Using a mixed-methods research design, the project gathers evidence from two groups: current postsecondary students who are not using student financial assistance and youth aged 18 to 30 who are not currently enrolled in postsecondary education. Surveys provide national-level insight into awareness, perceptions, and barriers, while in-depth interviews explore how financial, administrative, informational, and personal factors shape decision-making.

By centring the lived experiences of equity-deserving populations, the project aims to generate actionable evidence to inform policy improvements to make SFA more accessible, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of diverse learners across Canada.

The post Understanding the Experiences of Equity-Deserving Students and Prospective Students who Face Barriers Accessing Student Financial Assistance appeared first on SRDC.

The post Stakeholders Consultation Meeting on Identifying and Supporting for PLWD Among the Homeless Population in BC appeared first on SRDC.

The Community Employment Innovation Project (CEIP) was a long-term research and demonstration project that was designed to test an alternative form of income support for the unemployed, which would encourage employment while supporting local community development. It was an approach that challenged communities to build on the “social economy” as a potential source of jobs for people who were unemployed and living in high unemployment areas. The idea was to improve not only the economic and social well being of communities but to generate meaningful work opportunities in the process. As a result, participants could acquire new skills and work experience while also developing valuable work-related networks and “social capital” that could lead to greater long-term employment success.

CEIP grew out of the belief that new government initiatives to improve the economic circumstances of individuals in struggling regions or communities must support local endeavours aimed at creating a sustainable economy. In short, CEIP was designed to build capacity among communities to create their own solutions for community development, while providing new employment opportunities for individuals who were receiving income from either EI or IA.

Sponsored by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) and the Nova Scotia Department of Community Services (NSDCS), CEIP was managed by the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation (SRDC), a not-for-profit research organization. CEIP was long-term study, which began in 1999 and concluded in 2008.

The key features of CEIP were as follows:

• Communities selected for CEIP set up volunteer boards to define their own needs and identify the kinds of projects that can meet those needs.
• Any local organization could develop a proposal for a CEIP project. If the local community board approved the proposal, CEIP participants were sent to work on the project.
• Individuals selected to work on community projects received a community wage, about $325 per week, for up to three years. This wage was a fixed weekly amount and would be increased with any increase in the provincial minimum wage. The community wage was taxable, insurable for EI purposes, and pensionable under the Canada Pension Plan.
• Participants had to be available to take part in approved CEIP activities for 35 hours each week. While the principal activity was working on community-based projects, participants also spent time in other activities including an initial employment assessment, basic job-readiness training where needed, and short courses in transferable skills.
• Participants could switch back and forth between CEIP projects and other activities, such as work in the private or public sector, at any time during their three-year eligibility period.

Program design

In this project EI and IA recipients in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) were selected at random from administrative files and were offered an opportunity to participate in CEIP. CEIP enrolled 1,006 EI and 516 IA recipients to voluntarily participate. Approximately one half of the enrolees were randomly assigned to a program group and are eligible for CEIP. The remaining enrolees were assigned to a control group and are not eligible to participate in CEIP. Control group members served as a counter-factual — a measure of the outcomes that program group members would have experienced in absence of CEIP. Differences in the experiences of these groups were used to measure the impact of CEIP.

Offer to individuals

Program group members were offered the chance to take a job working in one of many community-sponsored and community-approved employment projects for up to three years. In return for working on these projects participants received a “community wage” that was indexed to changes in the Nova Scotia provincial minimum wage. To further replicate the characteristics of normal employment, CEIP participants accumulated an entitlement to “personal days,” which could be taken as paid vacation or sick days. CEIP also paid premiums to provide participants with coverage under the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation program, and participants could choose to enrol in a private health plan. The premiums for the private health plan were shared between CEIP and the participants who opted for coverage.

Beyond the core offer of three years of paid employment, participants also received a number of ancillary program services including an employability assessment, basic job-readiness training, and a limited number of vocational transferable skills training modules. In the last three months of their CEIP eligibility, participants also had access to portfolio building and job-search assistance to help make the transition to market employment.

