Download
1 / 17
170 likes | 174 Vues
This study compares the barriers to employment in welfare populations in Saskatchewan and the United States. The research examines prevalent barriers such as child care, transportation, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, housing instability, food insecurity, low education or skills, mental health problems, and discrimination. The study also identifies other barriers not covered in the research. The findings highlight the similarities and differences between the two jurisdictions and discuss programmatic issues related to identifying and addressing barriers.
E N D
Barriers to Employment in Welfare Populations A Comparison of Saskatchewan and Americans Estimates Luc THERIAULT University of Regina
Introduction • Post-welfare state = More active measures • Now everyone is seen as potentially employable • Hard-to-place social assistance clients • Diverse “personal” problems and family challenges • A rich research literature on barriers emerged in the U.S. in the 1990s out of the Clinton’s reform: (AFDC -> PRWORA -> TANF) • We only have estimates about prevalence • Great variations depending on samples, definitions and measurements used • Caution warranted by obvious differences between Canada and the U.S • Welfare systems, unemployment rates, medicare, etc.
Methodology • Search of 1990’s American literature via AltaVista search engine and traditional methods to find barriers estimates in various jurisdictions • Telephone survey in the year 2000 of 437 welfare applicants (“entry cohort”) from two areas of Saskatchewan (Regina and Yorkton). This is a conservative measure of barriers faced in social assistance populations • Comparing apples and oranges…
Prevalent Barriers to Employment • Child Care • Transportation • Domestic violence • Drug and alcohol abuse • Housing instability • Food insecurity • Low Education or Low Skills • Mental health problems • Discrimination and harassment
Other Barriers not Covered • Inadequate knowledge of workplace norms • Physical disability or health limitations (adult or child) • Criminal record • Etc.
Type of Abuse / Area Estimates Current Physical Abuse (N.J.) 15% Current Physical Abuse (Mass.) 20% Current Abuse (Sask.) 6% Comparison of Relationship Abuse Estimates
Comparison of Education Level Estimates (% Without High-School Diploma)
Type of Problems / Area Estimates Selected Psychiatric Disorders (U.S. women only) 23% Long-Term Mental Health (Mass.) 9% Emotional Problems (Sask.) 41% Comparison of Mental Health Estimates
Multiple Barriers Lack of a high school diploma by itself does not constitute a rigid barrier to employment, but an employer might be less willing to hire a high school dropout who also lacks work skills, has transportation problems and is depressed. (Danziger et al., 1999)
Discussion • Similarities across the different surveys • Lack of education and/or training is very frequent • Transportation, housing issues and food insecurity are also significant problems • Domestic violence and substance abuse are less common • The incidence of specific barriers is generally lower in Saskatchewan than in comparable U.S. studies • The causes of these differences (methods of the studies vs. real differences in welfare populations or programs) are difficult to separate • In some cases the incidence of barriers among Aboriginal welfare applicants was close to patterns found in the U.S. surveys
Programmatic Issues • Identification of barriers (assessment) is a challenging and costly issue for program managers… • Choice of screening tools • Training of staff and changes in organizational culture and practices (lowering caseload size) • What about service delivery? • What interventions should follow the identification phase? • Where are services available? Are they affordable? • How to provide them (in-house, contracting out, in partnership or all of the above)? • Job retention support services are needed as leaving welfare is a process, not an event
Conclusion • On the methodology: Gathering limited information about hard-to-reach populations is better than avoiding these populations altogether, provided the limitations of the research are acknowledged (Roach and Berdahl, 1999). • On folks with multiple barriers: What they needed was a “life-first” approach to welfare-to-work; a holistic approach that would prioritise their life needs, including their need to work. This would entail a certain re-conceptualisation of welfare-to-work. It would mean re-thinking what is meant by “job-readiness” (Dean and MacNeil, 2002).
References • Danziger, S. et al. 1999. Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. Madison: University of Wisconsin, IRP Discussion Paper no. 1193-99. • Dean, H. and V. MacNeil. 2002. A different deal? Welfare-to-work for people with multiple problems and needs. Luton: University of Luton. • Roach, R. and L. Youngman-Berdahl. 1999. “Lessons from the field: surveying hard-to-reach populations.”Canadian Review of Social Policy, no. 43: 101-110. • Theriault, L. 2002. “Non-financial barriers to employment faced by welfare recipients: A review of the American literature.”Canadian Social Work Reviewsocial, vol. 19, no. 1: 129-152. • Theriault, L. and D. Rosenbluth. 2002. “Moving from welfare to work: Saskathcewan social assistance applicants in perspective.”Prairie Forum, vol. 27, no. 1: 59-81.
