Currently, under Ontario Works an individual may be eligible to deduct a maximum of $390 per month per child from their declared income which is only allowable over a three month period. This does not mean that individuals are paid out $390 per month. What this means is that the total amount of social assistance you are entitled to will not be reduced if you can prove how much money you spent on child care. Let’s consider an extremely simplistic example, if you receive $1000 a month from social assistance and you earn $500 a month at work, the amount you made at work would be deducted from your social assistance cheque, making it $500. However, if you can prove that you paid $390 in childcare, your cheque would increase back up to $990.
There are further restrictions on this income earnings deductible through Workfare. If considering a two parent family where only one parent is working, this deduction will not apply because the government assumes the other parent is providing care for the child. In a single parent family the caretaker must be working or training in order to qualify. Therefore, this policy does not take into account job searching as well as family and health responsibilities in which childcare is required. Also, a recipient cannot receive this deduction if the child is being cared for by a family member. These same restrictions apply under the federal Child Care Expense Deduction.
All Canadians can attempt to claim childcare expenses through the CCED (with the very maximum being 7000/year). For Ontario Works recipients, they are only allowed to claim that which was not added to their total earnings. For example, if childcare costs totaled 500 per month, and were claimed with Ontario Works, 390 dollars would not have been taken off their regular social assistance cheque. Therefore, a recipient can only claim 110 from CCED. In addition, CCED requires that individuals pay for the full amount of child care expense upfront. An individual can then attempt to claim these expenses at tax time. Therefore, CCED is advantageous for parents whose incomes are high enough to cover their child care expenses throughout the year, these families are also more able to afford formal daycare. Another issue is that many low income and Ontario Works parents cannot claim CCED because they are required to provide receipts and many of the less expensive independent caregivers refuse to provide receipts to avoid paying income tax.
The federal government also established the federal Child Tax Benefit program. This is a tax free, income tested monthly payment for children under 18. In 1999 the benefit totaled 1,020 per child per year, low income families can receive additional funds of 605 per year. However, CTB, like CCED and the following National Child Benefit (NCB) do nothing to provide more affordable and greater numbers of child care services. Federal, provincial and territorial governments have also agreed to implement the National Child Benefit (NCB) which included childhood intervention programs, child care, cash benefits etc. This was a good step forward, however spending on these programs has not totaled much. The Canadian Health and Social Transfer (CHST) which replaced the Canadian Assistance Plan is a block transfer grant to the provinces to provide heath care, social assistance, postsecondary and education funding. The decisions as to which program money is filtered into is left to the discretion of the provinces, with childcare usually be left on the back burner.
Based on the review of childcare compensation under Ontario Works as well as the federal compensation programs applicable to all Canadians (in theory), I would recommend the following:
Short Term Recommendations:
Target Population: families receiving social assistance
Objective: Transition people out of poverty
• Provide all those receiving social assistance with a monthly childcare allowance regardless of working status, family member status or provision of receipts.
• Provide this assistance as an upfront payment of 390/month/child and do not include it in the calculation of earnings.
• Provide this assistance during a 1 year period, with the possibility for extension under extenuating circumstances.
Long Term Recommendations:
Target Population: All Canadian families, especially those of low income
Objective: Preventative poverty measure
• Development of a more universal child care system.
o Increase federal funding with the implementation of goals and timelines.
o Increase number of childcare services available ensuring affordability.
o Ensure quality standards are met within these services.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Attaining Support for Transition: How Do We Do It?
Authorities providing social services at the government level whom recognize the short and long term solutions to developing a policy with practices that acknowledge a transition process from social assistance to work, instead of deviantizing those who cannot work by subjecting them to undesirable participation in the labour market with inadequate pay and benefits will be making real change to workfare, making Ontario Works the program that the government of Ontario sets it out to be. Unfortunately, the current workfare system deviantizes those in need of social assistance because it is reflective of the public opinion, an opinion that is shaped by conservative ideology deviantizing those who cannot work, or who come from a cycle of working in low paid jobs. In order for change to happen, it is up to authorities providing social assistance (likely at the community level) to partner with groups receiving social assistance, including those who are recipients of workfare, to brainstorm recommendations for change that are reflective of the long and short term solutions recommended, and reflect the voice of an oppressed group of social service recipients. These focus groups can also come up with an anti-oppressive lens to help de-centre public opinion of those in need of social assistance from a conservative ideology, and develop strategies for consulting the right government officials in order to map where and how concrete change can happen.
In the Metcalf Foundation report, three focus groups were met with in order to assert changes that need to happen to social assistance programs. These changes need to happen across all programs, including Ontario Works, in order to reduce the overlap that further deviantizes and oppresses recipients by reducing the amount of benefits they can receive that they actually need, and in order to maximize the benefits and training that they receive while on Ontario Works. Changes recommended in a focus group from St. Christopher House in Toronto in 2007 required improvements to training and education, housing and homelessness, and minimum wages, assets, and adequacy and included the following:
Training and Education
provide higher benefits to facilitate education,
put greater emphasis on education rather than warehousing people,
provide training for real jobs where there is real work, and
do not limit education to children - allow life-long learning.
Housing and Homelessness
create more affordable housing,
get rid of the shelter system,
stop studying homelessness and do something about it,
build subsidized housing and get rid of boarding houses,
provide grace periods on rental increases when income from other
sources rise (but keep in mind that a grace period would not solve the
underlying problems),
stop very large rent increases when people get jobs, and
stop building ghettos and start building affordable housing that’s spread
out into various communities.
