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 appendix summarizes the responses of Nova Scotia Compass employer participants who were surveyed for the purposes of this evaluation.

A list of all 1,304 employers who had hired Compass participants was supplied by the client. From that list a simple random sample of employers was selected. As such, the results reported herein should faithfully represent the population of Compass employers, subject to a fairly high margin of error owing to the small number of cases (standard errors are included for key variables in the results section).

Some 142 employers were called in completing 90 interviews, for a response rate of 63.4%. Of the other 52, 36 were wrong phone numbers or disconnected numbers, 10 were called five times with no luck, 3 said the person who handled the placement was no longer there, 2 refused to cooperate, and 1 was an Employment Resource Centre which felt that it might be in a conflict of interest situation if it participated in the survey. Adjusting for invalid phone numbers yields a respectable response rate of 84.9%.

Presentation of the results will follow the format of the questionnaire. It begins with a brief background of the companies/agencies providing the placements, then moves to an overview of the nature of their involvement with Compass. Next, some important outcomes of the Compass program are examined: most crucially, the proportion hired after the wage subsidy expired. Finally, it examines employers' satisfaction with various facets of the Compass program.

For the most part, the organizations providing placements for Compass clients were small in terms of number of staff. On average, they had a full-time staff of 8.2 people and a part-time complement of 5.2 people⁶¹. The distributions follow:

Table D.1 Distribution of Full-time and Part-time Staff of Organizations Providing Compass Placements

Number of Staff	Full-Time	Part-Time	Total
0	6.7%	34.4%	3.3%
1	21.1	21.1	8.9
2-5	32.2	26.6	32.2
6-10	20.0	7.8	22.3
11-19	7.8	3.3	11.1
20+	12.2	6.7	22.2
Median	4.5	1.0	7.0
Mean	8.2	5.2	13.4

Despite their small size, many of the employers were well established, at least in terms of the number of years they have been in business. On average, these employers had been operating for 17.1 years, ranging from 6 months to 126 years. The median length of time in business was 10.0 years.

The largest proportion of employers were in the retail sector, followed by the non-profit sector, manufacturing, and automotive service stations. The rest were well distributed among the business types listed in Table D.2.

Table D.2 Type of Business

		Frequency	Percent
Valid	Construction	4	4.4
	Manufacturing	8	8.9
	Printing/publishing	1	1.1
	Transport	1	1.1
	Wholesale	4	4.4
	Retail	19	21.1
	Hotel/restaurant	7	7.8
	Business services	2	2.2
	Health services	1	1.1
	Non-profit organizations	15	16.7
	Government	1	1.1
	Farm	4	4.4
	Automotive service	8	8.9
	Nursing home/home care	6	6.7
	Library	1	1.1
	Security systems	1	1.1
	Dry cleaners	1	1.1
	Cleaners	2	2.2
	Research & development	1	1.1
	Fishing	1	1.1
	Electrical repair	1	1.1
	Union	1	1.1
	Total	90	100.0
Total		90	100.0

Just over half the employers (53%) hired a placement employee under the TTO option; 36% hired WEO participants and 11% hired under both options. Nearly 60% of the employers were offered a choice of WEO or TTO. Asked why they chose one over the other, 31% said they weren't given a choice (19% of WEO employers and 48% of TTO employers). The other reasons varied widely according to which option they hired under. Most WEO employers cited financial reasons: either the 100% wage subsidy (25%), or inability to afford TTO costs (44%). TTO employers were much more likely to cite the particular skills they needed (23%) or simply that they considered TTO to be more beneficial to their organization (23

Most of these employers (53%) had hired only one employee under Compass; 26% hired two, 12% hired three; 4% hired four; 3% hired five; and 1% (one employer) hired seven. The overall average per employer was 1.8 employees⁶². Most of the early hiring was through WEO, but this shifted to TTO by 1995 (Table D.3).

Table D.3 Total Number of Positions Filled Through Compass

YEAR	Transitional Training	Work Experience
1994	6	16
1995	36	31
1996	57	19
TOTAL	99	66
MEAN	1.10	0.73
Standard Error	0.13	0.10

The types of positions filled using Compass weren't all that different across options (Table D.4). The only noteworthy difference between options: as compared to WEO jobs, TTO positions were more likely to be in a trade and less likely to be in personal services. For the most part, the participants were provided placements as unskilled labourers, clerical workers, or retail workers.

Table D.4 Type of Positions Filled Through Compass

	Transitional Training	Work Experience
Unskilled Labour	13.2%	19.7%
Clerical Secretarial	18.2	19.7
Trades	23.2	12.1
Personal Service Worker	2.0	10.6
Manufacturing	0.0	1.5
Food Service Worker	6.1	9.1
Retail	16.2	15.2
Janitorial Maintenance	4.0	6.1
Health Worker	3.0	1.5
Middle Management	4.0	4.5
N	99	66

Since 1994, over two-thirds of these employers had hired employees without using Compass (Table D.5). Of course, the obverse is that since 1994 one-third of these employers had only hired through Compass. In total, these firms hired 752 employees during this time: about 30% of the positions were seasonal.

Table D.5 Number of Employees Hired Without Using Compass

YEAR	% of Employers Hiring Without Using Compass	Total Number of Employees Hired Outside of Compass
1994	47.6%	192
1995	51.2%	267
1996	54.7%	293
All 3 years	67.9%	752

About 4% of these employers hired a person that a job developer sent to them (i.e., without the wage subsidy).

For the vast majority (81%), however, the wage subsidy was very important to the organization. Another 16% said the subsidy was somewhat important. Only 3% considered the wage subsidy unimportant to their organization.

Employers who hired through the Transitional Training Option were asked how much they contributed to the hourly pay of participants (i.e., above the wage subsidy). On average, TTO employers paid $1.81 per hour above the subsidy. Including the subsidy, the overall mean wage for TTO participants was $6.65

Suggestions for Improvement

Employers offered several suggestions to improve Compass (Table D.9). Mentioned most often - by 14% of the sample - was better screening of clients. This suggestion ties in with the dissatisfaction some respondents felt concerning the quality of employees referred to them, and their work attitudes. Another 12% wanted the training time extended. No other suggestion was mentioned by more than 10% of the respondents.

Table D.9 Suggestions for Improving Compass

SUGGESTION	% of Employers Mentioning
No suggestion	28.9%
More screening of clients	14.4
Extend training time	12.2
More placements	7.8
More job readiness	6.7
Faster payment time	4.4
Keep it going	4.4
More advertising to Employers	3.3
Higher wages to clients	2.2
Open program to non-SARs	2.2
More communication with job developer	2.2
Higher subsidy	2.2
N	8.9

Footnotes

61	Employers with no employees were either self-employed (and didn’t count themselves) or were out of business.
62	With a standard error of .12 (using the finite population correction factor), the mean is 1.83 ± 1.96 (.12), or 1.83 ± .23, 19 times in 20.