Formative and Summative Evaluation: Kativik Regional Government Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement, June 2009

List of Abbreviations

• AAD Aboriginal Affairs Directorate
• AHRC Aboriginal Human Resource Council
• AHRDA Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement
• AHRDS Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy
• APD Aboriginal People's Directorate
• APE Action Plan Equivalent
• ASETS Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy
• ASTSIF Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund
• CRA Canada Revenue Agency
• DETISC Dept. of Employment, Training, Income Support and Childcare (KRG)
• EAS Employment Assistance Services
• EBSMs Employment Benefits and Support Measures
• EI Employment Insurance
• FFAED Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development
• FNICCI First Nations and Inuit Child Care Initiative
• HRSDC Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
• JBNQA James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
• KRC Kativik Regional Council
• KRG Kativik Regional Government
• LEO Local Employment Officer
• LMDA Labour Market Development Agreement
• SA Social Assistance
• SPF Skills and Partnership Fund

Executive Summary

The evaluation of the Kativik Regional Government (KRG) Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement (AHRDA) includes formative and summative components.

The formative evaluation was conducted in the fall 2006 and winter 2007. It covered the period of April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. The evaluation examined issues of program design, delivery, and implementation in addition to the assessment of data collection and accountability systems, and the First Nations and Inuit Child Care component. The evaluation used the following evaluation methods: key informant and stakeholder interviews, discussion groups, document review and assessment of the quality and integrity of the client administrative database.

The summative evaluation was conducted in fall 2007 and winter 2008. The evaluation examined primarily program success. Evaluation methods included KRG client discussion groups, key informant interviews, and analysis of quantitative data on program success and impacts. The summative evaluation also generated a comparison group for eligible Employment Insurance clients using administrative data to estimate program net impacts.

The Kativik Regional Government

The KRG is a regional government for 14 predominately Inuit communities in the region of Nunavik (Arctic Quebec). The KRG is the AHRDA holder for the region and has been responsible for AHRDA activities since the early 1990s. KRG provides employment and training services and programs to all the residents of Nunavik.

Socio-economic Profile of Nunavik

Based on the 2001 Census and early releases from the 2006 Census, the socio-economic profile of Nunavik indicates that:

• The Inuit population of Nunavik reached 9,565 in 2006, representing a 25.2% increase compared to 1996. Inuit made up 99.1% of the Aboriginal population of Nunavik in 2006.
• 60% of the Inuit population in Nunavik was under the age of 25.
• 70% of Inuit 15 years of age and over had less than high school graduation and 3.9% of Inuit held trades certificate or diplomas.
• Employment was the major source of income for 63.8% of those with income for the Inuit in Nunavik, while 37.8% of Inuit worked full-year full-time and 1.8% of Nunavik's Inuit population was self-employed.
• By 2001 the average income for Inuit had increased to $19,416, or 66.1% of that of the general provincial population.
• The Inuit population of Nunavik had a participation rate of 62% in 2001, an employment rate of 51%, and an unemployment rate of 17%, the last comparing to 8% at the provincial level.
• In 2001, employment in public administration was the largest sector for Inuit employment in Nunavik with 22.1%, followed by the health care and social assistance sector with 20.6% and education services at 15.4%.

Formative Evaluation Findings

Capacity Building

Capacity building plans and activities aimed at improving KRG's delivery capability are identified in the KRG's annual operational plan and reported annually. Supervisors undertake annual performance evaluations with staff members. Specific training needs are identified during this process and are integrated into departmental training priorities. Recent workshops for staff have addressed such subjects as risk assessment, time management, upgrading computer skills, and internal data base systems.

All KRG and Service Canada staff and stakeholders who were interviewed agreed that the KRG had sufficient tools and capacity to effectively deliver, manage, and administer the AHRDA. Staff turnover is low and KRG is considered to be one of the better employers in the region and offers good benefits. There was also agreement among key informants that capacity development efforts have resulted in more consistent and reliable service delivery at all levels.

KRG key informants pointed to the limited funding for capacity building ($76,362 annually) provided by the agreement. They explained that the Nunavik region faces a number of unique northern challenges, including higher travel costs, costs associated with overcoming the low education of some of the Local Employment Officers, and the higher costs of doing business and delivering training in remote regions.

Partnership Development

KRG has developed strong partnerships with key employers and labour market stakeholders in the region through several committees, including:

• The Kativik Regional Economic and Training Committee, which comprises representatives of ten of the region's most important private and public sector employers and meets twice a year to identify and recommend training priorities for the region.
• The Raglan Employment Training Technical Committee, established to increase Inuit employment at the Raglan mine site.

These committees help the KRG to align its labour market activities with available employment opportunities.

Through the structure created by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the KRG has successfully established a number of partnerships with governments at the federal and provincial level. All funding from provincial and federal governments (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada, and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada [HRSDC]) for employment, training, and daycare in Nunavik flows through the KRG, thus eliminating any duplication or overlap between programs and funding agencies.

KRG has limited relationships with other AHRDAs within the province, but sits on the national Inuit Human Resource Development Technical Committee, which comprises all Inuit AHRDA holders.

Services to Youth, Women, and People with Disabilities

Youth form a majority of the Nunavik population and the KRG has several programs directed primarily at youth. Funding level, limited employment opportunities, language, literacy, and essential skills levels are identified as barriers limiting youth access both to the KRG programs and services and to the labour market.

There are no gender-specific programs offered despite their near equal representation in program clientele. The daycare system in Nunavik is perceived as having a positive impact on enabling more women to become employed and to attend training programs and services.

The KRG focused primarily on promoting programs and services to people with disabilities and on increasing internal capacity to better serve this client group. Limited funding and self-identification are the main barriers limiting program participation.

Communication with Service Canada, HRSDC, and the AHRC

The relationship between the KRG and the Service Canada regional office in Montreal is positive and productive, with Service Canada providing support and guidance on a needed basis.

KRG staff knew little about the Aboriginal Human Resource Council (AHRC) other than its basic purpose. No AHRC tools or resources were in use within the KRG offices and staff believed, in general, that the AHRC was more focused on helping AHRDAs in western Canada and, as a result, largely unaware of Nunavik Inuit. KRG, however, is planning a private sector conference under the auspices of the AHRC.

The First Nations and Inuit Child Care Component

KRG oversees, administers, and supports 17 daycare facilities in Nunavik with 815 full-time spaces and 215 staff. Funding, administration, and support for the daycares are centralized through KRG's main office in Kuujjuaq. Federal and provincial funding is allocated and distributed to the individual daycare centres. Funding from the First Nations and Inuit Child Care component supplements provincial and other federal funding and is used primarily to reduce staff-child ratios.

Waiting times are reported across the 17 daycare facilities, of as much as one to two years in some communities. No problems were reported with the hours of operation, the state of the facilities, or the fees charged.

Staff turnover remains a challenge. Ensuring daycare staff are qualified is a priority for KRG. Less than half of current care providers have the appropriate childcare credentials and, for this reason, training is on-going. Currently, funding levels for training remain insufficient to meet the needs of the daycare centres, exacerbated in part by the large distances between settlements and the need for specialized courses, materials, and instruction in the Inuktitut language.

Key informants and discussion groups participants agreed that daycare centres have made an important contribution not only to the development of healthy, active children but also to the economy of the region by enabling hundreds of parents to pursue employment and training.

The KRG daycare facilities integrate Head Start programs within their programming and facilities. Daycare centres also provide nutrition programs, host public health nurses, and provide facilities for dental hygienists for basic cleaning and checkups.

Daycare programming includes strong cultural components, including the use of Inuktitut, storytelling with elders, learning traditional crafts and skills, and the incorporation of country foods into the nutrition program.

Assessment of Data Collection and Accountability Systems

When comparing clients' records received from HRSDC and the KRG, the HRSDC database included an additional 99 clients and 393 interventions for the period of April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. The data upload process for this period indicates that 200 records were rejected by HRSDC. Given the history of the data upload process, it is unclear why the HRSDC database contains additional records.

When examining the 8 data variables required under the contribution agreement, some data are missing on the date of birth. In addition, the information reported in the variable withdrawal from or termination date of program could not be interpreted based on the available data dictionaries. A few coding errors were also identified between the HRSDC and the KRG records.

The KRG coordinator and the regional coordinator of Service Canada indicated that KRG targets are set annually based on historical trends. Neither regional nor KRG coordinators interviewed indicated that external factors are considered in setting targets. The data demonstrate that KRG has consistently met all targets for the years of interest, and frequently exceeded targets by a substantial number. As targets were largely surpassed, the little variation found in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 targets suggests that greater attention should be paid to setting targets based on historical results and contextual factors; the targets are low compared to the reported results.

Both databases indicate that 98% of interventions were completed. Employment and Return to School outcomes account for 72% of the outcome of most recent client interventions. One quarter of interventions resulted in unemployment. Among the 50 clients with disabilities, 19 became employed, and 8 returned to school.

Summative Evaluation Findings

Program Success and Impacts

KRG clients who attended the discussions groups expressed high levels of satisfaction with the programs and services received, and consensus that these had been helpful in meeting employment challenges and in finding jobs. Discussion group participants agreed that there were positive impacts on job skills, job prospects, attitude towards employment, satisfaction with current jobs and increased self-confidence.

Key informants agreed that the current KRG programs and services helped clients to look for, find, and maintain employment. This was supported by labour force statistics showing substantial increases in the number of people participating in the Nunavik workforce. There was consensus that the programs had positive impacts on: client job search skills, job skills, job prospects and employment outlook, skill levels including certification and diplomas, attitudes towards employment, preparation for jobs, and personal self-confidence.

Net Impacts

Net impacts compare measures of outcome indicators for participants to those of a comparison group of similar individuals. The comparison group is constructed to represent what would have happened to the participants if they had not participated. Net impacts may thus be attributed fully to participation.

The quantitative analysis found no net impacts that were statistically significant at conventional statistical levels. As a result, net impacts for the participation in KRG programs and services cannot be reported.

Observations ^{Footnote 1} on Outcome Indicators

When examining clients' earnings and use of Employment Insurance and Social Assistance over a period of five years before participation in KRG programs and services and up to three years after participation ended, key observations included the following:

• Earnings from employment continue to increase over time, but at a lower rate.
• There is little change in the use of Employment Insurance for Active and Former EI claimants. Non-claimant clients increased their use of EI in the post-program period, reflecting EI eligibility derived from employment during and after participation in the program.
• There is little change in the use of Social Assistance benefits.

Management Response

The Aboriginal Affairs Directorate (AAD) within the Skills Employment Branch of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSDC) would like to thank all those who took the time to participate in the formative and summative evaluation of the Kativik Regional Government Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement (KRG AHRDA).

The evaluation findings and conclusions have helped to shape the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy (ASETS), the successor strategy to the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy (AHRDS). The expiry of the AHRDS provides the Government and AHRDA holders with a timely opportunity to modernize Aboriginal labour market programming, while addressing challenges and gaps. As a key vehicle for delivering the ASETS, and addressing some of the issues identified in this evaluation report, HRSDC will implement the use of strategic business planning at the Aboriginal agreement holder level.

The KRG was established in 1978 as a result of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). The KRG is the regional government for 14 predominately Inuit communities in the region of Nunavik (Arctic Quebec), and provides support, management, and technical assistance in several areas, including municipal administration, recreation, environment, public security and land-use planning. The 14 communities are spread out over a vast territory, comprising approximately one third of the total land mass of the province of Quebec. With no road links with the south or linking the communities, costs of goods and services are very high in this remote region. The only year around transportation service is by air, with maritime services in the summer and the fall.

The socio-economic profile of Nunavik also poses unique challenges for the region. Between 1996 and 2006 the Inuit population in Nunavik increased by 25.2%, with 60% of the Inuit population under the age of 25. 70% of Inuit 15 years of age and over had less than a high school graduation and 3.9% held trades certificates of diplomas. In 2001, the unemployment rate for the Inuit of Nunavik was 17%, compared to 8% at the provincial level. For the Inuit of Nunavik, access to employment is exacerbated by lower than average income, the rapid population growth and number of people entering the labour market, growing number of dependents for each person in the labour market, an increase in the use of alcohol and drugs as well as high incidence of violence.

The KRG signed its current AHRDA with HRSDC within the framework of the JBNQA, rather than within the AHRDS. This is the fifth renewal of an agreement developed in 1990, and is set to expire March 31, 2010. Under the AHRDA, KRG provides employment and training services and programs to all the residents of Nunavik, regardless of Aboriginal status, with the primary objective of helping residents prepare for, find and keep employment. KRG's Employment, Training, Income Support and Child Care department (DETISC) has the lead role in the implementation and management of the AHRDA and since June 2008, has established an additional point of service in Montreal and is delivering employment and training services to urban Inuit from all home communities.

