ii - ofe.ca · iii 2nd floor – 352 Donald Street Winnipeg, MB R3B 2H8 Phone (204) 925-3490 Email [email protected] Website Web Version 1.0 Final Report Prepared By: Kevin Swibaker, Researcher

ii

iii

2nd floor – 352 Donald StreetWinnipeg, MB R3B 2H8Phone (204) 925-3490

Email [email protected] www.ofe.ca

Web Version 1.0

Final Report Prepared By: Kevin Swibaker, Researcher

Funding provided by:

The Government of Canada The Manitoba Government

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ofe.ca/

ii

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................5

Project Description .....................................................................................7

The Stages of Change Model .....................................................................7

SOC Model Details .....................................................................................8

SOC, MI and Employment Development....................................................9

Setting the Stage ......................................................................................10

Project Time Line......................................................................................10

Appreciative Enquiry.................................................................................10

Steering Committee..................................................................................11

A Two Phase Study ..................................................................................11

Test Questions (Phase I and Phase II).....................................................13

METHOD.............................................................................................................15

Hypotheses (Phase I and Phase II) ..........................................................17

Research Participants ..............................................................................17

Demographic Makeup....................................................................18

Random Assignment Methodology (Phase I).................................19

Assignment Methodology (Phase II) ..............................................19

Informed Consent ..........................................................................19

Compensation (Phase I and Phase II) ...........................................20

Risk to Participants (Phase I and Phase II)....................................20

Methodology Overview .............................................................................21

Stimuli (SOC WS1, SOC WS2, and SOC WS3) ............................22

Motivational Interviewing (MI) ........................................................23

Apparatus (collection instrument) .............................................................26

OFE Intake Forms and Demographic Forms .................................26

URICA............................................................................................26

Specific Procedures..................................................................................27

Intake.............................................................................................27

SOC WSI .......................................................................................27

iv

SOC WS2 ......................................................................................27

SOC WS3 ......................................................................................28

Participants Attended and Completed Regular OFE Services .......28

Job Search.....................................................................................28

Employment Found........................................................................28

Post 6-months of Obtaining Employment.......................................28

Participants Scheduled to MI .........................................................29

METHOD OF ANALYSIS....................................................................................31

Quantitative Data .....................................................................................33

Analysis of Quantitative Data....................................................................33

Qualitative Data .......................................................................................33

Participant Focus Groups .........................................................................34

Motivational Interviewing and Workshops ................................................34

Exit Interviews ..........................................................................................34

Analysis of Qualitative Data .....................................................................34

Study Evaluation.......................................................................................34

Collection of Feedback from OFE Staff Members ....................................35

STUDY END PLAN.............................................................................................37

Sunsetting Strategy ..................................................................................39

Study Summary Objectives ......................................................................39

Outputs.....................................................................................................39

Information Sharing and Knowledge Transfer ..........................................41

Governance Structure and Service Delivery.............................................41

EVALUATION DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................43

Objectives.................................................................................................45

Participant Total Objective .............................................................45

Phase I Test Question ...................................................................47

Hypothesis 1 .......................................................................48

Hypothesis 2 .......................................................................49

Hypothesis 3 .......................................................................51

Hypothesis 4 .......................................................................52

The Effect of Each Intervention on Number of Participants in Each Stage ..................................................52

v

Study Group Stage Movement After Each Level.................54

Cross Group Comparison After Program Completion .........55

Cross Group Comparison After Employment ......................56

Cross Group Comparison After Six Months of Employment ........................................................................57

Study Group Overall URICA Score Change After Each Intervention Level ..............................................58

Other Possible Positive Outcomes......................................58

Phase II Test Question ..................................................................59

Hypothesis 1 .......................................................................60

Hypothesis 2 .......................................................................62

Hypothesis 3 .......................................................................64

Hypothesis 4 .......................................................................66

The Effect of Each Intervention on Number of Participants in Each Stage ..................................................66

Study Group Stage Movement After Each Intervention Level................................................................67

Phase II Attendance Numbers (Compared to Phase I) ..................69

Demographic Results ...............................................................................70

Item Analysis .................................................................................70

Table 15.........................................................................................71

Table 16.........................................................................................76

Data Mining Assessment..........................................................................81

QUALITATIVE DATA .........................................................................................83

Family Challenges ....................................................................................85

Mature Workers .......................................................................................86

Criminal Involvement ................................................................................87

Health Concerns.......................................................................................88

Addictions …... .........................................................................................89

Mental Health Challenges ........................................................................90

Confidence ...............................................................................................91

Benefit Type ............................................................................................92

Relocation to Winnipeg.............................................................................93

Literacy and Education .............................................................................94

vi

Participant Feedback................................................................................95

Intervention Self-Referrals .......................................................................96

Additional Lessons Learned from Workshops and MIs.............................97

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................99

Phase I and Phase II ..............................................................................101

Demographics ........................................................................................102

Phase I Demographics.................................................................102

Phase II Demographics................................................................103

Unemployment Rate...............................................................................106

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................107

Primary Lessons Learned.......................................................................109

Demographic Sub-Groups that Benefited Most ......................................110

Implications to Agencies Wishing to Replicate the Use of SOC/MI ........111

Project Accomplishments .......................................................................112

SUSTAINABILITY PLAN ..................................................................................115

Objective and Goals ...............................................................................117

Activities/Service Description..................................................................118

Outline of Services.......................................................................118

Delivery Methods....................................................................................119

Follow-up Plan........................................................................................119

Staffing ...................................................................................................120

Measurement of Client Outcomes and Project Successes.....................122

Summary ................................................................................................122

CLOSING ..........................................................................................................123

GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................125

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................135

Appendix 1: Letter from Proactive Information Services.........................137

Appendix 2: Assessment Tools ..............................................................141

Appendix 3: Demographic Form and Definitions ....................................149

Appendix 4: Stakeholder Satisfaction; Staff Feedback ..........................159

Appendix 5: Best Practices.....................................................................165

Appendix 6: Dissemination Locations and Map......................................175

Appendix 7: Phase I Demographic Breakout Comparison .....................179

vii

Appendix 8: Phase II Within Demographic Groups Comparison ............191

Appendix 9: Source Data for Extrapolations...........................................197

Appendix 10: Project Activities/Timeline.................................................201

Appendix 11: Workshop Curriculum .......................................................209

Appendix 12: Reference List...................................................................243

Appendix 13: External Evaluation January 2010 ....................................249

Appendix 14: Researcher’s Response to External Evaluation................277

viii

Opportunities for Employment ▪ Stages of Change Project ▪ Final Report ▪ 1



With funding from The Government of Canada and The Manitoba Government, Opportunities for Employment Inc. (OFE) conducted a three-year research study on work readiness, testing the application of the Transtheoretical Model of Change (Stages of Change Model – SOC) and Motivational Interviewing to employment development.

This innovative study utilized a previously untested approach to increase the labour market participation of those currently unemployed or underemployed by addressing ambivalence and motivation through the application of specific interventions to increase work readiness.

This approach is unique in the employment development field as it addresses the motivational issues that job seekers face in all the different stages of work readiness before engaging in job-search programs.

Quantitative and qualitative data was collected throughout two phases of the study:

Phase I:The data collected during the comparison of a Control group (no interventions) and a Study group (receiving interventions) provided strong evidence for the originally proposed hypotheses:

Increase program retention rates - there was an 11.6% difference in program retention rates in favor of the Study group over the Control group

Increase employment rates - there was a 15.9% difference in employment rates in favor of the Study group over the Control group

Increase employment retention rates - based on confirmations from employers, there was a 9.5% difference in six-month employment retention rates in favor of the Study group over the Control group

Phase II:Phase II of this project attempted to study potential issues related to using the model with the entire population of OFE clients, without any monetary incentives, as an integrated part of OFE’s EAS programs. Making SOC/MI a mandatory part of every client’s experience showed that there were no observable negatives in a real life situation outside the experimental environment.

In spite of the development of a recession, increased unemployment rate and removal of the monetary incentive, the result improved in Phase II. This provides strong evidence for using the model with every client that walks through the door whether they are Pre-contemplative or Contemplative about employment or not; the model speaks specifically to the success of providing SOC/MI services for clients along all of the Stages of Change.

In Phase II, we employed mandatory attendance to SOC/MI interventions before being able to engage in EAS programs. The observable benefits as noted from qualitative comments provided by classroom facilitators are as follows:


Increased EAS program effectiveness - the participants were in a Preparation stage and ready to move forward when engaging in EAS programming

Increased program efficiency - since participants were already at a state of readiness there was a decrease in releases and dropouts, thus making the most efficient use of available resources

The following are the extrapolated outputs expected from using SOC/MI with all clients and therefore, eventually working with only prepared and engaged participants:

25% increase in participants remaining active in EAS programs

34% increase in participants finding first time employment

48% increase in participants maintaining employment for six months or longer

OFE is currently conducting a pilot project to study the use of this model in a similar fashion with persons with a disability. The model could conceivably be used in a variety of related circumstances where behavioural change is needed. This project took an innovative approach to using SOC and MI, that have been tested, proven and used historically in the health psychology field, and applied them to the employment field.

Extensive efforts have been employed to disseminate the study findings and Best Practices. Presentations were made nationally, study findings and intervention tools are available through the OFE website and a Best Practices Document is available for use by service providers interested in implementing SOC practices into employment service programs across the country.

Linda Lee of Proactive Information Services Inc. served as the External Evaluator to the project and concluded, in a letter on July 27, 2009, which is attached in Appendix 1 of this document, that

“The project has included a rigorous internal research component…in my 30 years in evaluation; it is rare to see this concerted attention to stringent and appropriate data collection and analysis.

My assessment as an external reviewer confirms the effectiveness of the approach. In fact, they have exceeded their target population and shown conclusively the success of the approach. I would hope that any potential funder would appreciate both the rigorous process and the impressive results.”

Not only is it a successful model but it is also a model that is conscious of the individual involved in their change process. By helping to address one’s circumstances and allowing people to choose their own direction, it is remarkable how many people choose to consciously make a change based on their own decision. When they know they are being listened to, given the power to make their own positive decisions and experience the appropriate SOC/MI support in the process… it is amazing how positive the result can be.




Project DescriptionThe Stages of Change Project was a three-year research study conducted at Opportunities for Employment Inc. The study began February 19, 2007 and concluded February 18, 2010. The premise for the development of this study evolved out of a need to try and increase the labour market participation of underrepresented groups. This document is the final report and thus includes a review of the whole project as well as the overall analysis of data collected during the course of the study. For context purposes the details of the project plan follow as an introduction:

As a result of sub-urbanization and intergenerational unemployment, many inner city residents (including Aboriginal, New Comer, Ex-offender, Persons with a Disabilty, Single Parents, Youth at Risk, EIA Recipients) appear to have lost confidence in their ability to secure employment; in some cases it may simply be that they have lost their motivation. Although the causes of these phenomena are structural, the manifestations are likely behavioural and attitudinal. It is believed that lacking in self-confidence or low self-esteem can manifest itself as a lack of motivation to find a good job, and it can become a challenge for people to overcome these circumstances.

Many organizations assist unemployed, low-income individuals to prepare for, find, and keep employment. With different organizations come a large variety of services and many different approaches. Informal discussions with various organizations have unearthed a common phenomenon that relates to the high dropout rate of program participants; it is not uncommon to lose 25% to 50% of candidates after their first contact. These discussions also indicate that it is common for many of these organizations to invest substantial amounts of resources in preparing people for work,only to have the participants drop out or fail just at the time when they should be transitioning from the program to the jobsite.

Employment development specialists might be mystified or become frustrated by high dropout and failure rates. Participant behaviour can be interpreted as a lack of motivation, and a variety of interventions can be employed in attempts to boost that motivation. Physicians working with patients to support major lifestyle changes note this same phenomenon (Gretchen L. Zimmerman et al. 'Stages of Change' Approach to Helping Patients Change Behavior. American Family Physician, March 1, 2000). It would be beneficial for employment development specialists to understand the above behaviour more clearly, and to know how to provide the most appropriate and effective interventions possible.

The Stages of Change ModelThe Stages of Change Model (SOC), also known as the Transtheoretical Model of Change (TMC), is an innovative approach to motivational issues facing job seekers, with the potential to move people along the ‘Stages of Change’ to employment. SOC has been used extensively in the health psychology and addiction fields, where emotion, cognition and behaviour are crucial factors, but prior to this study its ability to induce behaviour modification had not yet been tested in the employment development field, where its application held great promise.


The SOC Model and MI speak specifically to the problem of motivation, and the development of this study was influenced through the understanding of both SOC and Motivational Interviewing (MI) from articles by Miller and Rollnick (2002), Prochaska and DiClemente (1994), Whitelaw et al (2002), and a TMC manual prepared by the Addictions Foundations of Manitoba in 2003. Articles from various other professional publications, including those on the Internet, have also been instructive; examples include: Cancer Prevention Research Center: Transtheoretical Model; DrugNet: Relapse Prevention & Relapse; Management Copyright ã 1998 - 2001 Jon Rose; The Transtheoretical Model of Behavioral Change (Revised: September 15, 2002) Richard W. Scholl, Professor of Management, University of Rhode Island. These articles describe applications of SOC and MI in various settings with a wide range of change challenges facing people, from addictions to levels of physical activity to pain management. The studies described show, for those listed situations, that SOC and MI are effective in assisting individuals to make desirable changes in their life. Review of current literature prior to this study indicated that SOC and MI had not been “applied” in the employment development and job placement field. It was anticipated however that this research study would provide evidence toward increased motivation through the use of the SOC Model and MI on employment searching and retention. A reference list for the study and for this document is attached in Appendix 12.

SOC Model DetailsWithin the SOC Model, change is viewed as gradual and progressive over time, rather than dramatic. The SOC Model presents six steps that are part of the change process:

1. Pre-contemplation – when the participant is not considering change because of no perceived need for change

2. Contemplation – when the participant is thinking about making some changes3. Preparation – when the participant is preparing for or becoming determined to

make changes4. Action – when the participant is actively making changes5. Maintenance – when the participant consistently attends to and is working on

maintaining the change6. Termination – when the participant no longer needs to attend to the task of

maintaining change

This model suggests that taking active steps to make change (Action), the dramatic and visible part of the process, is only one stage out of the six in the overall process. Often is the case that designers of rehabilitation programming largely ignore the other five stages, but the SOC Model proposes that addressing these other five stages are equally important to achieving desired outcomes.

The SOC Model provides for change as a process that is gradual and progressive over time, rather than dramatic. Estimates are that less than 20% of people who are making changes in their lives are in the Action stage at any given time, but about 90% of all programs designed to assist with change are intended for people in that Action stage. Those that have been labeled as 'failures' to make or sustain change in programs that center around the Action stage may not be 'resistant' to change as some might want you to believe, but rather the services offered possibly did not meet their needs by addressing the stage of change they were in at the time.


Research shows that people, who try to accomplish tasks of stages they aren't ready for, set themselves up for setbacks. When a person does progress through one stage of the change cycle, it greatly enhances the potential for effective action to change the problem. Conversely, spending too much time on tasks already mastered means delaying a move to the next stage of change (i.e. getting stuck in thought and not action) (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1994).

Another important concept that underlies this understanding of change is the acceptance that people rarely start at one point and progress through the Stages of Change without interruption. Such interruptions, or set backs are referred to as Recycling. Recycling is framed as 'normal' in this model, and not as a failure. It is estimated that 80% of people making behaviour changes recycle at some point in their change efforts. Recycling through the stages multiple times until reaching sustained maintenance and termination from the cycle of change appears to be the norm.

SOC, MI and Employment DevelopmentThe factors mentioned above clearly carry considerable implications for traditional employment development programs. Historically designed to move groups of people through activities on a scheduled basis, the traditional programs have not easily accommodated individual needs and time frames for change. The Stages of Change Model successfully allows for a primary focus on individual needs, stages of recovery, and time frames. At the same time, the model allows for the very practical concerns of an employment development service’s mandate to accommodate groups of people.

Adoption of the SOC Model and MI allows for more individual-centered services. An assessment process that includes the SOC Model would include not only a determination of the nature of the problem and its severity (level of involvement), but also what stage a person is in regarding individual readiness to make change in that area. It then becomes incumbent on the organization to offer services that match individual needs. The task is to assist or 'coach' people to complete stage specific tasks and move through the change process, according to individual time frames, with the ultimate goal of reaching a self-determined outcome.

To provide a better understanding of the six Stages of Change and the concept of “Recycling” they have been defined as they relate specifically to employment as follows:

1) During the Pre-contemplation stage, the participant feels unready to work. The person is neither willing nor interested in looking for work.

2) During the Contemplation stage, the person has thought about the possibility of working at some point but is experiencing ambivalence.

3) In the Preparation stage, the individual has made a decision to change. The Preparation stage involves, for example, the person preparing a resume and participating in job search activities.

4) In the Action stage, the person is employed.5) During the Maintenance stage, the person is focusing on maintaining

employment, consistently attends to and is working on maintaining the change.6) Termination, former problem behaviours are no longer perceived as desirable.


7) Recycling, the person may feel like a setback is nearing, may have lost motivation, or may have quit their job and as a result they may recycle through the stages.

It was believed that the study of the use of the SOC Model and MI in conjunction with employee placement to be innovative in that:It addressed an issue often missed in employment development work that job

seekers are at different stages of readiness, and thus need different forms of support.

It proposed to use a model applied with success in treating addictions, to a field where it has not before been used, namely employment development.

It was an attempt to address some of the attitudinal effects of the powerful social forces identified above.

If the model proved to be successful, it could be replicated elsewhere.

Setting the StageThis study was conducted through Opportunities for Employment Inc. (OFE), a non-profit corporation that helps unemployed people in Winnipeg to obtain full-time, long-term employment. The organizations roots and mission are derived from its founding partners, the Mennonite Central Committee Manitoba and Mennonite Economic Development Associates, Winnipeg Chapter. The main goal of OFE is to equip individuals to achieve greater independence by pursuing and maintaining meaningful employment.

Project Time LineA list of project activities and related time line is attached in Appendix 10 of this document.

Appreciative Inquiry This technique is based on the premise that an organization inquiring into problems will keep finding problems, but an organization attempting to appreciate what is best in itself will discover more and more that is good or being done well.

An appreciative inquiry was conducted March 2007 with stakeholders in the community to discuss what Opportunities for Employment Inc. does well.

Some of the responses heard from the appreciative inquiry by external referring agencies are as follows:

OFE is close to public transportation and being centrally located in town it is easily accessible by most participants.

OFE staff members have diverse backgrounds; there was appreciation for experience and education level of front line staff including facilitators and employment consultants.

OFE has put great effort into developing innovative and relevant curriculum. OFE has an appreciation for quality communication including case notes and

follow-up phone calls.


Steering CommitteeTo emphasize a team approach that builds organizational capacity, it was decided that a stakeholder approach to project development was most appropriate. For this reason a Steering Group was established and regular meetings of the Steering Committee were scheduled quarterly. Key indicators were discussed and ongoing results were reported over the course of the study.

It was determined that the Steering Group should include stakeholders representing: The Provincial Government (Manitoba Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade

and Manitoba Family Services and Consumer Affairs) Employment and Income Assistance OFE staff members SOC and MI practitioners Employers/Industry

Committee members included: Mitch Bourbonniere, Social Worker, Urban Circle. Crystal Desrosiers, Analyst, Manitoba Family Services and Housing. Rudy Dueck, Family Conciliation/Courts of Queens Bench, Family Services and

Housing. Joel Gervais, Prevention Education Consultant, Addictions Foundation of

Manitoba. Phillip Evans, Manager, Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade – Southwest

Centre. Sheryl Giesbrecht, Rehabilitation Worker, Rehabilitation and Recovery Services. Kaye Grant, Reconnaissance Management Consulting Group Inc., Consultant. Joanne Hunt, Program Coordinator, Employment MB – Entrepreneurship,

Training and Trade. Paul Klostermaier-Starkewski, Probation Officer, Manitoba Justice – Community

and Youth Corrections. Ron Linklater, Prevention Consultant, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. Shelley Sager, Project Officer, Employment MB – Entrepreneurship, Training and

Trade. Alex Sawatsky, Assistant Professor of Social Work, William and Catherine Booth

College. Sandy Smith, ADR Coordinator, RCMP. Cindy Trupish, Community Coordinator, Manitoba Food Processors Association. James Wasio, Coordinator of Patient Services, Selkirk Mental Health Centre –

Manitoba Health.

A Two Phase StudyThis project was originally planned as a one-phase study of the comparison of a Study group (treatment group) against a Control group with approximately 40 months of data collection. In January 2008 during the first review of the project by Proactive Information Services, Inc., the external evaluators contracted to examine the project processes and progress (from here on referred to as the evaluators), recommended


reworking the research project to include two phases. Based on past experience, the evaluators have observed that research projects, which were successful, tend to fail when an attempt was made to use the result of the research in a “real world” setting. Therefore, it made sense then to observe how the use of the Stages of Change (SOC) Model would hold up in a “real world” setting without incentives and incorporating the concept in daily programming.

As a result, the study was revised into two phases with an overlap in data collection allowing the first phase to continue through April 2009 and the second phase to start in September 2008. Phase II was a further development of the existing study and the logical progression to insure that the concepts developed could be passed on in a usable fashion to other agencies.

The key differences between Phase I and Phase II included the following:1. Removal of compensation stipends

It was thought the use of stipends may have kept attendance and assessment participation levels high, thus inflating results against what might be found without said stipends. It was planned that attendance rates would be studied so as to compare Phase I to Phase II to determine if stipends inflate attendance levels.

2. Introduction of a third workshop – The Preparation WorkshopThe SOC Model and MI both call for addressing the different issues facing people at each of the stages within the model. Therefore, a Preparation Workshop was introduced to assist participants in the Preparation stage.

3. Removal of random assignmentPhase II incorporated participants that would have been randomly assigned to the Control group or that chose not to participate if Phase I would have continued. This effectively more than doubled the number of people going through SOC Workshops and Motivational Interviews. It was intended that there would be a study if the additional stress on the existing programs would be feasible in a real world setting. Staff members were asked to provide qualitative data on the impact of the additional load put on the system. All possible attempts were made to make adjustments based on lessons learned.

4. Continuing to develop the SOC and MI Best Practices ManualIt was thought that the integration of the SOC Model and MI into a real world setting would provide a unique experience to create a more thorough and efficient Best Practices Manual.

5. Continuing to study employment rates, release rates, and six-month employment rates

Phase II numbers were to be compared against the results of both the Study and Control groups in Phase I. It was expected that Phase II numbers should remain consistent and should be equal or higher than Phase I numbers, and it was hoped that the increased workload and lack of stipends would not result in lower results.


6. Continuing the study of forward movement through the SOC ModelA shorter version of the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) was introduced for use in Phase II. The shorter version of the URICA is based on the original 32-item URICA used for Phase I. The items chosen for the shorter version were those most predictive and internally consistent of each of the individual stages. (See the URICA under the Apparatus sub-section of the Method section for details.)

Test Question (Phase I)As compared to a Control group, how does the application of the Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing to employee development impact participant’s movement within the Stages of Change (Pre-contemplation Contemplation, Preparation, Action and Maintenance)? Also, will the application of the SOC Model and MI result in decreased OFE program attrition rates, increased employment, and increased longitudinal employment retention rates?

Test Question (Phase II)As compared to Phase I Study group participants, will Phase II participant’s retention and employment rates remain consistent using the application of the SOC Model and Motivational Interviewing (MI)? (Based on time restrictions, six-month employment retention rates will be evaluated and are expected to remain consistent as well.)





Hypotheses (Phase I)

There were four possible results that were anticipated as an effect of participants being provided with the SOC Model and MI:

1. As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the Study group obtaining employment would be higher.

2. Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Control group, the percentage of the Study group still employed six months post hire would be higher.

3. As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the Study group leaving OFE programming would be lower.

4. Participants of the Study group that have been assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: SOC Workshop-1 (WS1), SOC Workshop-2 (WS2), Motivational Interview (MI).

Hypotheses (Phase II)

There were four anticipated results from the SOC/MI program that were studied:

1. As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group obtaining employment would be equal or greater. As compared to the Phase I Control group, the percentage of the Phase II group obtaining employment would be greater.

2. Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group still employed six months post hire would be equal or greater and as compared to the Phase I Control group, the percentage of the Phase II group still employed at six months would be greater.

3. As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group leaving OFE programming would be equal or lower and as compared to the Phase I Control group, the percentage of the Phase II group leaving programming would be lower.

4. A majority of participants of the Phase II group, that have been assessed with the URICA as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage, would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: WS1, WS2, MI. Those participants who were assessed, as being in Preparation would attend SOC Workshop-3 (WS3 or Preparation Workshop) and a majority would move further within the Preparation stage as reflected by a higher URICA total score.

Research Participants

For the duration of the study it was expected that approximately 800 individuals would be recruited into the project each year of active Intake for a total of 1600 to 2400 participants over the duration of the study. This included Study group and Control group


participants from all Stages of Change; participants who volunteered were randomly assigned to either the Study group or to the Control group, with roughly a 50-50 split.

Demographic MakeupHistorically, the demographics of OFE participants were typically Employment and Income Assistance (EIA) clients that usually fall into one or more of the following groups:

Chronically unemployed (long term unemployed) Clients of Aboriginal descent (over 50%) Single parents (mostly women) Clients with significant and multiple barriers to employment Members of the disabled community Ex-offenders Immigrants Youth

Findings from the voluntarily provided demographics of study participants indicate that the demographic makeup of OFE has changed some from the historical norm due to the change in funding which now allows virtually anyone employed less than 20 hours a week to attend programming. The following provides a glimpse at the makeup of OFE students that have participated in the research project (including both Phase I and Phase II).

Ages range from 17 to 70 (mean of 36.7) Slightly more are male (51%) 47% have no Social Assistance

o 5% are on Employment Insuranceo 48% are on Employment and Income Assistance (EIA)

37% have family members on EIA The majority is of Aboriginal ethnicity (59%)

o Of Aboriginal Peoples 60% are Status-Off Reserve The average amount of time without a full-time job is 17 months 37% are visible minorities Most are born in Canada (87%), with 13% Immigrants Most speak English as their “first” language (85%) The majority are neither married nor common-law partners (73%) 35% have children or are legal guardians

o 43% of those with children have children under the age of six and 71% under the age of 12

13% have a physical disability, 10% with a visible disability 23% have been diagnosed with mental health issues 13% have lost a job due to substance abuse 9% are concerned that a gambling habit may impact their career 29% are ex-offenders

o 60% with convictions are concerned their record will impact their career 4% admit to have been members of a gang 33% have been victims of domestic violence


Clientele for this project were recruited through a variety of advertising including: advertising in newspapers and community papers, posters, promotion to Case Coordinators at Family Services & Housing, referrals through existing clientele, through Winnipeg Public Transit (Buses and Bus Stops), and websites (including MBWorkinfonet).

Eligibility requirements included: being unemployed or underemployed (working less than 20 hours a week), being available for full-time or part-time (20+ hours per week) employment, being capable of attending OFE programming regularly (health, legal and child care issues were adequately addressed), and willing to make a commitment to participate in the research project.

Random Assignment Methodology (Phase I)Excel random assignment functions were used to create lists with a sequence of designations for either Study or Control groups to be given to each Employment Consultant. Lists were used by Employment Consultants to assign participants at the point when it had been decided that the client was eligible to participate in OFE Programming. It was intended that the random assignment be set for an even split within different OFE Programs so as to control for any bias that might occur if too many participants from one program, over another, were assigned to the Study group.

Assignment Methodology (Phase II)As part of OFE programming participants are invited to engage in SOC activities. In Phase I of the study, participation was voluntary and random assignment was used to form the Study and Control groups. In Phase II the model was incorporated to appear as part of regular OFE activities and all clients became participants; random assignment was eliminated and all OFE programming participants were incorporated into the SOC/MI Model allowing interventions for all participants. Without a Control group in Phase II outcomes were measured against both the Study and Control groups outcomes in Phase I.

Informed ConsentParticipation in Phase I of the study was voluntary. Prospective clients could choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time with no penalty. However, those choosing to withdraw could not return to the study at a later time. All information collected, as part of the study, has been kept confidential except where otherwise required by law.

It was important that potential participants be made aware of what would be asked of them and how they might benefit as participants in the study. Prospective clients were read a script with the details of what consent entailed during the regular OFE Intake process. A copy of this script was then provided to them to keep and refer to. Then all Intake attendees were asked to complete the consent form and indicate their intention to participate in the study or not.

During Phase II all participants were advised that there was an ongoing research study at OFE along with need to know details. A written consent was obtained as part of the OFE application form during the Intake process.


Compensation (Phase I)Participants deciding to participate in the research study, and that were eligible under OFE program policy, benefited from the study by way of compensation at specific points during the study. Payment of compensation was in the amount of $10 for completion of the SOC study Intake questionnaires, $15 to $25 for participation in designated workshops, interviews and questionnaires, $20 for completion of questionnaires after completion of OFE programming and after 3 months of consistent job searching, $25 for completion of a questionnaire after obtaining employment, $30 for participation in focus groups, and $50 for six-month post hire follow up interviews and questionnaires. Please be aware that compensation was paid after the completion of the questionnaire following the first Motivational Interview; participating in additional Motivational Interviews provided no additional compensation.

Compensation (Phase II)No compensation was given to participants for study activities in Phase II. This was considered to be a major change from Phase I and may or may not have had an impact on the results of the study.

Risk to Participants (Phase I)It was believed that risk to clients was held to a minimum. A large portion of participants (Control group and Study group that assessed as in Preparation stage) participated mostly through the completion of the URICA; this is simply a self-assessment of their SOC stage. Participants in the Study group that assessed as in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stages were asked to participate in activities that involved introspection and emotional awakening. There were no cases where a participant was observed or reported to have lasting negative effects as a result of these activities; if there had been, plans required that they were to be referred by the SOC/MI Facilitator to a therapist for counselling.

Though not a risk to participants, there was a downside to the Phase I procedures. In the interest of using the scientific method, procedures were created to conduct a controlled experiment that then necessitated the need for a control group that would not receive interventions. This provided strong evidence for a causal relationship, but it did preclude the use of possibly beneficial interventions with half of the Phase I participants. This was one of the reasons, combined with very favorable results earlier in the study, that there was a revision and move to Phase II where all participants could receive the interventions.

Risk to Participants (Phase II)It is believed that risk to participants was held to a minimum. All participants in Phase II participated through the periodic completion of the short form URICA; this is simply a self-assessment of their SOC stage. Participants in Phase II also participated in SOC Workshops and MI’s that include activities that involved introspection and emotional awakening. There were no cases where a participant was observed or reported to have lasting negative effects as a result of these activities; if there had been, plans required that they were to be referred by the SOC/MI Facilitator to a therapist for counselling.


Methodology Overview

This study applied the SOC Model in conjunction with MI in an attempt to elicit change in currently unemployed and underemployed job-seeking participants. Self-referred and/or agency-referred participants in the study were given a modified version of the URICA (a 32-item version for Phase I and a shorter 12-item version for Phase II). The URICA self-assessment tool is used to assess readiness for change. Copies of the URICAS are attached in Appendix 2 of this document.

The first assessment was given at Intake. At the first instance in which a participant’s URICA score was below the cut off, they were referred to SOC Workshop-1 (WS1). At the end of the workshop, participants were again to complete the URICA tool. If they again scored below the cut off, they were asked to attend SOC Workshop-2 (WS2); at the end of the second workshop, the group again completed the URICA self-assessment survey. Participants, who had completed both WS1 and WS2 and still scored below the cut off, were referred to the SOC/MI Facilitator for a Motivational Interview (MI) session. If participants scored above the cut off after completion of WS1 or WS2, they continued on with regular services in Phase I, or they were referred to SOC Workshop-3 (WS3 or Preparation Workshop) in Phase II.

For Phase II only, the first instance in which the participants scored above the cut off they were referred to WS3. If a participant recycled and scored below the cut off after WS3 they were referred to the next level of intervention that they had not received (WS1, WS2 or MI).

Additional sessions were provided for participants in various SOC stages upon request of an Employment Consultant (EC), by OFE Facilitators, the SOC/MI Facilitator or by self-referral if they wished to have an additional MI to prevent relapse. These sessions were also available to any person who had already recycled and needed support to assist them in returning to the Contemplation, Preparation, or Action stage in the SOC Model.

A participant who had completed the OFE training programs and had been employed for up to 6 months or a person who was unemployed but actively seeking employment through OFE programs was still eligible for MI sessions. The SOC/MI Facilitator corresponded with the participant’s EC and/or OFE Facilitator to ensure the person was still a qualified participant at OFE as per OFE policy.


Stimuli

SOC WS1In this three-hour workshop, designed for OFE participants who were identified through the use of the URICA as not being “ready, willing, and able” to obtain and sustain full-time meaningful employment, participants were introduced to the concept of the six Stages of Change (SOC). Participants explored their ambivalence, using a decisional balance exercise, the advantages and disadvantages of being employed and unemployed. Activities designed and used to facilitate forward movement in the SOC Model include emotional awakening, consciousness-raising, environmental re-evaluation, and self-re-evaluation. Participants also completed a post-workshop URICA.

