Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

4.1 Introduction

Results from the quantitative analysis indicate that although the family supplement (FS) has achieved the goal of being more targeted to low-income families than the dependency rate (DR), many married women have lost their entitlement to benefits while men have gained access. Whereas under the DR, 64 percent of family top-up recipients were married mothers, under the FS they constitute only 22.6 percent of recipients. On the other hand, men constituted only 19.2 percent of DR recipients but now constitute 37.2 percent of FS recipients. Another side to the issue is that many single mothers have gained access to benefits; with the DR they constituted only 16.7 percent of recipients, while with the FS they constitute 40.2 percent of recipients. How do recipients feel about these changes?

The focus group component of this project was designed to supplement the quantitative analysis by providing qualitative feedback on the impact of the program changes. That is, we allowed a small number of women directly affected by the program changes to express their personal reactions. For example, how are the differences in eligibility perceived? Do recipients perceive the change to target family income as more fair? Are married women concerned about their loss and do they think this affects their say at home? Are differences in eligibility divisive at the workplace or community levels? How are families coping and what are their frustrations? How are families responding to the new incentive structure?

We conducted three focus groups — two in Nova Scotia and one in northern British Columbia. We chose smaller communities dependent on seasonal work, where issues related to family employment strategies are important. We chose participants who had been on EI in the last year and who either received FS or would have been eligible for DR under UI. Three areas were chosen. In Nova Scotia, one area consisted of four adjacent postal code districts in a rural farming region, while another was a coastal community within commuting distance of Halifax. In British Columbia, a small city in the central interior of the province was selected, which is quite dependent on forestry. Participants were selected from a list for each area provided by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) of female Employment Insurance (EI) recipients since January 1998. To be included, women had either to meet the low earnings criteria for the DR under the old Unemployment Insurance (UI) program or have received the FS. Potential participants were contacted by telephone and screened to be sure they had children under 18 years old living at home. We aimed for a range of ages and family situations in each group, with some receiving the FS and some not.

The Nova Scotia farming community focus group (which will be referred to as the rural/farming group) consisted of nine women, two of whom were single parents. Four were seasonal farm workers, two were agriculture-related production workers, two were educational assistants who were laid off for the summer and school breaks, and one was a cook. Most had an EI claim running, and several were currently working. All had experience with UI as well as EI, as much of the available work in the area is seasonal or part-time. There was considerable commonality in their work situations and therefore in their experience of the UI/EI changes.

The Nova Scotia coastal community focus group (which will be referred to as the coastal/commuting group) consisted of 11 women, 4 of whom were single parents. This group had more diverse work experience. Three were at home with young children, two were working full-time, two were seasonal workers who had recently been laid off, one had worked part-time and was now on EI, one had just finished a claim and was looking for work, one had just finished an EI-sponsored training program, and one was in school full-time.

The B.C. forestry focus group had 12 participants, with 8 women from two-parent households and 4 women from single-parent households. The participants are roughly divided into being currently on EI, unemployed with EI having expired, and working; the participants represent a variety of occupations including on-call teacher, greenhouse worker and retail services.

4.2 Awareness of Program Changes

We first asked participants general questions about their awareness of program changes and the main differences they see between UI and EI. The rural/farming group were very aware of the change to hours and were generally positive about having all the hours count. Under the old system, they would turn down weeks if they could not get a “stamp” (short weeks). However, under EI, they were negatively affected by the way gaps in work, or fluctuations in hours, affect average earnings and therefore benefit levels. Most had experienced a drop in their benefits with EI because of gaps in work. Others said they got more but that their claims ran out more quickly. Many had not noticed the drop in duration, as they do not qualify for the full period. Concern was raised about people with similar earnings getting different benefits, as was the case with five co-workers of one participant. They said this did not happen with UI. They were not sure whether the FS might account for this, nor did they know about the intensity rule (though, as one participant put it, “we all work intensively”).

In the coastal/commuting group there was less awareness of program changes, though 10 participants had been on UI prior to the changes. One person said she did not know of the changes until she got called for the focus group. Another said she did not see much of a change — there were still the line-ups, the wait, the busy signals, the four-to-six-week wait for the first cheque. This was confirmed to by all but one participant, who found the EI application process improved over her prior experience with UI. Another said she used to have to meet with a counsellor, but now “they don’t seem to care.” Two people had been affected by gaps in work, or having their hours cut immediately prior to being laid off, which drastically affected their benefit levels. They felt their prior long record of steady, higher-paying work should have counted more toward their benefit level. The women in this group noticed the cut in duration. Several women in this group had experience with maternity, parental and/or sickness benefits as well as regular benefits. They reported problems moving from one program to the other, due to lack of information about what was available and inadequate instruction regarding what was required of them (different forms, etc.) They also complained about the waiting period each time and about having to appear in person on occasion, even shortly after the birth of a baby. One said she felt “penalized for being a mom.”