A key feature of the success of KRG in implementing the AHRDS has been the establishment of an office in each community. This effective one-window approach provided residents with critical access to a wide range of services and programs. An important increase in the number of clients demonstrates the success in meeting the needs of the population. Further, child care services were widely acknowledged as playing a significant role in enabling residents to pursue employment and training opportunities.

Further, KRG has developed strong partnerships with employers, labour market stakeholders, and federal/provincial governments. Clients and key informants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the programs and services received, and consensus that these had been helpful in meeting employment challenges and in finding jobs, and agree that there were positive impacts on job skills, job prospects, attitude towards employment, satisfaction with current jobs and increased self-confidence.

HRSDC acknowledges these findings of the formative and summative evaluation. The following outlines the Management Response and commitments to the evaluation.

Formative Evaluation Findings

Capacity Building

All KRG and Service Canada staff and stakeholders who were interviewed agreed that the KRG had sufficient tools and capacity to effectively deliver, manage, and administer the AHRDA. Staff turnover is low and KRG is considered to be one of the better employers in the region and offers good benefits. There was also agreement among key informants that capacity development efforts have resulted in more consistent and reliable service delivery at all levels.

KRG key informants pointed to the limited funding for capacity building ($76,362 annually) provided by the agreement. They explained that the Nunavik region faces a number of unique northern challenges, including higher travel costs, costs associated with overcoming the low education of some of the Local Employment Officers, and the higher costs of doing business and delivering training in remote regions.

HRSDC recognizes that Aboriginal communities face major and unique challenges that are beyond control of Aboriginal communities, like high cost of living and training and doing business especially, in rural and remote and northern communities, limited education levels, limited economic opportunities, and competition for skilled and experienced staff. This is also acknowledged in the HRSDC Northern Study Report (March 2008), which provided insights into the nature of the cost/price differentials facing AHRDAs and sub-agreement holders in northern and remote communities as well as the impact of these differentials on their operations and results. These challenges continue to be addressed with the aim of taking advantage of future opportunities as they emerge.

HRSDC has been supportive of developing capacity within KRG through the provision of both short-term assistance and support on an as-needed basis but also through the secondment of employees to KRG. This process increased the expertise and familiarity with HRSDC processes and requirements on the part of the KRG. Sources interviewed at that time indicated that this was an important component of capacity development within the KRG, that staff worked well together, and that significant skills transfer occurred.

HRSDC agrees that capacity building plans and activities do improve the delivery capability of service providers. Through ASETS, strategic business plans will identify key elements to be used in developing the business plan for Aboriginal service delivery organizations. Key elements will include: a) the tailoring or programs and services to meet the needs within a given service delivery areas; b) the human resource capacity, resources, and c) the capacity needs.

The transition and implementation of the new ASETS towards key changes in Aboriginal labour market programming requires commitment and support from HRSDC in three specific areas: performance reporting and accountability, funding and tools to support staff training and strategic partnership development. HRSDC will develop a capacity needs self-assessment process with the outcomes being reflected in the strategic business plans. In addition, external supports will come from HRSDC in terms of the development of standardized training and supporting manuals.

Partnership Development

KRG has developed strong partnerships with key employers and labour market stakeholders in the region through several committees. These committees include: the Kativik Regional Economic and Training Committee, which comprises representatives of ten of the region's most important private and public sector employers and meets twice a year to identify and recommend training priorities for the region; the Raglan Employment Training Technical Committee, established to increase Inuit employment at the Raglan mine site.

The KRG-DETISC is involved in 25 committees. These committees assist the KRG in aligning labour market activities with available employment opportunities.

KRG also administer the ASEP Project (Tamatumani) approved in June 2008 in partnership with the Raglan Mine and the Kativik School Board. The objective is to provide Inuit of the Nunavik Territory with literacy, essential skills, skills development and on-the-job training required to advance in all levels of jobs with the Raglan Mine.

Through the structure created by the JBNQA, the KRG has successfully established a number of partnerships with governments at the federal and provincial level. All funding from provincial and federal governments (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada, and HRSDC) for employment, training, and daycare in Nunavik flows through the KRG, thus eliminating any duplication or overlap between programs and funding agencies.

Like the AHRDS, the new ASETS will integrate Aboriginal labour market programming under a single umbrella. While the suite of instruments remains largely the same, new program elements under the ASETS will enhance efficiencies and enable clients to be better served.

In June 2009, to more strategically align federal investments, the Government of Canada announced the new Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development (FFAED). The FFAED will guide federal actions across many departments and agencies, by pursuing a clear set of strategic priorities, including developing Aboriginal human capital and forging new and effective partnerships.

As ASETS is complementary to the FFAED, it will pursue new solutions in areas that must be strengthened, such as: increasing alignment with federal-provincial-territorial government priorities; solidifying links between skills development and employment; employing a whole-of-government approach to enhance partnerships with the provinces, territories, and private sector; and bolstering systems infrastructure, case management, and performance reporting.

An integral component of ASETS is the new Skills and Partnership Fund (SPF), an open and discretionary fund that will provide incentives for strong performance and allow new and existing service providers to access funding for innovative projects and partnerships in line with government priorities.

Further in Budget 2009, Canada also invested $75M into the AHRDS through the new two-year Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund (ASTSIF). Although the ASTSIF introduction is temporary for two years, it will strengthen partnerships between established Aboriginal service delivery organizations and small- and medium-sized employers, as well as with the provinces and territories, maximizing results through enhanced collaboration and governance. It is also intended to provide lessons learned and best practices in the development of partnerships under a new ASETS and SPF.

KRG has limited relationships with other AHRDAs within the province, but sits on the National Inuit Human Resource Development Technical Committee, which comprises all Inuit AHRDA holders.

In October 2006, this situation changed with the creation of a working group for the organization of the Workforce Connex event with the Aboriginal Human Resource Council (AHRC). The working group is now permanent and KRG has worked with the three other Quebec AHRDA holders, as well as unions, sector councils, employers and government agencies representatives. Furthermore, the four Quebec AHRDA holders should soon get an official answer from Quebec to support, on a permanent basis, the First Nations and Inuit advisory committee which is represented by 8 members, including the four AHRDAs who will have the decisional power of this committee. This committee will influence the Quebec government policies related to employment and training services and programs.

Since June 2008 KRG-DETISC has opened an additional point of service in Montreal at the at the Centre local d'emploi de Verdun to deliver employment and training services to the urban Inuit whatever their home regions. This agreement is with Emploi-Quebec to finance one position.

Provincially, KRG has an agreement with the Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale of Quebec, for income security, employment, and training programs. Childcare services were also transferred in 2004, under a block funding agreement known as Sivuniurmut ($13,419,531 in 2005). From this amount starting in 2008, $620,000 has been secured to put in place a Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi in Nunavik. KRG also add to the services given to the Quebec Parental Assistance Program.

KRG has entered into other agreements to further the employment opportunities for the Inuit of Nunavik. For example,the Sanajiit project, a five-year agreement signed in 2004, whose objective is to increase the number of Inuit working in the region's construction sector ($517,672 in 2005) and within the framework of the Tamatumani project, Emploi-Québec provides on-the-job training for Inuit interested in working at the Raglan mine ($800,000).

Services to Youth, Women, and People with Disabilities

Limited funding and self-identification are the main barriers limiting program participation.

Youth form a majority of the Nunavik population and the KRG has several programs directed primarily at youth. Funding level, limited employment opportunities, language, literacy, and essential skills levels are identified as barriers limiting youth access both to the KRG programs and services and to the labour market.

There are no gender-specific programs offered despite their near equal representation in program clientele. The daycare system in Nunavik is perceived as having a positive impact on enabling more women to become employed and to attend training programs and services.

The AHRDA focused primarily on promoting programs and services to people with disabilities and on increasing internal capacity to better serve this client group.

Under ASETS, strategic business plans will exhibit how programs and services will address the distinct challenges faced by women, men, and other groups such as persons with disabilities, youth, and those that have other barriers to employment, such as: child care, or low levels of literacy and essential skills.

The SPF will be flexible and balanced, focusing on advancing broader program objectives; target jobs, up-skilling, address the needs of multi-barriered clients, new partnerships, innovation in service delivery and systems. It will have both long and short term objectives and will be accessible to all aboriginal organizations, helping to address some of the issues identified.

HRSDC will also develop new performance indicators and measurement that will include reporting, which will include components to exhibit the profile of women, men, and other groups such as persons with disabilities, youth, and persons with other barriers to employment. The strategic plan, a requirement under ASETS, underpins the importance of labour market analysis, taking into consideration the client needs as well as labour market requirements. Through this process, KRG will be required to identify funding priorities, programs and services to be offered as well as how they will leverage funds from other partners to meet the needs of youth, persons with disabilities and women.

Communication with Service Canada, HRSDC, and the AHRC

The relationship between the KRG and the Service Canada regional office in Montreal is positive and productive with Service Canada providing support and guidance largely on an as-needed basis.

KRG staff knew little about the Aboriginal Human Resource Council (AHRC) other than its basic purpose. No AHRC tools or resources were in use within the KRG offices and staff believed, in general, that the AHRC was more focused on helping AHRDAs in western Canada and, as a result, largely unaware of Nunavik Inuit. KRG, however, is planning a private sector conference under the auspices of the AHRC.

KRG informants believed that the AHRC did not appreciate the differences among the AHRDAs and the regions in which they operated. Each region is distinct in its needs, and consequently in labour market demand solutions. Quebec, for example, has a well-developed apprenticeship program in operation, as well as a long history of strong union development, which KRG did not feel the AHRC tools, workshops, and sectoral meetings took into account. It was suggested that the AHRC's work might be more valuable to employers than to the AHRDAs themselves.

As mentioned earlier under Partnership Development, KRG has started to work in greater collaboration with the AHRC which has since hired since an employee to follow on the apprentice strategy in Quebec. Things have improved significantly with the Council. It is important to note these positive changes and to demonstrate that KRG continues to engage and work in partnerships with all the stakeholders.

HRSDC will continue to support the AHRDAs, and recognizes that continued communication is important in order to facilitate the transition from AHRDS to ASETS, and support the strategic pillars of demand driven skills development, partnership and accountability.

First Nations and Inuit Child Care Component

The evaluation report pointed to key observations regarding child care:

KRG oversees, administers, and supports 17 daycare facilities in Nunavik with 815 full-time spaces and 215 staff. Funding, administration, and support for the daycares are centralized through KRG's main office in Kuujjuaq. Federal and provincial funding is allocated and distributed to the individual daycare centres.

Ensuring daycare staff are qualified is a priority for KRG. Less than half of current care providers have the appropriate childcare credentials and, for this reason, training is on-going. Currently, funding levels for training remain insufficient to meet the needs of the daycare centres, exacerbated in part by the large distances between settlements and the need for specialized courses, materials, and instruction in the Inuktitut language.

Key informants and discussion groups participants agreed that daycare centres have made an important contribution not only to the development of healthy, active children but also to the economy of the region by enabling hundreds of parents to pursue employment and training.

The KRG daycare facilities integrate Head Start programs within their programming and facilities. Daycare centres also provide nutrition programs, host public health nurses, and provide facilities for dental hygienists for basic cleaning and checkups.

Daycare programming includes strong cultural components, including the use of Inuktitut, storytelling with elders, learning traditional crafts and skills, and the incorporation of country foods into the nutrition program.

Waiting times are reported across the 17 daycare facilities, of as much as one to two years in some communities. No problems were reported with the hours of operation, the state of the facilities, or the fees charged. Staff turnover remains a challenge.

The formative evaluation of the AHRDAs also highlights the success of the AHRDS FNICCI sighting “the positive impacts the centres have on the development of the children, access to good meals, and an effective transition to school, language, and cultural and social development components” and its role in “promoting the development of children in a well-rounded, healthy way, and in helping to foster school readiness.”

FNICCI will continue to provide access to child care services for First Nations and Inuit children of parents entering the labour market or training programs. The FNICCI funding through the AHRDA is one component of overall funding for Aboriginal child care. The funding generally supplements provincial and other federal funding and is used primarily to reduce staff-child ratios.

Under ASETS, KRG will be required to complete a self-assessment, identifying priorities within the programs and services they offer, including child care. It will be necessary within the strategic business plan to identify gaps, and how KRG will address these gaps in funding for required services and/or staff development and training over five years, by maximizing existing partnerships and funding, and creating new ones as needed.

Assessment of Data Collection and Accountability Systems

When comparing clients' records received from HRSDC and the KRG, the HRSDC database included an additional 99 clients and 393 interventions for the period of April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006.The data upload process for this period indicates that 200 records were rejected by HRSDC. Given the history of the data upload process, it is unclear why the HRSDC database contains additional records.

The AHRDA coordinator and the regional coordinator of Service Canada indicated that AHRDA targets are set annually based historical trends. Neither regional nor AHRDA coordinators interviewed indicated that external factors are considered in setting targets. The data demonstrate that the AHRDA has consistently met all targets for the years of interest, and frequently exceeded targets by a substantial number. As targets were largely surpassed, the little variation found in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 targets suggests that greater attention should be paid to setting targets based on historical results and contextual factors; the targets are low compared to the reported results.

