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

4.1 Compatibility of PBMs with EI Act and LMDA

Key informants observed that the PBMs and supporting infrastructure are compatible with the programs that previously existed in New Brunswick (i.e., former provincial programs and former federal services delivered by the National Employment Service (NES), such as service needs determination, case management, employment counselling, and labour market adjustment). The PBMs are simply the current expression of the previous programs, with some minor modifications. Moreover, as the PBMs focus on moving clients toward self-sufficiency, they are generally compatible with the intent of the EI Act and the LMDA.

In the view of some key informants, the principles for operating programs/services at the provincial level are somewhat different from those at the federal level and from some specified in the EI Act. As reflected in the EI Act, active benefits and measures are intended to be both client— and labour market-centred (matching the two sides), with the worker as the client. Consistent with this focus, HRDC has traditionally focused on matching the worker client with employers. With the LMDA and PBMs, on the other hand, such matching may not be so readily coordinated because HRD-NB deals with the worker/social assistance client whereas the Department of Labour delivers active benefits and measures with the employer as the client.

4.2 Complementarity and Overlap of Programs/Services

On the basis of evidence from the interviews, focus groups and case studies, there may be some cases where the PBMs overlap to a degree with other existing federal or provincial programs. For instance, under its pan-Canadian activities, the federal government offers programs for youth, Aboriginals and persons with disabilities. Although the Province does not have any programs specifically targeted at these client groups under the LMDA, these types of clients can apply for other generic provincial programs. In addition, key informants identified the following areas of confusion and duplication: HRD-NB and the Department of Labour are still sorting out who "owns" the client at various stages of case management/service delivery, which may cause some confusion and competition among programs; other provincial departments (e.g., Economic Development and Tourism) have their own initiatives related to job creation, which may involve some duplication; the federal Electronic Labour Exchange (ELE) duplicates the provincial NB JobNet; the division between federal and provincial responsibilities has not been completely settled in the area of Research and Innovation; the Entrepreneur Program — Loan Guarantee has the same target clientele as the Self-Start program (offered by the provincial Department of Economic Development), though slightly different eligibility criteria; and there is some overlap of Skills Loans and Grants with Student Aid (Canada Student Loan and New Brunswick Student Loan).

Most respondents did not feel, however, that there are any major problems of duplication or programs working at cross-purposes with one another. In the view of many key informants, any minor problems in this respect may be viewed as "growing pains" which will probably be sorted out as the LMDA implementation proceeds. Moreover, co-location should ultimately serve to facilitate the coordinated delivery of complementary programming.

4.3 Relevance of PBMs to Clients and Communities

On balance, interview, focus group and case study respondents felt that the PBMs are generally relevant to the needs of clients and communities. For example, interview and case study results indicate that PBMs such as Skills Loans and Grants (SLG), Employment Assistance Services (EAS) and the Adjustment Service Initiative (ASI) have sufficient flexibility to be adapted to client needs and have been providing helpful assistance to clients. In addition, the general focus of the PBMs on helping people get back to work is clearly relevant to the needs of clients and communities.

Some reservations were expressed, however. For example, in interviews with HRDC officials it was observed that, at the local level, there is no evaluation information (i.e., no detailed monitoring of client needs and the extent to which they are being met by existing programs and services), so it is difficult to say whether or not the PBMs are relevant to the needs of individuals, employers and communities. It was also noted that participants in the PBMs are not representative of the individuals who most require these services because the target group is defined as EI clients. In the past, much of the needed counselling was done with youth and re-entrants into the labour market — groups which need help because they have little attachment to the labour market, but no longer qualify for EI. However, this problem is due more to the EI Act than to the LMDA.

Similarly, most provincial officials felt that the PBMs are mostly relevant but that they only partially reach people in the community who most require these services. In other words, there are people in need who "fall through the cracks". Key concerns were as follows:

• There are people with a genuine need (e.g., people who are under-employed or who lack steady employment), but who do not fall under the definition of EI client and hence are not eligible for EI benefits or for assistance under the PBMs. These types of clients are often automatically screened out by the EI agents, so that the case managers never see them. There may be a need for a better system whereby these types of clients would be referred to case managers who could then refer them to programs for which they are eligible, such as Employment Assistance Services and resource centres.
• The PBMs reflect the working world of the 1970s and 1980s (when full-time work was the norm) more so than that of the 1990s. There is a need to adopt a more flexible definition of "work" and allow case managers more flexibility to negotiate with employers, rather than relying exclusively on rigid formulas.
• In rural areas, the SLG program could be better adapted to meet local community needs. In particular, there is limited choice of training programs in rural areas due to the individualized focus of SLG, whereby each client is responsible for finding a course suitable to his/her needs. With the previous approach, whereby a significant number of seats in a training program could be purchased (making it worthwhile for a local college to offer the course), clients in rural areas had much better access to relevant programs. It would be helpful if SLG were allowed more flexibility to use this purchase of training approach in rural areas.
• Small and medium-sized businesses that are in the midst of cut-backs could benefit from wage subsidies under the Partners program, but do not meet the eligibility criterion of providing incremental employment opportunities.

In focus groups with staff, participants noted that in some respects the programs, services and supporting infrastructure at HRD-NB meet client needs better than before, principally because the training programs are more flexible (for people living in larger urban centres). One limitation, however, is the perceived focus of many programs on short-term results ("band-aid solutions"). At the Department of Labour, programs are employer-driven so employers typically have already recruited most of their workers by the time of their application for wage subsidies or other programs. Some participants observed that the DOL programs are continuing to meet employers' needs, even though there are fewer programs available and somewhat less flexibility because the requirements are more strict. Respondents found it difficult to say if Labour programs are meeting the needs of worker clients, however, because staff have very little direct contact with workers. Under the previous federal programs, there was more interaction between the staff serving workers and those serving employers. Ideally, DOL staff should inform HRD-NB staff about specific programs and try to establish linkages between employers and workers, but this is not happening at this stage.

Finally, in the case studies some respondents identified factors that limit the relevance of PBMs. In particular, the centralized decision-making associated with some provincial programs, a lack of coordination and information exchange between HRD-NB and DOL, and low awareness of the PBMs among both worker and employer clients have been problems.