Creating an Alternative to Welfare: First-Year Findings on the Implementation, Welfare Impacts, and Costs of the Self-Sufficiency Project - December 1995

As described in Chapter 2, the SSP evaluation uses three samples, the main one of which, called the "recipient sample," was randomly selected from all single parents 19 years of age or older who had received Income Assistance in SSP's catchment areas in British Columbia or New Brunswick for at least one year. This sample was drawn from a large population: 20 percent of all Canadian families with children are headed by single parents, and single-parent families make up 75 percent of all families receiving Income Assistance. It is also a population of individuals who, as single parents and long-term welfare recipients, are doubly disadvantaged. Single-parent families have lower levels of education, higher rates of unemployment, and smaller incomes than two-parent families, and are more likely to remain on Income Assistance for extended periods of time, than are two-parent families, singles, or couples without children.³⁵

As further explained in Chapter 2, the sample for this report (referred to herein as the "report sample" or simply the "sample") comprises the 2,126 people in the recipient sample who were randomly assigned to the program or control group during the first year of random assignment - November 1992 through October 1993. This chapter describes the characteristics of the report sample using three types of quantitative and qualitative data: demographic and other data collected in the baseline survey that sample members completed just before being randomly assigned to the program or control group, information obtained during focus-group discussions with a subsample of the program group,³⁶ and data gathered by interviewing and reviewing documents prepared by SSP and Income Assistance staff, who often came to know sample members quite well.

I. A Profile of the Report Sample

While the report sample is clearly disadvantaged, it is also diverse. The sample includes women (and a small percentage of men) from age 19 through 77, who were divorced, separated, widowed, or never married. Some sample members had only one child, while others had many, of varying ages. Some had grown up in single-parent households or in households where Income Assistance had been received, but others came from financially self-sufficient, two-parent families. Some had little formal education, while others had attended university. The extent of employment experience ranged from zero to 45 years. Although the sample is dominated by native-born Canadians of European ancestry, it also includes immigrants, members of visible minority groups, and recipients fluent in neither English nor French.

This diversity in the report sample underscores the variety of circumstances that can result in welfare dependence and also lays the groundwork for insights into the sorts of people who benefit most (and least) from the program, and why. Several characteristics of the sample are particularly noteworthy:

• Employment history. Almost all sample members had some employment experience, and many had held jobs recently. However, less than a quarter of the sample were employed at baseline, mostly part time.
• Receipt of Income Assistance. About half the sample had been on assistance for at least three years.
• Barriers to self-sufficiency. Most sample members faced employment barriers of one kind or another: limited education, little or no work experience, physical or emotional disabilities, no help in caring for their young children, inaccessible public transportation, and/or poor labour market conditions.
• Feelings and attitudes. As described in the focus group report,³⁷ poor self-esteem and low expectations were probably significant barriers for many sample members. However, most focus group participants also said they were uncomfortable receiving Income Assistance and expressed a strong desire to lift their families out of poverty - attitudes that were potentially valuable in moving them toward self-sufficiency.

These and other characteristics are discussed in the remainder of this chapter.

II. Employment History

Employment background and current employment status is an important determinant of subsequent employment behaviour. Table 4.1 indicates that 96 percent of the report sample had at least some employment experience; some, particularly in British Columbia, had a considerable amount. More than half the sample members in British Columbia, and 45 percent in New Brunswick, reported more than five years' work experience at the time of random assignment. Single parents between the ages of 30 and 34, who make up the largest age group in the sample, averaged more than seven years' work experience in British Columbia and more than six years in New Brunswick (not shown in the table).

TABLE 4.1: SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SSP REPORT SAMPLE AT THE TIME OF THE BASELINE INTERVIEW, BY PROVINCE

