|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
The LMI Strategic Initiative attempted to address the needs of a diverse range of potential users of labour market information. At the broadest level, there are four types of audiences for labour market information: individuals doing career planning or looking for work, career practitioners who assist people in career planning, either individually or in groups; program planners who design education, training and employment programs to address labour market needs, and, analysts who collect and analyze labour market information for various uses. Because the objective of the Initiative was to provide high quality labour market information for integration into career planning at the secondary and post-secondary levels, the Initiative has focused on the development and dissemination of LMI resources for career development purposes. With the expectation that the best way to encourage the integration of LMI into career planning was to concentrate on career practitioners, the focus of the Initiative’s activities has been on addressing the needs of this group. As the intended audience for much of the work of the Initiative, career practitioners were also the primary focus for the evaluation. Career practitioners are a large and diverse collection of professionals and paraprofessionals, who provide assistance to individuals doing career planning or looking for work. For this evaluation, the views of career practitioners were collected through both surveys and telephone interviews of a representative sample of the following career practitioner groups:
Of these groups of career practitioners, those working with government clients on contract with either the federal or provincial government, are likely the biggest users of LMI, since the entire focus of their job is assisting clients with career planning and finding employment. The jobs of teachers and post-secondary counselors involves more than career development services, so they may use LMI resources to a lesser extent than do contracted career practitioners. The jobs of field employees vary a lot, and have changed considerably during the period of the Initiative. Many no longer see clients directly, or only rarely. Their main focus is often on managing contractors who are providing services directly to clients. Their need for LMI will vary depending on whether or not they work directly with clients. Those who do not will likely use LMI resources less than those who work directly with clients. The views of analysts and planners were also collected through surveys and telephone interviews. Analysts can be involved in the collection of LMI, in the production of LMI resources, and in the analysis of LMI for specific planning or policy analysis purposes. For these people, using LMI may be a central part of their job, but they may not be big users of many of the resources created through the Initiative, as these are more for career planning purposes. Program planners will use LMI for specific planning purposes and may only need LMI periodically. They will also be less likely to use many of the resources created through the Initiative because they are not involved in career planning. Many of the resources created through the Initiative can also be used by individuals doing career planning or looking for work. These individuals are referred to as end-users in this report. For this evaluation, the views of three types of end-users were collected through surveys:
This chapter presents a summary of the views of end-users, career practitioners, analysts and program planners on how well their LMI needs were met. 3.1 Use and AccessFour issues pertaining to use of LMI and access to LMI are addressed in this section.
Use of Labour Market InformationThe ratings of career practitioners, analysts and planners on how much they had used LMI overall are portrayed in Figure 3.1. Overall, use of LMI for career planning purposes was high among career practitioners. Contractors were the biggest users, with almost all having used it on a regular basis with their clients. Three-quarters of post-secondaryn counselors and field personnel and about one-third of secondary career teachers had used LMI on a regular basis with their clients/students. This level of use reflected an increase for most over the last few years, primarily because of better access to LMI resources, the availability of more and better LMI resources, and greater recognition of the value of using LMI in career planning. In addition, contractors and post-secondary counselors had found more demand for LMI from their clients and students, who wanted to take labour market conditions into consideration in their career planning. 
The reason for using LMI varied depending on the audience, but common among all career practitioners was the use of LMI to learn about the skills, education or training needed for specific occupations and for information about specific occupations, such as working conditions and salaries. Other common uses were to find out what jobs or occupations were in demand and to learn about training opportunities. Contractors and field personnel also used LMI to assist clients in finding jobs. Only about one-third of analysts and planners had used LMI on a regular basis, although another quarter had used it once in a while. Almost one-half felt that their use of LMI had increased over the last few years. Analysts and planners use LMI in different ways than do career practitioners and end-users. Some analysts actually collect LMI to support program planners or people working in the field, others, use LMI for policy analysis and program planning purposes. Planners typically need LMI only on a periodic basis. Figure 3.2 presents the views of end-users on how often they used LMI for career planning or looking for work. The biggest users were clients of contractors. Just over one-third felt they used LMI a lot, compared with one-quarter of post-secondary students and 10 percent of secondary students. 
