Summative Evaluation: Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership Program, June 2009

List of Abbreviations

• AHRDA - Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement
• AHRDS - Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy
• APE - Action Plan Equivalent
• ARMS - Automated Records Management System
• ASEP - Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership
• BEST - Bridging Employment Skills Training
• CCC - Connecting to Colleges and Careers
• CORE - Construction Orientation and Retention Employment
• CPO - Certified Protection Officer Program
• CRA - Canada Revenue Agency
• DEC - Departmental Evaluation Committee
• DAT - Differential Aptitude Test
• DSD - Delivery Support Division
• EAS - Employment Assistance Services
• EI - Employment Insurance
• HR - Human Resources
• HRSDC - Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
• IA - Income Assistance (also known as Income Support or Social Assistance)
• ITA - Industry Training Authority
• JBET - James Bay Employment and Training
• LMDA - Labour Market Development Agreement
• MCTP - Mechanical and Construction Trades Preparation
• MHNTEI - Manitoba Hydro Northern Training and Employment Initiative
• MTS - Mine Training Society
• NFTC - Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium
• PACE - Preparation for Academic and Career Education
• PLAR - Prior Learning Assessment & Recognition
• SDF - Standard Data File
• SEB - Skills and Employment Branch
• SIN - Social Insurance Numbers
• TOWES - Test of Workplace Essential Skills
• TWSTS - Trade Winds to Success Training Society
• WBPAT - Wood Buffalo Partners in Aboriginal Training
• WKTC - Wuskwatim and Keeyask Training Consortium

Executive Summary

The five-year, $85M Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership (ASEP) initiative is a targeted Aboriginal skills development program designed to promote maximum employment for Aboriginal people on major economic developments through a collaborative partnership approach, leading to lasting benefits for Aboriginal individuals, communities and families. It is designed to address a broad spectrum of skills and learning needs and provide access to jobs. The ASEP program was developed in response to the Government of Canada’s commitment in the 2002 Speech from the Throne to help Aboriginal people participate in economic development opportunities.

The ASEP program funded nine diverse projects in resource-based sectors, including mining, forestry, oil and gas, hydro development, fishery, and construction. Each project is located in a different community or group of communities with varying project scopes. Funding levels range from approximately $3M to $22M. The nine projects are located across the country in rural and urban areas, as well as northern and southern settings.

In the 2009 Budget, the Government of Canada announced the investment of an additional $100 million over three years in the ASEP program. This is in addition to the $105 million investment announced in the 2007 Budget.

Evaluation Issues and Methodology

The summative evaluation focussed on issues of program outcomes, incrementality and cost-effectiveness. The main lines of evidence for the summative evaluation included:

• Updating descriptions of ASEP project activities and expenditures;
• A telephone survey of 625 ASEP clients;
• An analysis of progress in resolving data gaps identified during the formative evaluation data assessment process, and comparing ASEP Project administrative data with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s (HRSDC) Standard Data File (SDF)data and reports on project activities and expenditures; and
• A statistical analysis of HRSDC administrative data, including the linkage of Standard Data File client and intervention data with survey data, and HRSDC and Canada Revenue Agency administrative data (Status Vector and T1/T4 data).

Evaluation Limitations

Most ASEP program activity took place in the last year of the period covered by the evaluation. This has limited the length of the post program period and the scope of the summative evaluation by preventing a long-term assessment of program outcomes and impacts.

Key Findings

Program Implementation

The data assessment for the summative evaluation is based on data received by September 2007. Overall, progress towards addressing gaps identified during the formative evaluation data assessment process has been very limited. The data is incomplete, inaccurate, and generally of limited use for evaluation and accountability purposes. Of the nine projects reviewed, only one had case management data that could confidently be used for accountability and evaluation purposes.

The most serious gaps with respect to case management data remain:

• There is no electronic case management data available for a significant proportion of clients. As a result, complete case management data are neither readily available on site, nor available from HRSDC’s Standard Data File.
• Data stored in case management systems are miscoded in the majority of cases and as a result the information available on the types of interventions provided to the ASEP participants is inaccurate.
• Client contact information is missing in 19.4% of cases.

The financial data, for most projects, are more complete; however, for all projects, work is required to link project costs to individual clients.

The majority of the survey respondents reported participating in training and academic skills enhancement (76%). There was limited use or access to on-the job work experience (30%). Overall, the participants rated the services and programs higher for skills gains than for gaining work experience or finding employment. A large majority of the survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the employment programs and services received from ASEP (88%).

The large majority of the ASEP participants are Registered Indians, including both on reserve (38%) and off-reserve (42%) participants, male (70%), under the age of 35 (63%) and single (66%). Low female participation is not uncommon for projects in the resource sector, however some ASEP projects recruited almost as many female participants as male participants. The targeting and recruitment of the ASEP participants resulted in the participation of clients in need of assistance. Overall, ASEP participants had low levels of education and work experience and did not have consistent full-time employment prior to their program participation. Over half of the participants did not complete high school (51%). The average earning income for the ASEP participants was quite low - just under $9,000. On average, only 39% of the participants’ time was spent employed full-time in the 12 months prior to their participation in ASEP.

Outcomes of Participation

Overall, there was very little change in the earnings of the ASEP participants in the program start year. In the year following the program start year, the average earnings from employers increased by $2,700 from one year prior to program participation to one year after program participation, rising from $7,100 to $9,800. This average increase was slightly higher than the earnings increase the participants experienced in previous years. However, the time frame for the measurement of the earnings outcomes is too short to assess the post-program outcomes since most participants had not finished their program participation or had only recently finished.

Approximately 4 out of 10 ASEP participants (43%) had found employment in the project’s target industry. Among this 43%, approximately 1 out of 4 participants (26%) stated they found a job in the industry due to the education or skills acquired through their program participation and 9% of the participants found a job in the industry that did not require any specific education or skills. A large majority of the participants (76%) who found employment in the target industry rated their programs and services as important to obtaining their employment. Eighty percent of the jobs found in the target industry by the survey respondents required a specific education or skill. Participants were three times more likely to find employment in the target industry as a result of their program participation than they were to find a job that required specific education or skills they already possessed without the program.

Eight out of ten participants (81%) had some employment during the 12 months prior to the survey. On average, 6.6 months prior to the survey were spent employed. The amount of time spent in full-time employment increased by 15 percentage points compared to the year prior to their program participation while the time spent in part-time employment or unemployed and looking for work decreased. At the time of the survey, less than one quarter (23%) of the participants reported they were still employed in the target industry.

Cost-Comparison

Due to data limitations described earlier, it was not possible to calculate the cost-effectiveness of ASEP at this time. A simple cost analysis showed that the average cost per participant was $12,800. The average cost ranged from $6,900 to $26,600; however, the average costs are overstated since the population counts excluded some clients.

Accountability

The results from the data assessment indicated that for many projects there will be work required to develop their case management and financial systems to adequately ensure that there is no duplication or displacement of non-federal investments and to ensure there is adequate information to monitor and evaluate the expenditures. The analysis of the administrative data showed virtually no overlap between ASEP interventions and Employment Benefits (3%) delivered under the Labour Market Development Agreements.

Excluding employment services, one in four ASEP clients also received an intervention under the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreements (AHRDAs). Although it cannot be determined from the administrative data if these interventions were part of the same return to work action plan, as opposed to individuals requesting services independently under both programs, the fact that most ASEP projects worked in partnership with the AHRDAs is one source of assurance that these were complementary activities.

Management Response

The Skills and Employment Branch (SEB) of HRSDC would like to thank all those who participated in the conduct of the summative evaluation of the ASEP program. The SEB and ASEP program management acknowledge the observations and note the findings, which were based on survey data from 2007 to January 2008 and administrative data for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 cohorts.

The ASEP program has taken action to strengthen the implementation and accountability of the ASEP program based on this evaluation in concert with other lines of evidence. The findings and observations have informed the management and delivery of the program through the subsequent expansions of the program in 2007 and 2009.

ASEP was initially launched in 2003 as an $85 million multi-year labour market initiative designed to maximize training and job opportunities in major economic development projects across Canada and provide lasting benefits for Aboriginal communities, families and individuals. Nine projects were funded from the 2003 investment in the program beginning at various start dates between August 2004 and February 2006. One project ended on March 31, 2008, one on September, 30, 2008 and the rest ended March 31, 2009 following a one year extension to the program.

At the time of evaluation, ASEP was a new innovative approach to training and job retention. Learning significant lessons on the path to success, ASEP has successfully addressed issues regarding case management, data systems compatibility and the collection of Social Insurance Numbers (SIN) that delayed the initial capture of data.

The nine projects surpassed the overall employment and training targets. At the end of this phase of the program over 3,500 individuals were recorded in the system as being employed; exceeding expectations by over 300 more individuals placed in jobs. Over 7,500 Aboriginal people received training exceeding the target of 6,245 by nearly 1,300 more individuals trained. The nine projects also brought together more than 90 partners including Aboriginal organizations, private sector industry leaders, and provincial and territorial representatives. Some of these formalized partnerships have continued beyond the life of the projects.

Key Findings - Program Implementation

The evaluation found that a large majority of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the employment programs and services, and that the targeting and recruitment of ASEP participants resulted in the participation of clients in need of assistance.

In terms of program implementation, the evaluation identified several issues with management information systems.

1. Data are incomplete, inaccurate, and generally of limited use for evaluation and accountability purposes.
2. No electronic case management data is available for a significant proportion of clients.
3. Data stored in case management systems are miscoded in the majority of cases.
4. Client contact information is missing in 19.4% of cases.
5. Work is required to link project costs to individual clients, although financial data for most projects are more complete.
6. Overall, progress towards addressing gaps identified during the formative evaluation data assessment process has been very limited.

The ASEP program recognizes these data management issues. Case management and financial data within the ASEP projects are instrumental in determining how the projects are being implemented, if they are achieving results, and the success of the ASEP program overall.

The issues raised in the formative evaluation were largely addressed by the program following the 2007 release of its preliminary findings. Most notably in 2007-08, a comprehensive review of human resource requirements took place with a view to improve ASEP program delivery by:

• Strengthening HR management;
• Increasing human resource capacity by recruiting highly experienced project managers with knowledge of case management and financial systems and providing training as required; and,
• Strengthening program management accountability by creating a dedicated management accountability unit devoted to improving data quality, management and results reporting through HRSDC systems.