Characteristic at Baseline	British Columbia	New Brunswick	Full Sample
Demographic characteristic
Female (%)	94.7	96.9	95.4
Age 19-29 (%)	39.4	44.5	41.1
Age 30-39 (%)	40.6	35.7	39.0
Age 40 or older (%)	19.9	19.7	19.8
Average age (years)	33.1	32.5	32.9
Divorced, separated, or widowed (%)	54.1	51.6	53.3
Never married (%)	44.1	46.7	44.9
Married at older than age 20 (%)	39.0	49.8	42.4
Average age at first marriage (years)	21.9	20.9	21.6
Gave birth at younger than age 20 (%)	35.4	50.9	40.5
First gave birth at age 30 or older (%)	5.9	3.3	5.0
Single at birth of first child (%)	29.3	37.5	31.9
Average age at birth of first child (years)	22.1	20.8	21.7
Number of dependent children (%)
One	48.6	52.8	50.0
Two	34.5	30.2	33.1
Three or more	16.4	13.6	15.5
Number of dependent children under age 6 (%)
One	41.6	38.4	40.5
Two or more	14.2	11.2	13.3
Not native-born (%)	22.4	2.7	15.9
Immigrated in the last 5 years (%)	4.0	0.3	2.8
First Nations ancestry (%)	13.4	5.8	11.1
Asian ancestry (%)	6.6	0.2	4.5
Did not live with both parents through age 16 (%)	44.8	36.1	41.9
Parents ever received Income Assistance before
respondent reached age 16 (%)	21.6	29.1	24.1
One or both parents graduated from high school (%)	53.3	32.7	46.5
Reported an activity-limiting physical condition only (%)	20.7	19.1	20.1
Reported an activity-limiting emotional condition only (%)	3.4	3.8	3.5
Reported activity-limiting physical and emotional conditions (%)	5.6	2.4	4.6
Housing payment is government-subsidized (%)	17.8	31.1	22.1
Average monthly housing payment ($)	552	301	464
Rural resident (%)	5.3	17.8	9.5
Moved 5 or more times in last 5 years (%)	27.5	19.6	24.9
Education and training characteristic
Graduated from high school (%)	44.2	42.5	43.6
Completed grade 10 or less (%)	42.4	52.6	45.8
Average highest grade completed (%)	10.5	10.0	10.4
Attended university (%)	8.2	8.6	8.3
Graduated from university (%)	3.2	1.0	2.5
Attended vocational or trade school or community college (%)	55.7	45.5	52.3
Completed vocational or trade school or community college (%)	21.5	19.6	20.9
Attended job-readiness program in prior year (%)	18.1	9.1	15.1
Attended life skills program in prior year (%)	15.6	11.8	14.3
Currently enrolled in education or training (%)	14.4	11.8	13.5
Attitudinal characteristic
Strongly agree or agree with the following statements: (%)
One year from now, I expect to be married.	7.1	7.7	7.3
Right now, being on welfare provides for my family better than I could by working.	53.9	48.6	52.2
Right now, I'd prefer not to work so I can take care of my family full time.	42.4	31.6	38.9
I like going to work.	93.7	96.4	94.6
My family is having so many problems that I cannot work at a part-time or full-time job right now.	18.6	15.1	17.5
If I got a job, I could find someone I trust to take care of my children.	79.4	84.5	81.1
Children who go to daycare or pre-school learn more than children who stay home with their parent.	52.8	59.3	55.0
Child care characteristic
Types of child care used, if used: (%)
Before/after school program	5.9	6.5	6.1
Daycare centre	21.5	9.7	17.6
Relative in the home	16.1	20.4	17.6
Non-relative in the home	15.6	18.3	16.5
Relative outside the home	19.9	26.9	22.2
Non-relative outside the home	28.5	38.7	31.9
Older brother or sister	3.2	6.5	4.3
Uses child care, if employed (%)	71.8	63.3	68.7
Pays for child care, if used (%)	38.2	62.4	46.2
Receives government subsidy for child care, if used (%)	57.5	46.3	53.7
Average monthly payment for child care, if pays for care ($)	256	155	210
Employment characteristic
Ever employed (%)	95.9	95.4	95.8
More than 5 years' employment experience (%)	53.2	44.6	50.4
Ever employed during the prior 9 months (%)	25.8	33.8	28.4
Average hourly wage during the prior 9 months, if ever employed during that period ($)	7.60	5.65	6.80
Average total hours worked during the prior 9 months, if ever employed during that period ($)	496	526	508
Average total earnings during the prior 9 months, if ever employed during that period ($)	3,631	2,814	3,311
Currently employed (%)	18.2	20.9	19.1
Average work hours per week during the prior month, if currently employed	16.5	19.2	17.5
Looked for work in prior 4 weeks and currently unemployed (%)	24.2	23.2	23.9
If looking for work: (%)
Looking for full-time work	39.6	56.5	44.5
Looking for part-time work	20.4	20.3	20.4
Looking for either full- or part-time work	39.9	23.2	35.1
Unemployed and reports a reason could not take a job in the last 4 weeks (%)	58.0	46.8	54.3
Reports the following reasons could not take a job in the last 4 weeks, if unemployed and not looking for work: (%)
Illness or disability	18.8	22.1	19.9
Lack of adequate child care	14.9	8.0	12.6
Personal or family responsibility	40.6	32.6	38.0
Going to school	12.6	13.1	12.8
No transportation available	5.1	7.7	6.0
Too much competition	2.7	0.7	2.1
Not enough education	9.5	3.8	7.7
Not enough experience/lack of skills	9.1	1.9	6.7
Sample size	1,423	703	2,126
SOURCE: SRDC calculations using data from SSP's baseline interview for the report sample: the 2,126 program group and control group members who entered the research sample through October 1993.

