Apprenticeship Grants: Evaluation Report

Influence of the grants on progression and certification

Apprentices in interviews and focus groups stated that the AG Program's influence upon apprenticeship entry or continuation is limited. While AG recipients had higher progression and certification rates than similar non-recipients, various factors may contribute to these higher rates. These include the AG Program, program eligibility requirements, factors other than AG such as changing motivation, securing another job, and the range of other financial supports available to apprentices. Due to methodological limitations, this evaluation was not able to assess attribution or causality between grant receipt and apprenticeship progression and certification.

Apprenticeship certification and employment outcomes

Apprenticeship completion and certification leads to higher employment and earnings. AG recipients therefore have higher post-apprenticeship incomes than similar non-recipients because they have higher certification rates due to various factors. Men have higher post-apprenticeship income than women. This is partly due to the fact that women are concentrated in lower-paying trades.

Formative evaluation of the Apprenticeship Incentive Grant for Women (AIG-W)

The proportion of women choosing male-dominated Red Seal trades has increased at a higher rate since the AIG-W was introduced in 2018. There are most likely multiple causes for this increase, including the AIG-W pilot project. While the AIG-W provided some incentive to persist in apprenticeship, its influence upon choice of trade was likely limited.

The AIG-W helped women overcome financial barriers (for example, paying for tools and living expenses), though some financial and non-financial barriers remain. Women confront certain barriers more often than men (in both male-dominated trades and other careers), such as unwelcoming workplaces and difficulty securing childcare during hours that align with their work schedules. This is especially the case in construction trades.

Some non-eligible apprentices believed that the AIG-W was unfair or discriminatory because it gave an unfair advantage to some women. A few key informants interviewed (7 out of 38) stated that some male apprentices applied as women and received the AIG-W, giving some women an unfavorable impression of the grant.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The pandemic delayed apprenticeship progression and certification. It prompted reductions in employment, income, new apprentice registrations, grant eligibility, and grant applications. Pandemic restrictions imposed delays in technical training and certain trades were not amenable to online training, such as hairstylists. Lastly, some trade workers experienced greater impacts than others, such as women, entry-level apprentices, and those in the service trades.

A large proportion of apprentices do not complete their programs due to receiving a job, job instability, financial constraints, or personal or family reasons

According to a literature review conducted by the Evaluation Directorate:

• Jin et al. (2020) found that although the number of new apprentice registrations per year in Red Seal and other trades has more than doubled since 1991, "the number of certificates granted has increased by only 47% during the same period"^{Footnote 4}
• Jin et al. also found higher completion rates among apprentices in compulsory trades in both Red Seal and non-Red Seal programs.^{Footnote 5} People working in compulsory trades must be registered apprentices or certified journeypersons
• about 4 out of every 10 apprentices discontinue their programs^{Footnote 6}

According to the 2015 National Apprenticeship Survey, the main reasons apprentices discontinue their programs are:

• job instability
• they receive a better job offer
• financial constraints
• personal or family issues^{Footnote 7}

Additional findings related to discontinuation are presented later in the report.

Apprentices face financial barriers, but available supports help to overcome them

Financial barriers to apprenticeship, which are greatest during the first 2 years, include:

• the costs of tools and technical training
• partial loss of income during technical training
• low pay for apprentices, at about 60% of a journeyperson's wage

In a recent Canadian Apprenticeship Forum (CAF) survey, 29% of respondents indicated that they could not afford to leave work for technical training and 25% considered this the greatest barrier to progression.^{Footnote 8}

Not all apprentices use and some cannot benefit from EI coverage during technical training. Fewer than 60% of apprentices (and fewer than half of AG recipients) collect EI.^{Footnote 9} Those who complete technical training before on-the-job training (for example, the majority of hairstylists and most apprentices in Quebec) are not eligible. This pattern of training puts many women at a disadvantage since a large proportion of female apprentices are concentrated in hairdressing. For example, in 2016:

• 9% of continuing apprentices were women
• 39% of continuing female apprentices were hairstylists
• 89% of continuing hairstylists were women^{Footnote 10}

In 2015 only about 10% of hairstylists used EI compared to 65% of carpenters and construction electricians.^{Footnote 11}

CAF survey respondents indicated that other financial supports helped them overcome barriers to apprenticeship completion either "to some extent" (44%) or "to a great extent" (27%). The 2015 National Apprentice Survey showed even larger proportions of apprentices in agreement.^{Footnote 12}

A 2011 survey of program applicants showed that:

• 70% of respondents used the grants to cover training costs such as tools and equipment
• 32% also used their grants for general living expenses
• 21% paid off debt^{Footnote 13}

The impact of the grants may be small, but apprentices do use them to defray the costs of their programs.^{Footnote 14}

There are also non-financial barriers to apprenticeship

Difficulty finding an employer:

• most apprenticeship training is done by small- and medium-sized companies
• only 19% of skilled trades employers train apprentices^{Footnote 15}
• regulatory requirements such as mandated journeyperson ratios constrain the ability of smaller employers to hire apprentices^{Footnote 16}

Distance from technical training institutions:

• problems of access to urban technical training institutions for apprentices living in remote areas
• remote learning was widely used during the pandemic, but was not effective for all apprentices

Unwelcoming workplaces:

• evidence from a number of sources suggests that inappropriate behaviours, sexism, and harassment are common in the trades
  • CAF surveys (in 2019 and 2020) found that significant proportions of the apprentice population — over 40% of women and about a quarter of men — experienced or witnessed discrimination, harassment, and bullying during work or technical training^{Footnote 17}
  • women report inappropriate behaviours from male colleagues, their immediate supervisors, and from clients^{Footnote 18}
  • female apprentices may experience more stress because they feel like outsiders
  • Indigenous apprentices also reported bullying and harassment on the job
  • only 58% of apprentices with disabilities felt that they fit in at their workplace^{Footnote 19}

Non-financial barriers to apprenticeship

AIG recipients reported barriers related to unwelcoming workplaces in an SRDC survey conducted for this evaluation (Figure 3), including:

• feeling like they were being ‘pigeon-holed' into simple tasks (24%)
• unsupportive supervisors (22%) or lacking role models and mentors (19%)
• unsupportive co-workers (16%) or not knowing who to talk to when they experience issues at work (16%)
• bullying and harassment at work (12%), lacking networking opportunities (11%), and facing recruitment and hiring biases (9%)

Text version - Figure 3

Types of barriers	proportion
Challenges living on my income as an apprentice	47%
Feeling like I'm being ‘pigeon-holed' into simple tasks	24%
Unsupportive supervisors	22%
Lack of role models and mentors	19%
Unsupportive co-workers	16%
Not knowing who to talk to when I experience issues at work	16%
Bullying and harassment at work	12%
Lack of networking opportunities	11%
Recruitment and hiring bias against people like me	9%
Other	3%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

There is a lack of awareness of both apprenticeship and available financial supports

According to a literature review conducted by the Evaluation Directorate:

• there is a lack of awareness of both apprenticeship as a career option and of the grants as a funding source
• most sources agree that secondary students in Canada are not sufficiently introduced to the idea of apprenticeship as a career option^{Footnote 20}
• the 2015 National Apprenticeship Survey found that "about 60% of apprentices were aware" of the Apprenticeship Grants. Most learn about the program only after beginning their apprenticeship, usually during technical training or through other tradespeople^{Footnote 21}
• a CAF survey in 2018 found that only 15% of respondents were aware of all the financial supports available.^{Footnote 22} In addition:
  • 64% were aware of the AIG
  • 62% were aware of the ACG
  • 43% were aware of the Canada Apprentice Loan (CAL)
• nearly half of all AG recipients were not using other financial supports in 2016, often because they were unaware of what was available^{Footnote 23}

According to focus groups conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, apprentices learned about the AG through various means, including:

• technical training institutions or courses (24 of 47, or 51% of participants).
• word of mouth (10 participants from various groups)
• various provincial or territorial sources, such as attestation letters or apprenticeship program personnel (5 AIG-W recipients)
• unions (5 of 55, or 9% of participants)
• employers (4 AIG recipients)
• pre-apprenticeship programs, trades sampler courses, and programs supporting women (2 AIG-W recipients)
• websites or social media (1 AIG-W recipient)

Evaluation approach related to progression and certification

There are no specific variables to assess progression in the Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS). The RAIS is administered and updated annually by Statistics Canada. It gathers information on individuals who receive training and those who obtain certification within a trade where apprenticeship training is being offered.

In the administrative data analysis conducted for this evaluation, progression is proxied by examining the proportion of apprentices who receive their certification by the time elapsed since registration relative to the program duration.

The analysis considers 3 scenarios under which a certificate is obtained:

• within program duration
• within 1.5 times the program duration (for example, a 4-year program completed within 6 years)
• within twice the program duration (for example, a 4-year program completed within 8 years)

Most apprentices take longer (by 1.5 times) to complete their programs than the official prescribed duration. Duration of apprenticeship programs varies by trade.

For the purposes of the administrative data analysis, the "progression rate" refers to the proportion of recipients and non-recipients who obtained a trade certificate within program duration. The "completion rate" refers to the proportion of recipients and non-recipients who obtained a trade certificate within 1.5 times the program duration. Rates were estimated for the 2008 to the 2014 cohorts. A cohort is defined as a group of apprentices who registered in an apprenticeship program during a specific calendar year.

Evaluation approach related to progression and certification - Key considerations and limitations

The evaluation examines the differences in progression, certification and employment outcomes of apprentices who received a grant and those who did not. This type of method is consistent with the approach used in a recent study by Statistics Canada. However, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully. It is not possible to establish causational links between grant receipt and apprenticeship progression, certification, and employment outcomes for the following 3 reasons.

