|
|
9. Reliance on Social Assistance
9.1 Introduction
This section uses similar types of analysis to those used in previous sections of the study to understand why some lone mothers spend long spells on social assistance (SA), while others stay on SA for only short periods or do not rely on SA at all. Because of the close correlation between low income and SA, we expected that many of the findings of the previous sections with respect to low income will also hold for SA. For this reason, the analysis of SA was designed to be more selective than that of low income.
One of the challenges in analyzing SA with survey data is incomplete reporting of SA benefits. However, this problem is less serious with SLID than previous surveys, because of the increased use (with respondent consent) of income tax information. A related issue is that the definition of SA is not always clear, especially with respect to certain provincial income tested programs that tend to have a fairly universal application (e.g. income tested child benefits). To minimize this problem:
We have classified as SA recipients (SARs) those whose family received SA during the year and the amount of SA benefits was at least 10% of their LICO.
We begin the section with an examination of the incidence and duration of SA, as well as its impact on low income gaps. Then we examine the characteristics of SA recipients and attempt to identify the characteristics that are most closely associated with a high incidence of SA. Finally, we examine the duration of SA spells and the characteristics of SA recipients that are most closely associated with longer SA spells.
9.2 Incidence of Social Assistance
40% of all lone mothers, and 68% of all low income lone mothers, received SA in 1998 the highest rates for any type of family.
In this sub-section we use the 1998 cross-sectional SLID data to examine the prevalence of the use of SA among all lone mothers and among low income lone mothers. Chart 9.1 (and in more detail Table 9.1) shows that lone mothers not only have the highest incidence of low income, but they also have the highest incidence of SA among all low income families. In particular:
- both among all families and among low income families, lone mothers have the highest incidence of SA (40% and 68% respectively);
- the incidence of SA among lone fathers is less than half of that of lone mothers, but considerably higher than that of other family types with a male main income recipient.
There are several possible explanation why the incidence of SA among low income lone mothers is higher than among other low income families. For example: (a) before government transfers, the average low income lone mother is deeper in low income than other low income families (as revealed by comparisons of low income gaps in Table 4.1); (b) lone mothers may be facing fewer legal barriers or more sympathetic bureaucrats when applying for benefits; and (c) lone mothers may be applying more readily for SA, possibly because of non-cash benefits (such as child care or insured health benefits), or because they anticipate a longer stay in low income.
Table 9.1 Incidence of social assistance among all major income recipients, 19981
|
Lone parent, kids<18 |
Unattached individual |
Couple without kids<18 |
Couple with kids<18 |
Other economic families |
All economic families |
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All major income earners |
110,545 |
1,392,465 |
1,309,674 |
2,551,716 |
361,897 |
5,726,297 |
- Received SA |
20,501 |
157,578 |
67,777 |
134,373 |
61,717 |
441,946 |
- Incidence of SA |
18.5% |
11.3% |
5.2% |
5.3% |
17.1% |
7.7% |
Low income major income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
earners |
18,506 |
400,738 |
45,288 |
149,940 |
35,069 |
649,541 |
- Received SA |
*** |
133,555 |
16,956 |
53,071 |
*** |
223,595 |
- Incidence of SA |
*** |
33.3% |
37.4% |
35.4% |
*** |
34.4% |
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All major income earners |
630,731 |
995,847 |
548,226 |
682,179 |
268,630 |
3,125,613 |
- Received SA |
253,806 |
131,167 |
27,808 |
53,268 |
60,389 |
526,439 |
- Incidence of SA |
40.2% |
13.2% |
5.1% |
7.8% |
22.5% |
16.8% |
Low income major income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
earners |
246,407 |
349,879 |
41,682 |
85,805 |
45,745 |
769,518 |
- Received SA |
168,011 |
113,944 |
*** |
22,809 |
26,498 |
339,141 |
- Incidence of SA |
68.2% |
32.6% |
*** |
26.6% |
57.9% |
44.1% |
Both genders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All major income earners |
741,276 |
2,388,312 |
1,857,900 |
3,233,895 |
630,528 |
8,851,911 |
- Received SA |
274,308 |
288,745 |
95,585 |
187,641 |
122,107 |
968,385 |
- Incidence of SA |
37.0% |
12.1% |
5.1% |
5.8% |
19.4% |
10.9% |
Low income major income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
earners |
264,913 |
750,617 |
86,970 |
235,745 |
80,813 |
1,419,059 |
- Received SA |
176,654 |
247,499 |
24,834 |
75,881 |
37,868 |
562,736 |
- Incidence of SA |
66.7% |
33.0% |
28.6% |
32.2% |
46.9% |
39.7% |
(1) Sample of major income earners, age 16-55, in 1998. ***Less than 30 observations. |
9.3 Impact of Social Assistance on Low Income Gaps
Government transfers reduce the low income gap of female SARs from about 90% to about 30%. Although the impact of SA on the low income gap of lone mothers is somewhat lower than for other family types, this result is more than offset by other government transfers (such as the Child Tax Benefit).