HRSDC has worked on a new and expanded list of outcome indicators that will better assess the impacts of a new ASETS and a new Performance Management Strategy which will reflect that a clear and logical design that ties resources to expected outcomes; determine appropriate performance measures and a sound Performance Management Strategy that allows managers to track progress, measure outcomes, support subsequent evaluation work, learn and, make adjustments to improve on an ongoing basis; and ensures adequate reporting on outcomes.

The new Performance Management Strategy will be the basis for a number of accountability systems and tools to be developed as described in the 2008 Formative Evaluation of the AHRDAs Management Response. HRSDC will develop a number of tools to assist Aboriginal organizations in target setting and self-assessment that will allow organizations to determine their progress against established targets on a yearly basis. Historical context will be taken into consideration in the target setting exercising, ensuring that targets are reasonable.

On the issue of data quality and systems, HRSDC has undertaken a review and analysis of current data collection and systems in order to support greater accountability by providing better quality, defendable, and more useful data that is simple, clear, and concise. This data will then assist the Aboriginal Affairs Directorate (AAD) and the Aboriginal People's Directorate (APD) to receive better performance data from agreements allowing the Department to better report on outcomes and the value for monies provided. The AAD and APD will continue to work together to identify and resolve issues related to data inconsistencies and rejected records.

This review, along with the new Performance Management Strategy, will be the backdrop for a business case which will be provided to senior officials in support of the expenditure of $1.1 million dollars provided under the Budget 2009 investment in the ASTSIF.

It was intended that this funding would modernize data collection and systems in support of the new Aboriginal labour market program set to be implemented in April 1, 2010. HRSDC will streamline the required data elements, basing the elements on the indicators identified in the Performance Management Strategy, and communicate the required elements to KRG. In addition, the Performance Management Strategy identifies the requirement of KRG completing client follow-ups at regular intervals in order to assist in determining long term impacts of programs and services.

Summative Evaluation Findings

Program Success and Impacts

KRG clients who attended the discussions groups expressed high levels of satisfaction with the KRG programs and services received.

Consensus was that programs and services had been helpful in meeting employment challenges and in finding and maintaining employment, and that the programs had positive impacts on: client job search skills, job skills, job prospects and employment outlook, skill levels including certification and diplomas, attitudes towards employment, preparation for jobs, and personal self-confidence.

These findings are also consistent with findings of the AHRDAs' Summative Evaluation that there were positive impacts and satisfaction of programs and services received and the increase of self-confidence of clients served.

The quantitative analysis found no net impacts that were statistically significant at conventional statistical levels. As a result, the evaluation was unable to infer any impacts of participation for KRG clients.

When examining clients' earnings and use of Employment Insurance and Social Assistance over a period of eight years (five years before participation in KRG programs and services and up to three years after participation ended), key observations included the following:

• Earnings from employment continue to increase over time, but at a lower rate.
• There is little change in the use of Employment Insurance for Active and Former EI claimants. Non-claimant clients increased their use of EI in the post-program period, reflecting EI eligibility derived from employment during and after participation in the program.
• There is little change in the use of Social Assistance benefits.

HRSDC recognizes that the evaluation found no net impacts for the participation in KRG programs and services. HRSDC also acknowledge the unique and difficult and socio-economic context, including particularly the limited employment opportunities in the 14 rural and remote communities of Nunavik.

As such, HRSDC will work closely with KRG to determine and conduct appropriate ongoing follow-up with program participants at regular intervals (for example at 3, 6 and 12 months). Through this process KRG will be able to gather information pertaining to employment outcomes and reliance on government income support (use of Employment Insurance and Social Assistance benefits). These data will contribute to develop a better understanding of the labour market attachment of KRG participants. In addition, HRSDC will continue to encourage KRG to identify new demand driven opportunities in Nunavik, adjusting their strategic business plan as required to meet the need of any new opportunities.

1. Introduction and Background

AHRDA Programs and Services

Activities eligible for support through the AHRDAs encompass a wide range of labour market, youth, and child care activities. Activities that are funded must take into account equity principles with regard to women and persons with disabilities. Activities may be eligible for support if Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) agrees that these activities will assist in meeting the objectives of the AHRDS.

First Nation and Inuit Child Care Initiative

The objective of the First Nations and Inuit Child Care Initiative (FNICCI) is to provide affordable quality child care services to First Nations and Inuit children to support their healthy development and to enable their parents to work or attend school.

FNICCI is a $50 million program that supports over 7,000 child care spaces in 390 First Nations and Inuit communities across Canada. These child care spaces are available through local AHRDAs.

Each AHRDA holder creates a program to best meet its community's needs, such as the provisions of pre-school spaces and after-school programs. Child care services that may be supported under AHRDS include those which are designed to assist eligible recipients to:

• Promote and nurture healthy child development through formal child care programs such as child care centres or approved family day homes.
• Reflect and promote First Nations and Inuit child-rearing practices.
• Serve children from infancy to age 12. Because the first 6 years of age are especially important in child development, a priority will be placed on children in this age group.
• Complement community economic, educational, health, and social development goals.
• Ensure that child care centres and family day homes are regulated and monitored by provincial/territorial licensing authorities, except in cases where, by mutual agreement between the province/territory and the recipient, child care centres are monitored by First Nations- or Inuit-controlled regulatory mechanisms.

1.2 Overview of the Kativik Regional Government

The Kativik Regional Government (KRG) was established in 1978 as a result of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (James Bay Agreement). This agreement provided compensation funds, identified beneficiaries, and established regional public authorities, including the Nunavik Health Board and Social Services, the Kativik School Board, and the KRG.

The KRG is a public corporation with supra-municipal powers and jurisdiction over the Nunavik territory. It provides support, management, and technical assistance in several areas including municipal administration, recreation, environment, public security, and land-use planning. Each community is a municipality designated as a Northern Village corporation and governed by elected municipal councils, which operate in a manner similar to other Québec municipalities.

The KRG signed its current AHRDA with HRSDC within the framework of the James Bay Agreement rather than that of the AHRDS. The current agreement is the fifth renewal of an agreement developed in 1990, prior to the Pathways Strategy. The renewed AHRDA, signed in 2004, is applicable from April 1, 2005 until March 31, 2010. The AHRDA provides services and programs to all residents of Nunavik, regardless of Aboriginal status.

KRG's Employment, Training, Income Support and Child Care department (DETISC) has the lead role in the implementation and management of the AHRDA. DETISC coordinates, develops and implements training activities aiming to meet the needs and priorities of the region's labour force and economic development opportunities. To consult and coordinate these efforts with other key stakeholders, KRG works with a number of committees such as the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee. A primary objective of the programs and services currently being delivered under the AHRDA is to help residents prepare for, find, and keep employment.

KRG coordinates and supports the delivery of childcare services throughout the region through its Childcare section, working closely with the 16 ^{Footnote 2} local childcare centres and one regional home day-care agency that provide a total of 815 registered childcare spaces. All the childcare centres are non-profit corporations managed by parent boards. Nearly all the staff of these centres are of Inuit descent. The centres operate in Inuktitut.

In 2001, KRG signed an agreement with the province of Québec to assume responsibility for the administration of the provincial legislation concerning childcare, regulations, and financial assistance applicable in the region. These responsibilities included the inspection and licensing functions related to daycare centres ^{Footnote 3} . The DETISC also has agreements with other government departments regarding childcare. In 2005, KRG received funding from three sources. Through Sivunirmut ^{Footnote 4} , the Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale transferred $11,490,000; HRSDC, through FNICCI, transferred $1,390,775; and Health Canada transferred $724,607 via the Aboriginal Head Start program.

KRG delivers several federal and provincial government income support services. These include the payment of income security, Employment Insurance (EI), and Old Age Security, and delivery of labour standard related information.

The KRG maintains offices in all 14 Nunavik communities. In smaller communities, a Local Employment Officer (LEO) provides one-window, front-line access to a number of services and programs. These positions are often part time, and are combined with responsibilities for providing services related to Employment Insurance (EI) or Income Support. People seeking access to EI benefits, career counselling, or general information on the availability of employment or training opportunities contact the LEO in their community. These officers also help clients fill out EI forms, which are forwarded to Service Canada in Montreal for review and approval.

If a client is interested in accessing training opportunities, the LEO reviews upcoming training programs that are being offered and opens a Client Action Plan file. LEO Coordinators located in Inukjuak and Kuujjuaq provide support and guidance for LEOs as well as overall administrative support. Two Program Officers located in the Inukjuak office and three in the Kuujjuaq office manage training programs. A trainee Program Officer position is also located in the Kuujjuaq office.

Description of programs and services

The AHRDA is responsible for the delivery of a number of labour market programs and programs for youth and persons with disabilities in Nunavik. These are described in the Contribution Agreement and in program descriptions prepared by DETISC.

Labour Market Programs

• Job Entry provides assistance to individuals experiencing difficulties finding a job. Clients are assisted in: acquiring pre-employment training, including life and work skills; securing the minimum academic background training needed for employment; and obtaining specific training for a job at the end of the project.
• On-The-Job Training provides support to coordinators in hiring and training unemployed workers, training their current workforce for additional skills, and replacing non-residents with residents.
• Purchase of Training helps workers and non-workers acquire new skills and improve their employability through courses purchased from specialized organizations.
• Delivery Assistance enables DETISC staff to obtain expertise they could not reasonably obtain otherwise, in order to help coordinators and employers in their projects or to assist in the development of training plans for participants. This assistance may be used to prepare and promote training programs, to identify potential program participants, or to provide specialized services for a given group of participants.
• General Projects offers productive short-term jobs to unemployed individuals by creating jobs that would otherwise not exist and helps unemployed individuals become active members of the work force through work related training and experience.
• Self-Employment Assistance assists unemployed persons to secure self-employment through the creation of a small business.
• Individual Client Action Plan provides a customized plan to achieve individual employment goals using the available labour market and training programs.
• Nunavik Scholarship Fund encourages individuals to pursue their education at postsecondary levels.

Local Employment Officers located in each community are also responsible for:

• Assisting with completion of EI application forms.
• Employment referrals.
• Providing wage subsidies and labour market information.
• Assistance in identifying training needs and opportunities.
• Job finding skills.
• Resume writing.
• Interviewing skills.
• Employment skills.

Youth Programs

Under the AHRDA agreement, KRG provides funding to youths between the ages of 15 and 30 years of age. As over 60% of the entire population of Nunavik is under the age of 25, youth are served through all programs oriented to the general labour market. Programming specific to youth includes:

• Challenge (summer employment), helping students acquire work experience and offering jobs related to their studies or career goals during the summer time.
• Challenge (part-time), helping students acquire work experience, improve their understanding of the labour market, and acquire good working habits through part-time employment opportunities.
• Stay-in-School, assisting students identified as being at risk of dropping out of high school to complete secondary level education. The program provides all students with an exploration of career choices attainable through education and a successful integration into the labour market.
• Heritage (traditional skills training), providing youth with special needs in matters of employment and training. Youth are trained by experienced adults of their community in traditional skills such as in land survival skills and traditional values and customs. The training component must include the means and ways for participants to develop self-esteem, as well as specific labour market links.

Programs for Persons with Disabilities

KRG receives funding under the AHRDA to deliver programs that help persons who self-identify as having a physical, mental, or learning disability to prepare for, obtain, and retain employment. The program works in partnership with non-government groups representing persons with disabilities, with the private sector, and with government organizations to test innovative approaches that promote economic integration of persons with disabilities.

Management and delivery structure

KRG's governing body, the Kativik Regional Council (KRC), is composed of 16 members. Members include 14 regional councillors chosen from the Northern villages, the Chief of Naskapi, and the chairman of the executive committee. The executive committee has five members identified by the KRG council and mandated to implement any agreements approved by the Council, supervise appropriations approved through the KRG's budget, authorize payments owed by the KRG and prepare the KRG's budget. The KRG appoints the director general, the treasurer, and the secretary.

The DETISC is a department of the KRG. DETISC staff are governed by KRG personnel policies. The director of the DETISC manages and administers delivery of AHRDA programs and services and reports directly to the Kativik Regional Council.

The KRG AHRDA closely collaborates with the region's major employment stakeholders in the coordination and development of labour market programming. DETISC sits on a number of committees that bring together stakeholders from across the region (to address issues facing the regional labour market) and that promote community involvement in the design and delivery of labour market programs and services.

These include the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee, Kativik Regional Development Committee, the Nunavik Childcare Committee, and the Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee ^{Footnote 5} . These committees provide the opportunity for consultation and input from the community or the economic development sectors in the development of employment and training programs. Additional community input is provided when Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee recommendations are reviewed by KRG's Regional Council once per year.