Minimum Wages, Assets, Adequacy
raise minimum wages and social assistance rates,
reduce onerous reporting requirements where one has to “tell their life
story over and over again” to get benefits
reduce excessive paperwork - “They already have more information on
us than we do,”
raise asset limits to $5,000 so that recipients can save money,
create custom solutions that are tailored to the situation that low income
people actually face,
deliver basic benefits through the tax system,
increase basic income tax credits (such as refundable credits),
provide better, more timely information to recipients so they don’t learn
social services rules when their benefits are already being cut off.
In order to start to put these changes into action, focus groups need first to work towards changing public opinion, and shifting it away from a conservative/oppressive lens in order to be able to have any influence at the government level. If governments are to buy into an anti-oppressive plan to improve social assistance, that plan has to reflect public opinion. In order to shape public opinion, focus groups need to look at the conservative ideology shaping public opinion of social assistance recipients as a "welfare cheat" lens and frame the anti-oppressive lens they are fighting for as an "achieving self-sufficiency" lens. Plugging behaviours that workfare recipients do into these frameworks that they often have to do in order to support their transition into the work force will show how public opinion can shift. The following table from the Metcalfe Foundation report looks at 5 deviantized behaviours under a conservative public ideology of welfare and demonstrates how public opinion can shift to an anti-oppressive one if it is re-framed to reflect an "achieving self-sufficiency" lens:
Behaviour: Acquiring a spouse
Welfare Cheat Lens: "She's got a boyfriend"
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Forming a viable and economic family unit to escape poverty
Behaviour: Help from family
Welfare Cheat Lens: "Getting illicit money."
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Reinforces role of families helping their own members, helping build a base to escape poverty.
Behaviour: Having a bank account-being seen in a bank.
Welfare Cheat Lens: "Hiding money from the system."
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Returning to normalcy, building assets, demonstrating money-management skills, building a base to excape poverty.
Behaviour: Getting a job
Welfare Cheat Lens: "Working and not reporting it - working under the table"
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: "The first major building block in becoming self-sufficient and returning to normalcy and becoming self-sufficient.
Behaviour: Spending on non-necessities.
Welfare Cheat Lens: "How can they afford that if they are supposed to be poor?"
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Returning to normalcy - taking responsibility for a household budget - making choices for better or worse - weighing risk and responsibility consistent with adult behaviour.
With a shift in public opinion in place away from a conservative ideology that deviantizes citizens who are recipients of workfare, real policy change to acknowledge the transition out of social assistance and into a job can take place at the government level. Recommendations from focus groups made of service recipients, agencies, boards, and commissions can be brought to government attention as the government either directly (through municipalities) or indirectly (through mandates placed on 'external' funders) fund agency programs. Since no agency wants to "bite the hand that feeds it," agencies need to take on the client centred approach in order to fight for changes on behalf of workfare recipients. Out of a client centred-approach, larger goals that tackle some of the short and long term solutions to recognize a transition process out of workfare (i.e ensuring that all agencies, programs, policies etc have common definitions of groups to prevent overlap that reduces benefits to be received between services) can be recommended by agencies to Service Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Government Services. This will ensure that favourable people-centred government policies will always be on the table during policy discussions at this level. As long as these policy discussions stay on the table and reflect public opinion (as shifted through focus groups), real change can be enacted with buy-in from finance ministers who budget such changes in social services, and most importantly, the Premier, whom has the final authority if structural reform is to take place.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
In the Metcalf Foundation report, three focus groups were met with in order to assert changes that need to happen to social assistance programs. These changes need to happen across all programs, including Ontario Works, in order to reduce the overlap that further deviantizes and oppresses recipients by reducing the amount of benefits they can receive that they actually need, and in order to maximize the benefits and training that they receive while on Ontario Works. Changes recommended in a focus group from St. Christopher House in Toronto in 2007 required improvements to training and education, housing and homelessness, and minimum wages, assets, and adequacy and included the following:
Training and Education
provide higher benefits to facilitate education,
put greater emphasis on education rather than warehousing people,
provide training for real jobs where there is real work, and
do not limit education to children - allow life-long learning.
Housing and Homelessness
create more affordable housing,
get rid of the shelter system,
stop studying homelessness and do something about it,
build subsidized housing and get rid of boarding houses,
provide grace periods on rental increases when income from other
sources rise (but keep in mind that a grace period would not solve the
underlying problems),
stop very large rent increases when people get jobs, and
stop building ghettos and start building affordable housing that’s spread
out into various communities.
Minimum Wages, Assets, Adequacy
raise minimum wages and social assistance rates,
reduce onerous reporting requirements where one has to “tell their life
story over and over again” to get benefits
reduce excessive paperwork - “They already have more information on
us than we do,”
raise asset limits to $5,000 so that recipients can save money,
create custom solutions that are tailored to the situation that low income
people actually face,
deliver basic benefits through the tax system,
increase basic income tax credits (such as refundable credits),
provide better, more timely information to recipients so they don’t learn
social services rules when their benefits are already being cut off.
In order to start to put these changes into action, focus groups need first to work towards changing public opinion, and shifting it away from a conservative/oppressive lens in order to be able to have any influence at the government level. If governments are to buy into an anti-oppressive plan to improve social assistance, that plan has to reflect public opinion. In order to shape public opinion, focus groups need to look at the conservative ideology shaping public opinion of social assistance recipients as a "welfare cheat" lens and frame the anti-oppressive lens they are fighting for as an "achieving self-sufficiency" lens. Plugging behaviours that workfare recipients do into these frameworks that they often have to do in order to support their transition into the work force will show how public opinion can shift. The following table from the Metcalfe Foundation report looks at 5 deviantized behaviours under a conservative public ideology of welfare and demonstrates how public opinion can shift to an anti-oppressive one if it is re-framed to reflect an "achieving self-sufficiency" lens:
Behaviour: Acquiring a spouse
Welfare Cheat Lens: "She's got a boyfriend"
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Forming a viable and economic family unit to escape poverty
Behaviour: Help from family
Welfare Cheat Lens: "Getting illicit money."