This sub-section examines the impact of SA in terms of reducing the low income gap. In particular, we want to see whether SA takes a bigger "bite" out of low income among lone mothers than is the case for other low income families.
Chart 9.2 shows that among all female main income recipients on SA, the low income gap before any government transfers is around 90%, while after government transfers the gap for most female SARs drops to about 30% with the exception of unattached female SARs where the gap drops to about 40%.
SA has a somewhat smaller impact on the low income gap of female SARs with children. However, this result is more than offset by other government transfers (such as the Child Tax Benefit).
Table 9.2 Impact of social assistance on low income, 1998, among all poor social assistance recipients (SARs)1
|
Lone parent, kids<18 |
Unattached individual |
Couple without kids<18 |
Couple with kids<18 |
Other economic families |
All economic families |
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All SARs in 1998 |
*** |
133,555 |
16,956 |
53,071 |
*** |
223,595 |
Low income gap: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- before any transfers |
*** |
93.0% |
83.5% |
89.8% |
*** |
90.8% |
- after transfers, exc. SA |
*** |
85.8% |
70.2% |
68.1% |
*** |
78.9% |
- after all transfers |
*** |
39.4% |
25.2% |
27.4% |
*** |
34.7% |
Impact of SA on gap |
*** |
46.4% |
45.0% |
40.7% |
*** |
44.2% |
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All SARs in 1998 |
168,011 |
113,944 |
*** |
22,809 |
26,498 |
339,141 |
Low income gap: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- before any transfers |
91.8% |
95.6% |
*** |
93.0% |
91.0% |
93.0% |
- after transfers, exc. SA |
70.0% |
88.5% |
*** |
71.6% |
80.5% |
77.3% |
- after all transfers |
28.0% |
39.4% |
*** |
27.4% |
31.1% |
31.8% |
Impact of SA on gap |
42.0% |
49.2% |
*** |
44.2% |
49.5% |
45.5% |
Both genders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All SARs in 1998 |
176,654 |
247,499 |
24,834 |
75,881 |
37,868 |
562,736 |
Low income gap: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- before any transfers |
92.0% |
94.2% |
85.0% |
90.7% |
87.1% |
92.1% |
- after transfers, exc. SA |
70.1% |
87.1% |
72.4% |
69.2% |
76.3% |
78.0% |
- after all transfers |
28.3% |
39.4% |
23.7% |
27.4% |
29.5% |
33.0% |
Impact of SA on gap |
41.8% |
47.7% |
48.7% |
41.8% |
46.8% |
45.0% |
(1) Sample of major income earners, age 16-55, who received SA in 1998. ***Less than 30 observations. |
9.4 Characteristics of Social Assistance Recipients
The three most common characteristics of lone mothers on SA were: not being in a union when their first child was born (73%); not working for pay (54%); and the presence of pre-school age child (44%).
Table 9.3 shows the distribution of lone mothers who received SA in 1998, by various characteristics. It also shows the incidence of SA among all lone mothers. As in the case of the incidence of low income, the incidence of SA was highest among those with no paid work during the year (83%). Non-earning SARs accounted for 54% of all lone mothers on SA.
The two other most common characteristics of lone mothers on SA were: (a) not being in a union when their first child was born; and (b) the presence of pre-school age child (44%).
