|
A policy is a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. Governments operate under policies which mandate them to achieve certain outcomes. There are many government policies, (primarily provincial) which have an impact on job finding and job keeping for residents of Kings County. Two examples are the Labor Standards Code and minimum wage laws. Our mandate was to highlight the barriers identified by the participants we interviewed. The barriers resulting from various government policies were numerous and their impact far reaching.
In our examination of the comments participants made, we heard them identify barriers to employment due to government policies in four areas:
Summary of Income Assistance Barriers. From the Employment Support and Income Assistance (ESIA) manual:
This is a worthy principle. The individuals we met employed to administer the services available under that principle, and the participants we met receiving support through this program were committed to the implementation of this principle. Unfortunately, according to the lived experience of the participants we interviewed, the necessary supports to enable it to be maintained were not in place. Although some of these points do not appear to be directly related to job seeking, they had significant impact on the challenges for participants who were on the ESIA program to find work.
As well as policy barriers, there were attitudinal barriers experienced by participants:
Summary of Employment Supports Barriers
Summary of Medical Support Barriers
Summary of Wage Subsidy Program Barrier
Stipulation The mandate for this research project was to listen to Discouraged Job Seeker’ perceptions of their barriers, and then verify their accuracy. In this particular instance, due to confidentiality issues, we were unable to verify any specific participant’s concern or portrayal of administration of their case. In terms of verification we aggregated concerns, and then checked the policy documents available on websites. We also met with Employment Services staff to discuss these issues. We found staff very forthcoming about policies and practices.
4.1 INCOME ASSISTANCE BARRIERSThis led to stress and an inability to create stability and clear thinking in order to focus on getting a job. Hunger and poor nutrition contributes to participants’ lack of clear thinking.
According to studies which examine the costs of living, the Nova Scotia Income Assistance financial provision falls well short of allowing recipients to purchase enough to eat nutritionally and pay adequate rent.[2] One example compares what the ‘low income cut off’ would be for a family of three. Nova Scotia’s support rates lead to a $4000 yearly deficit. Every month, there is a shortfall of over $300 between that which is identified for citizens to have adequate funds to live with a ‘low income’, and what income assistance provides. Emma has severe injuries as a result of a car accident many years ago. She tries to maintain as careful a budget as possible.
With income to meet basic needs being woefully inadequate other aspects of service provision and delivery become difficult to access and/or use effectively. When one is unable to rely on having regular and adequate essentials for living, finding the resources, both financially and emotionally to job seek can become overwhelming. Reliance on others for support creates instability, leaving recipients unable to plan to job search in a consistent, reliable fashion.
We found a copy of an easy to read booklet on the web that is now distributed to new recipients. This has been in place for approximately 5 years. It does not contain all relevant policies for everyone– otherwise it would be too big. It was written in collaboration with community agencies. We confirmed that copies had not been sent to recipients that were on income assistance at the time of the printing. It appears that some new recipients are missed due to periodic shortages of available copies. Copies were not present in the waiting room when we visited the local ESIA offices. One policy that is fairly well known is that government “claws back”[3] 70% of income earned if a person receives Income Assistance. Many participants referred to this as a barrier to finding regular employment. Lisa has been diagnosed with a sleeping disorder. Prior to the diagnosis she worked at a prestigious research organization and earned a considerable salary. She has been on government assistance since being diagnosed with the disorder in the early 1990s.
Some worked in the ‘informal economy’ not declaring the income. Others found the experience of receiving far less take home pay added to their sense of worthlessness. If their work is valued at only 30% the worth of others who do the same work as they do, what does that say about their significance? Parents of a man with an intellectual disability told us that after considerable effort he had found a job he could do at a factory and he received the 30% net pay. As a result of this policy he was the brunt of many humiliating statements by co-workers. This harassment resulted in him feeling he had to quit work to keep his dignity. There is no employment support for those who may become employable if they receive supports but who are only on the Income Assistance stream. Participants we spoke to who did not qualify for the ‘employable’ designation felt deserted, and at times compelled to hide income from their workers. They were unable to have any hope of contributing to society and seeing themselves as self sufficient as possible. One person who we consulted is on the Income Assistance stream. She is extremely active in her community, doing a significant amount of volunteer work. Her multiple challenges make it impossible for her to work regularly. She cannot work dependable shifts but wants to contribute to her community and be active. If she were in the Employment Assistance stream, she may be eligible for transportation funds to get to and from the volunteer positions. Being with the Income Assistance stream, she is not. She works ‘under the table’ to pay for her bus fare, and feels guilty that she felt compelled to lie to her worker. If she declared the income, a 70% “claw back” would not allow her sufficient funds to pay for her bus fare – her health does not allow her to work long enough hours to compensate. Volunteering is recognized as part of a plan for someone to become employed if they are in the Employment Support stream. Recipients of income assistance are prevented from developing a process, such as volunteering, that could lead to gradual work readiness. Some participants had been on Income Assistance for a long time. They found policies changed so often they’d just given up trying to figure out what they were entitled to, and stopped trying to qualify for the supports. Many participants did not know which stream, Income Assistance or Employment Supports they were on. Due to changing conditions in life they had gone back and forth: due to frustration they had given up trying to discern which stream they were in.
