Commuting and Mobility Patterns of Employment Insurance (EI) Recipients and NonRecipients

Prepared for the 2011 Monitoring and Assessment Report

Draft 2

Strategic Evaluation Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada September 2011

Executive Summary
On one hand, EI benefits can foster mobility by helping financing mobility and commuting costs. On the other hand, by providing a safety net, EI benefits can lower the pressure to move or commute to areas where better job opportunities are available. The objective of this paper was to compare mobility and commuting patterns of EI recipients and non recipients to shed light on this unresolved question. Trends in mobility were also analysed to identify changes that have occurred over time, particularly over the last recession. The 2006 Census was used to study the relationship between EI receipt in 2005 and commuting patterns (job location versus residential location) in 2006. The 2004-2009 Canadian Out of Employment Panel (COEP) surveys were used to examine the relationship between EI receipt and mobility decision after a job loss. The COEP surveys were also used to examine time trends in mobility choices of job separators. Mobility and Commuting Patterns of EI Recipients and Non Recipients Findings did not suggest that EI discourage workers form being mobile. On the contrary, EI receipt was positively correlated with long distance move, long distance commuting, and other flexible commuting behaviours. Commuting: Compared to non EI recipients, EI recipients were found to be less likely to work at home; more likely to have no fixed workplace address; more likely to work outside their census subdivision of residence; and more likely to commute 30 km and more. With regards to crossing provincial borders every day to go to work, both EI recipients and non recipient had the same likelihood of choosing this travel behaviour. Mobility. Over the period 2004-2009, the same proportion of EI recipients and non recipients changed residential location in the year following their job loss. Two significant differences were nevertheless observed between EI recipients and non recipients with regards to their moving reasons and distances: EI recipients were more likely to move to follow a spouse or parent and more likely to move more than 100 km away.

Mobility Patterns during the Recession Since 2006, the incidence of moving after a job loss has remained constant at around 17%. However, some mobility choices seem to have been affected by the 2008/09 recession. Indeed, compared to workers who lost their job before the recession, those who lost their job in the second quarter of 2009 were found to be slightly less likely to move to take or find another job and much less likely to move more than 100 km away.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4 2. Data .................................................................................................................. 5 3. Commuting Patterns ......................................................................................... 7 4. Mobility Patterns ............................................................................................. 10 5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 14 Appendix ............................................................................................................. 16

1. Introduction
The Employment Insurance (EI) program provides temporary income support to those who lost their job through no fault of their own; who cannot work for reasons of sickness, childbirth, or parenting; or who are providing care or support to a family member who is gravely ill with a significant risk of death. Individuals who quit their job voluntarily are not eligible for EI benefits. This aspect of the EI system might discourage people from taking a job too far away from home as in the eventuality that the commuting becomes unbearable, it is not be possible to quit voluntarily for reason of too long commute and collect EI benefits. Generous EI benefits in high unemployment regions can also lower the pressure to commute to areas where better job opportunities are available, especially in the situation where EI benefits are an integral component of a regular pattern of an interval of seasonal employment and an interval of income replacement. In the same situation however, EI benefits can encourage individuals to accept a job in other regions by increasing the ability to pay for the commuting costs. Similarly, the EI system can have both a positive and a negative effect on geographic mobility. On one hand, receiving EI benefits can help financing mobility costs and thus raise the propensity to move. On the other hand, EI benefits, by providing a safety net, can create a disincentive to relocate to communities with better employment prospects. This is believed to be especially true for seasonal workers who can rely on EI benefits to stabilize their income in the off-season. The objective of this paper is to compare the commuting and mobility patterns of EI recipients and non recipients and identify any changes that have occurred over time in the mobility rate, particularly over the last recession. The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2 the two sources of data used in the analyses are described. Section 3 presents descriptive statistics on commuting choices (job location versus residential location) of workers in 2006. Workers who collected EI benefits in the previous year are compared to those who did not. In a like manner, section 4 presents descriptive statistics on mobility decisions of individuals who had been separated from their job over the period 2004-2009, and compares EI recipients to non EI recipients.

2. Data
2006 Census The 2006 Census Public Use Microdata File (PUMF) on individuals was used to study the commuting patterns of workers in 2006. The Census is undertaken every five years and collects extensive demographic, social, cultural, and economic information on the people who live in Canada.1 The Census is of particular interest for this study as it includes data on the commuting distance to work and the place of work status (i.e. whether individuals work and reside in two different regions) for the week prior to Census Day as well as the amount of EI benefits received in the calendar year prior to the Census.2 This study uses the most recent Census which took place in 2006 and collected data on 844,476 individuals, representing 2.7% of the Canadian population. The sample used was restricted to permanent residents3 aged between 25 and 54 years old who worked for wages, salary, tips or commission during the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). These restrictions were imposed to ensure that we observe workers who considered similar factors (such as wages, housing price, EI benefits) when they made their work and residential location choices. A total of 261,870 individuals met the imposed criteria. This sample includes 33,869 individuals who received EI benefits in 2005 (13%) and 228,001 individuals who did not (87%). Note that the EI sub-group includes individuals who received sickness or parental benefits and who, consequently, did not necessarily lose their job. Similarly, the non EI sub-group includes individuals who have lost a job and those who did not. Information available in the Census does not allow distinguishing between job-losers and non-job-losers.