Some readers may find this surprising. As Georges Lemaître has put it: "In the popular imagination, social assistance is generally perceived as an all-or-none state, that is, persons in receipt of social assistance do not work and persons with jobs do not receive social assistance." However, as Lemaître found, this is not the case in reality.³⁸ Consistent with this finding, a substantial proportion of the SSP report sample - 26 percent in British Columbia and 34 percent in New Brunswick - had held a job within nine months of the baseline interview. Moreover, about one in five sample members in each province was employed at baseline.³⁹ Figure 4.1 shows the occupational distribution of jobs by province. Taking the sample as a whole (not shown in the figure), half of those who were employed at baseline had service jobs such as waitressing, cooking, cleaning, or babysitting. About 20 percent had clerical jobs such as typing, answering phones, or operating a cash register. Another 10 percent were in sales - working in retail establishments or acting as sales representatives. Approximately 5 percent were employed as daycare workers or teachers' assistants.⁴⁰

In British Columbia, where the minimum hourly wage was $6.00 during the period of first-year sample intake, the average hourly wage of sample members ever employed in the nine months prior to the baseline interview was $7.60. In New Brunswick, where the hourly minimum was (and still is) $5.00, the average hourly wage of workers was $5.65. Sample members who were ever employed during the nine months prior to baseline worked an average of 13 hours per week during that period (not shown in the table).

FIGURE 4.1: JOBS HELD AT THE TIME OF THE BASELINE INTERVIEW, BY SPECIFIED TYPES AND BY PROVINCE

III. Other Characteristics

A. Sex, Age, and Marital Status

The vast majority - 95 percent - of sample members are women. In Canada, as elsewhere, women still head the bulk of single-parent families in need of financial assistance.⁴¹

The SSP sample demonstrates that very young mothers are not the only single parents receiving Income Assistance. The average sample member was 33 years of age. Four-fifths of the sample were under 40 years of age, and sample members were relatively evenly distributed throughout the 19 to 39 age range. The relatively small number of older women probably reflected the fact that they were less likely to be supporting dependent children.

More than half of the sample (53 percent) had been divorced, separated, or widowed. Almost as many (45 percent) had never been married.⁴² Among sample members with some marital experience, the average age at first marriage was 21. Very few sample members said that they expected to be married in the coming year.

B. Education and Training

Less than half the report sample had graduated from high school.⁴³ In New Brunswick, more than half had not gone past grade 10; in British Columbia, over 40 percent had not. Literacy was not measured at baseline, but Income Assistance workers in British Columbia reported that illiteracy is sometimes a problem when Income Assistance applicants are asked to fill out required forms.

About half the sample had attended a community college, vocational institute, or trade school, and 21 percent had received a degree or certificate. Less than 10 percent of the sample in the two provinces had attended university. And even though almost half the baseline survey respondents said that they would "really like to be going to school," (not shown in Table 4.1) fewer than 15 percent of sample members in either province were currently enrolled in a high school, trade school, vocational institute, community college, or university.

Few sample members (15 percent) had recent experience (in the prior year) with job-readiness programs. However, sample members in British Columbia had almost twice as much experience (18 percent) as sample members in New Brunswick (9 percent). (These services were more readily available in British Columbia.) Fourteen percent of the sample had attended a life skills training program in the year before the baseline interview.

C. Job Search Activity

About one-quarter of sample members who were not employed at baseline were actively seeking work at the time of the baseline interview. However, of those looking for employment, 45 percent said they were seeking full-time work, and 35 percent were seeking either full- or part-time work. Contacting employers directly was the most popular method of job search in both provinces, followed by making inquiries of friends and relatives, and using public employment agencies.

D. Barriers to Employment

As might be expected, unemployed sample members who were not looking for work reported higher employment barriers than those who were engaged in a job search. Over three-quarters of those engaged in a job search did not report any employment barriers; the rest reported one or more (not shown in Table 4.1). Among those not looking for work, family responsibilities (including responsibility for dependent children) was the barrier most frequently reported, followed by illness and disability.

