Profile 1 vs6 Profile 2 vs6 Profile 3 vs6 Profile 4 vs6 Profile 5 vs6 Coef. Sig. Coef. Sig. Coef. Sig. Coef. Sig. Coef. Sig. Intercept -1.966 * -2.470 * -2.552 -1.937 -1.824 Selection grid item s A ge 0.653 * 0.052 0.717 0.000 -0.122 Levelofeducation (ref. University, PhD) H igh schoolorless -0.759 0.635 0.152 -0.128 -0.076 Postsecondary education -1.803 *** -0.238 -0.787 -0.968 -0.907 University schooling,undergraduate -2.037 *** -0.596 -1.447 * -1.299 * -1.230 * U niversity schooling,graduate studies(M A) -1.759 *** -0.672 -1.141 -0.868 -1.657 ** 2 nd specialization 0.221 0.063 -0.550 -0.255 0.310 Privileged education 0.576 ** 0.808 *** 0.503 0.381 0.384 Selection category (ref. E mployability and professional mobility program.) Professionsin dem and in Q uebec 0.529 * 0.442 0.442 0.306 0.124 O ther(exem ption and assured em ployment) 1.586 *** 0.676 0.291 0.310 0.531 W ork experience 0.294 0.344 -0.245 -0.188 0.442 K now ledge ofFrench 0.505 0.964 0.522 0.128 0.914 K now ledge ofEnglish 0.720 ** 0.410 0.109 0.236 0.737 Postsecondary education in French 0.604 * 0.913 ** 0.359 0.268 0.620 Personalsuitability 0.702 0.864 0.702 1.006 -0.717 Motivation -0.417 -0.755 0.317 -0.290 -0.542 K now ledge ofQ uebec -0.190 -0.324 -0.538 0.060 0.227 V isitsto Q uebec (ref. None) To w ork orstudy 1.350 *** 0.314 0.918 * -0.063 0.458 Other 0.599 * 0.542 * 1.018 ** 0.148 0.479 Socialtieswith Q uebec (ref. None) Relatives 0.393 -0.199 -0.381 0.327 -0.032 Friends -0.455 * -0.052 -0.084 0.239 -0.296 Presence ofa spouse (ref. No) -0.816 -0.400 -1.874 -0.887 -0.309 Spouse’sage 0.298 -0.033 -0.651 0.437 0.231 Spouse’slevelofeducation -0.363 0.688 0.406 0.158 -0.439 Spouse’sw ork experience 0.898 * 0.151 1.879 * 0.669 0.805 Spouse’sknow ledge ofFrench 0.410 0.530 0.757 0.276 -0.458 Presence ofchildren -0.310 -1.245 * 0.476 -0.410 -2.609 ** O ther socio-dem ographic characteristics G ender( ref. F emale) 0.444 * 0.166 0.063 0.035 0.294 Region oforigin (ref. Western E urope and USA) M aghreb -1.361 *** -0.670 * -0.644 0.049 -0.493 Eastern Europe and form erU SSR -1.114 *** -0.127 -0.360 0.160 0.185 EastA sia and O ceania -1.173 *** -0.834 -0.549 -0.686 -0.090 W estA sia and M iddle-East -1.856 *** -0.632 -1.048 -0.474 0.042 Am ericas(excluding U SA ) -1.979 *** -0.767 -0.527 -0.342 -0.698 A frica (excluding M aghreb) -1.217 ** -0.362 0.239 -0.757 -0.371 N : 1409 LL : -1988.99 D F : 165 LR χ2 : 452.02 *** Pseudo-R2 : 0.102 Towards the Integration of Immigrants in Quebec’s Qualified Workforce: Towards the Integration of Immigrants in Quebec’s Qualified Workforce: An Overview of the First Years Following Their Arrival and the Effects of An Overview of the First Years Following Their Arrival and the Effects of Selection Policies Selection Policies FIG .3 -Proportion occupying a qualified job by profile during the firstthree years follow ing arrival 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 Tim e (w eeks) P roportion P rofile 1 P rofile 2 P rofile 3 P rofile 4 P rofile 5 P rofile 6 FIG .4 -D istribution ofim m igrants in qualified jobs based on the six differentprofiles P rofile 5 8% P rofile 4 9% P rofile 3 7% P rofile 2 13% P rofile 1 23% P rofile 6 40% Research questions Research questions Are immigrants able to obtain and maintain jobs commensurate with their education? How does their presence in the qualified workforce evolve over time? What kind of effect do selection policies have on their presence in the qualified workforce? Background Background The majority of immigrants (55%) who settle in Quebec are skilled workers selected on a point system basis. Selection criteria are based on adaptability, language proficiency, credentials, work experience, immigration programs, age, spouse’s profile and presence of children. Methods Methods Survey on skilled migrants in Quebec (n=1,541) Enquête sur les travailleurs sélectionnés (ETS) • Survey data on the post-migration job history • Retrospective data covering 1 to 5 years of settlement • Administrative data on points obtained on each item of the selection grid Definition: Job qualification is determined by comparing the educational requirements