Role of communities

In addition to providing opportunities for individuals to gain valuable work experience, CEIP sought to foster community development. CEIP differed from many earlier programs in the degree of control over project design and implementation that was given to local communities. The CEIP strategy was unique in that the fundamental driving force underlying the project was the notion that local communities — defined as small areas within the CBRM — should be able to define their own needs and then develop projects to meet those needs.

The role played by a community had two main aspects: the creation of a democratic structure — the community board — to make decisions regarding the use of CEIP resources, and the solicitation and approval of specific projects from sponsors within the community to employ the CEIP participants. Although the core of the offer to communities was the free labour supply of CEIP workers for their local projects, in order for community boards to carry out their primary responsibilities, they were also provided with a $30,000 planning grant and access to technical assistance to help with planning and community mobilization.

Five communities within the CBRM (Glace Bay, New Waterford, North Sydney, Sydney Mines, and Whitney Pier) formed community boards, with each board composed of members drawn from the community and chosen at public meetings. The role of the boards was to promote CEIP within their communities and to review proposals for employment projects sponsored by groups of residents or by organizations. The boards also had the responsibility of approving projects that meet their criteria as outlined in their strategic plan. Participants from anywhere in the CBRM could be assigned to sponsored projects within each community.

Research design

CEIP’s evaluation strategy included four main components:

• An individual impact study using a random assignment design to compare the experiences of those in CEIP’s program group with the experiences of control group members who were not eligible to work on community-based projects.
• A community effects study using both a “theory of change” approach and a quasi-experimental comparison community design to evaluate the effects on the communities that participated in CEIP.
• Implementation research to carefully document how the project was implemented (in an effort to assess how closely the program in the field matched the original design), to evaluate potential participants’ understanding of the CEIP offer, and to identify delivery issues that can aid in better understanding how and why the program worked (or failed to work).
• A benefit-cost analysis to compare the economic benefits that accrued to both the participating individuals and the communities with the cost of producing those benefits.

SRDC designed an extensive individual impact study to examine the effect of CEIP on participants’ employment, earnings, and their use of EI and IA. The research program sought to answer questions regarding the impact of CEIP on other aspects of the participants’ lives, such as the following:

• To what extent did CEIP result in increased education and training?
• To what extent did CEIP reduce poverty, hardship, and increase overall well being?
• Did CEIP affect the social networks of participants?
• How did CEIP affect total household income?
• To what extent did CEIP result in changes in family formation?
• To what extent did CEIP affect the migration of the unemployed from Cape Breton?

The experiences of participants in the program and control groups were assessed through a baseline survey administered at the time of enrolment and a series of follow-up surveys and administrative data sources. Follow-up surveys, conducted at 18, 40, and 54 months after random assignment, were the key source of data on the labour market outcomes and quality of life of those in the study and would provide the basis for measuring the impacts of CEIP. Administrative data sources — EI, IA, and taxation records — were also used for estimating program impacts on individuals and for the benefit-cost analysis.

SRDC was also interested in the effects of CEIP on the participating communities. The community effects research sought to answer such questions as the following:

• How did the communities respond to the challenge of organizing a community board and developing the capacity to promote, review, and assess sponsored projects?
• Did sponsored local projects make a measurable difference in the physical, economic, and social well being of the community?
• Did residents of communities in CEIP indicate a higher level of social cohesiveness than did non-participating communities?

The community effects study relied on a broad set of indicators that were collected from a wide variety of sources in both the CEIP communities and in comparison communities. Wherever possible, administrative records were used to obtain community-level data. To complement available administrative records data, a three-wave community survey was conducted to obtain information directly from residents of the CEIP and comparison communities. In addition, key informants in each community were interviewed annually during the study to obtain their detailed assessment of perceived changes in institutional structures and civic activity in their communities. SRDC researchers monitored local media, conducted extensive fieldwork to observe local meetings and other consultative events and to interview local stakeholders (especially those who were involved with CEIP at the local community level), and conducted document analysis of local community-planning materials (including meeting minutes and other records of local organizations).

