Evaluation of the Career Transition Assistance Initiative

Objective

The purpose of the CTA initiative was to improve the re-employability of long-tenured workers by creating incentives for them to invest in training.

Specifically, the purpose of the EEITI was to test whether increasing the duration of EI regular benefits would encourage long-tenured workers to enter longer term training and whether this training would facilitate their reintegration into sustainable employment. The purpose of the SITI was to encourage long-tenured workers who received separation payments to finance their own training by providing earlier access to EI regular benefits.

It was originally estimated that approximately 40,000 claimants would participate in the EEITI and that approximately 10,000 claimants would benefit from the SITI, which translated into a take-up rate of about 7%. Soon after the implementation of the CTA initiative, the target for both the EEITI and SITI combined was reduced to between 16,000 and 20,000 individuals.

Eligibility criteria

The CTA initiative was offered to EI claimants who met the definition of a long-tenured worker and who established a claim between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010.

A long-tenured worker is someone who:

• has contributed to the EI program (paid at least 30% of the annual maximum EI premiums) for at least seven out of the ten calendar years immediately preceding the start date of the EI claim; and
• has received no more than 35 weeks of EI regular benefits in the five years immediately preceding the start date of the EI claim.

All long-tenured workers who established a claim between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010 received a Service Canada letter notifying them of their eligibility for the CTA initiative. The letter provided information on the EEITI and SITI and encouraged claimants to visit their local employment service provider for more information. With the assistance of their local service provider, interested claimants identified appropriate training and established a Return to Work Action Plan (RTWAP) ^{Footnote 13} and/or received a referral under Section 25 of the EI Act ^{Footnote 14} .

To participate in the EEITI claimants had to establish a RTWAP within the first 20 weeks of their claim or before August 23, 2009 for claims that started before the implementation of the CTA initiative (May 31, 2009). Moreover, to be eligible for the EEITI, the training had to meet the following criteria:

• be full-time;
• last for 20 weeks or more;
• be purchased by participants or financed by the P/T s under EI Part II; and
• start within the first 52 weeks of the claimant's benefit period.

To benefit from the SITI, claimants had to receive separation payments and a Section 25 referral for eligible training had to be given within the period of allocation of severance monies, or within 6 weeks of notice of allocation for claimants whose allocation of separation monies was 5 weeks or less. In addition, the training had to meet the following criteria:

• be full-time;
• last at least 10 weeks or if the training was less than 10 weeks in duration, the course had to cost a minimum of $5,000 or 80% of the separation payments;
• be purchased by participants; and
• start within the first 52 weeks of the claimant's benefit period.

Q-1: Do long-tenured workers take more time to secure new employment than non long-tenured workers?

There is a lack of literature in Canada and elsewhere focusing on the unemployment experience of long-tenured workers. Nonetheless, there are two Canadians studies on the unemployment durations of related population (i.e. population likely to meet the definition of long-tenured workers) that suggest that long-tenured workers are likely to suffer from longer periods of unemployment.

Brozozowski & Crossley (2010) examined the situation of older workers who became unemployed in 1995. They found that relative to their younger counterparts (35-49 years), older job-losers (50-64 years) had longer initial spells of joblessness. The mean difference (which was calculated using completed spells) was over three weeks (14.9 versus 11.3 weeks), and was statistically significant. The median difference (which was calculated using complete and incomplete spells) was considerably larger and again strongly statistically significant (29.7 versus 17.0 weeks). The fraction employed at the second interview (approximately one year after the job loss) was also significantly higher for the mid-career job losers (54% versus 43%).

Bernard (2009) analysed the situation of job losers in the manufacturing sector. The author found that in 2008, the average expected duration of a new unemployment spell was slightly longer for manufacturing workers (11.8 weeks) than for non-manufacturing workers (9.7 weeks). This difference persisted even after controlling for age and sex differences between the two sectors.

Q-2: Are long-tenured workers typically able to find new jobs that paid earnings comparable to their old jobs?

