Based on information from the participants' survey, 69% of those whose JCP intervention had ended have worked in the post-EBSM period. Fifty-eight per cent were working at the time of the survey.

B. Impacts on partners

We interviewed very few partners other than third party service providers. When we tried to identify candidates, we were advised that there were few, if any, other partners. Thus, we cannot address impacts on partners, other than to suggest that more work is required to broaden the partner base if EBSMs are to have a more major impact on communities.