The census includes every man, woman and child living in Canada on Census Day, as well as Canadians who are abroad, either on a military base, attached to a diplomatic mission, at sea or in port aboard Canadian-registered merchant vessels. Persons in Canada including those holding a temporary resident permit, study permit or work permit, and their dependents, are also part of the census. 2 EI benefits in the Census refer to total EI benefits received before income tax deduction. It includes benefits for unemployment, sickness, maternity, paternity, adoption, work sharing, retraining and benefits to self-employed fishers received under the federal employment insurance program. 3 Non-permanent residents were excluded. These are persons from another country who, at the time of the census, held a work or study permit, or who were refugee claimants, as well as family members living with them in Canada.

Canadian Out of Employment Panel (COEP) The COEP surveys were used to study the mobility decisions of individuals who had been separated from their jobs between 2004 and 2009. The COEP survey interviews samples of Canadians who had a job separation during specific reference periods and collects information on their personal and family characteristics, unemployment spell, employment history, and education and training activities. Data on the financial situation of respondents, including the receipt of EI benefits, are also collected. Additional information on EI benefits (amount and type of benefits received) can also be obtained by linking the COEP data to the EI administrative data for respondents who provided their consent to linkage. Of particular interest for this study, is the information collected on mobility decisions. Respondents are asked if they moved since their job lost for a specific reason (to take a less expensive accommodation, to follow a spouse or parent, to take or find another job, to go to school or for another reason). Those who did move are also asked to indicate whether they moved more than 100 kilometres away from where they lived. From October 2004 to September 2009, 45,140 Canadians had an interruption in their employment activity, were surveyed about one year after their job separation, and agreed to have their data linked. This study used a sub-sample of this population consisting of individuals aged between 25 to 54 years old. Youth and older workers were excluded since their mobility behaviour might be determined by different factors than people in their prime working year. The sample used consist of 30,377 individuals, including 20,688 (68%) individuals who received EI benefits at any time between their job loss and the interview and 9,689 (32%) individuals who did not collect any EI benefits over that period.

3. Commuting Patterns
This section presents descriptive statistics on the commuting choices (job location versus residential location) of two groups of workers in 2006: those who received EI benefits in 2005 and those who did not. The analysis is based on a sample of workers taken from the 2006 Census PUMF on individuals (see section 2 for a description of the data). Place of Work Status Table 1 shows the distribution of workers by place of work in 2006. 4
Table 1: Place of Work Status
1

EI Recipients N=33,869 Worked at home No fixed address Worked outside Canada Worked in census subdivision (municipality) of residence Worked in a different census subdivision (municipality) within the census division (county) of residence Worked in a different census division (county) Worked in a different province Not available 2.2% 13.8% 0.2% 46.4%

Non EI Recipients N=228,001 3.3% 7.6% 0.4% 51.3%

Difference between EI Recipients and 3 Non-Recipients -1.2 * 6.2 * -0.2 * -4.8 *

19.1% 17.0% 1.0% 0.3%

18.3% 18.0% 0.9% 0.2%

0.8 * -1.0 * 0.1 0.1

Source: 2006 Census. Sample of permanent Canadian resident aged 25 to 54 years old who worked as employee during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. This variable relates to the individual's job held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). 2. Respondents who received EI benefits during calendar year 2005. 3. *denotes significant difference at the 5 percent level.

Workers who received EI benefits in 2005 seemed to be somewhat more mobile in terms of their journey to work in 2006 compared to non EI recipients since:
4

A smaller proportion of EI recipients worked at home than non EI recipients (2.2% vs. 3.3%); A much lager proportion of EI recipients had no fixed workplace address compared to non EI recipients (13.8% vs. 7.6%);

See Table A1 in the appendix for the relationship between the place of work and commuting distance.

A smaller percentage of EI recipients worked in the census subdivision (municipality) where they resided compared to non EI recipients (46.4% vs. 51.3%). A larger share of EI recipients worked in a different census subdivision (municipality) within the census division (county) of residence compared to non EI recipients (19.1% vs. 18.3%).

On the other hand, relatively less EI recipients worked outside Canada or in a different census division than non EI recipients (0.2% vs. 0.4% and 17% vs. 18% respectively). Only the incidence of working in a different province was the same for EI recipients and non recipients (1%). Table A2 in the appendix shows that even when personal and job characteristics were hold constant, the differences between EI recipients and non EI recipients in terms of workplace status still remained significant and did not change much in magnitude. Compared to non EI recipients, individuals who received EI benefits were: 1.6 percentage points less likely to work at home; 5 percentage points more likely to have no fixed workplace address; 2.2 percentage points less likely to work in their census subdivision of residence; 0.5 percentage point more likely to work in a different census subdivision within the census division of residence; 0.7 percentage point less likely to work in a different census division than residence; and 0.2 percentage point less likely to work outside Canada.