The best Canadian evidence on that question comes from Morisette, Zhang and Frenette (2007), Schirle (2007) and Gray and Finnie (2009). The balance of findings is that many displaced workers cannot avoid an earnings loss. These losses are substantial for workers who had built up significant tenure in the pre-displacement job. Numerically, an overall figure would be around 25-30% for those with at least five years of tenure with a lower figure of perhaps 20% for all displaced workers at all seniority levels. Moreover, such earnings losses are typically long-lived, with no sign in the data that they dissipate even five years after the displacement.

Q-3: Do long-tenured workers need skills upgrading to deal with their earning losses?

Recent qualitative evidence suggests that some long-tenured workers need skill upgrading to find employment with earnings comparable to their pre-displacement wages. Long-tenured workers who participated in the focus groups held for the evaluation of the EEILTW (non CTA participants) discussed the challenges faced specifically by long-tenured workers when unemployed. Participants who had worked in manufacturing jobs that did not exist anymore mentioned the need to retrain for two or three years to obtain permanent employment at a salary level similar to what they had earned. Older participants noted the need for acquiring the credentials they did not have (and did not need when they first entered the workforce) but that were now required in their field or industry.

While there might be a need for training, it is not clear whether training investment does help long-tenured workers recover their pre-displacement wages. The impacts of training participation on labour markets outcomes of EI claimants (e.g. re-employment probabilities and earnings) are assessed as part of evaluations of the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) conducted jointly by ESDC and the P/Ts on a regular basis. Forthcoming results for the population of long-tenured workers will help address the question of the effectiveness of training for this specific population.

The most credible evaluation literature (mostly American) on training programs for displaced workers suggests however that this type of intervention is relatively ineffective. Findings from a recent Canadian study are nevertheless encouraging. Frenette, Upward and Wright (2011) found that workers who attended post-secondary education shortly after displacement saw their earnings increase by almost $7,000 more than displaced workers who did not. However, no significant effects were found for men aged 35 to 44 years.

Q-4: Are there positive social benefits to investment in training for long-tenured workers? Are these benefits sufficient to justify public investment in training?

There are several reasons to believe that the social benefits of training exceed the private gains. For example, when job losses are concentrated in particular communities or regions, training participation can reduce the congestion effect that makes job search difficult. Training can also reduce reliance on EI and income assistance. Moreover, training can have wider effects such as reducing illegal activity and increasing community participation.

However, it is also possible that the private gains from training exceed the social benefits. The main reason for this stems from substitution (or "displacement" in a different sense), whereby trainees outcompete and substitute for non-trainees in jobs, achieving private gains with little or no overall social benefit in terms of improved employment.

These outcomes are however difficult to measure and credible evidence on the subject is limited.

Q-5: Are long-tenured workers facing barriers to investment in training? Do these barriers justify government's intervention?

A leading reason why there may be barriers to human capital investments in education and training is the existence of credit constraints ^{Footnote 15} . There is mixed evidence on the importance of credit constraints for displaced workers.

Chapman, Crossley and Kim (2007) provide relatively direct evidence that credit constraint can limit investment in training among the unemployed in Canada. The authors however note that credit constraints are not the main reason why job losers do not undergo self-financed training. Rather, respondents indicated "doesn't need it" or "won't change job prospects" as reasons for not participating in training.

Results from the 2010 COEP survey support this finding as the main reasons given for a lack of interest in the CTA initiative were not related to credit constraints. Only 5% of respondents indicated that they did not participate in the CTA initiative for financial reasons, or because a lack of money prevented it (see Q-20).

On the other hand, the majority of participants to the CTA focus groups said that they would not have trained without the CTA initiative because they could not afford an extended period of time with no income.

Q-6: Is government support offered to long-tenured workers pursuing significant training consistent with federal roles and responsibilities?

Part I of the EI program provides temporary financial assistance to workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own while they look for work or upgrade their skills. In other words, Part I subsidizes job search and career development by providing temporary income support to eligible unemployed individuals.

The provision of EI benefits under Part I support ESDC's Strategic Outcome 1: A skilled, adaptable and inclusive labour force and an efficient labour market.

By providing additional EI Part I benefits to eligible unemployed individuals who invested in training, the CTA initiative aimed at improving the re-employability of unemployed long-tenured claimants. The approach and objective of the CTA initiative are consequently consistent with the purpose of the EI program and ESDC's strategic outcomes.