In the B.C. forestry focus group, several women mentioned that the EI benefit period is shorter and payments are smaller. One woman said she worked the same under EI and UI but receives less money under EI. Although she has received the supplement both times, she feels she did better before. Several women mentioned that they had been prevented from taking the training program they wanted because of its focus or because it was too long. Another woman mentioned that she wanted help preparing her résumé, but that the contacts she had been given were too busy to help her.

In general, participants were not very well informed about how EI works compared with UI. This was particularly clear when we asked about the changes made in eligibility for extra benefits related to dependent children. In the coastal/commuting group, only four people knew such a supplement existed. In the rural/farming group, only one or two were aware of the change to using joint income rather than own earnings to determine eligibility. In the B.C. forestry focus group, only one participant knew that she was receiving the FS. Most did not know whether they got the FS or not — the benefit amount is not itemized to show that some of it relates to dependent children. They said that under UI, the benefit statement indicated that recipients were getting more because of children. One woman only found out she was getting the FS after it was taken away — she noticed her cheque amount was lower and, upon inquiring, found out that it was because her son had turned 18 and she had lost the FS. Another had to repay the FS (which she had not known she was getting) because her husband’s self-employed income fluctuated, affecting her entitlement. Another recounted how she started to get the FS with a new baby, then discovered that she should have been getting it all along for her stepchild (she eventually got the money retroactively, though there was confusion about how the error had occurred). Several women also explained the difficulties they experienced in getting answers to questions about their benefit payments. Many women stated that they would like to know whether they were receiving the FS or not and that the payments if any, should be indicated on the cheque.

4.3 Eligibility for the FS

Participants did not understand how entitlement to the FS was determined. One person was told she had to ask for it, though most in the group disagreed with this. They did not understand the link to the Child Tax Benefit (CTB). Participants in the coastal/commuting group generally did not think the FS was calculated automatically — “If you didn’t put the child on your claim you wouldn’t get it.” This misconception may reflect problems with late tax filing, complicated living situations and skepticism about whether each person’s situation is accurately captured in the automatic calculations. In general, participants felt “you shouldn’t have to ask or pursue whether you are eligible for benefits, which you didn’t know were available.”

After the differences between the DB and the FS were explained, participants recognized that “you gain by being a single parent, then.” “Another good reason not to get married!” They were asked their views on basing eligibility on joint incomes rather than individual earnings. The vast majority of women in each group made it clear that they did not like having their entitlement affected by “his” income — they thought it should be based on their earnings alone. “Who the hell cares what my husband is making; the rules should apply to me as an individual, as a mom.” “It should be a straight and narrow individual thing.” “I should be entitled whether I sleep with someone else or not.” “This is her job, her income. It shouldn’t have anything to do with his income.” “It is a personal thing — your income.”

The reasons put forward for feeling that the FS should be based only on their earnings varied. Some felt EI was an individual entitlement, that they earned it: “Why did I have EI deducted if it meant diddly-squat when it comes to collecting benefits”. “It should be an insurance.” Several women in the B.C. forestry group mentioned that it was not fair that they were penalized by their husband’s earnings. Others argued that incomes were not necessarily shared between partners. A common-law wife said, “When he works now, I don’t see any of it; maybe if he puts a ring on my finger.” To which the married women replied, “That won’t change after you’re married!” One woman said that the fact he had income did not benefit her. Another said she had a “business” relationship with her partner and did not count on him for income. Some argued that it was impossible to know who was really a single parent — a person who appears single from tax forms may be actually living with someone, and someone may be in a relationship but financially responsible for her own children. One said, “I can’t draw on my ex-husband’s claim.”

