Annex 6: Key studies referenced in the report

Official title: Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2020 and ending March 31, 2021 Annex 6: Key studies referenced in the report

List of abbreviations
1. Examining the role of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic
2. 2021 Actuarial Report on the Employment Insurance Premium Rate
3. Early impact of COVID-19 on Employment Insurance benefits and the Canadian Labour Market
4. Initial impacts of temporary Employment Insurance measures in Canadian communities during the pandemic
5. Supplemental Unemployment Benefit plans
6. The Redistributional Impact of Employment Insurance, 2001 to 2009
7. Financial impacts of receiving Employment Insurance
8. Analysis of the EI clawback provision
9. Quits and the use of Employment Insurance regular benefits
10. Characteristics of firms that hire apprentices
11. Evaluation of the Employment Insurance sickness benefits
12. Enhance understanding of the use of the Premium Reduction Program
13. Compassionate care benefits: Update (FY0405 to FY1516)
14. Analysis of the repeat and combined use of Skills Development
15. Analysis/impact of the Targeting, Referral and Feedback System

List of abbreviations

This is the complete list of abbreviations for the Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2020 and ending March 31, 2021.

Abbreviations

AD: Appeal Division
ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution
ASETS: Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy
B/C Ratio: Benefits-to-Contributions ratio
BDM: Benefits Delivery Modernization
CAWS: Client Access Workstation Services
CCDA: Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship
CCIS: Corporate Client Information Service
CEIC: Canada Employment Insurance Commission
CERB: Canada Emergency Response Benefit
CESB: Canada Emergency Student Benefit
CEWB: Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy
COLS: Community Outreach and Liaison Service
CPP: Canada Pension Plan
CRA: Canada Revenue Agency
CRB: Canada Recovery Benefit
CRCB: Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit
CRF: Consolidated Revenue Fund
CRSB: Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit
CSO: Citizen Service Officer
CX: Client Experience
EBSM: Employment Benefits and Support Measures
ECC: Employer Contact Centre
EI: Employment Insurance
EI ERB: Employment Insurance Emergency Response Benefit
EICS: Employment Insurance Coverage Survey
eROE: Electronic Record of Employment
ESDC: Employment and Social Development Canada
eSIN: Electronic Social Insurance Number
FY: Fiscal Year
G7: Group of Seven
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
GIS: Guaranteed Income Supplements
HCCS: Hosted Contact Centre Solution
IQF: Individual Quality Feedback
ISET: Indigenous Skills and Employment Training
IVR: Interactive Voice Response
LFS: Labour Force Survey
LMDA: Labour Market Development Agreements
LMI: Labour Market Information
LMP: Labour Market Partnerships
MIE: Maximum Insurable Earnings
MSCA: My Service Canada Account
NAICS: North American Industry Classification System
NESI: National Essential Skills Initiative
NIS: National Investigative Services
NOM: National Operating Model
OAS: Old Age Security
PAAR: Payment Accuracy Review
PPE: Premium-paid eligible individuals
PRAR: Processing Accuracy Review
PRP: Premium Reduction Program
PTs: Provinces and Territories
QPIP: Quebec Parental Insurance Plan
R&I: Research and Innovation
ROE: Record of Employment
RPA: Robotics Process Automation
SAT: Secure Automated Transfer
SCC: Service Canada Centre
SDP: Service Delivery Partner
SEPH: Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours
SIN: Social Insurance Number
SIR: Social Insurance Registry
SST: Social Security Tribunal
STDP: Short-term disability plan
SUB: Supplemental Unemployment Benefit
TRF: Targeting, Referral and Feedback
TTY: Teletypewriter
UV: Unemployment-to-vacancy
VBW: Variable Best Weeks
VER: Variable Entrance Requirement
VRI: Video Remote Interpretation
WCAG: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
WWC: Working While on Claim

1. Examining the role of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Author(s), year

ESDC: Economic Policy Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

This study examines Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) usage and how short-term labour market outcomes differed between laid off CERB recipients and non-recipients during the first wave of COVID-19 in Canada.