All three groups of end-users used LMI to learn about the skills, education or training needed for specific occupations; to learn about training opportunities; and to learn about the general knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for any job. Post-secondary students and clients had a wider range of uses for LMI than did secondary students. Post-secondary students generally used LMI for specific career planning and education planning, while government clients were more likely to use LMI for finding employment. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they had used specific resources. Although there was some variation from group to group, the resources used by most career practitioners, analysts and planners, on average, were:
Figure 3.3 shows the percentage of career practitioners, analysts and planners in each group that had used each of these resources. Note that analysts and planners were not asked to rate either Work Scene or Career Paths, as these were intended for youth, and this group does not work with clients. Overall, contractors were bigger users of the resources than were any other group, followed closely by analysts and planners. Use by field personnel, teachers and counselors varied considerably depending on the resource. Overall, Work Futures had been used by more respondents than any other resource. It had been used by over 80 percent of contractors, counselors, field personnel, analysts and planners, and about 70 percent of teachers. The BC WorkInfoNet website had similar high levels of usage; about 80 percent of analysts, planners, contractors, and counselors, and around 60 percent of field personnel and teachers had used the website. 
Making Career Sense of Labour Market Information is a manual about how to use labour market information for career decision making. It also has a companion facilitator’s guide that contains lesson plans and handouts. The manual had been used by the majority (three-quarters) of contractors, field personnel, analysts, planners and counselors, and by almost half the teachers surveyed. A Guide to the BC Economy and Labour Market provides an overview of the BC economy and how industries have changed, as well as what is expected in the future. Its use was varied. About three-quarters of analysts, planners and contractors had used it, compared with about two-thirds of field personnel and around 60 percent of counselors and teachers. Work Scene is a newer resource, released in the spring of 1998, and is a youth version of Work Futures. Its use was high among contractors (about 85 percent) and counselors and field personnel (about 75 percent), but just about one-half of the teachers had used it. Career Paths is also aimed at youth. This resource is a newspaper published annually, that is also available at the BC WorkInfoNet website. The Initiative provided funding for the on-line version only. Use of it was high among contractors, teachers and field personnel, and moderate among counselors. End-users (secondary students, post-secondary students, and government clients) had also been given a list of resources and asked to indicate which they had used. Use of the resources varied across the three groups. More post-secondary students used more resources than did either secondary students or clients. For post-secondary students, use ranged from a high of 67 percent on Work Futures to a low of 25 percent on a number of resources. For secondary students, the range was from a high of 54 percent for Career Paths to a low of 25 percent for the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism website. Clients’ use ranged from a high of 51 percent on Work Futures to a low of 27 percent on Career Gateways CD ROM. Over all three groups, the resources that were used most were:
Figure 3.4 shows the percentage of end-users who had used each of these. Note that the pattern of usage varied across the three groups. While Work Futures was the most used resource for post-secondary students and clients, Career Paths was the most used resource for secondary students. Career Paths was used by almost as many clients and post-secondary students. The BC WorkInfoNet website was used by a larger proportion of post-secondary students than either secondary students or clients. Figure 3.4 does not include resources that were popular with only one or two groups of end-users. The Xplore Science Careers CD ROM was a popular resource for secondary students and the Guide to the BC Economy and Labour Market was popular with clients. The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism and Getting Into the A.C.T. websites were popular with clients, and to a lesser extent with secondary students. 
