|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
This chapter draws profiles of Nova Scotia Compass participants and non-participants. Its value is to give the reader a good understanding of the Compass program and its clients in advance of presenting the evaluation findings. Data for this chapter were drawn from two administrative databases — the Tiger database, which tracks Compass participants and non-participants, and HRDC UI files. The administrative databases represent the population of Compass. As such, no statistical testing is required when comparing groups.1 In the results section, each table or chart presents the data by Compass component. Participants are classified according to the last component they completed before September, 1996.2 The main thrust of the analysis to follow is to compare participants in the three components with each other and with non-participants. Analysis of the results will not merely repeat what can be easily gathered from the tables or graphs. The analysis begins with a brief look at the number of clients by type (participant versus non-participant) and component.3 The chapter then turns to client demographics, followed by an examination of the Compass intervention experienced by the client. 2.1 Number Of Cases By Component
Table 2.1 shows the total number of Compass participants and non-participants4, as well as two other groups that received other help from Compass but did not participate per se5. Those who did not participate in a placement but received money from the Opportunity Fund were classified as "Opportunity Fund non-participants." (Another 178 of the participants also received money from the Opportunity Fund.) The fourth group, "job developer help only," are individuals who were not placed in a subsidized job, but found an unsubsidized job after referral to Compass6. In total, there were 1,609 Compass participants, considerably less than anticipated at the outset of the program7. About 12% of the participants were involved in more than one Compass placement. According to the evaluation framework, the estimated number of participants was as follows: 1,100 in WEO; 1,200 in TTO, 200 in EDO, and 1,000 Opportunity Fund beneficiaries. Actual numbers fell far short in every category. Table 2.1 Number of Cases by Compass Component and Group
The rest of the analysis will be restricted to participants and non-participants. RegionDistribution by region of the province differed widely across Compass components (Table 2.2). Most of the EDO activity was in western Nova Scotia. Over one-third of WEO participants lived in the Metro area, as compared to less than a quarter of TTO clients. It was just the opposite in the western region, where over a third of TTO clients lived but only a quarter of WEO clients. Table 2.2 Region by Group and Compass Component
Comparison N=1756 2.2 Demographics GenderOverall, there was little difference in the female/male ratio between participants and non-participants. About 48% of both groups were female. And, as a comparison of Charts 2.1 and 2.2 demonstrates, the ratios were close within component, although the difference in the WEO component is more noteworthy than those in the other two components. Chart 2.1Gender Breakdown By Compass Component - Participants  View chart 2.1 Chart 2.2 View Chart 2.2 AgeThe average age of Compass participants was 30.7 years; non-participants were somewhat older on average, 33.0 years (Table 2.3). Most of the difference is accounted for by the TTO component, wherein non-participants were 3 ½ years older than participants on average. Table 2.3
By age group (Table 2.4), TTO participants were much more likely than TTO non-participants to be in the youngest group, and less likely to be in the older groups. Note that 21% of WEO participants were over age 30, the age limit for the component. Table 2.4 Age Group of Participants and Non-participants for Each Compass Component
Marital StatusMarital status differed substantially across components (Table 2.5).Two-thirds of WEO participants had never been married, as compared to half the TTO clients and 42% of EDO clients9. Single parents accounted for only 9% of WEO clients, but 22% of TTO and EDO. Looking across groups, the distributions for participants and non-participants are very close in the TTO component, fairly close in the WEO component, but considerably different in the EDO component (since there were only 29 EDO non-participants, just one or two cases can make a big difference in the distribution). EDO participants were much more likely to be single and much less likely to be married than were non-participants. Table 2.5 Marital Status by Compass Component
Comparison N=1660 Family CharacteristicsThe percentage of participants and non-participants with children varied widely between WEO on the one hand and TTO and EDO on the other (Chart 2.3), which is to be expected given the different nature of the target groups. WEO participants were only half as likely as TTO or EDO participants to have children. Chart 2.3 View chart2.3 It is tempting to conclude from these figures that WEO participants may have had an easier time finding employment than their counterparts in the other components. Despite the large differences in proportion with children, however, the gap between components was much smaller with respect to proportion of those requiring child care (Chart 2.4). Chart 2.4 View chart 2.4 LanguageEnglish was the mother tongue for about 97% of those referred to Compass (although this information was missing for about 15% of the cases). French was the mother tongue for about 2%. Other languages accounted for less than 1% of all groups. EthnicityApproximately 1% of TTO and WEO participants and non-participants were Aboriginal. No EDO participant or non-participant was Aboriginal. About 2% of TTO participants and 4% of TTO non-participants were Black. About 6% of each WEO group was Black. And 10% of EDO participants versus 3% of non-participants were Black. DisabilitiesApproximately 5% of participants in each component had disabilities, versus about 6% in each component on the non-participant side. EducationJust under 30% of Compass participants and 30% of non-participants had not completed high school before their referral to Compass (Table 2.6). There was very little difference between participants and non-participants in any of the components.10 The TTO group was better educated than the WEO group, most notably being much more likely to have completed trade school or community college. Table 2.6 Educational Achievement