The day-to-day administration and delivery of the AHRDA is the responsibility of the DETISC staff. DETISC has four sections: Employment Services (20 staff including Local Employment Officers), Training and Employment Programs (9 staff), Childcare Services (9 staff), and Administration (7 staff). KRG maintains an office in each of the 14 communities in the region. The primary DETISC office in Kuujjuaq oversees the communities of the Ungava Bay, as well as pan-regional operations including childcare, program officers, and administrative staff. A second regional office, in Inukjuak, oversees the communities on the Hudson coast. Local Employment Officers provide front-line services in each community, while Kuujjuaq has two Local Employment Officers due to its larger population.

Roles and responsibilities

KRG has the overall responsibility for the AHRDA and its implementation. The DETISC has responsibility for the day-to-day management, administration and delivery of the AHRDA. DETISC submits quarterly and annual reports as part of the KRG annual reporting cycle. The DETISC Director provides overall administration, management, and oversight.

Staff located in Kuujjuaq and Inukjuak oversee the management and delivery of Employment Insurance (Part I) and Income Security and Old Age Security, in addition to Training Program information dissemination. Training and Employment Program staff in Kuujjuaq and Inukjuak oversee the administration, management, and delivery of the Training and Employment Programs offered by DETISC. Included in this work is the support of and coordination with various committees, participation in the Inuit Human Resources Technical Committee, and provision of support to KRG in its negotiations and work on training and employment issues with federal and provincial partners. Childcare Services staff within the Kuujjuaq office oversee the support and administration of the 17 daycares in the region.

Service providers

Service is delivered through second or third parties. A major service provider of training programs is the Kativik School Board's Department of Adult Education. The Kativik School Board is often contracted to provide training programs throughout the region and is represented on the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee.

In addition to the Kativik School Board, individual contracts are arranged with trainers to conduct training programs when required. Employers in the region also provide on-the-job training and are overseen by Local Employment Officers at the community level. The KRG has no sub-agreements with any entities.

Funding and Finances

The tables below present AHRDA annual funding and amounts spent. Table 1 presents program funding, while Table 2 presents funding for administration, capacity building, and systems development and implementation.

• Reference from the above tableSources: KRG Audited Financial Statements 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006; KRG Financial Conciliation for 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06; and correspondence from KRG.
  Within the above totals, KRG audited financial statements showed the following expenditures for persons with disabilities: 2003-04: $8,422; 2004-05: $41,903; and 2005-06: $24,787.

1.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation of the KRG AHRDA

Summative Evaluation

The summative evaluation was conducted in 2007-2008 and focused on measuring the incremental impacts of the participation in KRG programs and services which are similar to the Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs) of the Employment Insurance Act. The Evaluation addressed issues of program success and cost-effectiveness. The program relevance was addressed within the larger summative evaluation of the AHRDAs and will not be addressed in this report.

The summative evaluation was designed to use multiple lines of evidence based on both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative component included:

• Three discussion groups (held in winter 2007) in three different Nunavik communities (the larger regional centre, Kuujjuaq, and smaller communities Inukjuak and Kangiqsualujjuaq). Each group involved between seven and nine KRG participants (total 26). Discussion groups' participants were asked to describe their experience and satisfaction with the KRG programs, including employment challenges, participation in the programs and success and impacts.
• Four key informant interviews conducted with staff from the KRG Department of Employment, Training, Income Support and Child Care in February, 2008.

The quantitative component followed a quasi-experimental approach using data from KRG clients' administrative records and Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) administrative databanks. This approach relied on the availability of a suitable comparison group of non-participants in order to estimate the net impacts of participation. The methodology used and applied in this evaluation is consistent with the approach used for the summative evaluations of the AHRDAs and the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs). For the quantitative analysis:

• Participants in KRG programs and services that are similar to EBSMs, between April 1999 and December 2004, were the focus of the summative evaluation.
• The unit of analysis was an Action Plan Equivalent (APE), consisting of one or more KRG programs and services that are no more than six month apart. A client could have more than one APE if programs and services were separated by more than six months. Every APE contained at least one program or service delivered under KRG and possibly one or more EBSMs funded under another AHRDA or an LMDA. The principal or longest-lasting program or service was used to characterise the nature of participation.
• The start and end date of the APE defined the periods before, during, and after participation. The post-participation period was further separated into the first, second, and third years after participation ended. Because CRA data are available on a calendar year basis, these periods had to be defined on this basis as well.
• EI data were used to characterise the APE according to the status of the participant as an active or former claimant, depending on whether the individual had a current EI claim (active) or an earlier EI claim meeting EI eligibility rules (former). For lack of administrative data on people who had no EI claim in Nunavik, a comparison group for KRG participants not eligible for EI was not possible. This analysis was thus limited to active and former claimants.
• The comparison group consisted of pseudo-APEs assigned to individuals who qualified to participate in KRG programs and services in given calendar years quarters but did not do so. These included:
  • Self-identified Aboriginal EI claimants in Nunavik who did not participate in KRG programs and services in the period 1999-2004.
  • Clients who participated in KRG programs and services in 2005 to 2007, but did not participate in KRG programs and services from 1999 to 2004.
  • Clients who participated in KRG programs and services in 1999 to 2004 but who had a sufficiently long spell of non-participation during this period to qualify them as comparison candidates.
• The kernel-matching method of estimating incremental impacts of participation gave greater weight to comparison-group APEs whose characteristics most closely resembled those of participants. Such characteristics were based on available data from EI and from CRA tax files, and consisted of various forms of income and income-support benefits over the five years before the start of the APE, previous participation in EBSMs, and personal attributes such as gender, age, marital status, number of children, disability, and province. They entered the analysis in a regression model of the propensity to participate in EBSMs. Each such model was constructed to pass a test of the balance between participant and non-participant characteristics.
• EI and CRA Income Tax data were used to define five outcome indicators on which to estimate impacts: annualised earnings, incidence of employment, annualised EI benefits, annualised SA benefits, and dependence on income support.
• A kernel-matching approach was used to estimate impacts of participation by comparing the experience of participants with that of Aboriginal non-participants weighted by their similarity to participants. This approach was consistent with evaluations of EBSMs under the LMDAs. The very large numbers of observations precluded using standard procedures for optimising the bandwidth parameter used in kernel matching and for estimating valid standard errors (for tests of statistical significance and for constructing confidence intervals) by the bootstrapping method.
• With respect to the bandwidth parameter, the default value of .06 was used and resulting estimates were compared to those from a method called Inverse Probability Weighting that relies on the same basic substantive assumptions but does not require a bandwidth choice. Estimates were not qualitatively different in most cases.
• Concerning estimation of standard errors, sensitivity tests from a sample of estimates showed that confidence intervals constructed from the basic standard error formula were remarkably similar to those produced by the preferred method of bootstrapping, likely due to the very large sample sizes. This finding led to the conclusion that failure to use the preferred method likely had a minimal effect on statistical inferences based on the estimates.
• Impacts of participation were estimated for the “in-program” period (i.e., during the APE), and for each of the three years following the end of the APE. Challenges arose in the application of the estimation methods. But techniques used to test the results of departures from the ideal approach produced results suggesting that the resulting estimates may be considered with confidence as to their reliability.

Relatively small sample sizes available for the KRG incremental analysis limited its ability to detect statistically significant effects, i.e. statistical power of the analysis. Participant samples comprised 511 active-claimant APEs and 987 former-claimant APEs, while the corresponding comparison groups numbered 3,105 and 8,980.

2. Socio-Economic Profile of Nunavik

2.2 Demographic Profile

In 2006, the Inuit population within the Nunavik region was 9,565, constituting 19.0% of the total Inuit population of Canada. Between 1996 and 2006, the Inuit population of Nunavik experienced an increase of 25.2% from 7,640 to 9,565. This represents the largest proportional increase of all four Inuit regions in Canada between 1996 and 2006.

According to the 2006 Census, Inuit comprised 99.1% of the Aboriginal population of Nunavik, down 0.9 of a percentage point from the 2001 Census. The 2001 Census of population revealed that the Inuit population in Nunavik live off-reserve and in rural areas. There are no reserves in Nunavik.

In 2006, 60.0% of the Inuit population in Nunavik was under the age of 25 whereas for the total provincial population 29.2% of the population was under the age of 25. With a 30.8 percentage point difference, this shows a significantly younger Inuit population. In the period 1996 to 2006, the proportion of Inuit in Nunavik between the ages of 25 to 64 increased by 2.4 percentage points from 34.6% to 37% while the same age group increased slightly for the total Quebec population from 55.9% to 56.5%. For Inuit, the population 65 years and over in 2006 represented only 3.0% of the Inuit population in Nunavik compared to 14.3% for the total Quebec population, a difference of 11.3 percentage points.

The total population of the province was divided relatively evenly in 1996 between male and female, with little change in 2001 and 2006. This was also the case for the Inuit population in Nunavik.

79.3% of the Inuit family households in Nunavik were headed by two parents in 1996, a level that decreased by 6.8 percentage points to 72.6% by 2001. This means that 20.7% of Nunavik's Inuit households in 1996 and 27.4% in 2001 were headed by a single parent. In 2001 this rate is almost twice the rate of lone parent families for the total provincial population. While the percentage of Nunavik's Inuit female lone parent families in 1996 was similar to that of the general population, by 2001 the percentage of Inuit families headed by a female in Nunavik had decreased by 7.5 percentage points from 79.7% to 72.2%, with a corresponding increased in the proportion of Inuit families headed by a male from 19.8% to 27.6%. ^{Footnote 8} In the total provincial population, the percentage of lone parent families headed by a female decreased by 4.4 percentage points from 82.3% in 1996 to 77.9% in 2006.

In 2006, the total Quebec population was more mobile than Nunavik's Aboriginal population ^{Footnote 9} , with 12.3% moving within the previous year, compared to 8.8% of the Aboriginal population. In total, 24.1% of this mobile Aboriginal population were migrants, of which 92.5% moved from another municipality in Quebec and 7.5% moved to Nunavik from a different province.

Finally, only 3.7% of the Inuit population experienced an activity limitation ^{Footnote 10} in 1996, compared to 7.3% of the total Quebec population in 1996. However, by 2001, the proportion of the Inuit population in Nunavik having activity limitations had increased by 7.9 percentage points to 11.6%, slightly surpassing the level in the total provincial population at 11.2%. In both populations, this may reflect an increase in either the incidence of activity limitation or the reporting of occurrences.

2.3 Economic and Social Profile

Differences between provincial education attainment and the educational attainment of the Nunavik Inuit population are pronounced in most areas. These differences are visible in data presented in table 3.

One area of similarity that should be noted is the number of individuals obtaining trade certificates or diplomas. In 1996, the proportion of Nunavik residents with a trades certificate or diploma, at 4.8%, was slightly higher than that of the total provincial population. By 2001, this level had fallen to 3.9%, while the provincial level remained stable.

• Reference from the above tableNote¹: Note that close to two-thirds of Nunavik's Inuit are less than 25 years of age. For this reason, the Inuit in Nunavik are less likely than the total provincial population to have a secondary or postsecondary degree

2.4 Labour Force Profile

Between 1996 and 2001, there was a 16.8% increase in the Inuit population in Nunavik 15 years of age and over, from 4,335 to 5,060. The corresponding growth rate for the total population of Quebec was only 2.8%. The number of Nunavik Inuit in the labour force, that is, those recognized as employed or unemployed in the week prior to Census day, rose 18.4% during this period, from 2,640 to 3,125, compared to only 5.8% for the total Quebec population.

In 1996, there was only a one-percentage-point difference between the participation rate ^{Footnote 11} of Nunavik's Inuit, at 61%, and the total provincial population at 62%. By 2001, the Inuit of Nunavik had reached a participation rate of 62%, while the rate for the total provincial population had risen to 64%.

The proportion of Inuit employed remained at 51% between 1996 and 2001, whereas the proportion of people employed in the total provincial population grew from 55% to 59% during the same time period. In turn, the unemployment rate for the total provincial population decreased during this period from 12% to 8%, while the unemployment rate for the Inuit population of Nunavik remained unchanged at 17%. These figures are presented in table 5.

In 2001, employment was the major source of income for 63.8% of those with income for both the Inuit in Nunavik and the total provincial population. However, the proportion of the Inuit population whose major source of income was government transfer payments, at 35.5%, is 7.7 percentage points higher than the level for the total Quebec population. For those who worked in 2000-01, 37.8% of the Inuit population in Nunavik worked full-year full-time, a level significantly lower than that of the general population, at 53.4%. In 2001, only 1.8% of Nunavik's Inuit population was self-employed, compared to 11.3% for the total provincial population.

The period from 1996 to 2001 witnessed some gain in levels of employment income for Inuit in Nunavik. Whereas the average employment income for Inuit in 1996, at $15,876, was 63.2% of the average employment income for the total provincial population, by 2001 the average income for Inuit, at $19,416, had increased to 66.1% of that of the general provincial population.