Commuting Distance to Work Table 2 shows the commuting distance for individuals who worked at a usual workplace address in Canada in 2006.
Table 2: Commuting Distance to Work EI Recipients N=28,380 32.8% 21.8% 14.2% 8.9% 5.9% 3.8% 12.6%
2 1

Non EI Recipients N=201,997 32.9% 23.2% 14.2% 9.1% 5.8% 3.9% 10.9%

Difference between EI Recipients and 3 Non Recipients -0.1 -1.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 1.7 *

Less than 5 km 5 to 9.9 km 10 to 14.9 km 15 to 19.9 km 20 to 24.9 km 25 to 29.9 km 30 km and +

Source: 2006 Census. Sample of permanent Canadian resident aged 25 to 54 years old who worked as employee during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. This variable relates to the individual's job held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). The variable is not applicable for individuals who worked at home, outside Canada or had no fixed workplace address. 2. Respondents who received EI benefits during calendar year 2005. 3. *denote significant difference at the 5 percent level.

The data support earlier results suggesting that EI recipients were somewhat more mobile than non EI recipients in 2006. Indeed, a larger proportion of EI recipients commuted 30 km and more to go to work compared to non EI recipients (12.6% vs. 10.9%), and a smaller proportion of EI recipients commuted between 5 and 9.9 km compared to non EI recipients (21.8% vs. 23.2%). As shown in Table A3 in the appendix, when personal and job characteristics were hold constant, EI receipt was still found to be associated with a higher likelihood of commuting 30 km and more (2.6 percentage points higher) and a lower likelihood of commuting 5 to 9.9 km (1 percentage point lower). EI recipients were also found to be 1.1 percentage points less likely to commute less than 5 km when personal and job characteristics were hold constant.

4. Mobility Patterns
This section presents descriptive statistics on mobility decisions taken by individuals who had been separated from their jobs between 2004 and 2009. Mobility behaviours are compared over time and between individuals who received EI benefits following their job loss and those who did not. The data used comes from the COEP surveys (see section 2 for a description of the data). EI Recipients vs. Non Recipients Table 3 shows the proportions of EI recipients and non recipients who changed residential location in the year following a job loss that occurred over the period 2004-2009 (i.e. last quarter of 2004 and the second and third quarters of the 2005-2009 period). The distributions of movers by moving reason and distance are also shown.
Table 3: Moving After a Job Loss EI 1 Recipients N=20,688 % Movers
1 1

Non EI Recipients N= 9,689

Difference between EI Recipients and Non2 Recipients -0.1 2.0 7.1 1.2 -3.9 -5.9 -0.5 5.9 -3.5 -2.4 4.7 -6.0 1.4

18.1

18.2

Moving Reason Moved to take less expensive accommodation Moved to follow a spouse or parent Moved to take or find another job Moved to go to school Moved for other reason Don't know / Refused Moving Distance More than 100 km 100 km and less Don't know / Refused Moving Distance if Moved to Take or Find a job More than 100 km 100 km and less Don't know / Refused
2 2

18.5 17.1 10.8 1.5 51.3 0.8 31.3 67.5 1.2 73.5 25.0 1.4

16.5 10.0 9.6 5.4 57.2 1.3 25.5 71.0 3.6 68.9 31.1 0.1

* *

Source: COEP Survey, 2004-2009. Sample of respondents aged 25 to 54 years old. Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. Respondents who received EI benefits since their job end date (QF17A=YES) 2. * denotes significance at the 5 percent level. 3. Based on question Q.T4: Did you move from your residence where you lived in (month before job end date) to? 4. Based on question Q.T5C: Did you move more than 100 kilometres away from where living at (month before job end date)?

10

About the same percentage of EI recipients and non EI recipients (18%) changed place of residence after their job loss over the period studied. The majority of these individuals (51.3% for EI recipients and 57.2% for non EI recipients) moved for another reason (other than to take a less expensive accommodation, to follow a spouse or parent, to take or find another job, or to go to school). The second and third most common reasons for moving were to take a less expensive accommodation (18.5% for EI recipients and 16.5% for non EI recipients) and to follow a spouse or parent (17.1% for EI recipients and 10.0% for non EI recipients) respectively. About 10% of movers changed location specifically to take or find another job and a small percentage of individuals moved to go to school (1.5% for EI recipients and 5.4% for non EI recipients). The majority of individuals (67.5% for EI recipients and 71.0% for non EI recipients) moved 100 km or less from where they lived. Among movers who changed location for job related reasons however, the majority moved more than 100 km away (73.5% for EI recipients and 68.9% for non EI recipients). Table A4 in the appendix shows that when demographics, job characteristics, the regional unemployment rate, and the quarter of job loss were hold constant, EI recipients were 1.4 percentage points more likely to move to follow a spouse or parent compared to non EI recipients. Among the other moving reasons, no significant differences were observed between EI recipients and non EI recipients. The gap in mobility to go to school between EI recipients and non EI recipients declined to 0.05 percentage points when the control variables were taken into account. With regards to the moving distance, EI was found to be positively correlated with the probability of moving more than 100 km away. Indeed, EI recipients were 5.4 percentage points more likely to move more than 100 km away compared to non EI recipients (see Table A4).