SOC WS2Participants attended this three-hour workshop based on referral according to their self-assessment score obtained at the end of WS1. This workshop focused on the feelings of ambivalence that are common in the SOC cycle. This session included a brief review of SOC, and expanded on the concepts of emotions, stress, self-efficacy, and importance of self-confidence as related to change and to employment. Participants completed another URICA at the end of this session. It should be noted that this workshop was not used as extensively in Phase II due to a much lower need.

SOC WS3This was a new workshop added only as part of Phase II in order to ensure there were interventions that meet the needs of each individual at the stage they were currently in. This workshop was provided to all Phase II participants once they entered the Preparation stage addressing the unique issues facing people in the Preparation stage differing from those issues facing Pre-contemplative and Contemplate participants.

The lesson plan included a three-hour session designed as the third SOC Workshop (WS3 or Preparation Workshop). The workshop reviews and builds upon the SOC introduced in WS1 and WS2 and encourages participants to engage in discussions and exercises designed to focus on the SOC concepts in relation to work readiness. This workshop helped to facilitate participant movement into the Action stage of development.

Copies of the curriculum for the workshops are attached in Appendix 11.

The Participants with High Intake URICA's Attending/Not Attending Interventionstable below provides analysis results showing Phase I participants with high URICA scores at Intake with a breakdown for those that attended a SOC/MI Intervention and those that did not. Overall Study group and Control group numbers are also included for comparison. Results show an increase in employment rates for those that attended at least one intervention providing evidence that interventions may be needed for those participants in the Preparation stage.


Participants with High Intake URICA's Attending/Not Attending Interventions

Study Control

Intake URICA 80+ Intake URICA 80+ AllAttended an Intervention

Never Attended an Intervention

All Study Group Participants

N Employed 64 32 272 225% Employed within Group 62.1% 53.3% 63.0% 47.1%

Motivational Interviewing (MI)MI was developed by Miller and Rollnick (1991) and defined as a client-centered, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. It focuses on the person’s current interests and concerns and it is consciously directive in that an interviewer elicits and selectively reinforces change talk and also responds to resistance in a manner intended to extinguish it. MI is a communication method intended to move a person toward change, focusing on exploring and resolving ambivalence as a key to eliciting that change. Within MI, change arises through its relevance to the person’s own values and concerns (Miller and Rollnick, 2002).

The following is a depiction of a typical MI appointment:

Upon first meeting with an individual, the MI Facilitator seeks specific information as to why the person is attending the session, even if they were referred by an EC as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage. A list of questions as follows might be asked:

Facilitator: What brings you here today?Client: My EC said I had to come and talk to you.Facilitator: Why do you think they want you to talk with me?Client: They said I missed too much class time.Facilitator: So even though you were told you had to be here because of missing

class time, what are the concerns that you would like addressed today?

MI is generally divided into two levels (as described below) and uses the O.A.R.S. method (Miller and Rollnick, 2002). The O.A.R.S. method involves using (O) open-ended questions (A) affirming the participant’s viewpoint, (R) reflecting thoughts expressed back to the participant, and (S) summarizing issues discussed. The interviewer seeks to elicit change talk from the participant so that it is the participant who initiates talks about the idea of changing.

In Level I, the person is still likely to be below the URICA cut off (usually in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation SOC), and the facilitator attempts to gather information about the person’s employment situation and engages the client in an exploratory discussion. By using both listening and reflecting, the facilitator along with the participant explores and examines both the positive and negative sides to the person’s current employment state in an attempt to evoke a state of ambivalence about their current situation.


In Level II, the SOC/MI Facilitator will gauge at what SOC the person may be and based on the response given, (i.e. the existence of change talk) attempts to further engage with the client in negotiating a plan for change and focuses on the Preparation stage. Generally at the opening of the second MI, the SOC/MI Facilitator summarizes statements made by the person in the previous session in order to link the two sessions together:

“You stated last time that you felt ready to make a change regarding your employment as you weren’t happy with your present state of affairs. What will you do now?”

Together with the person, the SOC/MI Facilitator would proceed to formulate a workable plan for employment (thus transitioning into the Preparation stage) as led by the person, steering toward the Action stage.

Miller & Rollnick (2002) suggest that the more the participant talks about change, the higher the likelihood that change will occur. They suggest the following four sets of open questions to evoke change talk in individuals:

1. Disadvantages of the status quo (i.e. Being Unemployed)Facilitator: What difficulties or hassles have you had regarding

your unemployment?Client: I’m struggling to make ends meet all the time.Facilitator: Can you tell me in what areas you are struggling?Client: I can’t pay all of my bills and I’m worried I’ll get

evicted.

2. Advantages of change (i.e. Being Employed)Facilitator: What would be the good things about employment?Client: I could make more money and look after my family

better.Facilitator: That sounds like something that is important to you.Client: Yes, I really want to be able to provide the best for my

family.

3. Optimism about changeFacilitator: What personal strengths do you have that will help you

succeed?Client: I’m very determined when I set my mind to do

something.Facilitator: Sounds like you’re willing to see your job search through to

the end.Client: Yes I am.

4. Intention to changeFacilitator: What are you thinking about doing in your job search at this

point?Client: For starters, I’m going to update my resume.Facilitator: In what areas specifically are you interested in applying?


Client: Well I heard that the construction business is looking to hire a lot of people so I thought I’d try there first. I have some skills in building.

In addition, Miller and Rollnick (2002) suggested to further evoke change facilitators would ask clients two questions about their thoughts on an issues’ importance and confidence:

1. “How important is it for you to get a job?” 2. “How confident would you say you are, that if you decided to get a job, you

could do it?”

Participants rate their response on a Likert scale of one to ten, with zero indicating the item is of little importance and a score of 10 indicating the item is of high importance. Facilitators can then work with the person to generate a discussion about their responses:

“Why are you at a [higher number] and not zero?”“What would it take for you to go from ______ to [a higher number]?”

At the end of the first MI session, the person will complete another URICA. If the person self-assesses below the cut off, the SOC/MI Facilitator may suggest a second MI session by asking:

“Are you wanting to come back for a follow-up visit?”

If the person agrees to and attends the second session, the following questions may be asked to determine the status of the person’s situation in order to further the process:

“How did things go for you when you tried ______?”

If the person responds that their efforts were fruitful, they may wish to complete this MI session, complete a URICA and for now not reschedule any further visits.

If the person responds that their endeavors were unsuccessful, the facilitator may respond with:

“What will you try now?” - or -“What else do you think might be successful?”“Do you feel we need to meet again?”

If after completion of the session and another URICA the individual assessed below the cut off and wished to return for an additional session, similar follow-up questions as stated above might again be asked. The person may also have wished not to return for any further sessions. If the person at any time expressed issues that were beyond the scope of what an MI session can address, and if the person wished, appropriate resources were offered to them and, if requested, a referral made to an appropriate agency.

Registration of and attendance by participants was recorded and entered for each MI session into the research database for further study review.


The SOC Project Manager was trained to use the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Coding System (MITI). The MITI is a method for evaluating the quality of Motivational Interviewing from audiotapes and transcriptions of individual counselling sessions. The MITI has been used to document facilitator’s adherence to MI within clinical trial protocols and to provide detailed session feedback as part of the process of learning MI, including specific goals for improved skilfulness. Use of the MITI has resulted in higher internal consistency between facilitators helping to ensure participants receive quality assistance.

Apparatus (collection instrument)

OFE Intake Forms and Demographic FormsFor all participants, personal information was collected as part of the “regular” OFE Intake process through the use of a standardized in-house Intake form, and further information was collected through the use of a voluntary demographic form. Between these two forms data was collected for later analysis of a number of possible barriers to employment (e.g. history of family members that are/were recipients of income assistance, health issues, addictions, history of domestic/family violence, criminal record, etc.). Using this data we were able to determine a partial demographic makeup of OFE clients (see Demographic Makeup under the Research Participants section), as well as measure the effectiveness of the SOC/MI Model for each of these groups (see the Demographic Results under the Evaluation Data Analysis section).

In order to standardize responses to questions from participants as they completed the form, Intake staff members were provided with a list of defined terms used in the demographic questionnaire. Copies of the demographic form and the related list of defined terms are attached in Appendix 3 of this document.

URICAA modified version of the URICA (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale) was given to clients at various points in the study process in an attempt to measure the Stage of Change that the client was in at that time. The URICA used in Phase I was a 32-item self-report measure that included 4 subscales measuring these Stages of Change: Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, and Maintenance. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Scores for the subscales were determined by adding the Likert scale values of all items in that subscale. The subscale with the highest score indicated the Stage of Change most reflected in the thoughts of the participant. Subscales scores were also combined (C + P + M – PC) to yield a second-order continuous Readiness to Change score. A cutoff of 80 on the Readiness to Change score was used to determine if participants needed further interventions.

A revised short-form version of the URICA, based on the 32-item URICA used in Phase I, was given to clients at the same points in the study process during Phase II. The revised short-form URICA is a 12-item self-report measure that includes 3 subscales measuring these Stages of Change: Pre-contemplation, Contemplation and Preparation. Responses and subscale scoring were the same in this version as the 32-item version, however the second-order continuous Readiness to Change score was computed in the following manner (C + (P*2) – PC). A cutoff of 40 on the Readiness to Change score was used to determine if participants needed further interventions.


Specific Procedures

An abbreviated outline of the process flow is provided below. For details on compensation amounts, referred to in the outline below, refer back to the participant compensation section.

Prospective participants attend an OFE information/Intake sessiono After the Intake presentation attendees were informed of the study o Attendees were then asked to sign consent to participate in the studyo Instructions and forms for the URICA were provided o Participants were asked to fill out the SOC assessment and then other

Intake formso SOC staff were available to help answer questions and assist those

needing help with any of the SOC formso As participants completed the URICA, staff reviewed their assessment

and noted the stage and Readiness to Change scoreo Intake attendees then met with an EC and completed the regular OFE

Intake process including scheduling for OFE serviceso All attendees accepted into OFE were accepted as research participantso Participants that scored below the cut off were scheduled to attend WS1o Participants that scored above the cut off were scheduled to attend regular

OFE services in Phase I or to attend WS3 in Phase IIo A list of those participants scheduled to attend WS1 or WS3 was used for

tracking purposes and as an attendance sheet at WS1 and WS3 SOC WS1

o SOC/MI Facilitator introduced self to group to welcome them to WS1o Participants completed WS1o Participants completed a URICA which was reviewed by the SOC/MI

Facilitator, SOC EC, or backup who noted the participant’s stage and Readiness to Change score

o If participants self-assessed below the cut off, they were scheduled to attend WS2

o If participants self-assessed above the cut off, they proceeded to their regular scheduled OFE services, or to WS3 if part of Phase II and they had not attended WS3 previously

SOC WS2o SOC/MI Facilitator introduced self to group to welcome them to WS2o Participants completed WS2o Participants completed a URICA which was reviewed by the SOC/MI


o If participants self-assessed below the cut off, they were scheduled to attend a MI

o If participants self-assessed above the cut off, they proceeded to their regular scheduled OFE services, or to WS3 if part of Phase II and they had not attended WS3 previously


SOC WS3o SOC/MI Facilitator introduced self to group to welcome them to WS3o Participants completed WS3o Participants completed a URICA which was reviewed by the SOC/MI


o If participants self-assessed below the cut off, they were scheduled to attend the lowest level of intervention that they had yet to attend (WS1, WS2, or MI)

o If participants self-assessed above the cut off, they proceeded to their regular scheduled OFE services

Participants Attended and Completed Regular OFE Serviceso Participants completed a URICA that was provided and scored by the

OFE EC they were assigned to through the OFE program. Participants self-assessing below the cut off were referred to lowest level intervention not yet attended (WS1, WS2, or MI)

o All participants that self-assessed above the cut off continued with their regular scheduled OFE job search activities

o It should be noted that class instructors could refer a participant to attend a SOC/MI Intervention if the instructor observed a lack of motivation (e.g. tardiness, non-attendance, refusal to participate in class or do assignments, talking in class out of turn, etc.)

Job Searcho Once participants began Job Searching, their assigned EC would connect

with them periodically for customary OFE assistanceo Once participants were in Job Search, the SOC/MI Facilitator met weekly

with participants for a short time (approximately 5-10 minutes) to check for possible indications of Recycling

o If the possibility of Recycling was noted by the SOC/MI Facilitator, they were scheduled to attend the lowest level SOC/MI intervention that they had yet to attend

o A weekly report was generated noting if two or more days of unexcused absences occurred. If two or more unexcused absences were noted, the participant was scheduled by their EC to the lowest level of SOC activity that they had yet to attend as described above

Employment Foundo Participant reported to their EC when they had secured employmento Once a participant reported securing employment they were asked to

complete a URICAo Participants could either elect to have the EC administer the URICA to

them over the phone, or they could schedule a time to come in and self-administer the URICA in the presence of either their EC or the SOC EC

Post 6-months of Obtaining Employmento EC’s attempted to keep in contact with participants for six months after

employment was secured as per normal OFE procedureo Post 6-months of securing employment the participant’s assigned EC

asked the participant to complete a URICA


o Participants could either elect to have the EC administer the URICA to them over the phone, or they could schedule a time to come in and self-administer the URICA in the presence of either their EC or the SOC ECOn occasion a member of the research team would travel to the

participant’s place of employment to obtain the URICA if the participant’s schedule did not allow for the assessment to be obtained in another manner

o EC’s had a time limit of one month to contact participant to administer the URICA, otherwise planned assessment was dropped

Participants Scheduled to MIo Participants found to have recycled with the URICA, those who had not

advanced to a motivated stage after attending WS1 and WS2, or those who had been assessed through observation by either the SOC/MIFacilitator or their Class Instructor as being unmotivated were scheduled for an individual one-on-one MI with the SOC/MI Facilitator

o Participant met with the SOC/MI Facilitator to conduct an MIo Participants then completed an URICA which was reviewed by the

SOC/MI Facilitator or SOC EC who noted the participant’s stage and Readiness to Change score

o If participants self-assessed below the cut off, they were scheduled to attend another MI

o If participants self-assess above the cut off, they proceeded to theirregular scheduled OFE services

o Additional MI sessions were available to participants by self-referral or by referral from an Employment Consultant for up to six months after the participant secured employment





Quantitative DataQuantitative data was collected in the form of a series of standardized questionnaires including the URICA, and standard OFE required data collection already in place. The standard OFE required data collection included demographics and background information as well as job placement and retention.

Participants’ on-going involvement was a major performance indicator central to the objectives of this project. Successful completion by project participants of each of the major components or steps of programming was tracked. Retention after each component meant that the participant had successfully completed services at that time, SOC assessments were being undertaken to monitor any changes to the stage the client was in. Data was collected based on the participants’ self-assessments through the URICA. It should be noted that project staff made participant referrals to SOC/MI interventions if various key indicators were observed during regular services, independent of SOC self-assessment scores.

Analysis of Quantitative DataThe relationship between participation in SOC activities and obtaining and maintaining employment was the primary objective of this study. The quantitative data analyses to determine these relationships were primarily from the analysis using the following variables.

Dependant Variableso Overall URICA Readiness to Change scores (above or below cutoff)o Highest URICA subscale score (current level in the Stages of Change

Model)o If gainful employment was obtainedo Elapsed time until employment was obtainedo If employment was still retained post 6-months of hire date

Independent Variableso Participation in SOC/MI Interventions

Participation in WS1 Participation in WS2 Participation in MI Participation in WS3

Qualitative DataCollection of qualitative data was considered to be an integral part of research procedure and occurred throughout both Phase I and II. The collection of qualitative data throughout the study allowed for improvements in the procedures that provided the opportunity for advancements to build on each other.

Qualitative data came primarily from the review of audiotape transcripts made during focus groups and occasional MI’s, from case notes taken by the SOC/MI Facilitator and SOC EC, notes and observations from workshops, from satisfaction surveys provided to OFE staff, participants and the Steering Committee, from quarterly meetings from the Steering Committee, and from observations made by the SOC Research Team.


Participant Focus GroupsOne of the objectives of the study was to achieve stakeholder satisfaction. A key element to this study’s qualitative data collection was a series of focus groups in which small groups of participants met with the SOC Researcher to discuss responses to the project. The use of focus groups provided a balanced forum where the researcher could choose specific topics to discuss and help steer conversation to stay on track, while at the same time allowed participants to freely express themselves. The interaction of responses between participants brought an element of synergy to qualitative data collection that open-ended questionnaires do not. The SOC Researcher acted as a moderator and director for the discussion, controlling flow, redirecting off topic conversation, and provoking responses from less engaged participants.

Focus groups were conducted quarterly with participants. There were approximately 10 participants attending each focus group meeting, or approximately 5% of the total 800 annual participants. Traditional duration of focus groups was in the two-hour range; this study performed two-hour discussions but had allowed time to go over if discussion appears to be fruitful. The topics for discussion during the focus groups centered on participant’s experiences with OFE programming and SOC activities. Participants were asked to talk about the facets that were most valuable, least constructive, and thoughts on improvements. Discussions also delved into the participant’s feelings or expectations of success and if there was anything that could be done to help them achieve success not already provided.

Motivational Interviewing and WorkshopsMotivational Interviews were audio-recorded with participant approval, and coded by the SOC Project Manager. The SOC/MI Facilitators take notes during intermittent observations of participants during SOC Workshops; this helps to pinpoint any consistent items or running themes. Discovery of key reoccurring elements during these activities allowed for a better understanding of participant’s responsiveness to the activities and also facilitated the preparation of future training materials.

Exit InterviewsExit interviews were originally planned for this study when participants left OFE services prior to finding employment, but attempts were halted due to the minimal number of people withdrawing from the study and the difficulty to obtain data at this point (e.g. unable to contact participant).

Analysis of Qualitative DataFor the analysis of qualitative data, there were regular meetings of the SOC Research Team to discuss the above-mentioned collected items, and improvements to the processes were made. The Best Practices Document reflects the culmination of these efforts. Please refer to Table 17 on pages 85 to 97 for a summary of the qualitativedata collected during participant interventions and subsequent lessons learned.

Study EvaluationInterim reports of ongoing research, in addition to monthly activity reports, were produced every six months outlining the project’s progress and results. These reports were circulated to OFE staff for their examination, and reviewed at staff meetings. The


SOC/MI Steering Committee also received and reviewed the six-month reports and was invited to meetings specifically called to discuss the results. Lessons learned provided direction for producing a Best Practices Manual to allow for implementing the SOC Model and MI process elsewhere.

To confirm and maintain objectivity and quality of the project an independent External Evaluator conducted annual examinations of the research project. The external examiner came to OFE and evaluated the experimental design, project processes, the progress of the project, analysis results as well as reports and made suggestions for improvement. Please refer to Appendix 13 for a copy of the final external evaluation.

Regular review of procedures and instruments were ongoing throughout the study. It was hoped that through this review that all elements of the SOC implementation process were refined as much as possible. Work on a Best Practices Document resulted in a product that honed the interventions and processes for use by other organizations in the future.

In order to create a Best Practices model, that best served those participating in employment development programs, a client satisfaction survey was conducted quarterly. Comments were reviewed for possible changes in the program and there was a comparative study conducted between Phases I and II.

Collection of Feedback from OFE Staff MembersIn order to assure a smooth transition into the project, acceptance of OFE staff members, and to tap into the knowledge of the whole OFE organization to improve on research procedures, it was decided that it was necessary to be in constant communication with all members of the OFE organization and to request their feedback. OFE staff members communicated with the Research Team about project related issues on daily bases. The variety of topics that they brought up for discussion included:

Client Progress (e.g. Workshop and Intervention Attendance) Enquiring if a participant belonged to the Control or Study group Details about the project and how to be more involved Data collection tools Project activities Reports Budget Policies/Practices

If staff members had any concerns, the Research Team was able to find solutions to their problems. If in doubt about any specific topic, an individual member on the Research Team would direct people to the appropriate team member who would be of further assistance.

A list of some example topics addressed through the collection of feedback from OFE staff members is attached in Appendix 4.





Sunsetting StrategyA hoped for project goal and objective included the integration of SOC and MI principles, concepts and processes, which were found to be effective, into the regular programming of the organization after the study had been completed. A proposed Sustainability Plan is provided at the end of this report that details how this might be achieved.

The exit strategy for the study attempted to ensure that research participants would be treated in a respectful manner that reduced the possibility of any negative impact to a minimum or none, both during and after the conclusion of the project. Intake of new research participants ended just into the third quarter of the last year of the project. At the end of the research program, any participants who had not obtained employment but continued to demonstrate the desire to be employed continued to receive the assistance needed to achieve their employment goals through regular OFE services.

Study Summary ObjectivesBy the end of this study it was hoped that the following five items would have been achieved:

1. To move unemployed Pre-contemplative and Contemplative individuals forward through the Stages of Change.

2. To achieve greater participant retention rates throughout the program.3. To achieve greater rates of participants moving into or towards employment.4. To achieve greater rates of employment retention over a 6-month period.5. To achieve stakeholder satisfaction in the quality of the delivery of the project.

All five of these objectives were met successfully as evident by the results in the analysis section. Above all though, this was a research study. While the above objectives were desirable outcomes, it was not the end of what was hoped to be achieved. Pitfalls or holes in the plan to implement SOC and MI into job preparedness services proved to be minimal to non-existent as evident by the reviews of the external evaluator. The few instances where plans needed improvement proved that it was as important to learn what did not work as it was to learn what did work.

OutputsThe following section describes a variety of outputs from the study, which will aid in thesustainability of interventions and in the knowledge transfer process as the information is disseminated.

Database for Data CollectionAdditions were made to the existing OFE Access database for collection of personal information and demographics and an Excel spreadsheet to track participant assessments.

Workshop CurriculumMaterials were developed with the intention to move participants through the Stages of Change using MI. For more information please refer to Appendix 11.


Assessment ToolThe University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) is the most prevalently employed assessment in fields where the SOC Model is applied. A modified version of the URICA was created for this study making each of the 32 items specific to job seekers. A shorter 12-item version on the URICA was also produced for use in Phase II. These assessments were conducted regularly at strategic points in the study.

Best Practices The purpose of the Best Practices Document was to support organizations in integrating the Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing interventions into regular programming. The document was used for staff training and general knowledge transfer. The first edition of the Best Practices Manual reflected the observations, challenges and successes of the first six months of the research and Stages of Change programming currently in place at OFE. The second edition also included a description of Motivational Interviewing, the tools used in the research project, an explanation of the workshops that were developed, an integration plan, challenges faced, lessons learned and a Stages of Change graphic representation. A copy of the Best Practices Document is attached in Appendix 5.

Stages of Change WheelAs a visual tool, and part of dissemination, a Stages of Change wheel was developed.The wheel has all of the six stages and interventions to use with each stage. The employment development version of the SOC wheel, created by OFE, can be seen in the Best Practices Document located in Appendix 5.

WebsiteA website was developed for knowledge transfer. The website can be found at the following web address: http://www.ofe.ca/research.asp and includes the following sub-pages as links: Innovation in Manitoba, Project History, Test Question, The Stages of Change Model, Interventions, Motivational Interviewing, Study Results, Testimonials, Steering Committee, Best Practices.

Resources are also available at the following web address: http://www.ofe.ca/resources.asp and include the following files: SOC - Research Project Brochure, Best Practices Brochure, Innovations In Manitoba, Contact Information, About the Research Project, Steering Committee, Contributors, and Funders.

VideoAs part of the dissemination strategy, an eight-minute video was created detailing key points in the research study, made available to interested groups, and has been made available on the website: http://www.ofe.ca/default.asp?ofe_home=Videos.

Integration ProcessPlease refer to the Sustainability Plan section on pages 115 to 123 for details on how SOC and MI practices are integrated at OFE.

http://www.ofe.ca/research.asp

http://www.ofe.ca/resources.asp

http://www.ofe.ca/default.asp?ofe_home=Videos


Information Sharing and Knowledge TransferKnowledge transfer is a process for intentionally translating work experience into shared common knowledge (Dixon, 2000). Individuals in the employment and community development fields and related organizations have shown interest in the SOC/MI project. There have been inquiries asking to share research findings and Best Practices implementation plans as well as requests for knowledge transfer from other like-minded agencies in both Canada and the United States. Under acknowledged legal co-ownership of copyright, HRSDC and Opportunities for Employment Inc. have legal authority to disseminate results to participating stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments and third parties, to support the sharing of Best Practices and knowledge transfer.

OFE has designed the following ways to facilitate knowledge transfer: Research Best Practices Document Presentations Website development Articles submitted for publication

The SOC Model and MI will be applied by OFE upon completion of the study.

The Best Practices Document for the project has been printed and distributed to the Steering Committee and to funders. The document is used for staff training and general knowledge transfer.

Information is shared with government and similar agencies in order to collaborate and to encourage the testing of new and creative ideas for employment development. A website was developed to disseminate project findings and resources.

There have been 42 presentations made for the purposes of dissemination of project results. To date, a collective audience of over 1250 people have attended a presentation on the study. For a detailed list and map of these locations please see Appendix 6.

An article has been written and is under review for publication by The Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science.

Governance Structure and Service Delivery OFE Inc. was incorporated in Manitoba as a non-profit corporation in 1996. The Executive Director is appointed by the OFE Board of Directors and is accountable to the Board for the operation of the corporation. The Board of Directors acts in an advisory capacity to the operation of the organization.

The research project was delivered within the parameters of the contracts with Pan-Canadian Innovation Initiatives and Manitoba Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade.

A Steering Committee that included government representatives (Family Services, Employment Manitoba, and Human Resources and Social Development Canada), EIA staff, OFE staff, researchers and other SOC practitioners was established and regular


meetings of the Steering Committee were held quarterly. Key indicators were discussed and ongoing results were reported over the course of the study.

An annual external evaluation was completed and regular reports were sent to funders and stakeholders. A copy of the final external evaluation report is attached in Appendix 13.

OFE’s programs and services provided a foundation for a continuum of services. Development and implementation of interventions and procedures based on the concepts, principles and processes of SOC and MI as an innovative approach, was then integrated into the existing service delivery model. Project participants had access to regular OFE employment assistance services under a current service agreement with the Manitoba Government. The services, under the proposal, included the SOC assessments (URICA), interventions (Workshops and MI’s), and an increased awareness of participant motivation on the part of staff.




IMPORTANT NOTE:Study group participants that were scheduled to a SOC/MI intervention and that did not attend are for all intensive purposes no different from the Control group. Report numbers reflect the removal of the data from these participants, where their inclusion would have produced a less than accurate reflection of the SOC/MI Model’s actual influence. The analyses that were impacted include the Engaged Participant numbers, OFE Release Rates, Employment Rates, and the Six-Month Employment Retention Rates.

OBJECTIVES:Participant Total Objective:During Phase I of the study it was expected that approximately 800 individuals would be recruited into the project each year; with Phase I having 15 months of Intake data collection (March 27, 2007 through August 27, 2008) this would be a total of 1000 Phase I participants. This includes Study group and Control group participants in various stages of seeking and maintaining employment. The participants were randomly assigned to either the SOC/MI Study group or to the Control group, with roughly a 50-50 split.

Table 1a

The number of participants that have volunteered and completed the Intake URICA is 1403 (140% of the targeted total) with a random assignment distribution of 50.7% assigned to the Study group and 49.3% assigned to the Control group; that is 711 Study group participants and 692 Control group participants.

All participants are entered into the OFE Intake Database, but only those that were accepted into OFE programming were merged onto OFE’s ‘Main Database’. There were 643 Study group participants and 629 Control group participants merged onto the Main Database (127% of the targeted total).

The records of those participants that met all appropriate criteria, and after controlling for releases where the participant did not start, left 432 Study group participants and 478 Control group participants for a 47.5/52.5% distribution (91% of the targeted total). Participants taking part in SOC/MI research at Intake and point of OFE program acceptance exceeded the target considerably, but those that engaged in the full SOC/MI research were slightly less than the targeted number.

Recruitment Point

Intake Accepted EngagedGroup Study Count 711 643 432

% within Recruitment Point 50.7% 50.6% 47.5%

Control Count 692 629 478


Total Count 1403 1272 910



During Phase II of the Study it is expected that an additional 800 individuals would be recruited into the project each year; with Phase II having 12 months of Intake data collection (September 3, 2008 through August 31, 2009) this would be an expected total of 800 Phase II participants. This includes all participants in various stages of seeking and maintaining employment. Totals exceed expectations at all points of recruitment; see Table 1b below for actual numbers.

Table 1b

The number of participants that have volunteered and completed the Intake URICA is 1409 (176% of the targeted total). All participants are entered into the OFE Intake Database, but only those that were accepted into OFE programming were merged onto OFE’s ‘Main Database’. There were 1230 Phase II participants merged onto the Main Database (154% of the targeted total). The records of those participants that met all appropriate criteria and after controlling for releases where the participant did not start programming left 992 participants (124% of the targeted total). Participants taking part in Phase II of the SOC/MI research exceeded the target considerably at all points.

Table 1c

Table 1c represents the total number of participants taking part in the study in one form or another from both phases of the project. It can be seen that there was a considerable number of participants; from over 2800 being assessed through Intake and of those over 1900 engaged as active members of the research project. When combining the Phase I Study group and the Phase II group there were 1424 participants that took part in one or more SOC/MI interventions as part of this project over the 30 active months of the study.

Recruitment Point

Intake Accepted EngagedGroup Phase II Count 1409 1230 992

Recruitment Point

Intake Accepted EngagedCombined Phase I & II Count 2812 2502 1902


Phase I Test Question:As compared to a Control group, how does the application of the Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing to employee development impact participant’s movement within the Stages of Change Model (Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, and Maintenance)? Also, will the application of the SOC Model and MI result in decreased OFE program attrition rates, increased employment, and increased longitudinal employment retention rates?

Hypotheses: There were four possible results that were anticipated as an effect of participants being provided with the SOC/MI program that was studied.

1. As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group obtaining employment would be higher.

2. Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group still employed six months post hire would be higher.

3. As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group leaving OFE programming would be lower.

4. Participants of the SOC/MI Study group that have been assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: SOC/MI Workshop-1, SOC/MI Workshop-2, Motivational Interview.


Hypothesis 1As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group obtaining employment would be higher.

For analysis purposes, participants were considered as having found employment if there was documentation to support employment since the onset of the Study. Of those participants in the Study group, 272 (63.0%) were employed, and of those in the Control group, 225 (47.1%) were employed.

Table 2Employed

No Yes Total

Count 160 272 432Study

% within Group 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%

Count 253 225 478

Group

Control

% within Group 52.9% 47.1% 100.0%

Count 413 497 910Total

% within Group 45.4% 54.6% 100.0%

The following observations can be made of the data shown above: There is a 15.9% difference between the within group rates in favor of the Study

group or a 21% increase in total participants employed.o The approximated significance for this difference is highly significant at

0.00000152.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Employed

Study

Control


Hypothesis 2Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group still employed six months post hire would be higher.

Table 3 below represents the number and percentage of participants that found one or more jobs and maintained employment for a continuous six months. For the purposes of analysis, continuous means that there was no more than a 14 day gap between jobs; it is believed that 14 days is a reasonable amount of time off between jobs without being excessive as some people take time off when they find a new or better job.

IMPORTANT NOTE:The participants used to calculate these numbers includes only participants whoseemployment dates we were able to confirm with employers. This is a departure from all past reports where employment dates were based solely on self reports by participants, but it is believed that this is a much more accurate reflection of employment retention. The details of this confirmation follow:

A time consuming effort was recently conducted and completed to contact all employers in order to have an independent confirmation of participant employment dates. Of all Phase I participants that found employment, we were able to confirm 85% of the Study group and 91% of the Control group employment dates. The majority of those that were not confirmed were either due to refusal from the company contacted (even with a consent form signed by the participants to release this information) or insufficient information such as not knowing the location (too many locations for one company such as McDonalds) or position (department needed to process request), or no return contact from employers after multiple attempts. As this effort was recently conducted and data was collected up until April of 2009, all Phase I participants that were employed had the possibility of having been employed for six months or longer and thus all participants were included. It is possible however that due to data collection ending in April of this year for Phase I that participants could have possibly found additional jobs that we have not accounted for.

Table 3Employed after Six

Months

No Yes Total


% within Group 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%

Count 95 109 204

Group

Control

% within Group 46.6% 53.4% 100.0%


% within Group 41.5% 58.5% 100.0%


The following observations can be made of the data shown above:

Of all of the participants that found employment, a larger percentage of the Study group maintained continuous employment for at least six months. The within group percentages provide an increase of 9.5% in employment retention for the Study group.

o The approximated significance for this difference is significant at 0.045Please refer to notes for Table 3a for comment on this.

When considering that there are more participants in the Study group finding employment in the first place, the number of Study group participants maintaining six months of employment is a considerable 34% more than the Control group.

While Table 3 above uses only those participants that found employment, Table 3a below shows the six-month continuous employment rate in relation to all engaged participants. These numbers are based on the same confirmed employment dates used in Table 3.