Key finding(s)

Workers in “hard-hit” industries (that is, workers in arts, entertainment and recreation industry and the accommodation and food services industry) displayed the highest probabilities of layoffs. Educational service workers also had a high probability of layoff (but a seasonal component needs to be taken into account) and finally, workers in the finance and insurance industry had the lowest probability of layoff
Women, youth, immigrant, less educated, as well as low paid, low tenure, part-time, and private sector employees were more likely to be laid off than their respective counterparts
Across nearly all characteristics, those who faced higher layoff probabilities were also more likely to receive the CERB, and to receive it for a longer period of time
Laid off workers who had not received CERB payments in a given month were more likely to be re-employed the following month than CERB recipients
Overall, these results suggest that the factors associated with CERB use and duration were very similar to those that determined layoffs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. The results hold for both men and women
This study used the Statistics Canada integrated CERB micro-data. Because of its design, the study does not look at causal relationships between the use of CERB and employment. Additional information using the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) for the subsequent waves of the pandemic will provide a more exhaustive picture of the associations between the use of these income support measures and labour market outcomes

Availability

You can order a PDF version of this document by calling 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you use a TTY, call 1-800-926-9105. We can only send the PDF version via e-mail. Please note there will be a certain delay before receiving the documents.

2. 2021 Actuarial Report on the Employment Insurance Premium Rate

Author(s), year

Office of the Chief Actuary, 2020

Objective(s)

The purpose of this report is to provide the Commission with all the information prescribed under section 66.3 of the EI Act. Pursuant to this section, the Chief Actuary shall provide the Commission with a report that sets out:

the forecast premium rate for the following year and a detailed analysis in support of the forecast
the calculations performed for the purposes of sections 4 and 69 of the EI Act
the information provided under section 66.1, and
the source of the data, the actuarial and economic assumptions and the actuarial methodology used

Key finding(s)

The 2021 Maximum Insurable Earnings (MIE) was $56,300 or a 3.9% increase from the 2020 MIE of $54,200

The 2021 estimated cost savings to the EI program that are generated by employer sponsored qualified wage-loss plans were $1,055 million

Availability

This 2021 Actuarial report (PDF format) is available on the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board’s website.

3. Early impact of COVID-19 on Employment Insurance benefits and the Canadian Labour Market

Author(s), year

ESDC: Evaluation Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

This study analyzed the extent to which COVID-19 had an effect on workers and businesses before the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) came into force.

Key finding(s)

During the month of March 2020 the number of Records of Employment (ROEs), Employment Insurance (EI) claims, and EI applications through Appliweb increased by 3.5 times, 15 times, and 10 times, respectively, compared to the same month in 2019. The most significant increase occurred during the week of March 15 (the date of the coming into force of CERB)
When examining the period before CERB, from February to March, there was an increase of about 100,000 ROEs, based on the last week worked, when compared to the same period in 2019. During this period, job separations due to layoff and illness or injury significantly increased

In the 2 weeks prior to CERB, the number of ROEs in Alberta and British Columbia increased by 37% (AB), 75% (AB) and 43% (BC) compared to 2019

Individuals who had an ROE in February and March 2020 before the CERB were significantly different than those who were laid off during the same period in 2019. Those laid off in 2020 were more likely to work fewer hours (5.1 hours), receive less employment income (about $2,000), were younger and were slightly less likely to be women. In addition, a distribution of hours worked for these laid off workers points to them working part-time
EI claims and EI applications through Appliweb also saw an increase in the weeks before CERB, but to a lesser extent

Availability

4. Initial impacts of temporary Employment Insurance measures in Canadian communities during the pandemic

Author(s), year

ESDC: Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

This study examines the initial impacts of the EI temporary measures on the eligibility for EI benefits and on the additional income support provided to claimants. To estimate the preliminary additional cost generated by the measures.