Q-7: Were eligible long-tenured workers aware of the CTA initiative?

About a year after their job loss, long-tenured workers who did not participate in the CTA initiative were asked, as part of the COEP survey, if they were aware of the initiative. About half (51.6%) of non-participants responded that they were not aware of the CTA initiative. This figure might however capture problems in recall and underestimate the awareness of the CTA initiative.

Nevertheless, about 69% of non-participants who were not aware of the CTA initiative said that they would have been interested in participating in the initiative. This number suggests that participation in the CTA initiative could have been higher. It is however likely that less respondents would have shown an interest in the initiative if they had been told about the CTA requirements (i.e. course intensity, duration, start date, etc.).

Q-8: What percentage of those eligible participated in the CTA initiative?

During the in-take period of the CTA initiative (from May 31, 2009 and May 29, 2010), 627,040 claimants were eligible to participate in the initiative and 61,555 were potentially eligible ^{Footnote 16} . All of these 688,595 claimants were notified of their status via letter by Service Canada.

Table 2 shows that among these 688,595 claimants, 11,356 enrolled in the CTA initiative, for a take-up rate of 1.6% (or 1.8% if potentially eligible claimants are not counted). The CTA initiative was more prevalent in the Atlantic Provinces (with the exception of Newfoundland), Quebec and Manitoba where the take up rate was above 2%. The lowest participation rates were observed in Alberta (0.6%) and the Northwest Territories (0.1%).

Table 2 also shows that more long-tenured workers chose to participate in other training than in CTA training. The take-up rate of other training was 6.7% compared to 1.6% for CTA training. Other training programs were, on average, shorter in duration (see Table 5) which might explain why many long-tenured workers opted to train outside the CTA initiative.

Nevertheless, Table 3 shows that for some categories of training, more long-tenured workers participated in the CTA initiative than in other training. This was the case for training that lasted between 40 and 89 weeks. Overall, the take-up rate of CTA training that was between 40 and 89 weeks in duration was 0.8% (5,804 participants) compared to 0.5% (3,303 participants) for other training of similar duration.

Source: EI Data Files (August 2012 update) - All claims established by long-tenured workers (LTW) and potential LTW between January 25, 2009 and May 30, 2010.

Source: EI Data Files (August 2012 update) - All claims established by long-tenured workers (LTW) and potential LTW between January 25, 2009 and May 30, 2010.

As shown in Table 4, participation in the CTA initiative was mainly driven by participation in the EEITI. The vast majority of CTA participants (93.6%) trained under the EEITI, 5.5% took advantage of both the SITI and the EEITI, and 0.9% participated in the SITI only.

Among the 6.7% of long-tenured workers who pursued training outside the CTA initiative, the majority (about 69%) participated in the Skills Development (SD) program and benefited from the financial assistance provided under this program by the provinces and territories.

Only 1.9% of long-tenured workers took non-referred training and did not receive financial support through EI for their training.

Source: EI Data Files (August 2012 update) - All claims established by long-tenured workers (LTW) and potential LTW between January 25, 2009 and May 30, 2010.

Q-9: What is the detailed profile of CTA participants?

The typical CTA participant was:

• male (representing 57% of participants),
• living in Ontario (37%) or Quebec (34%),
• aged between 30 and 49 years old (71%),
• married or in a common law relationship (67%),
• holding a college, trade or professional degree (39%),
• first time EI user (51%),
• had less than five years of job tenure (78%),
• was previously working full-time (96%) as a permanent employee (94%) in the manufacturing (29%) or trade and transport (22%) industries.

When compared to the general population of long-tenured workers, the following groups were over-represented among CTA participants:

• Women represented 43.0% of CTA participants but only 34.0% of long-tenured workers;
• Individuals aged 30 to 49 years old (70.9% vs. 55.6%);
• Residents from the Atlantic Provinces (8.7% vs. 6.3%), Quebec (34.0% vs. 25.3%) and Manitoba (4.6% vs. 2.7%);
• First time claimants (50.9% vs. 47.8%);
• Claimants with at least five consecutive years of job tenure with the previous employer (21.2% vs. 17.8%);
• College, trade or professional degree holders (39.4% vs. 27.2%);
• Former permanent employees (94.0% vs. 85.2%);
• Former workers from the manufacturing (28.7% vs. 19.0%) and trade and transport industries (22.1% vs. 15.9%).