The impact of various characteristics on the probability of receiving SA was explored using logit regression (Table 9.4).10 The regression results show that the following characteristics have the strongest correlation with the incidence of SA:
(a) recent immigrants/ aboriginal/ disabled: 35% of lone mothers on SA had one at least of these three characteristics; their probability of being on SA was 28% higher than that of the rest of lone mothers;
(b) student status: 25% of lone mothers on SA were students (full-time or part-time); their probability of being on SA was 27% higher than that of non-students with high school education; this group is of relatively less concern, however, since the expectation is that their earning capacity, at least on average, will be greater once they graduate;
(c) not in a union when their first child was born: the most common characteristics among all lone mothers on SA is that they were not in a union when their first child was born (73%); their probability of being on SA was 21% higher than that of the rest of lone mothers;
(d) under 20 years of age when their first child was born: 31% of lone mothers on SA were under 20 years of age when their first child was born; their probability of being on SA was 19% higher than for the rest of lone mothers;
(e) high school dropouts: high school drop-outs accounted for 30% of lone mothers on SA that were not students; their probability of being on SA was 18% higher than that for lone mothers with high school graduation; however, higher education is not a sure way to avoid dependence on SA; in particular, 34% of non-student SARs had a post-secondary certificate or degree.
Two other characteristics that were found to have a statistically significant impact in increasing the probability of receiving SA were:
(f) SA benefit rates: lone mothers living in provinces with above average SA benefit rates had a 16% higher probability of receiving SA, an indication of the connection between generosity of SA benefits and SA caseload; and
(g) regional employment rates: lone mothers in regions with below average employment rates had a 11% higher probability of receiving SA, an indication of the impact of labour market conditions on the SA take up rate.11
Table 9.3 Characteristics of lone mothers on SA (SARs), 19981
|
Distribution of SARs |
Incidence of SA |
Age |
|
|
16-29 |
32.7% |
68.7% |
30-55 |
67.3% |
33.5% |
Age when first child was born |
|
|
Under 20 |
31.2% |
68.8% |
20 or more |
68.8% |
34.2% |
Marital status when first child was born |
|
|
Not in a union |
73.3% |
53.8% |
Married |
22.9% |
22.3% |
Common law |
3.8% |
40.9% |
Age of youngest child |
|
|
0-5 |
44.4% |
54.8% |
6-11 |
36.1% |
40.4% |
12-17 |
19.5% |
24.9% |
Student during the year |
|
|
Yes |
25.0% |
57.3% |
No |
75.0% |
36.6% |
Level of education of non-students |
|
|
Less than high school |
29.9% |
57.1% |
High school diploma |
16.3% |
33.2% |
Some post-secondary |
19.9% |
47.8% |
Post-secondary degree |
33.9% |
25.6% |
Hours of work during the year |
|
|
No work |
53.7% |
82.9% |
1-749 hours |
22.1% |
72.1% |
750-1499 hours |
13.0% |
37.4% |
1500+ hours |
11.3% |
9.8% |
Immigrant, aboriginal, or disabled 2 |
|
|
Yes |
35.3% |
62.5% |
No |
64.7% |
33.7% |
EI region employment rate |
|
|
At, below average |
43.4% |
42.6% |
Above average |
56.6% |
38.6% |
Provincial SA benefit rates |
|
|
At, below average |
43.4% |
36.2% |
Above average |
56.6% |
44.0% |
Broad region |
|
|
Atlantic |
13.0% |
59.5% |
Quebec |
19.9% |
31.2% |
Ontario |
42.1% |
44.9% |
Prairie |
13.0% |
33.8% |
B.C. |
12.0% |
39.2% |
All lone parents |
100.0% |
40.2% |
(1) Sample of lone mother major income earners, age 16-55, in 1998.