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Reinforces role of families helping their own members, helping build a base to escape poverty.
Behaviour: Having a bank account-being seen in a bank.
Welfare Cheat Lens: "Hiding money from the system."
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Returning to normalcy, building assets, demonstrating money-management skills, building a base to excape poverty.
Behaviour: Getting a job
Welfare Cheat Lens: "Working and not reporting it - working under the table"
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: "The first major building block in becoming self-sufficient and returning to normalcy and becoming self-sufficient.
Behaviour: Spending on non-necessities.
Welfare Cheat Lens: "How can they afford that if they are supposed to be poor?"
Achieving Self-Sufficiency Lens: Returning to normalcy - taking responsibility for a household budget - making choices for better or worse - weighing risk and responsibility consistent with adult behaviour.
With a shift in public opinion in place away from a conservative ideology that deviantizes citizens who are recipients of workfare, real policy change to acknowledge the transition out of social assistance and into a job can take place at the government level. Recommendations from focus groups made of service recipients, agencies, boards, and commissions can be brought to government attention as the government either directly (through municipalities) or indirectly (through mandates placed on 'external' funders) fund agency programs. Since no agency wants to "bite the hand that feeds it," agencies need to take on the client centred approach in order to fight for changes on behalf of workfare recipients. Out of a client centred-approach, larger goals that tackle some of the short and long term solutions to recognize a transition process out of workfare (i.e ensuring that all agencies, programs, policies etc have common definitions of groups to prevent overlap that reduces benefits to be received between services) can be recommended by agencies to Service Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Government Services. This will ensure that favourable people-centred government policies will always be on the table during policy discussions at this level. As long as these policy discussions stay on the table and reflect public opinion (as shifted through focus groups), real change can be enacted with buy-in from finance ministers who budget such changes in social services, and most importantly, the Premier, whom has the final authority if structural reform is to take place.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
Long Term Recommendations for the Transition Policy
Ensuring the successful transition from workfare to participation in the work force long term involves the removal of barriers to adequate and successful participation in social service programs that are in place to support self-sufficiency, the establishment of supports in policies that acknowledge the transition process that is intended to take place when people participate in Ontario Works as recipients, and efforts to change public opinion of social assistance to shift away from the conservative ideology that is responsible for deviantizing Ontario Works recipients through policy and practice. According to the Metcalf Foundation report, this involves the "creation of a new government responsibility centre, re-orienting Ontario Works to support transition, and publicly championing the road to self-reliance."
The creation of a new government responsibility centre will help to remove the barriers to adequate and successful participation in social service programs that are in place to support self sufficiency. While these barriers come from "unintended consequences related to program overlap and duplication" improved communication between social service authorities to prevent this overlap needs to occur.
Re-orienting Ontario Works to support transition will ensure the establishment of supports in policies and practice that acknowledge the transition process that is intended to take place when people participate in Ontario Works as recipients. Such steps would require "Governments to create a program where an Ontario supplement and the Working Income Tax Benefit are combined. Authorities also need to raise asset levels to allow Ontario Works recipients to save money that is direly needed for job hunt expenses and emergencies that could occur during the transition from social assistance to work.
Finally, publicly championing the road to self reliance will address the need to change public opinion of social assistance to shift away from the conservative ideology that is responsible for deviantizing Ontario Works recipients through policy and practice. This primarily involves the creation of a public education program that "champions continuous improvement and counters the unrealistic expectation of making sudden leaps into self-sufficiency.” The public education initiative should be backed by a group of public relations firms, communications specialists and pollsters in order to "resolve the contradictions in public attitudes towards acceptance of public assistance by working age adults." Such steps will ensure the creation of a coherent social policy whereby public opinion is in support of the transition of Ontario Works recipients into a competitive job market instead of reflecting unrealistic expectations that Ontario Works recipients will make sudden leaps into work and embrace low paid jobs.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
The creation of a new government responsibility centre will help to remove the barriers to adequate and successful participation in social service programs that are in place to support self sufficiency. While these barriers come from "unintended consequences related to program overlap and duplication" improved communication between social service authorities to prevent this overlap needs to occur.
Re-orienting Ontario Works to support transition will ensure the establishment of supports in policies and practice that acknowledge the transition process that is intended to take place when people participate in Ontario Works as recipients. Such steps would require "Governments to create a program where an Ontario supplement and the Working Income Tax Benefit are combined. Authorities also need to raise asset levels to allow Ontario Works recipients to save money that is direly needed for job hunt expenses and emergencies that could occur during the transition from social assistance to work.
Finally, publicly championing the road to self reliance will address the need to change public opinion of social assistance to shift away from the conservative ideology that is responsible for deviantizing Ontario Works recipients through policy and practice. This primarily involves the creation of a public education program that "champions continuous improvement and counters the unrealistic expectation of making sudden leaps into self-sufficiency.” The public education initiative should be backed by a group of public relations firms, communications specialists and pollsters in order to "resolve the contradictions in public attitudes towards acceptance of public assistance by working age adults." Such steps will ensure the creation of a coherent social policy whereby public opinion is in support of the transition of Ontario Works recipients into a competitive job market instead of reflecting unrealistic expectations that Ontario Works recipients will make sudden leaps into work and embrace low paid jobs.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
Short Term Recommendations for the Transition Policy
In order to set short term recommendations in motion to establish a policy acknowledging the successful transition from social assistance to a meaningful job, authorities of all social services need to come together to reduce overlap in policies that set up structural barriers to a successful transition into the job market out of social assistance. These authorities include social service providers such as Ontario Works, public housing, child care, and student aid. Short term recommendations need to start with supporting children in their transition into adulthood and continue with developing a short term solution for social service providers, including Ontario Works. These need to be in place to stabilize households in transition to greater self-reliance.