Formal support is now provided to projects on an ongoing basis in selecting and managing appropriate case management systems. All projects use some form of electronic information management system compatible with HRSDC systems.

The HRSDC data gateway requires Social Insurance Number (SIN) identifiers to capture client records. Due to a delay regarding approval to collect the SIN, the ASEP projects were behind in capturing client information in a case management system and uploading data to the HRSDC Standard Data File. This contributed to the lack of electronic case management data for a portion of clients during the early stages of the program.

In addition, technical difficulties were experienced by two projects as HRSDC’s data management systems changed. Specifically, the two ARMS users had originally used ARO Suite; a system which was developed by HRSDC but abandoned by the department during the time period covered by this evaluation. During the system transition, a loss of data occurred and client data had to be re-entered (manually) into the "new" ARMS system. HRSDC has worked with the two ARMS users to ensure available client data have been uploaded.

The following summarizes the specific support that HRSDC has provided to address the management information systems issues identified in this evaluation. It is important to note that many of these measures were taken following the presentation of preliminary findings:

• Since June 2008, data and accountability officers were put in place to work with project proponents to implement a data management strategy, including on-site training and monitoring.
• For the original nine projects, the data officers conducted onsite visits of all projects (except for Trade Winds which had surpassed its targets early) to review hard copy files and case management systems, correct miscoded information and provide training on systems where needed.
• Where paper based files were used, records were entered electronically and uploaded to the HRSDC system.
• The officers developed ASEP specific interventions for Contact IV and ARMS systems to ensure that data were correctly coded.
• HRSDC also provided additional support through ongoing communication and assistance with data uploads.
• All projects now use systems that are compatible with HRSDC’s systems.

In terms of improving the financial monitoring, training costs are recorded on an overall basis, and reported in quarterly reports, audits and annual project reports. All ASEP projects maintain their own funding records to track participant costs. It is important to note that HRSDC’s Contact IV does not support financial reporting (i.e., the linkage of project costs to individual clients). The majority of current projects have opted to use the ARMS system which can link project costs to individual clients electronically.

It was found that client contact information was missing or inaccurate in several cases. The Aboriginal population tends to be mobile, and addresses frequently change particularly once clients have secured employment. Maintaining current client contact information will remain a challenge. However, data and accountability officers now work with proponents of current projects to ensure that information on participant files is complete. In particular, the collection of contact information is verified by the ASEP program analysts who ensure that required participant data are collected and uploaded in a timely manner.

Key Findings - Outcomes of Participation

Overall, there was very little change in the earnings of the ASEP participants in the program start year and a modest increase in the year following the program start year - slightly higher than the years prior to their program participation.

The Evaluation acknowledged that the time frame was too short to assess post program outcomes as participants had only recently finished their program. The review of the projects took place toward the middle of the projects’ life cycles: one of the nine original projects ended on March 31, 2008, the rest finished by March 31, 2009. Collectively, the projects exceeded the original training and employment targets.

ASEP funds multi-year training strategies that lead to targeted jobs. It is by design that the majority of activity and final client results will not be reported until the end of the project activities as a large number of clients are, and will remain, in training and upgrading until the end of the project. Data will continue to be recorded beyond the evaluation period for the projects under review.

Approximately 4 out of 10 ASEP participants had found employment in the project’s target industry and approximately 1 out of 4 of all participants stated they found a job in the industry due to the education or skills acquired through their program participation.

Eight out of ten participants had some employment during the 12 months prior to the survey and on average 6.6 months prior to the survey were spent employed.

A large majority of the participants who found employment in the target industry rated their programs and services as important to obtaining their employment.

By design, the program intakes a greater number of individuals to participate in the training than the number of individuals targeted to secure long-term jobs. The ASEP program is designed to fund multi-year training-to-employment strategies with commitments to agreed-upon targets of individuals that will be assessed, trained and employed. The project partnerships commit to a set number of individuals that will be assessed, trained and employed as a result of the project in their Contribution Agreements. The multi-year training to employment strategies are based on achieving these targets by the end of the project life cycle. The training to employment plans generally operate as a triage and do not set out to employ all the individuals assessed or participating in training.

The private sector partners guarantee a number of long-term sustainable jobs that will be secured by the end of the project. In order to achieve this outcome, a large number of individuals will be assessed for participation in the project and generally more individuals will be provided training to account for attrition. As noted above, in many instances both training and employment targets were exceeded by the end of the projects and the overall training and employment targets for the program were exceeded.

The finding that 4 out of 10 ASEP participants had found employment at the time of the evaluation reflects early success in job attainment of the projects recognizing that the major job outcomes are not anticipated until the end of the multi-year training to employment strategies, which ended after the evaluation period.

Table 1 below provides outcomes as reported in the HRSDC gateway as of October 5, 2009.

Key Findings - Cost Comparison

Due to data limitations described earlier, it was not possible to calculate the cost-effectiveness of ASEP at this time. A simple cost analysis showed that the average cost per participant was $12.8K. The average cost ranged from $6.9K to $26.6K. However, the average costs are overstated since the population counts excluded some clients.

The Evaluation found that there was insufficient data to complete a cost comparison. The variance of costs between projects reflects the complexity of the projects and variations across regions and communities. Results and costs vary widely in respect of the multi-barriered nature of the participants, complexity of the jobs, skills and required interventions, remoteness of location and cost of training. Each project is tailored to a unique situation with different variables.

Key Findings - Accountability

The results from the data assessment indicated that for many projects there will be work required to develop their case management and financial systems to adequately ensure that there is no duplication or displacement of non-federal investments and to ensure there is adequate information to monitor and evaluate the expenditures. The analysis of the administrative data showed virtually no overlap between ASEP interventions and Employment Benefits delivered under the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDA). Excluding employment services, 1 in 4 ASEP interventions overlapped with AHRDA interventions. Although it cannot be determined from the administrative data if these interventions were part of the same return to work action plan, as opposed to individuals requesting service independently from both programs, the fact that most projects worked in partnership with the AHRDAs is one source of assurance that these were complimentary activities.

As a result of the observations from the formative evaluation and an internal audit completed during this same period, extensive work was undertaken to resolve the case management and financial systems issues (as noted above).

Following the directive on "Specialization and Concentration and the Separation of Duties Audit", changes have also been made within the structure of SEB which resulted in the creation of the Delivery Support Division (DSD). The DSD provides grants and contributions management support to program areas in SEB, including the ASEP program. Claims verification, processing and financial monitoring will be completed by the DSD in conjunction with ASEP staff.

In terms of the observations relating to program interaction with LMDAs and AHRDAs, ASEP is complementary to AHRDS. In all of the ASEP projects, both the provincial/ territorial governments and the AHRDAs, or AHRDA third party deliverers participate in the partnerships that develop, implement and manage the multi-year training agreements. The partners must contribute to the projects and in the case of the first nine ASEP projects they were required to contribute to at least 25% of the total cost of the project. The provincial and territorial, AHRDA and other government department participation and contribution help ensure that the programming is complementary and not overlapping.

The nine projects brought together over 90 partners from Aboriginal organizations, private sector employers and the provinces and territories as well as others. Several of these partnerships have continued on beyond the life of the project - an unanticipated benefit of the program.

Addendum to the Evaluation Report

The Departmental Evaluation Committee (DEC) met on November 23, 2010 to discuss and approve the Summative Evaluation of the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership (ASEP) Program Evaluation Report.

The Committee discussed the evaluation scope and timing, its findings and conclusions, and the commitments made in the Management Response. The DEC requested that key discussion items and lessons learned from the ASEP Summative Evaluation be documented for future reference and appended to the evaluation report.

Evaluation Scope

The DEC supports the continued use of state-of-the-art methodological approaches in the conduct of HRSDC evaluations, particularly the approaches that have been successfully used in the evaluation of labour market programs.

However, the DEC also asked the Head of Evaluation to ensure that evaluation approaches are sensitive and adaptable to the unique nature of Aboriginal programming and its clientele. Establishing partnerships for the delivery of Aboriginal programming is often difficult. Furthermore, Aboriginal clients often face multiple barriers to employment and limited opportunities for paid employment. Thus, expecting a quick return to work may be unrealistic and may not be an optimal indicator of success. Other aspects of the socio-economic context, such as the high level of mobility and the remoteness of the communities, can create additional challenges to both achieving and evaluating the intended outcomes of Aboriginal programming.

The Committee affirmed the importance of identifying unique challenges and context related to specific programs at an early stage in the program lifecycle. A realistic assessment of the expected program results, and the timeframe required for them to be achieved, is an important precondition to designing and undertaking evaluation work, and setting an appropriate benchmark against which actual performance can be compared.

Evaluation Timing

The ASEP Summative Evaluation indicated that the evaluation was unable to analyse the medium- and long- run impacts due to the limited post-program period.

Committee members discussed and agreed that the timing of HRSDC Evaluations needs to balance reporting requirements (e.g., commitments to the Treasury Board) and the length of time required to achieve program impacts. The Committee supports the new approach, implemented in Spring 2010 by the Evaluation Directorate, requiring the review of feasibility assessment reports prior to the conduct of evaluations to ensure the appropriate timing and conditions to ensure a successful evaluation. It was noted that the next cycle of ASEP evaluation work will include a follow-up on the longer-term outcomes of these early ASEP projects.

Administrative Data

Committee members acknowledged the importance of administrative data to support the conduct of program evaluations. Discussions touched on the lessons learned about building capacity, ensuring robust management data systems within partnership arrangements, and the importance of following up on issues identified in early or formative evaluations.

Program Design and Delivery Considerations

DEC members agreed that lessons learned from previous evaluations should be used to inform program development and, most importantly, the development of performance measurement strategies. Program objectives and expected short-, medium- and long-term results should be clearly defined. Data provisions and data collection instruments should also be implemented based on Departmental lessons learned.