Participants were asked whether money was spent differently depending on whether it was hers or his, or whether this affected decision-making. There were many different accounts of how spending decisions were made and the extent to which incomes were pooled. As one recipient put it, “How do [they] know you are in a family where everything goes in one pot.” There was general consensus that having one’s own income was important. “I like to have the money in my name; it’s a dignity issue.” “It is different for me if I earned it; I feel entitled.” “My mother had to ask my father for money, and I said I would never have to ask.” Several women expressed the view that if you earned it you feel better about deciding to spend it on yourself (which included family-related spending such as putting aside money for Christmas). In the B.C. forestry group, one woman mentioned that she had access to her husband’s income; however, many other women provided different views, such as that it is hard for women to lean on her husband, he starts to ask her why she needs the money, it gives him more control and it takes away a woman’s independence.

In the rural/farming group, all but one participant felt the husband’s income should not count in determining eligibility for the supplement. This sentiment was echoed by about three-quarters of the participants in the coastal/community group, and there was a lively debate on the issue with the minority. The majority of women in the B.C. forestry group thought that individual earnings should be used to determine entitlement to the supplement. While all agreed that lower-income families needed more support, the majority did not think EI recipients should be differentiated among on the basis of joint income. “There are other ways of redistributing money across families; why shouldn’t the low-earning woman receive her FS and leave the income tax system to redistribute.”

Participants raised some concerns over tying the FS to the CTB or, as one participant put it, “income tax and UI getting in cahoots.” Several women in the B.C. forestry group stated that the CTB, as a program separate from the FS issue, was very important to them. As one woman stated, “It’s stable, I know it’s there, I can plan for it and it reduces stress.” As mentioned above, many do not think tax returns always accurately reflect people’s true relationship/support situations. There is also a lot of concern about the lag, given that many low-income families have irregular work patterns and fluctuating incomes. As one woman in the B.C. forestry group stated, “if income fluctuates then it’s a problem. My income is low because I’m on EI, but I don’t get the CTB because it’s based on last year’s income, and I don’t get the extra benefits. But I need them now, not next year.” There was agreement in the group that basing the supplement on the household’s financial situation last year is a big problem. As one woman stated, “It is easier for the system but not for the individual.” Furthermore, it seems that many get behind with their taxes, or file late, which can either disallow them or put them in an overpayment situation. “They better figure it out before they start paying it out.” One group raised the issue of how child support payments affect their taxable incomes and therefore their CTB and FS (people are affected differently, depending on the date of the court order).

Another eligibility issue that came up in one group was the fact that recipients lose the benefit when their children turn 18. It was felt that more account should be taken of particular circumstances — many children over 18 are still in school and are supported by their parents.

4.4 Level of Benefits Received with the FS

Regarding the amount of FS benefits received, participants who had lost the benefit said it made a significant difference. “That [$20 or $30 a week] may not sound like much, but it is. It makes it harder.” She added, however, “I’m not having any more (kids) for that!” Several women in the B.C. forestry group mentioned that the amount of the FS would make a big difference. One woman stated it would “let me buy things which my daughter needs, things which every child should be entitled to anyway.” Another woman mentioned that it would “help pay for childcare while I look for work.” One person received $30 in FS, but said that EI is harder to get now and she does not get it for as long. Overall she gets less. “I’d rather ditch the FS and get regular benefits for longer.” Another said, “For seasonal workers, EI is shorter now and doesn’t last long enough.” Yet another said she would qualify for the FS but that she won’t qualify for EI this year. The size of the FS, though significant, was generally overshadowed by other changes to EI that have affected low-earning women’s eligibility, benefit levels and duration of claim.

In each group there was a lively discussion about the intensity rule and its relationship to the FS. Virtually no-one knew about the intensity rule, and they were seriously bothered by the idea of different benefit rates, which penalize seasonal workers. “I’m shocked that the intensity rule was allowed to be passed. Seasonal workers do a valuable job. They like their jobs. We need seasonal workers.” “People don’t choose to be seasonal workers; employers require them.” In the B.C. forestry group, one participant stated that this is a seasonal town and workers should not be penalized for this. However, another person said there had to be something to prevent people from abusing the system. Still another person said seasonal jobs were good for single parents because they got time off to be with children. Participants felt no-one should face the intensity rule, and therefore they were not supportive of the link with the FS. “How can they penalize seasonal workers and then try to look good giving benefits to low-income families with children.” One person summed up the sentiment by saying the government “takes away with one hand and then gives it back with the other — in little token ways.” This “pits people against people, and people are overall worse off.” They observed that applying the intensity rule in this way penalizes people without children. They argued for a more universal system where people were treated equally, saying this would reduce administrative costs and be less divisive.