Key finding(s)

Among claims established during the reporting period going from September 27, 2020 to April 3, 2021:

13.2% of regular claims and 7.6% of special benefit claims would not have been able to qualify for benefits if the temporary measures had not been in place
65.6% of regular claims and 57.2% of special benefit claims had a higher benefit rate than what they would have been entitled to without the temporary measures

Among claims that benefitted from the minimum weekly benefit rate of $500 (or $300 for extended parental), they received, on average, an additional $199 per week for regular claims and $167 per week for special benefit claims
Among claims with a weekly benefit rate above $500 and that benefitted from a higher benefit rate due to the temporary measures, they received, on average, an additional $56 per week for regular claims and $34 per week for special benefit claims

All regular claims could potentially benefit from the maximum 50 weeks of regular benefits. However, only 16.5% benefitted from additional weeks of regular benefits at the end of the reporting period. This is because most of the claims had not exhausted their actual entitlement at that time
The additional cost incurred by the temporary measures is estimated at $6.1 billion over the reporting period. The largest share is related to the minimum benefit rate of $500 (or $300 for extended parental) ($4.6 billion)

Availability

5. Supplemental Unemployment Benefit plans

Author(s), year

ESDC: Evaluation Directorate, 2021

Objective(s)

This paper examines:

the characteristics of employers and employees who take part in the Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Program, and
their utilization of Employment Insurance benefits

Key finding(s)

Between 2008 and 2017, the number of firms with an active registered SUB plan increased from 5,714 to 7,782—an annual average of around 6,800 active firms—which represents a little over 0.5% of all firms in Canada
Registered SUB plans for illness, injury or quarantine account for around 63% of all plans while SUB plans for temporary stoppage of work, training or plans where there are a combination of top-up plans account for around 10%, 7% and 20% respectively
Overall, EI claims which receive top-up payments through registered SUB plans account for around 3% of all EI claims or between 40,000 and 60,000 claims per year. However, the analysis found that only 13% of EI claims from firms with registered SUB plans received top-up payments
Claimants who receive top-up payments for regular benefit claims are more likely to return to the same firm after a claim as compared to those who worked for non-SUB firms. A positive relationship is observed between job tenure and SUB claim whereby individuals tend to stay with an employer longer if they are part of a SUB firm

Availability

6. The Redistributional Impact of Employment Insurance, 2007 to 2009

Author(s), year

Ross Finnie, Queen’s University School of Policy Studies; and Ian Irvine, Concordia University (for HRSDC, Evaluation Directorate, 2013)

Objective(s)

The objective of this study is to investigate the degree to which Canada’s EI program has redistributed purchasing power during the recent economic recession. More precisely, the period of investigation runs from 2007 to 2009, although results from the 2002 to 2006 period are also presented in order to place the recession period in a longer‑term context.

Key finding(s)

EI redistributes income substantially when the unit of analysis is individual earnings. The lower deciles of the distribution benefit both on the contributions and benefits sides
The quantitative redistributional impact of EI in 2009 appears to be approximately twice the impact of 2007
In 2007 and 2008, Quebec was the largest recipient of benefits (even without accounting for family benefits). However, 2009 saw a reversal of this pattern: Quebec’s benefits increased by 20%, whereas Ontario’s benefits increased by almost 50%, a reflection of how much harder the recession hit the employment sector in Ontario than in Quebec

Availability

7. Financial impacts of receiving Employment Insurance

Author(s), year

Constantine Kapsalis, Data Probe Economic Consulting Inc., 2010

Objective(s)

This study explores the financial impact of receiving EI benefits. It probes the evolution of individual incomes before, during and after the receipt of EI benefits, as well as the influence of receiving EI on household consumption.

Key finding(s)

The average EI beneficiary experienced a 38% drop in wages during a year with EI. The most important offsetting factor was EI; it replaced about 38% of lost wages. The second most important factor was investment income; it replaced about 9% of lost wages. Other income sources played a lesser role
Lower income families received a higher return of their contributions than did higher income families. In fact, families with after-tax income below the median received 34% of total benefits and paid 18% of all premiums in 2007. The study also found that EI halved the incidence of low income among beneficiaries (from 14% to 7%) during that period

Availability

8. Analysis of the EI clawback provision

Author(s), year

ESDC: Evaluation Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

This study examined the EI clawback provision and the possible disincentives it induces regarding EI take-up.