1. Introduction and Context

This document presents the findings for the Summative Evaluation of the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership ( ASEP ) program conducted by Aboriginal Employment Services Inc. for Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). The report is organized according to the following sections:

• This introductory section presents an overview of the ASEP program including descriptions of the nine ASEP projects, and an overview of the evaluation issues and questions;
• Section 2 presents the summative evaluation methodology;
• Section 3 presents evaluation findings according to the main summative evaluation issues and questions; and
• Section 4 contains an overview of the main summative evaluation findings and conclusions.

1.1 Overview of ASEP Program

The five-year, $85M ASEP initiative is a targeted Aboriginal skills development program designed to promote maximum employment for Aboriginal people on major economic developments through a collaborative partnership approach, leading to lasting benefits for Aboriginal individuals, communities and families. It is designed to address a broad spectrum of skills and learning needs and provide access to jobs. The ASEP program was developed in response to the Government of Canada’s commitment in the 2002 Speech from the Throne to help Aboriginal people participate in economic development opportunities.

The ASEP program has funded nine diverse projects in resource-based sectors, including mining, forestry, oil and gas, hydro development, fishery, and construction. Each project is located in a different community or group of communities with varying project scopes. Funding levels range from approximately $3M to $22M. The nine projects are located across the country in rural and urban areas, as well as northern and southern settings. The immediate objectives of the ASEP program are to:

• Foster collaboration, partnerships, alliances and networks between government, the private sector, non-government agencies and Aboriginal groups to maximize the employment opportunities available to Aboriginal people in areas of major economic development by leveraging investment of resources, in-kind and financial, from ASEP project partners;
• Build the capacity of communities to address human resources development needs related to economic opportunities; and
• Increase the quantity of employment-related skills training available to Aboriginal people in areas of major economic development beyond the level possible by reliance solely on funding from the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreements (AHRDAs).

The long term objectives of the ASEP program are to:

• Increase the number of Aboriginal people employed in the Canadian labour market;
• Reduce the barriers to employment for Aboriginal people such as low educational attainment and lack of employment opportunities; and

Address a broad spectrum of skills and learning needs and provide access to jobs. According to the program logic model, the main activities of the program include: developing and supporting partnerships for Aboriginal employment; and managing contribution agreements. The main outputs arising from these activities include: partnership agreements for the development of HR plans; contribution agreements; and an increased capacity to address employment issues facing Aboriginal people. The anticipated outcomes are stated as:

• Tailored skills enhancement/work experience opportunities (immediate outcome);
• Enhanced employability of Aboriginal people (intermediate outcome); and
• Long term sustainable employment for Aboriginal people (ultimate outcome).

In the 2009 Budget, the Government of Canada announced the investment of an additional $100 million over three years in the ASEP program. This is in addition to the $105 million investment announced in the 2007 Budget.

1.2 Summary of ASEP Projects

The nine ASEP projects range in size, scope and activities. The objectives, management and programs for each of the nine projects are summarized below in Table 1.1. More detailed project information is provided in Appendix A, including a more detailed version of Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Description of Programs and Services by ASEP Project

1.3 Evaluation Issues and Questions

1.3.2 Evaluation Issues and Questions

The evaluation issues and questions were derived from the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework for the ASEP program. This list of issues and questions was reduced to reflect the focus of the summative evaluation on program outcomes and the lines of evidence for the summative evaluation described above. The summative evaluation questions are presented below by evaluation issue.

Table 1.2: Evaluation Issues and Questions

Issue: Program implementation

Q4 - Was the accountability structure established as set out in the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework?

Q5 - Were the services appropriate to the target clients?

Q8 - Were targeted clients and communities reached?

Issue: Program success

Q11 - Has ASEP contributed to increased capacity to address employment issues facing Aboriginal people?

Q13 - To what extent has the ASEP program resulted in skills enhancement and work experience opportunities for Aboriginal people that resulted in increased ability to participate in the community, compete in the labour market and obtain and maintain employment?

Issue: Cost-Effectiveness

Q14 - Are ASEP projects cost effective? If so, which projects are the most cost-effective?

Q15 - How do ASEP funded projects compare to other similar programs in this field?

Issue: Accountability

Q16 - Are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that federal investments do not duplicate or displace non-federal investments?

Q17 - Has the ASEP program leveraged additional investments from project partners?

Q18 - Are ASEP investments incremental to existing non-federal investments?

2. Summative Evaluation Methodology

2.2 Limitations

2.2.2 Limited Data for Impact Analysis

The fact that much of the program activity for the ASEP projects was relatively recent limited the administrative data available for estimating the impacts of the program. The CRA data on earnings and Income Assistance (IA) is only available up to 2006. The profile of the participants by their Action Plan Equivalent (APE) end date showed that very few participants ended their ASEP activities prior to 2006 - only 10% had a 2004 or 2005 APE end date. While 48% ended their APE ^{Footnote 4} in 2006, this data would still include a significant proportion of their time in-program and limited post-program outcomes.

Given the distribution of APE end dates, it would require CRA data up to 2008 and 2009 to provide sufficient historical data for an analysis of post-program outcomes. Due to the very limited number of cases with post-program outcome information, it is not feasible to conduct an analysis of post-program impacts using the administrative data at this time. The survey data will provide some additional information on the post-program outcomes, however, the limited number of observations across the nine projects and the lack of detailed historical information does not allow a rigorous impact analysis using the survey data. Consequently, the focus of the administrative data analysis will be on the in-program outcomes for the ASEP participants.

As discussed above, since the analysis will not provide adequate information to assess the post-program outcomes of the ASEP participants, it will not be possible to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. Aggregate data on the cost-per participant is available but not the incremental impacts necessary to conduct the cost-effectiveness calculations. As a result, the cost-effectiveness analysis was replaced by a simple cost-comparison analysis.

3. Findings

This section presents the findings according to the evaluation issues and questions. After each set of findings, supporting evidence is provided from all lines of inquiry.

3.1 Program Implementation

Q4 - Was the accountability structure established as set out in the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework?

Overall, progress towards addressing gaps identified during the formative evaluation data assessment process has been very limited. The data is incomplete, inaccurate, and generally of limited use for evaluation and accountability purposes. Of the nine projects reviewed, only one had case management data that could confidently be used for accountability and evaluation purposes.

The most serious gaps with respect to case management data are:

• There is no electronic case management data available for a significant proportion of clients. As a result, complete case management data are neither readily available on-site, nor available from HRSDC’s Standard Data File.
• Data stored in case management systems are miscoded in the majority of cases and as a result the information available on the types of interventions provided to the ASEP participants is inaccurate.
• Client contact information is missing in 19.4% of cases.

The financial data, for most projects, are more complete; however, for all projects, work is required to link project costs to individual clients.

The data assessment conducted at the ASEP formative evaluation stage found that there was considerable work required for most projects to bring their case management and financial data up to an adequate level to support evaluation and accountability purposes. The data assessment conducted under the ASEP summative evaluation is based on data received by September 2007.

The data mapping exercise demonstrated that, for the most part, the various case management and financial systems used by the nine projects have the required data fields to meet monitoring and evaluation requirements. The main challenges in the data were identified during the data assessment exercise when the actual case management data contained in the systems were assessed for coverage, validated with hard copy files, assessed according to interventions, and matched with the data available in the financial systems.

The gap analyses conducted for the summative evaluation for the nine projects identified the following common gaps among the projects ^{Footnote 5} case management systems:

• Clients who received an employment benefit or support measure but are not in electronic files uploaded to HRSDC’s SDF - Because these individuals are not in Contact IV or ARO Suite ^{Footnote 6} , their records are not uploaded to HRSDC’s SDF and consequently, they are not included in the internal accountability reporting process. The exclusion of these clients from Contact IV or ARO Suite means that they are excluded from any analysis of clients, resulting in an understatement of number of people benefiting from the ASEP program, and resulting in inaccurate profiles. The lack of information about program participants may create a bias in some evaluation methodologies. In particular, the analysis of administrative and participant survey data would be biased towards those participants whose records are actually within HRSDC’s SDF. These may or may not be representative of the overall population of ASEP participants. The direction of this bias would not be easily determined without data on the overall population.
• Clients who received an employment benefit but do not have a hard copy case management file - There are instances where there have been payments made according to the financial systems, but there is no hard copy case management file available for these individuals. It is important for accountability and evaluation purposes that there exists a hard copy file for each individual.
• Missing and/or inaccurate case management data on client characteristics - When records in Contact IV were compared with hard copy files, there were data missing in Contact IV that were available in the hard copy files. Missing data on client characteristics affects the accuracy of client profiles and any evaluation sampling strategies. This gap could be addressed by additional data entry by the project staff.
• Missing and/or inaccurate information on client interventions - When records in Contact IV were compared with hard copy files, many of the interventions were miscoded. For example, skills development interventions were often identified in Contact IV files as Job Creation Partnerships or Aboriginal - Other. This gap results in inaccurate data being uploaded to HRSDC’s SDF, which in turn is then being used for accountability and evaluation purposes.
• Failure to close action plans - In some cases, there were large proportions of action plans in Contact IV or ARO Suite that were left open. While some action plans could be legitimately left open as clients are currently participating in interventions, there were a number found where there had been no activity for over a year. It is important to close action plans once interventions are complete in order to capture action plan results for accountability and evaluation purposes.

The most common gap identified among the projects financial systems included:

• Failure to allocate costs back to clients - Costs for training, student allocations, etc. should be allocated back on a per client basis so that individual outcomes can be linked to the intervention costs and total program expenditures to achieve these outcomes.

Overall, the above findings show there has been very little improvement in the quality of this data compared to the formative evaluation findings. The data is incomplete, inaccurate, and generally of limited use for evaluation and accountability purposes.

There were typically no major differences between ASEP Project case management data and HRSDC’s SDF. The one exception was in the area of Employment Services. Client assessments, in particular, are sometimes captured in the ASEP project case management data but are not uploaded to the SDF. Typically, uploads included employment counselling interventions but not client assessments.

Financial data gaps identified at the ASEP formative evaluation stage were not satisfactorily addressed. Of the 9 projects, only two were able to provide client level financial data and neither of these included unique identifiers that would allow linkage back to case management data.