Access to LMICareer practitioners (teachers, counselors, contractors and field personnel) had used a variety of ways to find out what LMI resources were available and how to get them. The most common sources they reported were:
In addition, teachers also learned of resources through career coordinators in their district, contractors also found out from federal or provincial personnel, and field personnel also found out from headquarters personnel. Overall, the majority (two-thirds to three-quarters) were satisfied with their knowledge about what LMI resources were available, with the exception of field personnel, where only 54 percent were satisfied. Colleagues were the most common source of information about what LMI resources were available for analysts and planners, followed by the internet, and then announcements. Two-thirds of analysts and planners were satisfied with what they knew about what resources were available and how to get them. Figure 3.5 presents the views of career practitioners, analysts and planners on their ease of access to LMI resources. Ease of access varied. About 80 percent of analysts and planners compared with one-quarter of post-secondary teachers had found access easy. Post-secondary counselors, contractors and field personnel fell between these two extremes, with between 55 and 65 percent having found access easy. 
The majority in each group felt that access had improved over the last few years. The improvement was rated as substantial by about 16 percent of analysts and planners, one-quarter of teachers and contractors, one-third of post-secondary counselors, and 42 percent of field personnel. The most common reasons for improvement was the use of the internet to access LMI, followed by an increase in the number of resources available. According to career practitioners, access to resources had not been as good for students and clients as it had been for themselves, although the majority (three-quarters of field personnel and almost 90 percent of the others) felt that access had improved over the last few years, largely because of internet access. Career practitioners felt that students and clients had difficulty accessing resources because:
End-users often found out about LMI resources on their own. Other common sources were career counselors, teachers, and internet searches. Secondary and post-secondary students also used parents and friends, and post-secondary students frequently used the school library or resource centre. Clients used a greater variety of sources on a regular basis, including Employment Insurance Centres. End-users varied in how satisfied they were with what they knew about what LMI resources were available. Only 45 percent of secondary students were satisfied, compared with two-thirds of clients and 71 percent of post-secondary students. The views of end-users on ease of access to LMI resources are shown in Figure 3.6. Most found access easy, or at least not difficult. Less than 20 percent in each group found access difficult. 
Figure 3.7 presents the ratings of career practitioners, analysts and planners on the adequacy of their budget to purchase LMI resources. As a group, contractors, analysts and planners were more likely than others to have a budget that was adequate or better, while post-secondary counselors and field personnel were least likely to have an adequate budget. Budget was seldom mentioned as a reason for difficulties in accessing LMI resources, though. This is probably because many used the internet, or had received resources at no charge. 
A number of the Initiative’s projects were to make existing or new LMI resources available on the internet. Hence, all respondents were asked about their internet access and the access of their clients or students. Ratings on the adequacy of their access to the internet to locate LMI are provided in Figure 3.8. At least 80 percent of respondents in each group rated access to the internet as adequate or better, except for teachers, where only two-thirds felt access was at least adequate. Figure 3.9 provides their ratings on the adequacy of internet access for their clients or students. About two-thirds of respondents rated access for their students or clients as adequate or better. 
Technology can limit access for some respondents, especially for students and clients. Lack of computers and lack of or inadequate internet access prevented access to internet resources. Lack of computers, or lack of a CD ROM drive prevented access to CD ROM resources. Schools may not have had sufficient internet capability to have an entire class work on-line at the same time. They may not have had the ability to run a CD ROM through their server, preventing class use of CD ROM materials. Some contractors and government employees, both in the field and in headquarters, did not have CD ROM drives and hence could not use CD ROM resources. In most cases, these people did have internet access. 
Figure 3.10 shows end-users’ ratings on the adequacy of their internet access. About one-half of secondary and post-secondary students and one-third of clients felt that their access was either very good or excellent. Teachers and counselors had underestimated the adequacy of access for their students, while contractors had overestimated it. There were two locations used the most by end-users for access to the internet: the school or agency where they were surveyed, and their home. To determine whether users had internet access at home or their school or agency, responses to the question: “where do you access the internet?” were used. Users were asked to indicate how often, if at all, they accessed the internet at a variety of locations. Responses of: “Hardly ever”, “Once in a while” and “On a regular basis” were combined to get an indication of where they had access, even if they did not use it often. Figure 3.11 presents the percentage of users in each group who had used each location at all. 
