Online bulletin no 17 – February 2016

THE PARTICIPATION OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFICIARIESIN EMPLOYMENT INTEGRATION ASSISTANCE MEASURES

The reality of financial assistance beneficiaries is complex. Several factors must be taken into consideration to understand the means that can help them reintegrate the labour market. They face numerous difficulties, both personal and social. Often, survival is all they can do (“Survival is a full time job.”[1]). The causal factors of their situation cannot be reduced to an absence of motivation or a question of incitation. Such judgments are in fact expressions of prejudice that are major obstacles not only to their integration into the labour market but also to their full participation as citizens. Unfortunately, a recent survey carried out by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse has confirmed the extent of the prejudices spread about beneficiaries. The survey shows that half of all Quebeckers have a negative opinion of social assistance beneficiaries.[2]

TheComité consultatif de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion socialefavours an intensification of the support and accompaniment offered to new beneficiaries of social assistance, because as is well known, the longer a person remains a beneficiary, the more difficult it becomes for him or her to find a way out of that situation. However, to offer beneficiaries appropriate support, we must take into account their characteristics.

Coercive measures combined with penalties would further reduce their level of financial assistance,which is already too low to cover basic needs. Moreover, that approach is contrary to current laws and various international treaties to which Québec adheres, in particular the “Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. For the Comité, such penalties are unjust, not useful and generally ineffective.They compromise the health of those affected and reduce their chances to escape their situation.

Such measures are unjust because they are in total contradiction to our duty to respect the dignity of persons and their free choice. Such an approach is based on the prejudice that people freely choose to live offsocial assistance. This imposes on beneficiaries the entire responsibility for their difficulties in employment integration, whereas in fact, the main factor is the labour market itself. Each month around 40% of households that become social assistance beneficiaries are putin that situation because their employment insurance benefits have run out, they have lost employment and are not entitled to such benefits or the employment benefits received are insufficient. Furthermore, brandishing the threat of penalties from the very beginning is itself a major stress factor for those who are already living in a destabilizing and unsettling situation,that is, having recourse to social assistance with all that such a situation means in terms of inadequate resources, control measures, loss of choice and stigmatization.

Such penalties are not useful, as statistics on the rate of participation in active employment measures clearly show. Beneficiaries already participate voluntarily and in large numbers.

  • Year after year, tens of thousands of beneficiaries participate voluntarily in employment integration measures. In 2014-2015, the number was around 88,000, which included 21,000 young beneficiaries under age 25.
  • Between 6,000 and 8,000 young beneficiaries participate each year in the Alternative jeunesseprogram, which is a voluntary activity. That number is approximately the annual number of new beneficiaries under age 25.

Several voluntary programs and measures have proved their worth. In particular, the contribution made by the Employment Pact, which comprises several voluntary measures, is tangible. For the Pact’s implementation, additional resources were allocated to local employment centres, which no doubt contributed to the program’s success.

Furthermore, penalties are generally ineffective. They have been applied previously but without any conclusive results. In a departmental report published in 2005, it is noted that although young beneficiaries are required to agree to a participation path, the majority of interventions are made on a voluntary basis.[3] According to specialists, coercive measures did not have the expected results, particularly those aimed at employment integration of beneficiaries. Such measures certainly did not lead to high-quality jobs, and they did not reduce poverty. Penalties do not allow the establishment of a trust relationship between a beneficiary and an employment assistance agent. They have been tried elsewhere, but we must be prudent in relying on international comparisons to support certain decisions. The social environment may be very different, particularly with respect to wage levels, benefit amounts and employer practices.

Finally, such penalties endanger the health and safety of some beneficiaries because, if as estimated by the Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale, 10% of new beneficiaries who are required to participate refuse to agree to an employment path,[4]some 1,700 adults (and how many children?) find themselves with an income lower than the regular social assistance benefit, which itself is not sufficient to even cover basic needs (housing, food, clothing, mobility). Measures that are too drastic may throw some out onto the streets.

As the Comité has often said,the right to social assistance must not be conditional on participation in an employment measure. We cannot put conditions on granting what we call last resort assistance, that is, support provided to a person who has exhausted all his or her resources. What seems more reasonable and effective is to increase benefit amounts for those who voluntarily participate in a measure.

If it is true that new applicants for social assistance are for the most part young people and immigrants, we need to look into their difficulties in employment integration. The unemployment rate among young people is twice that of the general population. For immigrants who have been in the country for less than five years, the rate is more than twice that of people born in Canada, even though the immigrants generally have a higher level of schooling.

As to young beneficiaries from families who receive social assistance, the Comité agrees that it is tragic to see them beginning their adult life in the same situation. However, instead of speaking of transmission of dependence on social assistance from one generation to another, we should be asking whether those young people and their families have really received all the support needed earlier in their lives. One or both parents of a poor child are necessarily in a situation of poverty. Moreover, the school dropout rate is much higher in disadvantaged environments. The first preventive action is to combat dropping out and increase the parents’ incometo ensure greater equality of opportunity for these young people.

In the context of social assistance or in any other area, forcing people to undertake actions for which they are not sufficiently equipped usually produces discouragement resulting from the failures that such an approach may cause. Departmental studies show that one of the main causes of withdrawing from participation in an active measure is a lack of motivation. Compelling participation in no way supports motivation. An approach based on incentives, as recommended in the first “Government Action Plan to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion”, rather than on penalties, is the approach to take, in the Comité’s opinion. At that time, the government chose to have confidence in people and to promote their voluntary efforts.

The Comité consultatif de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion socialestrongly believes that the majority of beneficiaries, like the rest of the population, are ready to participate in an employment assistance measure if they think the measure is relevant for them and give them a reasonable chance to improve their situation.

With less poverty, all of us stand to gain immeasurably…

1

[1]. Comment made by a person in attendance at a Comité consultation.

[2].Pierre NOREAU et al., Droits de la personne et diversité: rapport de recherche remis à la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2015, p.70 (availableonly in French).

[3].MINISTÈRE DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA SOLIDARITÉ SOCIALE, Rapport de la ministre de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale sur l’application de certaines dispositions de la Loi sur le soutien du revenu et favorisant l’emploi et la solidarité sociale, Direction des politiques de main-d’œuvre, Direction générale des politiques, 2005, p.6 (availableonly in French).

[4].Out of some 17,000 people who apply each year for financial assistance for the first time.