Large print, braille, MP3 (audio), e-text and DAISY formats are available on demand by ordering online or calling 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you use a teletypewriter ( TTY ), call 1-800-926-9105.
EAS Employment Assistance Services EBSM Employment Benefits and Support Measures EI Employment Insurance ESDC Employment and Social Development Canada JPI Job Placement with Incentive LMDA Labour Market Development Agreement LMP Labour Market Partnerships OJCP Ontario Job Creation Partnerships SA Social assistance SD Skills Development
The Canada-Ontario Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) is a bilateral agreement between Canada and Ontario for the design and delivery of Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs).
The objective of EBSMs is to assist individuals to obtain or keep employment through various active employment programs, including training or employment assistance services. Successful delivery of EBSMs is expected to result in participants receiving needed services, a quick return to work, and savings to the Employment Insurance (EI) account.
Programs and services delivered by provinces and territories have to correspond to the EBSM categories defined under the EI Act. The following is a short description of the EBSMs examined in the evaluation of the Canada-Ontario LMDA:
In fiscal year 2020 to 2021, Canada transferred $741 million (including about $57 million in administration funds) to Ontario.
Table i provides an overview of the share of funding allocated to EBSMs and the average cost per participant. The average cost per participant is calculated based on the 2010 to 2012 data from the EI Monitoring and Assessment Reports. The 2010 to 2012 period corresponds with the cohort of participants selected for incremental impacts and cost-benefit analysis.
| Employment Benefits and Support Measures | Average share of funding | Average cost – active claimants | Average cost – former claimants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skills Development | 43% | $12,250 | $10,983 |
| Employment Assistance Services | 46% | $3,342 | $2,924 |
| Labour Market Partnerships | 3% | n/a | n/a |
| Job Placement with Incentive | $6,310 | $5,241 | |
| Ontario Job Creation Partnerships | 1% | $14,660 | $11,886 |
| Research and Innovation | 0% | n/a | n/a |
| Total | 93% | n/a | n/a |
Compared to the 2010 to 2012 period, there was variation in the LMDA budget allocation of some programs and services in 2020 to 2021. For example, investments in SD deceased from 43% to 24%, while those in Research and Innovation increased from 0% to 14%.
Building on the success of previous LMDA evaluation cycles, the aim of this evaluation is to fill in knowledge gaps about the effectiveness, efficiency, as well as and design and delivery of EBSMs in Ontario.
The findings in this report are drawn from 7 separate evaluation studies carried out at the provincial level. These studies examine issues related to program effectiveness, efficiency, and design and delivery. A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods are used, including:
The incremental impacts are estimated for 2 types of EI claimants:
Nearly 411,800 EI active and former claimants began participating in Canada-Ontario LMDA programs and services between 2010 and 2012.
Overall, incremental impacts demonstrate that participation in most EBSMs improves labour market attachment and reduces dependence on government income support compared to similar non-participants. This excludes former claimants who participated in SD.
With the exception of former claimants who participated in SD, these results are consistent with those found for earlier cohorts of participants as part of the previous evaluation cycle.
A subgroup analyses shows that, with some exceptions:
Over time, the social benefits of participating in JPI, OJCP and EAS exceeded the initial investment costs for program participants. However, it takes 19.1 years to recover the initial investment in SD for active claimants. The investments in SD for former claimants may not be recovered Footnote 4
Chart i presents the incremental impacts on the incidence of employment for active and former claimants by EBSM. The estimates can be interpreted as a change in the probability of being employed following participation. For example, participation in SD increases the probability of being employed by 4.3 percentage points for active EI claimants relative to similar non-participants.
Chart ii presents the annual average increase in employment earnings for active and former claimants over the post-participation period. For example, active EI claimants who participated in SD earned, on average, $943 more than similar non-participants.
Chart iii presents the change in dependence on government income support for active and former claimants over the post-participation period. For example, active EI claimants who participated in SD reduced their dependence on government income support by 1.7 percentage points.
Table ii presents the number of years required for the social benefits to exceed program costs. Social benefits to participation exceed initial investment costs over a period ranging from less than a year to 19.1 years.
| Indicator | SD active claimants (10 years post-program) | JPI active claimants (5 years post-program) | OJCP active claimants (5 years post-program) | EAS active claimants (5 years post-program) | JPI former claimants (5 years post-program) | OJCP former (5 years post-program) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payback period (years after end of participation) | 19.1 | 1.6 | 5.9 | 7.7 | 12.4 |
A series of supplemental studies addresses information gaps previously identified in LMDA evaluations regarding the design and delivery, challenges and lessons learned for OJCP, Labour Market Partnerships and Research and Innovation.
Excluding OJCP, these interventions are not suitable for incremental impact analysis. For example, Labour Market Partnerships and Research and Innovation do not collect participant information. As a result, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods are used to examine these EBSMs in detail. When relevant, key considerations are included to help guide future program and policy discussions.
The design and delivery of OJCP allows the Ontario to address a variety of barriers to employment experienced by its residents. OJCP can also be used to address labour market needs by targeting sub-groups of individuals, in-demand professions or economic sectors, and specific communities.
In addition to gaining work experience, key informants identified a variety of other benefits that can be expected from OJCP projects. For example, participants are expected to develop work-related skills, enhance their job search abilities and improve their personal well-being.
Project holders can benefit from OJCP by increasing their organizational capacity, implementing their projects and expanding the portfolio of services they provide. At the community level, projects can support the local economy and provide new assets, such as restored infrastructure and new recreational spaces.
The Labour Market Partnerships program(s) aim to assist employers, communities and/or industries to address their labour force adjustments and human resource needs. Funded projects target current and/or forecasted skills and/or labour shortages. These projects also target unemployment in specific subpopulations such as women, youth, Indigenous people, newcomers, persons with disabilities, the self-employed, and those who will soon be laid-off.
Ontario program officials confirmed that regional/local program officials carried out activities to support the formation and maintenance of partnerships (with sector and community stakeholders) as a part of the LMP programs design and delivery. Key informants noted that partners' expertise, network and financial contribution are all essential or beneficial to project implementation and success.
In Ontario, Research and Innovation is used to enable innovation in the employment and training system and to explore new ways of providing employment and training supports to employers, workers, and job seekers, including those who are not currently supported by other LMDA funded programs and services.
The document review revealed that Research and Innovation projects encompassed a variety of activities including:
Provincial/territorial questionnaires reveal factors contributing to successful testing and identification of innovative approaches, including:
The objective of the program is to help apprentices become skilled tradespeople and to increase their labour market attachment. Program participants have generally chosen a career and are already attached to the labour market. The apprenticeship process involves on-the-job learning and technical training in a classroom setting.
The evaluation found that active EI claimants increased their average earnings from $18,448 in the fifth year pre-program to $56,257 in the fifth year after the program start year. Former EI claimants increased their average earnings from $20,125 in the fifth year pre-program to $55,581 in the fifth year after the program start year. After participating in the program, both active and former claimants also decreased their dependence on government income support.
Since 2012, 15 qualitative and quantitative studies addressed issues and questions related to EBSM design, delivery and effectiveness. The quantitative studies successfully assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of EBSMs by producing incremental impacts and cost-benefit analysis. The qualitative studies identified specific challenges, lessons learned and best practices associated with the design and delivery of EBSMs. Each study included key considerations for program and policy development or recommendations.
In addition, the recently completed evaluation of the Workforce Development Agreements complements the LMDA qualitative studies. This evaluation was also supported by literature reviews and provided unique insights into challenges and lessons learned to assist persons with disabilities, immigrants and those further removed from the labour market.