(2) Immigrated in last 10 years; or aboriginal origin; or work limiting disability. |
Table 9.4 Logit regression estimate of determinants of incidence of SA among all lone mothers, 1998
Variable |
Explanation |
b-coef |
Std err |
t-stat. |
Odds ratio |
Linearized coefficient |
Dependent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SAR98 |
Received SA in 1998 |
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAGE(1) |
- 16-29 |
0.428 |
0.199 |
2.146 |
1.534 |
10.1% |
GAGE(2) |
- 30-55 |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
Age when first child was born |
|
|
|
|
|
CAGE(1) |
- 16-19 |
0.772 |
0.188 |
4.113 |
2.164 |
18.7% |
CAGE(2) |
- 20-55 |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
Marital status when first child was born |
|
|
|
|
|
CSPOUSE(1) |
- did not have a spouse |
0.964 |
0.146 |
6.609 |
2.623 |
21.2% |
CSPOUSE(2) |
- had a spouse |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
Age of youngest child |
|
|
|
|
|
YKID(1) |
- 0-5 |
0.140 |
0.169 |
0.828 |
1.150 |
3.4% |
YKID(2) |
- 6-11 |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
YKID(3) |
- 12-17 |
-0.534 |
0.173 |
-3.087 |
0.586 |
-12.0% |
Level of education |
|
|
|
|
|
STEDUC(1) |
- student |
1.106 |
0.279 |
3.964 |
3.021 |
26.8% |
STEDUC(2) |
- non-student: less than high school |
0.762 |
0.237 |
3.215 |
2.143 |
18.4% |
STEDUC(3) |
- non-student: high school diploma |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
STEDUC(4) |
- non-student: some post-second. |
0.559 |
0.246 |
2.272 |
1.750 |
13.3% |
STEDUC(5) |
- non-student: post-sec. degree |
-0.175 |
0.211 |
-0.829 |
0.840 |
-3.8% |
Recent immigrant, aboriginal, or disability? |
|
|
|
|
|
HIGHRISK(1) |
- yes |
1.138 |
0.159 |
7.136 |
3.121 |
27.6% |
HIGHRISK(2) |
- no (omitted) |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
Regional employment rate |
|
|
|
|
|
REGER(1) |
- at/below average |
0.452 |
0.163 |
2.763 |
1.571 |
11.1% |
REGER(2) |
- above average (omitted) |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
Provincial SA benefit rates |
|
|
|
|
|
SABEN(1) |
- at/below average |
-0.693 |
0.163 |
-4.256 |
0.500 |
-15.8% |
SABEN(2) |
- above average (omitted) |
|
(omitted) |
|
|
|
Constant |
|
-1.491 |
0.231 |
-6.455 |
0.225 |
|
Nagelkerke R 2 (similar concept to OLS adjusted R 2) |
|
|
0.336 |
|
|
Number of cases |
|
|
1,234 |
|
|
9.5 Duration of Social Assistance
Over the period 1993-98, 58% of lone mothers received SA at least once, while 41% of SA recipients were on SA all six years. The average "in-progress" spell of those who received SA in 1993 was 4.3 years the longest for any type of family.
In this sub-section we use the 1993-98 longitudinal SLID data to see how many lone mothers are exposed to SA over a longer period and, once they are on SA, how long they tend to stay on SA.
Over the period 1993-98, 58% of lone mothers received SA in at least one year, while 24% of all lone mothers received SA in all six years over the period 1993-98. This means 41% of all SA recipients in 1993-98 received SA in all six years the highest rate for any type of family (Table 9.5).
The average "in-progress" SA spell for lone mothers was 4.3 years (Chart 9.3). The average completed SA spell is likely to be longer. The reason is that many of the spells may have started before 1993. Also, since 41% of SARs were on SA all six years, a significant number may have continued on SA past 1998.
Table 9.5 Duration of social assistance, 1993-98. Among all social assistance recipients (SARs)1
|
Lone parent, kids<18 |
Unattached individual |
Couple without kids<18 |
Couple with kids<18 |
Other economic families |
All economic families |
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All major income recipients |
96,912 |
1,078,953 |
1,263,516 |
2,298,221 |
313,254 |
5,050,856 |
At least one year on SA |
*** |
26.9% |
10.0% |
9.8% |
21.9% |
14.6% |
All six years on SA |
*** |
6.2% |
*** |
*** |
*** |
2.4% |
Average years on SA |
*** |
3.4 |
2.8 |
2.6 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
Average in-progress spell2 |
*** |
3.8 |
3.0 |
2.7 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All major income recipients |
555,302 |
910,502 |
455,028 |
676,560 |
220,596 |
2,817,988 |
At least one year on SA |
58.1% |
21.4% |
12.8% |
16.6% |
33.4% |
27.0% |
All six years on SA |
24.1% |
5.5% |
*** |
*** |
*** |
9.0% |
Average years on SA |
4.4 |
3.4 |
2.9 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
3.9 |
Average in-progress spell2 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
*** |
4.4 |
3.9 |
4.1 |
Both genders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All major income recipients |
652,215 |
1,989,455 |
1,718,543 |
2,974,781 |
533,850 |
7,868,844 |
At least one year on SA |
54.1% |
24.4% |
10.7% |
11.3% |
26.7% |
19.1% |
All six years on SA |
22.2% |
5.9% |
*** |
1.9% |
6.5% |
4.8% |
Average years on SA |
4.3 |
3.4 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
Average in-progress spell2 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
3.0 |
3.4 |
3.7 |
3.8 |
(1) Sample of major income recipients, age 16-55 in 1993.