Some of the issues contributing to data quality problems identified include:

• Lack of support/training - This issue was frequently raised by project staff. Accessing Contact IV training was specifically identified as an issue as was ongoing support after the initial training. More generally, support/training was an issue in other areas as well.
• Staff turnover - This was a significant issue for many ASEP projects that were experiencing high turnover. This is particularly problematic when coupled with a lack of support/training.
• Software limitations - HRSDC was unable to dictate the use of a standardized database. Case management software (particularly Contact IV) limitations often affect data quality:
  • In Contact IV the user cannot input an intervention with a start date more than one year prior to the current date. This prevents data clean up.
  • The inability to edit data once an Action Plan is closed causes similar problems.
  • Contact IV is a stand-alone system that must be installed on computers/networks at each where data entry occurs. This poses significant software implementation and support challenges that many ASEP administrative offices find difficult to deal with.
• Some ASEP Projects are implemented before an effective data collection process is in place - Data collection processes need to be designed, validated, and documented prior to implementation to ensure they are effective and that the process is clearly understood by staff. Data collection processes need to be standardized, yet at the same time flexible enough to meet the needs of a variety of delivery methods.
• Misunderstanding definitions of SDF intervention codes - Many of the data issues arising result from coding Training as "Aboriginal-Other" or "Job Creation Partnerships", more training and clearer definitions could help address this.
• Lack of Monitoring - Case management data are rarely monitored in the way that financial data are. Increased monitoring of case management data is needed. For example, SDF data can be validated against agreements and reports on activities. A monthly rather than quarterly upload would make monitoring more timely.
• Lack of a clear link between financial data and case management data - Financial data would be improved if intervention costs were documented at the same time an intervention is being entered.

Q5 - Were the services appropriate to the target clients?

The majority of survey respondents reported participating in training and academic skills enhancement (76%) and 30% reported on-the-job work experience. Overall, the participants rated the services and programs higher for skills gains than for gaining work experience or finding employment.

A large majority of the survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the employment programs and services received from ASEP.

The majority of the participants reported participating in training and academic skills enhancement, although there was limited use or access to on-the job work experience. A large majority of the survey respondents reported participating in training - 76%. A substantially smaller proportion reported on-the-job work experience - approximately 30% of the respondents reported having obtained work experience through their ASEP participation. Across the projects, the on-the-job work experience ranged from 87% to under 20%.

Approximately one in three survey respondents (33%) reported receiving employment services such as a workshop or counselling on finding a job, advice or assistance with resume writing, interview preparation or practice interviewing or assistance to developing career or training plan. This figure appears to be understated since all of the projects had assessments and interviews as part of their intake process and most also provided job search assistance to their participants.

According to the survey results, the majority of participants received employment supports - 51% stated they had received assistance to buy equipment such as gloves, work boots, or provide assistance with accommodation, child care, transportation or other training or work related costs. This included 42% of the respondents reporting assistance to purchase work boots, clothing or related items, 17% who reported assistance with transportation costs, 10% for accommodation costs and 4% reporting assistance with child care expenses.

Overall, a large majority of the survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the employment programs and services received from ASEP - 88%. Just over 35% were very satisfied and 53% were satisfied compared to 7% who were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Consistent with the high satisfaction ratings, 8% indicated they had a problem obtaining the programs and services they needed.

Overall, the survey respondents rated the services and programs higher for skills gains than for gaining work experience or finding employment (Table 3.1). The ratings for the skills gains were:

• very useful for gaining skills that could be used in the target industry - 70%;
• very useful for gaining specific job related skills - 67%; and
• very useful for gaining skills that could be used outside the target industry - 54%.

The same ratings for work experience and employment were:

• very useful for gaining work experience on-the-job - 39%; and
• very useful for finding employment or self-employment - 35%.

Survey respondents also rated the services and programs higher for increasing confidence and motivation than career planning or training and education (Table 3.2). The ratings for the confidence and motivation measures were:

• very useful for increasing self-confidence - 59%;
• very useful for increasing sense of optimism about future work prospects - 42%; and
• very useful for increasing motivation to achieve career and personal goals - 40%.

The same ratings for career planning and further training or education were:

• very useful for clarifying what kind of career would be best - 33%; and
• very useful to further training or education - 33%.

Q8 - Were targeted clients and communities reached?

The large majority of the ASEP participants were Registered Indians ^{Footnote 7} (including both on-reserve and off-reserve participants), male, under the age of 35 and single. The low female participation is not uncommon for projects in the resource sector, however, some ASEP projects recruited almost as many female participants as male participants.

The targeting and recruitment of the ASEP participants resulted in the participation of clients in need of assistance. Overall, the ASEP participants had low levels of education and work experience and did not have consistent full-time employment prior to their program participation.

The majority of the ASEP clients were:

• Males - 70%;
• Young - 30% were under the age of 25 and two-thirds (63%) of the participants were under the age of 35; and
• Single - 66%.

The low female participation is not uncommon for projects in the resource sector, however, some projects recruited almost as many female participants as male participants including Victor Diamond Mine (49% female participants) and Aboriginal Mine Works (47% female participants).

Based on the administrative data available, 42% of the participants in ASEP projects were Registered Indians off-reserve and 38% were Registered Indians on-reserve. The remaining percentages were for non-Status Indians (2%), Métis (9%) and Inuit (9%).

The targeting and recruitment of the ASEP participants resulted in the participation of clients in need of assistance. Overall the ASEP participants had low levels of education and work experience and did not have consistent full-time employment prior to their program participation. Over half of the participants did not complete high school - 51% including 8% with only an elementary school education. Approximately 42% had completed high school and only 7% had some post-secondary education. The average earned income for the ASEP participants prior to program participation was quite low - just under $9,000. A large majority earned below $10,000 - 74% including 38% with no earned income from employers. Only 15% earned more than $20,000. For three of the ASEP projects the average earned income from employers was below $4,000 in the pre-program period.

The majority of the participants did not have consistent full-time employment throughout the year prior to their program participation. The mean number of months working full-time was 4.7. In other words, on average, only 39% of the participants’ time was spent employed full-time out of the 12 months prior to their participation in ASEP (just slightly higher if self-employment is included).

There was limited use of Employment Insurance (EI) and Income Assistance (IA) by the ASEP participants. On average, the ASEP participants received $1,400 in EI benefits in the year prior to their program start year. Approximately 22% of the participants received EI in the year prior to their start year. The receipt of IA was even lower. On average, the amount of IA received in the year prior was $500. Only 15% of the participants received IA in the year prior.

3.2 Outcomes of Participation

Q11 - Has ASEP contributed to increased capacity to address employment issues facing Aboriginal people?

Q13 - To what extent has the ASEP program resulted in skills enhancement and work experience opportunities for Aboriginal people that resulted in increased ability to participate in the community, compete in the labour market and obtain and maintain employment?

Overall, there was very little change in the earnings of the ASEP participants in the program start year and a modest increase in the year following the program start year - slightly higher than the years prior to their program participation. However, the time frame for the measurement of the earnings outcomes is too short to assess the post-program outcomes since most participants had not finished their program participation or had only recently finished.

Approximately 4 out of 10 ASEP participants had found employment in the project’s target industry and approximately 1 out of 4 of all participants stated they found a job in the industry due to the education or skills acquired through their program participation.

A large majority of the participants who found employment in the target industry rated their programs and services as important to obtaining their employment. Eighty percent of the jobs found in the target industry by the survey respondents required a specific education or skill. Participants were three times more likely to find employment in the target industry as a result of their program participation.

Eight out of ten participants had some employment during the 12 months prior to the survey and, on average, 6.6 months prior to the survey were spent employed. The amount of time spent in full-time employment increased 15 percentage points compared to the year prior to their program participation while the time spent in part-time employment or unemployed and looking for work decreased. Despite the increase in employment, less than one quarter of the participants reported they were still employed in the target industry.

The analysis of program success only examined program outcomes rather than the incremental impacts of program participation since it was not possible to conduct this analysis using traditional methods such as before-and-after analysis with a treatment and comparison group. The reasons the incremental impact analysis could not be conducted included:

• Limited or inaccurate program data on the participants including the types of interventions they received;
• Few cases had outcome data for the period after they completed their participation in ASEP; and
• The limitations of the ASEP data precluded developing a viable comparison group.

Earning Outcomes

Overall, there was very little change in the earnings in the program start year for the ASEP participants (Table 3.3). The average earnings increased $700, increasing from $7,900 in the year prior to $8,600 in the program start year. The gain in earnings differed substantially across the ASEP projects. The largest average gain was for the Northwest Territories Industrial Mining project - $6,000, rising from $17,000 the year prior to the program start year to $23,000 in the program start year.

In the year following the program start year, the average earnings from employers increased $2,700 from one year prior to program participation to one year after program participation, rising from $7,100 to $9,800 (Table 3.4). This average increase was slightly higher than the earnings increase the participants experienced in previous years, before the program. The average increase from three years prior to the year prior to the program start year was $1,200 - increasing from $5,900 to $7,100. Similar to the results for the program start year discussed above, earnings gains for the Northwest Territories Industrial Mining project participants were substantially higher than those for any other project. The average gain in earnings one year after the program start year, compared to the earnings in the year prior to the program start year, was $21,600 - increasing from $16,400 to $38,000. The percentage of participants earning more than $40,000 rose from 13% to 41%.

Jobs Found in the Target Industry

Less than half the ASEP participants had found employment in the project’s target industry at the time the survey was conducted. Since beginning their program participation, 43% of the respondents stated they had worked in the ASEP project’s target industry. Including zeros for respondents who had no employment in the target industry, on average, survey respondents reported 4.3 months of full-time employment in the target industry.

The majority of the participants who found employment in the target industry rated their programs and services as important to obtaining their employment. Approximately 76% of the respondents rated the programs and services as important or very important - 47% providing the very important rating. Only 13% rated the programs and services as being of little importance or not important at all.

Overall, 26% of all survey respondents found employment in the industry that had specific education and skills requirements and the respondents had obtained these requirements through their ASEP participation. Another 9% of the participants found a job in the industry that did not require any specific education or skills.