Progression rates of AG recipients are higher than that of non-recipients. The AG Program, program eligibility requirements, other factors such as motivation, and other supports available to apprentices may contribute to this difference

Among apprentices who registered in Red Seal trades from 2008 to 2014, the progression rate of AG recipients was on average 33% compared to nearly 8% for non-recipients (Figure 4). As mentioned previously, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully.

Text version - Figure 4

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Combined Cohorts
Non-recipients	6.93%	6.83%	7.12%	8.16%	8.38%	7.42%	7.90%	7.55%
Recipients	30.72%	33.79%	34.96%	34.11%	33.84%	32.73%	33.11%	33.25%

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Notes
  • Progression, for the purpose of this analysis, is measured using a proxy (certification within the planned duration of the apprenticeship program). Progression refers to a situation where the period of time between an apprentice's registration date and certification date is equal to or less than the expected duration of their program. In other words, an apprentice who completes their training within the program duration is considered to have progressed normally during their training.
  • In this evaluation, a cohort is defined as a group of apprentices who registered in an apprenticeship program during a specific calendar year.

Among AG recipients, the progression rate of females is slightly higher than that of males

The progression rate of female apprentices (21.83%) between 2008 and 2014 is slightly higher than that of male apprentices (18.60%) (Figure 5). No further analysis was conducted as part of this evaluation to explain this difference.

Text version - Figure 5

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Combined Cohorts
Male	17.49%	18.51%	18.60%	19.82%	19.70%	17.75%	18.45%	18.60%
Female	20.63%	22.72%	24.37%	23.92%	20.92%	20.68%	19.79%	21.83%

Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.

According to a probit regression including all cohorts, the probability of progression is about 2 percentage points higher for female apprentices than for men. Consult Appendix J.

Differences in the progression and certification rates between AG recipients and similar non-recipients may be influenced by the AG program, program eligibility requirements, unobservable factors such as motivation, and other supports available to apprentices

The progression and certification outcomes of AG recipients and non-recipients were further examined using regression and matching models. Consult Appendix L for additional information on the model and matching methods.

The intent of the administrative data analysis was to examine whether the differences in progression and certification rates between AG recipients and non-recipients relates to differences in observable characteristics between the 2 groups in their registration year.

Overall, the probability of progression of apprentices for whom a grant was issued was, on average, 23.97 percentage points higher, compared to a comparable group of non-AG recipients. Consult Figure 6 and Appendix J for results by cohort and combined cohorts.

Overall, the probability of certification of apprentices for whom a grant was issued was, on average, 46.45 percentage points higher, compared to a comparable group of non-AG recipients. Consult Figure 7 and Appendix J for results by cohort and combined cohorts.

Due to methodological limitations, this evaluation was not able to assess attribution or causality. It aimed to determine the extent to which differences between the progression and certification rates of AG recipients and non-recipients relate to differences in observable characteristics in the year of registration between the 2 groups. As mentioned earlier, other factors may also contribute to remaining differences in the progression and certification rates of AG recipients and similar non-recipients. These include AG eligibility requirements, unobservable factors such as motivation, as well as the availability of other financial assistance to apprentices when completing their programs.

Future policy analysis, research, or evaluation activities could build on and complement this approach by exploring potential alternative methods. The collection of additional data on other factors related to progression and certification that were not observable in this evaluation should also be examined. Additional information on limitations associated with regression and matching models can be found in Appendix G.

Text version - Figure 6

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Combined cohorts
Differences in probability	24.31	26.20	25.45	22.31	24.24	22.82	22.97	23.97

• ***Significant at the 1% confidence level. **Significant at the 5% confidence level. *Significant at the 10% confidence level.
• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Notes
  • The impact analysis was not conducted separately for AIG-W. This grant was introduced in 2018, which means there would be only 1 cohort available to assess its impact.
  • Variables included in the model were as follows: Age at registration, Gender, Employment income at registration, Marital status at registration, Low-income status, Program duration, Union membership at registration, Receipt of EI benefits at registration year, being in Compulsory or Voluntary trade, Receipt of initial credits at registration, Receipt of CAL (for the 2014 cohort).

Text version - Figure 7

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Combined cohorts
Differences in probability	51.06	49.11	45.84	43.79	45.09	44.37	45.1	46.45

• ***Significant at the 1% confidence level. **Significant at the 5% confidence level. *Significant at the 10% confidence level.
• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Notes
  • The impact analysis was not conducted separately for AIG-W. This grant was introduced in 2018, which means there would be only one cohort available to assess its impact.
  • Variables included in the model were as follows: Age at registration, Gender, Employment income at registration, Marital status at registration, Low-income status, Program duration, Union membership at registration, Receipt of EI benefits at registration year, being in Compulsory or Voluntary trade, Receipt of initial credits at registration, Receipt of CAL (for the 2014 cohort).

Sources disagree about the influence of the grants on apprenticeship progression, participation in post-secondary education, and apprenticeship entry

According to a literature review conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, some sources demonstrate that grants foster apprenticeship progression and continuation:

• 35% of CAF survey respondents indicated that government programs helped them progress. Of those respondents, 77% mentioned the AIG, 73% the ACG, 54% the CAL, and 30% mentioned provincial or territorial financial supports^{Footnote 26}
• a study by Statistics Canada in 2021 compared grant recipients and non-recipients in the 2008 to 2013 cohorts.^{Footnote 27} Consistent with results presented as part of this evaluation and subject to the same limitations regarding their careful interpretation, it found that a higher proportion of apprentices receiving grants certified and a lower proportion discontinued:
  • for grant recipients, 59.2% certified, 20.6% continued, and 20.2% discontinued
  • for non-recipients in the same cohorts, 15.9% certified, 21.4% continued, and 62.7% discontinued
• American research shows that grants may help increase participation in post-secondary education, generally. This research shows that grants may be especially helpful for the less affluent^{Footnote 28}

Other sources indicate, however, that the grants are too small to have much impact on decisions about entry into apprenticeship or program continuation. Apprentices themselves indicate that the influence of the AG on their decisions to enter or continue a program is limited.^{Footnote 29} Furthermore, a 2019 CAF survey reported that 55% of respondents said "financial incentives influenced their decision to pursue an apprenticeship ‘little to no extent.'"^{Footnote 30}

Focus groups conducted by the Evaluation Directorate found that a few (4) focus group participants, all in non-male-dominated trades, indicated that the regular AIG can motivate some workers to undertake apprenticeship and certify, especially in voluntary trades. One stated that the grants played a big role in his decision to continue and were "probably the only reason [why] I stuck with the Red Seal program and the apprenticeship program."

Certification rates of AG recipients are higher than those of non-recipients. The AG Program, program eligibility requirements, other factors such as motivation, and other supports available to apprentices may contribute to these higher rates

Nearly 63% of apprentices who were AG recipients obtained their certificate compared to only about 12% of apprentices who were non-recipients (after 1.5 times the program duration). Consult Figure 8. Between the 2008 and 2014 cohorts, the gap remained the same. As mentioned previously, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully.

Text version - Figure 8

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Combined Cohorts
Non-recipients	10.94%	11.15%	11.74%	13.64%	13.80%	12.34%	12.71%	12.35%
Recipients	61.82%	63.01%	62.91%	63.34%	63.49%	62.24%	62.47%	62.74%

Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.

The gap in certification between recipients and non-recipients widens when analyzing certification within 2 times the program duration. This may be partly due to a lower probability for recipients to discontinue their program. According to a probit regression pooling all cohorts, the probability of discontinuing their program 6 years after registration was lower (by 52 percentage points) for AG recipients compared to non-recipients. Consult Appendix J.

The certification rate of apprentices, recipients or non-recipients, varies according to employment income in their registration year

The certification rate varies according to apprentices' (both recipients and non-recipients) employment income in their registration year (Figure 9):

• 71% of recipients certified compared to 15% of non-recipients, among those with income of $75,000 or more
• between 66% and 72% of recipients certified compared to 16% to 17% of non-recipients, among those with employment income between $30,000 and $74,999
• between 51% and 59% of recipients certified compared to 7% to 12% of non-recipients, among those with employment income up to $29,999

As mentioned previously, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully.

Text version - Figure 9

Employment income categories	Less than $15,000	$15,000 to $29,999	$30,000 to $44,999	$45,000 to $59,999	$60,000 to $74,999	$75,000 and more
Recipients	51.01%	58.83%	66.58%	69.44%	71.57%	71.45%
Non-recipients	6.74%	12.45%	17.09%	16.81%	16.22%	14.69%

Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.

A probit regression reveals that apprentices with higher employment income during their registration year have a greater probability of obtaining their certificate. Consult Appendix J. Among apprentices registered from 2008 to 2014, those with employment income between $60,000 and $74,999 had a probability of obtaining their certificate 13 percentage points higher than those with employment income between $15,000 and $29,999. This gap reached 14 percentage points for apprentices with employment income of $75,000 or more.

Female apprentices are less likely than men to certify in male-dominated trades

In male-dominated trades, women are more likely than men to discontinue their apprenticeship and less likely to certify.^{Footnote 32} Similarly, men training in female-dominated trades were less likely to certify and more likely to discontinue than their female counterparts.

When apprentices in all trades are considered, women are more likely than men to certify.

Based on data from the Education and Labour Market Longitudinal Platform from 2008 to 2016, and considering apprentices in both Red Seal and non-Red Seal trades, Jin et al. (2020)^{Footnote 33} found that:

• on average, more male apprentices (about 37%) than female apprentices (32%) obtained a certificate (within 1.5 times their program duration)
• female apprentices "were more concentrated in non-Red Seal trades, for which the overall certification rate (28%) is lower compared with Red Seal trades (40%)"
• when controlling for differences in registration between Red Seal and non-Red Seal trades as well as other individual characteristics, "women were four percentage points more likely than men with the same characteristics to obtain a certificate (40% vs. 36%)…. However, the gender gap varied across programs"

Recognition of professional experience or previous training improves the certification rate

Recognition of professional experience or previous training, through the receipt of credits, improves the certification rate, especially among AG non-recipients.