Q-10: What are the characteristics of the training attended by CTA participants?

CTA participants took full-time training (29 hours per week on average) that had an average expected duration of 44 weeks (see Table 5).

By comparison, the majority (60%) of long-tenured workers who trained outside the CTA initiative enrolled in part-time courses (16 hours per week on average) that lasted 16 weeks on average.

Source: EI Data Files (August 2012 update) - All claims established by long-tenured workers (LTW) and potential LTW between January 25, 2009 andMay 30, 2010.

About 56% of CTA participants trained on a college campus, 12% attended a business or commercial school and 7% had a course that took place in a elementary or high school. The balance of CTA training occurred in other facilities.

As shown in Table 6, almost all CTA training (93%) was leading to a diploma. For the majority of participants (65%) it was a college, trade or vocational diploma.

Source: 2010 COEP Survey.

Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents.

X Figures based on less than 30 respondents are suppressed.

¹ Long-tenured workers who participated in the CTA (QLT3=1).

² Long-tenured workers who participated in the CTA (QLT3=1) and took training leading to a certificate (QLT8=1).

The average tuition cost for CTA training was about $8,000. Survey respondents were asked to identify the main source of money they used to pay for their CTA training. About 34% said "EI benefits" and 33% said "a government program other than EI or student loans". Only 6% relied mainly on their "personal savings" to finance their course. The remaining participants used another main source of funding such as job separation monies, money from a family member, credit, government student loan, union or employer.

Q-11: Were participants satisfied with their service providers? What are the reasons for being satisfied or dissatisfied?

Participants to the CTA focus groups discussed their experiences with their service providers and raised some issues they encountered.

A few participants said they had to make a decision on training programs more quickly than they would have liked, and said they might have made a different decision had they been allowed more time. Several participants also said they had a bit of difficulty with the service provider not appearing to know much about the CTA initiatives (Kitchener, Vancouver, Montreal). However, these issues did not appear to cause any major problems.

There were several participants who said they felt unduly pressured by the service provider to select a particular career/training option – and all but one of these participants said they successfully resisted the pressure and got the career/training option they wanted. So overall, perceived "undue pressure" from service providers to choose a particular career/training option was not a problem.

The focus groups conducted for the evaluation of the EEILTW reveal that the experience of long-tenured workers who did not participate in the CTA initiative was less positive. Several participants expressed a desire to upgrade their skills, retrain or pursue additional certifications or qualifications to secure permanent employment, and frustration at the lack of support available through EI to do so. Many spoke of frustrations with eligibility criteria for existing programs, including the Second Career program in Ontario ^{Footnote 17} . Some participants spoke of experiencing difficulties in obtaining information on Second Career and their potential eligibility for this program. One Oshawa participant reported first being told she was eligible and then being refused after having taken the time to apply, and of being "crushed" by the news.

Q-12: Was the training attended the desired choice of individuals? If not, what prevented participants form attending their preferred training course?

Survey respondents who participated in the CTA were asked whether their training was their first choice or if they would have preferred some other type of training or education. The vast majority of participants (84%) said that they were able to take their first choice training.

The CTA focus group findings are consistent with this result. Most participants said that they got their first choice training option. And those who did not get their first choice said they were still satisfied with the training option they ultimately decided upon.

Q-13: What percentage of the SITI participants also benefited from the extension of benefits under the EEITI?

As previously shown in Table 4, out of the 11,356 CTA participants, only 732 (or 6.4%) took advantage of the SITI. And the majority of these SITI participants (86%) also benefited from the EEITI.

Q-14: How soon did CTA participants identify training, establish a return to work action plan and start their training after being laid off? What factors influenced these decisions?

With the requirements regarding the timing of Section 25 referral and the establishment of the RTWAP (see Table 1), the CTA initiative was designed to encourage LTW to take training decisions early in their benefit period.