A significant factor that impacts the successful transition of not only recipients, but entire families off of Ontario Works is the failure of social service authorities to "support children in their transition into adulthood." Combined efforts of social assistance authorities helping children with a successful transition into adulthood includes the following steps: Public Housing and Ontario Works redefine adulthood and, under the new definition, children would not take on additional responsibilities or an adult status while successfully in school full time up until the age of 24, authorities providing social assistance provide a four year moratorium on rent increase, loss of OCB, and loss of student assistance. Moreover, the combined efforts of authorities of social services to work towards ensuring these short term goals are carried out should result in a real, tangible transition process for young adults to work with authorities to plan their own approval process, standards, and benchmarks.
There ARE significant short term measures that need to take place to stabilize families and households while they transition to “greater self-reliance." Authorities providing social services need to work with families to reduce punitive practices such as high tax claw backs on much needed additional income while on social assistance, improve asset assessment measures, and improve plans for the receipt of benefits while transitioning into the work force to ensure that the transition is adequately supported. In order to reduce these punitive practices, authorities providing social assistance need to grant one year renewable moratoriums on rent increases, OW reductions, losses in child care subsidies, and student assistance based on pre-approved plans for those adults who truly wish to attain greater self-sufficiency. Recipients should also have the option to renew this moratorium on a yearly basis if they move successfully towards pre-set benchmarks they have identified in all social assistance applications, including Ontario Works. Most importantly, there should be absolutely no punitive measures for those not successful in moving towards self-sufficiency should attempts to move in that direction be genuine (i.e. no retroactive charges). Authorities should also allow raised asset limits in accordance with an approved employment plan to ensure that recipients can accumulate some savings in order to better transition to self-sufficiency. All of these measures require authorities of social services to not only better coordinate their benefits plans, but to also work in cooperation and collaboration with individual families in order to establish plans that adequately address their needs and ensure a successful transition to self-sufficiency in the job market.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
A significant factor that impacts the successful transition of not only recipients, but entire families off of Ontario Works is the failure of social service authorities to "support children in their transition into adulthood." Combined efforts of social assistance authorities helping children with a successful transition into adulthood includes the following steps: Public Housing and Ontario Works redefine adulthood and, under the new definition, children would not take on additional responsibilities or an adult status while successfully in school full time up until the age of 24, authorities providing social assistance provide a four year moratorium on rent increase, loss of OCB, and loss of student assistance. Moreover, the combined efforts of authorities of social services to work towards ensuring these short term goals are carried out should result in a real, tangible transition process for young adults to work with authorities to plan their own approval process, standards, and benchmarks.
There ARE significant short term measures that need to take place to stabilize families and households while they transition to “greater self-reliance." Authorities providing social services need to work with families to reduce punitive practices such as high tax claw backs on much needed additional income while on social assistance, improve asset assessment measures, and improve plans for the receipt of benefits while transitioning into the work force to ensure that the transition is adequately supported. In order to reduce these punitive practices, authorities providing social assistance need to grant one year renewable moratoriums on rent increases, OW reductions, losses in child care subsidies, and student assistance based on pre-approved plans for those adults who truly wish to attain greater self-sufficiency. Recipients should also have the option to renew this moratorium on a yearly basis if they move successfully towards pre-set benchmarks they have identified in all social assistance applications, including Ontario Works. Most importantly, there should be absolutely no punitive measures for those not successful in moving towards self-sufficiency should attempts to move in that direction be genuine (i.e. no retroactive charges). Authorities should also allow raised asset limits in accordance with an approved employment plan to ensure that recipients can accumulate some savings in order to better transition to self-sufficiency. All of these measures require authorities of social services to not only better coordinate their benefits plans, but to also work in cooperation and collaboration with individual families in order to establish plans that adequately address their needs and ensure a successful transition to self-sufficiency in the job market.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
Recommendations for a New Policy supporting the Transition from Workfare to Work
One of the most prominent shortcomings of workfare is the failure to acknowledge through policy and practice that clients will transition from social assistance to work. Although it is assumed under workfare policies reflective of the receipt of benefits, asset assessments, and job training that the plans in place are there to transition recipients from social assistance to participation in the job market, the transition that does occur is into low-paid labour, and in many cases a cycle between workfare and low-paid labour. Without a policy in place naming and guiding the transition from social assistance to participation in a competitive labour force, this transition will not take place.
What would this policy look like, what issues around transition need to be addressed, and where do we start? A policy addressing the transition to work would first ensure that the well-being of the social service recipient is met to ensure healthy participation in job-related activities. To address the well-being of the social service recipient, adequate benefits to cover rent, child care, basic necessities (including food, clothing, utilities, and travel) need to be in place. Punitive measures preventing recipients from successful transition into the work force also need to be removed. This includes the intrusive practice of monitoring assets. Recipients need to have allowance for at least a small percentage of savings per month from benefits in order to save for emergencies, and other factors that one needs to save for when transitioning between jobs. Claw back rates also need to be drastically re-assessed. The high claw back rates for individuals receiving another source of income for the sake of transitioning into a job keep them from being able to afford to transition into a new job successfully. Lowering the claw back rates will ensure a more successful transition, and remove the need to “punish” those trying to reap the benefits of both workfare and a paid job because successful transition into a meaningful job will be rewarding for the former social service recipient.