Most results from this evaluation stem from the conduct of advance causal analysis whereby impacts found could be attributed to a specific EBSM. These analyses are predicated on having access to high quality administrative records, thereby confirming the importance of the capacity to leverage and integrate relevant administrative data.
From these main findings, 2 key recommendations emerge.
Ontario is encouraged to share and discuss lessons learned, best practices and challenges associated with the design and delivery of programs and services. Discussions are encouraged with ESDC, at the bilateral or multilateral levels as well as with service delivery network if necessary.
Ontario is encouraged to pursue efforts to maintain and strengthen data collection provisions in support of reporting, performance measurement and data-driven evaluations at the national and provincial levels.
Ontario thanks the Evaluation Directorate of ESDC and the Evaluation Steering Committee for their diligence, dedication and commitment towards the third cycle of the evaluation process. As before, Ontario worked in close collaboration with the Evaluation Directorate of ESDC during the planning and implementation of the third cycle for the Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) evaluation.
The findings from the 7 qualitative and quantitative studies on Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSM) provide valuable insights and guidance for program development and efforts are under way to incorporate necessary changes and further refinements in data collection and data sharing protocols.
Ontario reviewed and agrees with the findings of the third cycle evaluation of the Canada-Ontario LMDA, which concluded that:
Ontario submits the management responses below to the recommendations in the report:
Ontario is encouraged to share and discuss lessons learned, best practices and challenges associated with the design and delivery of programs and services. Discussions are encouraged with ESDC, at the bilateral or multilateral levels as well as with service delivery network if necessary.
Ontario is encouraged to pursue efforts to maintain and strengthen data collection provisions in support of reporting, performance measurement and data-driven evaluations at the national and provincial levels.
LMDAs are the main annual investment in active labour market programs and services in Canada and the evaluation report provides critical insights on how the effectiveness, efficiency, design and delivery of EBSMs can be further improved.
Ontario is committed to making continuous improvements in the planning, design, and delivery of EBSMs so that it continues to enable individuals to be gainfully employed and benefit from training and employment assistance services as needed.
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) worked jointly with Ontario and 11 other provinces and territories to carry out the 2018 to 2023 third cycle for the evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDA).
The first LMDA evaluation cycle was carried out from 1998 to 2012 and focused on federally delivered programs and services in Ontario.
Building on lessons learned and best practices from the first cycle, the second cycle of LMDA evaluations was undertaken between 2012 and 2017. The second cycle was designed and implemented under the guidance of a federal-provincial/territorial LMDA Evaluation Steering Committee. The work was supported by bilateral discussions at the Joint Evaluation Committee.
The third LMDA evaluation cycle builds on the success of the second cycle. The aim is to fill in knowledge gaps about the effectiveness, efficiency, and design and delivery of EBSMs. The evaluation cycle was also designed and implemented under the guidance of a federal-provincial/territorial LMDA Evaluation Steering Committee composed of ESDC and 12 participating provinces and territories.
This report presents a summary of the third cycle evaluation findings from 7 studies undertaken as part of the third LMDA evaluation cycle.
The Canada-Ontario LMDA is a bilateral agreement between Canada and Ontario for the design and delivery of EBSM programs and services. It was established, along with similar agreements with 12 other provinces and territories, under Part II of the 1996 Employment Insurance (EI) Act.
In fiscal year 2020 to 2021, Canada transferred nearly $741.4 million to Ontario. Footnote 6 Under the agreement, Ontario is responsible for the design and delivery of LMDA-funded programs and services aimed at assisting individuals to prepare for, obtain, and maintain employment.
LMDA programs and services are classified under 2 categories:
Ontario has the flexibility to adapt EBSMs to its provincial context as long as they are consistent with Part II of the EI Act. Footnote 10
The objective of EBSMs is to assist individuals to obtain or keep employment through various active employment programs, including training or employment assistance services. Successful delivery of EBSMs is expected to result in participants receiving needed services, a quick return to work, and savings to the EI account.
Employment benefits programs and services examined in this study include:
Skills Development (SD) provides direct financial assistance to individuals to select, arrange, and pay for training. Training is tailored to the needs of participants through counselling and career orientation. It can include adult-based education, literacy and essential skills, language training, short-term training and occupational training leading to certification from an accredited institution.
Job Placement with Incentive (JPI) helps participants obtain on-the-job work experience by providing employers with a wage subsidy. The subsidies can range in duration from 16 to 52 weeks, with the maximum level of the subsidy ranging from 50% to 100% of the employee's wage.
Ontario Job Creation Partnerships (OJCP) support projects that provide eligible participants with opportunities to gain meaningful work experience while providing community benefit. Participants can take part in a finite project for up to 52 weeks.
Support measures programs and services examined in this study include:
Employment Assistance Services (EAS) include a variety of services that support individuals as they prepare to enter or re-enter the workforce or assist them to find a better job. Services can include job search services, career development and counselling, and résumé writing assistance. These services are referred to as light touch interventions due to their very short duration. They can be provided on a one-on-one basis; or in a group setting. A typical intervention lasts less than 1 day, but a participant may receive multiple short interventions over a few weeks. These services are generally provided in combination with more intensive Employment Benefit interventions. Services may also include case-management, which can have a longer duration.
Labour Market Partnerships assist employers, communities and/or industries to address their labour force adjustments and human resource needs. They include a wide range of funded activities, such as:
Research and Innovation is used to enable innovation in the employment and training system and to explore new ways to provide employment and training supports for job seekers, workers and employers including for those not currently supported through the LMDA.
The incremental impacts are estimated for active and former EI claimants:
Table 1 provides an overview of the share of funding allocated to EBSMs and the average cost per participant. It is noted that the average cost per participant is calculated based on the 2010 to 2012 data from the EI Monitoring and Assessment Reports. The 2010 to 2012 period corresponds with the cohort of participants selected for incremental impacts and cost-benefit analysis in the Canada-Ontario LMDA evaluation.
From the 2010 to 2012 time period to the 2020 to 2021 fiscal year, investments in SD decreased by 19 percentage points. The largest increases in funding are noted for Research and Innovation (+14 percentage points) and Labour Market Partnerships (+8 percentage points).
| Employment Benefits and Support Measures | Share of funding (2010 to 2012) | Share of funding (2020 to 2021) | Average cost – active claimants (2010 to 2012) | Average cost – former claimants (2010 to 2012) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skills Development | 43% | 24% | $12,250 | $10,983 |
| Employment Assistance Services | 46% | 50% | $3,342 | $2,924 |
| Labour Market Partnerships | 3% | 11% | n/a | n/a |
| Job Placement with Incentive | 0% | $6,310 | $5,241 | |
| Ontario Job Creation Partnerships | 1% | $14,660 | $11,886 | |
| Research and Innovation | 0% | 14% | n/a | n/a |
| Total | 93% | 100% | n/a | n/a |
This section presents key aspects of the quantitative analyses carried out as part of the LMDA studies.
All quantitative analyses are based on administrative data from the EI Part I (EI claim data) and Part II (EBSM participation data). The EI Part I and II data are then linked to the T1 and T4 taxation files from the Canada Revenue Agency. Incremental impact and cost-benefit analyses are based on up to 100% of participants in Ontario who began their EBSM participation in 2010 to 2012.
The 2010 to 2012 timeframe was selected in order to assess the impacts of EBSMs in the years following participation. Impacts were assessed over a period of at least 4 years after program completion up to the 2017 calendar year (most recent available information at the time of this evaluation).
Program effectiveness is assessed by estimating incremental impacts from EBSM participation on participants' labour market experience. That is, earnings from employment and self-employment, incidence of employment, use of EI, use of social assistance (SA), and dependence on government income support after participation.