Among non-recipients, those who received credit had a higher certification rate (15.64%) than those who did not (11.03%). Consult Figure 10

The certification rate is approximately the same (64%) for AG recipients who received credit as for those who did not.

As mentioned previously, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully.

Text version - Figure 10

Status	Credited	Not credited
Recipients	63.98%	63.85%
Non-recipients	15.64%	11.03%

Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.

A probit regression demonstrated a higher probability of certification among apprentices (both AG recipients and non-recipients) who obtained credit for prior training at registration. The probability was higher by 2.4 percentage points. The result applies to certification within 1.5 times the program duration. Consult Appendix J.

Certain sociodemographic characteristics and inclusion in certain subgroups influence progression and certification^{Footnote 34}

Low-income status, age, and marital status may influence the probabilities of progressing and certifying.

Other factors or supports that could aid progression

Focus group participants suggested other means of aiding progression for all apprentices:

• information for employers:
  • increasing employers' awareness of the grants so that they can encourage more apprentices to apply for them
  • providing information on financial incentives available employers to support apprentices' progression until certification
• changes to the training:
  • increasing the number of courses available online or in hybrid mode
  • improving the structure and consistency of on-the-job training
• changes to the tax system:
  • more generous tax credits for tools (basic amount claim, for example)
  • removing taxes on tools bought for work
  • making the grants non-taxable or deducting taxes directly from grant payments
• additional financial support:
  • creating a new grant for employers so they can pay apprentices during training blocks
  • increasing the grant amount (to keep pace with inflation)
  • providing more financial support (to keep pace with inflation)
• networking:
  • providing more opportunities to connect online with other apprentices from across Canada to share knowledge, experiences, and advice
• EI:
  • accelerating EI claim processing

Apprenticeship completion and certification leads to higher employment and earnings

According to recent studies on outcomes from apprenticeship included in the literature review conducted by the Evaluation Directorate:

• about 3 of 4 apprentices who completed their programs got a Red Seal certification. Compared to discontinuers, more completers were employed, more had permanent jobs, and more had benefits^{Footnote 36}
• completers had higher average annual earnings. A higher proportion of completers (53.2%) than discontinuers (25.4%) worked for the same employer they had during their apprenticeship programs^{Footnote 37}
• Red Seal certified journeypersons earned about 3% more per year than non-Red Seal journeypersons^{Footnote 38}
• apprenticeship completers earned 9% to 10% more than trade qualifiers (journeypersons who passed the certification exam without completing an apprenticeship)^{Footnote 39}
• the median income of completers "was approximately $20,000 higher than that of discontinuers or long-term continuers" between 2008 and 2016. Long-term continuers are those still registered beyond 1.5 times expected program duration^{Footnote 40}
• those who certified were "more likely than discontinuers to be working in a unionized workplace." They were also more likely to be covered by a pension plan^{Footnote 41}

Apprentices who received AIG were significantly more likely to work full-time in their trades than those who did not

Most SRDC survey respondents currently worked full time, defined as working 30 hours or more per week. Consult Table 1.^{Footnote 42}

A higher proportion of AIG-W (90%) recipients worked in their trade compared to those whose applications were rejected at least once (85%).

A higher proportion of AIG (97%) recipients worked full time compared to those whose applications were rejected at least once (89%).

As mentioned previously, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully.

• ***Significant at the 1% confidence level. **Significant at the 5% confidence level. *Significant at the 10% confidence level.
• Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Differences in post-apprenticeship employment income between AG recipients and similar non-recipients indicate that certification is the most important factor for employment income

Following certification, the employment incomes of AG recipients increased more quickly than incomes of non-recipients (Figure 11 and Figure 12):

• the average and median employment incomes of AG recipients were at least $2,000 higher than non-recipients during the year of certification
• 3 years later, the difference reached $5,800

AG recipients' employment incomes were also compared with non-AG recipients with similar characteristics in the year of registration using matching methods.

When limiting the comparison to apprentices who obtained their certification (after 1.5 times their planned program duration), no significant differences were found between the post-apprenticeship employment incomes of AG recipients and non-recipients.

When examining all apprentices (those who certified or still continued their training after 1.5 times their planned program duration), AG recipients had higher post-apprenticeship employment incomes than non-recipients (Figure 13 and Figure 14).

This means that it is certification which is the key contributing factor for differences in employment income.

Consult Appendix G for information on variables and matching methods and Appendix K for results.

Text version - Figure 11

Reference period	At certification year	3 years after certification
Recipients	$65,100	$75,100
Non-recipients	$63,050	$69,300

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Text version - Figure 12

Reference period	At certification year	3 years after certification
Recipients	$60,775	$72,100
Non-recipients	$58,375	$65,300

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

AG recipients have higher employment incomes than non-recipients 1 year and 3 years after the expected program duration, regardless of certification. Consult Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Employment incomes of apprentices who benefited from AG at least once during their training (treated group) were compared with non-recipients who shared similar observable characteristics (comparison group), if certification is not considered.^{Footnote 43}

The average difference in employment income (when combining the 2008 to 2011 cohorts), 1 year after expected program duration, is $9,745. The difference increases to $9,903 after 3 years.

As mentioned previously, observed differences between grant recipients and non-recipients are correlational in nature and should be interpreted carefully.

Text version - Figure 13

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	Combined cohorts
Predicted employment income gap	$13,190	$9,354	$8,930	$6,372	$9,745

• ***Significant at the 1% confidence level. **Significant at the 5% confidence level. *Significant at the 10% confidence level.
• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Text version - Figure 14

Cohorts	2008	2009	2010	2011	Combined cohorts
Predicted employment income gap	$12,778	$9,440	$7,945	$8,345	$9,903

• ***Significant at the 1% confidence level. **Significant at the 5% confidence level. *Significant at the 10% confidence level.
• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Post-apprenticeship employment income of male AG recipients is much higher than that of females

A Statistics Canada study in 2019 found that women with apprenticeship certification earned less than their male counterparts. They also earned less than any other women except for those who failed to complete high school.^{Footnote 44}

In their certification year, male AG recipients' average and median employment incomes are significantly higher than those of females. Consult Figure 15.

The average employment income of women in all trades is just 46% of males' income. Figures 17 and 18 show that much of this discrepancy is due to women's overrepresentation in lower paid trades.

Text version - Figure 15

Gender	Males	Females
Average employment income	$68,800	$31,725
Median employment income	$63,725	$25,100

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Three years after their certification, men's average employment income increased by 8.25%, from $68,800 to $74,475. However, women's average employment income decreased slightly.

The median employment income grew more quickly among men, at 10.25% compared to just under 4% among women. Consult Figure 16.

Text version - Figure 16

Gender	Males	Females
Average employment income	$74,375	$31,600
Median employment income	$70,575	$26,025

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Finnie, Dubois, and Miyairi (2021) report that even in higher-paying trades, women still earned less than men. In architectural and construction trades, they earned 78% of what men did; in electrical trades, 85%; in Mechanical trades, 89%. These disparities may result from differences in hours worked, perhaps due to childcare responsibilities which women more often assume.

The Red Seal trades with the highest proportions of women have the lowest employment incomes 3 years after certification.^{Footnote 45} Consult Figures 17 and 18.

Text version - Figure 17

Trades	Average employment income
Hairstylist	$23,900
Cook	$38,100
Carpenter	$58,000
Automotive Service Technician	$65,200
Plumber	$66,800
Construction Electrician	$75,900
Welder	$76,400
Steamfitter/Pipefitter	$83,800
Industrial Mechanic (Millwright)	$103,300
Heavy Duty Equipment Technician	$104,100

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Text version - Figure 18

Trades	Females	Males
Heavy Duty Equipment Technician	2%	98%
Industrial Mechanic (Millwright)	2%	98%
Plumber	2%	98%
Automotive Service Technician	3%	97%
Carpenter	3%	97%
Steamfitter/Pipefitter	3%	97%
Construction Electrician	4%	96%
Welder	6%	94%
Cook	34%	66%
Hairstylist	90%	10%

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

Women who received the AIG-W are more likely to work full time than those who did not

Among SRDC survey respondents, a higher proportion of AIG-W recipients (96%) worked full time than women who did not receive the AIG-W (83%). Consult Figure 19.

The number of working hours in male-dominated trades is higher than in female-dominated trades, for both men and women.^{Footnote 46}

The results in Figure 19 are based on bivariate analysis using Independent Sample t-test.

Text version - Figure 19

Employment situation	All women	Received AIG-W	Did not receive AIG-W
Currently working in the trades	90%	90%	89%
Working full time (30 hours or more per week)	91%	96%	83%
Ever unemployed within the last 12 months	26%	27%	25%

• ***Significant at the 1% confidence level. **Significant at the 5% confidence level. *Significant at the 10% confidence level.
• Source: SRDC (2024) National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

People with certain identity factors experience careers in the skilled trades differently

Visible minorities, Black Canadians, Indigenous peoples, and people with disabilities have various experiences with apprenticeship.

Women's new registrations in male-dominated trades and AG take-up both increased after introduction of the AIG-W

The AIG-W's introduction in 2018 appears to have accelerated an increase in the number and proportion of women registering in male-dominated Red Seal trades observed since 2010. Consult Figure 20.^{Footnote 59}

A considerable drop in new registrations in 2020 most likely relates to the pandemic. Despite this decline, the proportion of new registrations has remained on the rise since the introduction of the AIG-W.

Qualitative sources (literature review, KII, and focus groups) indicate, however, that the AIG-W had little influence on women's career choices. These sources suggest that most apprentices learned about the grant after having chosen their trade.