Approximately 80% of the jobs found in the target industry by the survey respondents required a specific education or skill and participants were three times more likely to find employment in the target industry as a result of their program participation than they were to find a job that required specific education or skills they already possessed without the program.

As a measure of job retention in the target industry, survey respondents who found employment in the target industry any time after they began their ASEP participation were asked if they were still employed in the target industry. Overall, the percentage of the survey respondents who were employed in the target industry at the time of the interview was relatively low - 23%. This percentage is largely determined by the number of respondents who were able to find employment in the industry since they began their program participation. Over half of those who found employment in the industry - 43% (23% who retained employment in the target industry versus 20% who had employment in the target industry but were not working in the industry at the time of the interview) were still employed in the target industry at the time of the interview.

Employment

Overall, 81% of the participants were employed in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table 3.6). The percentage of respondents who reported they were employed was 80% or higher across all projects with one exception. Approximately 67% of the respondents from the Manitoba Hydro Initiative reported employment in the 12 months prior to the survey.

A majority of the respondents who had found employment in the 12 months prior to the survey rated the ASEP programs and services they received from their delivery agent as important or very important to obtaining their job - approximately 53% (including 35% who provided a ’very important’ rating) versus 36% who rated the programs and services as being of little importance or not important at all.

In terms of their current employment status (at the time the interview was conducted), 45% of the survey respondents were employed - 37% in a full-time job (30 hours or more per week). Twenty-eight percent of the survey respondents stated they were unemployed and looking for work at the time the survey was conducted and 5% were unemployed and not looking for work. A substantial number of participants were still in school or training - 10%.

Twelve months prior to their program participation, the respondents spent 6.6 months employed (full-time, part-time, self-employed and working part-time and attending school part-time) or 58% (6.6/12) of their time in employment (Table 3.7). The majority of this time was spent employed full-time - 5.5 months. The next highest average months were reported by respondents for the months spent unemployed and looking for work and the months in school or training. Overall, approximately 2.3 months were spent unemployed and looking for work and 1.3 were spent in school or training.

Overall, compared to the 12 months prior to their program participation, full-time employment increased on average 0.7 months, increasing from an average of 4.8 months to 5.5 months - an increase of 15 percentage points. There was a parallel statistically significant decrease in part-time employment, dropping from 1.2 to 0.7 months - an average decrease of 0.5 months.

• References from the above table * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

Employment Insurance (EI) and Income Assistance (IA)

The participants’ mean EI benefits showed virtually no change between one year prior to the program start year and the program start year (Table 3.8). On average, the EI benefits increased only $34, the average EI benefits received being approximately $1,500 in both years. There was also very little change in the mean EI comparing the prior year EI benefits received to the mean EI benefits received one year after the program start year - a decrease of only $19 (Table 3.9).

In terms of IA, on average, the ASEP participants received little IA income and this remained virtually unchanged between one year prior to the program start year and the program start year (Table 3.10). On average the IA benefits increased only $75, the average IA benefits received being approximately $500 in both years. Also, there was very little change in the mean IA income comparing the prior year IA income received to the mean IA income received one year after the program start year - a decrease of only $11 (Table 3.11).

3.3 Cost Comparison

Q14 - Are ASEP projects cost effective? If so, which projects are the most cost-effective?

Q15 - How do ASEP funded projects compare to other similar programs in this field?

Due to data limitations described earlier, it was not possible to calculate the cost-effectiveness of ASEP at this time. A simple cost analysis showed that the average cost per participant was $12.8K. The average cost ranged from $6.9K to $26.6K, however, the average costs are overstated since the population counts excluded some clients.

It is noted that, at this time, virtually none of the projects have a sufficient number of participants in the administrative data (and in most cases no participants) who have had one or more years of post-program outcome data. At best, the earnings and related outcomes measured in this report reflect their in-program outcomes. It would not be appropriate to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis at this time given the short duration of the outcomes observed. As a result, the cost-effectiveness analysis was replaced by a simple cost-comparison analysis.

The administrative data provided detailed information necessary to calculate the costs per participant for cost-comparison analysis. The data on expenditures and the number of participants reflected the status of the projects as of September 30, 2007. According to the administrative data provided, the total project expenditures (including administrative costs) were $54,677,887 for 4,261 participants - an average total program cost of $12,800. There was considerable variation in the average program costs across the projects. The average costs ranged from $6,900 to $26,600. This variability may be due in part to the recording of participants who only received Employment Assistance Services (EAS).

3.4 Accountability

Q16 - Are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that federal investments do not duplicate or displace non-federal investments?

Q17 - Has the ASEP program leveraged additional investments from project partners?

Q18 - Are ASEP program investments incremental to existing non-federal investments?

The results from the data assessment indicated that for many projects there will be work required to develop their case management and financial systems to adequately ensure that there is no duplication or displacement of non-federal investments and to ensure there is adequate information to monitor and evaluate the expenditures. The analysis of the administrative data showed virtually no overlap between ASEP interventions and Employment Benefits delivered under the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDA). Excluding employment services, 1 in 4 ASEP interventions overlapped with AHRDA interventions. Although it cannot be determined from the administrative data if these interventions were part of the same return to work action plan, as opposed to individuals requesting service independently from both programs, the fact that most projects worked in partnership with the AHRDAs is one source of assurance that these were complimentary activities.

The results from the data assessment indicated that for many projects there will be work required to develop their case management and financial systems to adequately ensure that there is no duplication or displacement of non-federal investments and to ensure there is adequate information to monitor and evaluate the expenditures. For eight of the nine projects, case management systems do not accurately represent the various program activities that are being undertaken by the projects.

The administrative data provided a direct measure of the overlap between ASEP clients and LMDA and AHRDA clients. To that regard, the start dates for any LMDA and AHRDA interventions that ASEP clients participated in was compared to the start and end dates of the ASEP APEs. LMDA and AHRDA interventions were classified as either EAS-only or having at least one Employment Benefit, which includes Skills Development, Targeted Wage Subsidies, Self-Employment Benefits, and Job Creation Partnerships. The main focus was on the overlap between Employment Benefits delivered under an AHRDA and an LMDA rather than EAS since ASEP clients may have assessments or counselling and related EAS services with an LMDA or AHRDA and then be referred to ASEP.

The overlap between ASEP APEs and AHRDA interventions was 31% - 6% overlapped with only EAS AHRDA interventions and 25% with at least one Employment Benefit delivered under an AHRDA. Although it cannot be determined from the administrative data if these interventions were part of the same return to work action plan, as opposed to individuals requesting service independently from both programs, the fact that most projects worked in partnership with the AHRDAs is one source of assurance that these were complimentary activities.

Overall, for the LMDA interventions, the overlap between ASEP clients and LMDA clients was 12% - 9% overlapped with only EAS LMDA interventions and only 3% with an Employment Benefit delivered under an LMDA.

4. Key Conclusions

4.2 Outcomes of Participation

Overall, there was very little change in the earnings of the ASEP participants in the program start year. In the year following the program start year, the average earnings from employers increased $2,700 from one year prior to program participation to one year after program participation, rising from $7,100 to $9,800. This average increase was slightly higher than the earnings increase the participants experienced in previous years. However, the time frame for the measurement of the earnings outcomes is too short to assess the post-program outcomes since most participants had not finished their program participation or had only recently finished.

Approximately 4 out of 10 ASEP participants (43%) had found employment in the project’s target industry. Among this 43%, approximately 1 out of 4 participants (26%) stated they found a job in the industry due to the education or skills acquired through their program participation and 9% of the participants found a job in the industry that did not require any specific education or skills. A large majority of the participants (76%) who found employment in the target industry rated their programs and services as important to obtaining their employment. Eighty percent of the jobs found in the target industry by the survey respondents required a specific education or skill. Participants were three times more likely to find employment in the target industry as a result of their program participation than they were to find a job that required specific education or skills they already possessed without the program.

Eight out of ten participants (81%) had some employment during the 12 months prior to the survey and, on average, 6.6 months prior to the survey were spent employed. The amount of time spent in full-time employment increased 15 percentage points compared to the year prior to their program participation while the time spent in part-time employment or unemployed and looking for work decreased. At the time of the survey less than one quarter (23%) of the participants reported they were still employed in the target industry.

4.3 Cost-Comparison

Due to data limitations described earlier, it was not possible to calculate the cost-effectiveness of ASEP at this time. A simple cost analysis showed that the average cost per participant was $12,800. The average cost ranged from $6,900 to $26,600; however, the average costs are overstated since the population counts excluded some clients.

4.4 Accountability

The results from the data assessment indicated that for many projects there will be work required to develop their case management and financial systems to adequately ensure that there is no duplication or displacement of non-federal investments and to ensure there is adequate information to monitor and evaluate the expenditures. The analysis of the administrative data showed virtually no overlap between ASEP interventions and LMDA Employment Benefits (3%).

Excluding employment services, one in four ASEP clients also received an intervention under the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreements (AHRDAs). Although it cannot be determined from the administrative data if these interventions were part of the same return to work action plan, as opposed to individuals requesting services independently under both programs, the fact that most ASEP projects worked in partnership with the AHRDAs is one source of assurance that these were complementary activities.

Appendix A: Project Description and Targets

The nine ASEP projects range in size, scope and activities. Each of the nine projects is described briefly below ^{Footnote 8} with summary information provided in Tables A1.1, A1.2 and A1.3. As part of the evaluation, the project profiles developed in the formative evaluation were updated based on administrative data and documents provided by the project managers and key informant interviews with project representatives.

A.1.1 VanASEP Construction Careers Project

The VanASEP project is a partnership that was formed with the aim of meeting the skills shortage of the construction industry by creating opportunities for Aboriginal people to explore careers in construction. Aboriginal people will gain employability skills while working on opportunities relating to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre project, the Vancouver Port Expansion project, the Sea to Sky Highway project and other major construction projects in the Lower Mainland. Partners in this initiative include the First Nations Employment Society, Aboriginal Community Career Employment Services Society, the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia, the Tsawwassen First Nation, the Spo7ez Society - representing the Squamish Nation and Lil’wat Nation, the British Columbia Construction Association, the Vancouver Regional Construction Association, the Vancouver Port Authority, PCL Construction Ltd., Houle Electric Co., Lockerbie & Hole, Peter Keiwit & Sons, and the Province of British Columbia. The contribution agreement is held with the VanASEP Training Society.

