Why Do Welfare Recipients Have Low Literacy Levels Relative to Their Education?
Canadian results from the 1994 International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) have shown that full-time annual earnings are strongly correlated with the level of literacy—even more strongly than with the level of education. The main reason is that literacy reflects not only the level of education, but also the quality of education and the extent to which literacy skills are maintained and strengthened through regular use. A recent paper by Constantine Kapsalis based on the IALS explores relationships for Canadian social assistance recipients (SARs) among work, literacy, education and non-work activities. The study notes that social assistance recipients who do not work have about a 25 percent lower level of literacy than earners who do not receive social assistance.
The lower literacy level of SARs is in part explained by their lower education level, since education and literacy are highly correlated. However, Kapsalis found that, even at the same level of education as for earners, the literacy of the SARs was about 15 percent lower.
SARs are thus at a double disadvantage in trying to obtain employment in the paid labour force. Not only do they have fewer years of formal education, but for any given level of education, they are less literate than earners.
| Note: |
"Document Literacy" is the skill required to locate and use information contained in various formats including job applications, maps and tables. Point A is the number of years of schooling where the literacy score of workers equals the literacy score of social assistance recipients (SARs) at their average number of years of schooling. Point B is the average number of years of schooling of non-working social assistance recipients.
|
| Source: |
Kapsalis, Constantine. The Connection Between Literacy and Work: Implications for Social Assistance Recipients, 1998 |
Text version
The report suggests two possible explanations for the disparity in literacy levels. First, SARs' quality of education may have been lower than that of earners. Inferior quality of education while in school would account for both difficulties in finding paid work and low literacy levels relative to years of formal education. However, the appropriate data are not available to test this hypothesis.
A second possible explanation is that the absence of work itself has a negative effect on literacy. The study does confirm a correlation between work and literacy, especially among SARs. However, the direction of causality is difficult to determine. One could argue that work increases literacy; on the other hand, one could also argue that higher literacy increases chances of being employed.
What effect does working have on after-work literacy activity? When social assistance recipients work, is the potential positive effect on literacy offset by a reduction in literacy-enhancing activities outside the workplace? The study found that this was not the case: "Working SARs…(are) more likely to regularly use a public library, do voluntary work, or read a book than non-working SARs." Even after Kapsalis adjusted for differences in education levels, there was "little difference in literacy activities at home between working and non-working SARs."
The policy implications of the paper are clear. If exposure to paid work helps maintain or improve literacy skills and does not reduce literacy-enhancing activities outside the workplace, then significant gains in improving the employability of SARs may be achieved by exposing them to paid work—even work which does not directly involve literacy activities such as reading or writing reports or manuals on a regular basis. However, at this point in the research, the link between literacy and paid work for SARs cannot be assumed to be a cause and effect relationship. Further corroboration is needed.
What's New