Sally is a person with a significant amount of post-secondary education, but has an obvious disability. A variety of attempts to try to find employment while dependent on government supports spanned many years. She has found the system so confusing she’s lost track of what stream she is currently in. She has found that the lack of support has made her cynical. She has given up. She is in her 30’s, and without significant change, the system will likely be supporting her for decades. One participant who is receiving supports due to her volunteer work told us she was enrolled in a program that workers informed us had ended more than a decade ago. Her willingness to utilize an incentive program was obvious. The support was there but she still was not clear what funds she was receiving under what program. This underlines the lack of communication or understanding of information that recipients who are willing to work have regarding their options and opportunities.
We spoke to participants about this policy. It had been mentioned by those involved with employment services as an incentive that was rarely used and they did not know why. According to the participants, there are specific businesses that are eligible for this exemption: many are not near public transportation. As we discuss in Theme Chapter 6: Functional Barriers, access to such agricultural work is restricted due to lack of transportation to the fields, or the cost of paying for available transportation, such as taxis. Participants were unable to pay for transportation to obtain this benefit. Participants felt they had lost control when they became an income assistance recipient. Fran experienced considerable pain on an irregular basis. Her doctor had prescribed a medication that she needed occasionally, but when she needed it, she needed it quickly. She had delivered the necessary documentation to her worker and the worker needed to send the documentation to the pharmacy. Fran asked her to fax it so that the pharmacy could fill the order quickly.
Whether Fran received an immediate response to relieve her pain or not depended on nothing she could control, and apparently was not due to a policy that needed to be rigorously followed. Emma experienced her visits to the income assistance offices as extremely difficult and spoke of someone she knew who was illiterate and did not feel comfortable telling his IA worker.
This sense of losing control of one’s life is contrary to the first principle of empowerment, in the ESIA manual. We discuss factors that lead to this feeling and address some of them later. The reality is that one does lose control to an extent, as one has become dependent on the government for support. Accountability to the taxpayer via verification of income, ensuring that the individual is doing what they say they are, is necessary for responsible administration of the program. However, some participants indicated that they felt isolated when visiting their caseworker, unable to remember what they wanted to say, and felt nervous. We later found that there is a policy which welcomes support people if the recipient gives permission, and workers we spoke to were comfortable with this. The barrier we heard from participants is the lack of awareness of this option. We noted that this option is not mentioned in the print manual available that addresses the topic of meeting with a case worker. There is no opportunity for recipients to connect with others in similar situations. Individualization of cases prevents identifying the creative ideas, interests and abilities of groups of recipients. Such groups may lead to creating resources and programs which could lead to participants’ increased independence. Respect for confidentiality is essential and therefore the initial involvement between recipient and service delivery needs to be individual. The barrier is the lack of offering opportunities to collaborate voluntarily at later points. When we spoke to participants, we were often extremely impressed with their creative suggestions. They had thought their ideas out very well and their understanding of what may and may not work sounded reasonable.