for a given position (based on the National Occupational Classification) to the level of credentials upon arrival. Various methodological approaches were taken to illustrate different aspects of the presence of migrants in jobs that match their credentials: • Results Results Conclusions Conclusions Not all migrants are able to easily find and maintain jobs that match their academic credentials. Local experience at all costs? For these newcomers, accepting an underqualified job might mean never finding a job commensurate with their education. Selection policies only have a limited impact on the presence of migrants in the qualified workforce, despite the fact that the government tries to select candidates with the highest potential for labor market integration. Future research will need to focus on the dynamics of settlement and the conjectural impact on the presence of migrants in the qualified and underqualified workforce. FIG . 1 – Labor m arkettransitionsofskilled w orkersin Q uebec 0,0871 A 0,0410 B (184) 0,1110 (148) 0,0207 C 0,1181 (79) unem p_1 U Q _2 0,1021 D 0,4757 (225) 0,5800 (102) Q _1 0,0531 E 0,3019 (44) 0,0208 F 0,2176 (40) unem p_1 0,0263 G U Q _1 U Q _2 0,2742 (25) 0,3702 (543) 0,2593 (108) U Q _3 0,0388 H 0,4044 (33) Q _1 0,0099 I 0,1038 (10) 0,0101 J 0,1785 (28) unem p_1 0,0190 K Q _1 0,3338 (10) 0,1540 (62) U Q _2 0,0110 L 0,1931 (12) Q _2 0,0170 M 0,2986 (13) A rrival 0,1379 N 0,2541 (325) 0,0112 O 0,0584 (58) unem p_1 U Q _1 0,0279 P 0,3537 (226) 0,1458 (24) Q _2 0,1527 Q 0,7958 (144) 0,0069 R 0,2771 (12) unem p_1 0,0035 S Q _1 U Q _1 0,1406 (3) 0,5427 (783) 0,0459 (21) U Q _2 0,0125 T 0,5032 (5) Q _2 0,0019 U 0,0791 (1) 0,0751 V 0,3999 (118) unem p_1 0,0397 W Q _2 0,2114 (34) 0,3463 (211) U Q _1 0,0071 X Q_# :qualified job_rank 0,0382 (5) UQ _# :underqualified job_rank Q _3 0,0658 Y unem p_# :unem ployment_rank 0,3505 (54) TAB. 1 – Multinomial logistic regression for the effects of selection criteria on the profiles of immigrants in qualified jobs Only 54% of immigrants have access to a qualified job as their first employment experience in Quebec. Once they have had an underqualified job, they will most likely stay in this type of job, and vice versa. After three transitions on the labor market, 66% of immigrants will have obtained jobs that match their skills. The proportion of immigrants in qualified jobs increases over the first three years of settlement, the most significant increase occurring during the first year. In Quebec, the proportion rises from 45% in the first year, to 55% by the end of the third year. Six profiles of immigrants in qualified jobs were identified. Among these profiles, two of them show a direct access to qualified jobs within the first year and an ongoing presence afterwards. Together, these two profiles represent 36% of the sample. The other four profiles raise questions about the ability of skilled workers to find and maintain jobs that match their credentials. They either show a late onset (profile 4: 9%), an intermittent presence (profiles 3, 5: 7% and 8% respectively) or a complete lack of qualified jobs (profile 6: 40%). The selection grid plays a minor role (10%) in determining the profile. The items of the grid best explain the two profiles of immigrants who are able to obtain and maintain a qualified job within a year. Their effect mostly refers to characteristics of human capital. Immigrants who are not of Western European or American origin face greater difficulty accessing and maintaining jobs that match their skills within the first months of settlement. The selection grid has very little impact on the last four profiles, despite the fact that these individuals all qualified for immigration. Karine Bégin, Jean Renaud Université de Montréal FIG .2 -Proportion ofskilled w orkers in a qualified job,in an underqualified job,or unem ployed during the firstthree years ofsettlem ent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 10 1 106 11 1 116 12 1 126 131 13 6 141 146 151 15 6 Tim e (w eeks) P roportion Unem ploym ent U nderqualified job Q ualified job * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0,001