The EI administrative files include a variable for the date at which the training was set-up into the system (process week). However, in about 50% of the cases, the training was set-up after the start date of the training. For this reason, the process week variable was not used as an indicator of the date of the establishment of the RTWAP.

The EI administrative data can nevertheless provide information on the start date of training. Table 7 shows that on average, CTA participants started their training 22 weeks after the beginning of their benefit period, about 6 weeks earlier than SD trainees but later than other types of trainees.

Source: EI Data Files (August 2012 update) - All claims established by long-tenured workers (LTW) and potential LTW between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010.

¹ Calculated as training start week - benefit period commencement (BPC) week for claimants who established a claim after the implementation of the CTA and as training start week - CTA implementation week for claimants who established a claim before the implementation of the CTA.

Q-15: On average, how much earlier did EI benefits start under SITI?

The weeks during which the allocation of separation monies occurs are normally recorded in the EI administrative files. This information was however not recorded for SITI participants since their allocation of separation monies was cancelled.

The COEP survey nevertheless contains information about earnings and separation payments that can be used to derive the effect of the SITI on the timing of the receipt of EI benefits. As shown in Table 8, long-tenured workers who received separation monies earned on average $1,519 per week at their previous job and they received $12,065 in severance payment when they were laid off. The allocation of earnings would normally delay the date on which these individuals begin receiving EI benefits by 12 weeks. This suggests that SITI participation would have allowed long-tenured workers to receive EI benefits 12 weeks earlier than normally ^{Footnote 18} .

Source: 2010 COEP Survey.

Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents.

¹ Long-tenured workers who were not self-employed (QROE2A≠2).

² Long-tenured workers who were not self-employed (QROE2A≠2), reported an amount for QSP2 and had non missing values for QROE9A2 and QROE9B (used to calculate weekly earnings).

Q-16: On average, how many weeks of EI benefits were granted for job search?

The CTA initiative extended entitlement to EI regular benefits to cover the period of training. The extension was granted from the date regular benefits exhausted to the date the training ended, up to a maximum benefit period of 104 weeks.

CTA participants were also eligible to receive one week of regular benefits for every 5 weeks of training completed up to a maximum of 12 weeks, as long as these weeks were within the maximum benefit period duration of 104 weeks. If after the claimant completed the training course, there were still weeks of regular benefits remaining, these weeks were paid first which reduced the number of job search weeks granted.

Table 9 shows that the vast majority of CTA trainees (93.4%) were in training when their EI regular benefits exhausted and they therefore received an extension of benefits, of 42 weeks on average. About 67% of CTA participants were eligible for job search weeks. On average, these individuals were eligible to receive 9 weeks of EI benefits to facilitate their job search. Less than half of participants (31.8% of 66.6% = 48%) who had a positive entitlement of job search weeks did receive EI benefits for job search. On average, 6 weeks of benefits were paid to these participants.

Source: EI Data Files (August 2012 update) - All claims established by long-tenured workers (LTW) and potential LTW between January 25, 2009 and May 29, 2010.

¹ Estimated by multiplying the benefit rate with the number of extra weeks paid.

Q-17: What percentage of CTA participants left training before completion?

More than two years after the end of the CTA initiative, about 24% of CTA participants did not have any of their courses coded as "completed" in the EI files. The non-completion rate observed for other types of training was similar (22%) which suggests that leaving training prior to completion was not an issue specific to the CTA initiative.

Q-18: What were the reasons for not completing training?

At the time of the COEP survey (between September 2010 and December 2010), only 6% of CTA participants said that they definitely quit their training. The reasons for non-completion for these drop-outs could not be analysed due to the small sample size.

Q-19: What were the reasons for participating in the CTA initiative?

Survey respondents identified the following reasons for participating in the CTA initiative:

• 35.1% said that they wanted to upgrade their skills or obtain a certificate;
• 33.5% said that they wanted to increase their chance of finding work;
• 26.8% said that they wanted to change occupation or industry; and
• 12.5% said that they could not find a suitable job.

Focus group participants mentioned similar reasons for their participation in the CTA initiative.