As indicated in our Theme Chapter on Stigma, recipients sometimes feel stigmatized by non-recipients. As indicated in our Theme Chapter on Social Isolation, they are often isolated. Due to the restricted budget, recipients often cannot partake in social events. Gatherings supported by ESIA could address both concerns. The purpose of the gatherings could be to offer peer support, mentoring, or support to follow through on income generating/expense reducing ideas. All qualified Nova Scotians are eligible to receive financial support through Income Assistance. The applicants are assessed to identify if they are ‘employable[4]’. If they are identified as ‘employable’ they are eligible for enhanced supports to facilitate employment search and retention. The goals of these programs are commendable. Our understanding is that there is significant success for some. The participants we spoke to who were on Employment Support appreciated the support. In some cases it made the difference between an extremely difficult life and one that gives hope and relative comfort. For many we spoke to, the supports just weren’t enough to enable them to become more self sufficient. Transportation costs are allocated monthly, and cannot exceed a specific amount. Recipients may not have used their monthly allocation for some time, but there is no ability to ‘reach back’ into funds not used and temporarily exceed the current monthly amount in order to facilitate a plan that moves toward increased self sufficiency. Sally had the opportunity to work at a job that she needed to have paid transportation for. The cost exceeded the $150 monthly maximum. She had calculated that once she started receiving regular pay she could afford to pay for the costs of transportation. We verified that there was no flexibility in adapting that fixed amount, even though it could have meant her becoming independent of the system. Sally found the system rigid at times and inconsistent at others. She had become a member of a professional association that required that she pay a yearly fee in order to continue to be employable. The allocation of these funds appeared to be inconsistently administered over the years. Sometimes she received them, sometimes she did not.
The difficulty in understanding policies was not just by participants. Employment Services staff also had difficulty understanding program policies. One policy that is fairly well known was that the government “clawed back” 70% of income earned if a person received ESIA. We heard from some participants that they were coping fairly well with being on ESIA, due to finding ways that they could enhance their income so that it was not deducted. They referred to ‘stipends’ and ‘honoraria’. Others we spoke to were not aware of these possibilities. Here is an excerpt from the manual regarding one of these ways of accepting money for work performed, but it not being seen as ‘income’.
Interpreting what is a ‘cost associated with attending’, what is an ‘approved educational program’, finding out what Section 67 of the Regulation stipulates, creates barriers to considering this option. Some had found out about it and the funds from activities they were involved in were not deducted, other participants seemed unaware of this option. When we spoke to Employment Services staff they stated often that they weren’t sure if a certain policy was still in effect or not and readily admitted that they found it hard to keep up with policy changes that could positively or negatively affect mutual clients/recipients. The supervisor of Income Assistance staff attended a Partners Meeting[5] to address this ongoing concern during the time we were conducting our research. Many questions were asked. It was apparent that there is a need for continued attention to communicating policies and policy changes to recipients and employment services staff.
The consequence of being willing to try to work is risking losing any income for a number of weeks. If an income assistance recipient is fired or quits a job they may have to wait up to six weeks before being permitted to apply for income assistance again. As a result participants are hesitant to leave support. Sally had tried to find jobs and had been employed temporarily at times. She always needed to return to income assistance when the jobs ended. She has multiple disabilities and she requires considerable financial support for medication and other adaptive aids.
Many programs had what may be viewed as ‘minor’ costs by people not on income assistance. Income Assistance rates are well below the poverty line and all funds given are for the essential costs of living. Cost associated with attending program could be prohibitive for people whose only income was income assistance. Leanne was supported to return to school for a course. She was informed that her transportation costs were included. The amount she was given for gas did not cover the actual cost. There was no flexibility to adapt her subsidy to reflect her actual costs. Due to apparently ‘small’ undocumented expenses such as this, there is an incremental impact on long term job seekers. Leanne did not finish the course due to developing a medical condition. She has tried many times to get training and support to re-enter the workforce, none have worked yet. We spoke to a number of participants who found similar ‘small costs’ impeded their ability to access programs.
When we interviewed staff from ESIA we found considerable discrepancy between what the participants described and what the staff felt they provided. We were baffled by the huge gap. We heard the staff very clearly indicate they felt they effectively communicated on the issues that participants had clearly told us they had not. Why the disconnection? Table 4.1 outlines what we hear from the participants and the ESIA workers, and our attempts to explain the disconnection between what the workers intended to communicate, and what the participants heard.