The role of the incremental impact analysis is to isolate the effects of participation from other factors. In order to achieve this, the incremental impact analysis compares the labour market experience of participants before and after their participation with that of similar non-participants. Figure 1 presents an example of incremental impact calculation.
The main estimator used is propensity score kernel matching technique combined with difference-in-differences estimator. Moreover, 3 different state-of-the-art estimation techniques (Inverse Probability Weighting, Nearest Neighbour and Cross-sectional Matching) were carried out separately for each type of EBSMs and EI claimants in order to validate the impact estimates.
As for previous LMDA evaluation studies, the Action Plan Equivalent is the unit of analysis used. Action Plan Equivalents regroup all EBSMs received by an individual within less than 6 months between the end of one EBSM and the start of the next. Action Plan Equivalents are categorized based on the longest EBSM they contain, except for EAS-only Action Plan Equivalents which include only EAS interventions.
The analysis includes Action Plan Equivalents that consist only of LMDA interventions. Action Plan Equivalents that include a combination of LMDA and other labour market programs funded by ESDC, were excluded from the participant sample.
The matching of participants and comparison group members used up to 75 socio-demographic and labour market variables observed over 5 years before participation. Footnote 15 Two different comparison groups were used to measure impacts for active and former EI claimants.
For active claimants, incremental impacts were measured relative to a comparison group of active claimants who were eligible to, but did not, participate in EBSMs during the reference period.
For former claimants, the comparison group was created using individuals who participated in EAS only during the reference period. Footnote 16 In other words, the experience of former claimants in SD, JPI, or OJCP interventions is compared to the experience of former claimants who only received EAS. This is a conservative approach given the fact that participation in an EAS-only intervention can lead to limited effects on labour market outcomes.
Due to this difference in measurement, incremental impacts estimated for active claimant participants should not be directly compared to those of former claimant participants.
Impacts are generated over 4 years for SD, JPI, and OJCP, while a fifth year is estimated for participants in EAS. Footnote 17
Building on the results of the incremental impacts, program efficiency is assessed through a cost-benefit analysis. The analysis compares the participants' cost of participating and the government's cost of delivering the program to the benefits associated with the program. Overall, this analysis provides insights on the extent to which the program is efficient for the society (that is, for both participants and the government).
The analysis takes into account all the quantifiable costs and benefits directly related to EBSM delivery and participation that can be measured given the information available. The analysis is comprehensive in that it accounts for the vast majority of possible direct costs and benefits.
However, the analysis does not account for all costs and benefits. For example, there are factors that can lead to an understatement of the benefits (for example, positive spillovers to other family members) and other factors that can lead to an overstatement of the benefits (for example, effects on skill prices or displacement). Footnote 20
This study relied on integrated data from the EI Part I and II Databank and Income Tax records from the Canada Revenue Agency. Information about earnings, use of EI, and use of SA was taken from the study of incremental impacts. Footnote 21 The program costs were calculated using information available in the EI Monitoring and Assessment Reports.
Relative to the previous cycle of evaluation, the methodology has been extended to incorporate one of the indirect health benefits associated with increased labour market attachment. In particular, the methodology includes an estimate of the change in public health care cost due to the decline in health care utilization resulting from program participation.
Data on average public healthcare costs by income quintile are taken from the report Lifetime Distributional Effects of Publicly Financed Health Care in Canada (2013) by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.
Program costs are measured using information on LMDA expenditures and new interventions reported in the EI Monitoring and Assessment Report. Other costs and benefits are assessed using integrated administrative data from the EI Part I and II databank and the Canada Revenue Agency.
Incremental impacts measured over the second year of participation and up to 5 post-program years are discounted by 3% to bring them to a common base with the program cost and benefits incurred in the program start year. This 3% rate accounts for the interest the government could have collected if the funds used to pay for the program had been invested. Incremental impacts are estimated using 2010 constant dollars and this accounts for inflation.
Program cost: cost incurred by the government for delivering the program (that is, administration and direct program costs calculated from data reported in the EI Monitoring and Assessment Reports).
Marginal social cost of public funds: loss incurred by society when raising additional revenues such as taxes to fund government spending. The value is estimated at 20% of the program cost, sales taxes, income taxes, impacts on EI and impacts on SA paid or collected by the government.
Foregone earnings: estimated net impacts on participants' earnings during the participation period. During labour market program participation, some individuals have lower earnings than what they would have received if they had not participated.
Employment earnings: incremental impacts on participants' earnings during and after participation. In-program earnings represent the foregone earnings for participants.
Fringe benefits: the employer-paid health and life insurance as well as pension contributions. They are estimated at 15% of the incremental impacts on earnings.
Federal and provincial income taxes: incremental impacts on federal, provincial and territorial taxes paid by participants.
Sales taxes: the sales taxes paid by participants estimated as incremental impacts on earnings multiplied by the propensity to consume (97%), the proportion of household spending on taxable goods and services (52%) and the total average federal and provincial sales tax rate (11%).
Social assistance and Employment Insurance benefits collected: incremental impacts on SA and EI benefits use by participants following participation.
Canada Pension Plan contribution and Employment Insurance premiums: these contributions and premiums were identified from the Canada Revenue Agency data and then, the incremental impacts on Canada Pension Plan contributions and EI premiums were estimated.
Public health care costs savings: estimated impact of participation in EBSMs on public health care costs shown as an average change per participant over the post-program period examined.
One of the key strengths from the studies is that all quantitative analyses are based on administrative data rather than survey responses. Compared to survey data, administrative data are not subject to recall errors or response bias.
The propensity score models used to match participants and non-participants for the incremental impact analyses are judged to be robust. In part this is because they were based on 5 years of pre-participation data. Moreover, these models are based on a vast array of variables including sociodemographic characteristics, location, skill level related to last occupation, and indicators of labour market attachment.
However, the matching process can be further refined for specific subgroups if the following information is available in the future:
Refining the matching process for population subgroups could broaden the scope for greater Gender-based Analysis Plus.
Sensitivity analysis and the use of alternative estimation methods have increased confidence in the incremental impact estimates. However, a limitation with the propensity score matching techniques is that no one can be fully sure the impacts are not influenced by factors not captured in the data.
The cost-benefit analysis accounted for all quantifiable costs and benefits directly attributable to the EBSMs and could be estimated with the available administrative data. It is further strengthened by incorporating one of the indirect benefits, which is the change in public health care expenditures associated with program participation. However, the analysis did not account for non-quantifiable factors that can lead to an understatement of the benefits (for example, positive spillovers to other family members) and factors that can lead to an overstatement of the benefits (for example, effects on skill prices or displacement).
In some studies that use qualitative data collection methods, the number of key informants interviewed is relatively small. Responses provided by key informants reflect their own experience and their own region and may not be fully representative of the entire province.
The findings in this report are drawn from 7 separate studies:
Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, these studies examine issues related to program effectiveness, efficiency, and design/delivery. Appendix A presents an overview of each study.
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 152,000 EI active and former claimants participated in LMDA-funded programs and services in Ontario.
The profile of participants is presented in Table 2 by gender, age, sociodemographic group, and marital status. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI Part 1 benefits. Information about sociodemographic groups is self-reported.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 86,885 | 65,104 |
| Gender: Female | 50% | 51% |
| Gender: Male | 50% | 49% |
| Age: 30 and under | 23% | 26% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 65% | 62% |
| Age: 55 and over | 12% | 12% |
| Sociodemographic group: Indigenous people | 2% | 3% |
| Sociodemographic group: Persons with disabilities | 4% | 6% |
| Sociodemographic group: Visible minorities | 4% | 6% |
| Sociodemographic group: Recent immigrants | 5% | 5% |
| Marital status: Single | 35% | 39% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 46% | 42% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 15% | 14% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 40% | 41% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 20% | 24% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 26% | 24% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 6% | 5% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 22
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants
As presented in Table 3, in the year before program participation, former claimants had lower levels of employment and earnings than active claimants. Former claimants also had a higher use of SA.
| Pre-EBSM participation employment characteristics | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Average employment earnings | $26,534 | $11,634 |
| Percentage employed | 99% | 79% |
| Percentage on SA | 7% | 17% |
Overall, incremental impacts demonstrate that participation in most EBSMs improves labour market attachment and reduces dependence on government income support compared to similar non-participants. This excludes former claimants who participated in SD.
