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 evaluation has examined the delivery of training services provided in Newfoundland and Labrador under the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement on Labour Market Development (LMDA). Several factors have affected the delivery of training under the LMDA relative to past practice. These include:

• In July 1996 the Federal Government introduced EI legislation that superseded the older UI legislation. The EI legislation included new eligibility rules and an increased focus on active labour market measures. These active measures are intended to facilitate a return to work by EI claimants. In concert with this, the philosophy of service provision was to allow for a more individualised approach (case management), which also engaged the client as a partner, rather than as a recipient of a service.
• In April 1997, the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement on Labour Market Development (LMDA) signed by the Federal and Provincial Governments came into effect. The LMDA incorporates co-management of Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSM's) by the Federal and Provincial governments with the Federal government retaining responsibility for the delivery of EBSM's.
• HRDC introduced Negotiated Financial Assistance (NFA), where individual needs and means are taken into account in determining the level of assistance that HRDC will provide for people who enter training programs. The previous system provided fixed amounts based on individual circumstances (marital status, living arrangements and number of dependants, transportation requirements, need for child care, etcetera). Negotiated financial assistance was not introduced at one time across the board. Some HRCC offices continued to determine assistance using the prior approach until at least January 1998.
• The LMDA partners moved to phase out the "seat-purchase" model in favour of a more client-driven approach. Under the seat purchase model, HRDC would negotiate with the Department of Education and/or directly with individual educational institutions (public and private) to purchase specified numbers of training "seats" in various disciplines and then identify clients to occupy these seats. The numbers of seats purchased in various disciplines was based on clients' interests as well as labour market demand. Under the newer system, clients are expected to choose a training program that they are interested in (their decision should take into account the demand for the occupation), and negotiate with HRDC the amount of assistance that HRDC will provide to allow them to complete their training. The LMDA partners agreed to phase out seat purchases over three years ending in June, 1999.

The period since July, 1996 is therefore one in which there have been significant changes introduced that affect training, and the services and level of assistance that clients have received may vary by date and also by HRCC district.

This study addresses clients who started training after April 1997; i.e. since the signing of the LMDA. It addresses "enhanced feepayers" and seat purchase. Feepayers¹ are not addressed in this evaluation.

The evaluation examines the immediate results of the training component of the EBSMs in the post-LMDA period. Since many interventions are still ongoing, and many other clients, even from the beginning of the LMDA period, have only just finished their training, this evaluation does not deal with the long-term impact of training on employment. This will be addressed in the summative evaluation.

A major focus of the evaluation has been on the decision-making process that clients have engaged in, including contact with counsellors, and with the adequacy of financial assistance and other supports.

Client's Training Decisions

The evaluation provides strong evidence that the move away from a seat-purchase model has positively affected training decisions. In particular, the evaluation has found a marked increase in the number of individuals undertaking training in business and information technology and a decrease in studies relating to natural resources, applied arts and apprenticeable trades. Interestingly, these trends are consistent with changes noted for all post-secondary students but are much more pronounced among HRDC-funded students. In particular, there has been a growth or more than 200% in the numbers of HRDC-funded students who enrol in information technology programs as compared to a growth of about 25% in overall enrolment in such courses.

Other evidence supports the above result:

• 83% of HRDC counsellors surveyed and 71% of third party counsellors said they noted changes in the training choices of individuals relative to the past;
• two-thirds of clients surveyed indicated that they conducted labour market research as regards their intended career; and,
• administrative data indicates an apparent reduction in prop-out rates.

Negotiated Financial Assistance

Negotiated Financial Assistance processes continue to develop and both advantages and disadvantages of this approach have been noted.

This evaluation has found conflicting evidence regarding NFA.

On the one hand, the evidence indicates that NFA is, at least potentially, a more cost-effective approach. Although, it has reduced the cost of training assistance most clients (75%) remain satisfied with the level of support. And although it has complicated the work of employment counsellors, they are nearly unanimous (93%) in describing it as a better system.

However, the evaluation also raised concerns about the implementation of NFA:

• clients were somewhat less satisfied with the process used to determine the level of financial assistance. In the survey, satisfaction was reasonably high (69%) but serious concerns about transparency and fairness were identified in all three focus groups with training clients as well as in a focus group with HRDC counsellors; and,
• the survey of counsellors identified several suggestions to improve this process such as rules for determining eligible expenses and more training for employment counsellors.

Careful monitoring of the effectiveness and appropriateness of NFA processes is warranted.

Footnotes

1	Feepayers are individuals who return to school and their own expense and receive no financial assistance other than their EI benefits.