Interestingly, an understanding of the possible reasons for the disconnection was given to us near the end of our interview with ESIA staff. Many had worked out of the same office for years; some remembered fondly how things had been a few years ago. Security was less noticeable. A support staff recalled how she would show one of the recipients how to use the computer that she was using; to develop the recipient’s confidence to try herself. It sounded as if there were easy and less controlled interactions between staff and recipient. In our interview with ESIA staff it was apparent that the staff viewed recipients with dignity and respect. It seems that the changes over the decades outside the control of the individuals who were involved with the process had profoundly affected relationships. Over the last 25 years the gap between what Social Assistance provides and the Low Income Cut Off has increased by 40%[6]. That is, recipients have had a 40% reduction in actual financial support compared to what they had 25 years ago. Income assistance is now provincially administered rather than local, which might have led to policy imposition that was not appropriate to Kings County. We can only speculate on what factors have caused the change in “tone”. We can only say the consequences are palpable and not contributing to an environment that would reduce the sense of empowerment as identified in the #1 operating principle of ESIA. A possible reason for the extreme disconnection that we came to during our research is that people who are Discouraged Job Seekers have moved to a more vulnerable and less capable functioning level then they were before experiencing repeated failures at job seeking. This led us to understanding that Discouraged Job Seekers need to have an environment where; 1) “the process” occurs in an interactive manner, 2) they will feel comfortable to ask questions, and, 3) they will be secure enough to express a lack of understanding of information. We offer recommendations to address these challenges in the General Recommendations and Tools for Finding Participants chapters. 4.3 MEDICAL SUPPORT BARRIERSIn interviews with participants who had need for medication or regular treatment for medical conditions we heard numerous examples of rigid definitions of funding. Narrowly defined resources to address challenges, disabilities and medical conditions led to minor, rather than major problem resolution, increasing the problem, or not supporting treatments that would lead to permanent resolution. The narrowness was in two areas: restricted definition of ‘treatment’ and restricted support for accepted treatment.
We heard of participants who needed more physiotherapy than allowed by the health care system and medication was prescribed to deal with the issue. When in another province one of the participants we heard from was able to obtain the appropriate level of physiotherapy treatment. She had more energy. She did not have to deal with the side effects of medication and found herself to be essentially more ‘job ready’. Other participants indicated that by not being able to use non-medicinal treatments they either had only minor rather than full problem resolution or increased problems.
This participant’s life had gone from being independent to relying on government support when she had a serious car accident and had extensive injuries as a result. She has lived in two provinces since the accident. In one province she received as much physiotherapy and massage treatment as she needed. When she moved back to Nova Scotia, she couldn’t: but, the province is willing to pay for medication for dealing with the chronic pain she experiences. She developed a significant reliance on pain medication to deal with the pain. When she recognized she had become addicted it took years to recover from the addiction. She now restricts her use of pain medication to prevent her becoming addicted again. She has to stop activities to allow her to prevent pain episodes, significantly reducing her ability to conduct activities. She also needs significant care giver hours to get her through her daily routine. Living in the other province where she received appropriate therapy she had the energy to find at least two jobs. Since moving back to Nova Scotia she has not been able to job search.
Joan has pain episodes that are controllable and stopped quickly if the correct medication is administered promptly. Without it, episodes could take days to resolve, including extended time at the emergency department of the local hospital. The financial support offered to her for medication requires that she pay 20% of the medications. The newer medication that offers relief is expensive: the 20% she would need to pay for it exceeds her food allowance for the month and totals hundreds of dollars for a three month prescription. A three-month prescription is how the doctor prescribes the medication. Terry needs diabetes strips. He and his wife do not qualify for income support, but they are a low income family, and could be reimbursed for some costs if they saved receipts to a total of $400 for some of his extra medical costs. They find this expectation a hardship. It is unclear why they cannot be reimbursed at a lower level to enable them to access the reimbursed funds for the next set of medical supplies.
Participants who had been part of wage subsidy programs were strongly and negatively affected by their experiences: hurt by getting as close as possible to finally having a job, and then having it not work out. The tantalizing offer to actually engage in what they had put so much effort and hope into achieving, a job, and then having it taken away was one of the more brutalizing events we heard about from participants. Often the participants were unwilling to discuss their experience at any length as it was too painful.
When we were introducing our project to a group of approximately 15 possible participants, we briefly touched on the topic of wage subsidies. Their response was overwhelmingly negative, and the tone in the room became hostile and resistive to our presentation. The anger and cynicism with the topic was palpable.