11

Trends in Mobility Rate Table 4 shows the proportion of individuals who moved in the year following their job loss, by quarter in which job separation occurred and by reason for changing location.
Table 4: Moving After a Job Loss - Time Trends 2004 Q4 N= Movers 1 Moving Reason Moved to take less expensive accommodation Moved to follow a spouse or parent Moved to take or find another job Moved to go to school Moved for other reason Don't know / Refused Moving Distance More than 100 km 100 km and less Don't know / Refused Unemployment Rate
3 2 1

2005 Q2 2,447 22.8

2005 Q3 1,881 23.6

2006 Q2 3,282 15.6

2006 Q3 3,131 18.1

2007 Q2 2,441 % 17.1

2007 Q3 2,089 17.9

2008 Q2 3,110 16.4

2008 Q3 3,039 17.5

2009 Q2 3,090 16.1

2009 Q3 2,931 16.8

2,936 16.1

14.2 11.4 13.1 0.5 59.2 1.6 24.3 74.9 0.8 9.5

17.4 8.3 5.0 3.2 65.5 0.6 20.7 75.5 3.8 8.8

13.9 14.6 9.7 2.9 55.9 3.0 25.8 69.7 4.5 9.3

19.3 12.1 9.7 0.9 57.8 0.1 25.6 73.2 1.3 8.5

19.9 10.5 11.9 10.0 45.7 2.0 30.6 64.4 4.9 8.9

14.8 18.0 6.6 2.4 58.0 0.2 32.0 67.7 0.2 7.8

16.0 12.3 12.6 5.6 52.4 1.2 37.7 61.0 1.3 8.4

17.1 20.0 12.4 1.9 48.4 0.1 34.2 64.0 1.8 7.3

22.1 19.2 14.4 3.0 40.7 0.6 36.5 62.4 1.1 7.6

15.9 12.1 11.2 1.6 58.6 0.5 24.0 74.2 1.8 9.1

26.3 15.7 9.0 4.2 44.7 0.0 29.0 70.3 0.7 9.8

Source: COEP Survey, 2004-2009. Sample of respondents aged 25 to 54 years old. Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. Based on question Q.T4: Did you move from your residence where you lived in (month before job end date) to ...? 2. Based on question Q.T5C: Did you move more than 100 kilometres away from where living at (month before job end date)? 3. Average unemployment rate at job loss

The incidence of moving increased form 16.1% in the last quarter of 2004 to about 23% in the second and third quarters of 2005. Since 2006 however, the mobility rate has remained relatively constant at around 17%. Table A4 in the appendix confirms that, with the exception of the second and third quarters of 2005, variations observed in the mobility rate (for any reason) over time were not statistically significant when demographics, job characteristics and the regional unemployment rate were hold constant. In particular, the coefficient on the 2009 Q2 variable was not found to be statistically significant which suggests that workers who lost their job towards the end of the last economic downturn were not more or less likely to move than those who were separated from their job before the recession (second quarter of 2008).

12

As can be seen from Table 4, more variations were found with regard to the moving reasons and moving distances over time. However, when demographics, job characteristics and the regional unemployment rate were hold constant, most of these variations were not found to be meaningful. Indeed, most of the coefficients for the quarter dummy variables in columns 2 to 7 of Table A4 were not statistically significant. Four significant changes are however worth noting since they suggest that the last recession might have had an impact on some mobility behaviours. Compared to workers who lost their job before the recession (second quarter of 2008), those who lost their job in the second quarter of 2009 were found to be less likely 1) to move to follow a spouse or parent (by 0.8 percentage point); to move to take or find another job (by 0.7 percentage points); and 3) to move more than 100 km away (by 11.1 percentage points). Moreover, workers who lost their job in the aftermath of the last recession (third quarter of 2009) were found to be 2.3 percentage points more likely to move to take a less expensive accommodation compared to workers who lost their job in the second quarter of 2008.