A high proportion of all end-users had access to the internet in their home: 40 percent of clients, about 50 percent of post-secondary students, and around 60 percent of secondary students. An even higher proportion of students had internet access at their school (about 75 percent). About 40 percent of clients had internet access at the agency where they were surveyed and about 40 percent used places of public access, such as public libraries. 
Barriers to Effective UseThe extent to which barriers limited effective use of LMI was explored by asking respondents to indicate what factors, if any, had limited their ability to effectively use labour market information. Respondents who dealt with clients were also asked to indicate what factors limited their clients’ ability. Lack of time was a limiting factor for career practitioners, analysts and planners, especially time to find and use the information. For teachers, lack of time to learn how to use the information and lack of training on how to use it were even more important factors than was lack of time to use the material. For counselors, contractors and field personnel, lack of time to learn how to use labour market information and lack of training on how to use it were almost as important as was lack of time to use the material. Career practitioners felt that different factors limited their clients’ ability to effectively use labour market information. Lack of training and lack of knowledge about where to find labour market information were the two factors that respondents felt most applied to their clients/students, and to a lesser extent, lack of knowledge about what labour market information is and how to use it. Teachers also felt that students’ ability to use LMI effectively was limited by lack of time to learn how to use the information, and lack of time to use it. Time was a limiting factor according to both secondary and post-secondary students. For secondary and post-secondary students, the barriers were lack of knowledge and time to find the information as well as lack of time to use it and to learn how to use it. For clients, barriers were lack of knowledge about where to find the information, and not being able to get the information they needed. The factor common to all three groups was lack of knowledge about where to find LMI resources, which affected about half the students and clients at least sometimes. Conclusions on Use and AccessThe following conclusions are based on the findings collected on use of and access to LMI:
3.2 Meeting User NeedsThe findings presented in this section address issues regarding how well the needs of users were met with respect to LMI. The specific issues addressed were:
Meeting the Needs of Career Practitioners, Analysts and PlannersAll career practitioners, analysts and planners were given a list of resources and asked to indicate whether they had used them and, for those they had used, to rate the usefulness of the resource. As presented in the previous section, the resources used by most career practitioners, analysts and planners, on average, were:
Figure 3.12 presents the usefulness ratings for these six resources. For simplicity of presentation, ratings have been collapsed into four categories: useful, adequate, inadequate and don’t know. The “very useful” category is a combination of ratings of “very useful” and “extremely useful”, while the “inadequate” category is a combination of “somewhat inadequate” and “very inadequate”. A rating has been interpreted as useful if the resource had been rated as either “adequate”, “very useful”, or “extremely useful”. The actual ratings are provided in the Detailed Findings report.  