The new policy addressing the transition process should also give the client agency in planning their goals as a participant in the labour market. The client should receive adequate career counseling, and adequate job-related training at the post-secondary level, and in job placements. Doing so will ensure that the client will build the credentials needed to enter a competitive job market with the support of a healthy level of assistance. The client will then be significantly less likely to bounce back into social assistance.
How do we get there? Firstly, recommendations need to be made for short term solutions, including the support of children in their transition to adulthood, and stabilizing households in their transition to greater self-reliance. Recommendations for long-term solutions then need to come into effect, and these include the creation of a new government responsibility centre, questioning the “business model” of governance, “re-orienting Ontario Works to support transition, and publicly championing the road to self-reliance.” Finally, steps to working together with governments to “shape the solutions” need to be laid out so that they can be set in motion, and a new policy ensuring the successful transition into a competitive job market of former Ontario Works recipients can be formed. Professional recommendations will be considered from the report from the Metcalfe foundation on the pathologizing of the transition to self-reliance.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
What would this policy look like, what issues around transition need to be addressed, and where do we start? A policy addressing the transition to work would first ensure that the well-being of the social service recipient is met to ensure healthy participation in job-related activities. To address the well-being of the social service recipient, adequate benefits to cover rent, child care, basic necessities (including food, clothing, utilities, and travel) need to be in place. Punitive measures preventing recipients from successful transition into the work force also need to be removed. This includes the intrusive practice of monitoring assets. Recipients need to have allowance for at least a small percentage of savings per month from benefits in order to save for emergencies, and other factors that one needs to save for when transitioning between jobs. Claw back rates also need to be drastically re-assessed. The high claw back rates for individuals receiving another source of income for the sake of transitioning into a job keep them from being able to afford to transition into a new job successfully. Lowering the claw back rates will ensure a more successful transition, and remove the need to “punish” those trying to reap the benefits of both workfare and a paid job because successful transition into a meaningful job will be rewarding for the former social service recipient.
The new policy addressing the transition process should also give the client agency in planning their goals as a participant in the labour market. The client should receive adequate career counseling, and adequate job-related training at the post-secondary level, and in job placements. Doing so will ensure that the client will build the credentials needed to enter a competitive job market with the support of a healthy level of assistance. The client will then be significantly less likely to bounce back into social assistance.
How do we get there? Firstly, recommendations need to be made for short term solutions, including the support of children in their transition to adulthood, and stabilizing households in their transition to greater self-reliance. Recommendations for long-term solutions then need to come into effect, and these include the creation of a new government responsibility centre, questioning the “business model” of governance, “re-orienting Ontario Works to support transition, and publicly championing the road to self-reliance.” Finally, steps to working together with governments to “shape the solutions” need to be laid out so that they can be set in motion, and a new policy ensuring the successful transition into a competitive job market of former Ontario Works recipients can be formed. Professional recommendations will be considered from the report from the Metcalfe foundation on the pathologizing of the transition to self-reliance.
Recommendations for acknowledging the transition from workfare to work obtained from: “Why is it so Tough to Get Ahead? How Our Tangled Social Programs Pathologize the Transition to Self-Reliance.” John Stapleton, Metcalfe Foundation: Toronto, 2007.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Pros and Cons of Proposed Methods of Removing Force
Our proposed alternative policy response seeks to improve job training and adequately assess (and, if necessary, develop) education levels in order to remove the feeling of force that Workfare participants feel to work. There are several pros to this proposed policy. Workers’ opinions are heard and valued in this alternative policy response, and this is a major advantage of our program because it empowers participants. So many Workfare participants were left feeling not only pressured or forced to work, but also powerless, helpless, unmotivated, and have even felt of little worth as individuals. Empowering workers by giving them the power to voice their opinions and having their voices heard, participants in our program would have the experience of essentially creating and participating in their own program recommendations. Of course, we hold power in the position of program develops as we are proposing the alternative policy response, but it is the participants who have the power to shape just how the program will help them. They know better than we do; they are in actual fact the “experts” in their own lives. Valuing and incorporating program participants’ opinions into the program is an effective way to get them interested in and excited about the program because they are direct contributors to it.
Continual evaluation and adaptation of the program to keep it fresh is definitely an advantage of our proposed alternative policy response. It is our intent that our policy satisfies the greatest number of people possible by allowing everyone a say in how the program is carried out. In reality, participants may hate the way the program runs, and by continually monitoring the progress and evaluating participant satisfaction, we would recognize these feelings and work to alleviate them. Just as policy makers must be willing to work with participants, participants must be willing to work with policy makers. If everyone gives a little and takes a little, it is likely to work. It is most definitely a “pro” to take part in regular program evaluation so that we can consistently work towards a successful social assistance program that works for individuals. This recognition and appreciation of individual differences is the premise of our plan because it will motivate participants in their daily lives. A large part of what causes Workfare participants to be unhappy, unmotivated, and resentful towards the system is the ignorance (by “experts” and employers) of their own unique situational issues that affect their ability to work. We have seen it. Research has shown it. If people’s differences are brushed aside and deemed insignificant, it has detrimental effects on their self-worth, and therefore their motivation in all aspects of life. We recognize that each person is different and has certain situations in their life that affect their ability to work. This is not a problem; it is what makes us human, and we wish to remove the feeling of force to work that Workfare participants experience by discussing these situations, bringing them to each other’s attention, and working with the situations to create a liveable work environment.