Text version - Figure 20

Year	New registrations in under-represented trades	Proportion of new registrations
2000	770	16.87%
2001	885	17.27%
2002	950	20.90%
2003	890	19.22%
2004	995	20.49%
2005	1465	23.65%
2006	1970	29.56%
2007	2105	30.57%
2008	2217	29.29%
2009	1644	25.13%
2010	1689	23.27%
2011	1824	25.93%
2012	2247	30.70%
2013	2586	37.00%
2014	3003	39.93%
2015	2592	38.06%
2016	2364	37.22%
2017	2538	39.26%
2018	2811	42.13%
2019	3132	47.18%
2020	2421	52.54%
2021	3570	58.22%
2022	4734	63.65%

Source: graph prepared by the Evaluation Directorate using AG Program files and RAIS data collected by Statistics Canada.

AG take-up among women had been relatively stable since the 2012 to 2013 fiscal year.

After the AIG-W was introduced in 2018, the proportion of women in male-dominated trades accelerated.

After the pandemic, participation rates began to grow again, reaching pre-pandemic levels before following a slight downward trend.

The introduction of the AIG-W may have contributed to the increase in women's participation in the AG Program.

Text version - Figure 21

Fiscal year	AG take-up rate
2012 to 2013	60.2%
2013 to 2014	58.2%
2014 to 2015	59.4%
2015 to 2016	60.3%
2016 to 2017	63.6%
2017 to 2018	61.5%
2018 to 2019	67.2%
2019 to 2020	78.3%
2020 to 2021	47.8%
2021 to 2022	80.2%
2022 to 2023	74.0%

Source: graph prepared by the Evaluation Directorate using AG Program files and RAIS data collected by Statistics Canada.

Apprentices typically learned about the AIG-W after choosing to enter apprenticeship in a specific trade

The SRDC survey conducted for this evaluation showed that most AIG-W applicants first heard about the grant after registering as an apprentice (Figure 22):

• about 41% heard about it after starting Level 1, and another 19% after finishing Level 1
• only 21% first heard about it when registering

Text version - Figure 22

When AIG-W applicants first heard about the grant	Proportion
After starting Level 1	41%
When registering as an apprentice	22%
After finishing Level 1	19%
When exploring which trades to choose	7%
When exploring careers, but before choosing the trades	6%
Other	5%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

A majority of KII indicated that apprentices were generally aware of the AIG-W (26 of 36, or 72%). Informants often indicated that apprentices typically learned about the AIG-W after choosing to enter the skilled trades, either:

• when they were first employed or when they first registered as an apprentice (11 of 40 interviews, or 28%)^{Footnote 60}
• during or at the start of their technical training (9 interviews, or 23%)
• before starting apprenticeship (9 interviews, or 23%). Four of these interviews indicated that apprentices learned about the grant either in pre-apprenticeship programs or when connecting with an organization supporting women apprentices
• after completing a level of technical training (7 interviews, or 18%)

By comparison, most focus group participants (36 of 45, or 80%) first learned about the AG after starting their apprenticeship, either:

• when attending trade school (21 of 45, or 47%)
• when they were hired as apprentices or during on-the-job training (15 of 45, or 33%)

A few learned about the AG before starting their apprenticeship but after having decided on a career in their specific trades (9 of 45, or 20%).

Women apprentices learned about the AIG-W through a variety of means

KII participants indicated that apprentices learned about the grant through a variety of means (Figure 23). Most often mentioned were:

• technical training institutions or courses, noted in 17 of 41 interviews (41%)
• provincial or territorial sources (15 interviews, or 37%), including attestation letters, government websites, and apprenticeship authorities
• mentorship groups and organizations supporting women apprentices (11 interviews, or 27%)
• websites or social media (11 interviews, or 27%)
• unions (5 interviews, or 12%)
• word of mouth (5 interviews, or 12%)
• pre-apprenticeship programs, trades sampler courses, and programs supporting women (3 interviews, or 7%)
• federal government advertising (2 interviews, or 5%)
• newsletters, email or text messaging to members of unions or organizations supporting women (2 interviews, or 5%)
• secondary school guidance counsellors (2 interviews, or 5%)

SRDC survey respondents who received the AIG-W also reported various means by which they heard about the grant (Figure 23):

• more than half (56%) learned about the AIG-W from their college or training institution
• about 1 in 4 (24%) heard about it from a co-worker

Text version - Figure 23

How AIG-W applicants first heard about the grant	Proportion
From my college/training institution	56%
From a co-worker	24%
From a teacher	18%
From my union	15%
From my own web search	12%
From a friend	12%
From my provincial/territorial apprenticeship office	11%
From my employer	11%
From a family member	6%
From social media	3%
From someone in my community	3%
At an event I attended	2%
Other	2%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Some groups of women may have been less likely to know about the AIG-W

KII and focus group participants suggested that some groups of women were less likely to be aware of the AIG-W:

• women who were not associated with an organization supporting women apprentices, or those who lacked mentorship or supportive employers, instructors, and colleagues would have been less likely to be informed about the AIG-W (3 of 39 interviews, or 8%)
• apprentices who were not associated with unions or colleges (4 interviews, or 10%, and 5 focus group participants)
• those who were no longer in the school system and did not use employment services or related online resources such as Job Bank (8 focus group participants)
• immigrants, newcomers, refugees, or temporary work permit holders (3 interviews, or 8%, and 4 focus group participants)
• racialized women or women of colour (3 interviews, or 8%). One key informant (KI) specified Indigenous women
• women living in rural or remote communities (2 interviews, or 5%, and 1 focus group participant)
• some women in Quebec trades that do not complete all technical training at the start of the apprenticeship (1 interview, or 3%, and 4 focus group participants)

Three interviews (all from the same group) suggested that there were no groups less likely to be aware. One KI explained that the province notified everyone who was eligible.

Some KII and focus group participants had mixed views about awareness of the AG

Three of the 5 female KII participants who received the AIG-W agreed that awareness of the grant was low among their peers:

• 1 stated that the grant was not discussed during technical training because "it only applies to 1 person" in the class
• another said that "all women in male-dominated fields" were less likely to be aware of the program: "I don't know how you make people aware when ... it's such a minority group.... The word of mouth doesn't get you very far when there's no one else to talk to"
• a fourth KI stated that she did not know enough other women in the trades to be able to answer the question

One KII participant disagreed with this consensus. She was told about the AIG-W during technical training, and "all of my classmates, male and female, we all knew about the grant." She was surprised by her few classmates who were unaware, since "you'd have to be not paying attention when people are speaking about essentially free money."

AIG-W recipients who took part in focus groups also provided mixed responses:

• 1 said that when she first heard about the grants in trade school, her male classmates were also aware of it
• another noted that grants were not really discussed at her workplace and were not well-known among male or female apprentices. She first learned about the AIG-W through a Facebook group for women in construction

The AIG-W may have influenced women to persist with, rather than to enter, apprenticeship

Various sources in the literature suggest that the grants have little influence over decisions about participation in apprenticeship.

Many KII participants said that the AIG-W did not influence women to start an apprenticeship in a male-dominated trade (15 of 39 interviews, or 38%). A number of informants clearly stated this belief:

• "I don't think it influenced them at all ... [they] certainly are not going to ... make a career decision over a few thousand dollars"
• "not at all ... because you're giving an incentive grant to somebody who's already made the decision to go"
• "the money's not enough to change behaviour"

All 5 women apprentices who participated in KII agreed that the AIG-W had no influence on their decision to apprentice in a male-dominated trade. Three of them said that they had already begun their apprenticeship before they learned of the grant.

Similarly, none of the 55 focus group participants (all grant recipients) mentioned that the AG influenced their decision to undertake an apprenticeship.

A few (5) focus group participants (AIG-W recipients) indicated that the AIG-W encouraged some who were already considering a career in a male-dominated trade to start their apprenticeship, because:

• they knew the grant money would help compensate for lost income during technical training
• the grant signaled that women were "wanted" in the trade

One explained that "I wanted to apprentice regardless, but it definitely helped because I have a young daughter and financially, it was going to be very difficult for me."

Only 2 KII participants (5%; both in the group representing employers) believed that the grant did in fact influence women's decisions to undertake and continue apprenticeships in male-dominated trades. The women they believed to be influenced were those facing financial hardships, especially single mothers.

Six interviews (15%) indicated that the grant had some influence on women's decisions to apprentice in eligible trades. According to these informants, apprentices knew that it could:

• compensate for their time off work in technical training
• defray work-related expenses
• be used to pay off loans

One informant suggested that it might help steer women into an eligible trade rather than a non-eligible one.