In addition to having a high number of users, Work Futures was also viewed as useful by a majority of users. It was considered by many as the first place to start research for career planning. It has also been useful for program planners. Teachers were the only group who were less likely to find it useful, with just over 20 percent rating it as inadequate to their needs. The BC WorkInfoNet website was also popular with respondents. Most found it useful, with a high proportion rating it as very useful. Very few rated it as inadequate. Some, however, were not able to rate the usefulness of the site. The manual, Making Career Sense of Labour Market Information, received mixed reviews from respondents, as did A Guide to the BC Economy and Labour Market. Both were most popular with counselors, analysts and planners, and least popular with teachers. A high proportion of teachers were not able to rate the usefulness of Making Career Sense. Work Scene and Career Paths are both targeted to a youth audience. Both were viewed as useful by most teachers who had used them, although many more teachers had used Career Paths than had used Work Scene, possibly because Career Paths has been produced for a number of years, while Work Scene was only released in Spring 1998. Most of the career practitioners also found Work Scene to be useful and most contractors and field personnel also found Career Paths useful. Counselors were the least likely of all groups to find Career Paths useful; 60 percent rated it as inadequate to their needs. Although a number of other resources were also rated as useful by a majority of their users, the number of users overall was often small. Some were relatively new and not in widespread use at the time of data collection, and others are aimed at specific audiences and hence had only a small number of users. Findings on some of these resources are highlighted below. Two other resources that were popular among teachers were Motiv8 and Career Explorer on-line, both targeted to youth. About two-thirds of the teachers had used these and the majority found each to be useful. Anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of the contractors used a variety of resources that were targeted to youth: Career Explorer on-line, Motiv8, Realm, and What Works. Anywhere from 16 to 22 percent could not rate their usefulness, but the majority of those that did, had found the resources to be useful. About one-half of the teachers, contractors and field personnel had used the new CD ROM tool, Career Gateways, or its predecessor, the Virtual LMI Toolkit. A large number could not rate its usefulness, but the majority of those that did, had found it useful. The other resources used by about three-quarters of counselors were the student outcomes series: BC Student Outcome Indicators for BC Colleges and Institutes; BC Student Outcomes: Job Destinations of Former College and Institute Students; and BC Student Outcomes: Survey Results by Program for Former College and Institute Students. They were used by at least two-thirds of the group, and found to be useful by the majority. The Job Destinations report was given the highest ratings of all three, with about 70 percent rating it as very or extremely useful. The student outcomes series was also used by about one-half of the contracted services providers. Fewer had found these resources to be useful than did counselors, and one-quarter to one-third had rated them as inadequate. About one-half to two-thirds of field personnel had used items in the series, but up to one-quarter could not rate their usefulness. Of those that did, almost all had found them useful. About three-quarters of the analysts and planners had used the outcomes series and 80 percent or more had found them useful. One of the newest in the student outcomes series is On Track, a report that provides outcome information on former students of private training programs in BC. No counselors had used this report, but one-quarter of the contractors and about one-half of the field personnel, analysts and planners had. Almost one-third of the contractors and field personnel could not rate its usefulness, but about 54 percent of contractors and 61 percent of field personnel had found it useful. About three-quarters of analysts and planners had found the resource useful. Analysts and planners were also asked about two other new student outcomes resources: Adult Basic Education Student Outcomes and English as a Second Language Employment Outcomes. Between 40 and 50 percent had used the resources, but about 40 percent could not rate their usefulness. The majority of the rest had found them useful. Figure 3.13 presents respondents’ views on how well LMI resources had met their needs overall. In the Figure, the response categories “very well” and “extremely well” were combined into the “well” category in the chart. The response categories “poorly” and “extremely poorly” were combined into the “poorly” category. 
Generally, career practitioners, analysts and planners felt that their LMI needs were met by the resources they had used. The features that were most frequently liked about resources were:
A sizable minority (from 20 to 25 percent) of field personnel, counselors and teachers felt the resources poorly met their needs. Resources were not satisfactory for teachers if the material was too difficult or assumed too much understanding of LMI, or was not classroom-ready. Counselors were not satisfied with resources if they were too general or did not have local LMI. Lack of currency of information or relevancy to client, difficulty or literacy level, and lack of local LMI were concerns of contractors. Field personnel found resources not satisfactory if the information was not organized, was too general for clients or not current, or lacked local LMI. Lack of local LMI, too much technical information, or lack of analysis and synthesis were concerns of analysts and planners. Career practitioners were asked whether they would use LMI resources again, based on their experience using them. These ratings are provided in Figure 3.14. Almost all contractors and most counselors and teachers would use them again. About 70 percent of field personnel would, but about 25 percent did not know. Only a few field personnel said that they would not use the resources again. 