Although we can recognize the pros of our policy response, there are some cons or limitations to it as well. It is possible that some employers may not like the idea of having to share power with workers/participants in the program. We’ve all heard of those employers that are on a power trip. We can’t generalize this to all employers, obviously, but let’s face it—they do exist in some instances. If these individuals are required to share that power that they so covet and bask in, they may likely be resentful towards the policy. The program does not seek to take away power from employers, but it does seek to empower employees, and by evening out the playing field, employers may feel threatened that their power is being taken away. In addition, some individuals need to have structure in their lives. We are all different, and by respecting each other’s differences, we can respect that some people work and live best when their lives are rigidly structured. On the other hand, others may function best with a lack of structure. The incorporation of many different views can benefit participants by having each person’s voice heard, but it must be recognized that many (sometimes opposing) voices may result in higher rates of conflict. By integrating many perspectives the structure of the program may be compromised, and this can be unfavourable for those who require strict structure. Lastly, a limitation of our program execution is the possibility that participants will be unwilling to participate in the surveys we intend to use. The improvement of job training and the evaluation of program progress both require participant response in order to be most effective. If they are unwilling to respond, then this poses a dilemma to the program’s working. Lastly, attaining government enthusiasm and participation would likely be a lengthy and potentially frustrating process—it would be important to remind ourselves that we are in this for the long run and that it will take time and creativity to achieve our goals. Hard work will pay off.
Ways to address these cons follow. In order to deal with the potential issues of employer unwillingness to share power with employees, we would like to share with them the overall findings from the surveys that were completed in the implementation plan for improved job training and educational assessment. Participants in the program would take surveys to assess their individual needs and these surveys would be shared with employers to educate them on the program and the participants’ interests and needs. The attitude of being unwilling to share power with participants may likely stem from not understanding the premise of the program itself, and by educating employers on how the program would work, and showing them how different each individual’s needs and opinions are, they would be able to understand that power needs to be shared with participants in order to empower them and allow them to become self-motivated, quality employees. For the individuals who thrive on structure in their lives and suffer when that structure is abolished, meetings would need to discuss that this program does involve structure, but that it’s a different kind of structure. By reframing people’s concepts of what “structure” is, we could make them more open to a different kind of structure, the kind that our program would offer. It’s also important to note that once the program was running smoothly and any potential preliminary glitches were smoothed out, the program itself would, in fact, become more structured just as a result of regular practice and implementation. It would become the norm for participants and would therefore become routine. As for the reluctance to fill in surveys, we mentioned previously in the implementation plan for improved job training that policy briefs would be distributed along with surveys in order to educate and remind respondents of the benefits of the program. The benefits are focused on program participants, not the government, and therefore participants should recognize that they really can benefit from the program if they participate and provide feedback. They will be taking their lives into their own hands rather than letting someone else lead them, and this empowerment should encourage them to participate fully, so that they may reap the full benefits.
Involving participants directly in the program’s running is an innovative idea in social assistance policies because it shifts away from forcing people to work despite barriers to employment and shifts towards including people in how their job placements will run so that these employment barriers can be removed. The involvement of participants, employees, government workers, and policy makers has its pros and cons, as listed above, however we believe that the pros vastly outweigh the cons, and that empowerment of employees is what will make our proposed alternative policy response successful.
Continual evaluation and adaptation of the program to keep it fresh is definitely an advantage of our proposed alternative policy response. It is our intent that our policy satisfies the greatest number of people possible by allowing everyone a say in how the program is carried out. In reality, participants may hate the way the program runs, and by continually monitoring the progress and evaluating participant satisfaction, we would recognize these feelings and work to alleviate them. Just as policy makers must be willing to work with participants, participants must be willing to work with policy makers. If everyone gives a little and takes a little, it is likely to work. It is most definitely a “pro” to take part in regular program evaluation so that we can consistently work towards a successful social assistance program that works for individuals. This recognition and appreciation of individual differences is the premise of our plan because it will motivate participants in their daily lives. A large part of what causes Workfare participants to be unhappy, unmotivated, and resentful towards the system is the ignorance (by “experts” and employers) of their own unique situational issues that affect their ability to work. We have seen it. Research has shown it. If people’s differences are brushed aside and deemed insignificant, it has detrimental effects on their self-worth, and therefore their motivation in all aspects of life. We recognize that each person is different and has certain situations in their life that affect their ability to work. This is not a problem; it is what makes us human, and we wish to remove the feeling of force to work that Workfare participants experience by discussing these situations, bringing them to each other’s attention, and working with the situations to create a liveable work environment.
Although we can recognize the pros of our policy response, there are some cons or limitations to it as well. It is possible that some employers may not like the idea of having to share power with workers/participants in the program. We’ve all heard of those employers that are on a power trip. We can’t generalize this to all employers, obviously, but let’s face it—they do exist in some instances. If these individuals are required to share that power that they so covet and bask in, they may likely be resentful towards the policy. The program does not seek to take away power from employers, but it does seek to empower employees, and by evening out the playing field, employers may feel threatened that their power is being taken away. In addition, some individuals need to have structure in their lives. We are all different, and by respecting each other’s differences, we can respect that some people work and live best when their lives are rigidly structured. On the other hand, others may function best with a lack of structure. The incorporation of many different views can benefit participants by having each person’s voice heard, but it must be recognized that many (sometimes opposing) voices may result in higher rates of conflict. By integrating many perspectives the structure of the program may be compromised, and this can be unfavourable for those who require strict structure. Lastly, a limitation of our program execution is the possibility that participants will be unwilling to participate in the surveys we intend to use. The improvement of job training and the evaluation of program progress both require participant response in order to be most effective. If they are unwilling to respond, then this poses a dilemma to the program’s working. Lastly, attaining government enthusiasm and participation would likely be a lengthy and potentially frustrating process—it would be important to remind ourselves that we are in this for the long run and that it will take time and creativity to achieve our goals. Hard work will pay off.