Key finding(s)

The number of new claims subject to clawback had decreased by 9.5% over the study period (2011 to 2019). However, the share of regular claims subject to clawback had remained relatively stable over that period
Claimants subject to clawback, on average had an income $12,500 above the clawback threshold. The clawback amount in the first tax year of the claim was on average $1,430 over the study period
Probabilistic regressions show that eligible repeat claimants had a higher likelihood of receiving EI regular benefits (64.6%) than eligible first-time claimants (32.1%). Further, a Regression Discontinuity Design model shows that rate of receiving benefits by eligible repeat claimants did not decrease at the clawback threshold, indicating that the clawback provision did not deter eligible claimants from collecting EI regular benefits
The prevalence of being clawed back was 43% more if the claim overlapped 2 years than if the entire claim fell within 1tax year. Further, when controlling for benefit weeks, claimants with claims that overlapped 2 tax years paid higher clawback amounts than claimants that had a claim only within one tax year

Availability

9. Quits and the use of Employment Insurance regular benefits

Author(s), year

ESDC: Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

To understand trends in the use of EI by those who quit a job.

Key finding(s)

Quits made up 31.6% of all job separations from 1997 to 2020
There is a clear cyclical business cycle pattern of quits with the magnitude of economic fluctuations also reflected in the changes of quits shares over other reasons for separation (RFS)
Taking another job, returning to school, and retirement are the main reasons for quits, together totaling 93.1% of all quits from 2013 to 2020

Young workers (aged 15-24) were most likely quitting to return to school (56.2%). The majority of those aged 25–54 were quitting to take another job (76.3%). The majority of older workers (55 years and older) were quitting to retire (75.2%)
Among other reasons for quits, women were more likely to quit their job to follow their spouse while they relocated, while men were more likely to quit to become self-employed

Between 2013 and 2020, 59.1% of quits had a justified reason and so could have had a valid RFS from the perspective of the EI Act. This ratio has been consistently increasing over time, from 52.8% in 2013 to 64.1% in 2020

Men and those aged 24-54 were more likely to have a justified quit. The gender disparity has diminished over time (from a 6.6 percentage point difference in 2013 to 2.2 percentage points in 2020), while the age disparity of justified quits has remained constant throughout 2013 – 2020

Among those who apply for EI regular benefits, only 11.1% were quit applicants in 2019, a ratio significantly lower than the 33.4% of job separations with a quit RFS in the same year, showing persons who quit are much less likely to apply for EI regular benefits than those with other RFSs

The rate of quit applicants over all EI regular benefit applicants was sharply decreasing with age, while women had a slightly higher proportion of quit applicants. These rates were consistent across both genders and all age groups for each year between 2013 and 2019

85.0% of quit applicants were approved as valid reasons for separation in 2019, up from 84.7% in 2018

Availability

10. Characteristics of firms that hire apprentices

Author(s), year

ESDC, Labour Market Information Directorate, 2020

Objective(s)

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of firms that employ EI-supported apprentices. This involves examining the interaction between firms and apprentices during and after apprenticeship.

Key finding(s)

The share of apprentices in a firm’s workforce is positively correlated with its productivity (in other words, value-added per employee)

A pattern that has become more apparent since the FY0809 recession

There is no clearly defined hypothesis regarding a firm’s capital-intensity and its demand for apprentices. The study found that EI-supported apprentices are concentrated in the workforces of moderately capital-intensive firms and do not make up a large proportion of the workforce of the most capital-intensive firms nor the least capital-intensive firms
Firms that train apprentices do so regularly. More specifically, larger firms are more likely to hire apprentices every year and are more likely to have hired an apprentice at least once in the study period (2001 to 2016). However, on average, smaller firms hire disproportionately more apprentices. Almost 1 in 2 apprentices work in firms with 5 to 49 employees
On average, 4 out of 5 apprentices that claimed EI worked for a single employer from 2001 to 2012. However, not many apprentices end up working long-term with the employers that train them. Just under 50% of apprentices stay with their first firm for more than 3 years