Table 3aEmployed after Six

Months

No Yes Total


% within Group 66.2% 33.8% 100.0%

Count 369 109 478

Group

Control

% within Group 77.2% 22.8% 100.0%


% within Group 72.0% 28.0% 100.0%


Of all of the participants that engaged in employment assistance services, a larger percentage of the Study group maintained continuous employment for at

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Employed Six Months or Longer

Study

Control


least six months. The within group percentages provide an increase of 11.0% in employment retention for the Study group.The approximated significance for this difference is highly significant at 0.000399

This shows that overall there was a significant difference between the Study and Control groups, when only taking into account those that were employed and when considering the research groups in whole.

Hypothesis 3As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group leaving OFE programming would be lower.

Of those in the Study group, 183 participants, or 42.4% were released (SD .495) and of those in the Control group, 258 participants, or 54.0% were released (SD .499). Table 4 below provides release numbers and percentages for each group.

Table 4Released

No Yes Total


% within Group 57.6% 42.4% 100.0%

Count 220 258 478

Group

Control

% within Group 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%


% within Group 51.5% 48.5% 100.0%


These percentages help to substantiate the positive effect that participating in SOC/MI interventions might have on motivation to continue participation in OFE programming.

The 11.6% difference between the Study group and the Control group in retention rates has widened from the 7.9% reported in the first interim report.

o The approximated significance for this difference is highly significant at 0.00046.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

EAS Releases

Study

Control


Hypothesis 4Participants of the SOC/MI Study group that have been assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: SOC/MI Workshop-1, SOC/MI Workshop-2, Motivational Interview. Tables 5-9 that follow show results for SOC movement.

The Effect of Each Intervention on Number of Participants in Each StageTable 5 was generated from the records of those participants that were introduced to one or more of the SOC/MI interventions. Using the participant’s highest URICA subscale score we may view how many participants are in each stage after successive SOC/MI interventions.

Table 5

Stage

Pre-cont Cont Prep Maint Total

Count 1 306 152 16 475Intake

% within APoint .2% 64.4% 32.0% 3.4% 100.0%

Count 0 222 228 18 468WS1

% within APoint .0% 47.4% 48.7% 3.8% 100.0%

Count 0 113 158 20 291WS2

% within APoint .0% 38.8% 54.3% 6.9% 100.0%

Count 0 57 113 5 175MI

% within APoint .0% 32.6% 64.6% 2.9% 100.0%

Count 1 19 63 6 89MI-2

% within APoint 1.1% 21.3% 70.8% 6.7% 100.0%

Count 0 12 33 1 46MI-3

% within APoint .0% 26.1% 71.7% 2.2% 100.0%

Count 0 2 14 2 18MI-4

% within APoint .0% 11.1% 77.8% 11.1% 100.0%

Count 0 2 1 0 3MI-5

% within APoint .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% 100.0%

Count 0 0 1 0 1

APoint

MI-6

% within APoint .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0%Note: Assessment Points: Intake, Workshop-1, Workshop-2, and Motivational Interviews are successiveNote: The total in Intake is higher than WS1 due to people inadvertently scheduled for WS2 or a MI, missing WS1



Of the 475 participants involved in one or more interventions, 307 were Pre-Contemplative or Contemplative at Intake. After Workshop-1, only 222 participants were still Contemplative. After Workshop-2 this number reduces to 113, and with the addition of the first Motivational Interview the total is further reduced to 57 Contemplative participants.

o Reducing the number of participants at Pre-contemplation or Contemplation from 307 at Intake down to 57 after the first MI is a reduction of 81%.

o The number of participants needing additional Motivational Interviews continues to drop after each successive MI after the first.

As the interventions are successive and build on principles brought forward in the earlier interventions, it is likely that their influence compounds, possibly resulting in the need for fewer numbers of participants needing the higher-level interventions.


Study Group Stage Movement After Each Intervention LevelTable 6 was generated from the records of those same participants in Table 5 to determine participant’s positive or negative movement through the Stages of Change Model as defined by their highest URICA subscale score after successive SOC/MI interventions.

Whereas Table 5 shows the number and percentage of Study group participants as a whole, Table 6 shows individual increase or decrease in stage placement.

Table 6

Stage Movement

Negative Within Stage Positive TotalCount 54 280 134 468WS1

% within Group 11.54% 59.83% 28.63% 100.00%Count 52 161 78 291WS2

% within Group 17.87% 55.33% 26.80% 100.00%Count 29 109 37 175MI

% within Group 16.57% 62.29% 21.14% 100.00%Count 13 53 23 89MI-2




% within Group 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 100.00%Count 0 1 0 1

APoint

MI-6

% within Group 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%Note: Assessment Points: Workshop-1, Workshop-2, and Motivational Interviews are successive

The following observation can be made of the data shown above: A higher percentage of Study group participants were measured as having

positive movement within the stages over the percentage of those measured as having negative movement following the first four SOC/MI interventions.

Those participants that are scheduled for the largest number of Motivational Interviews are the most ambivalent about employment or hardest to motivate, it is therefore not surprising that most of those attending a fourth or fifth intervention show little positive movement.


Cross Group Comparison After Program CompletionWhereas Tables 5 and 6 were indicators of placement or movement only with the Study group, Tables 7 and 8 are indicators of placement and movement for comparison of the Study group against the Control group at two critical points where they are both given assessments, after completion of programming (before onset of job search), and after securing employment.

Table 7 was generated from the records of those participants in both the Study and Control groups that have completed OFE programming to obtain statistics on the number of participant’s in each of the Stages of Change as defined by the highest URICA subscale score. This allows for comparison of participants in each stage at a point common to both groups.

Table 7

Stage

APoint Pre-cont Cont Prep Maint Total

Count 1 80 31 3 115Study

% within Group .9% 69.6% 27.0% 2.6% 100.0%

Count 0 68 28 6 102

Intake Group

Control

% within Group .0% 66.7% 27.5% 5.9% 100.0%

Count 2 31 77 5 115Study% within Group 1.7% 27.0% 67.0% 4.3% 100.0%Count 0 41 56 5 102

Prog Comp Group

Control

% within Group .0% 40.2% 54.9% 4.9% 100.0%

The following observation can be made of the data shown above: A high percentage of Study group participants moved from Pre-contemplation &

Contemplation to Preparation & Maintenance; the percentage of Control group participants moving from Pre-contemplation & Contemplation to Preparation & Maintenance also increased but not to the extent that the Study group did.

o Though there is a visible difference in percentages at the Program Completion point the approximated significance for this difference is only 0.114.


Cross Group Comparison After EmploymentTable 8 shows the comparison of participants at two stages and includes only those participants that have assessments at the point of securing employment. The assessments collected for subsequent jobs secured are included to provide a more complete view of stage placement at the point of employment thus resulting in more Job Secured assessments than Intake assessments.

Table 8Stage



% within Group .5% 65.2% 31.9% 2.4% 100.0%

Count 0 131 47 10 188

Intake Group

Control

% within Group .0% 69.7% 25.0% 5.3% 100.0%


JobSec Group

Control

% within Group 3.7% 11.5% 79.7% 5.1% 100.0%Note: The total numbers at Job Secured are slightly higher than total Intake numbers due to participants finding more than one job. The numbers in Table 8 are higher than Table 7 in part due to participants finding employment before completion of training.

The following observation can be made of the data shown above: A higher percentage of Study group participants moved from Pre-contemplation

or Contemplation to Preparation or Maintenance over the Control group. Both groups have higher numbers of participants in Preparation or Maintenance once employment was secured as compared to Intake; however, the percentage of Study group participants in Preparation or Maintenance is still larger than the Control group.

o Though there is a visible difference in percentages at the Job Secured point the approximated significance for this difference is only 0.945.


Cross Group Comparison After Six Months of EmploymentTable 9 was generated from the records of those participants in both the Study and Control groups that we have been able to assess at Intake, at the securing of employment and after six months of “continuous” employment. The highest URICA subscale score was used to obtain the number of participants in each of the stages. This allows for comparison of participants in each stage at three points common to both groups. Intake, Job Secured and Six-Month Employment assessment numbers are all provided to allow for comparison.

Table 9Stage


Count 54 20 2 76Study

% within Group 71.1% 26.3% 2.6% 100.0%

Count 48 15 4 67

Intake Group

Control

% within Group 71.6% 22.4% 6.0% 100.0%


JobSec Group

Control

% within Group 7.5% 9.0% 83.6% .0% 100.0%


% within Group 6.6% 13.2% 76.3% 3.9% 100.0%

Count 4 12 47 4 67

6Month Emp Group

Control% within Group 6.0% 17.9% 70.1% 6.0% 100.0%

The following observation can be made of the data shown above: Though both groups advanced to a high percent at the Preparation stage after

finding a job, a higher percentage of the Study group participants remained in Preparation or Maintenance at the Six-Month assessment.

o Though there is a visible difference in percentages at the Six Months of Employment point the approximated significance for this difference is only 0.795.


Study Group Overall URICA Score Change After Each Intervention LevelThere were 475 Study group participants that received one or more of the SOC/MI interventions. There were 468 Workshop-1 attendants, 291 Workshop-2 attendants, 175 first Motivational Interviews conducted, and 157 successive Motivational Interviews conducted.

The following results have been recorded based on a dichotomous summary variable generated to determine if participant URICA overall scores increased after successive SOC/MI interventions:

Of those participants that have attended Workshop-1, 62.8% showed an increase in overall URICA score as compared to their score at Intake (SD .48380).

Of those participants that have attended Workshop-2, 52.9% showed an increase in overall URICA score as compared to their score after Workshop-1 (SD .50001).

Of those participants that have attended their first Motivational Interview, 44.0% showed an increase in their overall URICA score as compared to their Workshop-2 score (SD .49781).

Other Possible Positive OutcomesOne of the additional items requested for analysis are the numbers for positive outcomes other than employment. The numbers for theses are as follows:

21 total participants (16 actively engaged participants) of the Study group left OFE to pursue further education or training as a result of their own choosing or referral from their Case Coordinator.

19 participants of the Control group left OFE to pursue further education or training.


Phase II Test Question:As compared to Phase I Study group participants, Phase II participants’ retention rates and employment rates would remain consistent using the application of the SOC Model and Motivational Interviewing (MI). Based on time restrictions, namely that Phase II ran for a shorter duration than Phase I, six-month employment retention rates would be evaluated on best available data and were expected to remain consistent.

The only practical comparison was to compare Phase II numbers against Phase I Study group numbers at approximately the same amount of elapsed time. The majority of all numbers presented in this portion of the report (unless otherwise noted) for the Phase I Study group are from the analysis conducted after the first 15 active months of Phase I.

Hypotheses: There were four anticipated results from the SOC/MI program that were studied.

1) As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group obtaining employment would be equal or greater.

2) Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group still employed six months post hire would be equal or greater.

3) As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group leaving OFE programming would be equal or lower.

4) A majority of participants of the Phase II group, that have been assessed with the URICA as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage, would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: WS1, WS2, MI. Participants who assessed as being in Preparation were scheduled to attend WS3 and a majority would move further within the Preparation stage as reflected by a higher URICA total score.


Hypothesis 1As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group obtaining employment would be equal or greater.

For analysis purposes, participants were considered as having found employment if there was documentation to support employment since the onset of the study (Table 10below does not reflect if the participant has lost their job). Of those participants in the Phase II group, 514 (51.8%) were employed to date at the end of data collection, of those in the Phase I Study group, 222 (52.4%) were employed at the fifteen-month point within the study, and of those in the Phase I Control group, 199 (43.0%) were employed at the fifteen-month point within the study.

Table 10Employed

No Yes Total


% within Group 47.6% 52.4% 100.0%

Count 264 199 463Control

% within Group 57.0% 43.0% 100.0%

Count 478 514 992

Group

Phase II

% within Group 48.2% 51.8% 100.0%

The following observations can be made of the data shown in Table 10 above:

At the point of fifteen months of elapsed time for both Phase II and Phase I, the Phase II group had a lower percentage of participants employed than the Phase I Study group and higher than the Phase I Control group.

The analysis shows a difference of 0.6% lower for the Phase II group as compared to the Phase I Study group (Approximated Significance of 0.851).

o This difference is small enough to be considered negligible, thus maintaining the employment rate.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employed

Study

Control

Phase II


The analysis shows a difference of 8.8% higher for the Phase II group as compared to the Phase I Control group (Approximated significance is highly significant at 0.00169).

The employment “number” of 514 Phase II participants employed exceeds 15.7%, more than double the 222 Study group participants employed (doubled=444).

o This is in line with what was expected by administering SOC/MI to all participants (doubling the participants involved).

It is possible that the Phase II employment rate was somewhat diluted by the increased number of engaged participants.

o The 424 Study group participants combined with the 463 Control group participants equals 887, as compared to the 992 engaged Phase II participants.That is an increase of 105 or 12% more participants involved at

fifteen months in Phase II as compared to fifteen months into Phase I (this difference has decreased from the 33% reported in the last interim report six months ago).

It is possible that there is a maximum capacity with the given OFE staff allotment.

This appears to be confirmed as the Phase II vs. Phase I comparison has shown a constant decrease in the gap between the groups during the last six months after reducing the number of participants allowed to attend Intake.

o The gap in engaged participants dropped from 33% to 12% in the last six months.

o The gap in employment rates has dropped from 6.8% to 0.6% in the last six months.

The downturn in the Canadian and World economy that began around the beginning of Phase II may also account for a portion of the difference in employment rates.

o Given the severe global recession and its impact on Canada, the employment numbers and rate look favourable.


Hypothesis 2Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group still employed six months post hire would be equal or greater.

Table 11 below represents the number and percentage of participants that found one or more jobs and maintained employment for a continuous six months. For the purposes of analysis continuous means that there was no more than a 14 day gap between jobs; it is believed that 14 days is a reasonable amount of time off between jobs without being excessive as some people take time off when they find a new or better job. The participants used to calculate these numbers includes only participants who have foundtheir first job more than six months ago to ensure that only those that have had the opportunity to be employed six months are included. Also, all participants released from OFE have been eliminated for analysis purposes, as they too would not have had the opportunity to reach the six-month point.

IMPORTANT NOTE:The participants used to calculate these numbers includes only participants whose employment dates we were able to confirm with employers. This is a departure from all past reports where employment dates were based solely on self reports by participants, but it is believed that this is a much more accurate reflection of employment retention. For more details please refer to the Phase I Hypothesis 2 section.

Whereas other Phase II statistics provided in this section are compared against Phase I results at an equal duration of elapsed time (for this report that would be 15 months for both groups), the numbers provided below include all Phase I numbers as there was no equivalent at the 15 month point in Phase I where employment dates were independently confirmed with employers.

Table 11Employed After Six

Months

No Yes Total


% within Group 37.1% 62.9% 100.0%


% within Group 46.6% 53.4% 100.0%

Count 54 116 170

Group

Phase II

% within Group 31.8% 68.2% 100.0%



Of all of the participants that found employment, the within group percentages provide a 5.3% higher employment retention rate for the Phase II group as compared to the Study group (Approximated Significance of 0.270) and a 14.8% increase over the employment retention rate for the Control group (Approximated Significance of 0.004).

This is not a perfectly equivalent comparison, but it does provide evidence that the Phase II rate holds up against the Phase I Study group rate.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Employed Six Months or Longer

Study

Control

Phase II


Hypothesis 3As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase II group leaving OFE programming would be equal or lower. (Those participants not released are those engaging in skill development/EAS at OFE, and/or still active in job searching.)

Of those in the Phase II group, 411 participants, or 41.4% were released to date at the end of data collection (SD .493), of those in the Phase I Study group, 151 participants, or 35.9% were released (SD .480), and of those in the Phase I Control group, 213 participants, or 46.1% were released to date (SD .499) at the fifteen month point. Table 12 below provides release numbers and percentages for each group.

Table 12Released

No Yes Total


% within Group 64.1% 35.9% 100.0%


% within Group 53.9% 46.1% 100.0%

Count 581 411 992

Group

Phase II

% within Group 58.6% 41.4% 100.0%


At the point of fifteen months of elapsed time the Phase II release rate was 5.5% higher than the Phase I Study group; that difference changed drastically from two months previous when the Phase II release rate was 7.9% lower than the Phase I Study group.

o The difference between the Phase II group and the Study group has an approximated significance of 0.051.

The difference between the Phase II group and the Control group is 4.7% lower for the Phase II group.

o The approximated significance for the difference between the Phase II group and the Control group is 0.094.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

EAS Releases

Study

Control

Phase II


There are a couple of items of note to consider for possible explanations as to the drastic swing in release rates over the last few months.

o It was expected that the percentage differences would close a small amount in the last couple of months of the study and that the significance levels would change due to the discontinuation of accepting new participants into Phase II after the end of August whereas at the same point in Phase I there was a continued effort to accept new participants.

o The second and most important issue arises from the fact that OFE had the largest number of releases ever between September and October 2009, with 82 releases (nearly double the highest previous number of releases in one month for Phase II).A change to a new database facilitated OFE to process an

unprecedented number of releases to reduce the amount of data transferred to the new database; employment consultants were required to review their caseload and release participants not putting in full effort or that had not had recent contact.

It is expected that if the change to the new database had not occurred and the required review of participants conducted that the number of releases for the month would have been considerably lower and in line with the average number of releases. This would have maintained the release rate to be much closer to the Phase Iresults as was expected.


Hypothesis 4A majority of participants of the Phase II group that have been assessed with the URICA as being in the Pre-contemplation or Contemplation stage, would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: WS1, WS2, MI. Those participants who are assessed as being in Preparation will attend WS3 and a majority will move further within the Preparation stage as reflected by a higher URICA total score.

The Effect of Each Intervention on Number of Participants in Each Stage:Table 13 was generated from the records of those participants that were introduced to one or more of the SOC/MI interventions after three months of elapsed time. Using the participant’s highest URICA subscale score we may view how many participants are in each stage after successive SOC/MI interventions. Though not part of Phase II Hypothesis 4, Phase I Study participants have been included for comparison purposes.

Table 13Stage


Count 1 294 145 14 454Phase I

% within Group .2% 64.8% 31.9% 3.1% 100.0%

Count 6 467 518 991

Intake Group

Phase II

% within Group .6% 47.1% 52.3% 100.0%

Count 0 216 213 17 446Phase I

% within Group .0% 48.4% 47.8% 3.8% 100.0%

Count 0 117 188 305

WS1 Group

Phase II

% within Group .0% 38.4% 61.6% 100.0%

Count 0 106 147 19 272Phase I

% within Group .0% 39.0% 54.0% 7.0% 100.0%

Count 1 13 32 46

WS2 Group

Phase II

% within Group 2.2% 28.3% 69.6% 100.0%

Count N/A N/A N/A N/A N/APhase I

% within Group N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ACount 1 326 635 962

WS3 Group

Phase II

% within Group .1% 33.9% 66.0% 100.0%

Count 0 53 102 4 159Phase I

% within Group .0% 33.3% 64.2% 2.5% 100.0%

Count 0 25 63 88

MI Group

Phase II

% within Group .0% 28.4% 71.6% 100.0%


% within Group 1.5% 13.6% 77.3% 7.6% 100.0%

Count 0 3 13 16

MI-2 Group

Phase II

% within Group .0% 18.8% 81.3% 100.0%


% within Group .0% 25.0% 71.9% 3.1% 100.0%

Count 0 0 4 4

MI-3 Group

Phase II

% within Group .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%Note: Assessment Points: Intake, Workshop-1, Workshop-2, and Motivational Interviews are successiveNote: Workshop-3 was not part of Phase I, Workshop-3 is attended at the 1st occurrence of scoring in the Preparation stage and can

be before or after any of the other interventionsNote: The Phase I assessment tool included the Maintenance stage, but the Phase II tool does not



The percentage of participants in the Phase II group in the lower stages of Pre-contemplation\Contemplation remains consistently lower for all intervention levels, except for MI-2, as compared to the Phase I Study group.

o Of the Phase II participants 47.7% were Pre-contemplative\Contemplative at Intake as compared to 65.0% of those in the Phase I Study group (comparing both groups at the point of fifteen months of data collection).

o After the Workshop-1, only 38.4% of Phase II participants were Pre-contemplative\Contemplative as compared to 48.4% of the Phase I group.

o After the Workshop-2, only 30.5% of Phase II participants were Pre-contemplative\Contemplative as compared to 39.0% of the Phase I group.

o After one MI, only 28.4% of Phase II participants were Pre-contemplative\Contemplative as compared to 33.3% of the Phase I group.

As the interventions are successive and build on principles brought forward in the earlier interventions, it is likely that their influence compounds, possibly resulting in the need for fewer numbers of participants needing the higher-level interventions.

o Numbers of participants needing higher-level interventions gradually decreases for both groups.

Up from 52.3% at Intake, 66.0% of all Phase II participants still scored Preparation as their highest subscale score after having attended Workshop-3, a relatively high percentage.

Study Group Stage Movement After Each Intervention LevelTable 14 was generated from the records of those same participants in Table 13 to determine participant’s positive or negative movement through the Stages of Change Model as defined by their highest URICA subscale score after successive SOC/MI interventions.

Whereas Table 13 shows the number and percentage of Study group participants as a whole, Table 14 shows individual increase or decrease in stage placement.


Table 14Stage Movement Total

APoint Negative Within Stage PositiveCount 52 267 126 445Phase I


WS1 Group

Phase II

% within Group 14.24% 57.95% 27.81% 100.00%Count 47 151 74 272Phase I


WS2 Group

Phase II

% within Group 13.04% 73.91% 13.04% 100.00%Count N/A N/A N/A N/APhase I

% within Group N/A N/A N/A N/ACount 114 633 205 952

WS3 Group

Phase II



MI Group

Phase II



MI-2 Group

Phase II



MI-3 Group

Phase II

% within Group 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 100.00%Note: Assessment Points: Intake, Workshop-1, Workshop-2, and Motivational Interviews are successiveNote: Workshop-3 was not part of Phase I, Workshop-3 is attended at the 1st occurrence of scoring in the Preparation stage and can

be before or after any of the other interventions

The following observation can be made of the data shown above: A higher percentage of participants for both groups were measured as having

positive movement within the stages over the percentage of those measured as having negative movement following all SOC/MI interventions except for the Phase I Study group MI-3 point.

Negative movement was lower for all Phase II interventions as compared to Phase I except for Workshop-1 where there is a 2.55% difference in negative movement rates, and the second MI where there was a 0.38% difference in negative movement rates.


Workshop-3 assessment scores showed more positive movement than negative movement in stage placement with a reasonable percentage moving within the same stage.

o Considering the 12-item URICA takes into account the Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, and Preparation stages, and that the majority of Workshop-3 attendees were already in the highest stage placement (Preparation), those that were in Preparation had no higher stage to move into. Participant’s overall score had the possibility to still go up, but their stage could not. With this in mind, the above forward movement rate was considered encouraging.

PHASE II ATTENDANCE NUMBERS (COMPARED TO PHASE I):

Phase I WS1 Attendance: 64.3%o Phase II WRO-1 Afternoon Attendance: 54.3%

Phase I WS2 Attendance: 69.4%o Phase II WRO-2 Attendance: 53.1%

WRO-3 Attendance (new to Phase II): 65.4%

Attendance to Workshops 1 & 2 trended lower for Phase II than Phase I; this was somewhat expected and may have been due in part to the removal of stipends. The attendance for the Work Readiness Orientation (Workshop-3) was rather high at 65.4%; this is more in line with Phase I percentages and likely due to all of the participants scheduled being in the Preparation stage.


DEMOGRAPHICS RESULTSITEM ANALYSIS(The Relation Between Self-Reported Demographic Items and Project Objectives)

It should be noted that completing the demographic items was voluntary for all research participants and that if a participant decided to fill out the form that individual items were independently voluntary. This provided a higher level of security amongst participants to provide truthful responses, however, this has resulted in a dataset where some participants have no demographic data and most are missing at least one item or more; this eliminates the availability of certain statistical methods. To see the demographic questions and a list of helpful definitions related to those items please see Appendix 3.

Using SOC/MI participant responses to the demographic/background questions and the records of those who remained in programming, obtained employment, and maintained employment for a minimum of six months we may view the strength of the relationship of how SOC/MI impacts different demographic groups. Through the evaluation of differences between the Study and Control groups, in almost every instance where there was sufficiently large numbers to conduct a reasonable analysis, the Study group was consistently found to have higher rates over the Control group. The retention, employment, and six-month employment rates are provided in Table 15 that follows and show to what extent the SOC/MI Model has had an impact. Table 15 is based on Phase I participants only. Note that all numbers are based on those who responded to the demographic items; the same pool of participants are used for each of the three outcomes (i.e. participants are not removed from the dataset for analysis if they were released in the employment rate computation, nor those that could not have possibly been employed six months in the six-month employment rate computation).

Values of statistical significance for the within group comparisons are available for those that desire them in Appendix 7. If interested in additional demographics or details, please contact OFE (contact info available at end of report); requests will be forwarded to the SOC/MI Researcher.

The values provided in Table 16 are similar to those in Table 15 in that they cover the demographic items, but are derived from the Phase II participants only. Instead of providing only the positive results (program retention, employment, and six-month retention) as in Table 15, Table 16 has the full values of the analysis with both the positive, negative, and total results numbers. There is no group comparison here, only a comparison of results against participant responses to the demographic items. This for example will provide whether there were a higher percentage of Males employed as compared to Females. Appendix 8 provides the statistical significance values for these comparisons. It should be noted that due to the nature and duration of Phase II that there was insufficient time for all participants to achieve six months of continuous employment; the values obtained are a gauge of success but not the overall measure for success at this point as was obtained for Phase I.


Table 15Retention Rate Employment Rate Six-Month Employment Rate For All

Group Group GroupDemographic Item Response

Study Control Difference Study Control Difference Study Control Difference

Gender Male Count 131 111 142 117 74 52% within Group 57.7% 47.4% 10.3% 62.6% 50.0% 12.6% 32.6% 22.2% 10.4%

Female Count 118 109 130 108 70 57% within Group 57.6% 44.7% 12.9% 63.4% 44.3% 19.2% 34.1% 23.4% 10.8%

Family Member on EIA No Count 143 135 157 133 87 66% within Group 62.2% 50.4% 11.8% 68.3% 49.6% 18.6% 37.8% 24.6% 13.2%

Yes Count 73 61 77 61 40 25

% within Group 50.0% 40.4% 9.6% 52.7% 40.4% 12.3% 27.4% 16.6% 10.8%

Ethnicity Aboriginal Count 99 100 118 105 45 40

% within Group 47.1% 41.0% 6.2% 56.2% 43.0% 13.2% 21.4% 16.4% 5.0%African Count 13 5 14 5 8 2

% within Group 65.0% 22.7% 42.3% 70.0% 22.7% 47.3% 40.0% 9.1% 30.9%Asian Count 16 13 16 13 11 6

% within Group 84.2% 61.9% 22.3% 84.2% 61.9% 22.3% 57.9% 28.6% 29.3%South Asian Count 6 1 5 1 4 1

% within Group 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 62.5% 50.0% 12.5% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%European Count 55 63 58 59 44 32

% within Group 62.5% 54.3% 8.2% 65.9% 50.9% 15.0% 50.0% 27.6% 22.4%Latin-American Count 9 1 8 2 6 1

% within Group 90.0% 33.3% 56.7% 80.0% 66.7% 13.3% 60.0% 33.3% 26.7%Middle Eastern Count 2 2 N/A 1 N/A

% within Group 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% N/A N/A 25.0% N/A N/APacific Islander Count N/A N/A 1 N/A 100.0% N/A

% within Group N/A N/A N/A 1.0% N/A N/A 100.0% N/A N/AAboriginal North American Inuit Count 1 1 N/A 1 N/A

% within Group 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% N/A N/A 50.0% N/A N/AMétis Count 29 27 33 31 15 13

% within Group 56.9% 41.5% 15.3% 64.7% 47.7% 17.0% 29.4% 20.0% 9.4%Non-status Count 11 6 13 5 4 0

% within Group 55.0% 46.2% 8.8% 65.0% 38.5% 26.5% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0%Status-Off Reserve Count 54 62 66 65 23 24

% within Group 45.4% 41.1% 4.3% 55.5% 43.0% 12.4% 19.3% 15.9% 3.4%Status-On Reserve Count 5 3 5 3 2 0

% within Group 29.4% 25.0% 4.4% 29.4% 25.0% 4.4% 11.8% 0.0% 11.8%

Visible Minority No Count 130 141 136 135 77 67

% within Group 59.6% 52.0% 7.6% 62.4% 49.8% 12.6% 35.3% 24.7% 10.6%Yes Count 83 50 95 56 48 24

% within Group 55.3% 36.5% 18.8% 63.3% 40.9% 22.5% 32.0% 17.5% 14.5%

*Note: Retention, Employment, and Six-Month Retention rates in Table 15 are based on a percentage of the pool of participants that engaged; thus the percentage that did NOT work for a continuous six months would include people that did not ever find employment, were released, or may have recently found employment and not had the opportunity to be employed six months yet.