Ways to address these cons follow. In order to deal with the potential issues of employer unwillingness to share power with employees, we would like to share with them the overall findings from the surveys that were completed in the implementation plan for improved job training and educational assessment. Participants in the program would take surveys to assess their individual needs and these surveys would be shared with employers to educate them on the program and the participants’ interests and needs. The attitude of being unwilling to share power with participants may likely stem from not understanding the premise of the program itself, and by educating employers on how the program would work, and showing them how different each individual’s needs and opinions are, they would be able to understand that power needs to be shared with participants in order to empower them and allow them to become self-motivated, quality employees. For the individuals who thrive on structure in their lives and suffer when that structure is abolished, meetings would need to discuss that this program does involve structure, but that it’s a different kind of structure. By reframing people’s concepts of what “structure” is, we could make them more open to a different kind of structure, the kind that our program would offer. It’s also important to note that once the program was running smoothly and any potential preliminary glitches were smoothed out, the program itself would, in fact, become more structured just as a result of regular practice and implementation. It would become the norm for participants and would therefore become routine. As for the reluctance to fill in surveys, we mentioned previously in the implementation plan for improved job training that policy briefs would be distributed along with surveys in order to educate and remind respondents of the benefits of the program. The benefits are focused on program participants, not the government, and therefore participants should recognize that they really can benefit from the program if they participate and provide feedback. They will be taking their lives into their own hands rather than letting someone else lead them, and this empowerment should encourage them to participate fully, so that they may reap the full benefits.
Involving participants directly in the program’s running is an innovative idea in social assistance policies because it shifts away from forcing people to work despite barriers to employment and shifts towards including people in how their job placements will run so that these employment barriers can be removed. The involvement of participants, employees, government workers, and policy makers has its pros and cons, as listed above, however we believe that the pros vastly outweigh the cons, and that empowerment of employees is what will make our proposed alternative policy response successful.
Monitoring and Evaluating the Removal of FORCE
Through the proposed plan of improving job training and adequately assessing and ensuring proper levels of education, we proposed that the “force to work” would be lifted off of workers’ shoulders and that they would become self-motivated to work. Workers would see that they are valued and are heard. This all sounds great, but in order to assess whether or not these measures are effective, we need to look at some ways in which we can monitor and evaluate the participants’ satisfaction levels with the program and, in turn, how well the program is working towards removing “force” and preparing workers sufficiently. The ways in which this could be performed are through the examination of felt, normative, expressed, and comparative needs; primary surveys; and informal and group techniques. These methods of needs assessment, evaluation, and process evaluation would provide us with a thorough understanding of how well our proposed alternative policy response regarding job training, education, and the removal of force was working in practice.
Felt needs, or the needs that the workers themselves expressed, would be assessed through collaborative discourse with employers and fellow employees. Normative needs, or the needs that are perceived by “experts” such as employers and policy-makers, and Expressed needs, or the needs identified by service agencies, are other important perspectives that contribute to participants’ attitudes towards working, and could also be assessed and explored through collaborative group discourse. All involved parties coming together to explain their own views and to understand others’ views would lead to an overall examination of these three types of needs. Group discussions that identify these needs would be conducted before and during the implementation of our policy response in order to get an accurate work-in-progress report. The generalization that is involved in Comparative needs is another important aspect necessary to explore because, as we have discussed in many previous posts, the generalization of Workfare participants or anyone for that matter is oppressive. Ignoring individual differences that occur from one person to the next oppresses people’s individuality and uniqueness and oppresses their very being. Comparative needs could be assessed by examining existing literature and statistics relating to Workfare programs and other social assistance programs in order to gain an understanding of how social assistance recipients have been generalized as a population in the past and present. Learning ways to overcome generalizations and value each worker’s specific situation and social location (by incorporating their own voices) would create an interesting and different perspective because it would let go of stereotypes and make way for new ways of perceiving and assisting social assistance recipients.
Primary surveys could assess the needs of workers on social assistance. Using random sampling from a large population of working social assistance recipients we could acquire a sufficiently varied sample to participate in our survey. These surveys would be qualitative and consist mainly of open-ended questions that would aim to attain the most detailed and subjective material from workers as possible. The subjectivity of each respondent’s survey is key because our approach is all about hearing each and every one of their individual voices. Primary surveys distributed to participants would broadly cover how well the program was working in terms of increasing participants’ levels of satisfaction on several scales, such as job satisfaction, living arrangement satisfaction, opportunities for growth and development satisfaction, and so on. These quantitative and numeric scales would be supported by qualitative questions that would require respondents to elaborate on the reasons for their levels of satisfaction, what could be done to increase those levels, and what is being done currently in the program that they feel is working well. Primary surveys would generate a lot of discussion from both participants and employers, just as improved job training methods would, and would therefore increase employer-employee coherence as well as increasing employer and employee satisfaction with the job and quality of work. Primary surveys would be distributed after approximately one year from the program’s commencement in order to give the program time to get started and to allow for people to get accustomed to the program. Distributing these surveys every other year would ensure that the program was meeting participants’ changing demands and needs and continually striving for relevance as things change.
Informal and group techniques are also very relevant in the evaluation of our program because it again focuses on qualitative information. Primary surveys are able to gather both qualitative and quantitative information, which is vital because quantitative data is especially useful for presenting findings and oftentimes quantitative data is more appealing to the general public. Informal and group techniques focus only on qualitative information and this appeals to us as program developers because the improved job training, proper educational assessment, and removal of force are carried out through qualitative techniques. What better way to assess qualitative techniques of program alteration than by evaluating them using qualitative assessments? The way we would carry out this aspect of program evaluation and monitoring is that we would bring in a social planner to work with the program participants directly from a “peer” perspective. The collaboration with a social planner is intended to minimize the level of discomfort that participants would have in discourse with an “expert”. This minimization of discomfort takes place through bringing the social planner to the same level as participants in order to promote a participatory approach to program development and maintenance. Through focus groups that participants would participate in on a voluntary basis, qualitative information would be gathered, recorded, and analyzed regarding ways that the program is working and ways in which it could improve. These findings would then be shared in employer forums that would keep employers participating in the program up to date with current data.