(2) SA spell of those who received SA in 1993.
*** Less than 30 observations. |
9.6 Determinants of the Duration of Social Assistance
The three strongest factors associated with longer SA spells in 1993-98 were: (a) no change in family status; (b) being a recent immigrant, disabled, or aboriginal; and (c) having a pre-school age child. Interestingly, the level of education did not appear to have an influence.
In this section we analyze both in-progress SA spells (using a simple tabulation and an OLS regression), as well as the expected duration of new spells (using a "hazard" logit regression). The techniques are the same as those discussed and applied in Section 8.
The results show that the average in-progress SA spell is 4.3 years (almost a year longer than the average in-progress low income spell, which is 3.4 years). On the other hand, the average expected duration of new SA spells is 2.1 years, the same as for new low income spells.
The results suggest that in most cases, when lone mothers enter low income or SA, they stay for a short period (2.1 years on average). However, a number of lone mothers stay in low income or on SA for many years.
Both the OLS analysis of in-progress SA spells and the "hazard" analysis of new SA spells led to similar conclusions with respect to the following factors:
- Change in family status: Both approaches identified this as one of the most important factors; the average in-progress SA spell and the average spell of new starts were about 1.5 years shorter than for the rest of lone mothers; this result is not surprising since, as was pointed out in an earlier section, changes in family status are one of the most significant factors behind low income exits.
- High risk group: Hazard analysis shows that lone mothers who were also recent immigrants, disabled, or aboriginal, had longer SA spells by 1.5 years; the OLS approach did not confirm this but, as was discussed earlier in the context of low income spells, the most likely reason for this difference is that the OLS model does not properly handle variables that tend to change over time, such as disability status.
- Age of youngest child: the OLS model shows that both the presence of pre-school age children and high school age children contributed to longer SA spells (by 1 and 1.7 years respectively), but most likely for different reasons:
- younger kids are a barrier to the employment of their mothers;
- however, this is less likely to be the case with older kids, suggesting that other barriers may be present such as the "scarring" effect of prolonged reliance on SA.12
- Region: According to the OLS results, in-progress SA spells tend to be longest in Quebec; however, the "hazard" model shows that new spells tend to be longer for Ontario and shorter for Quebec and B.C.; these results suggest that most SA spells in Quebec tend to be short, but there is a core of long spells that show up year after year.
The rest of the characteristics such as student status, level of education, or level of provincial SA benefits did not have a statistically significant effect on in-progress SA spells.13
The most surprising result is that the level of education has no effect on the length of SA spells. It would appear that education has a positive effect in helping lone mothers stay out of SA. However, once on SA, the level of education makes no difference on how long they stay on SA.
Instead, the length of SA spells appear to be dominated by factors over which public policy has little effect such as change in family status; high risk characteristics; presence of young children; and region of residence. Although these characteristics cannot be influenced directly by public policy, they can be used as indicators for targeting programs for assisting lone mothers to exit SA.