A.1.2 Aboriginal Mine Works

Aboriginal Mine Works acts as a bridge between Aboriginal people in Alberta, the service providers and full-time employment in the oil sands industry. A five phase program is offered to prepare individuals for work. Elements of the program include pre-training, academic upgrading and occupational work experience. Partners in this initiative include the Athabasca Tribal Council, the Métis Nation of Alberta, Exxon Mobile, Syncrude, Suncor, Long Lake Project, ALPAC, Albian Sands, Petro-Canada, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited, ATCO Group, Conoco, Deer Creek, Enbridge, Encana and the Government of Alberta (Human Resources and Employment). The contribution agreement is held with Wood Buffalo Partners in Aboriginal Training.

A.1.3 Trade Winds to Success

The Trade Winds to Success Project aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people by delivering pre-apprenticeship training that could lead to meaningful employment in Alberta’s construction industry. The training-to-employment program offered by the Trade Winds to Success Training Society aims to provide the opportunity for Aboriginal people to gain employability skills by offering life skills courses, academic upgrading to write the trades entrance exam level four, and eight weeks of union shop and hands-on skills training. Partners in this initiative include the Oteenow Employment & Training Society, the Métis Nation of Alberta, the Treaty Seven Economic Development Corporation, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 146, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Machinery Mover, Riggers and Welders, the Alberta and Northwest Territories (District of MacKenzie) Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada Local 488, Ironworkers Apprenticeship and Training Plan Local Unions 720 and 725, and the Edmonton Pipe Trade Education Trust Fund. The contribution agreement is held with Trade Winds to Success Training Society.

A.1.4 Northwest Territories Industrial Mining Skills Strategy

The Northwest Territories Industrial Mining Skills Strategy aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people by providing education, job awareness, industrial skills development and long-term employment opportunities in the diamond mining industry of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories Industrial Mining Skills Strategy aims to provide Aboriginal people with access to pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs, including underground mine training, that could lead to meaningful jobs in the industry. Partners in this initiative include the Yellowknife’s Dene First Nation, the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (Tli Cho Government), the Lutsel K’e Dene Council, the North Slave Métis Alliance, Diavik Diamond Mines Inc., De Beers Canada Mining Inc., BHP Billiton, and the Government of the Northwest Territories (Department of Education, Culture and Employment). The contribution agreement is held with the Mine Training Society.

A.1.5 Northwest Territories Oil and Gas ASEP

The Northwest Territories Oil and Gas ASEP Skills Development Strategy aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people by providing skills development and employment support leading to long-term employment opportunities in the oil and gas industry of the Northwest Territories. Programs include basic skills and pre-employment, industrial skills development and employment support. The project is operating within the traditional territories of the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Sahtu and Deh Cho regions. Partners in this initiative include Deh Cho First Nations, Sahtu Dene Council Gwich’in Tribal Council, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Mackenzie Gas Project proponents and the Government of the Northwest Territories (Department of Education, Culture and Employment). The contribution agreement is held with the Aboriginal Futures Society.

A.1.6 Manitoba Hydro Northern Training and Employment Initiative

The Manitoba Hydro Northern Training Employment Initiative aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people in Northern Manitoba by providing skills development, on-the-job work experience and long-term employment opportunities for the province’s largest hydroelectric development project in two decades. Participants have the opportunity to be trained in designated and non-designated trades, as well as construction support occupations for self-employment in business and management. Partners in this initiative include the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, the Tataskweyak Cree Nation, the War Lake Cree Nation, the Fox Lake Cree Nation, the York Factory First Nation, the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc., the Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, Indian and Northern Affairs, Western Economic Diversification, Manitoba Hydro, and the Province of Manitoba. In addition, the consortium has created partnerships with more than 20 training and educational institutions, as well as Manitoba’s private sector. The contribution agreement is held with the Wuskwatim & Keeyask Training Consortium.

A.1.7 Victor Diamond Mine Project

The Victor Diamond Mine Project aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people by providing skills development, on-the-job work experience and long-term employment opportunities with the Victor Diamond Mine Project in Northern Ontario. It offers various tools that include job information workshops, career counseling, training and work experience interventions, permanent job placements, and retention and advancement programs. Partners in this initiative include De Beers Canada and the Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Moose Cree, and Weenusk First Nations. The contribution agreement is held with James Bay Employment and Training.

A.1.8 People, Land and Opportunities

The People, Land and Opportunities project aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people by providing skills development, on-the-job work experience and long-term employment opportunities in the New Brunswick forestry industry. The project offers a training-to-employment program that prepares Aboriginal people for careers in forestry and provides skills upgrading to individuals who already have experience related to the industry. Screening and job shadowing is also on hand to match candidates with meaningful employment opportunities. Partners in this initiative include the First Nations Human Resources Development Corp., Mawiw Tribal Council, New Brunswick Aboriginal People Council, North Shore Micmac District Tribal Council, St. John River Valley Tribal Council, New Brunswick Forest Products Association, Natural Resources Canada, and the Province of New Brunswick (Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat). The contribution agreement is held with ASEP-New Brunswick Inc.

A.1.9 Long Term Training Initiative for Nunavut’s Fishing Industry

The Long Term Training Initiative for Nunavut’s Fishing Industry aims to improve employment opportunities for Aboriginal people by providing training programs, case management and retention activities to prepare individuals for long-term career opportunities in the Nunavut fishing industry. The project aims to assist the Inuit of Nunavut to obtain maximum employment and economic benefits from the development of a Nunavut-based fishing industry. Training includes basic upgrading and lessons on career opportunities in the fishing industry, and diploma program training. An at-sea mentorship program will also be developed and implemented to increase job retention. Partners in this initiative include the Nunnavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Kakivak Association, Hunters and Trappers Association, Baffin Fisheries Coalition, Government of Nunavut (Department of Environment and Department of Education), and the Nunavut Arctic College. The contribution agreement is held with Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium.

A.1.10 Overview of Project Delivery and Programs

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the objectives, delivery and programs of the nine ASEP projects covered in this evaluation. Given this evaluation encompasses several projects, it is important to understand the diversity of these projects when interpreting the survey and administrative data analysis results. While there are similarities between projects, there are also substantial differences. These projects are located in provinces across Canada in locations with very different labour markets and with different target clientele. The projects also present very different approaches to program delivery, not only in the administration of the projects but also the types of programs and services provided. While a more complete understanding of these differences can be obtained from a review of the details provided in Table 1.1, a summary of some key differences between projects are provided below.

Urban versus Rural/Northern: Most the projects are located in northern rural locations, however some are located in or close to urban locations (e.g. VanASEP, Trade Winds) with a significantly larger labour market and more access to training and educational facilities. Even in the more remote northern locations, there is often a high demand for skilled labour due to the implementation of large resource development projects. The employment at these sites, however, often has very specific skills requirements that are dependent on the stage of development of the projects. Delays in the implementation of the projects can have a significant impact on the demand for the ASEP participants in the local labour market.

Centralized versus Decentralized: For some projects the contribution holder conducts most of the assessments and case management (Nunavut Fisheries, Victor Diamond mine) while other projects have these activities undertaken by First Nations organizations within their communities or through ARHDA offices (e.g. Northwest Territories Mining, Manitoba Hydro).

Use of Formal Assessments: While projects use a variety of screening approaches, typically involving interviews and formal applications, some projects have implemented formal testing for assessing the potential participants’ aptitude and skills, educational attainment, and prior learning assessments.

Specific Resource or Development Projects versus Industry/Trades Focus: While most projects have a specific focus on a resource a few projects have a broader industry or trades focus (e.g. Nunavut Fisheries, Trade Winds). The types of training and occupations required for major resource development projects are often very specific to the project while the projects with a broader industry focus may address many different types of occupations with the industry.

Community-Based versus Institutional Delivery of Training: There has been a wide range of mechanisms implemented for training in the ASEP projects and many projects use more than one approach. Community-based approaches may establish their own training centres and courses or purchase training courses to be delivered within their own communities. Other projects have relied heavily on Colleges to develop and provide the training on campus or within the communities. For some of the large resource projects, the training is offered at the site and may be a standard training course provided by a third party, a program developed through the ASEP funding or a course provided by industry.

Pre-Training Preparation: Some of the projects placed an emphasis on ensuring the participants had the appropriate skills necessary to succeed in their training. These projects had specific components of their programming devoted to courses to provide academic upgrading, enhancing basic skills including life skills. In addition some projects included health and safety training and related courses that were required for employment in their industry.

Certification: Most projects have some or all training that will result in certificates or apprenticeships skills that will be recognized in the industry. The mix and emphasis on training leading to certificates required for specific occupations and funding apprenticeship training varied substantially across the ASEP projects.

Provision of Work Experience and Employment: Some of the projects provide work experience as part of the training program and in some cases use wage subsidies to secure employment. Projects provide assistance to find employment such as job listings and direct placements in jobs through their industry partners. For projects with apprenticeship training, securing work experience for the participants is critical to their ability to complete their apprenticeships and some for of assistance is provided to assist them in acquiring this experience, although some projects place greater emphasis on the work experience toward the apprenticeship than others.

Table A1.1: Description of Programs and Services by ASEP Project

Programs

Preparation courses provided prior to occupational training - Preparation for Academic and Career Education Program (PACE), which is a three to four month program, or the Connecting to Colleges and Careers (CCC), which is a six-month program. These programs offer courses such as life skills, computer skills, academic upgrading and GED preparation/writing, safety certification, and on site tours.

The vast majority of clients, prior to spring of 2007, were enrolled in either PACE or CCC. A portion of individuals received further training vIA the occupational programs.

Courses designed for apprenticeship trades - Mechanical and Construction Trades Preparation (MCTP) is a six month certificate program provides entry-level industry training and skill development for employment in apprenticeship trades.

Apprenticeship trades training includes work experience and certificate - Through job placement in the industry and students are issued credentials for work experience by Apprenticeship and Industry Training and assume full apprentice workload duties under supervision of a journeyman.