Other factors influenced women to enter apprenticeship in a male-dominated trade

When we asked if other factors influenced women's decisions to apprentice in male-dominated trades, more than half of KII participants (17 of 32 interviews, or 53%) discussed material considerations, including:

• attractive pay and benefits or stable income (15 interviews, or 47%)
• ample job opportunities or job security (14 interviews, or 44%)
• good working conditions (5 interviews, or 14%)

Key informants also mentioned these influences:

• family or friends (8 of 32 interviews, or 25%)
• intrinsic interest in the chosen trade or enjoyment of "hands-on" work (6 interviews, or 19%)
• role models and mentors (5 interviews, or 14%)
• financial incentives such as grants or band funding (4 interviews, or 13%)
• trades exploration programs (4 interviews, or 13%). When we asked specifically about financial supports or programs that may have influenced women apprentices, many more mentioned these programs (16 of 38 interviews, or 42%)
• the more attractive cost-benefit relationship of an apprenticeship compared to a university program (3 of 32 interviews, or 9%)
• a desire to break gender norms (2 interviews, or 6%)
• equality of pay in unionized shops (2 interviews, or 6%)
• organizations supporting women in trades (2 interviews, or 6%)

Most AIG-W recipients who participated in focus groups (27 of 30) elaborated on the influences upon their decision to apprentice in a male-dominated trade.^{Footnote 61} They mentioned:

• an interest in the nature of the trade or preferring manual work (21)
• material benefits such as good pay and steady employment (8)

Important influences on women's decisions to enter apprenticeship, noted in the literature, include:

• early education about traditionally male-dominated trades
• female role models
• family and friends

For girls, parental influence regarding careers in the trades is often negative. According to a 2018 survey of Canadian students:

• 40% of girls reported that their parents do not want them to pursue trades careers, as opposed to 34% of boys
• only 13% of girls reported being encouraged by their parents to pursue a career in the trades compared to 31% of boys
• only 12% of girls (and 29% of boys) were willing to consider a trades career
• only 2% of girls (and 14% of boys) were planning to pursue a trades career^{Footnote 62}

Most AIG-W recipients participating in focus groups (27 of 30) discussed factors influencing their decision to enter apprenticeship in a male-dominated trade. Most (23) chose their trade later in life, after exploring post-secondary education or other careers, because of factors like:

• job loss, spousal separation, or work-related injury
• a desire for better working conditions, more job stability, hands-on work, or a change of environment

These 23 AIG-W recipients discovered trade opportunities through various means such as:

• random career exploration
• online research
• unexpected job opportunities (for example, temporary jobs turning into a career)
• networking or word of mouth

A few (4) chose their trade during or shortly after high school. They were influenced by their own interests or aptitudes. All 4 were supported by programs that facilitated trades exploration.

Survey respondents identified a variety of barriers to starting an apprenticeship for female apprentices

SRDC survey respondents indicated a variety of barriers to apprenticeship that women face (Figure 24).

Text version - Figure 24

Types of barriers	Proportion
Challenges living on my income as a Level 1 apprentice	60%
Feeling unprepared because I used to know nothing about the trades	56%
Feeling unprepared because I used to know no one in the trades	44%
Lack of work gear and tools	39%
I did not know where to look for a job in the trades	22%
I could not get a job in the trades	20%
Lack of support from family	12%
Lack of childcare support	9%
I was unable to travel to work (no car, no bus pass)	7%
Other	7%
Lack of support from friends	6%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

As shown in Figure 24, a majority (60%) of AIG-W recipients cited challenges living on their income as Level 1 apprentices. AIG-W recipients also faced other financial challenges (Figure 25):

• 46% continued to find it either "very much" or "completely" challenging to pay for living expenses while in block training
• 38% found it either "very much" or "completely" challenging to live on their income as an apprentice
• a lower proportion (24%) found it either "very much" or "completely" challenging to pay for their apprenticeship in general

Text version - Figure 25

Challenge	Not at all	Slightly	Somewhat	Very much	Completely
To live on my income as an apprentice	7%	25%	29%	24%	14%
To pay for living expenses while in block training	6%	16%	31%	28%	18%
To pay for my apprenticeship in general	22%	28%	27%	15%	9%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Female apprentices confront a variety of barriers to progression

SRDC survey respondents (all AIG-W recipients) identified a variety of barriers to progression that female apprentices face (Figure 26):

• challenges living on their income as an apprentice (44%)
• feeling like they were being "pigeon-holed" into simple tasks on the job (33%)
• recruitment and hiring bias against people like them (30%)
• lack of role models and mentors (27%)
• not knowing who to talk to when they experience issues at work (27%)
• unsupportive supervisors (26%)
• bullying and harassment at work (26 per cent)

Text version - Figure 26

Barriers to progress in their apprenticeship	Proportion
Challenges living on my income as an apprentice	44%
Feeling like I'm being ‘pigeon-holed' into simple tasks	33%
Recruitment and hiring bias against people like me	30%
Lack of role models and mentors	27%
Not knowing who to talk to when I experience issues at work	27%
Unsupportive supervisors	26%
Bullying and harassment at work	26%
Unsupportive co-workers	21%
Lack of networking opportunities	13%
Other	3%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Unwelcoming workplaces are a major barrier to progression for female apprentices

KII participants identified barriers to progression that AIG-W recipients continued to face, and reasons why women leave the skilled trades.

A very large majority of interviews (34 of 40, or 85%) cited unwelcoming or hostile workplaces as a major barrier. Informants explained that these work environments are characterized by:

• bullying
• discrimination
• misogyny
• sexual harassment
• hazing of new workers
• social exclusion (which leaves women feeling isolated)

Women also encountered journeypersons who were unsupportive or unwilling to train them.

One informant illustrated the discouragement she received from her employer and colleagues, such as being told that she should just quit: "a lot of the shops, when women come in, they just don't make it. Like … they want to see them fail…. They won't train them properly. They won't give them the time of day."

Women reported problems standing up to harassment on the job. One informant explained that "if, for instance, you take a guy to HR, you will be known as the girl who took someone to HR and caused an issue, and you're expected to turn around and have these men train you.… Once you have that reputation, no man's [going to want to] work with you. They're going to be afraid of being taken to HR [for] saying something out of turn as well. So you label yourself and you paint yourself into a box."

According to 2 informants, financial incentives do not compensate for these problems with workplace culture.

In a 2018 conference, female apprentices and trades workers identified "stereotypes and unwelcoming workplaces" as "the biggest barriers women experience" in pursuing careers in the trades.^{Footnote 63} They advocated a zero-tolerance response to bad behaviours like bullying and sexual harassment, the latter being a key reason why women leave jobs in the trades.^{Footnote 64}

Close to half of the AIG-W recipients who took part in focus groups (14 of 30) reported facing negative attitudes towards women in male-dominated trades. For example:

• having their skills questioned (6)
• lack of respect from male peers (1). "In body shops, men don't respect you, so it's kind of just hard to earn [their] respect. It takes a while. Sometimes it doesn't happen at all."
• inappropriate or offensive comments (mentioned by 4 AIG-W recipients)
• sexual harassment at work (1)

Female apprentices face other barriers to progression

Other barriers that KII and focus group participants discussed:

• family responsibilities related to childcare or family planning. KII and focus group participants emphasized that irregular hours in construction make it difficult to secure childcare. Over half of KII (22 interviews, or 55%) plus 10 focus group participants (8 AIG-W recipients, and 2 female regular AIG recipients) discussed this issue
  • over half of KII participants indicated that the absence of accommodation for childcare responsibilities is a barrier to progression or causes women to discontinue apprenticeship (22 of 40 interviews, or 55%)
  • 1 focus group participant explained that her employer allows her to start working later so she can take her children to daycare in the morning. She stated that few employers are willing to adjust schedules. She also mentioned that such accommodations can create tensions with co-workers
• difficulty finding employers who are willing to hire women, finding steady work, or finding a journeyperson to train them. Fifteen interviews, or 38%, plus 2 focus group participants (both AIG-W recipients) mentioned this problem
• problems with the quality of instruction and mentorship on the job given to female apprentices (11 interviews, or 28%). Six focus group participants also mentioned not being trained in the full range of skills needed to progress. All were AIG-W recipients
• lack of appropriate facilities like bathrooms for women (11 interviews, or 28%)
• difficulty finding personal protective equipment or tools in correct sizes (6 interviews, or 15%)
• financial issues such as low pay, loss of wages during training, or cost of necessary equipment (6 interviews, or 15%).^{Footnote 65} One of these KIs explained that EI was not sufficient, especially for women who earn the family's sole income and "cannot afford the reduced salary during their training"
• lack of opportunity for advancement or being passed over for promotion in favour of male colleagues (4 interviews, or 10%)
• difficulty obtaining time off to complete a training block. Two AIG-W recipients and 1 female regular AIG recipient mentioned this problem in focus groups

Female apprentices face various barriers to completing the Red Seal exam

AIG-W recipients who responded to the SRDC survey cited various challenges to completing the Red Seal exam (consult Figure 27). These included:

• test anxiety (71%)
• a lack of study materials like practice exams or quizzes (47%)
• not knowing how to prepare for the exam (44%)
• lack of time to study (32%)
• fees to write the Red Seal exam (28%)

Text version - Figure 27

Barriers to completing an apprenticeship and writing the Red Seal exam	Proportion
Feeling anxious about exams / I don't like exams in general	71%
Lack of study materials, practice exams, quizzes, etc.	47%
Not knowing how to prepare for the exam	44%
Lack of time to study	32%
Lack of access to a tutor who can help me study	28%
Fees to write the Red Seal exam	28%
Lack of connections to others who are preparing for the exam like me	18%
Other	9%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

The AIG-W helped women apprentices to progress in various ways

AIG-W recipients indicated, in the SRDC survey, various ways in which the grant encouraged them to continue progressing. Consult Figure 28. The grant helped them pay for:

• tools and work gear (60%)
• living expenses, such as groceries or hydro bills (57%)
• transportation, such as gas or a bus pass (52%)

More than a third said that the AIG-W provided psychological reassurance and validation in addition to concrete financial support:

• 36% said receiving the grant made them feel more confident that they could afford their apprenticeship
• 34% said it made them feel proud of their career decisions

Text version - Figure 28

Different uses of the grant	Proportion
Helped pay for tools and work gear	60%
Helped pay for other living expenses (groceries, hydro bills)	57%
Helped pay for transportation (gas, bus pass)	52%
Helped pay for my accommodations (rent)	38%
Made me more confident that I can afford this apprenticeship	36%
Made me feel proud of my career decision	34%
Helped pay for books and other study materials	28%
Added to my income while I attended technical training	27%
Helped pay for apprenticeship registration fees	23%
Helped pay for tuition fees for block training	23%
Helped pay for other apprenticeship fees (administration fees, assessment fees)	16%
Helped pay for childcare	7%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

KII participants observed that the AIG-W helped reduce financial barriers (8 of 39 interviews, or 21%). Another said that the grant was not large enough to influence her decision to pursue apprenticeship but it did help fill the gap in income left by EI.