Table 9.6 Length of completed SA spells by personal characteristics among lone mothers on SA, 1993-98
|
Distribution of
1993 SARs |
Length of average
in-progress
SA spell (years) |
Age in 1993 |
|
|
16-29 |
38.5% |
4.1 |
30-55 |
61.5% |
4.5 |
Age of youngest child in 1993 |
|
|
0-5 |
55.4% |
4.4 |
6-11 |
27.7% |
3.8 |
12-17 |
16.9% |
4.8 |
Student in 1993 |
|
|
Yes |
22.0% |
4.3 |
No |
78.0% |
4.3 |
Level of education of non-students in 1993 |
|
|
Less than high school |
42.4% |
4.5 |
High school diploma |
19.8% |
4.7 |
Some post-secondary |
15.6% |
4.2 |
Post-secondary degree |
22.1% |
3.8 |
Recent immigrant, aboriginal, or disability in 1993 1 |
|
|
Yes |
31.2% |
4.5 |
No |
68.8% |
4.3 |
Lone mother/major earner/child under 18 in all years |
|
|
There was a change |
50.9% |
3.7 |
There was no change |
49.1% |
4.9 |
Moved to another region after 1993 |
|
|
Yes |
13.3% |
3.4 |
No |
86.7% |
4.5 |
EI regional employment rate in 1993 |
|
|
At/below average |
38.0% |
4.3 |
Above average |
62.0% |
4.3 |
Provincial SA benefit rates in 1993 |
|
|
At/below average |
44.6% |
4.1 |
Above average |
55.4% |
4.5 |
Atlantic |
9.4% |
4.4 |
Quebec |
16.5% |
5.0 |
Ontario |
59.0% |
4.5 |
Prairie |
15.1% |
3.5 |
B.C. |
*** |
*** |
All |
100.0% |
4.3 |
(1) Immigrated in last 10 years; or aboriginal origin; or work limiting disability.
*** Less than 30 observations. |
Table 9.7 OLS Regression of determinants of completed SA spells, 1993-98 among lone mothers on social assistance in 1993
Variable |
Explanation |
B-coef |
Std err |
t-stat. |
Dependent |
|
|
|
SASPEL93 |
Length of completed SA spell (yrs) |
|
|
|
Age in 1993 |
|
|
|
GAGE93(1) |
- 16-29 |
-0.349 |
0.231 |
-1.508 |
GAGE93(2) |
- 30-55 (omitted) |
|
|
|
Age of youngest child in 1993 |
|
|
|
YKID93(1) |
- 0-5 |
1.035 |
0.246 |
4.207 |
YKID93(2) |
- 6-11 (omitted) |
|
|
|
YKID93(3) |
- 12-17 |
1.707 |
0.324 |
5.269 |
Level of education in 1993 |
|
|
|
STEDUC(1) |
- student |
-0.146 |
0.316 |
-0.463 |
STEDUC(2) |
- non-student: less than high school |
-0.046 |
0.300 |
-0.154 |
STEDUC(3) |
- non-student: high school diploma (omitted) |
|
|
|
STEDUC(4) |
- non-student: some post-second. |
0.057 |
0.372 |
0.152 |
STEDUC(5) |
- non-student: post-sec. degree |
-0.482 |
0.352 |
-1.369 |
Recent immigrant, aboriginal, or disability in 1993 |
|
|
|
HIGHRISK(1) |
- yes |
0.100 |
0.211 |
0.471 |
HIGHRISK(2) |
- no (omitted) |
|
|
|
Lone mother/major earner/child under 18 in all years |
|
|
|
FAMILYF(1) |
- there was a change |
-1.508 |
0.213 |
-7.078 |
FAMILYF(2) |
- there was no change (omitted) |
|
|
|
Moved to another |
region after 1993 |
|
|
|
FEIR(1) |
- yes |
-0.661 |
0.287 |
-2.305 |
FEIR(2) |
- no (omitted) |
|
|
|
Broad region |
|
|
|
REGION(1) |
- Atlantic |
0.045 |
0.341 |
0.132 |
REGION(2) |
- Quebec |
0.522 |
0.285 |
1.832 |
REGION(3) |
- Ontario (omitted) |
|
|
|
REGION(4) |
- Prairie |
-0.651 |
0.290 |
-2.245 |
REGION(5) |
- B.C. |
-0.600 |
0.404 |
-1.485 |
Constant |
|
4.591 |
0.315 |
14.575 |
Adjusted R-squared
Number of cases |
|
25.4%
294 |
|
Table 9.8 "Hazard" analysis of Social Assistance spells, 1993-98
In all cases, the regression variables reflect the status at the end of each spell (time dependent) |
Logitcoeff. |
Stand.error |
t-stat |
|
Exit rates by duration of SA (yrs) |