Availability

11. Evaluation of the Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits

Author(s), year

ESDC, Evaluation Directorate, 2020

Objective(s)

This evaluation provides an assessment of the impact of EI sickness benefits on post-illness separation outcomes based on:

the use,
the accessibility, and
the impact of the benefits

The focus is on EI claimants receiving sickness benefits from 2000 to 2016, excluding self-employed workers.

Key finding(s)

The duration of the benefits is adequate for most claimants, but those with severe and/or long-term illnesses are more likely to use the full 15 weeks of sickness benefits and remain sick hereafter
There has been significant growth in claims for the EI sickness benefits nationally since 2000 that can be explained, in part, by demographic changes
Access to employer short-term sickness/disability plans is not uniform across the labour force in Canada. Without such coverage, EI sickness benefits remain the main support for many workers
Gender (as well as educational attainment) had no statistically significant effect on the likelihood of whether someone claims or does not claim EI sickness benefits when other claimant’s characteristics are taken into account (such as type of illness or industry of employment)

Availability

The Evaluation of the Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits is available on the Employment and Social Development Canada web page.

12. Enhance understanding of the use of the Premium Reduction Program

Author(s), year

ESDC, Evaluation Directorate, 2019

Objective(s)

This study examines:

the characteristics of employers offering short-term disability plans (STDPs) recognized by the Premium Reduction Program (PRP), and
compares the usage of EI Sickness benefits between claimants covered by a STDP (in other words, EI is a second payer) and those who are not (EI is a first payer)

Key finding(s)

The number of employers offering STDPs decreased by 12% over the 2000-2015 period. Large-sized employers increased by 3.0% while medium and small-sized employers decreased by 5.5% and 16.0% respectively
Employers offering STDPs declined in the Private Services and Manufacturing sectors by 13.2% and 54.5% respectively. PRP usage grew in the Prairies provinces by 2.1% while Quebec and Ontario saw declines of 26.8% and 18.4% respectively
9 in 10 employers offered Weekly Indemnity plans to their employees – a minimum of 15 weeks of benefits
The number of employees covered by an employer-provided STDP has increased by 11.4% over the 2000 to 2015 period
Covered claimants who used EI as a second payer had a longer average duration of sickness benefits and a higher exhaustion rate than claimants who were not covered in each year from 2000 to 2015, independent of gender and age group

Availability

13. Compassionate care benefits: Update (FY0405 to FY1516)

Author(s), year

ESDC, Evaluation Directorate, 2018

Objective(s)

The report:

describes the impact of the 2016 extension of the maximum duration on compassionate care benefits usage, and
presents a socio-economic profile of individuals who applied for and received the benefits

Key finding(s)

In FY1516, most compassionate care applicants were caring for their mother or father (58.1 %), followed by a spouse or partner (27.5%)
On average, 8.7 weeks of benefits were paid in FY1516 compared to 4.8 in FY1011
Approximately one third of compassionate care applicants did not receive benefits. The main reason for not receiving the benefits was that the applicants received other employment insurance benefits, followed by the absence of the medical certificate
Applicants in British Columbia and Territories were statistically significantly more likely to have their applications approved
Multivariate analysis suggests that the probability of not using all weeks available to the claimants is mainly explained by the mortality of care recipients. However, the impact of the mortality on this probability is mitigated by the extension of the benefits duration from 6 to 26 weeks

Availability

14. Analysis of the Repeat and Combined Use of Skills Development

Author(s), year

ESDC, Evaluation Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

The purpose of this report is to understand the repeat use of the EI Part II - EBSMs, with a focus on Skills Development (SD) interventions. To understand how SD interventions are used in combination with similar skills-oriented interventions outside of the LMDA framework.