Main Occupations and Industry

The top four occupational areas for Nunavik Inuit in 2001 were sales and services occupations (34.4% of the labour force), trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (20% of the labour force), occupations in social science, education, government service, and religion (16.2% of the labour force), and business, finance, and administrative occupations (9.8% of the labour force). There weren't any major changes to the main occupational areas between 1996 and 2001 for the Inuit population of Nunavik.

The levels of Nunavik's Inuit employment in the occupational areas outlined above are reflected in the statistics on employment in specific industries. In 2001, public administration was the largest employment sector for Inuit in Nunavik with 22.1% followed by the health care and social assistance sector, with 20.6%, and education services, at 15.4%.

3. Design, Delivery, and Implementation

Capacity Development Tools

Capacity development tools used by the AHRDA are based on their database and File Maker Pro software. KRG's database is a critical tool enabling staff across the region to access real-time information and analysis of client and program data.

Senior departmental personnel train staff on various programs and policies by either developing their own training resources or adapting HRSDC resources to address their needs. Other capacity development tools include project and client checklists, program descriptions, client information and related forms, an employment and training guide, various templates for training programs, a guide to business plan assessment, and client counselling forms.

The most common training programs for staff are related to the Internet, email systems, and general computer training. DETISC has a senior staff member who has extensive experience with HRSDC and is very familiar with their processes and protocols. Service Canada also sends staff to the region biennially to provide additional training in areas such as financial reporting.

KRG also has access to several HRSDC/Service Canada capacity development tools. The most important of these is the AHRDA agreement template, which includes a number of standard forms that can be adapted to fit local needs.

The departmental resource room in Kuujjuaq includes a wide range of resources available to staff, including copies of the James Bay Agreement, an AHRDA Capacity Self-Assessment resource, information pamphlets on various Québec employment and income security programs, and socio-economic research reports including copies of those undertaken by the KRG on various sectors of the region's economy.

All key informants (KRG and Service Canada) interviewed agreed on the availability and importance of these tools, and the effectiveness of the capacity development activities undertaken by KRG.

Capacity Issues and Assessment

KRG key informants felt that the $76,000 provided to the AHRDA for capacity building was insufficient to meet their needs. The region faces a number of unique northern challenges, including higher travel costs, costs associated with overcoming the low education of some of the Local Employment Officers, and the higher costs of doing business and delivering training in remote regions.

The Service Canada key informant acknowledged that the James Bay Agreement contained stipulations providing for training and capacity building which provided a solid funding basis for these activities with the KRG. This placed the KRG in an enviable position in relation to other AHRDAs in the country, although he agreed that the amount was insufficient to meet all the capacity development needs of KRG.

All key informants (KRG and Service Canada) and stakeholders interviewed agreed that the KRG had sufficient tools and capacity to effectively deliver, manage, and administer the AHRDA. There was agreement that staff turnover at the AHRDA was not a problem as turnover is low. KRG is considered to be one of the better employers in the region and offers good benefits.

There was also agreement among key informants and stakeholders that capacity development efforts have resulted in more consistent and reliable service delivery at all levels. Improvement was most visible at the community level. Managers observed that Local Employment Officers were making fewer errors, requiring fewer interventions from their managers.

Service Canada reported reduced need for follow-up related to specific forms submitted by the Local Employment Officers and attributed this to increased capacity development. One stakeholder noted that the staff at the main office excelled at handling the complexities involved in coordinating committees, including the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee. A KRG informant also noted that the DETISC consistently surpassed targets set out in the agreement since its inception, in no small part due to the increasing capacity of KRG. A review of quarterly and annual reports supported this assessment.

3.2 Partnerships

The Unique Role of the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee

Staff and stakeholders interviewed believed that KRG had developed an effective linkage with regional and community stakeholders. The AHRDA sits on a number of committees that bring together private and public stakeholders in the region to develop labour market development plans in a cooperative and coordinated manner. The most important of these committees is the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee, whose current membership includes most of the major private and public sector employers in the region.

Current members are:

• Avataq Cultural Institute.
• Kativik School Board.
• Federation of Cooperatives of Northern Québec.
• Taqramiut Nipingat Inc. ^{Footnote 14}
• Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services.
• Kativik Local Development Centre.
• Makivik Corporation.
• Association of Secretary-treasurers of Nunavik.
• Landholdings Corporation Association.
• Saputiit Youth Association.
• Saturviit Women Association.

The Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee provides a unique forum in which all major Nunavik stakeholders and employers ^{Footnote 15} can address labour market needs. The Committee holds two meetings a year, generally one via teleconference and one in person. KRG's Employment, Training, Income Support and Child Care department coordinates the meetings, which are documented in minutes. Staff from the KRG DETISC department communicate with other committee members in order to identify training needs and priorities across sectors.

Recommendations are presented to the Kativik Regional Council for approval. Once approved, priorities are forwarded to the KRG, where training programs are negotiated with sponsors on an individual basis, based upon program criteria and available funding.

The Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee has proven to be an effective tool for labour market planning. A series of sectoral studies, prepared in consultation with committee partners, identified human resource needs and priorities in key sectors including daycare, construction, tourism, community services, mining, health, social services, youth as well as communications and technology. In addition to the sector studies, the KRG also produces the Jobs in Nunavik report, the results of a survey carried out with major Nunavik employers. The document provides a detailed statistical analysis of current and future conditions in the labour market. These outputs and informant feedback confirm that Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee members share a common vision and cooperate well in developing effective programs and strategies that provide a solid basis for regional labour market planning.

The DETISC has evolved an effective approach to consolidating the direct input of the primary employment and training stakeholders in the region.

DETISC also has a seat on the Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee, along with representatives of the Kativik School Board and the Xstrata Raglan mining entity, Société minière Raglan du Québec. The committee is mandated to maximize the employment of Inuit at the Raglan mine site. Recent activities include the establishment of an underground stope ^{Footnote 16} school and an apprenticeship program for miners.

The DETISC also belongs to the Native Employment Development Communication Network, created by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to facilitate communication among members concerning employment opportunities for Aboriginal peoples within government departments and Aboriginal organizations. An Internet site provides Local Employment Officers with information about job postings that may interest their clients.

These committees provide an opportunity for extensive and continual consultation and input, from all major sectors and employers in the region, into the development of effective labour market strategies. The process allows the region ^{Footnote 17} to prepare the workforce for large shifts in the regional economy as well as to take advantage of smaller, more localized opportunities.

Private sector partnerships

The DETISC has successfully formed partnerships with most of the primary private sector employers in the region. As the relatively small size of the regional economy and markets limits the number and size of private sector businesses, however, key informants believed there was little opportunity to expand on the number of current private sector partnerships.

While private sector clients deal with KRG's economic development department, human resource needs are directed to the DETISC. Many smaller businesses also take advantage of the training opportunities offered by the AHRDA. Key informants, including the two stakeholders interviewed, described a strong spirit of cooperation and willingness on the part of the AHRDA to work with the private sector to develop solutions to labour market needs in the region.

As noted above, the Kativik School Board, Xstrata, and KRG also participate in the Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee and the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee. The latter has several members from the private sector, representing a large segment of it. One member, Makivik Corporation, is the owner of First Air and Air Inuit, in addition to a wide range of other regional businesses including tourism, fuel supply, retail, and others.

Key informants from KRG and Service Canada and stakeholders reported the partnerships with the private sector via the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee and Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee were effective in helping Inuit gain the skills they needed to be employed.

The Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee's training programs in underground work for Inuit, including its stope school, opened a whole new area of potential employment for Inuit. The sheer number of Inuit going through the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee and Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee training programs was cited as evidence of successful partnerships, although Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee at times has been challenged to increase the number of Inuit working at the mine.

While stakeholders agreed that the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee and Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee supported the development of a shared vision and trust between private sector partners, it was acknowledged that the for-profit perspective of the private sector did not always align with the public service orientation of some Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee and Raglan Employment and Training Technical Committee members. Since a business's main focus is to generate profit, training and employment plans that did not directly lead to that outcome would not be as well supported by the private sector.

Partnering with other AHRDAs

At the national level, KRG is a member of the Inuit Human Resources Development Technical Committee along with five other Inuit AHRDAs. This committee is coordinated by the national Inuit organization, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and acts as a vehicle for sharing information and addressing issues relating to implementation of their respective agreements. The committee also acts as a general consultation body in which the Inuit organizations can address wider human resource development strategies, consider HRSDC initiatives, and develop recommendations to government when required. The Inuit Human Resources Development Technical Committee members meet as needed to discuss issues of mutual concern regarding the AHRDAs.

There has been an ongoing issue with the First Nation Human Resources Development Commission of Québec and the First Nation urban AHRDA in Montreal regarding services provided to urban Inuit. The First Nation Human Resources Development Commission of Québec receives $300,000 per year to provide services for urban Inuit, but very few Inuit access these services ^{Footnote 18} . The issue remains unresolved.

Agencies, other Aboriginal organizations, academic institutions

The Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee process brings the Kativik School Board into the labour market planning process with KRG and other key Nunavik employers. Through the AHRDA, KRG provides funding to the Kativik School Board to work with McGill University on programs, in areas such as teaching and nursing, specifically designed to meet Inuit needs. Other educational institutes involved in delivering specialized educational programs include a pilot training school in Ontario and the Nicolet training institute for police training. These relationships are not true partnerships, but contractual service agreements.

3.3 Overlap and Duplication

All informants agreed there was no overlap or duplication in the design and delivery of training programs by the KRG. This is primarily due to the fact that KRG was responsible for all training and employment dollars through the various agreements it had with the federal and provincial governments. Combined with responsibility for delivering social assistance in the region, the AHRDA maximizes the effectiveness of its database by ensuring each client receives the services needed while enabling the AHRDA to use its funding resources from the various programs to the utmost efficiency ^{Footnote 19} .

3.4 Operational Practices

Mechanisms

A formal appeal process has been established as per the AHRDA. DETISC clients who wish to appeal a decision are initially referred to front-line AHRDA staff. Unresolved appeals are directed to senior staff, then the Director, and then to the Executive Committee for review. It was reported, however, that the formal appeals process is very rarely invoked.

3.5 Disabilities, Gender, and Youth

Gender

KRG delivers no gender-specific programs. Programs are accessed on an equitable basis by men and women. Certain programs offered by the AHRDA are flexible in their structure and content which can allow programs to be tailored to meet the needs of women. For example, the Heritage Program is implemented by individual communities, which have considerable leeway in how to use the program funding. In 2004-2005, three Heritage Programs targeted women's traditional activities including clothing making.

Key informants, stakeholders, daycare staff, and discussion group participants agreed that the region's daycare system had a positive impact in enabling more women to become employed and to allow them to attend training programs.

Youth

Youth in Nunavik form a majority of the overall population, and represent the biggest single demographic group accessing the AHRDA programs. In addition to its general programming, KRG has several programs directed primarily at youth, for which take-up has been good in the KRG region. AHRDA data reveal that 38% of all participants were between the ages of 17 and 27, although this number was slightly lower in the HRSDC data, which showed that only 27% were in the same age range. Data also show that almost three hundred individuals (or seven per cent of clients) were less than 15 years old at the time of their intervention.

Programs that have a high percentage of youth participating are the Challenge Program, the Heritage Program, the Stay-in School Program, and Job Entry.

Job Entry targets disadvantaged youth, with the objective of providing a combination of education and job experiences to increase employability.

The Stay-in School Program encourages students to finish high school and thus form a solid basis for seeking further training or employment after high school. High-risk students are the primary target group for the program. Youths are encouraged to participate in a range of activities which, in 2004-2005, included a bakery, a youth centre, arts and crafts, cultural trades, and a science camp on the land.

The Challenge Program provides employment opportunities for students. Wage subsidies are provided to employers to hire students for summer employment and between school semesters. The program is intended to encourage students to try different fields of employment and to develop good work habits.

Key Informants reported that language and lack of literacy and essential skills are barriers for youth. Funding is sometimes insufficient to meet the rapidly growing needs of the region. Many Nunavik communities have limited employment opportunities, making it difficult for youth to find work even after successfully completing their training.

3.6 Relationship with HRSDC/Service Canada and Aboriginal Human Resource Council

The Service Canada regional office is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the AHRDA. A review committee comprising both Service Canada and KRG representatives was established to assist in communication and information sharing. The committee was initially supposed to meet annually, but the last meeting was held in 2003. These meetings had been replaced by a number of negotiation meetings needed in order to sign the last agreement.

KRG maintains a good working relationship with the Service Canada regional office in Montreal, but does not rely heavily on Service Canada or HRSDC national headquarters for support. KRG deals primarily with a Program Consultant at the regional office of Service Canada. There is no formal protocol guiding the relationship: both parties rely upon the contribution agreement if questions arise.

The Program Consultant provides the first point of contact for functional support, operational matters, reporting procedures, updates on guidelines, training support, and general guidance on compliance with the AHRDA. Twice a year the Program Consultant visits the main KRG office in Kuujjuaq and, on occasion, Inukjuak or other communities in the region for general monitoring, liaison, and reviewing financial records.