Interestingly enough, few sample members reported lack of skills, experience, or education as employment barriers. According to Income Assistance workers, the biggest employment barrier may be Income Assistance recipients' lack of self-esteem. Focus group participants reported that one of the hardest parts of looking for a job was not knowing "how to speak to . . . people or what to say." Some described the very thought of looking for a job as overwhelming.

E. Parenthood and Family

Although the average sample member had given birth for the first time at age 21, a fair number had had children while still teenagers, especially in New Brunswick. Very few sample members in either province had been 30 or older when they first gave birth. Most sample members had married before the birth of their first child, but about one-third had not.

The families of sample members were not particularly large. One-half of all sample members had only one dependent child at home; one-third had two; and the remainder had three or more. Almost half the sample did not have any children at home under 6 years of age; 41 percent had one; and 13 percent had two or more.

F. Attitudes Toward Employment Versus Homemaking

More than half of the SSP sample believed that "being on welfare provides for my family better than I could by working." More than one-third said that they would "prefer not to work" so as to "take care of my family full time." Even so, almost all sample members (95 percent) claimed that they "like[d] going to work." Less than one-fifth believed that their families were "having so many problems that I cannot work at a part-time or full-time job right now."

The focus group leaders reported that many single parents were quite adamant about their unwillingness to leave children at home while they worked at a full-time job. This sentiment was expressed not just by mothers of young children, but also by some of the male single parents in the sample and by mothers of older children. As one focus group participant put it, "I got teenage kids. They get in so much trouble these days that you don't want to just leave them to come home on their own." According to another, "I always sort of thought it was good to be home with your kids, when they were babies . . . and now it's even more like, you sort of got to be there."

G. Attitudes Toward Daycare

A desire to stay home with children may have been reinforced by negative experiences with babysitters and daycare centres. Some focus group participants reported instances of neglect; others found that waiting lists at daycare centres were simply too long, or tuition too expensive. Participants with disabled children found it particularly hard to arrange for child care. Nevertheless, 81 percent felt that "if I got a job, I could find someone I trust to take care of my children."

The preference for at-home parenting that some sample members expressed was reflected in the kinds of employment barriers they reported. Thirty-eight percent of sample members who were unemployed at baseline and not looking for work reported not working because of "family responsibilities." This was, by far, the most frequently cited barrier to employment for sample members not looking for work. Thirteen percent also reported "lack of child care" as a barrier.⁴⁴

Over two-thirds of sample members who were employed at baseline reported using some kind of child care. Babysitters who worked outside the home were the most frequently used form of child care, reported by almost one-third of employed sample members who used child care. Over 20 percent took their children to relatives' homes; somewhat fewer brought relatives in for the day, or turned child care over to a relative already residing in the home. Fewer still had a babysitter come by the house.⁴⁵

Less than one-quarter of the child care consumers in the sample used a daycare centre, or a before- or after-school program. Some focus group participants who expressed concern about leaving their children with others indicated that they might be willing to do so if assured of quality, low-cost daycare centres. Fifty-five percent of sample members agreed that "children who go to daycare or pre-school learn more than children who stay home with their mothers."

Less than half the sample members who used child care paid for it. In British Columbia, 38 percent paid for care; in New Brunswick, 62 percent did. Parents who had close relatives looking after their children may not have had to pay for care, and the costs of other kinds of child care may have been offset by government grants. Over half the sample members who used child care received some level of subsidy.

The cost of child care for those who paid for it differed significantly by province. The average cost in New Brunswick was $155 per month and in British Columbia, $256. This disparity may have been related to cost-of-living differences between the two provinces, or to the fact that almost twice as many sample members in British Columbia used daycare centres. Care by relatives (both inside and outside the home) was more frequent in New Brunswick.

H. Physical or Emotional Disability

Some sample members reported being burdened by serious physical or emotional problems. On the baseline survey, 20 percent of sample members claimed an activity-limiting physical condition only, and 28 percent reported an activity-limiting physical or emotional condition or both. Focus group participants reported blindness, brain damage, even terminal illness. They also spoke of problem pregnancies, or of children who were disabled or had special needs.

Sample members who were working at baseline were half as likely as non-workers to report physical or emotional problems (not shown in Table 4.1). They were also less likely to have received, or been interested in receiving, counselling for personal problems.