Comparison N=1594 2.3 Recent Labour Force History11
This section will summarize participants' and non-participants' recent labour market performance in terms of earnings, and use of public assistance programs. EarningsTable 2.7 shows the average annual earnings of participants and non-participants from 1990 to 1995. Average earnings were extremely low, never reaching $10,000 for any subgroup (and note that the averages are not pulled down by including those with zero income). By component, WEO clients had consistently earned the least. Earnings performance of participants and non-participants was similar, although TTO non-participants tended to earn more than did TTO participants throughout this period. Table 2.7 Average (Mean) Earned Income by Year for Participants and Non-Participants
It seems obvious to conclude that, on average, these individuals had not had much success in the labour market since 1990. Table 2.8 supports this, showing that in most years, 40% or more of all Compass referrals had no earned income. The rise in percentage of TTO and WEO participants working toward the end of this period reflects participation in the Compass placement. Table 2.8
Comparison N=1756 Financial Aid from Government in Two Years Prior to Compass ReferralGiven that all referrals to the Compass program came from the municipal and provincial welfare systems, it is surprising that only about eight in ten baseline survey respondents said they had received social assistance in the past two years (Chart 2.5). There were other sources of referral to Compass including Vocational Rehabilitation and CPP, but these clients had to be in receipt of social assistance to qualify for Compass. Perhaps some misunderstood the question or did not realize they were on social assistance. Chart 2.5 View chart 2.5 HRDC provided detailed UI histories of Compass participants and non-participants since 1990 (Table 2.9). Prior to Compass, about a fifth of WEO clients and about two-fifths of TTO and EDO clients had been on UI at some time during each year. These proportions fell by 1996, but this is not necessarily due to the Compass program, since the fall was even more dramatic for non-participants. Table 2.9 Percent Receiving UI by Year for Participants and Non-Participants
Comparison N=1756 The average number of weeks in receipt of UI also fell during the years Compass was in place. Again, though, both groups (participants and non-participants) experienced the decline. Table 2.10 Average (Mean) Number of Weeks UI Received by Year for Participants and Non-Participants
Comparison N=1756 Very small percentages (1% to 2%) of participants and non-participants had received Canada Pension Plan disability benefits or workers' compensation during the two years prior to referral to Compass. Around 5% of participants and non-participants in each component had received student aid during this time; between 7 and 12% of participants and non-participants in each component had received training allowances during this time. Employment Support Services Received in the Year Before the ProgramApproximately 8% of participants and 7% of non-participants said they had taken academic upgrading during the year prior to referral to Compass, according to data from the baseline survey. There was very little difference between TTO and WEO. No EDO non-participant and only one participant had taken academic upgrading in the past year. The story was virtually the same for three other employment supports: job-specific training, which 8% of participants and 6% of non-participants had taken in the past year; life-skills training, which 8% of participants and 6% of non-participants had taken in the past year; and job-finding club, which 9% of participants and 8% of non-participants had joined. In none of these cases was there an appreciable difference between components. The next several charts show how the groups and components compare with respect to their use of more common services. Chart 2.6 View chart 2.6 Chart 2.7 View chart 2.7 Chart 2.8 View chart 2.8 Chart 2.9 View chart 2.9 2.4 Participating In Compass
As mentioned above, about 12% of Compass participants had more than one placement. The most common pattern, accounting for about half of all repeat cases, was starting in a WEO placement and moving to a TTO placement. A handful of repeaters went the other way around. Most of the rest had consecutive placements within the same component of Compass: about 4% of all Compass participants fell into this category. The average (mean) number of weeks spent on a placement was 21.5 weeks (including repeaters). The mean differed by component, with WEO having the shortest placements at 18.4 weeks, TTO at 24.1 weeks and EDO at 27.8 weeks. Excluding those with more than one placement, the average length of involvement was 20.2 weeks. Chart 2.10 shows the distribution of weeks on the first Compass placement. By component, most TTO participants (60%) spent 26 weeks on placement, and most WEO participants spent 16 weeks (42%) or 26 weeks (30%) on placement (reflecting the length of the program in the second and first years, respectively). Chart 2.10 View chart 2.10 According to information available from the Tiger administrative system, the total cost incurred on behalf of all participants was about $6.6 million. According to expenditure information provided by the Department of Community Services (Finance), however, total Compass expenditures on behalf of clients was $10.6 