• The majority of focus group participants trained to change occupation or industry. These participants wanted to "start over" in areas of higher demand by employers. For example, participants who had been working in manufacturing cited plant closures or general downsizing/closures in their area, and some participants said their sector had been hard hit by the recent recession (e.g. the financial sector). Some participants said they had been working in a sector that historically had low job security and wanted to change to a sector with higher job security. Several older workers undertook training to get into a new area for health reasons. That is, because of their health they could not easily handle the physical or mental stress of the work they had been doing, and needed to "start over" in a less demanding type of work.
• The balance of participants wanted to upgrade their skills or obtain formal credentials. The intent for those who wanted to upgrade their skills may have been to shift to a related occupation with higher demand (e.g. change from graphic design to web design), to upgrade skills that were no longer up to date, or to broaden the range of jobs for which one is competitive (e.g. an engineer who wanted to add training in project management). The situation of participants who wanted to obtain formal credentials was that they had acquired considerable experience at their previous employer doing a type of work for which there are certificates or diplomas, but they did not have the certificate or diploma. They thought they were not competitive on the job market with people who have the formal credentials, and they probably could only get lower-level jobs than what they had been doing. Therefore, they undertook training to get these formal credentials so that they could get jobs commensurate in skill and income with what they had been doing before.

Overall, for most participants the main motive was to improve their economic prospects by taking training that would make it easier for them to get a good job than would be the case with their current skill set.

Q-20: What were the reasons for not participating in the CTA initiative?

Survey respondents who did not participate in the CTA initiative were asked to provide their reasons for non-participation or lack of interest.

• The most common reason given for non-participation in the CTA initiative was work related. At least a third of respondents said that they were not interested in the initiative because they found work, decided to work instead or expected to return to the same employer.
• The second most common reason was the absence of need for training. Between 20% and 28% stated that they did not need the CTA initiative or that the initiative would not help them get a job.
• The type of training offered was the third most common reason for non-participation in the CTA initiative. About 13% of non-participants who were aware of the initiative said that the available training did not fit their needs, they did not want the training available in their area or they did not want to have such long training.

The lack of awareness could also be a reason for non-participation since only about half of eligible claimants were aware of the initiative (see Q-7). And the majority (69%) of the non-participants who were not aware of the CTA initiative said that they would have been interested in participating in the initiative.

Interestingly, credit constraint was not found to be a very common reason explaining non-participation in the CTA initiative. Indeed, only 5% of survey respondents said that they did not participate in the initiative for financial reasons or because a lack of money prevented it.

Similarly, the complexity of the CTA initiative was not a frequently cited barrier to participation in the initiative. Only about 5% of survey respondents said that they did not participate in the CTA initiative because the rules were too complex or they did not have enough information.

Q-21: Did the CTA initiative increase the number of long-tenured workers participating in training?

About 47% of survey respondents who participated in the CTA initiative indicated that they would not have taken any training without the initiative. This number suggests that the CTA initiative increased the number of long-tenured workers participating in training by 5,280 (46.5% of 11,356).

The majority of focus group participants also said that they would not have taken any training without the CTA initiative. In addition, most of them also said that they would not have enrolled in training without the additional provincial funding they received and that helped them cover the cost of their program.

Key informants however believed that the majority of claimants would have proceeded with training without the CTA initiative. The main reason for this view is that the provinces are providing financial support to claimants enrolling in long-term training and for the majority of claimants this funding is sufficient to make the decision on whether or not to enroll in training. Nevertheless, key informants believed the CTA initiative still had some positive incremental effects. The most significant reason for this perceived increased was the "marketing" effect of the Service Canada letter notifying claimants of their potential eligibility for the CTA initiative. All key informants said this letter produced an increase in the number of claimants coming to the service providers enquiring about training. And a proportion of these claimants who ended up enrolling in the CTA initiative might never have considered training without the information letter they received. Key informants also said that the additional EI Part I benefits paid to CTA participants replaced the living allowance the province would have had to pay to some claimants participating in training. The money freed up was used to support more clients and help increase the number of long-tenured workers participating in training. Moreover, the EI Part I benefits provided under than CTA initiative were usually larger than the living allowance paid by the provinces and this improved affordability was believed to have made a difference in the decision to enrol in training for some claimants.