Retention Rate Employment Rate Six-Month Employment Rate For All



Immigrant No Count 193 185 214 191 110 91% within Group 57.1% 46.7% 10.4% 63.3% 48.2% 15.1% 32.5% 23.0% 9.6%

Yes Count 42 21 43 20 28 8% within Group 65.6% 42.9% 22.8% 67.2% 40.8% 26.4% 43.8% 16.3% 27.4%

Refugee No Count 140 137 144 126 78 61% within Group 60.9% 52.5% 8.4% 62.6% 48.3% 14.3% 33.9% 23.4% 10.5%


First Language English No Count 42 26 43 25 27 9% within Group 66.7% 40.6% 26.0% 68.3% 39.1% 29.2% 42.9% 14.1% 28.8%


EAL/ESL Employment Barriers No Count 205 184 225 185 120 92% within Group 59.1% 47.1% 12.0% 64.8% 47.3% 17.5% 34.6% 23.5% 11.1%


Marital Status Single Count 126 123 144 125 76 52% within Group 56.0% 48.0% 8.0% 64.0% 48.8% 15.2% 33.8% 20.3% 13.5%

Common-law Count 28 23 32 23 15 12% within Group 50.0% 41.1% 8.9% 57.1% 41.1% 16.1% 26.8% 21.4% 5.4%

Married Count 35 30 34 28 20 20% within Group 68.6% 50.8% 17.8% 66.7% 47.5% 19.2% 39.2% 33.9% 5.3%

Divorced Count 27 16 27 16 14 8% within Group 71.1% 50.0% 21.1% 71.1% 50.0% 21.1% 36.8% 25.0% 11.8%

Separated Count 15 12 14 13 9 6% within Group 75.0% 35.3% 39.7% 70.0% 38.2% 31.8% 45.0% 17.6% 27.4%

Widowed Count 2 0 3 1 2 0% within Group 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 33.3% 26.7% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0%

Parent/Guardian Of Children No Count 138 118 156 121 76 55% within Group 58.7% 48.2% 10.6% 66.4% 49.4% 17.0% 32.3% 22.4% 9.9%


Work 20+ Hours Per Week No Count 141 109 152 105 86 49% within Group 59.0% 45.2% 13.8% 63.6% 43.6% 20.0% 36.0% 20.3% 15.7%







Disability No Count 207 181 222 184 123 87% within Group 60.7% 46.4% 14.3% 65.1% 47.2% 17.9% 36.1% 22.3% 13.8%


Visible Disability No Count 50 37 56 41 33 17% within Group 56.2% 42.0% 14.1% 62.9% 46.6% 16.3% 37.1% 19.3% 17.8%


Mental Health Issues No Count 112 104 113 98 62 51% within Group 60.9% 51.2% 9.6% 61.4% 48.3% 13.1% 33.7% 25.1% 8.6%


Employment Lost To Substance Abuse No Count 203 181 221 182 120 95% within Group 59.5% 45.6% 13.9% 64.8% 45.8% 19.0% 35.2% 23.9% 11.3%


Substance Abuse Employment Barriers No Count 187 161 206 168 107 82% within Group 56.3% 43.8% 12.6% 62.0% 45.7% 16.4% 32.2% 22.3% 9.9%


Employment Lost To Gambling No Count 234 203 255 208 137 99% within Group 58.9% 45.6% 13.3% 64.2% 46.7% 17.5% 34.5% 22.2% 12.3%

Yes Count 1 3 1 2 1 2% within Group 25.0% 60.0% -35.0% 25.0% 40.0% -15.0% 25.0% 40.0% -15.0%

Gambling Employment Barriers No Count 208 179 230 185 120 88% within Group 57.3% 44.3% 13.0% 63.4% 45.8% 17.6% 33.1% 21.8% 11.3%


Illegal Activity Conviction No Count 168 156 184 153 106 79


% within Group 54.1% 39.7% 14.4% 58.2% 45.2% 13.0% 25.4% 17.5% 7.9%Employment Lost To Illegal Conviction No Count 228 195 247 200 133 97


% within Group 57.1% 50.0% 7.1% 64.3% 45.0% 19.3% 42.9% 20.0% 22.9%






Incarcerated 1-30 Days Count 13 9 12 8 7 4% within Group 46.4% 50.0% -3.6% 42.9% 44.4% -1.6% 25.0% 22.2% 2.8%

1+ to 3 Months Count 4 6 4 5 3 3% within Group 80.0% 60.0% 20.0% 80.0% 50.0% 30.0% 60.0% 30.0% 30.0%

3+ to 12 Months Count 11 6 13 4 7 1% within Group 64.7% 54.5% 10.2% 76.5% 36.4% 40.1% 41.2% 9.1% 32.1%

1+ to 2 Years Count 4 3 4 1 3 1% within Group 66.7% 37.5% 29.2% 66.7% 12.5% 54.2% 50.0% 12.5% 37.5%

2+ Years Count 9 6 9 8 3 1

% within Group 64.3% 37.5% 26.8% 64.3% 50.0% 14.3% 21.4% 6.3% 15.2%Conviction from Illegal Activity -Employment Barriers

No Count162 152 183 156 100 78


% within Group 66.7% 47.7% 19.0% 66.7% 48.6% 18.1% 35.2% 19.6% 15.6%Ex-Offenders Yes Count 69 49 77 55 31 20

% within Group 52.7% 38.6% 14.1% 58.8% 43.3% 15.5% 23.7% 15.7% 7.9%Gang Member No Count 141 135 143 124 80 62


% within Group 40.0% 30.0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0%Active Gang Member No Count 138 134 141 123 77 61

% within Group 62.2% 50.8% 11.4% 63.5% 46.6% 16.9% 34.7% 23.1% 11.6%Yes Count 2 2 N/A 2

% within Group 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Gang Member Employment Barriers No Count 105 102 110 95 60 48% within Group 60.0% 51.0% 9.0% 62.9% 47.5% 15.4% 34.3% 24.0% 10.3%


Domestic Violence Victim No Count 165 145 179 145 97 72% within Group 61.6% 48.3% 13.2% 66.8% 48.3% 18.5% 36.2% 24.0% 12.2%







Age 18-20 Count 11 13 12 15 5 7% within Group 64.7% 43.3% 21.4% 70.6% 50.0% 20.6% 29.4% 23.3% 6.1%

21-30 Count 70 54 75 61 34 27% within Group 61.9% 43.5% 18.4% 66.4% 49.2% 17.2% 30.1% 21.8% 8.3%




61 through High Count 7 1 7 1 4 1% within Group 87.5% 50.0% 37.5% 87.5% 50.0% 37.5% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Marital/Parental Status Single - Not Parent Count 115 100 129 102 64 43% within Group 61.5% 51.0% 10.5% 69.0% 52.0% 16.9% 34.2% 21.9% 12.3%

Couple - Not Parent Count 21 16 25 15 10 9% within Group 50.0% 39.0% 11.0% 59.5% 36.6% 22.9% 23.8% 22.0% 1.9%

Single - Parent Count 53 49 57 51 36 23% within Group 54.6% 40.5% 14.1% 58.8% 42.1% 16.6% 37.1% 19.0% 18.1%

Couple - Parent Count 38 35 38 34 23 22% within Group 64.4% 50.7% 13.7% 64.4% 49.3% 15.1% 39.0% 31.9% 7.1%

Youngest Child Under 12 No children under 12 Count 32 24 35 25 24 12% within Group 62.7% 48.0% 14.7% 68.6% 50.0% 18.6% 47.1% 24.0% 23.1%

Has children under 12 Count 60 57 61 56 35 32% within Group 56.6% 41.3% 15.3% 57.5% 40.6% 17.0% 33.0% 23.2% 9.8%

Mature Workers Not Mature Worker Count 213 195 235 204 124 101% within Group 57.4% 45.5% 12.0% 63.3% 47.6% 15.8% 33.4% 23.5% 9.9%

Mature Worker Count 36 25 37 21 20 8% within Group 60.0% 51.0% 9.0% 61.7% 42.9% 18.8% 33.3% 16.3% 17.0%



Table 16Retention Rate Employment Rate Six-Month Employment Rate For All

Released Employed Employed 6-MonthsDemographic Item Response

No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total

Gender Male Count 317 336 653 378 275 653 588 65 653% within Group 48.5% 51.5% 100.0% 57.9% 42.1% 100.0% 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Female Count 264 310 574 335 239 574 523 51 574% within Group 46.0% 54.0% 100.0% 58.4% 41.6% 100.0% 91.1% 8.9% 100.0%

Family Member on EIA No Count 310 246 556 280 276 556 485 71 556% within Group 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% 50.4% 49.6% 100.0% 87.2% 12.8% 100.0%

Yes Count 163 195 358 213 145 358 332 26 358% within Group 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% 59.5% 40.5% 100.0% 92.7% 7.3% 100.0%

Ethnicity Aboriginal Count 169 219 388 239 149 388 361 27 388% within Group 43.6% 56.4% 100.0% 61.6% 38.4% 100.0% 93.0% 7.0% 100.0%

African Count 36 26 62 27 35 62 55 7 62% within Group 58.1% 41.9% 100.0% 43.5% 56.5% 100.0% 88.7% 11.3% 100.0%

Asian Count 69 37 106 49 57 106 88 18 106% within Group 65.1% 34.9% 100.0% 46.2% 53.8% 100.0% 83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

South Asian Count N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A% within Group N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

European Count 136 109 245 128 117 245 216 29 245% within Group 55.5% 44.5% 100.0% 52.2% 47.8% 100.0% 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%

Latin-American Count 7 9 16 8 8 16 13 3 16% within Group 43.8% 56.3% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 81.3% 18.8% 100.0%

Middle Eastern Count 6 4 10 3 7 10 9 1 10% within Group 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 30.0% 70.0% 100.0% 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Pacific Islander Count N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A% within Group N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aboriginal North American Inuit Count 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3% within Group 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

Métis Count 51 57 108 66 42 108 96 12 108% within Group 47.2% 52.8% 100.0% 61.1% 38.9% 100.0% 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

Non-status Count 16 10 26 12 14 26 23 3 26% within Group 61.5% 38.5% 100.0% 46.2% 53.8% 100.0% 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%

Status-Off Reserve Count 94 130 224 140 84 224 213 11 224% within Group 42.0% 58.0% 100.0% 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% 95.1% 4.9% 100.0%

Status-On Reserve Count 6 15 21 17 4 21 21 21% within Group 28.6% 71.4% 100.0% 81.0% 19.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Visible Minority No Count 297 271 568 303 265 568 506 62 568% within Group 52.3% 47.7% 100.0% 53.3% 46.7% 100.0% 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%







Immigrant No Count 361 363 724 400 324 724 652 72 724% within Group 49.9% 50.1% 100.0% 55.2% 44.8% 100.0% 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%


Refugee No Count 434 412 846 457 389 846 757 89 846% within Group 51.3% 48.7% 100.0% 54.0% 46.0% 100.0% 89.5% 10.5% 100.0%


First Language English No Count 106 81 187 96 91 187 160 27 187% within Group 56.7% 43.3% 100.0% 51.3% 48.7% 100.0% 85.6% 14.4% 100.0%


EAL/ESL Employment Barriers No Count 419 382 801 426 375 801 714 87 801% within Group 52.3% 47.7% 100.0% 53.2% 46.8% 100.0% 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%


Marital Status Single Count 245 260 505 291 214 505 458 47 505% within Group 48.5% 51.5% 100.0% 57.6% 42.4% 100.0% 90.7% 9.3% 100.0%

Common-law Count 68 49 117 56 61 117 108 9 117% within Group 58.1% 41.9% 100.0% 47.9% 52.1% 100.0% 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

Married Count 102 72 174 81 93 174 151 23 174% within Group 58.6% 41.4% 100.0% 46.6% 53.4% 100.0% 86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

Divorced Count 34 42 76 47 29 76 63 13 76% within Group 44.7% 55.3% 100.0% 61.8% 38.2% 100.0% 82.9% 17.1% 100.0%

Separated Count 35 20 55 25 30 55 49 6 55% within Group 63.6% 36.4% 100.0% 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%

Widowed Count 5 2 7 3 4 7 6 1 7% within Group 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% 42.9% 57.1% 100.0% 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

Parent/Guardian Of Children No Count 272 263 535 288 247 535 472 63 535% within Group 50.8% 49.2% 100.0% 53.8% 46.2% 100.0% 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%


Work 20+ Hours Per Week No Count 353 307 660 355 305 660 601 59 660% within Group 53.5% 46.5% 100.0% 53.8% 46.2% 100.0% 91.1% 8.9% 100.0%







Disability No Count 405 375 780 414 366 780 697 83 780% within Group 51.9% 48.1% 100.0% 53.1% 46.9% 100.0% 89.4% 10.6% 100.0%


Visible Disability No Count 60 65 125 72 53 125 112 13 125% within Group 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% 57.6% 42.4% 100.0% 89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

Yes Count 10 12 22 15 7 22 22 22% within Group 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% 68.2% 31.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mental Health Issues No Count 376 324 700 364 336 700 623 77 700% within Group 53.7% 46.3% 100.0% 52.0% 48.0% 100.0% 89.0% 11.0% 100.0%


Employment Lost To Substance Abuse No Count 414 378 792 422 370 792 701 91 792% within Group 52.3% 47.7% 100.0% 53.3% 46.7% 100.0% 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%


Substance Abuse Employment Barriers No Count 366 341 707 378 329 707 630 77 707% within Group 51.8% 48.2% 100.0% 53.5% 46.5% 100.0% 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%


Employment Lost To Gambling No Count 464 434 898 483 415 898 800 98 898% within Group 51.7% 48.3% 100.0% 53.8% 46.2% 100.0% 89.1% 10.9% 100.0%

Yes Count 2 5 7 4 3 7 7 7% within Group 28.6% 71.4% 100.0% 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Gambling Employment Barriers No Count 386 375 761 413 348 761 683 78 761% within Group 50.7% 49.3% 100.0% 54.3% 45.7% 100.0% 89.8% 10.2% 100.0%


Illegal Activity Conviction No Count 345 315 660 347 313 660 580 80 660% within Group 52.3% 47.7% 100.0% 52.6% 47.4% 100.0% 87.9% 12.1% 100.0%


Conviction from Illegal Activity - Employment Barriers

No Count439 411

850455 395

850756 94

850% within Group 51.6% 48.4% 100.0% 53.5% 46.5% 100.0% 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%







Incarcerated 1-30 Days Count 22 29 51 33 18 51 47 4 51% within Group 43.1% 56.9% 100.0% 64.7% 35.3% 100.0% 92.2% 7.8% 100.0%

1+ to 3 Months Count 8 11 19 12 7 19 18 1 19% within Group 42.1% 57.9% 100.0% 63.2% 36.8% 100.0% 94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

3+ to 12 Months Count 17 14 31 16 15 31 29 2 31% within Group 54.8% 45.2% 100.0% 51.6% 48.4% 100.0% 93.5% 6.5% 100.0%

1+ to 2 Years Count 13 10 23 13 10 23 23 23% within Group 56.5% 43.5% 100.0% 56.5% 43.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2+ Years Count 25 28 53 30 23 53 48 5 53% within Group 47.2% 52.8% 100.0% 56.6% 43.4% 100.0% 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

Conviction from Illegal Activity - Employment Barriers

No Count319 319

638348 290

638570 68

638% within Group 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 54.5% 45.5% 100.0% 89.3% 10.7% 100.0%


Ex-Offenders Yes Count 119 161 280 181 99 280 261 19 280% within Group 42.5% 57.5% 100.0% 64.6% 35.4% 100.0% 93.2% 6.8% 100.0%

Gang Member No Count 447 406 853 454 399 853 759 94 853% within Group 52.4% 47.6% 100.00% 53.2% 46.8% 100.00% 89.0% 11.0% 100.00%


Active Gang Member No Count 112 123 235 131 104 235 197 38 235% within Group 47.7% 52.3% 100.0% 55.7% 44.3% 100.0% 83.8% 16.2% 100.0%


Gang Member Employment Barriers No Count 304 273 577 317 260 577 534 43 577% within Group 52.7% 47.3% 100.0% 54.9% 45.1% 100.0% 92.5% 7.5% 100.0%


Domestic Violence Victim No Count 356 285 641 322 319 641 563 78 641% within Group 55.5% 44.5% 100.0% 50.2% 49.8% 100.0% 87.8% 12.2% 100.0%







Age 18-20 Count 19 41 60 39 21 60 55 5 60% within Group 31.7% 68.3% 100.0% 65.0% 35.0% 100.0% 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

21-30 Count 125 172 297 178 119 297 274 23 297% within Group 42.1% 57.9% 100.0% 59.9% 40.1% 100.0% 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%




61 through High Count 9 12 21 16 5 21 19 2 21% within Group 42.9% 57.1% 100.0% 76.2% 23.8% 100.0% 90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

Marital/Parental Status Single - Not Parent Count 206 208 414 229 185 414 366 48 414% within Group 49.8% 50.2% 100.0% 55.3% 44.7% 100.0% 88.4% 11.6% 100.0%

Couple - Not Parent Count 66 53 119 58 61 119 104 15 119% within Group 55.5% 44.5% 100.0% 48.7% 51.3% 100.0% 87.4% 12.6% 100.0%

Single - Parent Count 94 109 203 121 82 203 186 17 203% within Group 46.3% 53.7% 100.0% 59.6% 40.4% 100.0% 91.6% 8.4% 100.0%

Couple - Parent Count 99 64 163 75 88 163 146 17 163% within Group 60.7% 39.3% 100.0% 46.0% 54.0% 100.0% 89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

Youngest Child Under 12 No children under 12 Count 59 45 104 57 47 104 93 11 104% within Group 56.7% 43.3% 100.0% 54.8% 45.2% 100.0% 89.4% 10.6% 100.0%

Has children under 12 Count 126 117 243 128 115 243 220 23 243% within Group 51.9% 48.1% 100.0% 52.7% 47.3% 100.0% 90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

Mature Workers Not Mature Worker Count 431 539 970 576 394 970 877 93 970% within Group 44.4% 55.6% 100.0% 59.4% 40.6% 100.0% 90.4% 9.6% 100.0%

Mature Worker Count 147 103 250 134 116 250 228 22 250% within Group 58.8% 41.2% 100.0% 53.6% 46.4% 100.0% 91.2% 8.8% 100.0%



Data Mining AssessmentIt was decided that it might be beneficial to review demographics and other factors for participants to see if there was any observable patterns that could predict success in finding employment or retention in services. A neural network was used to study the results from Phase II since all participants were engaged in the SOC/MI Model. Due to the nature of the software and the procedures for collecting demographics the number of available records was reduced eventually down to 707 records out of a possible 1205 (participants that demographics and assessments were available for). The reason for this is that the software excludes cases where variables are missing, and policy dictated that collecting demographics was voluntary on a case-by-case basis and participants could choose to not answer individual items if they felt uncomfortable, even if they did complete the rest of the questionnaire. Initial runs of the dataset were reduced to even smaller numbers, with as few as 494 cases.

Initial tests of the data indicated that certain variables had higher levels of importance in relation to predictability. As these items were discovered, less important variables were removed from the dataset, which in turn increased the number of valid cases for testing. Results are mixed with highly predictive results in the training dataset with a cumulative average after five runs of the data of 75% accuracy in predicting employment and 78% accuracy in predicting retention. However the holdout dataset consistently had poor results with only 54% accuracy in predicting employment and 51% accuracy in predicting retention. The two datasets mentioned above are determined from random sampling procedures of the dataset, with the training dataset 70% of all available cases and the holdout dataset the remaining 30%. Results are similar after several different random assignments to the two datasets. What can be implied from this is that the variables used are better at predicting larger groups as a whole; there is just as much chance of a true prediction as a false prediction with smaller groups, and the smaller the group the less accurate.

The items that did provide the highest level of importance in predicting employment and retention are included in the following table and include an averaged importance value and normalized importance value (Variables have been sorted with highest values at the top):

Independent VariableImportance

Normalized Importance

Age .149 100.0%

Intake WRA Preparation Subscale Score .113 75.6%

Intake WRA Total Score .097 64.6%

Intake WRA Override Score .081 54.2%

Intake WRA Contemplation Subscale Score .079 52.6%

Ethnicity .078 52.3%

Employment Lost To an Illegal Conviction .075 50.2%

Intake WRA Pre-contemplation Subscale Score .068 45.3%

Employment Lost To Gambling .063 42.3%

Marital Status .060 40.0%

Employment Lost To Substance Abuse .049 32.7%

Language Employment Barriers .049 32.7%

First Language as English .040 26.5%


The following observations can be made of the data shown above: Age is the variable with the highest importance in predicting success This is followed by the total score and subscale scores from participants Intake

WRA’s Next is a series of reasons for the loss of a job in the past, including illegal

activity, gambling, and substance abuse Last are two items related to a participants ability, or perceived ability to

comprehend the English language

The demographic items on barriers ask a participant if they believe that the given situation is a possible barrier to future employment. The interesting thing about this is that the items that ask about the actual events are what appear to be predictive of success and not the perceived barrier.




Table 17 below is a collection of common themes that were observed in Workshops or MI’s. This information is provided as a resource to others so that they might be better prepared and have an idea of possible topics that might come up for discussion.

Table 17Primary Theme Sub-Theme

Family Challenges Parents as Role Models and Providers:

Many parents stated throughout the study, that their motivation to work was to provide for their children and also be a positive role model. They wanted their children to have better lives then they have been able to provide thus far, and wanted their children to be proud of them.

Many caregivers expressed that they wanted to find employment so that they could support their families and buy things for their children and grandchildren.

Single Parents and Stress:

Single parents with children who have behavioural issues have a difficult time finding and maintaining employment due to the high needs of their child or children. They find it hard to keep daycare or babysitters because of their child’s behaviour and this often impacts their employment. Several single mothers also expressed that they had experienced depression, which made it hard for them to look for work.

Childcare:

Many participants, those who wanted to work as well as those who were ambivalent about working, expressed concerns about leaving their children in day care. Two participants in particular expressed concern regarding loosing the safety net of government financial assistance should they start working. Multiple parents expressed that they were worried about inadequate childcare and the safety of their children as well as not being available for their children should their children need them.

Children with Disabilities:

Participants expressed concerns regarding their children with special needs. They expressed difficulty in leaving their children to begin a job search, and a few had stated that they had trouble in the past keeping jobs due to their children’s high needs. Several individual’s who had children with special needs expressed that they were afraid that their children’s disabilities would hold them back from gaining employment.

Independence:

Lessons Learned: By focusing on an individual’s value system, we were able to explore the discrepancy of where they are now and where they would like to be. For parents, being a role model is quite important as is being able to provide for their children. For some parents, having more independence is a motivator. Once these individual’s saw how their values matched up with working, they were motivated to begin taking steps towards finding work.

Once their children have grown, some parents expressed having a desire to go back to work and do more for themselves.


Primary Theme Sub-Theme

Mature Workers Job Loss:

Mature workers often expressed discouragement when they lost a job after long-term employment. Those that lost jobs due to an injury, lay off, or after 15 – 25 years of experience in one position had expressed that they believe they have no transferable skills for other work.

Limited Job Search Skills:

Some male mature workers stated they’d never had a resume nor used one to secure employment. They said they had either seen an advertisement for work in an office window and approached the company or walked onto a work site and asked for a job. Some participants reported that they are reluctant to call an employer for feedback after an interview.

Skills:

Some mature workers were concerned when they were no longer able to do the work they had previously done as they felt they had no skills for other positions.

Some mature workers who have never worked before expressed that they did not feel confident in their abilities to gain employment.

Age:

Lessons Learned: Mature workers often expressed that they are motivated to find work but lack the confidence in their abilities to find employment. In these instances, Motivational Interviewing was used to increase the confidence in their abilities, which had a direct affect in their motivation to find employment.

Mature workers sometimes expressed that they felt discriminated against due to their age when looking for employment. Some female participants expressed that they felt their age was one of the barriers to seeking employment despite having many years of work experience. One woman in particular expressed a concern that in the hospitality industry people are looking for younger women. She had an employer ask her if she was too old for this line of work. Some male participants in the age ranges of 40 years to mid 60’s also felt their age was a barrier to employment.



Criminal Involvement Gang Involvement:

One man shared that going to jail was an eye opener. He realized he wanted a different life for himself.

Independence is important and a strong value for this population. They also value respect and once shown that they are not respected by their community they often consider legal means to gain that respect.

The majority of individuals in this population do not want to see their children involved in gangs.

Incarceration:

Participants who have been incarcerated often find it difficult to rehabilitate and often wonder if going back to jail would be a better option.

Criminal Records:

Most individuals who have criminal records are very concerned about their ability to gain employment and are unsure of how to proceed towards obtaining employment. They expressed that they have been looking for work but have been unsuccessful due to their criminal records. They said that they are unsure of how to apply for jobs and what to say when filling out application forms. A few participants commented that they feel their criminal record is a barrier to obtaining their ideal job, but appeared relieved to learn that many jobs are still available to them.

Continued Criminal Activity:

Lesson Learned: When working with this demographic of individuals, focus was placed on their value systems and how their value systems related to their current situation as well as employment in order to create a discrepancy between where they are now and where they want to be. For these individuals, many valued being positive role models, or being accepted into society. For individuals with criminal records, providing them with a list of employers who hire ex-offenders boosted their confidence, which in turn impacted their motivation. A small number of participants have expressed difficulty obtaining and

maintaining legal paid work because they have a history of trafficking and know that will make them more money in the long run. A few participants shared their difficulties in returning to a life of crime for income as no government financial assistance was received.



Health Concerns Health as a Barrier:

Health concerns can be a major roadblock for individuals who are afraid of having their health impact their work. Some participants shared that health issues were a concern for leaving their last employer. Some participants shared that their biggest barrier to gaining employment was their health and not their motivation. Some individuals feel that their health problems will impact their ability to work, as they are frequently required to attend doctor’s appointments.

Confidence and Job Direction:

Health concerns may impact the confidence and direction of some participant’s job searches. Often participants are forced to change their career path due to health issues. These participants are often unsure about moving forward as they are unclear of what direction to take in regards to a new career. For most of these individuals, there is a strong desire to work and an ability to work as long as the position matches the ability of their physical limitations. For some participants, the loss of ability to perform a job they have done for the majority of their lives is devastating and there may be resistance in trying something new, or limited knowledge of what other types of jobs are potentially available. Some participants expressed that they feel they are not suitable to the limited types of jobs that may be available to them. For people who have had very physical jobs in the past, making a change to a new job can be very difficult and intimidating.

Fear of Further Health Problems:

Some individuals shared that they feel pressured to find employment despite not feeling physically well enough to return to work. A few individuals stated that they are afraid to work as they may further injure themselves or have to take medications that they feel may pose long-term negatives affects on their bodies.

Disabilities and Fear of Disclosure:

Lessons Learned: For individuals who have health concerns that are causing them to be ambivalent towards gaining employment, focus is placed on increasing self-efficacy. During a Motivational Interview, facilitators would focus on past successes and the abilities the individuals had to reach their successes in the past. As well, affirming these abilities and increasing confidence in these abilities helped motivate these individuals towards gaining employment.

A few participants expressed hesitation and fear of disclosing their disability to a potential employer, but felt they had to. They expressed that they had considered concealing their disability in the hopes that they would be hired.



Addictions Addictions and Work Readiness:

Individual’s struggling with active addictions may not be ready to find employment. Some individual’s stated that they feel the need to address their addiction first prior to looking for work. Some individual’s who wanted to continue their job search continued to attend programs while using and had to be encouraged to attend to their addictions prior to continuing on with programming. These individuals were referred to agencies that help individuals with addictions.

Benefits to Recovery:

Some individuals stated that they are excited to move forward and find employment, and believe that finding employment will be beneficial to their recovery.

Being a Positive Role Model as a Motivator:

There were a number of individuals in recovery from addictions who stated that one of their motivators is being a positive role model for their children.

Fear:

Lessons Learned: Individuals with active addictions often need to attend to their addictions prior to engaging in job search activities and were therefore referred to organizations that specialize in addictions. For those individuals who are in recovery, focus is placed on their values and where they would like their lives to be in congruence with their values. In addition, facilitators assist the individual to increase their self-efficacy. Work-readiness fluctuates a great deal when individuals are dealing with

addiction issues. If they are still struggling quite a bit, there may be fear that the addiction may resurface either during the job search or after they have secured employment. The individuals may be actively job seeking, but afraid to secure employment as they are afraid they may use again and lose their job.



Mental HealthChallenges

Anxiety:

Some participants talked about anxiety as being a barrier and that they get very nervous around other people and new situations. A few individuals expressed a fear of returning to work and experiencing panic attacks at work.

Limited Training Opportunities:

A few participants expressed mental health concerns for gaining employment and finding there was not enough training services for them.

Depression:

Individual’s suffering from depression may attend programming more often and be more engaged in their job search when they feel well. However, when these individuals are not feeling well, they may miss time at OFE and not return phone calls.

Expert Support:

Some individuals with mental health issues may need extra support that would be better assisted by an individual who fully understands the disorder and is able to spend more time assisting the individual. In these instances, the individuals were referred to outside organizations for assistance.

Co-Occurring Disorders; Mental Health and Addictions:

When an individual is facing mental health challenges and addictions it becomes difficult to work on employment matters because they have so many barriers to employment. The work-readiness will fluctuate a great deal when they are struggling with mental health challenges and addictions. Many participants stated that when things are going well they are ready to get a job but as soon as their mental health challenges and/or addiction are not in control then they are not work-ready.Workshop Attendance:

Lessons Learned: Some individuals may find it difficult to attend workshops that are structured in a group format. These individuals expressed that they find it more comfortable to work one-on-one.

A few individuals with mental health illnesses had trouble attending the workshops. Some found being in a structured, group format made them extremely uncomfortable.



Confidence Youth:

Some young workers often do not want to do the work necessary for finding a job. Some reasons are they are nervous to talk to new people and that their parents or friends have always helped them get a job. These individuals often lack positive role models and support in their home environments.

Limited Education:

Many individuals who attend Opportunities for Employment Inc. do not have a high school diploma and have limited themselves greatly in finding employment. Many of them regret this but have little confidence to go into the workforce.

Moving Into New Field of Employment:

Making a career change can be intimidating for individuals. These individuals are motivated, but often express that their confidence is low and that they have a lot of fears about going into the new field. During Motivational Interviews and workshops, focus is put on enhancing the confidence of these individuals.

Impact on Job Search:

Low levels of confidence can hold people back from applying for jobs. It can also make them feel like they have failed before they even try. Having someone to talk to about past experiences and successes can help build confidence for their job search. This low confidence showed up in their ability to find work, their ability to keep a job and lack of experience.

Fear of Layoffs:

At many workshops, participants were talking about the economy and their fear of getting laid off. Participants are becoming more conscious of what industries are struggling in Manitoba such as the manufacturing industry.

Decision Making:

Confidence continues to be a struggle for many participants. One participant in particular was struggling with making any sort of decision for fear of making the wrong decision which included coming to OFE and participating in the programs offered. He was also very unsure of what he would like to be doing in the future and appeared very afraid of making the wrong decision.

Job Change:

Individuals may be struggling with finding work as they don’t enjoy the type of work they are trained for, but are not confident in their abilities to try something new. These individuals may really want to try something new, but may be afraid of failure.

Entry Into the Workforce:

Individuals who may be entering the workforce later in life, but have no previous experience my lack confidence in their ability to gain employment.

Mature Workers:

Lessons Learned: For individuals who are fearful of entering the workforce for the first time, Motivational Interviews can assist to determine the necessary steps individuals may feel they need to go through in order to build their confidence. Individuals who lack confidence need extra support and encouragement to continue with their goals both towards employment and when they have secured a job. Without this support it may be very hard for individuals to handle making mistakes and they may give up on their goals easily.

Mature workers often express that they lack confidence in their abilities to gain new skills, re-enter the workforce after a number of years, to make a change in their careers and to succeed in their job search or their employment.



Benefit Type Transportation:

Transportation is a major concern for individuals.

Participants who are not receiving benefits or Employment Insurance often are motivated to find employment, but have little funds to get bus fair and find it difficult to come to OFE to job search.

Most participants who use public transit mentioned that transportation to and from work is a concern. Some participants who lack money for transit expressed that they find it difficult to get to interviews, while other participants said they have found that there is no transit access for some locations at which they would like to work.

Individuals Receiving Employment Insurance:

A few individuals who were receiving Employment Insurance stated that they wanted to collect the government benefits for as long as they could due to having contributed to Employment Insurance for many years while they were employed.

Some individuals expressed that being laid off from a job, especially if they had been with a company for quite some time, lowered their self-confidence.

A few individuals were looking to retrain as they felt their previous industry wouldn’t be able to provide them with secure jobs. Some of these individuals said that they were finding it hard to become motivated as they saw themselves as having to start from the bottom and work their way up in their jobs again.

Individuals Receiving EIA:

Transitioning from receiving EIA benefits and being a full-time parent to having to gain full-time employment is a hard transition for some people to make. These participants expressed that they have fears of being independent as well as fears of the unknown.

A few EIA recipients were frustrated that EIA was not providing clothing allowances for interviews. They felt that EIA wanted them to get a job but were not able to support them in this.

A few participants stated they felt their EIA Case Coordinator did not understand their action plan for employment and said they felt unsupported or pressured to accept any job versus being able to search for a job they knew they would enjoy.

Lessons Learned: Transportation to and from programs at OFE as well as transportation to and from job interviews is a major concern for most individuals. In order to assist individuals who are not eligible for bus passes, the Stages of Change Research Project was approved to be able to provide bus tickets for those individuals to attend interventions approximately halfway through the project. This enabled individuals to get a great start in their job search and increased their motivation to find a way to resolve their transportation barriers. For those individuals who saw security in receiving benefits, a decisional balance exercise was used to have the participants look at their value system in relation to working. As these individuals saw that they had a much greater value in working then not working, they were able to resolve their ambivalence and move forward towards beginning a job search.

The majority of participants stated that they wished to be independent of government financial assistance.



Relocation to Winnipeg

Newcomers:

A few newcomers were surprised to find that once settled in Canada, they thought they’d be financially stable more quickly than they were. They stated they had this preconception of quick economic security and not having achieved this negatively impacted their ability to send money home to relatives.

A few newcomers stated that they experienced struggles in dealing with immigration/language issues in relation to it affecting finding employment.

Moving off of Reserves:

A few participants who moved from an Aboriginal reserve to the city said they saw employment opportunities here, but wished to return to the reserve due to the amount of crime in the city; they experienced difficulty with using the transit system; stated hardships in finding adequate housing.

Moving from within Canada:

Lessons Learned: In the Preparation Workshop, an activity was included that discusses helping relationships and how to build helping relationships as it has been shown that having a support system in place enhances the chances of success in finding employment as well as maintaining employment. This was key when working with individual’s who were new to Winnipeg and who had limited supports.

One participant shared that moving to Winnipeg was the best thing he could do because he found so many opportunities for jobs in Winnipeg and found that OFE had a lot to offer for assisting with job searches and skill enhancement. However, two participants shared that it was hard moving to Winnipeg because they did not have many supports.



Literacy and Education Skill Development and Education:

Most participants state they want to work, but first want to complete their skill development so they would feel better prepared to job search and thus feel more marketable.

Many individuals stated that not having completed their grade twelve was a barrier to employment and they believed that completing this would lead to higher paying jobs and more employment opportunities.

Difficulties in Workshops:

A few participants expressed that due to low levels of literacy, they did not feel comfortable reading and writing in the workshops. Individuals in which English was an alternative language also seemed to have difficulties in the workshops.

Difficulties Working:

Some participants expressed that they had difficulties in certain types of jobs due to low literacy levels. These individuals would often take general labour jobs as a result.

Inaccurate Assessments:

Lessons Learned: For individuals who have trouble reading, writing or speaking English, a workshop was created in which the majority of the work was done verbally, and the class sizes were much smaller (maximum six people). For individuals who were having difficulties filling out the URICA's, staff members were trained on how to administer the assessments verbally in order for these individuals to be properly assessed. As well, a simplified URICA was created for individuals who may have difficulty reading and understanding the statements on the assessment.

Some individuals who rushed through their URICA's at Intake had shown to be wrongly assessed and placed in the wrong workshop for their stage of readiness. Other individuals who had reading difficulties may have also been wrongly assessed. Some participants who are wrongly assessed become frustrated because they want to get straight into their job search. The process can feel long for these individuals. When inaccurate assessments are made, the workshop process can feel long for some individuals.



Participant Feedback Building Confidence:

Participants are often comforted by the idea that someone has acknowledged that getting a job is a huge change for them.Participants often comment that they feel more confident when they leave the workshop as they see they are not alone and that there are other people that are having the same difficulties as they are.

Better Equipped for Job Search:

Upon payout at the Program Completion checkpoint for Phase I, many participants stated they were pleased to have completed their training and were now able to add this to their resume. They added that they felt better equipped now to job search.

Process Confusion:

Participants are often confused as to why they are in a group and expected to be starting classes. Although at Intake they are given a form explaining the process, it was suspected that the forms were not being read.

Reasons for Getting a Job:

It was consistent with each workshop that the main reasons for many participants to find a job was boredom and to pay the bills.

Stages of Change Discussion – Raising Self- Confidence:

Participants enjoyed the discussion of the Stages of Change. They stated that the discussion heightened their self-confidence to hear that there are times when it does not make sense for them to work and that to recycle through the stages is normal. It helped for them to talk about the stigmas that society places on people who do not work. It helped raise their self-confidence to know they are not alone.

Individuals expressed that the Stages of Change wheel helped them to understand the various stages. In addition, it helped them to identify which stage they were in at various points throughout their job search.