Status

CEIP was a long-term project. Design work and consultations with communities began in 1999. Participant enrolment took place between July 2000 and May 2002, and community projects ended in July 2005. SRDC has released several major reports on the project since December 2003. The CEIP final results report was released in November 2008, Encouraging Work and Supporting Communities: Final Results of the Community Employment Innovation Project.

The post Community Employment Innovation Project (CEIP) appeared first on SRDC.

This widely recognized randomized experimental study was funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) and conducted by the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation (SRDC).

Methodology

SSP offered substantial supplements to the earnings of single-parents who had been IA recipients three or more years, but only on the condition that they left welfare for full-time work within 12 months of becoming eligible for the supplement.

To measure the effects of this financial incentive, SSP was designed as a social experiment using a rigorous random assignment research design. Single parents in southern New Brunswick and the lower mainland of British Columbia were selected at random from IA records. Half were randomly assigned to a program group and offered the SSP supplement, while the remainder formed a comparison group. Because the two groups were similar in all other respects, the “impact” or effect of SSP can be measured by the difference between the program and comparison groups’ subsequent experiences. The supplement program ran from November 1992 until December 1999, and enrolled roughly 9,000 volunteers.

SSP was comprised of three linked studies — the Recipient SSP study, the SSP Plus study, and the Applicant study.

The Recipient SSP study targeted long-term IA recipients who had been receiving welfare for at least one year, and for most, a much longer period of time. It measured the effects of the financial incentive alone.

The SSP Plus study targeted a similar group, but only in New Brunswick, and assessed the effects of the same financial incentive offered in combination with employment-related services.

The Applicant study offered new IA applicants in British Columbia the supplement if they remained on welfare for one year before leaving IA in the following 12 months for full-time employment.

In each of these studies, the supplement was generous. The combination of supplement and earnings approximately doubled the income that an individual would receive from a full-time job at minimum wage. Individuals had one year to find full-time employment in order to receive the supplement. The one-year “clock” started at random assignment in the Recipient and SSP Plus studies, and one-year after random assignment in the Applicant study. Participants could receive the supplement for up to 36 months after their first supplement payment but only in those months when they worked full time and did not receive IA.

Findings

The experimental research has been completed. All three studies showed that SSP is a “triple winner.” SSP increased employment earnings and reduced IA receipt and poverty. A large portion of the cost of SSP was offset by IA savings and by the additional income tax revenues generated by employment earnings and supplement payments. The program produced its biggest effects immediately after the close of the one-year period limit for finding full-time employment. In all three studies, the effects of the supplement had a substantial but declining effect over subsequent years.

In the Recipient study, one third of the program group took up the supplement. As a result, SSP nearly doubled the full-time employment rate in the second year after random assignment, increasing it to 29 per cent. In the same year employment earnings rose by more than one third, and welfare receipt fell by 13 percentage points. Moreover, SSP raised incomes for these poor families, creating a substantial anti-poverty effect during the period of supplement receipt. Impacts remained substantial during the period of supplement receipt, but became relatively small after that period.

Overall, SSP had few effects on children of participants in the Recipient study. Their parents’ return to work has had no negative consequences on their lives. Overall, SSP had no effect on very young children and a number of small positive effects for school-age children. For adolescents, the program had few effects, and those that it did have appeared to be initially negative, but no longer-term negative effects were detected.