Documents and interviews conducted at KRG's main office suggest a positive, informal working relationship and good communication between the KRG and Service Canada. Staff are comfortable contacting the Service Canada Program Consultant via telephone or email at any time for any reason.

The DETISC provides quarterly financial reports and uploads its administrative data monthly. Annual reports are completed promptly and copies sent to Service Canada. There were no challenges reported or identified in this area.

Regarding communication materials from Service Canada or HRSDC, KRG staff acknowledged the Service Canada website and the fact that materials were available, but simply did not have a need for these.

Aboriginal Human Resource Council (AHRC)

Key informants were only generally familiar with the AHRC. KRG informants knew of the organization and its basic purpose, but perceived it as focused on First Nations and the western portion of the country. KRG had sent staff to participate in several AHRC forums.

KRG informants believed that the AHRC did not appreciate the differences among the AHRDAs and the regions in which they operated. Each region is distinct in its needs, and consequently in labour market demand solutions. Quebec, for example, has a well-developed apprenticeship program in operation, as well as a long history of strong union development, which KRG did not feel the AHRC tools, workshops, and sectoral meetings took into account. It was suggested that the AHRC's work might be more valuable to employers than to the AHRDAs themselves.

Key informants could not identify any AHRC tools (such as the Inclusion Network). However, KRG is planning a private sector conference with other Quebec AHRDAs under the auspices of the AHRC.

4. First Nations and Inuit Child Care Initiative Component

4.2 Child Care Needs: Capacity

Registration Process

Only parents registered with a specific daycare facility can leave children there. Some centres maintain a few spaces for emergencies. All centres follow the principle of first-come, first-served in allocating the limited number of spaces available.

Licensing

Under the agreement signed with Québec, KRG is responsible for issuing licences, inspecting facilities, and providing technical and professional expertise and support to the centres, parents, and communities involved with childcare. All centres in the region are currently licensed. Key informants identified a need to upgrade the qualifications of daycare staff who had not completed any formal training.

4.3 Excess demand

Documents provided by KRG ^{Footnote 23} indicated that every daycare centre in the region had a waiting list. The Centre de la Petite Enfance Tasiursivik Childcare Centre in Salluit has a current waiting list of 100, while Centre de la Petite Enfance Tumiapiit Childcare Centre in Kuujjuaq has a waiting list of 44. Information from both the centre staff and discussion groups indicated that the waiting time was at least one year, and as long as two years in some communities.

The long waiting lists were considered by staff and discussion group participants to be a clear indication of the strong need for more daycare spaces. Several parents noted that being placed on the waiting list at the local daycare centre was becoming part of the family planning process for many families. A study conducted by the KRG on the childcare sector estimated that an additional 580 spaces would be needed by 2009, and that 210 new staffing positions would be needed to meet the future daycare needs of the region ^{Footnote 24} .

4.4 Child Care/staff ratio

There was no information available regarding child care/staff ratio either at the regional or community level. The FNICCI Coordinator reported 215 daycare staff in the region currently. Detailed information on part-time staff for the region was not available. The Centre de la Petite Enfance Tumiapiit Childcare Centre in Kuujjuaq employs 13 regular educators (7 full-time, 6 part-time) in addition to a number of back-up workers available on short notice to cover for other regular staff. The manager and financial clerk were half-time positions. There are also two cooks, one secretary, one driver/maintenance, and one assistant manager position. The Centre de la Petite Enfance Tasiursivik Childcare Centre in Salluit employs 10 full-time educators, a full-time manager, a part-time assistant manager, a part-time financial clerk, two cooks, a secretary, and one janitor, plus people on a stand-by list.

4.5 Staff training and credentials

The FNICCI Coordinator stated that approximately 50% of daycare staff in the region were certified, although the numbers varied across centres. A KRG study conducted on the employment and training needs of the childcare sector in Nunavik estimated that 143 of the childcare workers were untrained ^{Footnote 25} .

At the Centre de la Petite Enfance Tumiapiit Childcare Centre in Kuujjuaq, 5 staff were certified, while 8 were either in the process of becoming certified or were not certified. In the Centre de la Petite Enfance Tasiursivik Childcare Centre in Salluit, 5 of the 10 workers were certified.

Training is recognized by the KRG as being a key component in the development of a successful daycare system. A sectoral study conducted by KRG lays out a strategy for meeting the long-term needs of daycare sector ^{Footnote 26} . The strategy suggests strong measures will be needed to ensure existing shortages of spaces and childcare workers do not escalate drastically as the rapid population growth of the region continues.

In 2005-2006 a number of training initiatives were conducted for staff of daycare centres, including programs on nutrition and menu preparation for cooks ^{Footnote 27} . Training childcare staff in Inuktitut in every community remained a priority for KRG. The standard childcare course delivered to daycare staff in the region currently consists of 1,400 hours of instruction and work experience and leads to a college diploma. The Kativik School Board delivers the courses that usually last for 2-3 weeks per module.

In 2005-2006, courses were held in Kuujjuaraapik, Puvirnituq, Inukjuak, Ivujivik, Salluit, Tasiujaq, and Kuujjuaq. Staff within DETISC's childcare section were also trained to provide instruction for childcare centre boards of directors. Finally, a childcare centre director mentoring project was carried out for a second consecutive year ^{Footnote 28} . Childcare managers are also encouraged to take one-week modules that focus on specific issues such as nutrition; curriculum development; how to work with parents, staff, and management; and other topics.

KRG provides most training to childcare staff in the community, although some training programs are offered in regional centres.

Challenges in the areas of staffing and qualifications relate primarily to funding. The KRG sectoral study on daycares found that “Since about 95% of the funding of the centres comes from government programs that have no provisions for training, the centres are not able to purchase training to meet their needs.” ^{Footnote 29} KRG and day care staff informants agreed that funding, facilities, and instructors were key factors that determined whether training programs could be pursued.

Other barriers to training staff included the need for training delivered in Inuktitut, which limited the number of eligible instructors and course materials available. Low levels of formal education among many staff requires that training programs be tailored to meet the needs of the participants, while meeting regulatory requirements. Training for accreditation also requires a commitment of up to 1,400 hours. This excludes many staff, most of whom have young families themselves.

It was noted that some staff were not paid to attend the training. At one daycare, the Board decided to pay trainees their wages as if they were still working at the daycare, in order to encourage them. Informants agreed that ongoing training was needed to ensure that staff skills were sharp and current.

4.6 Adequacy of operation and facilities

Daycare centres are open from 8:30-5:30, although there is some flexibility locally in extending these hours. These hours were acceptable to everyone interviewed, including discussion group parents.

The FNICCI Coordinator stated that the amount spent on construction and renovation over the past 5 years varied, but that $3 million had been put aside for renovations and repairs for the region's daycare facilities.

As many of the centres in the region are relatively new, only basic repairs and maintenance have been needed by most of the centres. The following repairs were identified by the informants at the sites visited:

• Kuujjuaq - needed paint, a bigger kitchen, a new entrance ramp (as the current ramp was too close to the road and presented some safety issues), and a bigger storage shed.
• Salluit – needed a new entrance for the facility, new toilets, several windows, and painting.

The centres set their fees ($7 per day per child) based on provincial legislation. Informants and discussion groups both indicated no issues related to the fee structure.

The informants and discussion group participants identified the main reasons for parents placing their children at the centres was to enable the parents to work or attend training programs, to allow children to learn more about their traditional culture and language, and having the children referred to a centre by Health and Social Services.

4.7 Staff retention

Staff turnover rates for daycare centres vary between communities. In Kuujjuaq, key informants and discussion group participants identified increased competition for workers as the single most important challenge facing the daycare centre. Other reasons cited for the high turnover rate included lack of competitive benefits, the lack of housing for staff (particularly an issue for those staff from other communities), and the fact that it was hard work. The staff turnover rate has been so high that roughly one third of the available spaces have gone vacant, averaging only 50-55 children in the 80 available places. This was a particular concern raised in discussion group, as there was a substantial waiting list for available spaces.

In Salluit, the problem of staff turnover was a serious challenge for the centre as well. Staff found it difficult to meet the requirements of the position, including the need to show up on time and ready for work on a regular basis.

Wages were not identified as a factor contributing to high turnover rates. At $20 an hour on average, daycare centre staff were getting paid approximately 50% more than their provincial counterparts in other parts of Québec. Research during site visits to Kuujjuaq and Salluit at the local Northern Store, Co-op, and two hotels suggests that the average wage paid by these employers was approximately $10-11 per hour.

While daycare centre wages were significantly higher than for some other relatively unskilled positions, the main issue related to staff turnover involved benefits. It was pointed out by several informants and within the discussion groups that other employers such as KRG and Makivik Corporation offered richer benefit packages than the childcare centres could provide.

4.8 Integration of programs

Aboriginal Head Start and Health Services

Aboriginal Head Start programs are co-located and integrated into all daycare centres in the region. A number of other services were either available in the centres or coordinated by them. Public health nurses come several times a year for various reasons such as hand-washing demonstrations, flu shots, and other public health initiatives. Dental hygienists come in twice a year to do basic check-ups and cleaning. All centres also deliver nutrition programs.

Cultural Components

Discussion group participants believed that children at the daycare were strongly aware of their Aboriginal culture, due in part to its primacy at the centres. The centres provide strong support for the cultural development of children. The most important cultural influence integrated into programming is the predominant use of Inuktitut. Inuktitut is often the only language spoken at the daycares, with English and French only used when required. Most use Inuit curricula and programming developed specifically for Nunavik. Other important cultural components include culturally appropriate menus, the participation of elders in storytelling and crafts demonstrations, day trips on the land, an Inuit storybook, and the presence of a nearly all-Inuit staff.

An important element of the services provided by the centres includes a nutritional program. Documents reviewed on site outline the specifics of a Nunavik nutritional program policy that incorporates traditional foods where possible ^{Footnote 30} . The 2004-2005 Annual Report identifies daily menus that are based on traditional foods rich in iron, such as caribou, seal, beluga, char, berries, goose, and mussels ^{Footnote 31} .

5. Assessment of Data Collection and Accountability Systems

5.2 Key Definitions and Performance Indicators

Definition of Client Success

Primary Indicators of Success: ^{Footnote 33}

• Number of Aboriginal clients employed or self-employed.
• Number of Aboriginal clients who return to school.
• Unpaid EI Account Part I Benefits.
• Number of Aboriginal clients served.

Secondary Indicators of Success: ^{Footnote 34}

• Unpaid Social Assistance Benefits.
• Number of individuals accessing AHRDA office.
• Number of Aboriginal disabled persons who return to work.
• Number of clients who successfully complete interventions.
• Number and types of partnership created.
• Childcare spaces supported and occupied.

Definition of an Employment Return

Valid employed results include “Employed” and “Self-Employed” ^{Footnote 35} . The Clients Employed Indicator, as defined in Section 2.1, is ‘The number of insured participants (active and former Part I Claimants) who have been referred to and participated in an EI Part II Activity' and who have subsequently returned to employment.' ^{Footnote 36} There are two methods of determining “employed” for accountability purposes: case manager entry and the automatic calculation of employed using the 12-week, 25% rule.

Effectiveness of Unpaid EI and SA as Indicators

These indicators are not perceived to be useful by the AHRDA and Service Canada at both the Quebec regional office and National Headquarters.

5.3 Gaps and Limitations between AHRDA and HRSDC Clients Administrative Records

Table 7 presents frequency of availability of information for each of eight variables required in schedule E of the contribution agreement. Some data are missing on the date of birth and information on withdrawal from or termination date of program could not be interpreted based on the data and the available data dictionaries.

• Reference from the above tableSources¹: AHRDA HRSDC data. The unit of analysis for both sources was the intervention.
  ^* Not declared, unspecified, no response and invalid values are not included in these totals.
  ^** Data on these variables were not required in the KRG Contribution Agreement, but were provided. They are therefore included in this summary table as they are frequently required in other AHRDA contribution agreements.
  ^*** Only the community name was provided, as there are no civic addresses in Nunavik.
  ^**** Not evident based on the data and data dictionaries received.

5.4 Setting Targets

The AHRDA coordinator and the regional coordinator of Service Canada indicated that targets are set annually based on historical trends. Neither Regional nor AHRDA coordinators interviewed indicated that external factors are considered in setting targets. Table 8 demonstrates that the AHRDA has consistently met all targets for the years of interest and frequently exceeded targets by a substantial number. But targets for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 suggest that greater attention should be paid to setting targets based on historical results and contextual factors; the targets are low compared to the reported results.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDAS Intranet, AHRDA Target Detailed Reports.
  Note. The statistics for Youth and Disabled clients are subsets of the sum of the EI and CRF components.
  ^* Target reached or exceeded.