Median spell |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Dependent variable: probability of exiting SA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in lone motherhood status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- there was no change in status
|
-0.747 |
0.288 |
-2.594 |
24.4% |
19.8% |
15.8% |
12.6% |
9.9% |
7.7% |
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
40.5% |
34.2% |
28.4% |
23.3% |
18.8% |
15.1% |
1.5 |
Was recent immigrant; disabled; aboriginal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.785 |
0.307 |
-2.557 |
19.0% |
15.2% |
12.0% |
9.5% |
7.4% |
5.8% |
5.2 |
|
|
|
|
34.0% |
28.2% |
23.1% |
18.7% |
14.9% |
11.8% |
1.9 |
Age of lone mother |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.717 |
0.354 |
-2.025 |
19.1% |
15.3% |
12.1% |
9.5% |
7.5% |
5.8% |
5.1 |
|
|
|
|
32.6% |
27.0% |
22.0% |
17.8% |
14.2% |
11.2% |
2.0 |
Age of youngest child |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.090 |
0.303 |
-0.297 |
27.1% |
22.2% |
17.9% |
14.3% |
11.3% |
8.8% |
2.7 |
|
|
|
|
29.0% |
23.7% |
19.2% |
15.4% |
12.2% |
9.6% |
2.4 |
Level of education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.685 |
0.498 |
1.376 |
38.2% |
32.0% |
26.5% |
21.6% |
17.4% |
13.9% |
1.6 |
- non-student: less than high school
|
-0.083 |
0.478 |
-0.174 |
22.3% |
18.0% |
14.3% |
11.3% |
8.9% |
6.9% |
3.8 |
- non-student: high school diploma (omitted)
|
|
|
|
23.7% |
19.2% |
15.4% |
12.2% |
9.6% |
7.5% |
3.3 |
- non-student: some post-second.
|
-0.179 |
0.531 |
-0.337 |
20.6% |
16.6% |
13.2% |
10.4% |
8.1% |
6.3% |
4.4 |
- non-student: post-sec. degree
|
0.524 |
0.454 |
1.154 |
34.4% |
28.6% |
23.5% |
19.0% |
15.2% |
12.0% |
1.8 |
Region |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.392 |
0.443 |
0.885 |
26.2% |
21.4% |
17.2% |
13.7% |
10.8% |
8.5% |
2.8 |
|
1.000 |
0.360 |
2.778 |
39.5% |
33.3% |
27.6% |
22.6% |
18.2% |
14.5% |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
19.4% |
15.5% |
12.3% |
9.7% |
7.6% |
5.9% |
5.0 |
|
0.603 |
0.405 |
1.489 |
30.5% |
25.1% |
20.4% |
16.4% |
13.0% |
10.3% |
2.2 |
|
1.453 |
0.466 |
3.118 |
50.7% |
44.0% |
37.5% |
31.4% |
25.9% |
21.1% |
1.0 |
Spell duration in years (continuous independent) |
-0.269 |
0.151 |
-1.781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constant |
-0.290 |
0.576 |
-0.503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dependent variable: probability of exiting SA |
|
|
|
32.2% |
24.4% |
18.0% |
13.0% |
9.3% |
6.5% |
2.1 |
Nagelkerke R2 (similar concept to the OLS adjusted R2): |
16.7% |
|
Number of cases: |
|
369 |
|
|
|
- 10The results of an alternative specification of the logit regression (replacing EI regional employment rates and provincial SA benefit rates with dummies for the five major regions) are shown in Appendix D.
- 11As explained earlier, the employment rate was calculated by dividing the weeks of work of each woman (0 to 52) by 52. The ratio was averaged within each of the 54 regions that are designated by the EI program.
- 12In the "hazard" model we tested only the presence of pre-school children. We found no significant effect. The most obvious reason is that the positive effect of the youngest child being 6 to 11 years of age, was offset by the negative effect of the younger child being 12 to 17 years of age.
- 13The results with respect to provincial SA benefit rates are based on a similar regression; the results of this regression are not shown here.
|