Key finding(s)

Repeated participation in skilled-related labour market interventions occurs most frequently among Skills Development Apprentices (SDA), who typically participated in apprentice-oriented interventions rather than other skilled-related interventions. 18% of active and 19% of former claimant participants with SDA were repeat users. Among participants with Skills Development Regular (SDR), very small proportions of active (0.5%) and former (0.4%) claimants were repeat users
Active claimants among repeat users of SDA were male (97%), young (78%), and skilled crafts and trades workers (88%). Most of the SDA repeaters (92%) had a college degree. They had a strong labour market attachment as they had the highest average earnings ($42,653) and virtually no reliance on social assistance benefit one year before the participation. The profiles of repeat users of SDR were similar to those of SDA, but repeat users of SDR had less average earnings ($31,160) prior to participation
Characteristics of active and former repeat users of SDA were similar. Their average earnings before participation were $42,653 and $37,521, respectively
In terms of the combination of SD intervention within the labour market programs, there was a very small proportion of active claimants (1%) and former claimants (2%) with skilled-related intervention assigned under the LMDA and the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy (ASETS)
A complementary clustering analysis revealed that active and former repeat users of SDA tend to have strong labour market attachment as expected. Participants with weak labour force attachment are a-priori expected to be rare among participants who repeatedly engage in apprentice-oriented training over time. This is confirmed by the very low percentages found by the clustering analysis among both active and former claimant SDA repeaters: 1% and 3%, respectively

Availability

15. Analysis/Impact of the Targeting, Referral and Feedback System

Author(s), year

ESDC, Employment Policy and Program Design Directorate, 2022

Objective(s)

To understand how the Targeting, Referral, and Feedback System (TRFS) is used and its impact on EI Part II labour market programming.

Key finding(s)

The LMDAs were amended in 2018 to introduce a requirement for PTs to implement the TRFS. Prior to 2018, earlier versions of the TRF were used by some jurisdictions
The TRFS instantly assesses EI applicants against selected criteria when they apply for benefits online. These criteria can be related to an individual's occupation, demographic group, or geographic location
The TRFS provides PTs with data on EI applicants based on selection criteria set by the PTs. In 2020-21, ESDC shared data on nearly half of the 3.1 million EI applicants to support active outreach by a mix of methods, including email, phone and letter
Evidence shows that, if provided during the first 4 weeks of an EI claim, less intensive supports have an impact on earnings and facilitate earlier returns to work for participants

Approximately 25% of individuals take training while receiving EI income benefits, with a quarter of these individuals waiting 6 months into their EI claim before starting training

Since March of 2020, most jurisdictions were quickly able to implement TRF. More than half a million emergency benefit recipients received training or employment supports since the beginning of the pandemic

Availability

Page details

2022-04-29

Annex 6: Key studies referenced in the report

On this page

List of abbreviations

1. Examining the role of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

2. 2021 Actuarial Report on the Employment Insurance Premium Rate

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

3. Early impact of COVID-19 on Employment Insurance benefits and the Canadian Labour Market

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

4. Initial impacts of temporary Employment Insurance measures in Canadian communities during the pandemic

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

5. Supplemental Unemployment Benefit plans

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

6. The Redistributional Impact of Employment Insurance, 2007 to 2009

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

7. Financial impacts of receiving Employment Insurance

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

8. Analysis of the EI clawback provision

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

9. Quits and the use of Employment Insurance regular benefits

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

10. Characteristics of firms that hire apprentices

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

11. Evaluation of the Employment Insurance Sickness Benefits

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

12. Enhance understanding of the use of the Premium Reduction Program

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

13. Compassionate care benefits: Update (FY0405 to FY1516)

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

14. Analysis of the Repeat and Combined Use of Skills Development

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

15. Analysis/Impact of the Targeting, Referral and Feedback System

Author(s), year

Objective(s)

Key finding(s)

Availability

Page details

Quick Enquiry