6. Client Characteristics and Outcomes

Key variables of interest have been extracted from the AHRDA and HRSDC data files. This information is useful in determining characteristics of AHRDA clients and intervention outcomes. Discrepancies between databases are highlighted below. Over all, the data quality for this AHRDA is good with one exception. Entries for date of birth in client records show many inaccuracies, resulting in a relatively high error rate in the HRSDC data. Otherwise, overall error rates are low.

Number of Participants and Interventions

Comparing clients records received from HRSDC and the KRG (see Table 9), the number of clients identified in the AHRDA database (3,686) was lower than in the HRSDC database (3,785). ^{Footnote 37} The HRSDC database also included an additional 393 interventions (7,178 compared to 6,785). The history of the data upload process from April 2003 to March 2006 indicates that 200 records were rejected by HRSDC. In fact, the Status of Action Plans Reports for 2004/05 and 2005/06 indicated 36 and 103 action plans with data integrity problems respectively. These files are uploaded to the Data Gateway, but not transferred to the HRSDC database.

Given the history of the data upload process, it is unclear why the HRSDC database contains more clients and interventions.

• Reference from the above tableSources: The AHRDA and HRSDCdatabases.

Number of Participants by Gender

Approximately 53% of clients were male and 47% female. Few participants had multiple gender codes for different interventions, due to data entry errors.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis for both sources was the client.

Number of Participants by Age – Decade of Birth

Based on the data summarized in Table 11, most clients were born in the 1970s and 1980s. The large incidence of clients with multiple birth dates or missing data in the HRSDC database (14% and 6% respectively) to the AHRDA database (1% and 0%) is noteworthy, but could be explained by erroneous coding. Fifty clients born in the 1980s and 248 in the 1990s were under the age of 15 at the time of their intervention.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis for both sources was the client.
  Note. Multiple birth date codes occur when a client has multiple interventions, but the entry for birth date is inconsistent. The most likely cause of this is data entry errors.

Number of Participants Living with Disabilities

The data on clients with disabilities are comparable in both databases, as clients with disabilities account for 1% of clients in both instances.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis for both sources was the client.

Number of Participants by Educational Level

In both databases, approximately 85% of clients were identified as having at least some secondary education and less than 10% of clients were high school graduates.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis for both sources was the client.

Number of Participants by EI and SA Status

In both databases, 4% of clients are identified as EI Part 1 clients, 9% as former EI clients, and 1% as SA recipients. In addition, the AHRDA database identifies whether people were employed or unemployed prior to program participation. These people are classified as non-claimants or non-recipients in the HRSDC data for EI and SA respectively. The missing data increase sharply in the HRSDC data, which is a clear indication of lack of alignment in coding for EI between the AHRDA and HRSDC through the data gateway.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis was the client's most recent intervention.

AHRDA Interventions and Results

Both databases indicate three main interventions: Targeted Wage Subsidy, Skills Training, and Youth-Other. The AHRDA uses two names for skills training: “Purchase of Training” and “Project Based Training”. These interventions are classified as “Skills Loans & Grants/Enhanced Fee-Payers” in the HRSDC data for the purpose of national standardization.

Male clients were more likely to have Targeted Wage Subsidy or Youth-Other interventions, whereas females were more likely to have attended training and skills development programs.

• Reference from the above tableSources: The AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis for both sources was the intervention.

According to both databases, at least 94% of each intervention type was completed.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA database. The unit of analysis was the intervention.

• Reference from the above tableSources: HRSDC database. The unit of analysis was the intervention.

Performance Targets

Number of Clients Employed, Self-employed or Returned to School

Employment and School outcomes are comparably common in both databases, jointly accounting for approximately 72% of the outcome of most recent client interventions. One quarter of interventions resulted in unemployment.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC Databases. The unit of analysis was the most recent client intervention.

Number of Clients on Employment Assistance and Social Assistance prior to most recent intervention

According to the AHRDA database, prior to their most recent interventions, 12% of clients were EI eligible and 1% were social assistance recipients.

Number of Training Interventions Completed

Both databases indicate that 98% of interventions were completed.

Number of Persons with Disabilities Accessing Services

Both databases indicate that 1% or 50 clients served were people with disabilities. Among them, 19 became employed, and approximately 8 returned to school.

• Reference from the above tableSources: AHRDA and HRSDC databases. The unit of analysis was the most recent client intervention.

7. Program Success and Impacts

Employment challenges

The main employment challenge identified by all three discussion groups was that some positions required minimum education or certification levels. Kuujjuaq participants mentioned specific trade skills related to housing and requirements for a driver's license. In the other two communities, people were more concerned that their lack of formal education (including some who had not completed elementary school) was a barrier to employment and also to accessing certain training programs.

There was consensus in the Kuujjuaq group that the welfare system (income support) discouraged people from working as they were penalized by having their housing costs increase with their employment income. In Kuujjuaq, seven participants stated that a challenge was finding out what job opportunities were available, as companies hire internally and positions are often filled before other interested parties can apply. The most effective means of discovering employment opportunities continued to be via word of mouth.

The biggest challenge identified by all participants in Inukjuak and Kangiqsualujjuaq was that there were simply too few employment opportunities in their communities. Participants stated that the economy was quite limited, with the municipalities, the schools, the KRG offices, and a few retail outlets being the primary employers. Few vacancies occurred beyond seasonal work and lower paying positions, such as store clerks and seasonal labour for housing and the sealift. Participants in Inukjuak and Kangiqsualujjuaq also recognized that there were employment opportunities in other areas such as Kuujjuaq and the Raglan mine site. But most people had a strong preference for staying within their home communities. Leaving their families and friends and lack of housing were two main disincentives to moving.

Perceived contribution of programs and services in assisting participants to meet employment challenges/barriers?

There was widespread agreement in all discussion groups that programs and services they received from the KRG helped them meet some of their employment challenges and barriers. Specific examples included construction and civil emergency training in Kuujjuaq and daycare training and water treatment certification in Kangiqsualujjuaq.

KRG staff members were unanimously described as being very helpful and supportive. Examples included that they were knowledgeable about not only the programs and services they provided but, more importantly, how to use these tools to help the people seeking employment. The provision of training leading to certification was identified as being particularly effective in reducing employment barriers for a number of people in each community. For example, in all three discussion groups, women identified the 14-month certified daycare training program as enabling them to secure good paying, long-term jobs. Two young participants with no high school diplomas in Kuujjuaq and Kangiqsualujjuaq stated that without KRG intervention, they would likely not be able to work in their chosen field and would likely face a much bleaker employment situation.

Participants stated that a major contributor to the success of these training programs was that they were all held in the communities. This enabled many more people to attend and complete training courses. Three participants in Inukjuak and several in Kangiqsualujjuaq also stated that the mere act of taking and completing a training course increased self-confidence and encouraged them to seek out further training and employment opportunities.

Difficulties experienced in accessing or participating in programs

Discussion group participants in all three communities reported no, or very few, difficulties accessing or participating in programs. A few offered specific comments including that programs ran short of supplies (caribou clothing course in Inukjuak) or that courses should be held more often (several people in Kuujjuaq). Kuujjuaq participants made the following suggestions:

• Establish a permanent training facility in Kuujjuaq (there is one in Inukjuak).
• Providing earlier notification of when programs were available would help more people become interested and attend the courses.
• Increase training in the trades sector.

Involvement in choosing training programs

Participants agreed they had worked closely with KRG staff to identify training opportunities and employment services that could help them find and keep jobs. Part of this interaction included discussion of what kind of jobs people were interested in, what jobs were available, and the training needed to get these jobs. Most participants stated that there wasn't a lot of choice concerning what training was needed for many positions. For example, the housing and civil sector jobs often had quite strict requirements dictated by a labour agreement or regulations.

Specific examples in Kuujjuaq included a man interested in a shrimp fishing course; and in Kangiqsualujjuaq a daycare worker and two water treatment workers had approached KRG staff for assistance in finding out what was needed to get jobs in these fields. KRG staff members were very helpful, which led to the clients successfully completing the course and getting good jobs.

What worked best in the delivery of programs and services? What problems were encountered there in terms of program design, delivery, and administration?

Participants in all three discussion groups were quite positive about the delivery of programs and interventions. Participants discussed the importance of ensuring that clients received training that would lead to recognized certification.

In the Kangiqsualujjuaq discussion group, participants reported receiving the training in their own language. As well, they said the course materials were relatively easy to understand and support was made available if necessary. Delivery of courses mainly in the community was also a bonus as people wanted to remain close to their families.

Satisfaction with programs and services received

All three discussion groups expressed nearly unanimous satisfaction with the programs and services participants received from KRG. The group in Kuujjuaq focused on how training had helped people. Examples included two women bus drivers who felt they had received critical training and otherwise would not have become bus drivers and others who made similar statements related to the construction sector and management training.

In Inukjuak, four people said KRG staff were very supportive and understanding in providing employment programs and services. They said the staff had made the application process easier and were able to explain things well. Having staff who could speak Inuktitut was critical to helping people access programs and services.

In Kangiqsualujjuaq, participants were pleased with the programs and services they received from KRG. They stated that KRG staff were very helpful and cooperative and made the application processes easier.

Were programs useful in getting a job?

Virtually all respondents reported that programs and services received have been useful in getting jobs. In most cases, participants identified training and pre-employment services as being critical to gaining employment, although several said they did not remain in that particular job. Eight participants said the training they had taken had been a requirement of their current position and that it had helped them keep their jobs and increase their salaries. Some participants reported the training had given them transferable skills (e.g. computer training).

Impacts of AHRDA programs

Impact on job skills and performance of duties

Most participants in the three discussion groups reported a positive impact on their job skills and the level of their performance of duties.

Impact on job prospects and outlook and on self-confidence

There was near unanimity among participants that the KRG programs and services had increased their self-confidence and made a positive impact on their job prospects and overall employment outlook. A shortage of employment opportunities was identified as being one of the limitations on gaining employment after training.

EI and Income Support/income change

In Kuujjuaq, nearly all participants were currently employed. One person had been on EI the previous year but had since found full-time employment. Seven participants agreed their participation in KRG programs and services had significantly lessened their use of EI or Income Support and had generally helped increase their employment income. Two youths noted that the money they were making now was more than they had dreamed about when they were in high school. They made a direct connection between this enhanced status and the training and services they had received.

In Inukjuak, all four employed participants noted that their employment income had increased after their interventions were completed. For some, this increase occurred immediately while for others it took longer. Three participants stated that they had collected Income Support at least once in the past year.

In Kangiqsualujjuaq, two people had static income because they had been on Income Support for at least the past year. The six employed people stated that their income had gone up significantly since their interventions and they hadn't been on IS in some cases for more than ten years.

Impact on satisfaction with current job

Participants agreed that the training and services they received had a positive effect on their job satisfaction. This increased satisfaction arose from various sources including increased income, a desire to put the new skills and knowledge into their work activities, and a general stimulation to learn more.

In Inukjuak, the general discussion included the fact that people learned how to work better with other people and to do their jobs more effectively. In Kangiqsualujjuaq, the employed participants were unanimous in stating their satisfaction with their current jobs had increased after their interventions were completed.

7.2 Key Informant Perspectives

To what degree are current programs and services you offer helping participants look for, find and maintain employment?

There was consensus that programs and services currently offered by KRG assist clients considerably in looking for, finding, and maintaining employment. Two key informants stated that the impact of these programs and services was apparent in statistical analyses of the job market in Nunavik that KRG has undertaken since the 1990's. The latest Nunavik Jobs Survey (2005) indicated there had been substantial increases in the number of people participating in the Nunavik workforce over the past two decades, with employment rates holding despite a rapid increase in the region's population. The 2005 survey also showed jobs at various levels requiring college training were being filled increasingly by regional residents, an indication that Inuit were succeeding in finding higher paying and higher qualified employment. Further documentation offered by key informants included the KRG annual reports (available on line at www.krg.ca) as an indication of the progress the department and its clientele have made towards finding and maintaining employment in the region.

The key informants identified job preparation/pre-employment training, on-the-job training, and purchase of training as being particularly critical in establishing a trained and certified work force. They stated that perhaps the biggest success story in the region was the training and certification of over one hundred and thirty daycare staff working in the seventeen daycare centres throughout Nunavik.

One informant noted that much of the success lies in the fact that all federal and provincial employment and training programs flow through KRG. A good example of DETISC's ability to leverage the impact of government programming was the creation of the Nunavik youth committees. These were started in 2000 when the Quebec government provided $3 million a year to Nunavik to implement youth centres in each community. DETISC contributed further funding of $400,000 a year which enabled the centres to add more employees and training. There are currently fourteen youth centres with trained coordinators and youth animators. Each centre has two permanent positions plus various animators, which was identified as a considerable achievement. The informant stated that some of these people would eventually move on to other employment opportunities but they would take with them a lot of skills they had learned and, importantly for youth, this experience got them into the labour market. Construction and mining were also identified as active sectors.