With the exception of former claimants who participated in SD, the incremental impact results presented below are generally consistent with those found as part of the second LMDA evaluation cycle.
The incremental impacts presented in this report compare the change in incidence of employment, earnings, use of EI and SA benefits, and dependence on government income support from the pre-program participation period to the post-program participation period for participants relative to similar non-participants. The results reflect the difference between the pre to post-participation change for participants and the change for similar non-participants.
The pre-participation period consists of the 5 years before participation and the post-participation period consists of the 4 years after participation (5 years in the case of EAS).
Chart 1 presents the incremental impacts on the incidence of employment for active and former claimants by type of program. Footnote 23 The estimates can be interpreted as a change in the probability of being employed following participation.
Active claimants in SD, EAS, JPI and OJCP increased their incidence of employment relative to similar non-participants. Former claimants in JPI increased their incidence of employment relative to similar participants who only received EAS. Footnote 24
Chart 2 presents the average annual change in employment earnings for active and former EI claimants over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). Active EI claimants in SD, EAS, JPI, and OJCP increased their annual employment earnings compared to similar non-participants.
Former EI claimants in JPI and OJCP increased their annual employment earnings relative to similar participants who only received EAS. Former claimants in SD had lower employment earnings compared to similar participants who only received EAS.
As shown in Chart 3, active claimants in SD and EAS reduced their use of EI benefits in the post-program period. Relative to similar participants who only received EAS, former claimants in SD reduced their EI benefits use, while former claimants OJCP increased their use of EI benefits.
From a cost-benefit perspective, the increase in the use of EI by former claimant participants in OJCP is not necessarily a negative impact given their increased employment earnings. Following participation, former claimants are likely to requalify for EI benefits due to their stronger labour market attachment demonstrated by increases in employment and earnings.
As shown in Chart 4, compared to similar non-participants, active EI claimant participants in OJCP decreased their use of SA benefits in the post-program period.
Former EI claimant participants in JPI and OJCP decreased their use of SA benefits compared to similar participants who only received EAS.
Chart 5 presents the change in the annual average percentage of participants who used government income support from the pre-participation period to the post-participation period, relative to similar non-participants. As shown in Chart 5, compared to similar non-participants, a smaller proportion of active claimant participants in SD, EAS, JPI, and OJCP used government income support in the post-participation period. A smaller proportion of former claimant participants in JPI used government income support in the post-participation period compared to similar participants who only received EAS.
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 76,530 of the participants in Canada-Ontario LMDA-funded programs and services were female, representing about 50% of participants.
The profile of female participants is presented in Table 4. It includes their age, sociodemographic group, and marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits. Information about sociodemographic groups is self-reported.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 43,505 | 33,021 |
| Age: 30 and under | 20% | 24% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 68% | 65% |
| Age: 55 and over | 12% | 11% |
| Sociodemographic group: Indigenous people | 2% | 3% |
| Sociodemographic group: Persons with disabilities | 4% | 5% |
| Sociodemographic group: Visible minorities | 4% | 6% |
| Sociodemographic group: Recent immigrants | 4% | 5% |
| Marital status: Single | 32% | 33% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 46% | 46% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 19% | 18% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 46% | 46% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 15% | 20% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 24% | 21% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 7% | 6% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants Footnote 25
SD
JPI
OJCP
EAS
Table 5 presents detailed incremental impacts for female participants over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). For example, the results reveal that:
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants | JPI active claimants | JPI former claimants | OJCP active claimants | OJCP former claimants | EAS active claimants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 4.1 *** | -1.4 ** | 8.4 *** | 4.8 *** | 14.7 *** | 8.1 *** | 1.3 ** |
| Employment earnings ($) | -951 1 | -1,237 *** | 1,645 | 1,762 *** | 5,692 *** | 3,123 ** | 485 * |
| EI benefits ($) | -228 *** | -22 | -114 | 169 | 101 | 496 ** | -436 *** |
| SA benefits ($) | 44 * | -39 | -194 | -171 * | -651 *** | -74 | 67 *** |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -0.7 ** | -0.6 | -1.7 | -1.2 | -8.1 *** | 0.5 | -1.4 *** |
| n= | 10,135 | 5,770 | 629 | 971 | 388 | 352 | 32,314 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 75,500 of participants in Ontario were male, representing about 50% of participants.
The profile of male participants is presented in Table 6. It includes their age, sociodemographic group, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits. Information about sociodemographic groups is self-reported.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 43,380 | 32,083 |
| Age: 30 and under | 27% | 29% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 62% | 59% |
| Age: 55 and over | 12% | 13% |
| Sociodemographic group: Indigenous people | 3% | 4% |
| Sociodemographic group: Persons with disabilities | 4% | 6% |
| Sociodemographic group: Visible minorities | 4% | 5% |
| Sociodemographic group: Recent immigrants | 5% | 4% |
| Marital status: Single | 39% | 45% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 46% | 37% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 10% | 11% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 34% | 35% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 26% | 28% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 29% | 27% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 5% | 5% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants
SD
JPI
EAS
Table 7 presents detailed incremental impacts for male participants over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). For example, the results reveal that:
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants | JPI active claimants | JPI former claimants | EAS active claimants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 2.6 *** | -0.5 | 2.5 | 7.5 *** | 0.2 |
| Employment earnings ($) | 889 ** | -798 ** | 1,333 | 3,307 *** | 314 |
| EI benefits ($) | -309 *** | 1 | -86 | 39 | -570 *** |
| SA benefits ($) | -49 ** | -84 * | 68 | -270 *** | 86 *** |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -2.1 *** | -0.5 | -0.4 | -2.6 *** | -1.7 *** |
| n= | 10,460 | 4,955 | 836 | 1,205 | 31,872 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 37,200 of participants in Ontario were 30 years of age or younger when they began their program, representing about 24% of participants.
The profile of youth participants is presented in Table 8. It includes their gender, sociodemographic group, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits. Information about sociodemographic groups is self-reported.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 20,147 | 17,009 |
| Gender: Female | 43% | 46% |
| Gender: Male | 57% | 54% |
| Sociodemographic group: Indigenous people | 3% | 4% |
| Sociodemographic group: Persons with disabilities | 3% | 4% |
| Sociodemographic group: Visible minorities | 2% | 3% |
| Sociodemographic group: Recent immigrants | 3% | 4% |
| Marital status: Single | 68% | 66% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 25% | 25% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 4% | 5% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 36% | 38% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 29% | 31% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 25% | 23% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 4% | 3% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 27
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants Footnote 28
SD
JPI
EAS
Table 9 presents the detailed incremental impacts for youth over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). For example, the results reveal that:
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants | JPI active claimants | JPI former claimants | EAS active claimants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 3.5 *** | 1.2 | 4.0 | 4.4 *** | -0.1 |
| Employment earnings ($) | 1,579 *** | -416 | 876 | 1,585 * | 672 ** |
| EI benefits ($) | -185 *** | 76 | 46 | -138 | -584 *** |
| SA benefits ($) | -64 * | -61 | -184 | -237 *** | 58 *** |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -2 *** | -1 | -2 | -2.5 *** | -1.7 *** |
| n= | 4,662 | 2,264 | 420 | 819 | 14,823 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 18,300 of participants in Ontario were 55 years of age or older when they began their program, representing about 12% of participants.