Smaller Class Sizes:

Lessons Learned: A staff member was asked to read the Workshop Explanation forms to the individuals prior to attending the workshops so that they were prepared for the group setting and knowledgeable of the processes at OFE. From participant comments as well as feedback from the facilitators, it was found that an ideal workshop size would include twelve participants. With this size of workshops, participants feel comfortable expressing themselves, it is manageable to give individual support, and there is a good enough size to have a lot of ideas from participants to share with each other.

Participants often commented that they enjoyed smaller class sizes, as they felt more comfortable expressing themselves and sharing their experiences.



Self-referral Screening:

Phase I and Phase II participants who wished to self-refer for an intervention received a brief screening done by SOC facilitators to determine if the person had motivational concerns related to employment. Some Phase I participants wanted to schedule an MI solely, as they had stated, to collect the stipend. Those that stated they wished only to collect the stipend were not necessarily scheduled. Participants requiring support from other agencies were offered external resources.

Added Support:

Participants were given the option of arranging a telephone appointment if they were working and needed support but were unable to attend OFE during office hours. This was done to provide extra support to individuals who are working as it has been shown that many people do not have continued supports once they are employed.

Accessing SOC Staff for Motivational Interviews:

Intervention Self-referrals

Participants were reminded that they could self-refer for workshops and MI’s. This was reinforced at workshops, daily in classes, and at some Job Match sessions. As a result, the number of individual’s requesting Motivational Interviews increased greatly.



Long Periods Between Motivational Interviews:

It was found that if participants had not been for an intervention in a month or longer, then their score may not go up. It may even go down because their momentum was lost.

Participant Reluctance in Filling out Forms:

It was found that by further explaining the URICA's and why individuals were asked to fill them out, the participants were more eager to complete the surveys.

There was less resistance to filling out the demographics form after it was explained what ‘confidential’ really meant (that their individual forms were used solely for our research purposes and not shared with outside sources) and that all information was stored in an area that had restricted access.

Workshop Attendance:

For participants who did not attend workshops, a staff person trained in Motivational Interviewing called participants. This was done so that Motivational Interviewing could be conducted over the phone with these individuals to encourage them to attend the workshops.

Describing Motivational Interviews:

Participants may be reluctant to attend a Motivational Interview if they are told they are being referred for a Motivational Interview. Instead, participants were asked if they would like extra support if they were experiencing difficulties with their job search. A script was created for individuals who were having trouble describing to participants what a Motivational Interview is.

What to call Workshops:

Participants may be reluctant to attend workshops, as they want to meet with their Employment Consultant as soon as possible. For this reason, the term orientation was used instead of workshop when talking with participants.

Pre-contemplative Participants:

Additional Lessons Learned from Workshops and Motivational Interviews

Participants who are truly Pre-contemplative often leave the workshop half way through. These individuals also say very little and some have even fallen asleep.





Phase IWith more than a full 23 months of data collected, Phase I data collection ended April 2009; research analysis validated the effectiveness of the Stages of Change Model in combination with Motivational Interviewing to decrease releases from programming, increase employment rates, increase six-month employment retention, and assist in forward movement through the stages.

Participant retention rates throughout the program for the Study group as compared to the Control group was higher with a difference of 11.6% between the within group rates. Keeping more participants engaged in programming is an indicator of higher motivation or interest levels; more people engaged likely had an impact on increasing the employment rates.

The client-centred interventions developed for this research project have proven to be successful in tackling motivation levels and increasing participants finding employment. The within group employment rate for the Study group is 15.9% higher than the Control group rate.

Analysis testing the achievement of higher rates of employment retention over a six-month period as compared to the Control group is favourable. Study group participants confirmed to remain continuously employed for six months at a 9.5% higher rate than the Control group when comparing the within group rates; this accounts for an “actual” increase of 32% more participants confirmed to be employed continuously for six months (Study: 146 participants vs. Control: 109 participant).

Moving unemployed Pre-contemplative and Contemplative individuals through the SOC/MI Model through the use of SOC/MI interventions is evident through the achievement of higher total URICA scores and higher URICA stage placement. As participants move into higher stage levels they were likely moving closer to achieving employment; this provides an advantage to the Study group over the Control group. Study group participants moved forward through the Stages of Change as they attended SOC/MI interventions, and showed more forward movement than the Control group at the Program Completion and Job Secured assessment points. Study group participants also remained at a higher stage when assessed after the Six-Months of Continuous Employment point as compared to the Control group. The higher stage placement at the six-month point is a strong indicator that the SOC/MI Model has a lasting effect beyond the point of employment. Optimistically these are all indicators of permanent and lasting change.

Phase IIWith fifteen months of data collection for Phase II it was heartening to see that program retention rates, employment numbers, and stage placement in the Preparation stage held up to the expectations of Phase I Study group results. It was hard to predict how the changes in Phase II, namely the removal of cash stipends for participation, the introduction of a workshop for participants in the Preparation stage, and the increased workload from requiring all OFE clients to participate, would impact results. It was also


impossible to predict a coming recession that we are now in the middle of and the extent of its impact on results.

Participants that entered programming, regardless of their level of readiness, appeared to benefit from participation in SOC/MI interventions. From the onset of the development of the framework for this project it was hoped that the creation of a “safety net” would help to catch those that recycle. Systematic testing with the URICA, staff referrals, self-referrals, and spot checks with participants in the Job Resource Centre all helped in the prevention of allowing people to slip through the cracks and to try to ensure that everyone received the individual support they needed.

DemographicsWe can use the following as a guide as to which demographic items were of most note in relation to the effectiveness of the SOC/MI Model in relation to employment (consider that values above 0.1 may indicate that there is not anything of note, but could simply be that there are insufficient numbers to generate meaningful analysis):

0.05 < P-value ≤ 0.1 → some evidence against the null hypothesis 0.01 < P-value ≤ 0.05 → moderate evidence against the null hypothesis 0.001 < P-value ≤ 0.01 → strong evidence against the null hypothesis P-value < 0.001 → very strong evidence against the null hypothesis

Phase I DemographicsThe demographic items from Phase I showing very strong evidence: Employment: Females, Visible Minorities, those whose First Language was not

English, Single participantsSix-Month Retention: those whose First Language was not English, Single

participants

The demographic items from Phase I showing strong evidence: Employment: Males, Aboriginal Peoples, participants of African Decent, Immigrants,

Parents/Guardians Of Children, participants Diagnosed with Mental Health Issues, participants feeling they had Substance Abuse Employment Barriers, participants between the ages of 21-30 and 41-50, and participants that have Children Under 12

Six-Month Retention: those of European Decent, Visible Minorities, Immigrants, Parents/Guardians Of Children, participants Diagnosed with Mental Health Issues, participants feeling they had Substance Abuse Employment Barriers, participants feeling they had Gang Member Employment Barriers, Singles with Children, Singles without Children

The demographic items from Phase I showing moderate evidence:Employment: participants with Direct Family Member on EIA, those of European

Decent, Aboriginal Peoples designated as Status-Off Reserve, Refugees, those that are Married or Separated, those Incarcerated 3+ to 12 Months and 1+ to 2 Years, Ex-Offenders, Victims of Domestic Violence, those that are Couples without Children, and Single Parents

Six-Month Retention: Males, Females, those with Direct Family Members on EIA, those of African Decent, participants feeling they had Language Employment Barriers, those Separated (relationship related), those that have Lost Employment


Due To Substance Abuse, participants feeling they had Gambling Employment Barriers, participants feeling they had Illegal Conviction Employment Barriers, Ex-Offenders, Victims of Domestic Violence, those With Children Over the Age of 12, Mature Workers

The demographic items showing some evidence: Employment: those of Métis Decent, those in a Common-law Partnership, those that

are Divorced, those with a Physical Disability, those 31-40 Years of Age, Couple with Children, Parents with Children Older than 12 Years of Age, Mature Workers

Six-Month Retention: those of Asian Decent, those of Aboriginal Decent designated as Non-status, those Incarcerated 3+ to 12 Months, Parents with Children Under the Age of 12

Again, it is important to note that lack of inclusion on the above lists is not a statement that the model does not work, but for most instances is due to a lack of sufficient participants in those given subgroups to give enough power to the statistics.

Looking at releases from employment assistance services there were a number of demographic items that stood out:

The demographic items from Phase I showing strong evidence: Females, those of African Decent, Visible Minorities, Refugees, those whose First

Language is Not English, those whose Marital Status is Separated, Parents/Guardians Of Children, participants feeling they had Illegal Conviction Employment Barriers, those 21-30 years of age

The demographic items from Phase I showing moderate evidence:Males, those of Latin-American Decent, Immigrants, those diagnosed with Mental

Health Issues, those with an Illegal Activity Conviction, Ex-Offenders, Gang Member Employment Barriers, Victims of Domestic Violence, Singles without Children and Singles with Children, and those who have Children Under 12 Years of Age

All indicators from Phase I indicate positive effects on: stage placement, program retention rates, employment rates, and six-month employment retention rates. This is true for Phase II as well with all indicators indicating positive effects on: stage placement, program retention rates, employment numbers, and six-month employment retention rates.

Phase II DemographicsThe Phase II group is comprised entirely of participants that were engaged in the SOC/MI Model and with a reasonable number of 992 active participants it is possible to make reasonable evaluations as to the differences within the results for the individual demographic items. It should be noted that these results are indicators of one demographic group outperforming their counterpart; it does not indicate however if the SOC/MI Model impacts any given demographic group more than another (for those results compare the Phase I Study and Control groups). It should also be noted that due to the nature and duration of Phase II that there was insufficient time for all participants to achieve six months of continuous employment; the values obtained are a gauge of success but not the overall measure for success at this point as was obtained


for Phase I. The following are the demographics that indicated some level of significance of performance differences on one of the three main success indicators:

Participants who have Direct Family Members that are on EIA indicated strong evidence for program retention rate, employment rate, and the six-month employment retention rate with those responding “No” outperform those responding “Yes” for all measures.

The Ethnicity demographic indicated very strong evidence for the retention rate, strong evidence for the employment rate, and moderate evidence for the six-month employment retention rate.

o With participants of Aboriginal and Latin American decent on the low end of the retention scale at 43.6% and 43.8%, and participants of Asian decent at the high end of the retention scale at 65.1%.

o With participants of Aboriginal decent at the low end of the employment scale at 38.4% and participants of Middle Eastern decent at the high end of the employment scale at 70.0%.

o With Participants of Aboriginal decent at the low end of the six-month scale at 7% and participants of Latin American and Asian decent at the high end of the six-month scale at 18.8% and 17.0%.It would appear that in general that those participants of Aboriginal

decent have a consistently lower success rate for all the major indicators and participants of Asian decent generally fair toward the higher end of the success rate for all major indicators.

For the Aboriginal North American “status” demographic there was moderate evidence for the six-month employment retention rate.

o With Status-On Reserve participants at the low end of the retention scale at 28.6% and Non-Status participants at the high end of the retention scale at 61.5%.

o With Status-On Reserve participants at the low end of the employment scale at 19.0% and Non-Status participants at the high end of the employment scale at 53.8%.

o With Status-On Reserve participants at 0.0% on the six-month scale and Non-Status participants at 11.5% on the six-month scale.It would appear that in general that those participants with a

designation of Status-On Reserve have consistently lower success rates for all the major indicators and participants designated as Non-Status generally fair toward the higher end of the success rate for all major indicators.

Asking participants if their First Language is English provided moderate evidence for the six-month employment retention rate with those responding “No” outperforming those responding “Yes” for all measures.

o Thus indicating that those participants who have a language other than English as their primary language tend to outperform those whose native language is English.

For those participants who felt that their ability to understand the English language might be a barrier to gaining and maintaining employment there was some evidence for the Employment Rate with these people under-performing for all measures.

Marital Status indicated moderate evidence for the Retention Rate and EmploymentRate.


o With divorced participants at the low end of the retention scale at 44.7 and widowed participants at 71.4% at the high end of the retention scale.

o With divorced participants at the low end of the employment scale at 38.2 and widowed participants at 57.1% at the high end of the employment scale.

o With common-law partnership participants at the low end of the six-month scale at 7.7% and divorced participants at 17.1% at the high end of the six-month scale.

Participants Working/Not Working 20+ Hours per Week provided moderate evidence for the six-month employment retention rate with those working over 20 hours outperforming for all measures.

The diagnosis of Mental Health Issues item provided moderate evidence for the retention rate with those without mental health issues outperforming at all levels.

The Gambling Employment Barriers item provided moderate evidence for the six-month employment retention rate and mixed results across the three major outcomes, where there were near equal results for retention rate, those without gambling employment barriers outperforming those that do on the employment rate, and the reverse for the six-month employment retention rate where those with barriers outperforming those that did not.

The Illegal Activity Conviction item provided moderate evidence for the six-month employment retention rate with those responding “No” outperforming those responding “Yes” for all measures.

The Gang Member Employment Barriers item provided very strong evidence for the six-month employment retention rate with those responding “No” outperforming those responding “Yes” for all measures.

The Victim of Domestic Violence item provided very strong evidence for the retention rate, strong evidence for the employment rate, and some evidence for the six-month employment retention rate with those responding “No” outperforming those responding “Yes” for all measures.

Age Groups provided very strong evidence for the retention rate and some evidence for the employment rate.

o With 18-20 year olds at the bottom of the retention scale at 31.7% and 51-60 year olds at the high end at 61.3%.

o The 61 and older group was at the low end of the employment scale with 23.8% employed and the 41-50 year olds at the high end with 45.9% employed.

o With 21-30 year olds at the low end of the six-month scale at 7.7% and 41-50 year olds at the high end of the six-month scale at 10.8%.

The Marital/Parent Status combination item provided moderate evidence for the retention rate and moderate evidence for the employment rate.

o With Single Parents at the bottom end of the retention scale at 46.3% and Couple Parents at the high end at 60.7%.

o With Single Parents at the bottom end of the employment scale at 40.4% and Couple Parents at the high end at 54.0%.

o With Single Parents at the bottom end of the six-month scale at 8.4% and Couple Not-Parents at the high end at 12.6% (Couple Parents still outperform the Single Parents on this measure as well).It would appear that in general that those participants that are Single

Parents have consistently lower success rates for all the major


indicators and participants that are Couple Parents generally fair toward the higher end of the success rate for all major indicators.

The Mature Worker item provided very strong evidence for the retention rate andsome evidence for the employment rate with mature workers outperforming younger workers at retention and employment, but are slightly lower (0.8%) on the six-month scale.

The Employment Lost to Substance Abuse item provided some evidence for the six-month employment retention rate with those responding “No” outperforming those responding “Yes” for all measures.

Unemployment RateThe unemployment rate graph provided below is based on numbers provided from Stats Canada Labour Force Surveys for Manitoba over the last two and a half years. The monthly data from these surveys were compiled into one table and the following graph generated from it. The dark blue line is Manitoba's actual monthly unemployment rate for the duration of the study, the pink line provides the average unemployment rate for Manitoba from the start of the study through April 2009 (the end date for collecting data for Phase I), the yellow line represents the same data for Phase I but runs only through November 2008 (most of Phase I found employment by this date, the number of employed participants drops off after this date due to there being no new participants after August 2008, and if December 2008 through April 2009 is removed from the Phase I unemployment average it drops lower.). Both the pink and yellow lines are provided for comparison due to the nature of ending recruitment at the end of October 2008 and the diminishing returns on employment for the Phase I group after the majority of participants had found employment by November 2008 and the ever decreasing size of the group due to employment or releases in a group no longer bringing in new participants. The light blue line provides the average unemployment rate for the duration of Phase II.

3.754

4.254.5

4.755

5.255.5

5.756

Jun-

07

Jul-0

7

Aug-0

7

Sep-0

7

Oct-07

Nov-0

7

Dec-0

7

Jan-

08

Feb-0

8

Mar

-08

Apr-0

8

May

-08

Jun-

08

Jul-0

8

Aug-0

8

Sep-0

8

Oct-08

Nov-0

8

Dec-0

8

Jan-

09

Feb-0

9

Mar

-09

Apr-0

9

May

-09

Jun-

09

Jul-0

9

Aug-0

9

Sep-0

9

Oct-09

Nov-0

9

Unemployment rate

Phase I Average(through April 2009)

Phase I Average(through Nov 2008)

Phase II Average

It can then be seen from the yellow and light blue (or pink and light blue) lines the difference in the average unemployment rates for Phase I and Phase II; the study was faced with comparing Phase II results against Phase I (Phase I was used as a baseline for Phase II) but conditions in the employment sector had changed. It can be easily seen that the rate is much lower for the majority of Phase I and started upward growth at the start of Phase II in September 2008. The problem with using historical data for comparison versus using a control group simultaneously is that changes in the environment like this are controlled for. It is important for those reviewing the Phase II numbers to know that unemployment had raised enough to possibly contribute to any differences.




Primary Lessons LearnedThe use of the SOC Model and Motivational Interviewing in the employment field has shown success as was hypothesized (based on extensive studies of their use in the health psychology field). Success was better than anticipated and results from Phase II indicate that the model is successful even in trying times where unemployment is rising and there is a world wide recession.

These successes are noted as follows:

The data collected during the study provided for a comparison of a Control group (no interventions) and a Study group (receiving interventions); this comparison provided an excellent substantiation of the originally proposed hypotheses:

Program Retention Rates - the difference in program retention rates was in favor of the Study group over the Control group by 11.6% with an approximated significance of 0.00046

Employment Rates - the difference in employment rates was in favor of the Study group over the Control group by 15.9% with an approximated significance of 0.00000152

Employment Retention Rates - based on confirmations from employers, the difference in employment retention rates was in favor of the Study group over the Control group by 9.5% with an approximated significance of 0.000399

Phase II of this project made the SOC/MI Model mandatory for every participant and attempted to study prospective difficulties that might result from this. Another change included in this portion of the study, with possible negative outcomes, was the removal of monetary incentives. Data showed that there were no significant drawbacks in a real life situation other than a slightly reduced attendance rate to SOC/MI Workshops.

An onset of a worldwide recession coincided with the start of Phase II, resulting in a global increase in unemployment. With this in mind, it is all that more significant that the removal of the monetary incentive, mentioned above, had little impact in Phase II and that using the model with every client is critical to ensure that all have an equal opportunity to move out of the Pre-contemplative or Contemplative stages and into employment.

Requiring attendance to SOC/MI interventions before being able to engage in services benefited OFE in several ways, as noted by the following OFE staff member observations:Program Effectiveness – all participants needed to move into the Preparation

stage before engaging in active services, ensuring that they were ready to make a positive change, and reducing the number of resistant clients staff members needed to work with.

Program Efficiency – with all clients starting active services in a state of readiness, vacancies were kept to a minimum at the beginning of courses and dropouts were reduced during courses due to the MI supports provided to assist


those that might recycle. This ensured the most efficient use of available course seats.

Using the idea of having staff members working with clients only after they move into the Preparation stage allows for speculation as to what level of output would result from using SOC/MI with all clients. The following are the extrapolated outputs expected from working only with prepared and engaged participants:

25% increase in EAS program retention

34% increase in first time employment

48% increase in maintaining employment for six months or longer

Source data for the above extrapolations can be found in Appendix 9.

Issues can arise when there is insufficient planning, communication, or training. Sufficient planning is needed in the set-up phase and there is need for feedback from all those involved to allow for a more organic response to needed changes in procedure as a result of internal as well as external influences. For example, it may be that attendance is higher to workshops and MI’s on certain days of the week or month due to things such as benefit checks being distributed to clients on those days. A flexible framework of procedures is the best method for success with this model.

Participants have commented on the benefit of taking part in the SOC Model and MI’s. There was even requests from Control group participants to become involved when they learned about the benefits from other participants. Virtually all feedback from participants in focus groups was positive. Participants were an excellent resource for possible adjustments to the project as well. Any future agency implementing this model may want to incorporate the use of focus groups for adjustment to delivery of the plan.

Demographic Sub-Groups that Benefited MostThe advantage of collecting a variety of demographic items is that it has allowed for a review of groupings based on those demographics. The model now has strong evidence to support its use in general terms, but it is also helpful to know which sub-groups showed the strongest indicators for success as well as how much of an impact there was. The following table includes the sub-groups that benefited most strongly in regards to obtaining and maintaining employment for six months or longer and includes the percentage increase as a result of taking part in the model:


Very Strong Evidence

Study Group Increase Over Control Group

Those whose First Language was not English 28.80%Single Participants 18.10%

Strong EvidenceImmigrants 27.40%Participants feeling they had Substance Abuse Employment Barriers 25.10%Participants Diagnosed with Mental Health Issues 23.50%Those of European Decent 22.40%Participants feeling they had Gang Member Employment Barriers 22.20%Singles with Children 18.10%Parents/Guardians Of Children 14.90%Visible Minorities 14.50%Singles without Children 12.30%

Moderate EvidenceThose of African Decent 30.90%Those Separated (relationship related) 27.40%Participants feeling they had Gambling Employment Barriers 24.00%Those With Children Over the Age of 12 23.10%Those that have Lost Employment Due To Substance Abuse 18.70%Mature Workers 17.00%Participants feeling they had Language Employment Barriers 15.80%Participants feeling they had Illegal Conviction Employment Barriers 15.60%Victims of Domestic Violence 12.10%Those with direct Family Members on EIA 10.80%Ex-Offenders 7.90%

Implications to Agencies Wishing to Replicate the Use of SOC/MIThe Stages of Change Model is fairly straightforward and is easy to learn the basics of. Motivational Interviewing however requires having to develop proficiency in a number of key skills in order to perform it adequately. Agencies that wish to implement a similar process as that conducted in this study will need the assistance of an MI trainer in order to develop staff member skills to sufficient levels before initiating its use with clients. The basics of training can however be completed over the course of two to three days of intensive training, and skills can be honed to sufficient levels through the submission of taped MI’s for review by a trained MI coder using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Coding System (MITI) who can then provide feedback to improve on technique. It would be preferable that staff members reach a minimum level of skill before using the model with clients on a consistent basis.

It should be noted that there is success in training staff members without any prior experience in therapy methods. People without any prior training can achieve reasonable levels of skill.


There is also the consideration of differences within any given agency. What worked for OFE may not work in another agency with the exact same set of procedures. Consideration needs to be given by any agency as to how they will incorporate the use of the model within existing procedures, or how to overhaul existing procedures to best fit the model. This is a piece of planning that is often overlooked by most agencies when considering a major change of policy and/or procedure. Achieving this would most likely come from a collaboration of management, staff members, someone well versed in the use of the model, and someone with experience in change management. When taking into account all of these different perspectives it should be possible to create a reasonable plan for implementation. As with this project, further consultation will likely be needed with those mentioned above to make ongoing adjustments to procedures; even the best planning cannot account for all unforeseen circumstances.

Another consideration is that there needs to be “buy-in” from all parties involved. This model will not be successful if senior management simply dictates that the model will be used. The model is based on what is known as the “spirit” of MI. Those conducting the MI’s need to not only be skilled, as mentioned above, but they also need to accept the model as the new way of doing things and believe that clients have the capacity to change given the right circumstances. One way to try to achieve buy-in is to bring all levels of the workforce together prior to training in a fashion described above where everyone has input into any proposed changes. It may not be possible for everyone to gather in a large organization, but representatives from each level can be selected that can address issues from those they represent.

The products of this project not only include basic procedures, Best Practices, and tools for assessment, but also the development of skills and knowledge amongst the Research Team. After close to three years of dedicated work the Research Team, as a whole, has become a valuable resource that can be tapped to help achieve those issues addressed above.

Project AccomplishmentsThe following accomplishments, essential to PCII project priorities, have been achieved:

Inclusive of Underrepresented Groups – Our demographics clearly indicate variety, with different nationalities, ages, gender, and most importantly, barriers to employment.

Effective Employment Programming – Increased labour market participation of underrepresented groups amongst Study group participants indicates a strong buy-in to the SOC/MI process. As the Study group and Phase II participants move through the Stages of Change as they attend the various interventions and become aware of the importance and benefits of being employed. Many of these individuals may have never entered the work force due to “contemplative barriers” to employment.

Efficient Design and Delivery – As hoped for, the Study group’s rate of movement through the stages exceeds that of the Control group, and the Phase II participant’s results hold up against the Study group results from Phase I, which indicates the use of effective interventions that produce an efficiency gain in the process of employment assistance.


Maximizing Labour Market Participation – Every Pre-contemplative and Contemplative person that is motivated into Preparation and Action to find employment as a result of this project adds to a rapidly depleting workforce. To have the highly barriered and marginalized individuals, who are in a Contemplative state in regards to employment, enter the workforce and stay employed for more than six months is a huge gain for both the economy and for the individual’s sense of self-esteem.

Success of a Previously Untested Approach – The ultimate measurement of success in this project is finding employment and most importantly, staying employed for more than six months. On average, as compared to the Control group, the Study group participants remain at a higher state of awareness to the importance and benefits of employment when assessed six months after achieving employment and the Phase II group results hold up against the Phase I Study group results. This is a strong indication that the Stages of Change Model has lasting effects beyond the initial point of employment.





Based on the success of the three-year research study, conducted by OFE and funded by the Manitoba Government (Research and Innovation) and The Government of Canada (Pan Canadian Innovations Initiative), we can conclude that the application of Stages of Change assessment and intervention is an efficient and productive approach to increase program retention rates, increase employment rates and increase longitudinal employment retention rates.

Throughout the process of conducting the research study, OFE developed and integrated procedures and tools to facilitate the application of the Stages of Change Model into general employment services programming. The integration includes Intake assessment, record keeping, scheduling and follow-up processes, assignment to and delivery of Stages of Change Workshops, based on work readiness score, the delivery of one-on-one Motivational Interviews, reassessment, follow-up procedures and the development, recording and dissemination of Best Practices.

With funding for the necessary human resource capacity, Opportunities for Employment Inc. (OFE) would continue to offer work readiness assessment and interventions to individuals participating in Employment Assistance Services (EAS). Using the Stages of Change Model (SOC) and Motivational Interviewing (MI) counselling techniques, OFE would provide client-centered services to assess and develop the desire of project participants to seek meaningful work.

Stages of Change services would be applied in conjunction with employment assistance services to OFE participants at the Main Office location (352 Donald Street) and the Community Office location (561 Ellice Avenue). Participants in the Mature Worker Program (MWP) at the Main Office location would participate in Stages of Change services on request or on recommendation of a MWP staff member.

Objective and Goals

ObjectiveTo assess the work readiness of OFE employment assistance services applicants and to provide client-centered interventions, using the application of the Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing, to address motivation as a factor influencing successful transitions to the labour market.

Goals12 Month Goals:

Interventions: Number:Initial Assessment at Intake 1750People attending SOC Preparation Workshop 1235People attending SOC Work Readiness Workshop 495Motivational Interviews 270

Total Number of Interventions 3750

Outcomes:Clients Scoring in Preparation 1225


Activities/Service Description

Using the Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing (counselling) techniques, OFE will provide client-centered services to assess and develop the desire of project participants to seek meaningful work.

Outline of ServicesUsing a one-on-one Intake process for the EAS project, OFE will perform an

Intake interview to determine eligibility for participation. Request approval from Employment and Income Assistance (EIA) Case

Coordinator for program participation as applicable.Perform an assessment to identify barriers that may impede engagement in the

labour force regardless of motivation level.Perform a Stages of Change assessment using a modified version of the

University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA), known at OFE as the Work Readiness Assessment (WRA). The WRA is a 12-item self-report measure that includes three subscales measuring the initial stages within the Stages of Change Model (Pre-contemplation, Contemplation and Preparation). Responses are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (strong disagreement) to five (strong agreement). Scores for the subscales are determined by adding the Likert scale values of all items in the subscale. The combination yields a second-order continuous Readiness to Change score.

Participants will be referred to interventions (program activities) based on the Readiness to Change (RTC) Score:

SOC Work Readiness Workshop (For RTC Scores < 20: Pre-contemplation and Contemplation)This three-hour workshop is designed for participants who are identified as not be being “ready, willing and able” to obtain and sustain employment. Participants will be introduced to the concept of the six Stages of Change and complete a self-assessment. Using a decisional balance exercise, participants will explore, as part of a group, the advantages and disadvantages of being employed and unemployed. Activities designed and used to facilitate forward movement in the SOC Model include emotional arousal, consciousness raising, environmental re-evaluation, and self re-evaluation. Participants will also complete a post-workshop assessment. Participants still scoring below 40 will be referred to a Motivational Interview, those scoring 40 or greater will be scheduled to the SOC Preparation Workshop if they have not previously attended.

Motivational Interviews(For RTC Scores < 20: Pre-contemplation and Contemplation)Motivational Interviewing (MI) was developed by Miller and Rollnick (1991) and is defined as a client-centered, directive counselling method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence. It focuses on the person’s current interests and concerns and it is consciously directive in that the interviewer elicits and selectively reinforces change talk and also responds to resistance in a manner intended to extinguish it. MI is a communication method intended to move the person


toward change, focusing on exploring and resolving ambivalence as a key to eliciting that change. Within MI, change arises through its relevance to the person’s own values and concerns (Miller and Rollnick, 2002).

On Motivational InterviewsMotivational Interviews are designed to focus on a participant’s employment situation and the identified stage of the SOC Model the individual is currently in. The interviewer uses empathy, open-ended questions, reflections and affirmations. The interview is concluded with a summary of the discussion focusing on the individual’s strengths. The goal is to elicit change by the participant from talking about the benefits of employment and subsequently have the participant formulate an action plan towards employment.

Motivational Interviews will be offered on a one-on-one basis and will generally last one hour. An assessment will be performed at the end of each session and issued to determine if additional sessions are required. Participants still scoring below 40 will be referred to another Motivational Interview, those scoring 40 or greater are scheduled to the SOC Preparation Workshop if they have not previously attended.

SOC Preparation Workshop(For RTC Scores 20 and Greater – Preparation)This three-hour workshop focuses on reinforcing the decision made to move towards engagement in the labour force. SOC concepts utilized in this workshop include environmental control, social liberation, countering, and commitment.

RecyclingAn important concept that underlies this understanding of change is the acceptance that people rarely start at one point and progress through the Stages of Change without interruption. Such interruptions or set backs are referred to as Recycling. Recycling is framed as ‘normal’ in this model, andnot as a failure. Individuals may be identified in as ‘Recycling’ by behaviours such as poor attendance and missed appointments or perhaps a change in the level of job search activity. Participants may self-refer to a SOC/MI intervention or may be referred by an OFE Employment Consultant or Facilitator.

Delivery MethodsStages of Change Workshops are delivered in a group format, with approximately 10 to 12 participants. Motivational Interviews are conducted on a one-to-one basis.

Workshops will be offered in frequent rotations to reduce wait times between registration and engagement.

Follow-up Plan Participants will receive a minimum of 90 days of follow-up. For participants who have not secured paid employment or accomplished the expected outcomes of the project,


OFE will solicit guidance and support from the referring body to review continuance or to identify alternative programming. If an individual is not attached to a referring body (i.e. Employment and Income Assistance), we will meet with the individual to provide information on alternative programming in the community to address their specific barrier to employment.

StaffingOFE has successfully integrated Stages of Change interventions into the daily practices within the delivery of employment assistance services. In order to continue to deliver the interventions, the minimum human resource capacity would be one Counsellor at the Main Office location and one at the Community Office location. The additional time required by Employment Consultants and administration would be absorbed into the organization.

The staffing position for the Community Office location is new and would allow us to offer Stages of Change interventions to this large population. 40% of the annual EAS Intake population for the organization comes from the Community Office and we can project that 65% of these applicants are in Pre-contemplation or Contemplation in regards to their work readiness. An estimated 590 people per year would benefit from the SOC/MI interventions at the Community Office.


In order to successfully engage participants in SOC/MI interventions and increase levels of work readiness, there is a significant minimum time investment required, which cannot be absorbed into the existing EAS project. The following outlines the activities of the required Counsellors:

Counsellor Activities (in minutes):Main

Mins/WeekBranch

Mins/WeekTotal

Mins/WeekReview Assessments at Intake, Schedule for Initial Activity, and Data Enter into Schedule

180 120 300

Motivational Interviews 180 120 300Allot time for case notes after MI 90 60 150

Workshops 540 360 900Allot time for set-up 45 30 75Review and scoring of assessments 45 30 75Scheduling for next activity 60 40 100Allot time for cleanup 30 20 50Allot time for facilitator notes post WS 45 30 75

Addressing classes to promote Motivational Interviews and book appointments

50 30 80

Addressing participants in common areas to do spot checks on motivation levels

120 90 210

Meetings 120 120 240General daily emails 150 75 225Assessment data entry 150 75 225Reminder Calls 0 225 225Intervention/schedule tracking data entry 120 340 460Send out letters (final reminder/notices) 0 185 185Make photocopies and organize for distribution

15 10 25

Meet with Employment Consultants to discuss daily schedule/participant progress

50 30 80

Vacation 130 130 260Vacation coverage 130 130 260Total Facilitator Time 2250 2250 4500Available minutes per week 2250 2250 4500Hours per year 1950 1950 3900

Available hours per year 1950 1950 3900


Measurement of Clients Outcomes and Project Successes

A narrative report regarding the Stages of Change Services will be submitted to Employment Manitoba monthly to report on project objectives, activities and outcomes including:

Qualitative data to describe activities related to the objective:

“To assess the work readiness of OFE applicants and to provide client-centered interventions, using the application of the Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing, to address motivation as a factor influencing successful transitions to the labour market.”