Are there other programs and services not currently provided through KRG that could further assist Aboriginal peoples look for, find and maintain employment?

In Nunavik the population is 90% Inuit so the key informants didn't see the existence of other programs and services as a particular issue for their region. Since the land claim agreement (signed in 1975) and self-government initiatives were established, the DETISC has been responsible for all employment training in the region funded by both the federal and provincial governments. Since it has significant flexibility in how training and employment dollars are spent, few gaps currently exist.

Informants were unanimous, however, in identifying the need to improve service and program delivery for the Inuit of Montreal. Currently the Inuit population there is required to access EI programs and services via the First Nation Human Resources Development Commission of Québec, the AHRDA holder for Montreal. They stated that Inuit don't use the service for a number of reasons including cultural and linguistic differences. As a result, urban Inuit are being left out. Some progress has been made towards addressing this long-standing concern. For example, the provincial government recently agreed to fund an employment officer in Montreal specifically for Inuit.

One informant stated there was a strong need to establish a CEGEP in Nunavik. This gap limits opportunities for young Inuit to attain higher educational levels. Students must currently go to Montreal for post-secondary education, which is a considerable strain on both students and their families. The informant acknowledged that KRG needed to work with the province on this issue but that an inter-governmental committee has been established to look into it.

Has delivery of labour market programs to Aboriginal peoples through Aboriginal organizations made a difference in increasing their access to, and use of, labour market programs?

Key informants agreed that the delivery of labour market programs by Inuit for Inuit was an important element of DETISC's success. People in the communities are generally quite aware of where they can go to get help in looking for work or for training or other services. Most of the Local Employment Officers have been in their positions for several years now and since the communities are quite small, they are well known to other residents.

Another key area of success was the delivery of training in the communities. A frequently cited example was the extensive fourteen-month daycare training program delivered in most Nunavik communities. Other recent training initiatives that had taken place in the communities included computer training with portable labs, IT and computer repair, and some trades training. DETISC staff members realize training in the communities is expensive but it has helped to lower dropout rates, which is their top priority.

Program Success and Impacts

The key informants were asked to provide their assessment of program success, including a number of aspects of the impact of the programs on clients.

Job Search Skills

There was consensus that there had been a positive impact on clients' job search skills. Two informants stated that pre-employment programs and services were a major component in the DETISC's activities. Job Entry is KRG's primary tool for providing assistance to clients experiencing difficulties in finding a job. Clients are helped to acquire pre-employment training, including life and work skills, to secure the minimum academic background training needed for employment, and to obtain specific training for a job. Having LEOs in the communities to provide important face-to-face services to clients was a very large part of their success in this area. A focus of DETISC has been to boost these basic skills through adult literacy and education through their Job Entry program.

Job Skills

Key informants were unanimous that major improvements had occurred in this area. The success of the daycare system was again offered as an example of how job skills for a large targeted group could be improved. The 14-month course resulted in many women receiving good paying jobs ($20 per hour, which is nearly double the provincial average).

These workers, who are nearly all female, received college certified training, first aid, and other training through the program.

DETISC has also worked with the private sector to develop the skilled labour needed to expand the economy of Nunavik. They have worked with mining companies such as Falconbridge (which recently sold the Raglan mine to Xstrata) to develop a skilled mining workforce. As well, DETISC now has a construction program manager who oversees all the training programs in the construction sector. Under the Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee system, key labour-market stakeholders in the region get together to identify their priority training needs and to set budgets and allocations to meet these needs. This process has worked very well to identify job skills most needed in the region, from pilots to police officers.

Job Prospects and Employment Outlook

Informants reported that job prospects and the employment outlook for clients were improving all the time. As reported above, the Nunavik Job Survey (2005) showed that, in 1995 to 2005, KRG was able to maintain the same percentage of employment in the region despite rapid increases in the population. As well, Nunavimmiut were finding and keeping more complex jobs in areas as diverse as mining, administration, and health care. A key focus was on integrating youth into the labour market. In the fall of 2007, a symposium on youth employment, integration, and retention was held. Stakeholders from across the region (from education, health, administrative, private sector, governments and Saputiit {youth organization}) attended discussions to find ways of increasing youth employment and to identify challenges that limited the entry of young people into the labour market and were working on a plan to address the issues raised.

Increased Skill Levels

DETISC has been very successful in increasing skill levels requiring certification and diplomas. Every community in Nunavik now has a functioning daycare staffed overwhelmingly by Inuit who are college educated and certified. This has had a major impact in many areas including the income these people earned, the increase in their self-confidence, and the provision of critical services in the communities that allowed primarily women to seek out employment or training opportunities. DETISC has been working on extending this success into other areas – in particular policing. Heavy Equipment Operator training was another major area for skill development. DETISC has also been working with Xstrata mines via the Aboriginal Student Employment Program, providing $9 million for training over five years. This could result in three hundred Inuit being trained in skills areas including Heavy Equipment Operator, trades, and mine related jobs.

Which programs and services work best, and are there specific clients for whom they work best?

Key informants stated that there were two major programs DETISC used to help participants look for, find and maintain employment – On the Job Training and Purchase of Training. On the Job Training is focused on creating long-term employment for clients and implies the creation of a new position. One informant estimated that between eighty and one hundred jobs were created annually this way. With help from the DETISC, the Federated Cooperatives of New Quebec opened additional banking services in the region, creating fifteen jobs. Purchase of Training helps workers and non-workers acquire new skills and improve their employability, through courses purchased from specialized organizations.

The Kativik Regional Employment and Training Committee process was identified as being flexible enough to allow funding to be allocated to help any specific group or to develop specific labour-market skills in demand. For example, First Aid training was delivered across the region among a number of different employers to satisfy a common need. Training in the handling of dangerous materials and computer training were other examples. For women, perhaps the best example was the extensive effort made to develop the seventeen daycare centres and their more than one hundred and thirty certified staff. In the self-employment program, computer training that took place across the region eventually resulted in a business in Ivujivik being established to provide further training in this area.

What Programs and Services Needed Improvement?

Key informants identified a number of programs and services that needed improvement.

• Individual Action Plans for clients are sometimes not done, but as the training and skill level of the LEOs increases, this will be improved. LEOs need to do more counselling, including one-on-one time with clients, taking them to job interviews, and supporting them through training.
• LEO training is an ongoing need. In the past, high turnover rates in these positions limited their impact but now LEOs are staying longer in their positions and increasing their capacity.
• Basic literacy and numeracy skills continue to be a challenge to employment and need to be addressed at the school level as well as through KRG.
• Improved communication is needed to keep people informed about what DETISC programs and services are available. Holding more career days in the schools would help students know what jobs were available to them.
• More funding is needed for youth-oriented programs such as the Heritage and youth summer employment programs. However, these programs need to be more oriented to employment opportunities in the region.
• The self-employment program has been hindered by many participants' lack of business experience and the high cost of doing business in Nunavik.
• Capacity building within DETISC faces a number of challenges: finding qualified staff members with the basic qualifications and background for certain positions, especially in smaller communities; travel costs limit training opportunities for staff; staff turnover rates in some communities have been quite high; and housing is lacking, underlining the importance of continuing to build the skills and expertise of local people to fill available positions.

7.3 Quantitative Data Analysis

Table 21 presents the evolution of the average earnings from employment and the receipt of Employment Insurance and Social Assistance (income support) benefits for KRG participants over three periods, before, during and after the Action Plan Equivalent (APE):

• Five years before the APE started (years -5 to -1),
• During the APE (year 0), and
• Three years after the end of the APE (years 1 to 3). These averages are shown separately for active and former claimants.

Income from employment is the combination of earnings from an employer and income from self-employment.

Table 22 shows slight changes in the first year before the start of the APE, then compensating changes during the APE, followed by a resumption of the upward trend from the earlier years.

Table 23 shows a similar display for Employment Insurance Benefits. Disruptions in the overall pattern are similar in the year before the APE and during the APE. But subsequent years show very little departure from the experience of the earlier years. The levels for non-claimants are, by definition, much lower.

Table 24 presents benefits from Social Assistance. Again, while the graph lines move somewhat just before and during the APE, there is little that is striking in terms of any subsequent departure from the experience of earlier years. One perhaps noteworthy point is that the average amount of EI benefits among active claimants, while it had been climbing slightly before the APE, declined slightly afterward, whereas the opposite is true of amounts of Social Assistance benefits.

A more rigorous econometric analysis used data from participant and comparison group APEs. APEs for the latter were simulated based on comparable start dates and matched using data from the pre-APE years. The comparison group data thus served as a counterfactual, representing what would have happened to participants had they not participated. This analysis produced estimates of the incremental effects of participation, i.e. which could be attributed specifically to the participation in KRG programs and services. The analysis was conducted for active and former EI clients only as a suitable comparison group for non EI claimants could not be found.

Results of the incremental analysis are shown in Table 25. As might be expected, given the above findings for the participants, no result was statistically significant at conventional levels. As a result, we are unable to infer any impact of participation for KRG clients.

For example, the analysis estimated that participation in KRG programs and services was associated with increased earnings, in the first year following the end of the APE, of $2,672 and $2,573 for active and former claimants, respectively. However, the impacts are not statistically significant as per the conventionally accepted statistical standards.

8. Conclusions

Partnership Development

KRG has developed strong partnerships with key employers and labour market stakeholders in the region through participation in several committees. These committees help the KRG to align its labour market activities with available employment opportunities.

Through the structure created by the James Bay Agreement, the KRG has successfully established a number of partnerships with federal and provincial governments. All funding for Nunavik from provincial and federal governments for employment, training, and daycare flows through the KRG, thus eliminating any duplication or overlap between programs and funding agencies.

Communication with Service Canada and HRSDC

The relationship between the KRG and the Service Canada regional office in Montreal is positive and productive with Service Canada providing support and guidance, mainly as needed.

The First Nations and Inuit Child Care Component

Key informants and discussion groups participants agreed the daycare centres have made an important contribution not only to the development of healthy, active children, but also to the economy of the region by enabling hundreds of parents to pursue employment and training.

The KRG daycare facilities integrate Head Start programs within their programming and facilities. Daycare centres also provide nutrition programs, host public health nurses, and provide facilities for dental hygienists for basic cleaning and checkups.

Daycare programming includes strong cultural components, including the use of Inuktitut, storytelling with elders, learning traditional crafts and skills, and the incorporation of country foods into the nutrition program.

Waiting times are reported across the 17 daycares ranging from one to two years in some communities. No problems were cited concerning the hours of operation, the state of the facilities, or the fees charged.

Staff turnover remains a challenge. Ensuring daycare staff are qualified is a priority for KRG. Less than half of current care providers have the appropriate childcare credentials and, for this reason, training is on-going. Currently, funding levels for training remain insufficient to meet the needs of the daycare centres, exacerbated in part by the large distances between settlements and the need for specialized courses, materials, and Inuktitut instruction.

Assessment of Data Collection and Accountability Systems

There are some discrepancies between the HRSDC and the KRG databases. The HRSDC database contained an additional 99 clients and 393 interventions for the period April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. This discrepancy is not due to the data upload process.

The data assessment revealed few cases of missing information or coding errors between the HRSDC and the KRG records.

The data demonstrate that the ARHDA has consistently met all targets for the years of interest, and frequently exceeded targets by a substantial number. Given the fact that targets were largely surpassed, the little variation found in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 targets suggests that greater attention should be paid to setting targets based on historical results and contextual factors; the targets are low compared to the reported results.

Summative Evaluation Findings

KRG clients expressed high levels of satisfaction with programs and services they received and agreed that these had been helpful in meeting employment challenges and in finding jobs. Discussion group participants agreed there were positive impacts on job skills, job prospects, attitude towards employment, satisfaction with current jobs, and increased self-confidence.

Key informants agreed current KRG programs and services helped clients to look for, find, and maintain employment. This view was supported by labour force statistics showing substantial increases in the number of people participating in the Nunavik workforce. There was consensus that the programs had positive impacts on client job search skills, job skills, job prospects, employment outlook, skill levels including certification and diplomas, attitudes towards employment, preparation for jobs, and personal self-confidence.

Net Impacts

Net impacts compare measures of outcome indicators for participants to those of a comparison group of similar individuals. The comparison group is constructed to represent what would have happened to the participants if they had not participated. Net impacts may thus be attributed fully to participation.

The quantitative analysis found no net impacts that were statistically significant at conventional statistical levels. As a result, we can report no net impacts of participation for KRG clients.

Observations ^{Footnote 38} on Outcome Indicators

When examining clients' earnings and use of Employment Insurance and Social Assistance over a period of five years before participation in KRG programs and services and up to three years after participation ended, key observations included the following:

• Earnings from employment continue to increase over time, but at a lower rate.
• There is little change in the use of Employment Insurance for Active and Former EI claimants. Non-claimant clients increased their use of EI in the post-program period, reflecting EI eligibility derived from employment during and after participation in the program.
• There is little change in the use of Social Assistance benefits.