Training for other specific occupation including work experience also available - mine operations; power engineering/process operator; and coker technician. Each occupational program contains its own work experience program or co-op term. Two additional programs were introduced: Drivers Training Class 1/3 and Certified Protection Officer Program (CPO). These latter programs are shorter in duration and are aimed at employment maintenance/ sustainability.

ASEP Project

Northwest Territories Industrial Mining Skills

Rationale/Objective

Focus is on training for occupations in the diamond mining industry in Northwest Territories - the Northwest Territories Industrial Mining Skills ASEP is designed to be a community focused, industry driven initiative which will direct its training resources to industry identified jobs.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

The Mine Training Society holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

Clients not case managed, recruitment of participants conducted by training providers - the Mine Training Society (MTS) does not engage in active case management of individual clients. Proposals are submitted for training courses and assessed and approved by the MTS Board. These proposals identify how many individuals can be accommodated in the course and the training providers conduct recruitment of project participants. Costs of training are billed directly to the Mine Training Society.

Industry partners play a key role in the design and implementation of training - as these are industry identified and driven training initiatives, Industry plays a key role in development and implementation. This includes apprenticeship programs, cooperative internship programs and college and university scholarship support. Scholarships are fully funded by the industry.

Programs

Preparation courses provided prior to training - Community-Based Training - MTS provides community-based training which is focused on life skills and mining introductory programs.

Apprenticeships, cooperative internships and other occupational training is provided - Industrial Skills Development - This is considered the cornerstone of MTS as it is the activity under which job specific skills training programs are carried out. For example, Pre-Apprenticeship Training and Underground Mine Training and Apprenticeships are some of the programs that MTS, with its partners, delivers.

The Mine Training Society has not engaged with individual participants until recently. The focus has been to fund training identified by the industry.

ASEP Project

People, Land and Opportunities

Rationale/Objective

Focus is on training to meet the demand for skilled workers in New Brunswick’s forestry industry - The overall aim of the project is to secure a skilled workforce and sustainable employment for Aboriginal people in the forestry sector in NB.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

ASEP-NB Inc. holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

High level of involvement of the AHRDA holders in the selection and assessment of the participants - the majority of the participants in the community training projects are assessed and selected by AHRDA staff, then referred to ASEP-NB. For individual training, ASEP-NB staff, in conjunction with AHRDA representatives, conducts the assessments. The approach taken depends on whether the client is referred or approached ASEP-NB directly.

Programs

Immediate job placements and supports are provided including matching participant skills to employer needs, training and wage subsidies - Immediate Placements: Initial matching of local demand and local skill-sets and recruit based on specific local skill-opportunity matches anywhere in a partner organization. Specific supports provided include upgrading training if required, employee support mechanisms, wage subsidies, awareness training for the candidate and the employer.

Training and certification and wage subsidies provided for workers currently employed in the forestry sector to improve retention - Retention-Upgrading: Undertake retention measures with the existing Aboriginal forest workers through certification and the introduction of new skills. Aboriginal persons working on Crown land harvesting will be screened and surveyed to determine their upgrading training needs, aptitudes and desires. Based on those results, candidates are provided the opportunity to refresh and upgrade their skills. Specific supports include training costs, employee support mechanisms, wage contributions and aftercare follow-up.

Recruitment and training of workers with previous forestry experience is conducted - Immediate Train-Recruit: Undertake training and recruitment of Aboriginal persons with previous exposure to forest work. The occupations covered under the initiative are silviculture occupations (e.g., planters, thinners), truck-transportation related occupations, and heavy equipment operators.

Forestry career awareness and recruitment activities conducted in schools - Attract-Train-Recruit: Undertake a forestry-as-a-career awareness program aimed at partner Aboriginal communities and at youth in the middle school levels (grades 6, 7 and 8). A "Forestry Role-Model" initiative will also be developed to bring successful Aboriginal role models to career days or into classrooms as encouragement to youth to try forest science as a career.

ASEP Project

Northwest Territories Oil and Gas

Rationale/Objective

The project is focused on promoting employment, training and apprenticeship opportunities in the Northwest Territories Oil & Gas Industry (i.e. Mackenzie Pipeline) - The project is intended to bridge the gap between education and the employment and training needs of the Mackenzie Valley First Nations and the Inuvialuit in order to increase the number of aboriginal employees in the Northwest Territories Oil & Gas Industry as well as its related trades and professions.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

The Aboriginal Futures Society holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

High level of involvement of the AHRDA holders in the selection and assessment of the participants - The Aboriginal Futures Society does not engage in active case management of individual clients through its main office. This responsibility is devolved to the four sub-offices which are co-located with the AHRDAs.

Clients are identified and selected by the AHRDAs.

Local educational institution (Aurora College) plays lead role in design and coordination of curriculum and training - All partners are represented on the board that governs and advises on what training programs to offer. Also included in the partnership discussions is Aurora College, a local educational provider that is partially governed by First Nation organizations in the Mackenzie area. Aurora College accepted principle responsibility to lead and coordinate program development.

Aboriginal Futures receives the funding and distributes it to the four Aboriginal partners and Aurora College. Aurora College also receives separate funding from the regional partners to help develop curriculum and training.

Programs

Preparation courses provided prior to training - Basic Skills & Pre-Employment - There are two programs offered through this activity. Bridging Employment Skills Training Program (BEST) - BEST is targeted towards clients who would be able to enter into a an apprenticeship program or entry level employment if they had the basic job skills offered through this program such as conflict resolution, communication skills, teamwork, employment search skills, etc. This program is delivered at the community level.

Developmental Studies Program - The intent behind this program is to provide basic literacy and numeracy skills to prepare clients with the academic skills to move into other skills training programs such as apprenticeship and technology programs.

Specific training courses developed, including on-the-job peer-to-peer apprenticeship training - Industrial Skills Development - There are 11 specific skills training programs administered under this activity, focused on the identified labour needs of Industry. For example: Emergency Medical Responder, Drill Rig Training, Pipeline & Field Operations Training Program, Environmental Monitoring, Class 1 Truck Driving, Heavy Equipment Operations, Camp Catering and Chef Training, Aviation, Trades, Marine Training and Computer Skills. Provides on-the-job training through peer-to-peer apprenticeship.

Training for self-employment is available - Employment Support - Includes Entrepreneurial Training and Tutoring Initiative (ETTI) to assist Aboriginal people who wish to avail of the opportunity to become an entrepreneur. This program covers essential business basics and skills.

Capacity building training is provide - increases trainers available Employment Support also includes Train - the Trainer Program - There are some short term training requirements of Industry i.e. CPR/First Aid, and Chainsaw Operations. This program will train Aboriginal people to deliver these courses.

ASEP Project

Manitoba Hydro Northern Training and Employment Initiative

Rationale/Objective

The project is focused on training for employment opportunities for hydro projects in Northern Manitoba - The Manitoba Hydro Northern Training and Employment Initiative (MHNTEI) is designed to facilitate the training of Northern Aboriginal people, enabling them to take advantage of the employment on the Wuskwatim and proposed Keeyask Hydroelectric Projects in Northern Manitoba.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

The Wuskwatim and Keeyask Training Consortium (WKTC) is the ASEP contribution holder and acts as the administrative and coordinating body for the MHNTEI.

The design, implementation and delivery of the training is conducted by the seven Aboriginal partners. - The WKTC does not deal directly with clients. Aboriginal partners have lead role and responsibility in design, development, and delivery of community, multi-year training plans. The seven Aboriginal partners deal directly with clients, and maintain financial records of all expenditures on WKTC clients.

Formal testing conducted as part of the assessment, including testing academic achievement and prior learning assessments - Clients are identified and selected by the seven Aboriginal partners. This initial contact focuses on an interview and academic assessment, aptitude assessment, life skills analysis and counselling. General assessment of candidates is undertaken with prior learning assessment approaches along with administration of assessment tools to measure levels of educational achievement.

Course costs, student allowances, and any related expenses are paid by the seven Aboriginal partners and invoiced to WKTC.

Programs

Preparation courses provided prior to training - Basic Academic Preparation - includes life skills training and individualized academic upgrading of an average duration of 20 weeks.

Apprenticeships and other occupational training is provided - Academic and Technical Instruction - includes training in designated trades, non-designated trades, project construction supports, business and management, professional and technical occupations. It is anticipated that this phase could range from 12 weeks through to more than 3 years.

Trainees are placed in job to provide on-the-job training and apprentice work experience. On the Job Training - this is the portion of skills based training that is applied and job-site specific. Trainees are placed on job sites with the assistance of the partnerships, consisting of representatives of industry, Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Apprenticeship, and trainers. The anticipated length ranges from 2-3 years. Employment is an expected outcome following completion of training and is an integral on going function managed by the communities. Apprentices must be hired by employers to gain sufficient hours towards their certification. Similarly, those completing training in non-designated trades must develop demonstrable 2 to 3 year work histories to qualify for jobs on the projects.

ASEP Project

Long Term Training Initiative for Nunavut’s Fishing Industry

Rationale/Objective

The project is focused on training for employment opportunities related to the Fisheries Industry of Nunavut - The project is intended to bridge the gap between education and the employment and training needs of Aboriginals in order to increase the number of aboriginal employees in the Fisheries Industry of Nunavut.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

The Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium (NFTC) holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

Selection of participants is conducted by the ASEP funded organization (contribution holder) - Participants in the NFTC training program are selected by NFTC staff. Some are referred by industry participants, some are recruited during community visits, but most apply as a result of media advertising.

Upon contacting the NFTC, potential clients are asked to complete an application and submit it for review by NFTC staff. All applications received go on file and NFTC staff refer to these when filling courses.

Programs

Preparation courses provided prior to training - Pre-Career Training - This is for participants who may need some kind of basic skills/academic upgrading before being able to move forward in more technical programs i.e. Trades Pre-employment programs. Community based upgrading is offered to address this need and is delivered through the Nunavut Arctic College through such programs as ABE and Pre-trades.

Included under this initiative is career awareness programs aimed at increasing knowledge around employment opportunities for Aboriginal people in this Industry.

Training is provided for entry level occupations - Entry Level Training - Geared mainly towards training for offshore vessels where roughly half of the positions are entry level ones: deckhands and factory workers. Programs such as Presea Trawler, MED A1 are delivered to prepare clients for these types of jobs.