Finally, the econometric study estimated the impact of the CTA initiative based on a counterfactual, that is, a comparison group that provides a good approximate of what would have happened to CTA participants in the absence of the initiative. Results suggest that the EEITI had no statistically significant impact on training participation while the SITI increased participation by a modest 0.049 percentage points ^{Footnote 19} . The author of the study notes that the small and insignificant effect of the CTA initiative is expected if there is transferability of skills in the labour market. When skills are transferable across industries and occupations, there are no strong incentives for the newly unemployed workers to invest in new skills through training since re-training is not necessary to find new jobs. Many workers' skills are most likely general in nature and can be applied in a range of industries and occupations. This possibility is also supported by the data that show a relatively low incidence of training ^{Footnote 20} .

Q-22: Did the CTA initiative encourage long-tenured workers to make training decision and start training earlier in their benefit period?

Q-23: Did the EEITI encourage long-tenured workers to participate in longer-term training?

Among the minority of focus group participants who said they probably would have enrolled in training without the CTA initiative, the typical view was that the CTA initiative had no impact on the duration of the training they took.

That said, several focus group participants did say they took longer training than they would have otherwise because of the CTA initiative. Of these several participants, all except one viewed this as a positive outcome. The one exception was a person who would have preferred a shorter course of study so they could return to work more quickly. A few participants said that while the CTA initiative had no impact in terms of the duration of the training in the sense of the number of courses required for completion, the financial assistance meant they could take the courses on a full-time rather than part-time basis and therefore finish the training program more quickly.

Most key informants believed the EEITI had a positive impact in encouraging some long-tenured workers to participate in longer-term training than they might have otherwise, although none thought this effect was large. As mentioned previously, the reason for the latter view is that most provinces support 2 years or more of training, and key informants believed this support is sufficient for the majority of claimants to proceed with longer-term training ^{Footnote 22} . Still, in many cases the EI amount was greater than the living allowance the province would pay and this improved affordability probably facilitated some claimants' decisions to take longer-term training.

About half (49%) of survey respondents who would have participated in training without the CTA initiative indicated that they would have taken a shorter training course without the initiative. Survey results therefore suggest that the CTA initiative encouraged about 26% of participants (49% of 53% who would still have pursued training without the initiative) to take longer training course.

Even though the initiative seemed to have led only some claimants to choose longer term training, the average effect of the initiative on training duration was found to be positive and significant. The econometric study found that the CTA initiative increased training duration by 6-10 weeks on average.

Q-24: What features of the CTA initiative had the most impact in terms of encouraging individuals to participate in training?

Focus group participants identified two key program elements motivating their participation in long-term training:

1. the extension of EI benefits while in training, and
2. the provincial funding.

Most focus group participants received provincial funding. When asked whether they could have gotten by with just the provincial funding or just the extension of EI benefits, most said that both types of funding were essential. EI payments were perceived as covering daily living expenses, while the provincial funding was perceived as helping to pay for the cost of the training program. Most felt that the EI payments were not sufficient to also cover enough of the training program costs, and the provincial funding was not enough to pay for living expenses for the participant and their family.

Other features of the CTA initiative discussed with focus group participants included the extension of EI benefits during job search and the interaction with the service provider. Neither of these appeared to be significant in deciding participation in the initiative.

As mentioned previously (see Q-21 and Q-22) key informants believed the Service Canada letter was the feature of the CTA initiative that had the most important impact in terms of encouraging claimants to participate in training. The Service Canada letter was seen as getting some claimants to think about training who might not otherwise have considered training at all, or got claimants thinking about training earlier than they might have otherwise.

Q-25: Did the Extension of EI Regular Benefits for Long-Tenured Workers (EEILTW) lowered participation in the CTA initiative?

Results from the econometric study suggest that the Extension of EI regular benefits had no significant offsetting effects on participation in the CTA initiative.

Q-26: Did CTA participants think the initiative made a difference in their ability to find a job? Were there other perceived benefits of training?

The majority of CTA participants indicated that their training would help them find a job or improve their career opportunities. Compared to LTW who trained outside the CTA, a larger proportion of CTA participants said that their training would have a positive impact on their job prospects (93.3% vs. 77.4%).