Quantitative data to account for engagement in services for each goal area including:

1) Total number of initial assessments per month2) Total number of participants engaging in the Stages of Change Work

Readiness Workshop per month3) Total number of participants engaging in the States of Change Preparation

Workshop per month4) Total number of Motivational Interviews (counselling sessions) conducted

each month

Quantitative data to report on the desired outcome for participants:

1) Total number of participants achieving a score in the “Preparation” stage using the Work Readiness Assessment.

The total number of participants then engaging in employment services, and subsequently obtaining employment, will be reported on in the monthly report for EAS project #459044.

Summary

OFE’s use of MI has established a successful track record in improving communications skills and demeanor with participants, motivating participants to make significant behavioural changes, and decreasing participants’ resistance to finding meaningful employment.

The Stages of Change Model has been tried and tested prior to implementation and has been successfully accepted by OFE staff. An advantage to implementing Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing at Opportunities for Employment Inc. is that staff has gone through the growing pains that happen when an agency goes through an organizational change. OFE staff has confidence in the model and have seen first hand the benefits of using Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing. Staff members have used the assessment tool effectively for over 2.5 years; they are accustomed to referring participants for support services such as workshops or a Motivational Interview.


Strengths that support sustainability at OFE:

OFE initiated and researched an innovative model now being used across Canada

Successfully integrated interventions into daily practices within the delivery of employment assistance services.

The model has been used in the organization for over three yearsStaff are familiar with processes and proceduresKnowledge of assessment tool and Motivational Interviewing in the existing

structure The model is supported by existing staff “buy-in”The organization has a significant presence in the social service communityCan provide leadership and assistance to other agenciesCan permanently house educational material and provide resources to other

agencies

Closing

In closing we want to thank the many supporters and stakeholders of this project including the funders, participants, OFE staff, and Steering Committee Members. We appreciate the commitment you made to this project.

We offer our sincere gratitude to C. Brigitte Lewis, Senior Policy Analyst, The Government of Canada, Shelley Sager, Project Officer, The Manitoba Government and Joanne Hunt, A/Education & Training Coordinator, The Manitoba Government for their guidance and support. Thank you for partnering with us to change lives. Your input over the last three years has been invaluable.

Thank you to the Government of Canada for funding innovation in Manitoba and seeing the passion and purpose of the study as it relates to increasing the labour market participation of underrepresented groups.

Thank you to the Manitoba Government, Research and Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade, for their contribution and support, both initially and during the Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing (SOC/MI) research project. Without your partnership, Opportunities for Employment Inc. (OFE) would not have been able to submit the concept for consideration to the Government of Canada, Pan-Canadian Innovations Initiative, or complete such a robust and thorough study of the SOC/MI Model as it applies to employment assistance services.

Having gained a thorough understanding of the impact of the SOC/MI Model on participants and an organization, we have clearly defined the processes and awareness needed to be absorbed within an organization and the resources needed for an organization to offer these valuable interventions. The investment has been proven to yield gains in employment assistance services; the following results are based on an extrapolation of equal number of engaged participants receiving or not receiving the SOC/MI interventions:


25% decrease in releases from employment assistance services34% increase in first time employment numbers48% increase in six-month employment retention

Source data for the above extrapolations can be found in Appendix 9.

OFE understands that there is also a contribution and commitment required of the current staff and due to the thorough training and experience gained over the last four years OFE is very comfortable with the processes needed to be adopted to ensure the success of our participants.

OFE and the Manitoba Government have received acclaim from a number of service providers and government departments from many Canadian provinces outside of Manitoba. Together, we are being credited for having had the keen insight to develop such an effective process, founded on principles used in a completely different field, health psychology. Presently, a number of out of province agencies are implementing the SOC/MI process into their organizations. Deputy Ministers from two other provinces have also made inquiries into the results of our research and locally, OFE has also begun offering SOC/MI for Persons with a Disability through funding from Family Services and Consumer Affairs, Province of Manitoba, with very positive results to date.

Having received such affirmation, we are proud of the fact that SOC/MI, as an employment model, is a product conceived, developed, and tested in the Province of Manitoba. OFE looks forward to a positive response from the Province of Manitoba to our research findings and sustainability plan so that OFE can continue offering these effective interventions to any unemployed Winnipeg resident. Together, we can better assist individuals on their journey to meaningful employment

In conclusion, thank you for your funding, support and encouragement. This has been a truly enjoyable journey, with extremely positive results, that once formally implemented will…continue to change lives for the better.

Opportunities for Employment Inc.2nd Floor – 352 Donald StreetWinnipeg MB R3B 2H8Phone (204) 925-3490Email [email protected] www.ofe.ca

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ofe.ca/




Aboriginal Peoples – the descendants of the original peoples of Canada, including First Nations (both Status and Non-Status), Inuit and Métis people.

Action – one of six stages within the Stages of Change Model; the person is aware a problem exists and actively modifies their behaviour, experiences and environment in order to overcome the problem. Commitment is clear and a great deal of effort is expended towards making changes.

Alpha Values (Cronbach's α (Alpha)) – a statistic that is commonly used as a measure of the internal consistency reliability of a psychometric instrument. Cronbach's α measures how well a set of variables or items measures a single, unidimensional latent construct.

Analysis – the collection, examination, summarization, manipulation, and interpretation of quantitative data to discover its underlying causes, patterns, relationships, and trends.

Behavioural Change – can refer to any transformation or modification of human behaviour.

Best Practices – processes and activities that have been shown in practice to be the most effective.

Client-Centered Interventions – therapy that involve showing genuineness, empathy, and unconditional positive regard toward a client. Based on these elements the therapist creates a supportive, non-judgmental environment in which the client is encouraged to reach their full potential. Within this study interventions take the form of Motivational Interviews and Stages of Change focused Workshops.

Compensation Stipends – money paid to participants at set assessment points during the research study as a form of reimbursement for their time spent as well as an incentive of continued participation.

Contemplation – one of six stages within the Stages of Change Model; the person is aware a problem exists and seriously considers action, but has not yet made a commitment to an action.

Control Group – a Control group is a comparison group, used as a baseline for measurement, which is not subjected to the intervention of interest.

EAL – an acronym for the term “English as an Additional Language”, often refers to people who have a first language other than English. Sometimes referred to as ESL or “English as a Second Language”.

EAL Client – a client that does not use English as their first language. English may not be sufficient to gain employment easily.


EAS (Employment Assistance Services) – a group of available resources that aid unemployed individuals to prepare for, obtain and maintain employment.

Employment Placement Rate – the percentage of participants that have found employment within a specific group.

Employment Services – beneficial activities provided to assist individuals in securing employment or acquiring learning skills that promote Opportunities for Employment Inc.

Exit Interviews – an interview held when a participant requests to leave the Stages of Change Research Project with the intent of uncovering qualitative data as to reasons for withdrawing from the research project.

External Examination/Project Evaluation Analysis – a careful appraisal of a research project, conducted by trained investigators not employed within the organization that the object of the study is housed.

Facilitate – to assist in accomplishing objectives such as discussion on a particular topic or in a training context. It requires active participation by the facilitator to engage and involve the others in accomplishing the object. For purposes of this study, often referring to Motivational Interviewing techniques used to assist participants in resolving ambivalence or training the basic principles of the SOC Model.

Facilitator – for the purpose of this report, there are two different references to facilitator. The first is the Stages of Change Facilitator, this is a person trained touse counselling techniques to help participants to resolve ambivalence and improve or maintain motivation; this is done through the use of workshops and MI techniques. The second reference to facilitator is more general in nature, and can refer to any of a number of staff members that facilitate courses to improve on participant’s employment skills or job seeking proficiency.

Focus Groups – a group of people selected for their relevance to an evaluation that is engaged by a trained facilitator in a series of discussions designed for sharing insights, ideas, and observations on a topic of concern.

Intake – the process by which recruitment, orientation and employability assessment are conducted; usually the first in-person interaction that prospective clients have with OFE.

Intervention – the action of intervening; interfering in some course of events. In this study this refers most often to Motivational Interviews and SOC Workshops.


Job-Search – activities that include preparing and revising a resume/cover letter, telephone inquiries to potential employers, fact finding interviews and cold calls, networking, submitting applications for employment, participating in employment interviews, responding to newspaper advertisements, etc.

Labour Market – the interaction of suppliers of labour services (workers) and the demanders of labour services (employers).

Labour Market Barriers – a condition that impedes a client’s achievement of employment, participation rates and/or desired wages.

Labour Market Participation – employed and involved in the labour market.

Labour Market Integration – the process of someone moving into the workforce who has not been employed before.

Longitudinal Employment Retention Rates – employment rates over a period of time. For purposes of this study, the period of time is six months with no more than 14 days between jobs.

Maintenance – one of six stages within the Stages of Change Model; the person has made a sustained change wherein a new pattern of behaviour has replaced the old. Behaviour is firmly established and threat of relapse becomes less intense.

Mature Workers – workers over the age of 50 years.

Motivation – motivation is the reason or reasons for engaging in a particular behavior, these reasons may include basic needs such as food or a desired object, hobbies, goal, state of being, or an ideal.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) – a directive, client-centred counselling style for eliciting behaviour change by helping clients to explore and resolve ambivalence.

Motivational Interviewing Preparation (MIP) – an MI for a participant that is in the Preparation Stage of SOC; usually conducted for the purposes of assisting participants from Recycling (relapsing to lower stage).

Movement within the SOC – the progress of an individual through the Stages of Change.

New to the Workforce – this refers to clients 18-29 years of age who have not been employed before. They have just completed schooling and are now looking for employment.

Opportunities for Employment, Inc. (OFE) – a non-profit corporation helping unemployed people in Winnipeg to obtain full-time, long-term employment. The main goal of OFE is to equip individuals to achieve greater independence by pursuing and maintaining meaningful employment.


Phase I/Phase 1 – based on the original proposal and research framework, participants were randomly assigned to the Study group or Control group allowing for analysis and testing of the research hypotheses.

Phase II/Phase 2 – a further development of the existing Study and the logical progression to insure that the concepts, developed in Phase I, work outside the tightly controlled environment of a research project and can be passed on in a usable fashion to other agencies.

Pre-contemplation – one of six stages within the Stages of Change Model; people in the Pre-contemplation stage have no intention of changing their behaviour for the foreseeable future. They are not thinking about changing their behaviour, and may not see their behaviour as a problem when asked. They certainly do not believe it is as problematic as external observers see it. These individuals are often labelled as “resistant” or in “denial”.

Preparation – one of six stages within the Stages of Change Model; the person is intent upon taking action soon and often report some steps in that direction. Thus, this stage is a combination of behavioral actions and intentions. This is a relatively transitory stage that is characterized by the individual’s making a firm commitment to the change process. There may already be some initial steps taken towards change, but even if not, most clients will make a serious attempt at change soon (i.e. one month).

Programming – a scheduled set of activities for participants of OFE intended to prepare them for job-search activities.

Program Attrition Rates – the percentage of participants, within a given group, that have been released from active participation at OFE.

Program Release Rate – see Program Attrition Rates.

Qualitative Data – a collection of information that relates to intangible or objectivedata, such as peoples' attitudes and opinions.

Quantitative Data – a collection of numerical information, or information that can be represented numerically, that can be analyzed with statistical methods.

Random Assignment – a technique in which research participants are placed in experimental conditions in an unbiased or random way so that the resulting groups are not systematically different from one another.

Retention – the act of retaining something. For the purposes of this study retention may refer to the retaining of employment by a participant, or it may refer to the retaining of participants as active clients of OFE services.


Second-Order Continuous Readiness to Change Score – a scoring method used with the URICA. While the original method of using the URICA involved assigning a client a stage level based on their highest subscale score, this method uses all subscale scores in combination to take into account all items to determine a client’s willingness to make adjustments in their behaviour to achieve the desired goal.

Self-referrals – a situation where a participant has asked on their own to attend a MI (other MI appointments are scheduled due to referrals from OFE staff or low URICA scores).

Six-Month Employment Retention Rate – the percentage of participants in a given group that have retained employment for at least six months with no more than 14 days between jobs.

Skill Enhancement Programming – Employability Skills Development, Computer Literacy, Workplace Computer Skills, Forklift Training, Transitional Work Experience, Evaluation.

Stakeholder – an individual or organization with an interest in the success of delivering intended results and maintaining the viability of outputs. A stakeholder may be internal such as a participant or an employee, or external such as a sponsoring agency.

Stakeholder Satisfaction – the contentment the stakeholder has with the delivery of the project and the results.

Statistical Significance – the probability that an event or difference occurred by chance alone. In clinical trials, the level of statistical significance depends on the number of participants studied and the observations made, as well as the magnitude of differences observed. Often reported as a “P Value”, a decimal number representing the percentage chance that the given result would occur. Common levels or cut-offs for consideration are: .10 (10%), .05 (5%), and .01 (1%).

SOC Workshops – workshops that are designed with the Stages of Change in mind. These group treatments assist participants to resolve ambivalence and move through the stages more smoothly and successfully using the techniques/methods of group Motivational Interviews.

Stages of Change Assessment – see URICA.

Stages of Change Interventions – MI’s and SOC Workshops used to help reduce ambivalence and to motivate clients to move through the Stages of Change.

Stages of Change Model – a behavioural model developed in the health psychology field intended to explain or predict a person's success or failure in achieving a proposed behaviour change, such as developing different habits.


Steering Committee – a group composed of stakeholders including the entire research team, a representative from OFE, funding agencies, and others who provide input or recommendations to the development/adjustment of the project.

Study Group – participants randomly assigned to a group that is subjected to the intervention of interest. This group is compared to the Control group to determine the level of effect of the interventions. Also referred to as an experimental group.

Subscale Score – a scoring method used with the URICA. The values from all responses to URICA items representing one of the stages are added together to compute the subscale. A full URICA has eight items to each subscale and the WRA has four items to each subscale. This is the original method of using the URICA and involved assigning a client a stage level based on their highest subscale score.

Underemployed – labour that is not fully utilized; encompasses individuals working below the level for which they have been trained, or individuals working fewer hours a day than they would prefer. Also includes the working poor whose long hours of labour generate inadequate income for basic subsistence. OFE often refers to participants working under 20 hours per week as underemployed.

Unemployed – the state of not being engaged in a gainful occupation.

URICA (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment) – the URICA is a 32 item self-report measure that includes four stage subscales measuring:

1. Pre-contemplation2. Contemplation3. Preparation4. Maintenance

Responses are given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Scores for the subscales are determined by adding the Likert scale values of all eight items in that subscale. The subscale with the highest score indicates the SOC most reflected in the thoughts of the participant. Subscale scores can also be combined to yield a second-order continuous readiness to change score.

URICA, Short Form – used in Phase II, the Short Form URICA is a 12 item self-report measure that includes three stage subscales measuring:

1. Pre-contemplation2. Contemplation3. Preparation

The items for the short form version were selected from the full version for having the highest internal consistency within each of the three subscales. The Maintenance subscale was also removed due to the desire to reduce administration time and the fact that the subscale had little to do with participants that were not already employed. Otherwise the short form was much the same as the full URICA (see URICA above).


Likert Scale (pronounced as “Lick-urt”, but more commonly pronounced as “Lie-kurt”) – is a psychometric scale commonly used in questionnaires, and is the most widely used scale in survey research. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement. The scale is named after its inventor, psychologist Rensis Likert. The URICA uses a 5-point Likert scale.

Workshop-1 (WS1; also Work Readiness Orientation or WRO in Phase II) – the first intervention attended by study participants who are in the Pre-contemplative or Contemplative stages; this intervention introduces SOC and uses group MI methods in an attempt to resolve ambivalence and assist participants to move into the Preparation stage.

Workshop-3 (WS3; also Preparation Workshop) – the first intervention attended by study participants who are in the Preparation stage; this intervention introduces SOC (or a review for those that attended WS1) and uses group MI methods that focus on the issues facing those in the Preparation stage.

Youth – see New to the Workforce.



Appendix Number Appendix Title Page

1 Letter from Proactive Information Services External Evaluator......................... 137

2 Assessment Tools ............................................................................................ 14132-item URICA – Intake SOC URICA & Self Assessment Scoring Sheet12-item URICA - Work Readiness Assessment & Review Sheet

3 Demographic Form........................................................................................... 145Definitions for Demographic Form

4 Stakeholder Satisfaction................................................................................... 155An Overview of Feedback from Opportunities for Employment Inc. Staff

5 Best Practices................................................................................................... 161

6 Dissemination Locations and Map.................................................................... 171

7 Phase I Demographic Breakout Comparison of Research Groups................... 175(Study Group vs. Control Group) Phi/Cramer’s V Values & Approximated Significance Values for Table 15

8 Phase II Within Demographic Groups Breakout Comparison........................... 187(All Participants Receiving Interventions in Phase II)Phi/Cramer’s V Values & Approximated Significance Values for Table 16

9 Source Data for Extrapolations......................................................................... 193

10 Project Activities/Time Line............................................................................... 197

11 Workshop Curriculum ....................................................................................... 205

12 Reference List .................................................................................................. 209

13 External Evaluation........................................................................................... 215January 2010

14 Researcher’s Response to Evaluation Report .................................................. 243









Please contact us at OFE to receive a copy of the 32 item or 12 item URICA

Opportunities for Employment Inc.2nd Floor – 352 Donald Street

Winnipeg, MB R3B 2H8Phone (204) 925-6894

Email [email protected]







Demographics/Background Information

D12a. Social Assistance (EIA)Employment and Income Assistance (EIA) is a provincial program of last resort for people who need help to meet basic personal and family needs. Eligibility for income assistance is determined by a test of need. Applicants must be in financial need for the monthly cost of:Basic needs such as food, clothing, personal needs and household suppliesSome medical costs, and Housing (rent) and utilities, and some special costs if you are an adult with a

disability.http://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/assistance/_

Direct FamilyDirect family (or immediate Family)Term used to refer to one’s close relatives by birth or marriage including siblings, parents, children, in-laws, and any financial dependents.

D3a. EthnicityAboriginal

Aboriginal people in Canada are descended from the original inhabitants of North America. The Canadian Constitution divides aboriginal people into three basic groups: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis

AfricanEthiopiaKenyaSomaliaTanzaniaUgandaZambiaZimbabweCongoDemocratic Republic of CongoAlgeriaEgyptSudanNamibiaSwazilandSouth AfricaNigeriaLiberiaGuineaGhanaMali

http://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/assistance/_


Latin AmericaArgentinaColombiaCosta RicaEl SalvadorHaitiMexicoGuatemalaCubaBrazilVenezuelaPeru

Middle EasternIranPakistanTurkeyAfghanistanIraqKuwaitSaudi ArabiaIsraelLebanonSyria

AsianArmeniaPeople’s Republic of ChinaRepublic of ChinaHong KongIndiaIndonesiaThailandRussia

Asian-SouthBangladeshIndiaNepalSri Lanka


EuropeanCzech RepublicUkraineHungaryFinlandIrelandNorwaySwedenUnited KingdomItalyGreeceAlbaniaPortugalSpainSloveniaAustriaFranceGermanyNetherlandsSwitzerland

D3b. 1.InuitInuit are the Aboriginal people of Northern Canada who live in Nunavut, North West Territories, Northern Quebec and Northern Labrador. Inuvialuit are Inuit who live in the Western Arctic. The Indian Act does not cover the Inuit, but the Federal Government makes laws concerning the Inuit.

2.MetisMetis identify themselves as aboriginal people. They are born of a mixture of European and Aboriginal bloodlines but don’t qualify as Status Indians.

First NationsThe federal government’s Indian act divides First Nations into two categories Status and Non-Status

3.Non-Status Indians Non-Status Indians are people who consider themselves First Nations though Ottawa does not recognize them as such. This is usually because they can’t prove their status or have lost their status. Non Status- Indians are not entitled to the same rights and benefits available to Status-Indians.

4-5. Status IndiansStatus Indians are people who qualify for registration on an official list maintained by Ottawa. Status Indians are entitled to certain rights and payments not available to other Canadians-depending on the terms of their Treaty.


D3c. Visible MinorityA person in a visible minority group is someone (other than an Aboriginal person) who is non-white in color/race, regardless of place of birth. The visible minority group includes: Black, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian-East Indian, http://www.jobs-emplois.gc.ca/menu/ui_definitions_e.htm

D3d. ImmigrantThe movement from one country to another country for the purpose of settlement. http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions/immigration.htm

D3d2.RefugeeRefugees are those who flee their home countries to escape persecution or dangerhttp://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006738

D4c. EAL: (English as an Additional Language), aka ESL (English as A Second Language)In Canada the EAL/ESL Benchmark is referred to as the Canadian Language Benchmarks. The Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) are the national standard used in Canada for describing, measuring and recognizing the second language proficiency of adult immigrants and prospective immigrants for living and working in Canada. The CLB provide a descriptive scale of communicative proficiency in English as a Second Language, expressed as benchmarks or reference points. They cover four skill areas: reading, writing, speaking and listening, and use real life language tasks to measure language skills.

D6a. Parent with Legal Guardianship Birth parent in respect of a claimant who has not attained the age of 18 years, means a person who has custody of the claimant or who is empowered to act on the claimant’s behalf by virtue of rights.

Legal Guardianship“Legal guardian”, in respect of a claimant who has not attained the age of 18 years, means a person who has custody to the claimant or who is empowered to act on the claimant’s behalf by virtue of a court order or written agreement or by operation of law.Canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2004/20041103/html/sor217-e.html

D8a. Physical DisabilityA person with a disability has a long term or recurring physical, and sensory impairment and:Considers himself/herself to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of

that impairment,Believes that an employer or potential employer is likely to consider him/her

to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment.

http://www.jobs-emplois.gc.ca/menu/ui_definitions_e.htm

http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions/immigration.htm

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006738

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006738


http://jobs-emplois.gc.ca/menu/ui definitions e-htm

D8b. Visible DisabilityA person with a disability has a long term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, or learning impairment that is readily noticed by the general public. (i.e. this could be a person, looking at a photo or on the phone etc.)http://jobs-emplois.gc.ca/menu/ui definitions e-htm

D13a.Diagnosed Mental HealthMental health is the capacity of the individual, the group and the environment to interact with one another in ways that promote subjective well-being, the optimal development and use of mental abilities (cognitive, affective and relational), the achievement of individual and collective goals consistent with justice and the attainment and preservation of conditions of fundamental equality.

In order to have a diagnosed mental health, this needs to come from a doctor. So if a doctor has never diagnosed, limitations in the above capacity is not considered a diagnosed mental health.http://www.casw-acts.ca/practice/recpubsart5.htm

D10a.GamblingIs considered to be any activity where a person risks an item of value such as money or jewelry, on the outcome of an event that is determined mostly by chance.

D11a.Convicted of an Illegal ActivityTo pronounce an accused person guilty of a crime at the conclusion of a criminal prosecution.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/convicted

CrimeA violation of a lawhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/illegal+activity



http://www.casw-acts.ca/practice/recpubsart5.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/illegal+activity


D11b.IncarceratedTo imprison, to confine in a jail or prison.

D14a.Criminal GangA group of people following a common code of conduct, having common beliefs and identifiers, existing in a semi structured organization or hierarchy, and attempting to accomplish their goals through criminal activity.

Criminal Gang Member/AssociateA person involved with a criminal gang who either bears a tattoo that represents a specific gang or states his or her membership in a specific gang. In addition, a combination of two or more of the following items can establish criminal gang association in a specific criminal gang and two or more of these on three or more occasions can establish criminal gang membership in a specific criminal gang, wears clothing that contains the colors or symbols of a specific criminal gang, exhibits jewelry that represents a specific criminal gang, displays hand signs or other gestures or speaks a slogan of a specific criminal gang, associates with known criminal gang members at established criminal gang locations or hangouts, and has information meeting any of these criteria verified by a law enforcement agency.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_2_72/ai_98253653/pg_2

D12. Victim of Domestic AbuseDomestic violence and emotional abuse are behaviours by one person in a relationship to control the other. Partners may be married or not married, heterosexual, gay, or lesbian, living together, separated, divorced, or dating.

Examples of Abuse include:Name-calling or putdownsKeeping a partner from contacting their family or friendsWithholding moneyStopping a partner from getting or keeping a jobActual or threatened physical harmSexual assaultStalkingIntimidationForced confinementDamage to propertyViolence can be criminal and includes physical assault (hitting, pushing, shoving, etc.), sexual abuse (unwanted or forced sexual activity), and stalking. Although emotional, psychological and financial abuse are not criminal behaviours; they are forms of abuse and can lead to criminal violence.http://www.domesticviolence.org/definition/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_2_72/ai_98253653/pg_2

http://www.domesticviolence.org/definition/




The following outlines qualitative feedback collected formally and informally from OFE staff during the course of the study:

OFE staff members stated that they firmly believe that it is the work that the Research Team has been doing that has increased the retention of participants and therefore helped them succeed in their search for employment.

OFE staff members stated that they have a better understanding of the different types of barriers people have to face in finding employment.

Working with the Research Team helped OFE staff members to achieve the goal of moving people into employment.

- People in Pre-contemplation and Contemplation were provided with the tools to go forward into the Preparation stage furthering their chances of a successful outcome.

- Motivated participant contributed to their class, and their enthusiasm rubbed off on others, inspiring them. They also contributed more, making for a fuller, richer experience for everybody.

- Helped unmotivated job seekers to want to work, this benefited the placement rates.

The Research Team helped staff members to work more efficiently with clients.- Meeting and exceeding project objectives.- Adhering to reporting deadlines.

The following is a list of explanations OFE from staff members who had specific outcomes that they wished to achieve in relation to the Research Project.

The Intake and Programming Team saw a reduction in attrition and an increase in programming attendance. It was felt that Workshops and MI were very important and helped everyone to achieve their goals.

- They wanted to learn more about the project and be more involved in process.

- Understanding the confidentiality of participants’ situation in the study was addressed, what information Research Team could or could not disclose, when an EC has the clients’ interest at heart.

The Research Team made a huge effort to inform EC’s what roles they could play to contribute to the Research Team and how to be more effective.

- Information was provided on the Research Project objectives and the importance of staying on budget.

- Professional development and training in all areas of SOC/MI was provided including facilitating workshops and MI’s.

OFE staff members were able to share personal knowledge with the Research Team. The areas where OFE staff members felt they had made contributions included:

Administrative capacity – Proofreading and formatting. Ensured that all of the documents looked professional.

Presentation support and morale support. Suggestions of how to transition from Phase I to Phase II.


Project history – Pan-Canadian Innovative Initiative and Manitoba Entrepreneurship, Training, and Trade policy.

Provided insight into participants’ needs. The provision of personal experiences of staff members from foreign countries to

help put the enigma of underprivileged social groups in perspective. Assistance in administering the URICAS.

OFE staff members defined success regarding the SOC/MI Research Project and its relationship to their work goals or OFE’s goals as:

Success in helping participants to be able to be in the right place (mentally) to succeed.

Moving more participants from Pre-contemplation and Contemplation into Preparation.

Reducing attrition in class attendance. Increasing the number of people that moved into employment. In providing MI’s to help keep clients motivated while looking for work. Helping participants to not only gain employment but to also maintain it.

The following is a list of quotes from OFE staff members about their connection with the SOC/MI Research Project:

“It was like we are on the same team, with the same goals in mind.” “I would like to have known some members in a different way and to know their

gifts.” “It’s great to see that the Project works.” “The Research Team is very friendly, helpful and informative.” “I enjoyed working with the team. They are creative, thorough, dedicated,

talented, hardworking, smart and resourceful.” “They (the Research Team) made it easier to deal with multi-barrier participants

in the study group.” “The whole team provided great support and were very approachable.” “The participants of ESP (Employability Skills Program) should all be in the state

of preparation for the change that is to come, but not everybody is ready to consider that and may have a problem with one or more bad habits. The transition to the preparation state from pre-contemplation or contemplation is when the participants need the most help. The (Research) Team and project have helped in bridging this matter with great success.”

“The (Research) Team desired to assist others to be successful, and are dedicated to the project and the success of participants at OFE.”

OFE staff members recommended the following items to improve upon their relationship with the Research Team:

The increased availability of more immediate interventions (i.e. having them the same day, not needing to schedule an appointment).

- This was not always possible due to the schedule of the SOC/MI Facilitator, but when time was available they did provide same day MI’s


and did short (10 minute) impromptu MI’s when casually talking with Study group members in the OFE resource center.

Toward administrative capacity, it would have helped to have more lead-time when assisting in review of written materials.

- This was provided when time constraints allowed. Provide more continuous communication and education.

- This was addressed early in the project and periodic training and monthly project updates were provided.

I wished for more information about the whole project.- All staff members received training on the SOC/MI Model and project

procedures at the start of the project. Regular presentations on the scope of the project were also provided as well as outcome updates. OFE staff members were made aware that the Research Team was available to discuss any topic they wished and to please come and see one of the team if they had questions.

In regards to the above items, the OFE staff members reported that the Research Team respectfully considered their opinions.

In whole, satisfaction surveys and individual discussions with OFE staff members were positive and it was noted that the SOC Research Team had a great relationship with the OFE staff members.















Dissemination Presentation LocationsPROVINCE CITY EVENT

British Columbia Vancouver Aspect - Conference

British Columbia Vancouver S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Day 1 - Presentation

British Columbia Vancouver S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Day 2 - Presentation

British Columbia Vancouver South Fraser Community Services - Presentation

British Columbia Prince George Elizabeth Fry Society - Presentation

British Columbia Prince George The Prince George Friendship Centre - Presentation

British Columbia Terrace Northwest Training Ltd - Presentation

British Columbia Victoria Care Management Association of BC - Presentation

British Columbia Nanaimo Care Management Association of BC - Presentation

British Columbia Comox Creative Employment Access Society - Presentation

Alberta Lloydminster 3A Academy Employment & Training Services - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton Archbishop O’Leary High School - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton Bredin Institute - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton Millard Health - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton Alberta Employment & Training - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton City of Edmonton - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton Alberta Employment & Training - Presentation

Alberta Edmonton Women Building Futures - Presentation

Alberta Medicine Hat Academy of Learning - Presentation

Alberta Calgary Centre for Newcomers - Presentation

Manitoba Selkirk EIA Workers Interlake - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Supporting Employment & Economic Development (Seed) - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg University of Manitoba - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Victor Mager Adult Education & Training Program - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Argyle Alternative High School - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Adult Education Centre - Presentation

Manitoba Selkirk Job Quest - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Hope Centre - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg North End Women’s Centre - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Indian Education Association Inc - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg South Winnipeg Family Information Centre - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Success Skills - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Family Services & Consumer Affairs - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Prairies & Northern Territories - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Resource Assistance for Youth (RAY) - Presentation

Manitoba Winnipeg Urban Training Circle - Presentation

Ontario Burlington The Centre for Skills Development and Training - Presentation

Ontario Kitchener Lutherwood - Presentation

Ontario Ottawa Cannexus - Conference

Newfoundland St.John’s Newfoundland Symposium of Labour Force Participation Council of Federation - Conference

N.W. Territories Yellowknife Linx - Conference

Nunavut Iqaluit Moving Forward Together - Conference





Retention Rate Employment Rate 6-Month Rate For All

Gender ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.103 0.027-

0.1270.007

-0.116

0.012Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.103 0.027 0.127 0.007 0.116 0.012

Male

N of Valid Cases

461 461 461

Phi0.128 0.007

-0.191

0.000-

0.1190.011

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.128 0.007 0.191 0.000 0.119 0.011

Female

N of Valid Cases

449 449 449

Family Member on EIA ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.118 0.008-

0.1880.000

-0.143


Cramer's V

0.118 0.008 0.188 0.000 0.143 0.001

No

N of Valid Cases

498 498 498

Phi0.096 0.096

-0.124

0.033-

0.1310.024

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.096 0.096 0.124 0.033 0.131 0.024

Yes

N of Valid Cases

297 297 297

Ethnicity ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.062 0.187-

0.1310.005

-0.064


Cramer's V

0.062 0.187 0.131 0.005 0.064 0.170

Aboriginal

N of Valid Cases

454 454 454

Phi0.427 0.006

-0.474

0.002-

0.3620.019

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.427 0.006 0.474 0.002 0.362 0.019

African

N of Valid Cases

42 42 42

Phi0.249 0.115

-0.249

0.115-

0.2960.061

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.249 0.115 0.249 0.115 0.296 0.061

Asian

N of Valid Cases

40 40 40

Phi0.218 0.490

-0.102

0.747 0.000 1.000Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.218 0.490 0.102 0.747 0.000 1.000

South Asian

N of Valid Cases

10 10 10

Phi0.082 0.241

-0.151

0.031-

0.2300.001

European Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.082 0.241 0.151 0.031 0.230 0.001



Aboriginal North American Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig.