In response to a separate question, informants in 40 interviews, as well as 38 focus group participants, reported that women used the grant for:

• routine living expenses like rent, groceries, gas, or bills (50% of KII and 47% of focus group participants)
  • avoiding or paying off debt, including student loans (15% of KII and 8% of focus group participants)
  • childcare (13% of KII and 3% of focus group participants)
  • one KII participant observed that the grant permitted apprentices to manage unexpected expenses like car repairs, important for those on the low end of the pay scale
• essential tools or equipment (33% of KII and 58% of focus group participants). All 5 KII participants in the women apprentices group said that the grant helped them pay for tools or work equipment
• tuition (18% of KII and 18% of focus group participants)
• work-related travel (3% of KII and 11% of focus group participants)
• compensation for lost wages during technical training (15% of KII participants)
• personal expenses such as entertainment (13% of focus group participants)

Five (of 39) interviews stated that the grant motivated women to persist in their apprenticeship, particularly during technical training or the early stages of apprenticeship when wages are typically lower. One indicated that some women would have quit without the grant.

This notion was confirmed by another informant who explained that the grant had provided crucial financial support when she was at the lowest end of the pay scale as a new apprentice. As she stated, "I probably would have given up on the trade altogether if it hadn't been for the grant." The grant "might not seem like a lot of money in the grand scheme of life, but the money really kept me alive…. [I]t was … essential."

A few informants asserted that the grant did not have a large impact (3 of 40 interviews, or 8%).

Other factors helped AIG-W recipients continue progressing

The SRDC survey showed that mentorship and a support network of family and friends are key factors that help women in male-dominated Red Seal trades continue progressing (Figure 29):

• 41% noted that they were mentored by a co-worker or supervisor at work
• 41% indicated receiving supports from their family and friends to continue their apprenticeship

Text version - Figure 29

Factors that helped AIG-W recipients continue progressing in male-dominated Red Seal trades	Proportion
Mentorship from a co-worker or supervisor	41%
Support from my family and friends	41%
Exam preparation (level or Red Seal exam)	34%
Opportunities to network with people in my trades	32%
Opportunities to network with other tradespersons	30%
Help finding job opportunities	26%
Help getting into a union	21%
Resume and cover letter support	18%
Help with funding applications (applying for EI, loans, etc.)	18%
Opportunities to attend events, conferences, presentations, or webinars in the trades	17%
Mentorship from others outside my workplace	15%
I haven't received any support with my apprenticeship	15%
Career counselling or exploration to help choose my trade	12%
Job interview preparation or practice	10%
Opportunities to network with employers	10%
Other	2%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Other factors or supports that could aid women's progression

Focus group participants (23 — both men and women) discussed other income sources they used during their apprenticeship.

More than half (14 of 23) mentioned that receiving EI benefits during training blocks helped them minimize debt or make ends meet.

A few (4) used government loans, but none mentioned using or knowing about the Canada Apprentice Loan.

Other funding sources mentioned include:

• the tax credit for tools purchases
• other government programs (for example, provincial allowances covering some training-related expenses)
• employer-provided financial support
• bank loans or credit cards

KII participants discussed various other factors and supports that could aid women's progression. They mentioned:

• mentorship, including on-the-job teaching and peer support from other tradeswomen (14 of 40 interviews, or 35%)
• programs and policies to make the workplace more welcoming by eliminating bullying, harassment, and discrimination (10 of 40 interviews, or 25%)
• financial supports to cover the pay gap during training, or to meet expenses like childcare, transportation, tools, and tuition (10 interviews, or 25%)
• non-governmental organizations that support women apprentices (10 interviews, or 25%)
• more support for childcare (9 interviews, or 23%)

Focus group participants mentioned some of the same supports:

• mentorship (6 participants from various groups)
• creating programs and policies to make the workplace more welcoming (5 AIG recipients)
• more support for childcare (3 AIG-W recipients and 1 female regular AIG recipient)

Some male apprentices thought the AIG-W was unfair

The AIG-W was intended to encourage female apprentices to work in male-dominated trades.

A majority of KII participants reported unfavourable perceptions of the AIG-W (23 of 38 interviews, or 61%).

Nearly half (17 of 38, or 45%) mentioned men's complaints about the grant being unfair or discriminatory. Notably, in the group of women apprentices interviewed, all 5 reported that men complained about the grant.

Applications were approved based solely on the apprentice self-identifying as "female" on the application form. A few KII participants (7 of 38, or 18%) noted that some male apprentices applied as women and received the grant.^{Footnote 66}

The AG Program recognizes that these types of sensitive questions associated with supporting equity-deserving groups are not limited to the AIG-W.

AIG-W recipients (16 women) who participated in the focus groups discussed perceptions of the grant. Most reported negative comments, reactions, or envy from male peers who thought it was unfair (13 of 16). A few (3) reported that attempts to explain the grant's purpose to male peers had little influence on their attitudes.

Two participants noted that negative perceptions of the AIG-W are amplified in Quebec. They stated that provincial measures benefiting female apprentices already created jealousy among tradesmen.

A few AIG-W recipients were upset that some male apprentices were able to receive the grant. All 3 participants believe, nonetheless, that the AIG-W should be reinstated.

Some non-eligible apprentices (men and women) thought the AIG-W was unfair

The SRDC survey asked a series of questions to gauge how non-eligible apprentices perceived the AIG-W (consult Figure 30). Male apprentices and female apprentices in non-male-dominated Red Seal trades were not eligible for the grant. Among non-eligible apprentices who responded to the survey:

• only a minority agreed (22%) or strongly agreed (17%) that the AIG-W is fair
• over half agreed (34%) or strongly agreed (19%) that the AIG-W can help diversify the trades workforce
• a majority either agreed or strongly agreed that the AIG-W is helpful for women in some trades (64%) or for women in all trades (60%)

Text version - Figure 30

Questions	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
The AIG-W is fair	24%	18%	20%	22%	17%
The AIG-W is helpful for women in some trades	9%	5%	21%	39%	25%
The AIG-W is helpful for women in all trades	11%	7%	22%	36%	24%
The AIG-W is helpful for everyone in the trades	24%	20%	23%	18%	14%
The AIG-W can help to diversify the trades workforce	14%	10%	22%	34%	19%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Some non-eligible female apprentices also thought the AIG-W was unfair

Key informant interviews indicated that some non-eligible women, such as hairstylists, wondered why they were excluded or felt that their exclusion was unfair (5 of 38 interviews, or 13%). Some women felt that being excluded "devalued their jobs." Some 3rd and 4th year female apprentices in eligible trades felt that the AIG-W was not fair because it only applied to the first 2 years, and they did not receive it.

Similar feedback was obtained from a few female AIG recipients who took part in focus groups. One expressed frustration about being excluded from the AIG-W because:

• women in excluded trades also have financial struggles
• being excluded devalued their trades
• her trade (parts technician) is "mostly male-dominated," she is the only woman doing this job in her company, and it is "very rare" to find other women doing the same job

Two cooks noted that, while their trade was not considered male-dominated under the AIG-W, there are still power imbalances that leave women at a disadvantage.

The SRDC survey also captured perceptions of the AIG-W from non-eligible women (Figure 31):

• when responses are combined, 17% disagree or strongly disagree that the AIG-W is fair
• 18% are neutral

Text version - Figure 31

Questions	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
The AIG-W is fair	9%	8%	18%	27%	38%
The AIG-W is helpful for women in some trades	4%	3%	14%	36%	44%
The AIG-W is helpful for women in all trades	21%	13%	14%	19%	33%
The AIG-W is helpful for everyone in the trades	13%	18%	26%	21%	21%
The AIG-W can help to diversify the trades workforce	7%	5%	17%	32%	40%

Source: SRDC (2024), National survey of AG recipients, conducted for ESDC’s Evaluation Directorate. Unpublished technical report.

Some non-eligible apprentices (men and women) had positive views of the AIG-W

A few (3) AIG-W recipients in focus groups noted that some men understood the grant's rationale and even supported the higher grant amount for women.

Two female focus group participants who obtained only the regular AIG viewed the AIG-W positively. One said that she is glad other women received it and that the AIG-W should have been renewed. The other mentioned that the AIG-W could encourage recipients to persevere despite the challenges they faced as women in male-dominated trades.

All 10 male focus group participants held positive views about the AIG-W and the presence of women in trades:

• 2 men in non-male-dominated trades strongly supported the AIG-W, with one suggesting its expansion to include gender-diverse individuals
• 1 man in a male-dominated trade said that it was "fantastic" that the grant encouraged women to join the trades

A few KII participants indicated that non-eligible female apprentices had few complaints (4 of 38 interviews, or 11%).

The pandemic negatively impacted employment and apprenticeship

There was a 30% drop in employment in Red Seal trades in the spring of 2020 due to COVID-19.^{Footnote 67}

In nearly half of interviews (20 of 41, or 49%), KII participants commented on various ways that the pandemic interfered with the availability of work.

The pandemic caused:

• concerns about health and safety in workplaces, which kept workers at home
• port closures, which affected supply chains
• shortages of materials
• restrictions on access to equipment

Resulting in:

• delays in business operations
• shutdowns, work slowdowns, layoffs

Focus group participants (8 of 31, or 26%) similarly noted a reduction in working hours.

A few KII participants stated that the closure of job sites delayed apprentices in fulfilling their program requirements (8 of 41 interviews, or 20%).