The profile of older worker participants is presented in Table 10. It includes their gender, sociodemographic group, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits. Information about sociodemographic groups is self-reported.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 10,473 | 7,824 |
| Gender: Female | 51% | 48% |
| Gender: Male | 49% | 52% |
| Sociodemographic group: Indigenous people | 2% | 2% |
| Sociodemographic group: Persons with disabilities | 5% | 7% |
| Sociodemographic group: Visible minorities | 5% | 6% |
| Sociodemographic group: Recent immigrants | 2% | 2% |
| Marital status: Single | 17% | 21% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 56% | 51% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 24% | 24% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 44% | 43% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 17% | 19% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 26% | 25% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 5% | 6% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 30
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants
SD
EAS
Table 11 presents the detailed incremental impacts for older workers over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). For example, the results reveal that:
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants | EAS active claimants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 12.5 *** | -3.3 * | 1.1 * |
| Employment earnings ($) | 3,841 *** | 160 | 388 2 |
| EI benefits ($) | -120 1 | -63 | -488 *** |
| SA benefits ($) | 225 *** | 122 | 161 *** |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -0.6 | 1.5 | -1.2 *** |
| n= | 1,683 | 897 | 8,526 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 4,200 of participants in Ontario self-identified as Indigenous, representing about 3% of participants.
The profile of Indigenous participants is presented in Table 12. It includes their gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 2,039 | 2,155 |
| Gender: Female | 44% | 43% |
| Gender: Male | 56% | 57% |
| Age: 30 and under | 27% | 33% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 65% | 60% |
| Age: 55 and over | 8% | 6% |
| Marital status: Single | 44% | 51% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 35% | 29% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 16% | 12% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 36% | 35% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 26% | 30% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 28% | 28% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 5% | 4% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 32
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants Footnote 33
SD
EAS
Table 13 presents the detailed incremental impacts for Indigenous participants over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). For example, the results reveal that:
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants | EAS active claimants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 6.9 *** | 7.2 *** | 0.6 1 |
| Employment earnings ($) | 6,158 *** | 4,538 *** | 1,893 *** |
| EI benefits ($) | -41 | 229 | -160 *** |
| SA benefits ($) | -275 ** | 84 | 151 *** |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -4.7 *** | 0.4 | 0 |
| n= | 476 | 381 | 1,468 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 7,050 of participants in Ontario self-identified as persons with disabilities, representing about 5% of participants.
The profile of participants with disabilities is presented in Table 14. It includes their gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 3,448 | 3,598 |
| Gender: Female | 47% | 47% |
| Gender: Male | 53% | 53% |
| Age: 30 and under | 18% | 19% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 67% | 65% |
| Age: 55 and over | 15% | 16% |
| Marital status: Single | 41% | 45% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 35% | 33% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 20% | 17% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 41% | 41% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 24% | 27% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 24% | 22% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 5% | 5% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 35
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants Footnote 36
SD
Recent interviews with 40 service providers working with persons with disabilities reveal that a significant proportion of participants are looking or only capable of working on part-time basis. In fact, the outcome trends reveal that over 40% of persons with disabilities earn less than $10,000 per year in the 4 post-program years.
In this context, table 15 presents the detailed incremental impacts for persons with disabilities over the 4 years post-participation. The results reveal that relative to similar non-participants with disabilities, active claimants who participated in SD earn less annually (-$3,387). Other impacts were not statistically significant.
Compared to similar participants who only received EAS, former claimants who participated in SD:
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 3.9 | 5.3 * |
| Employment earnings ($) | -3,387 *** | 2,540 ** |
| EI benefits ($) | 184 | 214 |
| SA benefits ($) | 145 | -909 *** |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | 1.9 | -4.9 ** |
| n= | 419 | 310 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 7,330 of participants in Ontario were recent immigrants, representing about 5% of participants.
The profile of recent immigrant participants is presented in Table 16. It includes their gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 4,194 | 3,131 |
| Gender: Female | 46% | 56% |
| Gender: Male | 54% | 44% |
| Age: 30 and under | 16% | 20% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 80% | 76% |
| Age: 55 and over | 5% | 4% |
| Marital status: Single | 14% | 12% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 76% | 76% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 9% | 10% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 37% | 39% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 25% | 32% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 23% | 19% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 9% | 6% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 39
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants
SD
EAS
Table 17 presents the detailed incremental impacts for recent immigrants over the 4 years post-participation (5 years in the case of EAS). For example, the results reveal that relative to similar non-participants who were recent immigrants, active claimants who participated in SD:
Relative to similar participants who only received EAS, former EI claimant participants in SD experienced decrease in their employment earnings.
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants | EAS active claimants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 3.7 *** | -3.4 | 4.7 *** |
| Employment earnings ($) | -206 | -3,620 *** | 1,928 *** |
| EI benefits ($) | -239 *** | -55 | -212 *** |
| SA benefits ($) | -59 | -51 | 29 |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -1.7 *** | -1.2 1 | -0.5 ** |
| n= | 1,138 | 839 | 2,976 |
Between 2010 and 2012, nearly 7,100 of participants in Ontario self-identified as visible minorities, representing about 5% of participants.
The profile of visible minority participants is presented in Table 18. It includes their gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, occupation and industry. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI benefits.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 3,499 | 3,562 |
| Gender: Female | 50% | 53% |
| Gender: Male | 50% | 47% |
| Age: 30 and under | 11% | 14% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 74% | 72% |
| Age: 55 and over | 15% | 14% |
| Marital status: Single | 31% | 34% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 51% | 48% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 16% | 14% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 42% | 43% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 16% | 21% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 28% | 23% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 9% | 8% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants
SD
Table 19 presents the detailed incremental impacts for visible minority participants over the 4 years post-participation. The results reveal that relative to similar visible minority non-participants, active claimants, who participated in SD, improved their incidence of employment (+3.3 percentage points. They also reduced their use of EI benefits (-$300 per year). They experienced a decrease in earnings in year 1 following participation.
Compared to similar visible minority participants who only received EAS, former claimants in SD had a decrease in their average earnings (-$2,551 per year). Other impacts were not statistically significant.
| Indicator | SD active claimants | SD former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of employment (percentage points) | 3.3 * | 0.3 |
| Employment earnings ($) | -463 1 | -2,551 ** |
| EI benefits ($) | -300 ** | -56 |
| SA benefits ($) | 181 | 89 |
| Dependence on income support (percentage points) | -1 | -0.5 |
| n= | 916 | 850 |
Over time, the social benefits of participating in JPI, OJCP and EAS exceeded the initial investment costs for program participants. However, it takes 19.1 years to recover the initial investment in SD for active claimants. As well, the investments in SD for former claimants may not be recovered.
This analysis is based on the EBSM medium-term incremental impacts previously described in this report. Costs and benefits are examined over the participation period of 1 or 2 years and 5, or 10 years after the end of participation. Footnote 42
The cost-benefit analysis addresses the following questions:
Table 20 presents the cost-benefit results for active and former EI claimant participants. The results are presented from the social perspective, that is, the government and individual perspectives combined. This allows for a sound assessment of program effectiveness in achieving its objectives of helping unemployed individuals to obtain and maintain employment and to generate EI savings.
| Indicator | SD active claimants (10 years post-program) | JPI active claimants (5 years post-program) | OJCP active claimants (5 years post-program) | EAS active claimants (5 years post-program) | JPI former claimants (5 years post-program) | OJCP former claimants (5 years post-program |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net present value | -$15,932 | $10,348 | -$3,546 | -$2,562 | $14,568 | -$12,804 |
| Benefit cost ratio | -$0.30 | $2.64 | $0.76 | $0.23 | $3.78 | -$0.08 |
| Payback period (years after end of participation) | 19.1 | 1.6 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 12.4 | |
| Social return | -130% | 164% | -24% | -77% | 278% | -108% |
| Savings to public health care | $21 | $152 | $137 | -$33 | $185 | $22 |
The information below provides examples of the net present value, the benefit-cost ratio, the payback period, the social rate of return and savings to health care costs.