Inuit Nominal by Nominal

PhiN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Phi 0.152 0.101 -0.170 0.067 -0.109 0.240Nominal by Nominal Cramer's

V0.152 0.101 0.170 0.067 0.109 0.240

Métis

N of Valid Cases

116 116 116


V0.086 0.619 0.260 0.135 0.299 0.085

Non-status

N of Valid Cases

33 33 33


V0.043 0.477 0.123 0.043 0.045 0.460

Status-Off Reserve

N of Valid Cases

270 270 270


V0.049 0.793 0.049 0.793 0.229 0.218

Status-On Reserve

N of Valid Cases

29 29 29

Visible Minority ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. Value Approx. Sig.Phi 0.076 0.093 -0.126 0.005 -0.116 0.011Nominal by

Nominal Cramer's V

0.076 0.093 0.126 0.005 0.116 0.011

No

N of Valid Cases

489 489 489


V0.189 0.001 0.225 0.000 0.167 0.005

Yes

N of Valid Cases

287 287 287

N of Valid Cases

204 204 204

Phi0.567 0.041

-0.133

0.631-

0.2250.416

Latin-American Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.567 0.041 0.133 0.631 0.225 0.416

Phi N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANominal by Nominal Cramer's

VN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Middle Eastern

N of Valid Cases

N/A N/A N/A



Pacific Islander

N of Valid Cases

N/A N/A N/A


Immigrant ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


Nominal Cramer's V

0.104 0.005 0.151 0.000 0.107 0.004

No

N of Valid Cases

734 734 734


V0.227 0.016 0.263 0.005 0.292 0.002

Yes

N of Valid Cases

113 113 113

Refugee ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


Nominal Cramer's V

0.084 0.062 0.144 0.001 0.117 0.010

No

N of Valid Cases

491 491 491


V1.000 0.005 0.745 0.035 0.488 0.168

Yes

N of Valid Cases

8 8 8

First Language English ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


Nominal Cramer's V

0.261 0.003 0.293 0.001 0.319 0.000

No

N of Valid Cases

127 127 127


V0.101 0.006 0.152 0.000 0.107 0.004

Yes

N of Valid Cases

737 737 737


EAL/ESL Employment Barriers Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.


V0.120 0.001 0.176 0.000 0.122 0.001

No

N of Valid Cases

738 738 738


V0.138 0.143 0.105 0.267 0.189 0.046

Yes

N of Valid Cases

112 112 112

Marital Status ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi 0.079 0.082 -0.152 0.001 -0.152 0.001Nominal by

Nominal Cramer's V

0.079 0.082 0.152 0.001 0.152 0.001

Single

N of Valid Cases

481 481 481



V0.090 0.343 0.161 0.089 0.063 0.508

Common-law

N of Valid Cases

112 112 112


V0.180 0.059 0.193 0.043 0.055 0.563

Married

N of Valid Cases

110 110 110


V0.215 0.071 0.215 0.071 0.127 0.288

Divorced

N of Valid Cases

70 70 70


V0.383 0.005 0.307 0.024 0.295 0.030

Separated

N of Valid Cases

54 54 54


V0.447 0.206 0.258 0.465 0.447 0.206

Widowed

N of Valid Cases

8 8 8

Parent/Guardian Of Children Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.

Phi 0.106 0.020 -0.172 0.000 -0.111 0.015No Nominal by Nominal Cramer's

V0.106 0.020 0.172 0.000 0.111 0.015

N of Valid Cases

480 480 480


V0.150 0.005 0.170 0.001 0.162 0.002

Yes

N of Valid Cases

350 350 350

Work 20+ Hours Per Week Value

Approx. Sig. Value



V0.138 0.003 0.201 0.000 0.174 0.000

No

N of Valid Cases

480 480 480


V0.321 0.161 0.131 0.568 0.141 0.539

Yes

N of Valid Cases

19 19 19


N of Valid Cases

19 19 19

Mental Health Issues ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.097 0.057-

0.1320.010 -0.094 0.064

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.097 0.057 0.132 0.010 0.094 0.064

No

N of Valid Cases

387 387 387

Phi0.188 0.044

-0.268

0.004 -0.258 0.006Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.188 0.044 0.268 0.004 0.258 0.006

Yes

N of Valid Cases

115 115 115

Employment Lost To Substance Abuse Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.

Phi0.139 0.000

-0.190


Cramer's V

0.139 0.000 0.190 0.000 0.124 0.001

No

N of Valid Cases

738 738 738

Phi0.080 0.393

-0.074

0.431 -0.228 0.015Yes Nominal by

NominalCramer's V

0.080 0.393 0.074 0.431 0.228 0.015

N of Valid Cases

113 113 113

Substance Abuse Employment Barriers Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.

Phi0.126 0.001

-0.164


Cramer's V

0.126 0.001 0.164 0.000 0.112 0.003

No

N of Valid Cases

700 700 700


Disability ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.143 0.000-

0.1800.000 -0.152 0.000

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.143 0.000 0.180 0.000 0.152 0.000

No

N of Valid Cases 731 731 731

Phi0.030 0.759

-0.182


Cramer's V

0.030 0.759 0.182 0.063 0.064 0.512

Yes


Visible Disability ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.141 0.060-

0.1640.029 -0.197 0.009

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.141 0.060 0.164 0.029 0.197 0.009

No


Phi0.088 0.701

-0.231

0.313 -0.325 0.156Yes Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.088 0.701 0.231 0.313 0.325 0.156


Phi0.126 0.145

-0.228


Cramer's V

0.126 0.145 0.228 0.008 0.263 0.002

Yes

N of Valid Cases

135 135 135

Employment Lost To Gambling ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.133 0.000-

0.1750.000 -0.136 0.000

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.133 0.000 0.175 0.000 0.136 0.000

No

N of Valid Cases

842 842 842

Phi -0.350

0.294 0.158 0.635 0.158 0.635Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.350 0.294 0.158 0.635 0.158 0.635

Yes

N of Valid Cases

9 9 9


Gambling Employment Barriers Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.

Phi0.130 0.000

-0.176


Cramer's V

0.130 0.000 0.176 0.000 0.127 0.000

No


Phi0.197 0.095

-0.190


Cramer's V

0.197 0.095 0.190 0.107 0.244 0.038

Yes


Illegal Activity Conviction ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi

0.121 0.003-

0.1890.000 -0.148 0.000

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.121 0.003 0.189 0.000 0.148 0.000

No

N of Valid Cases

601 601 601

Phi0.144 0.023

-0.130


Cramer's V

0.144 0.023 0.130 0.041 0.097 0.127

Yes

N of Valid Cases

248 248 248

Employment Lost To Illegal Conviction Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.

Phi0.135 0.000

-0.173


Cramer's V

0.135 0.000 0.173 0.000 0.131 0.000

No

N of Valid Cases

814 814 814

Phi0.070 0.681

-0.190


Cramer's V

0.070 0.681 0.190 0.268 0.247 0.150

Yes

N of Valid Cases

34 34 34


Incarcerated ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig.Phi -

0.0350.813 0.016 0.916 -0.032 0.829

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.035 0.813 0.016 0.916 0.032 0.829

1-30 Days

N of Valid Cases

46 46 46

Phi0.200 0.439

-0.289

0.264 -0.289 0.2641+ to 3 Months Nominal by

NominalCramer's V

0.200 0.439 0.289 0.264 0.289 0.264

N of Valid Cases

15 15 15

Phi0.102 0.591

-0.401


Cramer's V

0.102 0.591 0.401 0.034 0.347 0.066

3+ to 12 Months

N of Valid Cases

28 28 28

Phi0.289 0.280

-0.559


Cramer's V

0.289 0.280 0.559 0.036 0.411 0.124

1+ to 2 Years

N of Valid Cases

14 14 14

Phi0.267 0.143

-0.144


Cramer's V

0.267 0.143 0.144 0.431 0.223 0.222

2+ Years

N of Valid Cases

30 30 30

Conviction from Illegal Activity -Employment Barriers Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig. Value

Approx. Sig.

Phi0.105 0.009

-0.166


Cramer's V

0.105 0.009 0.166 0.000 0.124 0.002

No

N of Valid Cases

623 623 623

Phi0.192 0.005

-0.183


Cramer's V

0.192 0.005 0.183 0.008 0.175 0.011

Yes

N of Valid Cases

212 212 212


Retention Rate Employment Rate 6- Month Rate For All

Ex-Offenders ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. Value Approx. Sig.Phi

0.141 0.023-

0.1550.013 -0.099 0.110

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.141 0.023 0.155 0.013 0.099 0.110

Yes

N of Valid Cases

258 258 258

Gang Member ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


0.116 0.011-

0.1670.000 -0.133 0.004

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.116 0.011 0.167 0.000 0.133 0.004

No

N of Valid Cases

484 484 484

Phi 0.105 0.639 0.000 1.000 -0.140 0.531Nominal by Nominal Cramer's

V0.105 0.639 0.000 1.000 0.140 0.531

Yes

N of ValidCases

20 20 20

Active Gang Member ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


0.114 0.012-

0.1690.000 -0.128 0.005

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.114 0.012 0.169 0.000 0.128 0.005

No

N of Valid Cases

486 486 486



Yes

N of Valid Cases

N/A N/A N/A

Gang Member Employment Barriers Value

Approx. Sig. Value


Phi0.090 0.080

-0.154


Cramer's V

0.090 0.080 0.154 0.003 0.113 0.028

No

N of Valid Cases

375 375 375

Phi0.188 0.046

-0.203


Cramer's V

0.188 0.046 0.203 0.031 0.246 0.009

Yes

N of Valid Cases

113 113 113


Domestic Violence Victim ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


0.133 0.002-

0.1860.000 -0.133 0.002

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V

0.133 0.002 0.186 0.000 0.133 0.002

No

N of Valid Cases

568 568 568

Phi0.124 0.038

-0.149


Cramer's V

0.124 0.038 0.149 0.012 0.139 0.019

Yes

N of Valid Cases

282 282 282


Age ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


Nominal Cramer's V

0.205 0.159 0.200 0.170 0.067 0.646

18-20

N of Valid Cases

47 47 47


V0.184 0.005 0.173 0.008 0.095 0.144

21-30

N of Valid Cases

237 237 237


V0.066 0.261 0.097 0.100 0.043 0.469

31-40

N of Valid Cases

288 288 288


V0.097 0.129 0.206 0.001 0.236 0.000

41-50

N of Valid Cases

244 244 244


V0.041 0.710 0.143 0.194 0.143 0.196

51-60

N of Valid Cases

82 82 82

Phi 0.375 0.236 -0.375 0.236 0.000 1.000Nominal by Nominal Cramer's

V0.375 0.236 0.375 0.236 0.000 1.000

61 through High

N of Valid Cases

10 10 10

Marital/Parental Status ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.

Sig. Value Approx. Sig.Phi 0.106 0.039 -0.173 0.001 -0.137 0.007Single - Not Parent Nominal by

Nominal Cramer's V

0.106 0.039 0.173 0.001 0.137 0.007


N of Valid Cases

383 383 383


V0.110 0.315 0.230 0.037 0.022 0.840

Couple - Not Parent

N of Valid Cases

83 83 83


V0.141 0.038 0.165 0.015 0.203 0.003

Single - Parent

N of Valid Cases

218 218 218


V0.138 0.119 0.152 0.085 0.074 0.402

Couple - Parent

N of Valid Cases

128 128 128

Youngest Child Under 12 ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


Nominal Cramer's V

0.148 0.136 0.190 0.057 0.241 0.016

No Children Under 12

N of Valid Cases

101 101 101


V0.152 0.018 0.168 0.009 0.109 0.088

Yes, Has Children Under 12

N of Valid Cases

244 244 244

Mature Worker ValueApprox.

Sig. ValueApprox.


Nominal Cramer's V

0.119 0.001 0.158 0.000 0.110 0.002

Not Mature Worker

N of Valid Cases

800 800 800


V0.090 0.348 0.188 0.050 0.194 0.043

Mature Worker

N of Valid Cases

109 109 109





Value Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig.


Value Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig.Gender Phi 0.026 0.372 -0.005 0.866 -0.018 0.523Nominal by

Nominal Cramer's V 0.026 0.372 0.005 0.866 0.018 0.523N of Valid Cases 1,227 1,227 1,227

Family Member on EIA Phi 0.100 0.003 -0.089 0.007 -0.087 0.008Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.100 0.003 0.089 0.007 0.087 0.008N of Valid Cases 914 914 914

Ethnicity Phi 0.159 0.001 0.143 0.005 0.119 0.038Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.159 0.001 0.143 0.005 0.119 0.038N of Valid Cases 827 827 827

Aboriginal North American Phi 0.128 0.182 0.126 0.195 0.160 0.044Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.128 0.182 0.126 0.195 0.160 0.044


Visible Minority Phi 0.002 0.942 -0.016 0.630 -0.002 0.963Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.002 0.942 0.016 0.630 0.002 0.963


Immigrant Phi -0.054 0.100 0.031 0.339 0.031 0.341Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.054 0.100 0.031 0.339 0.031 0.341


Refugee Phi 0.016 0.635 -0.048 0.154 0.035 0.305Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.016 0.635 0.048 0.154 0.035 0.305


First Language English Phi 0.050 0.117 -0.032 0.322 -0.064 0.044Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.050 0.117 0.032 0.322 0.064 0.044


EAL/ESL Employment Barriers Phi 0.047 0.147 -0.061 0.063 -0.023 0.475Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.047 0.147 0.061 0.063 0.023 0.475


Marital Status Phi 0.117 0.025 0.114 0.033 0.085 0.244Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.117 0.025 0.114 0.033 0.085 0.244


Parent/Guardian Of Children Phi -0.013 0.698 -0.002 0.952 -0.038 0.259Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.013 0.698 0.002 0.952 0.038 0.259


Work 20+ Hours Per Week Phi -0.023 0.543 0.055 0.151 0.086 0.024Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.023 0.543 0.055 0.151 0.086 0.024


Disability Phi 0.002 0.953 -0.029 0.376 0.027 0.416Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.002 0.953 0.029 0.376 0.027 0.416


Visible Disability Phi 0.018 0.826 -0.077 0.352 -0.131 0.113Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.018 0.826 0.077 0.352 0.131 0.113



Mental Health Issues Phi 0.075 0.024 -0.050 0.137 -0.008 0.801Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.075 0.024 0.050 0.137 0.008 0.801


Employment Lost To Substance Abuse Phi 0.035 0.289 -0.032 0.338 -0.061 0.066Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.035 0.289 0.032 0.338 0.061 0.066


Substance Abuse Employment Barriers Phi 0.030 0.392 -0.014 0.676 0.018 0.594Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.030 0.392 0.014 0.676 0.018 0.594


Employment Lost To Gambling Phi 0.040 0.223 -0.006 0.859 -0.031 0.355Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.040 0.223 0.006 0.859 0.031 0.355


Gambling Employment Barriers Phi 0.004 0.910 -0.010 0.779 0.082 0.019Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.004 0.910 0.010 0.779 0.082 0.019


Illegal Activity Conviction Phi 0.024 0.474 -0.040 0.235 -0.067 0.045Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.024 0.474 0.040 0.235 0.067 0.045


Conviction from Illegal Activity -Employment Barriers

Phi-0.003 0.926 -0.015 0.647 -0.027 0.426

Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V 0.003 0.926 0.015 0.647 0.027 0.426


Incarcerated Phi 0.107 0.734 0.098 0.791 0.117 0.657Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.107 0.734 0.098 0.791 0.117 0.657


Illegal Conviction Employment Barriers Phi -0.040 0.252 0.007 0.834 0.033 0.338Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.040 0.252 0.007 0.834 0.033 0.338


Ex-Offenders Phi N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANominal by Nominal Cramer's V N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANo statistics are computed because Ex-

Offenders is a constant N of Valid Cases N/A N/A N/A

Gang Member Phi 0.042 0.207 -0.009 0.784 -0.017 0.613Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.042 0.207 0.009 0.784 0.017 0.613


Active Member Phi 0.054 0.398 -0.041 0.517 -0.026 0.684Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.054 0.398 0.041 0.517 0.026 0.684


Gang Member Employment Barriers Phi -0.055 0.167 0.011 0.783 0.138 0.001Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.055 0.167 0.011 0.783 0.138 0.001


Domestic Violence Victim Phi 0.121 0.000 -0.105 0.002 -0.061 0.069Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.121 0.000 0.105 0.002 0.061 0.069




Value Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig. Value Approx. Sig.Age Phi 0.160 0.000 0.093 0.060 0.040 0.862Nominal by

Nominal Cramer's V 0.160 0.000 0.093 0.060 0.040 0.862

N of Valid Cases 1,218 1,218 1,218

Marital/Parent Status Phi 0.100 0.029 0.096 0.040 0.046 0.585Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.100 0.029 0.096 0.040 0.046 0.585


Youngest Child Under 12 Phi 0.045 0.404 0.020 0.715 -0.017 0.750Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.045 0.404 0.020 0.715 0.017 0.750


Mature Worker Phi -0.116 0.000 0.047 0.098 -0.011 0.704Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V 0.116 0.000 0.047 0.098 0.011 0.704

N of Valid Cases 1,220 1,220 1,220





Actual Phase I Numbers

Engaged Retained Employed 6-M

Study 432 249 272 146

47.50% 57.60% 63.00% 62.90%

Control 478 220 225 109

52.50% 46.00% 47.10% 53.40%

Extrapolation for 1000 Engaged

Study 1000 576 630 338

Control 1000 460 471 228

Increase 125.20% 133.80% 148.20%





Activities and TimelineStages of Change Research Study

February 19, 2007 – April 30, 2007

Hold an appreciative inquiry to create a collaborative relationship between Manitoba Family Services Employment and Income Assistance, Manitoba Competitiveness, Training and Trade, OFE and other stakeholders who may refer participants to the project

Form a Steering Group that will meet on a regular basisStaff recruitment, training, and management (1 Project Manager; 1 Facilitator; 1

Employment Consultant; ½ time Administrative Assistant; 1 Researcher)Development of data collection processesIntervention and curriculum development/revisionDevelopment of a methodology to implement random assignment of

participants to Groups A and BCreation of a research subject waiver (consent form)Database creation consultationDevelopment of database

May 1, 2007 – July 31, 2007

Design and implement Intake processMonitor relations between EIA counsellors, OFE counsellors and job seekersParticipant recruitment & advertisingTrain staff on SOC & MI model theorySupport Intake initiatives; respond to inquiries from applicants and referring

agenciesHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for

project and Control groupsAssessment of participants based on the SOC model – approximately seven

per personBegin data collection process (this will be ongoing throughout project)Perform weekly audits on data collectionConduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsExit Interviews (when applicable)Hold a Steering Group meetingInterim report to PCII

August 1, 2007 – October 31, 2007

Best Practices document development Adjustment of the project delivery based on initial lessons learned - Assessing,

developing and integrating additional opportunities to adapt the SOC principles across OFE programs and services

Provision of one-on-one job placement support (on-going throughout project)Testing of the reliability of SOC assessments between raters to insure valid

SOC stage positioning of participants


Provide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practicesDelivery of regular OFE Programming - Employability Skills Training, Job

Search Training, Skill Enhancement Training (on-going)Website developmentRecruitment of a 3rd party interviewer to conduct Focus Groups and analyze

data Conduct Focus Groups Exit Interviews (when applicable)Data collection and auditsData analysis and evaluation reports Hold a Steering Group meetingConduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for


per person

November 1, 2007 – January 31, 2008

Knowledge transfer - CCDF and CCEDN Conferences - presentations on project progress/outcomes are made

Development of an Annual External Examination Report/Project Evaluation Analysis

Hold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practicesHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for


per personInterim Report to PCII

February 1, 2008 – April 30, 2008

Completion of Annual External Examination Report/Project Evaluation analysisHold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practices


Hold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for project and Control groups

Assessment of participants based on the SOC model – approximately seven per person

Adjustment of the project delivery based on initial lessons learned - Assessing, developing and integrating additional opportunities to adapt the SOC principles across OFE programs and services

Knowledge transfer – submit learning outcomes in articles to publications, update website, present to referring government agencies and sponsors

May 1, 2008 – July 31, 2008

Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsHold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practicesHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for


per personInterim report to PCII

August 1, 2008 – October 31, 2008

Hold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practicesHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for

project and Control groupsAssessment of participants based on the SOC model - approximately seven per

personTesting of the reliability of SOC assessments between raters to insure valid

SOC stage positioning of participantsAdjustment of the project delivery based on initial lessons learned - Assessing,

developing and integrating additional opportunities to adapt the SOC principles across OFE programs and services


November 1, 2008 – January 31, 2009

Knowledge transfer - Publications i.e. Winnipeg Free Press and CCEDN’s “Making Waves”

Hold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practicesHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for


per personDevelopment of Annual External Examination report/Project evaluation analysisInterim report to PCII

February 1, 2009 – April 30, 2009

Completion of Annual External Examination Report/Project Evaluation AnalysisHold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practicesHold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for


per personDatabase program maintenance/revisionsKnowledge transfer – submit learning outcomes in articles to publications,

update website, present to referring government agencies and sponsors

May 1, 2009 – July 31, 2009

Knowledge transfer – presentation to the United Way of WinnipegHold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsProvide continuing education to staff on SOC & MI best practices


Hold weekly Intake sessions to recruit participants/use random assignment for project and Control groups

Assessment of participants based on the SOC model – approximately seven per person

Adjustment of the project delivery based on initial lessons learned - Assessing, developing and integrating additional opportunities to adapt the SOC principles across OFE programs and services

Interim report to PCII

August 1, 2009 – October 31, 2009

Development of Annual External Examination Report/Project Evaluation Analysis

Implement sun-setting strategies (cease Intake/continue employment services support)

Hold a Steering Group meetingData collection and auditsConduct Focus Groups (quarterly) Exit Interviews (when applicable)Conduct MI individual appointments with participantsEvaluation data analysis consultationDeliver SOC/MI Workshops to participantsAssessment of participants based on the SOC model – approximately seven

per personTesting of the reliability of SOC assessments between raters to insure valid

SOC stage positioning of participantsOverall project analysis

November 1, 2009 – February 18, 2010

Completion of Annual External Examination Report/Project Evaluation AnalysisFinal Project Evaluation Report to PCIIKnowledge transfer - meetings/presentations to government Continued employment services support to project participants





Please contact us to receive copies of workshop curriculum.

Opportunities for Employment Inc.2nd Floor – 352 Donald Street

Winnipeg, MB R3B 2H8Phone (204) 925-6894

Email [email protected]





References

Addictions Foundations of Manitoba. (2003, June). Course Manual: The

Transtheoretical Model of Change. (Available from AFM, 1031 Portage

Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3G 0R8)

Amodei, N., & Lamb, R.J. (2004). Convergent and concurrent validity of the

Contemplation ladder, and the URICA scales. Drug and Alcohol

Dependence, 73, 301-306.

Cancer Prevention Research Center (n.d.). Transtheoretical Model.

Retrieved February 25, 2008, from

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/transtheoretical.htm.

Carney, M.M., & Kivlahan, D.R. (1991). Motivational subtypes among

veterans seeking substance abuse treatment: Profiles based on stages

of change. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9, 135-142.

DiClemente, C.C. & Hughes S.O. (1990). Stages of change profiles in

outpatient alcoholism treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,

2, 217-235.

Dozois, D.J.A., Westra, H.A., Collins, K.A., Fung, T.S., & Garry, J.K.F.

(2004). Stages of change in anxiety: psychometric properties of the

University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) scale.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(6), 711-729.

Garven & Associates (2004). Developing a Model for Effective Work-Readiness Training.

Gorlick, C., & Brethour, G. (1998). Welfare to Work Programs in Canada: An

Overview. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.

Greenstein, D.K., Franklin, M.E., & McGuffin, P. (1999). Measuring

motivation to change: An examination of the University of Rhode Island

http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/transtheoretical.htm


Change Assessment Questionnaire (URICA) in an adolescent sample.

Psychotherapy, 36, 47-55.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C.R., & Kantrowitz, T.M. (2001). Job search and

employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic

review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837-855.

Mannock, T.J., Levesque, D.A., & Prochaska, J.M. (2002). Assessing

readiness of clients with disabilities to engage in job seeking behaviors.

Journal of Rehabilitation, 68(3), 16-23.

McConnaughy, E.A., DiClement, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., & Velicer, W.F.

(1989). Stages of change in psychotherapy: A follow-up report.

Psychotherapy, 26, 494-503.

McConnaughy, E.A., Prochaska, J.O. & Velicer, W.F. (1983). Stages of

change in psychotherapy: measurement and sample profiles.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 20, 368–375.

McGuire, L. (2004). The transtheoretical model: Welfare to work as a

change process. Journal of Human Behavior and in the Social

Environment, 10(2), 33-56.

Miles, M.B, & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, Second

Edition (pp. 10-12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S.R. (1991). Motivational interviewing: preparing

people to change addictive behaviour. New York: Guilford Press.

Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S.R. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing

people to change addictive behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford

Press.


Petry, N.M. (2005). Stages of change in treatment-seeking pathological

gamblers. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73(2), 312-322.

Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-

change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395.

Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1994). The transtheoretical approach.

Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., and Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of

how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American

Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.

Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, J.C., & DiClemente, C.C. (1994). Changing For

Good: A Revolutionary Six-Stage Program for Overcoming Bad Habits

and Moving Your Life Positively Forward. New York: HarperCollins.

Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., Guadagnoli, E., and

Rossi, J.S. (1991). Patterns of change: Dynamic typology applied to

smoking cessation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 83-107.

Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., Rossi, J.S., Goldstein, M.G., Marcus, B.H.,

Rakowski, W., Fiore, C., Harlow, L.L., Redding, C.A., Rosenbloom, D., &

Rossi, S.R. (1994). Stages of change and decisional balance for twelve

problem behaviors. Health Psychology, 13, 39-46.

Rose, Jon (2001). Relapse Prevention & Relapse Management. Retrieved

February 25, 2008, from

http://www.drugnet.bizland.com/intervention/relapse1.htm.

http://www.drugnet.bizland.com/intervention/relapse1.htm


Scholl, R.W. (September 15, 2002). The Transtheoretical Model of

Behavioral Change. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from

http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/Notes/TTM.html.

Velicer, W.F., Prochaska, J.O., Fava, J.L., Norman, G.J., & Redding, C A.

(1998). Smoking cessation and stress management: Applications of the

Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change. Homeostasis, 38, 216-233.

Willoughby, F.W., & Edens, J.F. (1996). Construct validity and predictive

utility of the stages of change scale for alcoholics. Journal of Substance

Abuse, 8(3), 275-291.

Whitelaw, S., Baldwin, S., Bunton, R., & Flynn, D. (2000). The Status of

Evidence and Outcomes in Stages of Change Research. Health and

Education Research, 15(6), 707-718.

http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/Notes/TTM.html




External Review 2010

Stages of Change Research Project

Prepared For:

Prepared By:

“Helping Clients Make a Difference … Since 1984”

January 2010



“Helping clients makea difference … since 1984.”

Celebrating 25 years!

Table of Contents

Introduction...........................................................................................1A. Opportunities for Employment Inc. ...............................................1B. Proactive Information Services Inc. ..............................................2

Stages of Change Project.................................................................3A. The Approach.................................................................................3B. Purpose and Background to the Research Study.......................4C. Process ...........................................................................................7D. Monitoring, Quality Control and Confidentiality........................10

The External Review.........................................................................12A. Our Understanding of the External Review .................................12B. Process for the External Review...................................................13C. Summary Discussion from Years 1 and 2....................................15D. Discussion from Year 3 .................................................................18E. In Conclusion .................................................................................23

Contact Information:

Proactive Information Services Inc.

Mailing Address101 – 478 River Ave.

Suite 732Winnipeg, MB R3L 0B3

(204) 943-2370 www.proactive.mb.ca

http://www.proactive.mb.ca/


- INTRODUCTION -

A. Opportunities for Employment Inc.

Established in 1995, Opportunities for Employment Inc. (OFE) is “a faith-based non-profit corporation established to help individuals in need of assistance to obtain full-time, long-term employment.” A non-profit corporation, its roots and mission are derived from the founding partners, the Mennonite Central CommitteeManitoba and the Mennonite Economic Development Associates, WinnipegChapter. OFE’s mission is to “equip individuals to achieve greater independence by pursuing and maintaining meaningful employment.” While OFE now receives core funding from the Manitoba provincial government, an array ofother partners and funders also support its work.1

Opportunities for Employment provides a variety of programs and services to people in Winnipeg who are seeking full-time employment, but who may lack skills and/or have lost confidence. Participants move through Intake to Skill Enhancement Programming, Employment Services, and Retention Services. Employment Consultants, a resource centre, and other on-site supports (e.g., food bank, interview clothing) assist clients in their job preparation and job search. An off-site location, House Of Opportunities, is found in the Spence Neighbourhood.

While in 2005, Opportunities for Employment was able to celebrate its 10th

anniversary and 5,000th placement, not all clients were successful in obtaining and maintaining full-time employment. Informal discussions with other organizations working in the same field, but using a variety of approaches, identified a common phenomenon – a high drop-out rate. It was not uncommon to lose anywhere from 25% to 50% of candidates after their first contact. Also, all too frequent was the situation where significant resources had been invested in training and preparation only to have the participants drop-out or fail when they were about to transition to the job-site.

OFE decided to explore approaches that would address these issues and, hence, the Stages of Change (SOC) Research Project was developed. While descriptions of the approach and the history of the Project are found in the following section of this document, it is important to note that SOC was funded as a three year research project. One of the conditions was to have an external consultant review the research project and make recommendations (as necessary) to enhance its quality, efficacy, and usefulness. This report represents the external review for Year 3 and the final external review of the project.

1 For further information on OFE, its history and its supporters, please see: http://www.ofe.ca

Stages of Change Research Study:External Review 2010 Page 1

http://www.ofe.ca/


B. Proactive Information Services Inc.

Proactive Information Services Inc., a Winnipeg-based social research company, was contracted to undertake the external review. Proactive was established in1984 to provide qualitative and quantitative research and evaluation services to clients in the public and non-profit sectors. Clients include government ministries, community organizations and agencies, post-secondary and training institutions, school districts and schools, foundations, and other NGOs across Canada, as well as internationally.

Proactive’s professionals have undertaken social research and evaluation projects in a variety of settings, including in Canada, with people in recent immigrant communities, with rural, urban and Northern communities, and with Aboriginal communities. Internationally, Proactive has worked on projects in numerous countries in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, as well as in Argentina, Lithuania, and Mongolia. These experiences, in conjunction with the team’s professional skills and knowledge, have highlighted the necessity of working to ensure that research processes and methods are contextually sensitive, as well as culturally, socially, and developmentally appropriate.2

Linda E. Lee, one of the partners in Proactive, is the key contact and project director for the external review of the SOC Research Study. She has worked in research and evaluation since the late 1970s, for the provincial government, for Manitoba’s largest school district and, since 1989, with Proactive. Linda has developed evaluation frameworks for pilot projects in Canada and across the world, including projects in East Central and Southeastern Europe funded by the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation, New York) and in Lithuania for a project funded by the Lithuanian government and the World Bank. Data from one of her projects has been used as evidence in the European Court of Human Rights. She is a former national President of the Canadian Evaluation Society. In2009 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Society. Linda has published and presented nationally and internationally and has conducted training in evaluation and research methods both at home and abroad.

Larry K. Bremner, the other partner in Proactive, is the adjunct reviewer. He provides a second independent perspective on the SOC Research Project and assisted with the external audit of the data analysis. In the 1970s and early1980s, Larry was a senior analyst and survey coordinator for a provincial government department and then became senior vice-president for Angus Reid Group, prior to founding Proactive in 1984. Like Linda, he has worked in research and evaluation in Canada and across the world, from Macedonia to Mongolia. He was a consultant to tatistics Canada on their educational indicators and has conducted training in research methods and data use in Canada and Europe.

2 For more information on Proactive, see www.proactive.mb.ca


http://www.proactive.mb.ca/


- STAGES OF CHANGE PROJECT -

A. The Approach

The Stages of Change Model (SOC) is an approach that has been used extensively in the addictions field, where emotion, cognition and behaviour are all crucial factors; however, the approach had not been used in the employment development field. The approach speaks directly to the issue of motivation. In conjunction with SOC, Motivational Interviewing (MI) was a strategy that held promise. MI is a client-centred communication method intended to move people towards change by exploring and resolving ambivalence as a key to eliciting change. Studies in other fields have demonstrated that SOC and MI are effective in assisting individuals to make desirable life changes.

More specifically, SOC recognizes a gradual, six stage change process:3

1. Pre-contemplation – when the participant is not considering change because no perceived need for change,

2. Contemplative – when the participant is thinking about making some changes,

3. Preparation – when the participant is preparing for or becoming determined to make changes,

4. Action – when the participant is actively making changes,5. Maintenance – when the participant consistently attends to and is working

on maintaining the change,6. Termination – when the participant no longer needs to attend to the task of

maintaining change.

Research indicates that people who are asked to accomplish tasks they are not ready for experience frustration and setbacks. People who are deemed ‘resistant’ to change may indeed represent individuals where the services offered did not meet their needs because of their personal stage of change at the time. Additionally, few people start at one stage and sequentially move through the stages to termination. ‘Recycling’ is common, where people move back to a previous stage before being able to move on. This is not considered as ‘failure,’ but rather a likely part of the process of finally moving to sustained maintenance and termination. Therefore, in the employment development setting, SOC allows a focus on individual needs, stages of recovery and time frames, while still accommodating groups of people.