Analysts and planners were not asked whether they would use LMI resources again, since for many this was a requirement of their job. Instead, they were asked what contribution the LMI resources had made to their work. All felt the resources had made some contribution, and almost 40 percent felt the contribution had been substantial. Career practitioners, analysts and planners were asked whether there had been any changes over the last few years in the quality of LMI products and services to meet their needs. These ratings are shown in Figure 3.15. A sizable minority (from 10 to 25 percent) did not know. At least three-quarters felt that quality had improved, and around one-half of these felt that the improvement had been moderate or substantial. 
Meeting the Needs of End-UsersEnd-users (secondary students, post-secondary students, and government clients) had also been given a list of resources and asked to indicate which they had used, and to rate the usefulness of those resources. As reported in the previous section, over all three groups, the resources that were used most were:
Figure 3.16 shows the usefulness ratings of end-users who had used these six resources. For the figure, ratings of “very” and “extremely useful” were collapsed into “very useful”, and “somewhat” and “very inadequate” were collapsed into “inadequate.” Chapter VII of the Detailed Findings report gives the actual ratings. As described earlier, a resource was considered useful if rated as adequate, very useful, or extremely useful. The majority of all groups of end-users who have used Work Futures had found it useful. It was most popular with post-secondary students, with 60 percent finding it very useful. About one-third of the secondary students and about 10 percent of the clients could not rate its usefulness. Between 10 and 20 percent had found it inadequate. Although use of the BC WorkInfoNet website varied considerably across groups, the majority (between 65 and 75 percent) of those who had used it had found it useful. A sizable number (from about 15 to 25 percent) could not rate its usefulness. About 20 percent of secondary students and 10 percent of post-secondary students and clients had found it inadequate. 
Career Paths had broad appeal, with from 55 to 68 percent of it’s users having found it useful. Again, a sixable number (from 20 to 30 percent) could not rate it. Although more than one-half of secondary students found it useful, about one-quarter found it inadequate Work Scene, the youth version of Work Futures, was not found to be as useful as was Work Futures by most of its users, although the majority had found it to be useful. About 15 to 20 percent found it inadequate. From 20 to 25 percent could not rate it. Career Explorer on-line was found to be useful by about 60 percent of all end-users who had used it. About 20 percent of secondary and post-secondary students had found it inadequate. Almost 40 percent of clients could not rate it. About 60 percent of end-users had found the resource, Key Student Outcome Indicators for BC Colleges and Institutes,useful. Between 10 and 20 percent had found it inadequate and between 20 and 30 percent could not rate it. 
Figure 3.17 presents the views of end-users on how well LMI resources met their needs overall. Between 60 and 75 percent of end-users felt that the resources had met their needs adequately or well. Around 40 percent of secondary students and clients, and 25 percent of post-secondary students felt that their needs had not been adequately met. End-users were asked whether, based on their experience using them, they would use the resources again if doing career planning or looking for work. These ratings are provided in Figure 3.18. Almost three-quarters of post-secondary students, two-thirds of clients and about one-half of the secondary students would use the resources again. A high proportion of the rest did not know. About 10 percent of clients and almost 20 percent of secondary students would not use them again. 
Career practitioners and field personnel were also asked to rate how well LMI resources had met the needs of their clients or students overall. These ratings are shown in Figure 3.19. The majority felt that the LMI resources had met their clients’/students’ needs, but anywhere from about one-fifth to one-third of respondents in each group felt that the resources poorly met the needs of the clients/students. Teachers were more likely than others to rate the resources as having poorly met their students’ needs. These views are similar to those expressed by the end-users themselves. 
Career practitioners were also asked whether there had been any changes in the quality of LMI resources to meet the needs of their clients or students. These ratings are provided in Figure 3.20. A large number (between 10 and 25 percent) did not know, but about three-quarters felt that quality had improved, with more than 45 percent rating the improvement as moderate or substantial.  
Conclusions on Meeting Users’ NeedsThe following conclusions are offered based on the findings on meeting user needs.
| |||||||
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060126232750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060126232750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060126232750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}