13

5. Conclusion
This paper presented an analysis of 1) the relationship between Employment Insurance (EI) receipt in 2005 and the journey to work (job location versus residential location) in 2006 based on the 2006 Census; 2) the relationship between EI receipt and mobility decision after a job loss based on the 2004-2009 Canadian Out of Employment Panel (COEP) surveys; and 3) time trends in mobility choices of job separators based on the 2004-2009 COEP surveys. EI Receipt and Commuting Patterns A correlation was found between EI receipt in 2005 and job and residential location in 2006. Findings suggest that EI recipients were somewhat more mobile than non EI recipients in terms of their journey to work. Indeed, when personal and job characteristics when hold constant, EI recipients were: 1.6 percentage points less likely to work at home; 5 percentage points more likely to have no fixed workplace address; 2.2 percentage points less likely to work in their census subdivision of residence; and 2.6 percentage points more likely to commute 30 km are more. With regards to crossing provincial borders every day to go to work, both EI recipients and non recipient had the same likelihood of choosing this commuting behaviour. In sum, EI benefits did not seem to discourage workers form being flexible when choosing their job and residential locations. More research is however needed to determine whether EI has a causal effect on job and residential location choices. EI Receipt and Mobility Patterns The mobility rate was the same for both EI recipients and non recipients over the period studied (last quarter of 2004 and the second and third quarters of the 2005-2009 period). EI receipt was found to be associated with only two distinct mobility behaviours. When demographics, job characteristics, the regional unemployment rate and the quarter of job loss were taken into account, EI recipients were found to be 1.4 percentage points more likely to move for family reason and 5.4 percentage points more likely to move more than 100 km away, compared to non EI recipients. In sum, EI benefits did not seem to discourage workers to move for any reasons, including work related reasons. In fact, EI might encourage long distance move

14

by helping financing its costs. More research is however needed to determine whether EI has a causal effect on mobility. Time Trends in Mobility Patterns The incidence of moving remained relatively constant at around 17% over the period studied (last quarter of 2004 and the second and third quarters of the 2005-2009 period) with the exception of the second and third quarters of 2005 where the mobility rate was around 23%. Recent changes in mobility choices were observed when demographics, job characteristics and the regional unemployment rate were hold constant: Compared to workers who lost their job in the second quarter of 2008 (before the recession) those who lost their job in the second quarter of 2009 (towards the end of the recession) were found to be: 1) 0.8 percentage point less likely to move to follow a spouse or parent; 2) 0.7 percentage point less likely to move to take or find another job; and 3) 11.1 percentage points less likely to move more than 100 km away. Workers who lost their job in the aftermath of the last recession (third quarter of 2009) were also found to be more likely (by 2.3 percentage points) to move to take a less expensive accommodation compared to workers who lost their job in the second quarter of 2008.

Suggestions for Future Research This study examined the relationship between the receipt of EI benefits and two outcomes, commuting and moving, which are the result of a joint job location and residential location decision. Commuting and moving patterns were however analysed separately due to the lack of datasets coving both topics. To study residential and job location choices, precise information (e.g. postal code) on the place of residence and the place of work is necessary. Ideally, these data should be collected before and after a job loss to study the effects of EI benefits on location decisions. The COEP survey, which interview job separator and collect information on the periods preceding and following the job loss, would be the ideal vehicle to gather data on the places of residence and work. Moreover, this type of information could be used to examine whether the movement of individuals is from high to low unemployment areas.

15

Appendix
Table A1: Commuting Distance to Work 1 & Place of Work Status 2 Commuting Distance to Work Less than 5 km Place of Work Status Worked at home No fixed address Worked outside Canada Worked in census subdivision Worked in a different census Worked in a different census division Worked in a different province Not available n/a n/a n/a 52.1% 11.4% 2.0% 10.4% 5.2% 5 to 9.9 km n/a n/a n/a 28.0% 23.1% 9.0% 20.5% 7.4% 10 to 14.9 km n/a n/a n/a 11.7% 21.8% 13.7% 15.8% 7.6% 15 to 19.9 km N=261,870 n/a n/a n/a 4.7% 15.7% 14.5% 8.2% 4.3% Place of Work Status Worked outside Canada Worked in census subdivision N=230,377 91.1% 70.0% 47.1% 30.1% 17.8% 11.9% 5.0% Worked in a Worked in a different census Worked in a subdivision different census different province within census division division 7.2% 21.0% 32.1% 36.4% 36.8% 34.0% 21.5% 1.3% 8.0% 19.5% 32.5% 44.7% 53.3% 69.3% 0.3% 0.9% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 3.5% 20 to 24.9 km n/a n/a n/a 1.8% 10.3% 12.9% 3.8% 2.4% 25 to 29.9 km n/a n/a n/a 0.8% 6.3% 10.1% 3.0% 0.9% 30 km and + n/a n/a n/a 1.0% 11.4% 37.8% 38.2% 28.1%

Worked at home No fixed address

Commuting Distance to Work Less than 5 km 5 to 9.9 km 10 to 14.9 km 15 to 19.9 km 20 to 24.9 km 25 to 29.9 km 30 km and +

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: 2006 Census. Sample of permanent Canadian resident aged 25 to 54 years old who worked as employee during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Figures are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. This variable relates to the individual's job held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). This variable is not applicable for individuals who worked at home, outside Canada or had no fixed workplace address. 2. This variable relates to the individual's job held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006).