million (to February, 1997). The Tiger figure is low since figures only go up to September, 1996, some of the 1994 clients are missing, about a fifth of the EDO participants are missing, and there is evidence that the cost field was left blank for some participants.12 Still, it is useful to determine average cost per client (since the finance data does not include the number of clients). Average expenditure per participant was $4,564 (with a standard deviation of $2,301 and a standard error of $61). Table 2.11 compares actual expenditures with planned expenditures for each Compass option. For every option but the Opportunity Fund, actual spending came up far short of the budget. This was due in part to serving fewer clients under each component than planned, and to spending less per client than envisioned. The average opportunity fund amount was $168 for the 201 people receiving these grants13 (the median grant was $127). The smallest amount was $15. Sixteen individuals received over $300, three over $1,000 (amounts exceeding $300 needed the approval of the Program coordinator). Table 2.11
** Source: NSCS (Finance) and Tiger Interviewees offered several explanations for the failure to spend available funds. The first was rushed implementation. It took longer than anticipated to get rolling and thus not all available funds were spent. This is common for newly implemented programs. Related to rushed implementation was poor program planning in certain respects. For one thing, planners failed to account for all the disincentives FB clients had to participating. It seems that the policy makers did not anticipate that it would be hard finding single parents that were willing to take part. "There were so many disincentives to do it that you couldn't make it work: child care, health care and transportation." As discussed in Chapter 3, under-use of the EDO was also caused in part by poor planning and implementation. A third explanation gives credence to HRDC's criticisms surrounding poor communications. The regions (or at least some regions) were unaware of how much they were spending. "From an administrative perspective, the money was a nightmare. . . We never knew where we were with the money. . . We need to have financial people involved in setting up these programs." But stressing the view that finances have been poorly accounted for, a provincial representative asserted that "There should have been better communication between HRDC and the Province ... There was an overall lack of good information on the budget between the two jurisdictions." A fifth explanation considers the difference in the Federal/Provincial definition of 'committed funds'. The federal definition means that all dollars for any fiscal year must be spent by March 31 of that year. Under the provincial definition, dollars attached to a placement made in February 1995 can be 'spent' in fiscal 1996-97 but accounted for under fiscal 1995-96. The slippage came partly from a lack of understanding at program start-up of the HRDC procedures. Other reasons given for limited take-up in some areas included:
Placement PayIn the first year of the program, WEO clients were paid a weekly allowance of $160 for up to 26 weeks. Subsequently, WEO paid a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for up to 16 weeks14. In total 361 people received WEO allowances of $160 per week. TTO provides a wage subsidy of up to $5.62 per hour to private-sector employers, and employers had to contribute 25% of the total wage: 61% of TTO clients got over $5.62, almost all of whom were paid between $6.00 and $8.00 per hour15. Chart 2.11 shows the placement pay received by WEO and TTO clients while participating in Compass. Chart 2.11 View chart 2.11 Chart 2.12 displays the average hourly pay for placements by component. Befitting their greater work experience and generally higher skill level, TTO participants were paid higher on average than were WEO participants. Average Pay While On Placement  Placement TypePrivate, public and non-profit sector employees were eligible for WEO placements. Chart 2.13 shows how WEO clients were distributed by type of placement. Nearly six in ten were placed with private firms. Chart 2.13  According to the program mandate, the TTO option was supposed to be restricted to the private and non-profit sectors. But 11% of placements under this option were in other sectors (Chart 2.14). For jobs in the non-profit sector, the expectation was that they couldn't hire the participants after funding expired. But, according to the job developers in the focus groups, they were good placements anyway. "They were giving (participants) the skills that . . . need to be built, and they were getting positions afterwards, maybe not with that organization, but somewhere else." Chart 2.14  Approximately 85% of TTO participants worked 40-hour weeks on their placements; another 9% worked 35-hour weeks. The average work week was 39.2 hours. Similarly, 84% of WEO clients worked 40-hour weeks and 12% worked 35-hour weeks. Their average work week was 39.1 hours. 2.5 Conclusion
For the most part, participants and non-participants in each Compass option were well matched. There were minor differences in age (non-participants were somewhat older on average), pre-program earnings (non-participants, especially in TTO tended to earn more than participants), and pre-program involvement in job counselling and job placement services (participants were more likely than non-participants to have taken part). In assessing program impact, econometric modelling will be used to control for the differences between groups observed in this chapter, and for any unobserved differences that may exist.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060127010736im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060127010736im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060127010736im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060127010736im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}