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

Data sources for this investigation are from Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) administrative files, supplemented with information from the Labour Force Survey. The administrative files provide us with certain personal attributes, geographical locations, week-by-week employment data, week-by-week earning data, and claim information. The data from the Labour Force Survey tells us the economic conditions of the regions where Employment Insurance (EI) claimants reside, which are approximated by the regional unemployment rates. Data for this analysis cover the period November 1998 (start of the Small Weeks Pilot Project) to August 2000.¹¹ For a more detailed description of the administrative data used, the reader may consult Appendix C.

The evaluation is based on the comparison group methodology of non-experimental program designs. It treats EI benefit claimants in the 31 Small Weeks Pilot Project regions as the participant group, and claimants in the rest of the economy as the comparison group. For descriptive clarity, the following names are used to denote various groups of claimants in the remainder of this report.

• Program participants: Claimants in 31 Small Weeks regions whose claims included some small weeks of work;
• Program non-participants: Claimants in 31 Small Weeks regions whose claims did not involve small weeks of work;
• Comparison group members: Claimants with or without small weeks¹² of work outside of 31 Small Weeks regions.

This report begins with an analysis of descriptive statistics. The characteristics of program participants are compared with program non-participants from the 31 Small Weeks regions. In addition, program participants are compared with comparison group members from non-Small Weeks regions. Results for male and female participants are shown separately.

Descriptive statistics provide us with some general information on the labour market activities of program participants, program non-participants, and comparison group members. However, personal attributes, socio-economic backgrounds, and regional economic climates are not identical for these individuals. Furthermore, there may exist unobservable factors (e.g., motivation) that affect labour market performance as well. In short, descriptive statistics alone are insufficient to show the effectiveness of the Small Weeks Pilot Project.

In this investigation, we therefore also use an econometric evaluation model to estimate the incremental effects of the Project. This approach accounts for the influences of all observed factors as well as the “intangibles”. A non-technical summary of the model is presented later in this report, and a more detailed description of the econometric evaluation model, along with its estimated equations, can be found in Appendix A.

Footnotes

11	“August 2000” data are the latest observations that can be feasibly included in the analysis.
12	Strictly speaking, the term “small week” is not meaningful to claimants outside of 31 Small Weeks regions. However, for descriptive convenience, we use the term here to denote any work week that pays less than $150.