16

Table A2: Probit Analysis of Place of Work Status

Probability of Working
at home at no fixed workplace address outside Canada in census subdivision of residence marginal effects 2 in a different census subdivision within in a different census division in a different province

Received EI in 2005 (Did not receive EI in 2005) Female (Male) Age group (25 to 34 years) 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years Highest level of education (Less than high school) High school Trade\apprenticeship College\CEGEP University undergraduate University graduate Family type (Person living alone) Couple with children Couple without children Lone parent Other Province of residence (Ontario) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Northern Canada Work 30 hours+ per week3 (less than 30 hours per week) Industry 4 (Primary) Construction & Utilities Manufacturing Trade & Transport Business services Education\Health\Public Admin. Other services Not available\applicable Number of observations

-0.016 * 0.013 *

0.050 * -0.085 *

-0.002 * -0.004 *

-0.022 * 0.073 *

0.005 * 0.021 *

-0.007 * -0.024 *

0.000 -0.003 *

0.013 * 0.019 *

-0.010 * -0.025 *

0.000 0.000

-0.017 * -0.006 *

0.009 * 0.010 *

0.007 * 0.007 *

-0.001 * -0.001 *

0.000 -0.006 * -0.002 0.009 * 0.021 *

-0.032 -0.010 -0.047 -0.058 -0.067

* * * * *

0.000 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.013

* * * *

0.007 -0.026 * -0.014 * 0.000 0.042 *

0.014 0.024 0.022 -0.004 -0.032

* * * *

0.016 0.021 0.047 0.053 0.032

* * * * *

0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 *

0.013 0.004 -0.006 0.008

* * * *

-0.010 -0.009 0.007 0.013

* * * *

0.002 * 0.002 * -0.001 0.005 *

-0.112 -0.090 -0.042 -0.052

* * * *

0.055 * 0.044 * 0.018 * 0.000

0.051 0.051 0.024 0.030

* * * *

0.000 0.001 * -0.001 * -0.002 *

0.005 0.011 -0.005 -0.002 -0.002 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.009 -0.022 -0.039

* * * * *

0.008 -0.016 0.008 -0.002 -0.025 -0.012 -0.005 0.021 0.026 0.000 -0.053

* * * * *

-0.001 0.000 -0.001 -0.002 -0.002 -0.003 -0.002 -0.002 0.000

* * * * * *

-0.002 *

-0.034 -0.171 0.123 -0.110 -0.044 0.186 0.120 0.149 -0.120 0.319 0.022

* * * * * * * * * * *

0.217 0.307 0.025 0.183 -0.016 -0.054 0.035 0.038 0.283 -0.083 0.020

* * * * * * * * * * *

-0.121 -0.088 -0.094 -0.040 0.046 -0.079 -0.107 -0.139 -0.136 -0.129 0.033

* * * * * * * * * * *

0.016 0.012 0.004 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.015 0.000 -0.002 -0.003 0.000

* * * * * * * *

-0.029 * -0.040 * -0.037 * -0.023 * -0.044 * -0.034 * -0.025 * N=261,870

0.139 * -0.094 * -0.049 * -0.048 * -0.066 * -0.073 * -0.048 * N=261,870

-0.003 -0.003 -0.002 -0.002 -0.003 -0.003

* * * * * *

N=261,870

-0.074 * 0.116 * 0.150 * 0.151 * 0.196 * 0.228 * 0.058 * N=261,870

-0.048 * 0.073 * 0.002 -0.034 * 0.001 -0.022 * 0.024 * N=261,870

-0.015 * 0.047 * 0.010 0.011 * -0.015 * -0.017 * 0.023 * N=261,870

-0.004 * -0.005 * -0.005 * -0.004 * -0.001 -0.004 * -0.007 * N=261,870

Source: 2006 Census. Sample of permanent Canadian resident aged 25 to 54 years old who worked as employee during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Estimates are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. This variable relates to the individual's job held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). 2. The marginal effect gives the percentage point change in the probability of working at a given place (e.g. at home) that arises from a change in the dummy variable from 0 to 1. Marginal effects are evaluated at the mean of all explanatory variables. Reference groups are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 5 percent level. 3. Hours worked at all jobs held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). 4. For the job held during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Persons with two or more jobs were required to report the information for the job at which they worked the most hours.