Although many ways to evaluate and monitor our program’s success could be applied, in the interest of space we will conclude this section here. The main point of this post is that in order to attain our goal of transitioning those on social assistance out of poverty we have identified objectives to help us reach our goal, as well as implementation plans for these objectives; the operation of these objectives must be evaluated in order to ensure that the program’s objectives are being met, are valuable to participants, and that the program is, in fact, successful in transitioning social assistance recipients out of poverty. In terms of improved job training, proper educational assessment, and the removal of force to work, we have proposed that primary surveys and informal and group techniques be used to carry out this evaluation. The identification and deconstruction of felt needs, normative needs, expressed needs, and comparative needs contributes to successful program evaluation as well because they help pinpoint the needs that the program should be addressing. The sharing of findings that arise from our evaluation would be shared publicly through public forums and perhaps through publication. It is important to include not only participants in the program but also to hear the voices of the general public as well, and by publicly examining the evaluation of our program these voices would be heard.
Felt needs, or the needs that the workers themselves expressed, would be assessed through collaborative discourse with employers and fellow employees. Normative needs, or the needs that are perceived by “experts” such as employers and policy-makers, and Expressed needs, or the needs identified by service agencies, are other important perspectives that contribute to participants’ attitudes towards working, and could also be assessed and explored through collaborative group discourse. All involved parties coming together to explain their own views and to understand others’ views would lead to an overall examination of these three types of needs. Group discussions that identify these needs would be conducted before and during the implementation of our policy response in order to get an accurate work-in-progress report. The generalization that is involved in Comparative needs is another important aspect necessary to explore because, as we have discussed in many previous posts, the generalization of Workfare participants or anyone for that matter is oppressive. Ignoring individual differences that occur from one person to the next oppresses people’s individuality and uniqueness and oppresses their very being. Comparative needs could be assessed by examining existing literature and statistics relating to Workfare programs and other social assistance programs in order to gain an understanding of how social assistance recipients have been generalized as a population in the past and present. Learning ways to overcome generalizations and value each worker’s specific situation and social location (by incorporating their own voices) would create an interesting and different perspective because it would let go of stereotypes and make way for new ways of perceiving and assisting social assistance recipients.
Primary surveys could assess the needs of workers on social assistance. Using random sampling from a large population of working social assistance recipients we could acquire a sufficiently varied sample to participate in our survey. These surveys would be qualitative and consist mainly of open-ended questions that would aim to attain the most detailed and subjective material from workers as possible. The subjectivity of each respondent’s survey is key because our approach is all about hearing each and every one of their individual voices. Primary surveys distributed to participants would broadly cover how well the program was working in terms of increasing participants’ levels of satisfaction on several scales, such as job satisfaction, living arrangement satisfaction, opportunities for growth and development satisfaction, and so on. These quantitative and numeric scales would be supported by qualitative questions that would require respondents to elaborate on the reasons for their levels of satisfaction, what could be done to increase those levels, and what is being done currently in the program that they feel is working well. Primary surveys would generate a lot of discussion from both participants and employers, just as improved job training methods would, and would therefore increase employer-employee coherence as well as increasing employer and employee satisfaction with the job and quality of work. Primary surveys would be distributed after approximately one year from the program’s commencement in order to give the program time to get started and to allow for people to get accustomed to the program. Distributing these surveys every other year would ensure that the program was meeting participants’ changing demands and needs and continually striving for relevance as things change.
Informal and group techniques are also very relevant in the evaluation of our program because it again focuses on qualitative information. Primary surveys are able to gather both qualitative and quantitative information, which is vital because quantitative data is especially useful for presenting findings and oftentimes quantitative data is more appealing to the general public. Informal and group techniques focus only on qualitative information and this appeals to us as program developers because the improved job training, proper educational assessment, and removal of force are carried out through qualitative techniques. What better way to assess qualitative techniques of program alteration than by evaluating them using qualitative assessments? The way we would carry out this aspect of program evaluation and monitoring is that we would bring in a social planner to work with the program participants directly from a “peer” perspective. The collaboration with a social planner is intended to minimize the level of discomfort that participants would have in discourse with an “expert”. This minimization of discomfort takes place through bringing the social planner to the same level as participants in order to promote a participatory approach to program development and maintenance. Through focus groups that participants would participate in on a voluntary basis, qualitative information would be gathered, recorded, and analyzed regarding ways that the program is working and ways in which it could improve. These findings would then be shared in employer forums that would keep employers participating in the program up to date with current data.
Although many ways to evaluate and monitor our program’s success could be applied, in the interest of space we will conclude this section here. The main point of this post is that in order to attain our goal of transitioning those on social assistance out of poverty we have identified objectives to help us reach our goal, as well as implementation plans for these objectives; the operation of these objectives must be evaluated in order to ensure that the program’s objectives are being met, are valuable to participants, and that the program is, in fact, successful in transitioning social assistance recipients out of poverty. In terms of improved job training, proper educational assessment, and the removal of force to work, we have proposed that primary surveys and informal and group techniques be used to carry out this evaluation. The identification and deconstruction of felt needs, normative needs, expressed needs, and comparative needs contributes to successful program evaluation as well because they help pinpoint the needs that the program should be addressing. The sharing of findings that arise from our evaluation would be shared publicly through public forums and perhaps through publication. It is important to include not only participants in the program but also to hear the voices of the general public as well, and by publicly examining the evaluation of our program these voices would be heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