Employment in Red Seal trades rebounded and surpassed pre-pandemic levels by December 2020.^{Footnote 68} General Canadian employment, by comparison, only recovered to pre-pandemic levels in September 2021, though in March 2022 the unemployment rate fell to a record low of 5.3%.^{Footnote 69}

The pandemic's impact on trades workers varied

As Statistics Canada observed in a 2021 report, the impact of COVID restrictions on apprentices and journeypersons varied. Apprentices working in essential service sectors such as energy, utilities, and construction-related trades were less likely to have employment interrupted or their certification delayed because of pandemic-induced closures. Those in non-essential service industries were most likely to depend on the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). For example, "over 70% of journeypersons in some sectors, such as hairstylists and early childhood educators, received the CERB in 2020."^{Footnote 70}

Almost one third of interviews explicitly recognized that the pandemic's impact on apprenticeship varied according to trade (13 of 41, or 32%). A few stated that service trades were more affected and saw a large decrease in employment (7 interviews, or 17%). Others stated that apprentices in construction trades were the least affected because they were deemed essential workers (5 interviews, or 12%).

A few informants reported that apprentices were more affected than journeypersons (3 of 41, or 7%). Two informants noted that first- and second-year apprentices were laid off more often than more advanced apprentices.

Of 17 focus group participants who discussed changes following the lifting of pandemic-related restrictions, 3 (18%) noted a decrease in demand for workers in the service industry or trades that are not male-dominated, such as hairstylists or cooks.

Application and eligibility issues

According to Statistics Canada, new apprenticeship registrations and certifications both declined in 2019 compared to 2018, continuing a trend dating back to 2014.^{Footnote 71}

During the pandemic, new apprenticeship registrations dropped by 28.5% in 2020, compared to 2019. Certifications were down by 32.7%.^{Footnote 72}

A significant drop in the number of AG applications coincided with the pandemic. The program was receiving over 61,000 AIG applications annually over the previous 3 fiscal years before the number dropped to under 44,000 in 2020 to 2021.

In the 2-year period from fiscal year 2019 to 2020 until 2020 to 2021:

• AIG-W applications dropped from 4,932 to 3,811
• ACG applications dropped from 28,556 to 19,274
• taken together, the total number of grant applications dropped by 29.9%^{Footnote 73}
• the number of AG issued also declined by 36%^{Footnote 74}

Before the pandemic, over half of all CAF survey respondents (52%) said they "experienced challenges when applying." Problems included difficulty completing paperwork or finding answers to their questions.^{Footnote 75}

The introduction of the document upload utility to the online application process in November 2020 produced an initial increase in duplicate submissions because some apprentices could not confirm receipt of their applications. This prompted a brief increase in rejection rates.^{Footnote 76}

A majority of KII participants agreed that the pandemic caused, or probably caused, AG intake to decline (22 of 34 interviews, or 65%). They indicated that apprentice eligibility dropped, and offered a few explanations:

• apprentices were unable to complete required technical training due to school closures, class and exam cancellations, or inability to succeed with online instruction (14 interviews, or 41%)
• apprentices were unable to work required hours of on-the-job training due to layoffs or workplace closures (7 interviews, or 21%)
• apprentices were not willing to take online instruction, leading them to delay training (3 interviews, or 9%)
• fewer apprentices registered (3 interviews)
• delays in receiving attestation letters from provincial authorities beyond apprentices' eligibility period (2 interviews, or 6%)^{Footnote 77}

The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to lowering employment incomes of AG recipients^{Footnote 78}

The average and median employment income of recipients declined in 2020 due to the pandemic (Figure 32).

Average employment income decreased from $73,500 in 2019 to $69,170 in 2020. Similarly, median employment income decreased from $72,120 in 2019 to $67,570 in 2020.

Text version - Figure 32

Years	Average employment income	Median employment income
2016	$ 69,610	$ 67,770
2017	$ 71,920	$ 70,020
2018	$ 72,640	$ 71,240
2019	$ 73,500	$ 72,120
2020	$ 69,170	$ 67,570

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on recipients' employment income in 2020 varied across the top 10 Red Seal trades

The percentage change in employment income attributable to COVID-19 in 2020 compared to 2019 (pre-pandemic period) varied by trade. Consult Figure 33.

The greatest drop in employment income was recorded in the hairstylist trade. Average and median employment income decreased by 16.42% and 29.28%, respectively, compared to 2019.

On the other hand, the Industrial Mechanic (Millwright) trade was the least affected, with a drop in average and median employment income of 2.27% and 1.58%, respectively.

Trades not deemed essential services, and which were closed in 2020, experienced a greater drop in employment income.

Text version - Figure 33

Trades	Average percent change	Median percent change
Industrial Mechanic (Millwright)	-2.27%	-1.58%
Plumber	-2.88%	-1.41%
Automotive Service Technician	-3.42%	-2.89%
Carpenter	-3.77%	-3.95%
Heavy Duty Equipment Technician	-5.15%	-4.22%
Construction Eelectrician	-5.27%	-5.45%
Steamfitter/Pipefitter	-9.27%	-10.39%
Cook	-9.75%	-13.63%
Welder	-9.94%	-10.94%
Hairstylist	-16.42%	-29.28%

• Source: Analyses conducted by the Evaluation Directorate, ESDC (2024). AG administrative data linked to the RAIS, CAL and T1FF data.
• Note: All values are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.

The pandemic impacted apprentices' training and progression

A majority of KII participants (26 of 40 interviews, or 65%) stated that training was hindered or delayed, both on-the-job and in-class, by:

• closure of technical training institutions and workplaces
• social distancing restrictions and vaccination policies which reduced class sizes
• reduced opportunities to write level exams
• inability to work the hours required to advance

Two informants reported that many apprentices dropped out of their programs or changed careers due to lack of work, interruptions in training, safety concerns, or their focus on family responsibilities.

Some noted that technical training shifted to remote instruction (15 of 40 interviews, or 38%). Remote learning brought both difficulties and benefits, for example:

• online courses enabled some apprentices to continue their programs with minimal delay
• reduced expenses for transportation, parking, and meals
• enough apprentices liked the remote option that technical training institutions have continued to offer it
• online instruction did not work well for content requiring hands-on practical training, or for apprentices without computers
• some apprentices disliked online instruction enough to skip their technical training until they could return in person

The 31 focus group participants who discussed impacts of the pandemic mentioned:

• a decline in the quality of technical training (n=9) due to introduction of remote instruction, lack of hands-on learning, and compression of course content
• reduction in working hours delayed progression (n=8)
• delays in technical training due to COVID outbreaks, intermittent school closures, or program postponement (n=7)
• reduced school attendance due to the imposition of vaccine mandates (n=1)
• missing the application deadline due to administrative issues such as delays in receipt of attestation letters (n=1)

Of 17 who discussed changes following the lifting of pandemic-related restrictions, a few reported lesser quality of technical training (n=3) related to:

• higher class sizes
• need to change schools
• inferior knowledge when starting on-the-job training

The pandemic impacted some groups of apprentices differently than others

KII participants observed some differences in the ways that the pandemic affected specific groups of apprentices. They mentioned that:

• apprentices in the service industry like hairstylists and cooks faced greater disruptions than those in essential services (5 of 33 interviews, or 15%). Many of the most-affected apprentices were women
• apprentices at the entry (first and second) levels were more vulnerable to layoffs. Those at the low end of the pay scale had a harder time coping with increased cost of living (5 interviews, or 15%)
• single parents and families with young children were greatly affected by school and daycare interruptions (5 interviews, or 15%)

According to Statistics Canada, "women were more likely than men to become unemployed during the pandemic because of the large employment losses in service industries, where women account for the majority of the workforce."^{Footnote 80}

Apprentices in trades most affected by the pandemic more often relied on the CERB. In addition, more than half (56%) of certified females received the CERB, compared to just over a third (36%) of males.^{Footnote 81} Consult Appendix N for more details.

It would therefore be expected that "the declines in new registrations and certifications among women [apprentices] were proportionately larger than those among men." New female registrations decreased by 3,447 (-32.9%) and certifications dropped by 2,460 (-38.5%) in 2020.^{Footnote 82}

New registrations among men, by comparison, declined by 18,672 (-27.8%). Certifications among men dropped by 14,649 (-31.9%).

The pandemic had positive impacts for some apprentices

According to some focus group participants (12 of 43), the pandemic did not have any significant impact on their progression or employment situation.

Positive impacts of the pandemic were reported by 12 of 31 focus group participants, including:

• smaller class sizes, which allowed more interaction with instructors (n=3)^{Footnote 83}
• exemption from provincial exams (n=3)
• stronger interest in their trade or motivation to embark on an apprenticeship (n=3)
• hybrid schooling, which offered greater access to online materials (n=2)
• higher demand for workers in essential services, such as construction (n=2)

Focus group participants (17 of 55) discussed changes following the lifting of pandemic-related restrictions, including:

• greater demand for labour, including apprentices (n=7)
• lifting of safety measures in the workplace (n= 4), for example allowing more people to work in person or without wearing masks
• improved technical training (n=2) due to resumption of in-class instruction or option for remote instruction

Component 1: Formative evaluation of the AIG-W pilot project

1. How has the introduction of the AIG-W influenced women's participation in male-dominated Red Seal trades?^{Footnote 86}
   1. How and when did AIG-W applicants initially became aware of the program?
   2. Are specific groups of AIG-W eligible women less likely to be aware of the grant, and why?
   3. To what extent did their awareness of the program (and of the other financial supports available) influence their decision to undertake an apprenticeship in a male-dominated Red Seal trade, and why?
2. To what extent does the AIG-W contribute to encourage women in male-dominated Red Seal trades to continue progressing in their training, once enrolled, and why?
   1. What proportion of all female apprentices registered in eligible Red Seal trades have applied for and obtained the grant?
   2. What do AIG-W recipients use the grant money for?
   3. Do AIG-W recipients continue to face financial or non-financial barriers to apprenticeship progression and certification?
   4. What other factors or types of supports could further help these women continue progressing in male-dominated Red Seal trades?
3. How is the AIG-W perceived by eligible versus non-eligible apprentices (for example, male apprentices and female apprentices in non-male-dominated Red Seal trades)?