17

Table A3: Probit Analysis of Commuting Distance to Work

Probability of Commuting
less than 5 km 5 to 9.9 km 10 to 14.9 km 15 to 19.9 km
marginal effects
2

20 to 24.9 km

25 to 29.9 km

30 km and +

Received EI in 2005 (Did not receive EI in 2005) Female (Male) Age group (25 to 34 years) 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years Highest level of education (Less than high school) High school Trade\apprenticeship College\CEGEP University undergraduate University graduate Family type (Person living alone) Couple with children Couple without children Lone parent Other Province of residence (Ontario) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Northern Canada Work 30 hours+ per week3 (less than 30 hours per week) Industry 4 (Primary) Construction & Utilities Manufacturing Trade & Transport Business services Education\Health\Public Admin. Other services Not available\applicable Number of observations

-0.011 * 0.053 *

-0.010 * 0.014 *

0.001 -0.001

-0.001 -0.005 *

0.001 -0.004 *

0.000 -0.006 *

0.026 * -0.055 *

-0.022 * -0.016 *

0.002 0.003

0.005 * 0.004 *

0.002 0.001

0.002 -0.001

0.003 * 0.002 *

0.006 * 0.005 *

-0.027 -0.050 -0.073 -0.080 -0.051

* * * * *

0.006 -0.002 0.010 * 0.024 * 0.038 *

0.009 0.006 0.012 0.025 0.021

* * * * *

0.005 0.010 0.012 0.013 0.005

* * * *

0.004 0.009 0.011 0.008 0.000

* * * *

0.004 0.008 0.009 0.007 -0.001

* * * *

-0.002 0.018 * 0.019 * -0.002 -0.018 *

-0.131 -0.105 -0.063 -0.069

* * * *

-0.003 -0.009 * 0.001 0.012 *

0.032 0.022 0.020 0.026

* * * *

0.031 0.028 0.023 0.018

* * * *

0.022 0.019 0.014 0.013

* * * *

0.015 0.014 0.006 0.008

* * * *

0.035 * 0.053 * 0.005 0.001

0.119 0.142 0.028 0.079 0.019 0.101 0.234 0.052 0.082 0.346 -0.048

* * * * * * * * * * *

0.027 -0.018 -0.017 0.025 0.021 0.063 0.006 0.029 0.024 -0.070 0.007

* * * * * * * * *

-0.009 -0.017 0.000 -0.015 0.022 0.002 -0.083 0.033 -0.003 -0.069 0.011

* * * * * *

-0.039 -0.025 0.010 -0.016 -0.002 -0.042 -0.051 -0.017 -0.014 -0.035 0.011

* * * * * * * * * *

-0.026 -0.015 -0.005 -0.012 -0.003 -0.029 -0.029 -0.025 -0.010 -0.036 0.008

* * * * * * * * * *

-0.018 -0.010 -0.006 -0.009 -0.005 -0.018 -0.017 -0.013 -0.009 -0.029 0.004

* * * * * * * * * * *

-0.024 -0.032 -0.009 -0.034 -0.053 -0.048 -0.027 -0.046 -0.060 -0.073 0.004

* * * * * * * * * *

0.042 * 0.061 * 0.134 * 0.102 * 0.158 * 0.186 * 0.082 * N=230,377

0.036 * 0.061 * 0.058 * 0.070 * 0.049 * 0.060 * 0.036 * N=230,377

0.001 0.011 * 0.003 0.008 -0.008 -0.010 * -0.012 N=230,377

0.009 * 0.008 -0.005 -0.002 -0.009 * -0.014 * -0.012 N=230,377

-0.002 0.000 -0.010 * -0.008 * -0.011 * -0.015 * -0.013 * N=230,377

-0.009 * -0.012 * -0.017 * -0.015 * -0.017 * -0.020 * -0.019 * N=230,377

-0.050 * -0.077 * -0.091 * -0.088 * -0.087 * -0.099 * -0.024 * N=230,377

Source: 2006 Census. Sample of permanent Canadian resident aged 25 to 54 years old who worked as employee during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Estimates are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. This variable relates to the individual's job held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). This variable is not applicable for individuals who worked at home, outside Canada or had no fixed workplace address. 2. The marginal effect gives the percentage point change in the probability of commuting a given distance (e.g. less than 5 km) that arises from a change in the dummy variable from 0 to 1. Marginal effects are evaluated at the mean of all explanatory variables. Reference groups are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 5 percent level. 3. Hours worked at all jobs held in the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). 4. For the job held during the week prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006). Persons with two or more jobs were required to report the information for the job at which they worked the most hours.

18

Table A4: Probit Analysis of Moving1 Probability of Moving

for any reason to take less expensive accommodation to follow a spouse or parent to take or find another job marginal effects 2 to go to school for another reason more than 100 km away (if moved)

Received EI since job loss (Did not receive EI) Female (Male) Age group (25 to 34 years) 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years Highest level of education (Grade 1-13) Partial postsecondary education Trade\apprenticeship College\CEGEP University undergraduate University graduate Family type (Single without kids & other) Single with kids Married without kids Married with kids Received separation money3 (did not receive separation money) Annual earnings (1,000 of $)3 Annual earnings squared3 Industry3 (Primary) Construction & Utilities Manufacturing Trade & Transport Business services Education\Health\Public Admin. Other services Not available\applicable Regional unemployment rate3 Province of residence3 (Ontario) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Quarter of Job Loss 2004 Q4 2005 Q2 2005 Q3 2006 Q2 2006 Q3 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 (2008 Q2) 2008 Q3 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 Number of observations