Sally’s statement was heard frequently from many participants. There is confusion with job seekers and others (such as various employment service staff) about the goal of the programs. It is not clear whether every wage subsidy placement is to result in a job or not. Some programs that have the job seeker spend time doing tasks that employees do are called ‘work experiences’. The placements are identified by the program administrators as a ‘success’ if the person obtains skills and experience that lead them to having a better resume. We did not hear of this understanding of the definition of success from any participants, even if what we heard was that they were likely involved in that kind of work experience, and not a ‘wage subsidy’ program. What we heard was painful diminishing of their belief that they could work at a job they had tried, and wanted Diane was rarely given responsibilities in her day-to-day life and did not experience any sense of competence or develop confidence. She was placed in a program (she referred to it as wage subsidy, but it may have been work experience) with a day care centre, looking after young children. She was very proud of being able to be given responsibilities for vulnerable people, and felt she did so competently. She stated she received positive feedback about her work. At the end of the experience, she was told she could not consider applying for that kind of work as she did not have the credentials for the position. Her learning challenges made it impossible for her to obtain the necessary certificate. That experience had occurred more than 15 years before. The set back to her confidence as a result of this led her to tears when sharing this with us. RESPONSE FROM EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGE SUBSIDY PROGRAMSFrom our Tools for Life Survey: 40% of the employers at Tools for Life were involved currently on in the past with a wage subsidy program. We asked those who were involved with wage subsidies currently or in the past to rate their experience on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being: I will definitely use the wage subsidy program again and 5 being: I will never use the wage subsidy program again. Of the 6 employers who were involved with wage subsidies all rated the program well with most rating the program as a “1”, indicating high satisfaction with the program. There was an opportunity for those surveyed to elaborate on their experience with wage subsidies, most declined or only stated that it was a valuable program. One respondent indicated that the program was too short and that the program needs to be extended longer for them as the amount of training required to fully prepare a person for work extends beyond the 3 month time allocation. Two employers we interviewed individually did not show interest in wage subsidy programs. They did not care as much about the money as finding the best person for the job: They were willing to make the necessary accommodations without government support and indeed both of them had done so for more than one employee. They are employers for whom wage subsidies are not an incentive. It would appear that wage subsidies can address the needs of some employers, but some employers are quite willing to work with people with barriers to employment without them. RESPONSE FROM WORKERS CONCERNING WAGE SUBSIDY PROGRAMSEmployment Services workers and various government representatives generally felt very positive about wage subsidy programs and stated that they were successful. We approached a number of Employment Services and other government employees who are involved with wage subsidies. We concluded that there are many wage subsidy programs: some have the goal of employment, others have the goal of work experience, with the possibility of employment, and others have a similar process, but the goal is strictly work experience. Essentially, it is an unclear situation. We interviewed a service provider who is mandated to implement wage subsidy programs. He acknowledged the changing policies, and validated difficulties in the past. The most recent major shift happened in 2009. That is when the Federal Government transferred responsibility for a significant portion of the targeted wage subsidy program to the Provincial Government. There have been numerous changes implemented since then, such as employers being expected to apply on line, and front loading of payments to employers. He foresees more policy changes happening, but after they have become established, believes a lot more controls will be in place. Evaluations of employer involvement and other accountability processes will be in place due to the online applications enabling more easy use of data. Employment support workers validated that the array of programs could lead to confusion, and expressed frustration at the restrictive criteria of some programs. They felt they could better serve clients’ job finding needs if they had more flexibility in providing programs. They found barriers such as not being able to offer programs to job seekers who did not exactly fulfill the eligibility criteria due to minor reasons, such as not being unemployed for a specific number of weeks frustrating. It appeared that the delivery and negotiation of wage subsidies was very individual, and depended on the specific wage subsidy program and approach of the Employment Services worker. Workers did not appear to be very aware of the frustrations voiced by the Discouraged Job Seekers we interviewed and spoke to. However, when they heard the issues as we described them they validated that it would make sense that participants were hurt by not getting a job.
Employment Supports and Income Assistance We recognize that the locus of control for implementation of many of the policy changes that occur varies and is outside of the Kings County office staff. It is the local staff who interacts with both recipients and staff in other agencies and are the ‘face’ of the Department of Community Services and the ESIA program. Some of our recommendations can be implemented relatively easily: others will take considerable time and effort and collaboration with supportive stakeholders. Half of our participants were in receipt of government assistance and therefore our interface with these policies was limited. These recommendations reflect what we heard from participants and were able to identify/clarify. We try to refer primarily to the overarching issues. We recognize that these types of policies are difficult and complex and can change without notice. We do not know about regulations regarding policy dissemination, so cannot make specific recommendations regarding this concern. Communicate policy as plainly and clearly as possible to as many stake holders as possible is needed. Recommendations made by participants and others:
Medical Support
Wage Subsidies
[1] We refer to participants and others who receive Income Assistance and Employment Support as ‘recipients’, as well as “participants”. Back to Table of Contents |
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Participants not able to hear what is said - distressed.© Pathways to Work Research Project.
Banner photo by Linda Davidson, Side photo by HIRATA Yasuyuki
Banner photo by Linda Davidson, Side photo by HIRATA Yasuyuki
The Pathways to Work Research Project is funded under the Canada-Nova Scotia Labour Market Agreement. 