During the 2010 to 2012 period, SD represented approximately 43% of EBSM expenditures under the LMDA in Ontario. The average duration of a SD Action Plan Equivalent is 53 weeks for active claimants and 51 weeks for former claimants.
Table 20 includes the cost-benefit analysis results for active and former EI claimant participants in SD. For example, over the 10 year post-program period, for active EI claimant participants, the investment costs exceeded the benefits by $15,932, yielding a social return on investment of -130%. This means that if the government spends $1 on SD for active EI claimants, it generates a loss of -$0.30 for society. Footnote 45 From a social perspective, it takes 19.1 years for the benefits to recover the costs of programming. Overall, there is a savings to health care costs of $21 per participant.
During the 2010 to 2012 period, JPI represent 1% of total LMDA-funded EBSM expenditures In Ontario. The average duration of a JPI Action Plan Equivalent is 32 weeks for active claimants and 24 weeks for former claimants.
Table 20 includes the cost-benefit analysis results for active and former EI claimant participants in JPI. For example, over the 5 year post-program period, for former EI claimant participants, the benefit is $14,568 greater than the cost, yielding a social return on investment of 278%. This means that if the government spends $1 on JPI for former claimants, it generates $3.78 of benefit for society. From a societal perspective, the costs were recovered during the first year of program participation. Overall, there is a savings to health care costs of $185 per participant.
During the 2010 to 2012 period, OJCP represented 1% of the total EBSM expenditures In Ontario. The average duration of an OJCP Action Plan Equivalent is 37 weeks for active claimants and 31 weeks for former claimants.
In addition to helping participants obtain work experience in the funded projects, OJCP also benefits the communities where the projects are implemented. However, community impacts are not accounted for in this cost-benefit analysis since they are not captured in the administrative data and are difficult to quantify. Accordingly, the benefits from the social perspective are likely underestimated.
Table 20 includes the cost-benefit analysis results for active and former EI claimant participants in OJCP. For example, over the 5 year post-program period, for former EI claimant participants, the benefits of delivering OJCP were $12,804 lower than the costs 5 years after the end of participation, yielding a return on investment of -108%. This means that if the government spends $1 on OJCP programming, it generates an additional loss of $0.08 for society. From a social perspective, it takes 12.4 years to recover the costs of OJCP for former EI claimant participants. Overall, there is a savings to health care costs of $22 per participant.
EAS includes a variety of services such as computer access for job search services, group sessions to prepare for an interview, career counselling, and action plan development. The administrative data, however, do not allow to identify what proportion of EAS interventions belong to each category or the intensity of services offered to participants.
While EAS are often provided with other EBSMs, this analysis examined only participants who received 1 or more EAS without participating in other EBSMs. EAS represented about 46% of total EBSM expenditures between 2010 and 2012.
As shown in Table 20, over the 5 year post-program period, the benefits of delivering EAS were $2,562 lower than the costs 5 years after the end of participation, yielding a return on investment of -77%. This means that if the government spends $1 on EAS programming, society recovers only $0.23 by the fifth year after participation. From a social perspective, it takes 6.6 years to recover the costs of EAS for former EI claimant participants. No savings to health care costs (-33) were found.
Overall, the goal of EAS is not to help participants acquire more skills, therefore, increasing participants' earnings after participation is not necessarily expected. Conducting a cost-benefit analysis for EAS is a challenge as it is not possible to attribute a dollar figure to the return to employment. However, including earnings in the cost-benefit calculation is still very relevant since it captures partially the positive impact of the quicker return to work.
The OJCP program is designed to support projects that create jobs that will provide insured participants with opportunities to gain meaningful and recent work experience. Project activities should benefit both the participant and the community; however, the primary focus must be on the participant, not the sponsor or the community.
Participants receive benefits from EI Part I or II. Footnote 48 Benefits to participants follow the prevailing wage rate, up to the maximum EI weekly benefit rate. Sponsors/employers are encouraged to provide a top-up to bridge any gap between the maximum benefit rate and the prevailing wage for the work being performed.
OJCP is delivered through the provision of funds to organizations that implement a community-benefiting project while providing work experience to participants.
The design and delivery of OJCP allows the Ontario to address a variety of barriers to employment experienced by its residents. OJCP can also be used to address labour market needs by targeting sub-groups of individuals, in-demand professions or economic sectors, and specific communities.
Program managers reported that the low level of funding allocated to OJCP is influenced by a lack of promotion of OJCP to organizations, previous unspent budget, the perceived lower value of OJCP, and by the funding of other LMDA programs being prioritized over OJCP.
In addition to gaining work experience, key informants identified a variety of other benefits that can be expected from OJCP projects. For example, participants are expected to develop work-related skills, enhance their job search abilities and improve their personal well-being.
Project holders can benefit from OJCP by increasing their organizational capacity, implementing their projects and expanding their portfolio of services provided. At the community level, projects can support the local economy and provide new assets (such as, restored buildings and development of hiking trails).
Key informants identify challenges related to:
Key informants identify the following elements as contributing factors to participants' success:
The following consideration emerge as part of the OJCP study.
The program could benefit from increased promotion or changes to the benefit structure in order to attract more job seekers.
Participant recruitment was reported to be a challenge by key informants, despite positive outcomes of the program. Key informants reported that recruitment was hindered by the lack of promotion to job seekers, the difficulty of finding EI eligible clients and the low level of financial support available to participants.
Ontario designed 6 LMP programs that collectively aim to assist employers, communities and industries to address their labour force adjustments and human resource needs. They include a range of funded activities, such as:
Labour Market Partnerships is 1 type of support measures delivered under the LMDAs. In 2020 to 2021, Ontario spent nearly $85 million (including administrative costs) on Labour Market Partnerships, which represented 11% of the Canada-Ontario LMDA funding envelope.
Funded organizations include:
Funded projects target current and/or forecasted skills and/or labour shortages. These projects also target unemployment in specific subpopulations such as women, youth, Indigenous peoples, newcomers, persons with disabilities, the self-employed, and those who will soon be laid-off.
Generally, funded projects target labour market issues associated with:
All projects reviewed were aligned with program objectives and eligible activities.
Ontario ministries and program officials confirmed that regional/local program officials carried out activities to support the formation and maintenance of partnerships (with sector and community stakeholders) as a part of the LMP programs design and delivery.
Key informants explained that partners' expertise, network and financial contribution are all essential or beneficial to project implementation and success.
The document review of 17 projects confirmed that:
Ontario ministries and key informants identified challenges related to:
Actions of program officials and project characteristics that are conducive to the success of the program included:
In Ontario, Research and Innovation is used to enable innovation in the employment and training system and to explore new ways of providing employment and training supports to employers, workers, and job seekers, including those who are not currently supported by other LMDA funded programs and services.
Between 2014 and 2020, the annual budget allocated to Research and Innovation in Ontario has varied from 3% to 17%. Program officials report that the amount allocated to Research and Innovation is not fixed and is influenced by the province's workforce development priorities and the need to complement existing services.