I. Family Background

A significant number of sample members (42 percent) did not live with both parents until the age of 16. One-quarter of sample members grew up in families that relied on Income Assistance. Some focus group participants who grew up on Income Assistance claimed that the experience had actually stiffened their resolve to eventually get off Income Assistance, or to make certain their children are never dependent as adults. One reported that she often admonished her son: "You'd better never be standing in the welfare line, food line, or unemployment line." Another reminded her children: "I don't want you to be where I'm at. I don't want this to happen to you."

In New Brunswick, about two-thirds of the sample reported that neither of their parents had a high school diploma. However, in British Columbia, more than half the sample members had at least one parent who had graduated from high school.

J. Ancestry, Language, and Immigrant Status

The percentage of the sample who were native-born differed dramatically by province. In New Brunswick, almost all sample members (97 percent) were native-born; in British Columbia, approximately three-quarters were. However, only 4 percent of British Columbia's sample members had immigrated to Canada in the last 5 years.

British Columbia presents a more ethnically diverse picture than New Brunswick. Thirteen percent of sample members in British Columbia claimed some First Nations ancestry, and over 5 percent reported Asian ancestry.

K. Living Conditions

Only 5 percent of sample members in British Columbia lived in rural areas, but 18 percent of sample members in New Brunswick did. Residents of rural areas faced special difficulties when it came to finding employment, getting to a job, or locating child care. Sample members who did not drive or own a car faced serious transportation problems. One focus group participant described the scarcity of jobs in her rural area as "unbelievable." Another reported an hour-and-a-half walk, to both her babysitter's home and her place of employment. In some rural areas of British Columbia, the nearest licensed daycare centre was 30 miles away, and Income Assistance recipients had difficulty getting mental health and other services.

More sample members in New Brunswick received government help with their rent than in British Columbia (31 percent versus 18 percent). As expected, rent and mortgage payments were higher in British Columbia. On average, sample members moved frequently: One-quarter had moved at least five times in the five years prior to baseline.

• ³⁵See Lindsay, 1992.
• ³⁶See Bancroft and Vernon, 1995.
• ³⁷Bancroft and Vernon, 1995.
• ³⁸In his study of a 1987 cohort of single parents who had received Income Assistance in at least 11 of the 12 preceding months, and who remained on Income Assistance for at least another year, Lemaître found one-third of recipients reporting earnings from employment during the second year of Income Assistance receipt. See Lemaître, 1993.
• ³⁹These data may underestimate the extent of baseline employment among sample members. Almost half of the report sample members agreed with the statement on the baseline survey that "you really can't blame people who work on the side and don't tell the welfare department." It is possible that they underreported their current employment status during the baseline interview.
• ⁴⁰The occupational distribution of sample members who were employed at baseline did not differ much from the occupational distribution of female single parents in general, or of women in two-parent families. In 1991, 71 percent of female single parents worked in service, clerical, sales, child care, or nursing jobs, as did 69 percent of wives in two-parent families. See Lindsay, 1992.
• ⁴¹As noted earlier, 82 percent of all single-parent families in Canada in 1991 were headed by women. The number of single-parent families headed by men, however, is increasing. It rose 35 percent between 1981 and 1991. See Lindsay, 1992.
• ⁴²The research sample was restricted to single parents. Married sample members married after they were randomly selected. Less than 2 percent of sample members reported a spouse or common-law partner. The present data may underestimate the number of sample members maintaining common-law relationships, given the fact that acknowledgement of a such a relationship may result in a downward adjustment of Income Assistance benefits. (Income Assistance workers in British Columbia regard failure to report common-law relationships as a relatively common form of fraud.)
• ⁴³It is interesting to note differences between Canada and the United States in patterns of education and training. According to Freeman and Needels (1993), "Although Canadians and Americans attain roughly the same years of schooling, Canadians do not follow the same pattern of attainment as Americans. In some provinces Canadians graduate high school after 11 years of schooling, while in others they graduate after 12 or 13 years . . . Canadians are more likely than Americans to leave school before completing high school but are also more likely to obtain post-high school nonuniversity training." According to Ginzberg (1979), apprenticeships play a much larger role in Canada than they do in the United States, and the Canadian government often funds apprenticeship training.
• ⁴⁴The baseline survey allowed sample members to identify more than one employment barrier.
• ⁴⁵Female single parents, whether or not they receive Income Assistance, are generally less likely to receive in-home child care services than two-parent families. In 1990, 33 percent of female single parents who used child care used in-home care, whereas 38 percent of two-parent families did so. See Lindsay, 1992.