Most focus group participants felt that their participation in the CTA initiative would improve their chance of getting a good job. With regards to other perceived benefits of training, for several older workers training was perceived to offer the possibility to improve their well-being as it would allow them to get out of a job they could no longer do for health reasons. Several participants said that the training increased their self-confidence, which had positive impacts on their belief in their ability to learn and on how they present themselves to employers in job interviews.

Q-27: What are the estimated costs of the CTA initiative?

The CTA initiative was delivered from May 31, 2009 to May 29, 2010. Since participants could remain on EI for up to two years after the beginning of their benefit period, expenditures for the initiative continued until May 2012.

The cost study estimated that ESDC spent $186.7 million in extended EI Part I benefits to support CTA participants over the years 2009 - 2010 to 2012 - 2013. ESDC's administrative costs for the first two years of the initiative (2009 - 2010 and 2010 - 2011) were estimated at $9.8 million ^{Footnote 23} . Cumulatively, the Department spent $196.4 million for the CTA initiative over four fiscal years.

Since a total of 10,608 long-tenured workers benefitted from the extended benefits provided by the CTA initiative, the average unit cost of the initiative was estimated at $18,517. This estimate does not however take into account the costs incurred by the provinces and territories for the delivery of the CTA initiative and for the EI Part II support they provided to CTA participants. Moreover, this estimate does not include funds transferred to provinces and territories to support the delivery of employment services.

Q-28: Were there any challenges encountered in the delivery of the CTA initiative? Did these challenges have an impact on participation in the initiative?

Key informants were asked to describe challenges they experienced in the delivery of the CTA initiative and tell whether these challenges had an impact on claimant's participation in the initiative.

Only one challenge was perceived as having a notable impact on claimant participation in the CTA initiative, namely the requirement to establish a RTWAP within 20 weeks of the start of the claim. The other issues discussed were perceived as having a small effect or no effect on participation in the initiative.

Communications with clients

All key informants believed that the feature of the CTA initiative that contributed the most to the increase in the number of long-tenured workers participating in training was the "marketing" effect of the Service Canada letter sent to eligible claimants. This letter brought some claimants to think about training who might not have considered this option otherwise. However, most key informants also believed that the letter was not as impactful as it could have been based on claimant's feedback. Some claimants found the letter confusing and did not take timely action as a result. Others simply did not recall receiving the letter.

These findings show the importance of effective communication with potential clients. A letter written in simple language and explaining the potential personal benefit of participating in a program can lay the foundation for its success in terms of take-up.

Eligibility criteria

The CTA requirement that claimants register to training early in their claim period was not found to be consistent with how claimants typically deal with becoming unemployed. It is common for job losers to first focus on trying to find another job and consider training only later in their claim period. As a result, service providers saw claimants who started to explore training after the eligibility window for the CTA initiative. Similarly, the CTA requirement on the training start date could be difficult to meet as clients have little control over program start dates. Some claimants did not in fact participate in the CTA initiative because their training start date was outside the eligibility period.

More flexible eligibility criteria on the enrolment date and start date of training could therefore enhance participation in training. This could however delay the average start date of training. Which outcome - more claimants who upgrade their skills versus fewer claimants who do so but more quickly - is more desirable depends on the program objectives.

Program design and implementation

All key informants involved in the delivery of the CTA initiative said that there was not enough time for service providers to prepare implementation procedures and train staff. The problems with preparation for implementation were perceived to stem from Service Canada: lack of upfront consultation on the design of the initiative and how it relates to provincial programs and needs, very short lead times in providing information about the program, and the initial information provided about the initiative was too general to support development of detailed implementation procedures. Although the impact of these challenges on participation in the CTA initiative was believed to be minimal, there are indications that it did affect the quality and consistency of services to EI claimants.

The lesson to be drawn from this experience is that to avoid operational inefficiency that can negatively affect client services and ultimately program participation, Service Canada should consult with, inform and train service providers well in advance of program launch.

Issue #1: Need for the program

Issue #2: Alignment with government priorities

Issue #3: Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities

Issue #4: Achievement of expected outcomes

Issue #5: Demonstration of efficiency and economy