Training is provided for occupations requiring more advanced skills (non entry level jobs) - Advanced Training - For candidates who are interested in and qualify to participate in higher level fishery type jobs such as: bosuns, factory bosses, engine room assistants, etc. These training programs are delivered in Nunavut and Newfoundland and Labrador (Marine Institute). Training for these types of positions usually involve several skills programs i.e. Offshore Shrimp Vessel Worker, Certificate in Quality Assurance, etc and are longer in duration. Components of the training may also require participants to leave Nunavut and train at the Marine Institute in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Other Training- Recognizing that there are other employment opportunities within the Fishing Industry, i.e. Manager and administrative type positions, training is available to candidates interested in these types of positions as well.

ASEP Project

VanASEP Construction Careers

Rationale/Objective

The focus of the VanASEP project is on training for construction jobs related to major projects in the Vancouver area. The VanASEP project is intended to increase the Aboriginal participation in the trades and construction sector opportunities with a focus on opportunities relating to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre project, the Vancouver Port Expansion project and the Sea to Sky Highway project.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

The VanASEP Training Society holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

Close working relationship with communities and AHRDA holders to identify participants - AHRDA holders are a source of clients for the project; VanASEP works with AHRDA holders and communities in order to assist individuals to enter the workforce, specifically in the construction industry.

Local delivery of programming - Through the five delivery sites, Vancouver, Squamish, Twawwssen and Lil’wat, and Abbotsford, potential students are referred or recruited to participate in the program.

Formal testing conducted as part of the assessment process - The CORE program (Construction Orientation and Retention Employment) was developed to assess, screen and prepare Aboriginal clients for construction sector employment. All participants must complete a Test of Workplace Essential Skills (TOWES) assessment and Essential Skills review to assess the appropriate level of training needed prior to participating in CORE.

Job coaches involved in all aspect of the programming, including the assessment process - The project also incorporates a job coach program to support employers with hiring and retention of Aboriginal employees. The role of the job coach includes supporting participants as they move between program components. The job coach takes a lead role in participant assessment, evaluation and management.

Programs

Entry level trade or sector specific training is provided including job placements - The CORE program is designed to equip participants with the essential basics needed to enter and function on a construction job site, and/or to enter and complete a trade-specific or sector-specific entry level training program. The CORE model is an integrated model that takes Aboriginal people from having no construction work experience or job readiness to being equipped with work competencies construction employers need and are seeking. Sessions are approximately six weeks in duration not including assessment, screening, job placement and referral.

Accredited skills training is provided after job placement to lead to certificates recognized inter-provincially (Red Seal) - Skills training opportunities are offered to CORE program trainees who are selected by industry. Selection of candidates for skills training generally occurs after completion of the CORE training and placement on job site. The VanASEP Training Society will work to ensure that all training is accredited and recognized by the Province of BC and supported by industry. The VanASEP Training society supports programs leading to certificates of completion and recognized inter-provincially as Red Seal programs.

Job coaching by a certified journeyperson is provided - The VanASEP Training Society launched a job coach program to support employers with hiring and retention of Aboriginal employees. The job coach develops and maintains a relationship with the participant and also a close connection with potential employers in the geographic region. Through these connections, the job coach, who is a certified journeyperson in a construction trade, assists participants and employers to bridge barriers and promote positive work-site and training situations.

Apprenticeships are the focus - The VanASEP Training Society will support apprenticeship training and skills development recognized by the Industry Training Authority (ITA) and accredited with the Province of BC.

ASEP Project

Trade Winds to Success

Rationale/Objective

The project is designed to provide training for employment in trades targeting Aboriginal peoples residing in the municipalities of Edmonton and Calgary - The project is designed to bridge the gap between education and the employment and training needs of Aboriginals in order to increase the number of Aboriginal employees in the trades areas of boiler makers, ironworkers, carpenters and pipe/steamfitters. Aboriginal peoples residing in the municipalities of Edmonton and Calgary will be targeted as potential participants of ASEP.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

Trade Winds to Success Training Society (TWSTS) holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

High level of involvement of the AHRDA holders in the recruitment and assessment of the participants - Information sessions were conducted bi-weekly in Edmonton and Calgary at the Employment Centres (AHRDA offices) or the TWST offices. Individuals with an interest in pursuing training and employment in the trade areas of Boilermaker, Ironworker, Carpenter and or Pipefitter/Steamfitter were referred to Employment Centers operated by the three AHRDA’s for assessment.

This activity is ongoing. Clients can access job counselling at any point in the process.

Programs

Orientation training for the trades is provided - Trade Streaming Process - A three week orientation program to the trades where clients are brought through a career decision making process. Those who successfully complete and are selected to move forward go into the next training phase. Those who do not are referred back to the AHRDA for revised interventions/action plans.

Pre-apprenticeship training is provided including writing a trades entrance exam - Pre Apprenticeship Training - Conducted at the TWSTS offices alternately in Edmonton and Calgary. Included in this training is:
- 1 week Personal Development
- 4 weeks Academic Upgrading (to pass Trades Entrance Exam 4 - this may not be needed for all clients)
- Write Trades Entrance Exam. If client passes exam he/she will move on to next phase. Trade Winds offers tutoring and assistance to arrange a rewrite for those who fail during the union shop phase of training.

"Hands on" provided at Union Shop Training Centres - Union Shop training - Clients will undergo 8-10 weeks of shop and hands on skills training at the appropriate Union Training Centre. In addition, they will receive safety tickets required for their trade choice.

Trainees expected to obtain employment to complete apprenticeship - Apprenticeship and Employment - After completing Union Shop Training, clients are expected to go on to unsubsidized employment and complete their apprenticeship.

ASEP Project

Victor Diamond Mine

Rationale/Objective

This project is designed to provide training programs for First Nations people who live in the five Cree coastal communities along James Bay and in the town of Moosonee Ontario to meet the labour market demands of the Victor Diamond Mine Project.

The project is intended to bridge the gap between education and the employment and training needs of Aboriginals to meet the labour market demands of the Victor Diamond Project through all phases of its development including continued advanced exploration, construction and operations. The First Nations people who live in the five Cree coastal communities along James Bay and in the town of Moosonee will be the targeted clientele for this project.

There is an Adjacency Hiring Principle whereby De Beers Canada is committed to hiring residents in closest proximity to the mine site.

Management and Assessment Process Key Features

James Bay Employment & Training Inc. (JBET) holds the contribution agreement with HRSDC.

Initial screening is done by teams comprised of First Nations and industry partners - Recruitment & Selection - Job Information Workshops, Community Meetings, Orientation Sessions, Career Counselling, etc are made available to potential candidates in order to recruit them as potential participants in the program. Once this is done, interested candidates are screened by Program Participation Selection Teams, comprised of First Nations employment coordinators and industry partners.

Participants are case managed by the ASEP funded organization (JBET the contribution holder) - Participants are case managed by Career Planning & Analysis - Those selected to participate are case managed by JBET staff.

Formal testing conducted as part of the assessment process - Participants undergo an intensive career exploration and personal development plan process. Such tools as Prior Learning Assessment & Recognition (PLAR) are used to help develop each individual plan.

Programs

Training and work experience is provided based on industry identified needs - Education, Training and Work Experience Interventions - Skills training is designed in consultation with the Aboriginal groups and De Beers. De Beers is instrumental in providing demand-side information that helps direct this training.

Programming and coordinators are used to retain participants and graduates in the industry - Retention Programs - To ease the transition of learning/non-employment to work, there is an Employment Assistance Program delivered at the community level to provide retention services to program participants and graduates. There are also Employee Assistance Coordinators at the mine site that provide these same services while on the job.

Referral system established to facilitate job placements - Job Placements (Construction Phase) - Individuals who applied to the program who were job ready, as well as program graduates are referred to industry contractors and sub-contractors for hiring at the mine site. Training of these individuals (if necessary) continues throughout the Construction phase with the expectation that they will be hired in the Operations phase.

Focus on local delivery of training - Where possible, training will be delivered in the communities. Off-site training will be delivered 80% by Northern College and other accredited institutions and 20% by private institutions or other appropriate contractors.

Continued training opportunities will be provided by industry - Employee based training will continue to be based on an individual learning plan and assisted by De Beers Human Resource Officers and will include best in class safety, health and environment training along with individual skills development and job requirements.

Source: ASEP Project Activity Reports

A.1.11 Summary of Planned Contributions and Results Targets

As illustrated in Table 1.2 below, the HRSDC contribution to the nine projects ranged in size from $2.9M to $22.0M. Similarly, there was a large variation in the planned leveraged contributions for the projects ranging in size from $1.0M to $40.0M. According to the contribution agreements, the contributions from HRSDC will total $75.9M across the nine projects with additional $90.5M as planned leveraged contributions. As a result, the overall contribution is expected to reach $166.4M.

• References from the above table Source: Contribution Agreements for ASEP projects
• ¹ The difference between the $85M in Section 1.1 and the $75.9M indicated here are the administrative costs of delivering the ASEP program.

Within the contribution agreements signed for each project, there is an outline of targeted results for the entire funding period covered by the agreement. Table 1.3 contains a summary of the targeted results according to each project. Overall, under the agreements, it is planned that 9,976 individuals will be assessed for ASEP interventions, 6,245 will participate in interventions and 4,113 participants will complete their action plans. It is anticipated that 2,021 participants will become employed with the employers targeted under the agreement, with a similar proportion (1,834) returning to employment elsewhere. Slightly over $23M is anticipated in short term income support savings.

Based on information from Table 1.2 and Table 1.3, the planned per participant cost for the 4,113 participants targeted to complete action plans would be $40,457 per participant overall, of which $18,454 would be HRSDC contribution. The planned cost per participant for those who will become employed with targeted employers or employment elsewhere would be $43,165 per participant overall, of which $19,689 would be HRSDC contribution.

• Reference from the above table Source: Contribution Agreements for ASEP projects
• ¹ Short term income support savings refers to the difference between the aggregate of each participant’s entitlement to social assistance benefits and the actual pay out of the benefits to that participant.