3 The Research Design Report, as well as the Interim Reports, Best Practice documents from the SOC Research Study and the Final SOC Report January 2010, all explain the stages and provide more detailed information.



The target population for SOC intervention is unemployed or underemployed individuals who face motivational barriers to work. These individuals may be long term or multi-generational recipients of Employment and Income Assistance (EIA), people returning to work after lengthy absences for reasons such as injury, child rearing, or mental health issues, to name a few. They include Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, youth at risk, single parents, newcomers, and ex-offenders.

B. Purpose and Background to the Research Study

The project staff included a Program Manager, Researcher, Facilitator, Employment Consultant, and Administrative Assistant. 4 In addition, a broad-based Steering Committee5 met quarterly to review the process and results of the SOC Research Study in order to provide feedback and advice to the project.

The SOC Research Study was originally designed with a Study group that received the interventions and a Control group that did not. The Test Question was:

As compared to a Control group, how does the application of the Stages Of Change model and Motivational Interviewing to employee development impact participant’s movement within the SOC model (Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action and Maintenance)? Also, will the application of the SOC Model and MI result in decreased OFE program attrition rates, increased employment, and increased longitudinal employment retention rates?

Original Hypotheses:

1. As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group obtaining employment would be higher.

2. Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group still employed six months post hire would be higher.

4 This three year research study is funded by Human Resources and Social Development Canada (Pan Canadian Innovations Initiative), The Government of Canada Employment Insurance Account, and The Province of Manitoba (Competitiveness, Training and Trade - Research and Innovation).

5 In addition to OFE staff and SOC practitioners, the Steering Committee included representativesfrom Manitoba Competitiveness, Training and Trade, Family Services and Housing, Manitoba Justice - Community and Youth Corrections, Service Canada - Employment Insurance, RCMP, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, Selkirk Mental Health Centre, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives MB, Rehabilitation and Recovery Services, Restorative Resolutions, Urban Circle Training Centre, as well as an Assistant Professor of Social Work and a consultant.



3. As compared to the Control group, the percentage of the SOC/MI Study group leaving OFE programming will be lower.

4. Participants of the SOC/MI Study group that have been assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) as being in the Pre-Contemplative or Contemplative stage would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: SOC/MI Workshop-1, SOC/MI Workshop-2, Motivational Interview.

Originally it was expected that, during the study period, approximately 800 individuals would be recruited each year, for a total of 1600 to 2400 participants over the three years of the study. These numbers include Study group and Control group participants in various stages of searching for and maintaining employment. Participants were assigned 50% to the Study group and 50% to the Control group. Comparisons between the Study group and the Control group are available in reports on Phase I of the project, as well as in the Final SOC Report January 2010.

Building on the recommendations of external evaluation report (March 2008), the research project moved into a second phase. In Phase II, the focus was to implement the SOC model in a “real world” setting, without monetary incentives, incorporating the model into daily programming. The key changes7 introduced in Phase II were:

1. Removal of Compensation Stipends: It was speculated that the use of stipends might be keeping participation levels high and inflating results. Attendance rates in Phase II could be studied to see if there was indeed a difference. Other agencies that might be interested in using the SOC model may be more likely to do so if the additional cost of stipends were to be removed.

2. Removal of Random Assignment: Along with the elimination of stipends, random assignment of individuals into study and Control groups was ended in Phase II. Given the strong results of Phase I, ongoing comparison of study and Control groups was less important than testing the model in a “real world” setting and monitoring the effect of increased numbers on existing programs and staff. Additionally, the ethical issue of not providing proven interventions to particular individuals based on random assignment was addressed.

3. Introducing a Third Workshop: The SOC model calls for addressing different issues facing people at each of the stages in the model. Therefore, a preparation workshop was introduced for all participants.

7 Exit interviews were also discontinued in Phase II as they produced minimal information.



4. Shortened URICA: Another change was the shortening of the URICA (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale) from 32 items to12. Based on the feedback of participants in the focus group, the 12 item instrument was viewed as less stressful. Feedback from staff and participants, along with statistical analysis, suggest that the 12 item instrument is as effective as the longer version.

5. Ongoing Adjustments: The internal monitoring of the project (which continued throughout Phase II) gave rise to a number of other adjustments in the final year of the project, particularly in an attempt to improve attrition rates such as; abandoning breakouts at intake so that all participants received consistent messages, ensuring proper assessments were being done by assisting individuals with language barriers so they would not be frustrated by the wrong intervention, and calling participants immediately after they missed an EAS appointment.

6. Sun-setting Actions: In the final year of the project a number of actions needed to be taken to allow for the gradual phase out of the research project. As of April 1st 2009, all participants (excluding those in the Control group) were considered to be in Phase II. The intake of any new participants ceased at the end of August 2009. Due to the decreasing size of the active research participant population, the need for SOC interventions decreased. For example, by October 2009 no workshops were held and only eight MIs conducted. Consequently, the responsibilities of SOC team staff were adjusted and, by the fall of 2009, the team concentrated more of its resources towards dissemination of information.

The Test Question for exploration in Phase II was:

As compared to Phase I Study group participants, Phase II participants’ retention rates and employment rates would remain consistent using the application of the SOC model and Motivational Interviewing (MI). Based on time restrictions, namely that Phase II ran a shorter duration than Phase I, the six month employment retention rates would be evaluated on the best available data and were expected to remain consistent.

Hypotheses: There were four anticipated results that were studied:

1. As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase IIgroup obtaining employment will be equal or greater.

2. Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of Phase II group still employed six months post-hire will be equal or greater as compared to the Phase I Study group and greater when compared to the Phase I Control group.



3. As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of the Phase IIgroup leaving OFE programming will be equal or lower.

4. A majority of participants in the Phase II group, who have been assessed with the URICA as being in the Pre-Contemplative or Contemplative Stage, would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one or more of the following: Workshop 1 (WS1), Workshop 2 (WS2), Motivational Interviewing (MI).8 Participants who assessed as being in Preparation will attend Workshop 3 (WS3) and the majority would move further within the Preparation stage, as reflected by a higher URICA total score.

For the duration of the study, it was anticipated that approximately 800 individuals will be recruited into the project each year, representing the same number of participants who were to have been recruited in each year in Phase I. However, the numbers of participants actually exceeded projections; 1409 were at intake, 1230 were accepted, and 992 were engaged with SOC in Phase II.

C. Process

1. Phase I

Participants in the study had access to the regular programming and services offered at OFE. The process began with an Intake session offered on Wednesdays.9 During the general orientation, all new clients were given a presentation not only about OFE programming and services, but also an introduction to the SOC research study.

Then clients were asked to select one of the small groups based on their initial programming interest. In each small group, the research study was explained in more detail and clients were asked to indicate on a consent form whether or not they wish to participate. If an individual chose not to participate, s/he was directed to an Employment Consultant, while others in the small group completed a form asking a variety of demographic questions as well as the modified version of URICA. Participants received an incentive for completion of the URICA at time of intake.

In Phase I the URICA was a 32 item, self-report assessment that included sub-scales measuring the stages in the SOC model. The subscale with the highest score indicated the stage of change most reflective of the person’s emotional

8 Motivational Interviews use open-ended questions, affirmations and reflective statements. Through guided dialogue, individuals are led to solve their own issues.

9 This report provides a brief description of the process for contextual purpose; more detail is available in Interim Reports, Best Practice documents and the Final SOC Report January 2010 prepared by SOC staff.



state. Subscale scores could also be combined to produce a second-order continuous readiness to change score. If a person’s score totalled more than 80, the participant did not require additional interventions, whereas if the score was below 80 then the person, if selected for the Study group, received an intervention.

Following completion of the URICA, potential clients met with an Employment Consultant, taking their completed URICA with them, and were randomly assigned to either the Study group or the Control group. Those in the Study group with a score of less than 80 were referred to the first three hour workshop, which occurred the following day. Following the workshop, participants again completed the URICA. If their score was still below 80, they were referred to the second workshop. This workshop was originally scheduled for the subsequent week, but the timing was changed so that participants returned the following day for Workshop 2. Again, participants completed the URICA. Generally, eight to 12 people participated in Workshop 1, whereas numbers were smaller in Workshop2; typically four to six participants.

If a person’s score remained below 80, s/he was referred to a one-on-one Motivational Interview (MI) prior to commencing regular programming. However, at the discretion of the Employment Consultant or workshop facilitator, a participant could be referred to an MI at any time or the participant may self refer.

Individuals participated in regular programming, while the SOC Employment Consultant provided ongoing job search support to participants. Compensation was given when a participant completed an assessment at the time s/he finds employment. (‘Employment’ is defined as obtaining a job, while ‘six month employment’ is having the same job for a continuous period of six months or several jobs in a six month period or changing jobs where the break between jobs is no more than 14 days.) SOC staff delivered the stipend and had the participant complete the URICA at the same time. A summary of assessment points, groups, and compensation (stipend) is found in The Stages of Change Interim Report July 1, 2008 – January 31, 2009.

In the fifteen months of Phase I (March 27, 2007 through August 27, 2008) 1401 individuals completed the URICA at intake and 1249 individuals were accepted into programming. In total, 895 individuals participated in programming and in the research study, 432 in the Study group and 463 in the Control group.

2. Phase II

In Phase II prospective participants attended an OFE information/intake session during which time they were informed of the study and asked to sign a consent form. They also completed the SOC assessment and other intake forms. As they completed the URICA, staff reviewed the assessment and recorded the individual’s current Stage of Change. Individuals met with an Employment



Consultant (EC) and completed the regular OFE intake process. Participants who scored below the URICA cut-off were scheduled to attend WRO-1, while those above the cut-off were scheduled for WRO-3.

Individuals who attended WRO-1 completed the URICA again after the workshop. If they were below the cut-off they were scheduled to attend WRO-2 and, if not, they proceeded to Workshop 3 (WRO-3) and regularly scheduled OFE programming. It should be noted that the SOC facilitators could refer a participant to attend the next highest level of SOC activity at any time if they observed a lack of motivation (e.g., tardiness, non-attendance, refusal to participate in class).

WRO-3 was the preparation workshop that all participants attended once they had exceeded the URICA cut-off. WRO-3, the “gateway” to programming, was offered twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Participants who recycled with the URICA or who had not advanced after attending WRO-2 or who had been observed as unmotivated were scheduled for a one-on-one MI with the SOC Facilitator. If they still were assessed below the URICA cut-off after the interview, they were scheduled for another MI. If they were above the cut-off they advanced to regular scheduled OFE programming. Additional MI sessions were available to participants on a self-referral basis or by referral from an EC for up to six months after the person obtained a job.

After achieving the URICA cut-off participants attended regular OFE programming and moved to job search. Once they began their job searching, the EC connected them periodically for regular OFE assistance. In addition, the SOC Facilitator met weekly with participants (five to ten minutes) to check for possible indicators of re-cycling. If the possibility of re-cycling was noted, the individual was scheduled to attend the highest level of SOC intervention that s/he had yet to attend.

Once a participant reported to their EC that s/he had secured employment, s/he was asked once again to complete the URICA. The EC’s stayed in contact with the participant for six months after employment, as per normal OFE procedures. At the six month point, the EC again administered the URICA (over the phone or in-person). The EC had one month to contact the participant and administer the URICA before the planned assessment was abandoned.



D. Monitoring, Quality Control and Confidentiality

1. Monitoring

SOC staff obtained feedback from the participants on their experiences in the process. Following each workshop, participants completed an evaluation form. As well, focus groups were held regularly with participants to elicit feedback. Participants indicated that the new URICA was easy to complete, provided them with an opportunity for self-reflection, and that they completed it honestly. However, they did not understand the purpose of the demographic questions. Consequently, the demographics were collected after Work Readiness Orientations, rather than at intake. However, participants continued to ask about the purpose of demographics. Therefore, in the final months more explanation of the use of the demographics and the meaning of “confidential” was given to participants.

Participants were not all aware that they could self-refer for an MI, so more was done to advertise the availability of this support to participants. In addition, reminders of the SOC were posted in the building. Inaccurate perceptions about WRO-3 attendance holding up program participation were addressed. Follow-up calls were made to people who missed workshops to clarify the purpose and MI’s were used to help improve attendance.

Throughout both Phase I and Phase II, monitoring included ongoing attention to the data. All data were analyzed and results reviewed on a monthly basis. Observations from staff were also discussed at internal meetings in conjunction with review of ongoing results. Each monthly report included a section discussing “lessons learned.”

Finally, the Steering Committee played a monitoring as well as an advisory function. Key components of the project and ongoing results were reported to the Steering Committee and discussed at their meetings throughout the length of the project.

2. Quality Control and Confidentiality

The SOC staff explained the study at intake and were available as the participants completed the initial URICA to answer any questions that arise. A staff member scored the URICA immediately allowing for completion of any missed questions or rectification of any double answers. A second scorer audited the scoring process at point of assessment and again, at the point of data entry, to ensure the scores were accurate. Data were also subjected to cleaning protocols after initial entry.



As previously mentioned, demographic information was collected after intake. Participants were assured that the demographic information was for research purposes only and files were kept in a locked cabinet with restricted access. File folders included the intake forms, all URICAs and review sheets, case notes on interventions, and documentation of employment.

The URICA was also analyzed to ensure that items assessing each stage were internally consistent. The Cronbach Alpha values on the short URICA, which range from .674 to .708, can be considered in the appropriate range.

Finally, relating to ensuring confidentiality, the external evaluator signed a confidentiality agreement in order to obtain access to actual data files used in the project. Files could only be accessed using a password provided by the SOC Researcher. The external evaluator audited data files as part of the second year external evaluation.



- THE EXTERNAL REVIEW -

A. Our Understanding of the External Review

In the initial funding proposal, the role of an external evaluator was included in order to assess the research study in terms of its quality, efficacy, and usefulness and make recommendations for its enhancement (as required). In Phase I, the external evaluation was asked to answer five related questions:

1. What are the strengths of the research study (design, implementation, analysis)?

2. What, if any, are the gaps or problems with the research study (design, implementation, analysis)?

3. Are there features of the project that need to be considered in the research study that are not currently taken into account?

4. What are the ethical issues and how have these been addressed?

5. What are the recommendations, if any, for enhancing the quality, efficacy, and usefulness of the research study?

In Phase 2 for year two of the project, the external evaluator was asked to address the following four areas:

1. Review and assess the revised framework (design) for Phase 2, including the accompanying four main changes,

2. Audit of the data files and analysis as they pertain to analysis on Phase Istudy and Control group data,

3. Identify other possible demographics for inclusion in the study,

4. Identify any other issues that require consideration.

In Phase 2 for the third and final year of the project, the external evaluator has focused on the following areas:

1. What are the strengths of the research study (design, implementation, analysis)?

2. What, if any, are the gaps or problems with the research study (design, implementation, analysis)?

3. What is the overall quality, efficacy and usefulness of the of the research study?



B. Process for the External Review

The external review process for year one was conducted in a short time period, beginning February 1, 2008 with completion of the report scheduled for March19, 2008. The evaluation of the research study or the external review processincluded the following components:

1. site visits to Opportunities for Employment by both external reviewers,

2. in-person meetings with the SOC Program Manager, Researcher and otherSOC and OFE staff, as required,

3. observation of the intake session,

4. review of documents and materials describing the research study,

5. analysis of research instruments, analytical techniques and results to date,

6. clarification of any questions and issues with SOC Program Manager andResearcher, as required,

7. preparation of a draft report,

8. preparation of the final report incorporating any revisions (as appropriate) as suggested by SOC Project staff.

The documents consulted for the external review in year one included: Stages of Change: Project Proposal, Research Design Report: Evaluation Framework, team meeting notes, Best Practices: Version 1, Interim Reports (February 2007 to July 2007 and August 2007 to January 2008), SOC Steering Committee Minutes, SOC Project December 2008 Activity Report, and Analysis Reports.

The second year’s external review process was also conducted in a short time period, beginning the end of January 2009 with completion of the report by March31, 2009.

The external review process included the following components:

1. Site visit and meeting with SOC staff to discuss the Year 2 (2009) external review and learn about the changes that have been made in Phase II,

2. Review of documents and materials describing the research study,

3. Assess the framework/design for Phase II,

4. Audit selected data files,

5. Assess analytical techniques and results to date,

6. Seek clarification of any questions and issues with SOC Program Manager and Researcher, as needed,



7. Prepare a draft report, including questions for clarification, as needed,

8. Prepare of the final report incorporating any revisions (as appropriate) as suggested by SOC and OFE staff.

The key documents consulted for the external review of year two were the SOC “Proposed Evaluation Framework Phase II (February 2, 2009)” and the SOC “Interim Report (July 1, 2008 – January 31, 2009).” As well, data files, accompanying code book and syntax used for analysis of study versus Control group results were accessed and analyzed.

For the third and final year, the external review included:

1. email and telephone contact with the SOC Program Manager andResearcher,

2. review of documents and materials describing the research study,

3. analysis of the process and results to date including the review of draft versions of the Final SOC Report January 2010,

4. clarification of any questions and issues with SOC Program Manager andResearcher, particularly as they pertained to the Final SOC Report January2010,

5. preparation of a draft external review report,

6. preparation of the final external review report incorporating any revisions (as appropriate) as suggested by SOC Project staff.

The key documents consulted for the final year three review were monthly Action Reports for January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October 2009 as well as the Interim Report for February 1, 2009 to June 30,2009 and the Final SOC Report prepared in January 2010. The consultant, who received the Final SOC Report in various sections and versions of completion, provided suggestions which were incorporated into the final version of the document. However, it should be noted that the tight timeframe impacted on the ease of reviewing the Final SOC Report January 2010,

In all years, the draft reports of the external review were presented for examination by Opportunities for Employment, not with the intention of influencing the results, but rather for purposes of clarity and comprehensiveness. Revisions, as appropriate, were incorporated into the final documents.



C. Summary Discussion from Years 1 and 2

1. Framework/Design of the Research Study

The original research study presented a strong design that took advantage of Random Assignment methodology, without relying totally on this method to inform the use of the Stages of Change model. The study also took advantage of qualitative methods, such as focus groups with participants and case notes, to assist in monitoring and improving implementation. Using a validated instrument was also a strong point of the original design. That noted; the revision of the URICA to ensure readability (e.g., language level) was a sensible decision and has been followed by a shortening of the instrument for Phase II.

The collection of demographic information continued to be strength of the design, particularly as the demographics relate to the characteristics typical of OFE participants. Demographics allowed for analysis of results by sub-group which helps to determine if interventions are better suited or more effective with some groups than others. The relationship between the self-reported demographic items and acquisition and retention of employment represented another important aspect of the analysis.

The external review of Year 1 (March 2008) raised some issues relating to the future of the research. The strong results, indicating that the SOC model was a positive intervention, raised the ethical question, “why are you withholding services that are of direct benefit to people’s lives? If results continue to demonstrate the effectiveness of SOC, then consideration should be given to a different study approach in the last phase of the project.”

In addition, the Year 1 external evaluation raised the issue that “pilot or experimental projects with high staff commitment, self-selecting participants, and additional resources (e.g., incentives/stipends) can face challenges when moving to institution-wide implementation. This is a caution; significant positive effects often found in pilot projects are not always replicable in the daily realities of organizations which may not include the dedication and resources allocated to time-bound, externally funded innovations.”

The SOC team determined that it would indeed be appropriate to revise the research design for Phase II, implementing the key changes (as described on pages 5-6) including the extension of SOC interventions to all participants and the removal of the stipend. The design of Phase II built on the learnings of Phase I and continued to address important research elements in the design, such as informed consent and the recognition of risk (albeit low) to participants.14

14 A table detailing Phase II Evaluation Strategy (linking objectives, activities, evaluation questions, performance indicators, data source/collection method, analysis method, responsibility, timing and outputs) is found in Appendix 8 of the “Proposed Evaluation Framework Phase II.”



Finally, interim reports on the ongoing research were produced as part of the project. These reports were circulated to internal OFE staff for their examination and feedback. The Steering Committee also received the reports and Committee members were invited to discuss the results.

The research design continued to be solid, as well as responsive and sensitive to the participants. Discussion with SOC staff and review of theexisting reports suggested that the research design, while different from Phase I, continued to be diligently and respectfully implemented. The key changes made from Phase I to Phase II were appropriate and appear to have enhanced the later stages of the project, addressing ethical considerations while adding to project learnings.

2. Data Files and Analysis

The audit of data files and analysis was conducted for the year two external review. This included comparing Study and Control group participants from Phase I and the review of the data analysis (comparing Study and Control group participants from Phase I, as well as comparing initial Phase I results with initial Phase II results). The audit of the analysis included accessing the actual data files, referring to the syntax, and attempting to re-create the analysis.

Overall, the audit confirmed the analysis of the Phase I Study versus Control groups was accurate and appropriate, with only some minor questions and issues raised. Consideration to including statistical significance and fine-tuning the explanation and presentation of some results was recommended for future reporting.

3. Demographics

In both Year 1 and Year 2, issues related to the collection and analysis of demographic information were raised. The Year 2 report appreciated the breadth of demographic information collected from participants and requested that statistically significant differences be noted.

While there was some discussion of the results in Year 2 project reporting – and the results for some groups were particularly impressive - the questions were asked: “can anything further be said about the broader lessons learned? Can you speculate why SOC involvement creates increased employment for particular often-disadvantaged populations?”



In summary, there appeared to be much rich data related to the demographics collected by the SOC project. The issue is not that more demographics needed collection, but rather that, as Phase II progressed, more analysis on the various demographic variables should be undertaken and, in any future reporting, the implications of the results for various participating sub-groups should be explored.

4. Other Issues for Consideration

While the external evaluator understood that a number of presentations were upcoming and that work was being done on a manuscript for journal submission, it was suggested that the impact of the project, particularly on some disadvantaged populations, could be the focus of short brochures highlighting compelling findings to funders and/or local agencies/organizations. More attention to visual presentation of results was also suggested.

5. Recommendations from Year 2 External Review

The following recommendations were made in the Year 2 external review report with the subsequent action taken.

1. Operational definitions should be included in any detailed reporting.

These were included in a glossary in Interim and Final Reports.

2. Some small changes in the data sets and their analysis deserve attention to answer the questions posed in the discussion section of this report.

Additional analysis was undertaken for the Interim and Final Reports.

3. Comparison of attendance rates between Phase I and Phase II participants need to be conducted in future to help answer the question as to whether the removal of the stipend has had any impact on participant attendance. While this is done in monthly analysis reports, inclusion of these data in the Interim and Final Reports will be helpful.

Attendance rates have been compared. Attendance rates l for Workshops 1 and 2 were lower in Phase II than in Phase I, perhaps because of the removal of stipends. Attendance at Workshop 3 (added in Phase II) was comparable to Phase I workshop attendance (Final SOC Report).



4. Further analysis of drop-outs should be conducted, including exploration as to whether particular sub-groups (based on self-reported demographics) are more likely to discontinue engagement in programming.

Further analysis was conducted on retention rates by sub- group.

5. It will be important to continue to collect and analyze the range of demographic information currently being collected, particularly as more data from the six months employment period are available. The implications for programming and learnings by sub-group should be explored further.

The collection of demographic information was continued. Analysis was conducted by sub-group as recommended. More discussion of the implications could still be included in some reporting.

6. Multiple avenues for reporting and dissemination need to continue to be explored and different types of publications should be created in order to appeal to multiple audiences.

SOC/OFE staff have taken advantage of diverse and multiple opportunities for dissemination.

D. Discussion from Year 3

1. Framework/Design of the Research Study

As previously noted, the original research study presented a strong design that took advantage of Random Assignment methodology, without relying totally on this method to inform the implementation of the Stages of Change model. The study also took advantage of qualitative methods to assist in monitoring and improving implementation. As previously mentioned, the change in Phase II design was an appropriate and ethical choice which allowed for testing of the SOC model in more of a “real world” environment.

Using a validated instrument (the URICA) was another strength of the original design, while the revision of the URICA to ensure readability was a sensible decision which was followed by a shortening of the instrument for Phase II. The collection of demographic information helped to inform how various sub-groups were responding to the SOC model of intervention.



As previously discussed, the design also appropriately included an exit or “sun-setting” strategy. The strategy ensured that participants would be treated in a respectful manner. No new participants were accepted in the final two quarters of the project. By the end of the research, participants who had not yet obtained employment, but who sought to do so, continued to receive assistance through regular OFE programming.

The use of a broad-based Steering Committee throughout the project also represents a strength of the design. As has been noted in past external review reports, the Steering Committee was used as a sounding board and expert group, interested in, but for the most part, not directly invested in the success of the project.

As noted in the previous external reviews, the research design continued to be solid, as well as responsive and sensitive to the participants. The Phase II research design, while different from Phase I, continued to be diligently and respectfully implemented. As noted in Year 2, the key changes made from Phase I to Phase II were appropriate and appear to have enhanced the latter stages of the project.

2. Implementation

In the final year of implementation, ongoing adjustments were made based on the recommendations from the external evaluation and continuous feedback from participants. Some of the adjustments included ongoing attention to language comprehension through individual assistance to participants with low or emerging English literacy levels (Monthly Activity Report, April 2009). Greater attention was also paid to explaining the purpose of workshops at intake (Monthly Activity Report, March 2009).

As noted in the February to June 2009 Interim Report, the SOC Project Manager was trained to use the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Coding System (MITI) to assess the quality of Motivational Interviewing from audiotapes and transcripts of individual counselling sessions. According to the Interim Report, “use of the MITI has resulted in higher internal consistency between facilitators helping to ensure participants receive quality assistance.”

The sun-setting strategy, which has previously been explained, represented the final phase of project implementation.



Implementation of the project continued to be responsive and flexible, yet true to the Phase II design and project objectives. Continued attention has been paid to quality control, as evidenced by the use of the MITI. A well planned sun-setting strategy ensured the delivery of quality service to participants joining the project in its latter stages and allowed for optimal data collection.

3. Analysis and Results

As previously discussed in the summary of the Year 2 external review results, data analysis was confirmed as appropriate with some minor recommendations. Analysis in the final year has included information on statistical significance, as recommended.

Demographics allowed for analysis of results by sub-group which has yielded some interesting and powerful results. In the Final SOC Report January 2010 the discussion of demographics includes an explanation of what is considered very strong, strong, moderate, and some evidence of significance. This is helpful to reader in understanding for which sub-groups the SOC/MI intervention had the most powerful effects. Comparison of Phase I Study and Control participants is helpful here as well.

It should be noted that Phase I data collection ended April 2009. Analysis confirmed the effectiveness of the SOC/MI model: retention, employment and employment retention rates were higher for the Study group than the Control group. Study group participants also remained at higher stage of URICA stage placement even when assessed after the point of six months of continuous employment.

Regarding the four hypotheses for Phase II, the following results were noted.

Hypothesis 1: As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage ofPhase II group obtaining employment would be equal or greater.

There was no significant difference between the employment rate of the original Study group and the Phase II participants by the end of the project. It is interesting to note that this result was not evident early in 2009, likely because of the economic downturn when it appeared that employment rates for Phase II were not holding up to the Phase I Study group (for example, see Monthly Activity Report. May 2009).



Number of Phase II individuals who found employment was 514;higher than the Study group (222) and Control group (199) numberscombined 421). The number should be higher as all participants inPhase II received the intervention. However, various reports do notethat the increased numbers may have presented a capacity challengefor OFE.

Hypothesis 2: Of all participants obtaining employment, as compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage of Phase II employed at six months post hire would be equal or greater.

The discussion in the final Interim Report informs the reader that the numbers used to calculate these rates were only for participants whose employment dates OFE was able to confirm with employers. This strengthens the credibility of the numbers over using simply self-reported participant employment information.

The employment rate for the Phase II group held up to that of the Phase I Study group and was significantly higher than the Phase I Control group.

Hypothesis 3: As compared to the Phase I Study group, the percentage ofPhase II group leaving OFE programming would be equal or lower.

The Final SOC Report January 2010 notes that because of a change to a new data base an unprecedented number of releases were processed in order to reduce the amount of data transferred to the new data base. This limitation was appropriately noted in the discussion.

The Phase II group did have a significantly higher release rate (which may be explained by the above) than did the Phase I Study group. However, the release rate was still significantly below that of the Phase I Control group.

Hypothesis 4: A majority of participants of the Phase II group that have been assessed with the URICA as being in the Pre-Contemplative or Contemplative stage, would be assessed as being in the Preparation stage after taking part in one of more of the following: Workshop 1, Workshop 2, and Motivational Interviewing. Those participants who are assessed as being in Preparation will attend WS3 and a majority will move further within the Preparation stage as reflected by a higher URICA total score.

Phase II participants demonstrated positive movement within the stages.

Negative movement was lower for all Phase II interventions as compared to Phase I with the exceptions of Workshop 1 and the second MI where there were small differences in negative movement.



The results of both Phases of the research study demonstrate the positive effects of the SOC/MI intervention. The demographic analysis points to strong positive impacts on certain demographic sub-groups whose members have not been traditionally successful. Analysis of the six month employment rate was strengthened by using actual employer reports rather than simply participant self-report.

4. Reporting and Dissemination

The monthly Activity Reports were informative documents which likely helped to support attention to ongoing data collection and analysis. The reflection found in “lessons learned” attests to thoughtful ongoing monitoring. The monthly Activity Reports also document a variety of presentation and dissemination activities which OFE SOC staff had undertaken since the last external review.

Feedback on drafts of the Final SOC Report January 2010 resulted in changes to the document including the:

Revision of certain paragraphs in the Final Report that reflected the initial proposal rather than the reality of the project,

Revision of certain paragraphs and the addition of others to clarify meaning,

Movement of certain descriptive sub-sections to ensure logical flow for the reader,

Addition of graphs to illustrate differences (key findings) between Phase I Study group, Phase I Control group, and Stage II participants,

Movement of certain tables into the Appendices and re-ordering of the Appendices,

Inclusion of a Conclusions section that discusses the primary lessons learned, the groups that benefited the most and the implications for agencies wishing to replicate the use of SOC/MI.



E. In Conclusion

Overall, it can be concluded that the SOC research project has been thoughtfully - and rigourously - designed and implemented. Data have been appropriately collected and analyzed. The results presented are credible, consistently showing the impact of the SOC/MI intervention. Attention hasbeen paid to using diverse opportunities for dissemination.

The project has been flexible when required. The change of design for Phase IIaddressed ethical concerns and demonstrated the effectiveness of the approach ina “real world” environment without the use of stipends of the potential Hawthorneeffect of a special “study” group.

Attention was paid to the issues and recommendations raised in the 2008 and2009 External Reviews, as well as to the lessons learned from ongoing internal monitoring. Adjustments to program activities were made as a result, thusaddressing service gaps or issues as they arose.

As an innovative project with a strong research base, SOC provides valuable information to those working in the employment development field. As well,SOC represents a model for funders showing the value of investing in pilot projects with a strong research component that can produce credible evidenceof project success.





SOC RESEARCHER’S RESPONSE TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR’S REPORT

I appreciate the findings of the external evaluator in confirming that the research study presented a strong design in that it took advantage of Random Assignment methodology, qualitative methods, a validated instrument, demographic information related to the target population, produced regular and well prepared reports on project progress, used a Steering Committee as a sounding-board, and planned a sunsetting strategy to ensure assistance to participants past the end of the project.

It was of great value to the study that the first annual external review proposed a revision and change of direction of the study based on the significant results indicating that the use of the SOC/MI Model was positive. This proposal brought about a second phase of the study where services were offered to all of OFE’s clients in order that they might all benefit and allow for the study of the model, in a real world environment, without any of the greenhouse influences commonly found in similar studies. The evaluators then confirmed the changes in research design “were appropriate and appear to have enhanced the later stages of the project”.

I am thankful that the external evaluators understood the extent of the work involved to produce the final report and the limited timeline; they were accommodating in allowing the presentation of individual sections of the final report for review as they were completed, followed by a review of the report in its entirety.

Some of the positive feedback from the external evaluator included changes related to clarifications in several locations and movement of a few sub-sections or tables to ensure logical flow (including the moving of significance tables to the appendices). Recommendations from the evaluators have also allowed for certain additions to the reports, past and present, that reintroduced elements removed due to perceived concerns of clarity by others; these included items such as the use of tables reporting statistical significance and the use of graphic representation of results.

Due to the initial submission of the report in segments, there was overlap between recommendations on the part of the evaluator and what was already planned. An example of this is in the evaluator’s recommendation to include a Conclusions section when there were already plans to develop and write this section, as well as the Executive Summary section as the final elements of the report. It is not surprising that an overlap of ideas such as this occurred.

In summary, it is the opinion of the SOC Researcher that the work conducted by the external evaluators has been both thorough and professional. The appraisal of the Phase I and Phase II frameworks, development and implementation, as well as ongoing analysis has been supportive in affirming the work conducted on behalf of this research project and the direction of our strategy. It was also encouraging to find that suggestions made by the evaluators paralleled our own plans. The evaluator’s recommendations were reasonable and consistent with project objectives.

ii - ofe.ca · iii 2nd floor – 352 Donald Street Winnipeg, MB R3B 2H8 Phone (204) 925-3490 Email [email protected] Website Web Version 1.0 Final Report Prepared By: Kevin Swibaker, Researcher

Documents