In the Applicant Study, 58 per cent of new welfare applicants remained on welfare for one year and became eligible for the supplement if they found full-time work within the next year. Half of the eligible recipients did so (27 per cent of the entire program group), and received at least one supplement payment. The impacts were largest in Year 3, when SSP reduced IA receipt by 10 percentage points and increased full-time employment by 12 percentage points. SSP substantially increased earnings through to the sixth year of the follow-up period, and reduced poverty throughout much of the follow-up period. Program impacts on IA receipt and full-time employment persisted for five years. During the last of these years, no program group members received the supplement. The total cost of SSP for welfare applicants, (including supplement payments and operating costs) was almost completely offset by increased tax revenue and decreased welfare benefits. There was a small net cost to the government budget of $660 — or $110 per year — per program group member over the full six-year follow-up period. SSP also produced larger financial gains for program group members of the Applicant study than for program group members of the Recipient study, and was also much more cost effective. However, the net costs of the Recipient study are modest compared with other transfer programs.

SSP Plus combined the SSP earnings supplement with services to help people find and keep jobs. This combination resulted in larger effects than did the earnings supplement alone. About half of the people offered this SSP Plus program were able to take up the supplement offer. Many of the people who took up the supplement offer due to the effect of the SSP Plus services also lost their new jobs quickly. However, the effects of SSP Plus were remarkably strong near the end of the follow-up period, when parents were no longer eligible for SSP’s earnings supplement. This finding suggests that the job-related services had helped some members of the SSP Plus program find more stable employment than their counterparts who did not receive services.

Status

The evaluation of SSP has been completed and final SRDC evaluation reports have been released. A series of analyses using SSP data were commissioned to further study the lives of single parents on welfare, and findings from this research were released in the SRDC Working Papers series. SSP came to an end on March 31, 2006.

Funding

SSP was funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC).

The post Self-Sufficiency Project (SSP) appeared first on SRDC.

More specifically, the project broadens and deepens existing capacity-building efforts in the skills and employment training sector by scaling up the use of our SfS-aligned online measurement platform; testing new SFS measurement options, including self-report and objective assessment methodologies; developing, delivering, and evaluating new SFS curricula, training resources, and assessment tools; and disseminating findings, best practices and lessons learned to continue building sectoral knowledge and capacity.

The post Enhancing Employment Services Through Development and Assessment of Skills for Success Training appeared first on SRDC.

SRDC is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of LEEP that consists of two components: a formative evaluation and an implementation and outcomes study. The goal of the evaluation is to test the hypothesis that one-on-one personalized support and training will assist participants in building skills that will enable their entry into the job market in addition to improvements in health. SRDC is using a mixed methods approach for data collection and analysis. LEEP is funded by the BC Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s Community and Employer Partnerships Research and Innovation.

The post Evaluation of the Lookout Ethical Employment Program (LEEP) Pilot Project appeared first on SRDC.

The project is being led by the Canadian Community Economic Development Network (CCEDNet) in partnership with SRDC and the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC). The project aims to recruit 100 Indigenous youth, new immigrants, young people living in poverty, those who identify as LGBTQ2S+, young people with disabilities, racialized youth, youth in rural/remote communities, and official language minority youth.

SRDC is supporting the project design, coordinating tailored supports to participants, and leading the project’s evaluation activities. The evaluation is examining how the placement opportunities facilitate the transition of young people to secure employment in the labour market through the development of skills, workplace experience, professional networks, and tailored wraparound supports.

It is also examining how hosting the youth placements will support the capacity and sustainability of innovative social purpose organizations across Canada to hire youth facing barriers from the communities they serve, connect to regional Social Innovation and Social Finance ecosystems, and leverage investments of the Investment Readiness Program and Social Finance Fund.

The post CreateAction: Inclusive Social Innovation appeared first on SRDC.

The post Literature Review on Effective Labour Market Programs and Services to Assist Youth and Social Assistance Recipients to Integrate into the Labour Market appeared first on SRDC.

The post Integrating Essential Skills Tools for Employment Counsellors appeared first on SRDC.

The post Development and Pilot Testing of an Innovative Demand-Led Training Model to Support Entry and Retention in the Aquaculture Sector appeared first on SRDC.