5.5 To the Income Support System

The income support system includes direct transfers of funding provided to clients by either the provincial or federal governments or an aboriginal body. In the case of Bridging the Gap, the agencies involved were:

• Human Resources and Development Canada/Labour Market Development Agreement of the Government of Canada; (HRDC/LMDA)
• Human Resources and Employment, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (HRE)
• Métis Nation, Port Hope Simpson Labrador (MN)

All of the Bridging the Gap clients were receiving income assistance from one of these agencies, and over a period of time, many had received income support from more than one. Most of the Bridging the Gap clients had been receiving income support, in one form or another, over a long term period and many also had families, which increased the amount of income they were receiving.

One of the purposes of Bridging the Gap was to provide people with the opportunity to leave the income support system, which is why HRDC/LMDA, HRE and MN "sponsor" them to participate in the program.

Bridging the Gap is projected² to cost more than most other types of programs, but the returns are anticipated to be higher and over a longer period of time than most. While the evaluators searched for other programs to which to compare Bridging the Gap, none were found. Most are either employment supports (a wage subsidy to the employer, for example) or else are training only (tuition and living expenses subsidy directly to the client).

Take the Newfoundland Hardwoods site as an example. Based on one year of employment with Newfoundland Hardwoods, the 8 clients that were hired, in total will earn approximately $280,000.00/year. HRDC's contribution to this site including Co–ordination, Skill Set Development and Participant's weekly allowances, was approximately 175,000.00. This means based on just a one year period, the interventions of Bridging the Gap has paid for itself.

There have been many calculations done (and will be done by the individual agencies) on how this program saves the income support system money. The fundamental fact is that 35 individuals are now working at full time employment and a further 3 are working on a call–in basis. They are not drawing benefits from the income support system. Most of these jobs can be expected to be long term and full time, albeit some may be seasonal. These people will either have eliminated their (and their families) dependence on the income support system, or have reduced it dramatically. A situation which would not have happened without Bridging the Gap.

There are two primary reasons behind the higher costs of Bridging the Gap relative to other programs. First is the cost of project co-ordination and second is the cost of developing and delivering individualized training.

²At the time of writing the evaluation, the final expenditures were not available.