Who did it?
This initiative was managed by Provinces and Territories (PTs). Projects were designed in line with the parameters set out in bilateral agreements between the PT and the Federal Government. Projects were usually delivered by third-party service providers. It was a was a federal-provincial/territorial cost-shared initiative.
Where are we drawing the evidence from?
Information sourced from
What kind of support was it?
A group-based approach to employment assistance and employability improvement activities. It provided income support tailored to the needs of older workers.
Where did it run?
The initiative focused on small vulnerable communities of 250,000 or less which were experiencing high unemployment and/or significant downsizing and closures.
When did it run?
2006 – the Canadian Government introduced the TIOW programme to address challenges that older workers face with re-integrating into employment
2008 – the budget extended the programme until March 2012. The 2011 budget further extended it until March 2014
2014 – 2017 – the programme was extended again with the terms and conditions expanded to include two new community eligibility criteria: unfulfilled employer demand and skills mismatches
Who did it serve?
Unemployed older workers, primarily between 55 and 64
What were its key features?
- Projects were required to provide employment assistance activities such as:
- cv writing
- interview techniques
- employment counselling
- job search techniques
- In addition, projects were also required to offer at least two employability improvement activities such as:
- assessment activities
- peer mentoring
- skills training
- wage subsidies
- community based work experiences
- preparation for self-employment
- post project follow-up and mentoring
- Projects which did not include either work experience or subsidised employment were obliged to offer income support in the form of allowances to participants, where Provinces and Territories legislation allows
- There was a minimum requirement of 25 hours per week of activity for participants. No minimum or maximum number of weeks of participation was stipulated
What were its outcomes?
Evaluation in 2014 found that:
- Programme participants were more likely than non-programme participants to find employment by 6 percentage points
- There were no differences in employment earnings found between participants and the comparison group of older workers
Evaluation 2016 - outcome findings:
- Overall, participants were satisfied with the programme, and thought the job seeking and employability activities were helpful
- TIOW was effectively designed and delivered to assist older workers to re-integrate into employment. For example, the focus on strong recruitment of participants which included identification, assessment and selection of participants worked well
- It provided income supports tailored to the needs of older workers. It provided relevant employment assistance and employability improvement activities. These activities were facilitated through group-based approaches
- The programme was closely modelled on previous employability schemes for older workers that successfully produced higher rates of employment and employment earnings as well as job satisfaction
Recommendations for improvement:
- Although activities were seen to strengthen job seekers’ self-efficacy beliefs, there could be greater clarity and consistency in goal setting with participants. Research found that clearly defined goals led to a more focused search strategy, and this produced better employment outcomes
- The most successful schemes included some form of marketing of older workers to employers. This should be implemented across all programmes. Employers then benefit from engaging pre-screened, trained older workers
- Research found that regular positive peer support motivated participants. This had a positive impact on the intensity of job-searching. Projects should be created to continue these formal opportunities for peer support beyond the end of the employability support programme.
- Careful identification, screening and selection of participants should continue. However, it was noted that there needs to be consistency in terms of the tools used for assessment which will create greater rigour in the selection process.