Component 2: Evaluation of the net impacts of the AG Program on progression, certification, and post-program employment outcomes

4. Do grant recipients progress through each level, including certification, at a higher rate than do apprentices not eligible for the grants (for example, apprentices in non-Red Seal trades), or eligible non-recipients?
5. What are the employment outcomes of apprentices who have received the grants, compared to those who have not?
   1. Do these outcomes vary based on the type of grants received (AIG and/or ACG), participation in other programs such as the CAL, Red Seal certification, gender and/or other identity factors?

COVID specific question (covered by both components)

6. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected program intake and delivery, the progression of grant recipients, as well as their employment situation?^{Footnote 87}

Key challenges and limitations

Efforts were made to ensure balanced regional representation. However, only 3 participants attended each of the 2 focus groups conducted in the Pacific time zone, compared with 5 to 7 in the other 7 focus groups.

Purposive sampling was used to diversify the profile of invited participants as much as possible. Limited responses from some categories meant that the composition of focus groups did not necessarily represent all segments of the population of program participants.

It was difficult to recruit apprentices who self-identified as women and had not obtained their certification and the ACG (dropped out or discontinued the training). This focus group, therefore, was cancelled. Triangulation of focus group findings with KII findings compensated for this gap.

Since the program administrative database was not up to date, some focus groups had mixed categories of participants rather than homogeneous groups. Moderators had to adapt discussion topics in such cases.

Administrative databases

• RAIS: 2008 to 2020
• AG data: 2008 to 2020
• CAL data: 2015 to 2020
• EI Status Vector: 2008 to 2020
• T1FF - Income Data for Tax Filers and their Families: 2008 to 2020

Cleaning up databases

• AG recipient records are in both AG administrative data and the RAIS database while those of non-recipients are exclusively in RAIS
• Trade qualifiers were removed from the RAIS database. In fact, the trade qualifiers have never registered in an apprenticeship; therefore, they are not eligible for the grants
• Only apprentices registered in a Red Seal trade were kept in RAIS
• Once trade qualifiers and apprentices in a non-Red Seal trade were removed from the sample, real duplicates were checked and removed

Database linkage

• After removing trade qualifiers and apprentices in non-Red Seal trades, apprentices in RAIS who were not matched with an individual in the AG administrative data are in the control group
• Linkages are based on one unique identifier (Register_group_ID) which is available in all databases being used
• The AG administrative database was linked to the RAIS database
• The linked AG-RAIS was reshaped in wide to have only one observation by apprentice in each cohort
• The linked AG-RAIS dataset was linked with the EI dataset for all cohorts
• The linked AG-RAIS-EI dataset was linked to the CAL dataset only for the 2014 cohort since CAL had been introduced in 2015

Control and treatment groups

• Treatment group: apprentices registered in Red Seal trades between 2008 and 2014 who received AIG or AIG-W at least once during their training
• Control group: apprentices registered in Red Seal trades between 2008 and 2014 who received neither AIG nor AIG-W during their training. The control group both includes apprentices who were eligible and did not benefit from the program, and those whose applications were rejected for several reasons

Cohorts and reference period

• Cohort: a group of newly registered apprentices in an apprenticeship program during a calendar year. The analyses are related to cohorts from 2008 to 2014
• Reference period: 2008 to 2014 cohorts followed until 2020
  • AG Program was introduced in 2007 (first cohort for the analysis is 2008) and will end in March 2025
  • Apprenticeship program duration is from 1 to 5 years
  • Since the evaluation will estimate AG impacts over 1.5 times the duration of the apprenticeship program, 2014 is the last cohort

Text version - Figure 36

Linked AG and RAIS (Linked AG-RAIS)

Linked AG-RAIS to CAL and EI (Linked AG-RAIS-CAL-EI)

Linked AG-RAIS-CAL-EI to T1FF (Linked AG-RAIS-CAL-EI-T1FF)

Data analysis method 1: propensity score kernel matching

The analysis of linked administrative data was done through 2 methods: propensity score kernel matching and probit regression.

Data analysis method 2: probit regression

The objective of probit regression is to consider factors associated with progression, certification, or dropout. This model was not chosen to investigate a causal relationship between receiving the AG and progression or certification, due to several potential limitations such as selection bias. Indeed, the treatment allocation is not random. Participation in the AG Program is subject to certain conditions which means the treatment cannot be assigned randomly. The analyses were first conducted separately by cohort (2008 to 2014). After, cohort data was pooled by controlling for year effects (year of registration).

Number of AG issued and take-up rates

The methodology to calculate drop-out rates is based on 2014 research published by the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship (CCDA).

Sampling

Two-stage stratified random sampling to ensure adequate sample sizes to conduct the analysis on the following 5 target groups:

• Group 1: female apprentices who have received both the AIG-W and the ACG
• Group 2: female apprentices who have received the AIG-W but have not yet applied for or received the ACG
• Group 3: apprentices who have received both the regular AIG and the ACG
• Group 4: apprentices who have received the regular AIG but have not yet applied for or received the ACG
• Group 5: apprentices (AIG-W, AIG, ACG) who had at least one grant application turned down (unsuccessful applicants)

Within each of the 5 target groups, a second-stage stratification was applied to ensure adequate representation of apprentices traditionally under-represented in the Red Seal trades workforce, such as:

• Red Seal apprentices identified as women
• Indigenous
• people living with disabilities
• people belonging to a visible minority group (racialized persons in Canada)

The evaluation over-sampled the key sub-populations to ensure sufficient sample sizes for subsequent sub-group analyses, for example, women.

Pilot survey

The evaluation validated the survey instrument through a series of telephone interviews (20 participants) administered to a random selection of program participants. The results of the interviews were used solely to improve the survey instrument before the launch of the national survey.

Survey (national level)

In total, 43,216 grant recipients were invited to participate in the national survey. By 27 March 2024—the survey's closing date—2,437 respondents completed the survey.

Data cleaning and preparation

The raw survey data was checked for accuracy and completeness. This involved checking for missing values, inconsistencies, and outliers.

Data Analysis

The evaluation used descriptive statistics to summarize all quantitative survey variables. These included measures of central tendency (mean, median) and dispersion (standard deviation, range) for continuous variables such as age and hourly wages. For categorical variables, which made up the majority of the survey questions, the evaluation calculated frequencies and percentages to describe the distribution of responses. In addition, the evaluation performed bivariate analysis using independent samples t-tests to compare the means of 2 independent groups to determine whether there is statistical evidence that the associated population means are significantly different. As the survey is based on a random sample of a population, the objective of the test is to check whether the differences in means for each subgroup are also valid at the population level of each subgroup. To complement the quantitative analysis, open-ended survey comments were examined thematically. This involved an iterative process of reading and coding the responses to identify recurring concepts and ideas.

Key challenges and limitations

The SRDC survey was subject to several challenges and limitations.

Men's post-apprenticeship employment income is much higher than women's

A Statistics Canada study in 2019 found that women with apprenticeship certification earned less than their male counterparts.^{Footnote 91} They also earned less than any other women except for those who failed to complete high school. Women who apprenticed made 12% less than those with only high school education unless they chose a male-dominated trade. In that case they made 27% more than women with high school only.

Women who chose male-dominated trades received lower median hourly wages than men. They were less likely to be employed in their trades and were less likely to receive most job-related benefits.

In 2019, women accounted for 9% of Red Seal apprentices. About half were in the low-paying hairstylist, cook, and baker trades.^{Footnote 92} Women's entry into male-dominated Red Seal trades was only 5% of the total. Their completion rate only accounts for about 3% of the total.^{Footnote 93} Women's concentration in the lower paying trades therefore contributes to wage disparity compared to male trades workers.

Across all Red Seal trades, women earned on average 47% of what men earned in the first year after certification. Average earnings dropped to 46% after 8 years.^{Footnote 94}

Finnie, Dubois, and Miyairi (2021) report that even in higher-paying trades, women still earned less than men. In architectural and construction trades, they earned 78% of what men did; in electrical trades, 85%; in mechanical trades, 89%.^{Footnote 95} The authors suggest that the remaining gap may be partly explained by differences in hours or weeks worked. The differences may be due to childcare and family responsibilities which are met disproportionately by women.

Women's new registrations in male-dominated trades and AG take-up both increased after introduction of the AIG-W

From 2008 to 2016, only 38% of female apprentices registered in Red Seal trades. Women were more concentrated in non-Red Seal trades.^{Footnote 96}

According to RAIS, the gap between the proportion of women registering in trades eligible for the AIG-W and the proportion registering in non-eligible trades has decreased since the AIG-W was introduced in 2018. Consult Figure 20. For example, 60.7% of new female registrations in 2017 were in non-eligible trades. The proportion decreased to:

• 57.8% in 2018
• 47.5% in 2020
• 36.3% in 2022^{Footnote 97}

Similarly, the total number and proportion of all female apprentices registered in AIG-W-eligible trades has increased since 2018. It should, however, be noted that this proportion had already started increasing progressively before the introduction of the AIG-W. For example, it was:

• 28.2% in 2011
• 35.3% in 2014
• 41.6% in 2017^{Footnote 98}

The proportion further increased to:

• 52.5% in 2020
• 63.7% in 2022

In a 2016 Canadian study, Karine Levasseur and Stephanie Paterson argue that "the gendered structure of the labour market is preserved and reproduced," with all its inherent disadvantages for women, by apprenticeship programs that encourage women to enter male-dominated trades without addressing underlying systemic inequalities.^{Footnote 99}