Funded organizations include:
Research and Innovation projects encompassed a variety of activities including:
Approaches or practices are considered innovative if they are:
Innovation can come in response to external forces, including labour market shocks, or as a result of internal review and/ or changing priorities. Most often, programs that are assessed to be innovative are pilot projects or are time-limited.
Ontario requires some funded projects to disseminate their findings, lessons learned and results. These can be disseminated across provincial ministries, to service provider networks, and to the broader public. Dissemination activities can include, for example:
Research and Innovation project are subject to different performance measurement requirements. Most are required to submit interim and final reports on project outcomes. Some are also evaluated by the provincial government.
Project documents and program officials identified challenges related to the testing and identification of innovative approaches including:
In relation to factors contributing to successful testing and identification of innovative approaches, program officials highlighted the need to:
The objective of the program is to help apprentices become skilled tradespeople and to increase their labour market attachment. Program participants have generally chosen a career and are already attached to the labour market. The apprenticeship process involves on-the-job learning and technical training in a classroom setting.
Apprentices who have worked enough hours to qualify for EI can apply to receive EI Part I benefits while on training. The program provides financial assistance to EI eligible apprentices to help them offset the costs they incur while they attend technical training. The level of funding is based on the needs of apprentices, the location of the training, and any fees paid by the apprentices. Footnote 52
The profile of program participants is presented in Table 21 by gender, age, sociodemographic group, and marital status. Information about their educational attainment, occupation and industry is based on the last job they held prior to applying for EI Part 1 benefits. Information about sociodemographic groups is self-reported.
| Categories | Active claimants | Former claimants |
|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 12,016 | 6,247 |
| Gender: Female | 5% | 11% |
| Gender: Male | 95% | 89% |
| Age: 30 and under | 79% | 74% |
| Age: 31 to 54 | 21% | 25% |
| Age: 55 and over | 0% | 0% |
| Sociodemographic group: Indigenous people | 1% | 2% |
| Sociodemographic group: Persons with disabilities | 0% | 1% |
| Sociodemographic group: Visible minorities | 5% | 8% |
| Sociodemographic group: Recent immigrants | 1% | 1% |
| Marital status: Single | 70% | 64% |
| Marital status: Married or common-law | 26% | 30% |
| Marital status: Widow / divorced / separated | 2% | 3% |
| Education or skills level: High school or occupational training | 4% | 10% |
| Education or skills level: On-the-job training | 8% | 12% |
| Education or skills level: College, vocational education or apprenticeship training | 87% | 77% |
| Education or skills level: University degree | 0% | 0% |
Top 3 occupational groups for EBSMs participants Footnote 53
Top 3 industries for EBSMs participants
The labour market outcomes are based on individuals who began their participation during the 2010 to 2012 period. Statistics focus on 5 years before program participation and 5 years after the program start year.
As shown in Chart 6, program participants increase their average earnings from $18,448 in the fifth year pre-program to $56,257 in the fifth year after the program start year.
The proportion of employed participants declines gradually after the program start year but remains around 97%. The proportion of participants on EI Part I decreases from 100% in the program start year to 23% in the fifth year after the program start year. Participants decrease their dependence on income support from 23% in the program start year to 4% in the fifth year after participation.
As shown in Chart 7, program participants increased their average earnings from $20,125 in the fifth year pre-program to $55,581 in the fifth year after the program start year.
The proportion of employed participants declined by 1 percentage points annually after the program start year but remained at 93% 5 years after program start. The proportion of participants on EI Part I decreased from 62% in the program start year to 18% in the fifth year after the program start year. Participants decreased their dependence on income support from 13% in the program start year to 3% in the fifth year after participation.
The LMDAs are the largest annual investment in active labour market programs and services in Canada. Based on the findings presented in this report, the EBSMs are meeting the objective of assisting individuals to obtain or keep employment through various active employment programs, including training or employment assistance services.
Overall, incremental impacts demonstrate that participation in most EBSMs improves labour market attachment and reduces dependence on government income support compared to similar non-participants. A subgroup analyses shows that, with some exceptions:
Over time, the social benefits of participating in JPI exceeded the initial investment costs for both active and former EI claimant participants. However, by the end of the post-program period, Footnote 54 the costs were found to exceed the benefits for active EI claimant participants in SD, OJCP, and EAS, and for former claimants in OJCP.
A series of supplemental studies address information gaps previously identified in LMDA evaluations for Ontario Job Creation Partnerships, Labour Market Partnerships, Research and Innovation, and SD-Apprentices. Each study identified lessons learned, best practices and challenges. When relevant, studies included considerations for policy design and development. Overall, it was found that:
Since 2012, 15 qualitative and quantitative studies addressed issues and questions related to EBSM design, delivery and effectiveness:
The recently completed evaluation of the Workforce Development Agreements complements the LMDA qualitative studies. This evaluation was also supported by literature reviews and provided unique insights into challenges and lessons learned to assist persons with disabilities, immigrants and those further removed from the labour market.
Most results from this evaluation stem from the conduct of advance causal analysis whereby impacts found could be attributed to a specific EBSM. These analyses are predicated on having access to high quality administrative records, thereby confirming the importance of the capacity to leverage and integrate relevant administrative data.
From these main findings, 2 key recommendations emerge:
Ontario is encouraged to share and discuss lessons learned, best practices and challenges associated with the design and delivery of programs and services. Discussions are encouraged with ESDC, at the bilateral or multilateral levels as well as with service delivery network if necessary.
Recommendation #2
Ontario is encouraged to pursue efforts to maintain and strengthen data collection provisions in support of reporting, performance measurement and data-driven evaluations at the national and provincial levels.
Allin, S., Corscadden, L., Gapanenko, K., and Grignon, M. Lifetime Distributional Effects of Publicly Financed Health Care in Canada. CIHI, 2013.
Athey, S., and Imbens, G. Machine Learning Methods Economists Should Know About. Annual Review of Economics, 2019.
Douwere G. and Huju Liu. The Entry into and Exit out of Self-employment and Business Ownership in Canada. Statistics Canada, 2018.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Third Cycle for the Horizontal Evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Employment Benefits and Support Measures in Ontario. Internal document, 2022.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Cycle II of the Evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Employment Benefits and Support Measures in Ontario. Internal document, 2015.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Design and delivery of the Ontario Job Creation Partnerships program. Internal document, 2019.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Reports. 2011 to 2022.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Horizontal evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements, Design and delivery of the Labour Market Partnerships program in Ontario. Internal document, 2021.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Labour Market Development Agreements Process for Determination of Similarity. Internal document, 2012.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Evaluation of the Canada-Ontario Labour Market Development Agreements – Cycle III: Examination of the medium-term outcomes from 2010 to 2017. Internal document, 2021.
Employment and Social Development Canada. Third Cycle for the Horizontal Evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements: Quantitative Methodology Report. Internal document, 2019.