4.5 Work Incentives

Participants were also asked about whether EI changes, especially the FS, affected people’s decisions about the work they and their partners do. While in principle they saw that using joint incomes to determine FS eligibility, and the link to the intensity rule, could affect married women’s labour force participation, they felt the effect would be small (who could afford to stop working?). While the women’s access to the FS was affected by their husband’s work situation, no-one was in a situation where her husband’s eligibility would be affected by her work. One participant commented forcefully on the overall impact of EI changes on her work plans. She said it was very stressful scrambling to get enough hours at demeaning jobs to qualify and then getting a low benefit. She said it was tempting just to stay home and go on welfare; she feels “like they want you to just throw in the towel and go on welfare.” This prompted a discussion of how welfare has extra health-related benefits not available to the single parent on EI. Another woman said the way income is averaged over all the weeks makes her want to get out of short-term, part-time work and train for a full-time job to escape the EI system altogether. Other participants, however, pointed out that people cannot all be full-time when companies want part-time, casual and temporary workers. In the coastal/commuting group, participants complained about increased pressure from EI to take low-paying, non-standard jobs. “I won’t take a $5 job when I can make $9. How can anyone with kids manage if you need childcare … they can harass you — Tim Horton’s is hiring.”

Participants were asked if they knew whether co-workers were getting different benefit entitlements, including those due to receive the FS. The rural/farming group were quite aware of and concerned about differences in EI for apparently identical earnings and work histories. As one participant said near the end of the discussion, “Everything we’ve said relates to the same thing — equality.” Participants did not know whether co-workers were getting the FS, for as one woman said, “I don’t even know if I’m getting it!” Participants in the more heterogeneous coastal/commuting group and the B.C. forestry group were not generally aware of differences in benefits received by co-workers. One woman said, “I don’t think people are aware because they aren’t likely to admit they are on EI.”

4.6 Recommendations from Focus Group Participants

At the end of the focus group, participants were asked if they thought there should be a supplement in EI related to dependents. The coastal/commuting group said yes, because “people with kids need more money.” This was also the case in the B.C. forestry group, although the majority expressed interest in having the supplements tied to individual earnings. They also mentioned that low-income individuals and families with children need access to more and better jobs, a higher minimum wage and higher CTB. The rural/farming group’s reaction was different. While they thought it was nice to “get a little extra,” they pointed out that if one goes back to the idea of insuring one’s own earnings, then there should not need to be a supplement. There should be equal treatment of individuals, which means people should not be penalized for not having children (via the intensity rule) or compensated for having them (via the FS). There was a fair consensus in the rural/farming group that there should not be an FS. EI “should pertain to your own earnings, period.” Help with kids should come from income tax or the CTB. The group suggested the benefit rate should have been left at 60 percent for all.

Participants were also asked for suggestions to improve the FS program. All three groups strongly recommended that eligibility should be based on their own earnings, not joint income. They also thought there should be more information about what the claim is based on — people should know whether they are getting the FS, for example, or have been affected by the intensity rule. They felt it should not be the claimant’s responsibility to find out whether they are entitled to certain benefits — “Do you offer free frying pans? Which question should you ask?” The majority of the B.C. forestry group participants indicated strongly that the FS should be tied to the individual’s current situation and not the financial situation in the previous year.

Participants wanted a more human, personal touch and objected to the “call centre” model of EI delivery. They also suggested that EI shorten the four-to-six week period before the first cheque comes: “If they are interested in helping people with children, they should think about this.”) Many women in the B.C. forestry group noted that Employment Centre staff give different answers to the same question, which is extremely frustrating. The new program is complicated and participants — and Human Resources Centers of Canada (HRCC) staff, it seems — find it confusing.

The rural/farming group had several additional suggestions (though, as mentioned above, on balance they thought there should be one benefit rate for all), including dropping the age 18 cut-off if children are still in school and giving a fixed benefit supplement to all claimants with children. They also raised concerns about the new and re-entrant worker rules and about the way gaps in work are counted. The coastal/commuting group’s additional recommendations included not taxing EI and making EI significantly better than welfare. A concern was also raised that computer literacy was a problem for some women in accessing EI services. On a more humorous note, one person said that if EI wants to support recipients with children, there should be a play area and toys at the HRCC centres, just as in doctors’ offices. Participants commented on the lack of understanding of the pressures on working mothers and recipients with young children.