0.0261 * -0.0069

0.0054 0.0008

0.0144 * 0.0124 *

0.0030 -0.0092 *

-0.0005 * 0.0003

0.0021 -0.0123

0.0541 * 0.0299

-0.1026 * -0.1702 *

-0.0148 * -0.0188 *

-0.0063 * -0.0218 *

-0.0031 -0.0073 *

-0.0013 * -0.0013 *

-0.0578 * -0.0933 *

0.0484 0.0519

0.0204 -0.0053 0.0045 0.0330 -0.0017

0.0087 -0.0061 -0.0013 -0.0052 -0.0092

0.0047 0.0004 -0.0007 0.0022 -0.0014

0.0085 0.0022 0.0045 0.0151 * 0.0244 *

0.0017 0.0003 0.0007 0.0028 0.0028

-0.0105 0.0015 0.0007 0.0083 -0.0158

0.0283 0.0986 0.0931 * 0.1162 * 0.1246 *

0.0469 * -0.0074 -0.0597 * 0.0249 -5.32E-07 4.04E-09

0.0052 -0.0150 * -0.0196 * 0.0127 -4.04E-07 1.37E-09

0.0010 0.0308 * 0.0100 * 0.0043 2.64E-05 -1.02E-08

0.0007 -0.0088 * -0.0164 * -0.0012 9.90E-06 -1.65E-09

-0.0004 * -0.0006 * -0.0016 * 0.0000 1.76E-06 -8.11E-10

0.0584 * 0.0088 -0.0046 0.0061 -3.86E-06 1.59E-09

-0.0595 -0.0695 * -0.0899 * 0.0367 1.40E-04 -3.25E-08

0.0153 0.0449 0.0645 * 0.0298 0.0426 0.0285 -0.0074 -0.0011

0.0102 0.0154 0.0144 0.0012 0.0069 0.0049 0.0061 -0.0010

0.0136 0.0148 0.0120 0.0050 0.0108 0.0076 0.0107 0.0003

0.0028 0.0103 0.0071 0.0124 0.0005 0.0101 -0.0089 * 0.0009 *

-0.0001 0.0000 -0.0002 -0.0003 -0.0005 * -0.0004 0.0010 0.0000

-0.0074 -0.0007 0.0193 0.0119 0.0228 0.0050 -0.0182 -0.0019

-0.1247 * -0.0808 -0.0811 -0.0276 -0.1582 * -0.0676 -0.1687 * 0.0062

-0.0106 -0.0074 0.0224 -0.0127 -0.0084 0.0009 0.0067 0.0603 * 0.0549 * -0.0212 0.0713 * 0.0633 * 0.0006 0.0196 0.0142 0.0036 0.0105 -0.0242 -0.0065 N= 21,271

-0.0105 * -0.0035 -0.0025 -0.0075 -0.0210 * -0.0061 -0.0075 -0.0043 -0.0031 0.0014 0.0250 * 0.0001 0.0075 0.0181 0.0027 0.0007 0.0081 0.0002 0.0227 * N= 21,271

0.0198 0.0289 0.0198 0.0193 0.0246 0.0126 0.0295 0.0278 0.0400 -0.0101 -0.0090 0.0057 -0.0071 -0.0086 -0.0012 -0.0035

* * * * * * * * * * * *

0.0079 0.0004 0.0077 0.0039 0.0003 0.0055 0.0166 * 0.0084 0.0100 * 0.0033 -0.0078 * -0.0050 -0.0039 -0.0018 -0.0063 * -0.0014 0.0014 -0.0065 * -0.0059 N= 21,271

0.0009 0.0011 0.0023 0.0002 0.0003 0.0011 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 -0.0003 0.0001 0.0000 -0.0003 0.0018 -0.0001 0.0007 0.0002 -0.0002 0.0000 N= 21,271

-0.0165 -0.0198 -0.0016 -0.0150 -0.0018 -0.0062 -0.0149 0.0290 0.0129 -0.0099 0.0680 * 0.0499 * 0.0144 -0.0032 0.0224 0.0046 -0.0083 0.0016 -0.0111 N= 21,271

0.3316 0.2595 0.2585 0.2044 0.0615 0.1677 0.2879 0.1680 0.2257

* * * * * * * *

-0.0522 -0.0927 * -0.0279 -0.0529 0.0106 0.0124 0.0674 0.0241 -0.1109 * -0.0572 N= 3,813

0.0022 -0.0082 * -0.0051 N= 21,271

Source: COEP Survey, 2004-2009. Sample of respondents aged 25 to 54 years old. Estimates are based on the weighted number of respondents. 1. Based on question Q.T4: Did you move from your residence where you lived in (month before job end date) to ...? 2. The marginal effect gives the percentage point change in the probability of moving that arises from a change in the dummy variable from 0 to 1 or from a one-unit change in the continuous variable. Marginal effects are evaluated at the mean of all explanatory variables. Reference groups are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 5 percent level. 3. At the time of the job loss

19