Overview of studies included in this synthesis report
Study 1: Examination of medium-term outcomes from 2010 to 2017
Evidence generated: profile of active and former EI claimants in Ontario; outcomes by claimant type and by subgroup
Methods: before and after results of program participation
Reference period: 2010 to 2012 participants
Observation period: up to 12 years (5 years before participation, 1 to 2 years of participation, and 5 years after participation)
Study 2: Estimation of medium-term incremental impacts from 2010 to 2017
Evidence generated: incremental impacts for active and former EI claimants in Ontario; incremental impacts by subgroup; profile and socio-demographic characteristics of participants
Methods: non-experimental method using propensity score matching in combination with Difference-in-Differences; statistical profiling
Reference period: 2010 to 2012 participants
Observation period: up to 7 years (1 to 2 years in program, and up to 5 years after participation)
Study 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Employment Benefits and Support Measures in Ontario
Evidence generated: cost-benefit analysis
Methods: non-experimental method using propensity score matching in combination with Difference-in-Differences; cost analysis
Reference period: 2010 to 2012 participants
Observation period: 5 years post-program for JPI, OJCP and EAS; 10 years post-program for SD
Study 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis: Incorporating Public Health Care Costs Savings in the Context of the Ontario Labour Market Programs Evaluation
Evidence generated: cost-benefit analysis
Methods: estimation of adjusted annualized healthcare costs
Reference period: 2010 to 2012 participants
Observation period: 5 years post-program for JPI, OJCP and EAS; 10 years post-program for SD
Study 5: Design and delivery of the Ontario Job Creation Partnerships program
Evidence generated: program design and delivery; challenges and lessons learned
Methods: non-experimental approach (from cycle II); statistical analysis; document review; 10 semi-structured telephone interviews with 21 key informants
Reference period: 2015 to 2017 participants
Observation period: 2015 to 2019
Study 6: Design and delivery of the Labour Market Partnerships program in Ontario
Evidence generated: program design and delivery; challenges and lessons learned
Methods: document review; questionnaire completed by 2 Ontario Ministries; 8 interviews with 10 key informants in Ontario
Reference period: 2018 to 2020
Observation period: design and delivery at the time of the data collection
Study 7: Design and delivery of the Research and Innovation Support measure in Ontario
Evidence generated: program design and delivery; challenges and lessons learned
Methods: document review; questionnaire completed by provincial program officials
Reference period: 2017 to 2020
Observation period: design and delivery at the time of the data collection
The average cost for SD includes the cost of delivering SD-Regular and SD-Apprentices. It is not possible to estimate the cost of delivering SD-Regular alone because expenditure information is not available separately.
Labour Market Partnerships and Research and Innovation do not typically have participant specific interventions.
Former claimants can be underemployed and unable to requalify for EI, out of the labour force for various reasons or on SA.
The cost-benefit analysis for SD is based on the cost of delivering SD to both SD-Regular and SD-Apprentices since expenditure information is not available for each intervention type separately. However, the benefits are those that relate solely to participation in SD-Regular.
The cost-benefit analysis for SD is based on the cost of delivering SD to both SD-Regular and SD-Apprentices since expenditure information is not available for each intervention type separately. However, the benefits are those that relate solely to participation in SD-Regular.
Employment and Social Development Canada. (2022). 2020 and 2021 EI Monitoring and Assessment Report.
As of April 1, 2018, eligibility for employment benefits was expanded to include those who have made minimum EI premium contributions above the premium refund threshold (that is $2,000 in earnings) in at least 5 of the last 10 years.
In July 2016, new provisions were introduced, changing the definition of former claimants to cover those who completed an EI claim in the past 5 years.
Employment Assistance Services are available to all Canadians.
Employment and Social Development Canada (2012). Labour Market Development Agreements Process for Determination of Similarity (internal document).
Former claimants can be underemployed and unable to requalify for EI, out of the labour force for various reasons or on SA.
The average cost for SD includes the cost of delivering SD-Regular and SD-Apprentices. It is not possible to estimate the cost of delivering SD-Regular alone because expenditure information is not available for SD-Regular and SD-Apprentices separately.
Labour Market Partnerships and Research and Innovation do not typically have participant specific interventions.
For more details about the methodology used for the incremental impacts, please refer to: ESDC, Third Cycle for the Horizontal Evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements: Quantitative Methodology Report. (ESDC Evaluation Directorate, 2019, internal document).
Examples of socio-demographic variables used to match participants with similar non-participants include age, gender, number of dependents, highest level of education, and location. Examples of labour market-variables include pre-program participation earnings, incidence of employment, and use of EI and SA benefits.
This is based on previous evaluation methodologies, on expert advice and given the difficulty in generating a suitable comparison for former claimants using administrative data alone.
Further details are available in the report entitled Technical Report on the Analysis of Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs) Profile, Outcomes and Medium-Term Incremental Impacts from 2010 to 2017 (2021). The report is available upon request.
Further details about the methodology used for the cost-benefit analysis are available in the technical report entitled Cycle II of the Evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Employment Benefits and Support Measures (2015). The report is available upon request.
Further details about the methodology used for the savings to health care are available in the technical report entitled Cost-Benefit Analysis: Incorporating Public Health Care Costs Savings in the Context of the Labour Market Programs Evaluation (2022). The report is available upon request.
Skills price refers to the market value (wages paid) for a given skill. Changes in the supply of a given skill in the labour force can have an impact on the wages paid for that skill.
Further details are available in the report entitled Technical Report on the Analysis of Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs) Profile, Outcomes and Medium-Term Incremental Impacts from 2010 to 2017 (2021). The report is available upon request.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
An individual is considered employed if earns more than $1 from employment or self-employment in a calendar year.
The estimate for former claimants who participated in SD and OJCP were not statistically significant.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more industries, all are listed.
Incremental impacts were not estimated for OJCP due to insufficient numbers of participants.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more industries, all are listed.
Incremental impacts were not estimated for OJCP due to insufficient numbers of participants.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
Incremental impacts were not estimated for JPI and OJCP due to insufficient numbers of participants.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more industries, all are listed.
Incremental impacts were not estimated for JPI and OJCP due to insufficient numbers of participants.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more industries, all are listed.
Incremental impacts were not estimated for JPI, OJCP and EAS due to insufficient numbers of participants.
For the purposes of this evaluation, recent immigrants are defined as individuals who immigrated to Canada within 5 years of EBSM participation.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
Incremental impacts were not estimated for JPI and OJCP due to insufficient numbers of participants.
Please note, due to the small number of participants, incremental impacts could not be estimated for participants in JPI, OJCP and EAS.
EAS is examined for 1 participation year, while SD, JPI, and OJCP are examined for 2 participation years. Moreover, JPI, OJCP, and EAS are examined over 5 post-program years, while SD is examined over 10 years (the first 4 post-program years are based on an observed period, while the fifth year and onwards are projected).
Cost benefits results for former EI claimant participants in SD are not presented. Given that incremental impact results for employment earnings were negative for these participants, cost benefit analysis results would also be negative.
The cost of delivering SD pertains to both SD-Regular and SD-Apprentices since expenditure information is not available for each intervention type separately. However, the benefits detailed in this report are those that relate solely to participation in SD-Regular.
In other words, 10 years post-participation, the invested dollar is not recovered and an additional $0.30 is lost.
The cost-benefit analysis is conducted only for EAS active claimants, since it is not possible to estimate the incremental impacts for EAS former claimants using available administrative data.
Findings presented in this section are based on a study entitled Design and delivery of the Ontario Job Creation Partnerships program, June 4, 2019.
As specified by the EI Act, Part I refers to federally delivered direct income support and Part II refers to provincially or territorially delivered employment benefits.
Findings presented in this section are based on a study entitled Horizontal evaluation of the Labour Market Development Agreements, Design and delivery of the Labour Market Partnerships programs in Ontario, September 17, 2021.
Findings in this section are based on a document review complemented by a written questionnaire completed by Ontario. Reviewed documents included, for example, provincial/territorial program guidelines, EI Monitoring and Assessment reports, and project documents.
This section presents SD-Apprentices findings from the following internal report: Evaluation of the Canada-Ontario Labour Market Development Agreements – Cycle III: Examination of the medium-term outcomes from 2010 to 2017.
Funding is generally attributed based on fixed rates.
When the same percentage of participants worked in 2 or more occupational groups, all are listed.
JPI, OJCP, and EAS were examined for 5 years post-participation, while SD was examined for 10 years post-participation.
