Edmonton Social Planning Council

Category: ESPC Publications: Research Updates

  • Research Update: COVID-19 and the Future of Long-Term Care

    Research Update: COVID-19 and the Future of Long-Term Care

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ custom_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.3″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” border_width_bottom=”1px” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_post_title meta=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”||3px|||” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][/et_pb_post_title][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_image src=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boxes_1.gif” title_text=”boxes_1″ align=”center” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”-2px||-1px||false|false” custom_padding=”||7px|||”][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ make_equal=”on” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px|auto|0px|auto|false|false” custom_padding=”37px|0px|44px|0px|false|false”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px|false|false” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ custom_padding=”||32px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_button button_url=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Research-Update-August-2020.pdf” button_text=”Download the August 2020 Research Update” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_button=”on” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#008ac1″ custom_margin=”||28px|||” custom_padding=”||5px|||”][/et_pb_button][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_line_height=”1.6em” header_2_font=”|600|||||||” header_2_text_color=”#008ac1″ header_2_font_size=”24px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”95%” module_alignment=”left” custom_margin=”-1px|0px|2px|-96px|false|false” locked=”off”]

    Note: this is excerpted from the August 2020 edition of our “Research Update” publication. The Edmonton Social Planning Council, in collaboration with our volunteers, strives to provide stakeholders and community members with up-to-date reviews, prepared by our volunteers, on recently published social research reports and publications.

    Reviewed by Mona Haimour

    The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable and priority populations, particularly the elderly that are living in long-term care (LTC) facilities, has been eye-opening and challenging. Figures show that 81% of COVID-19 deaths in Canada were recorded in long-term care nursing homes. This is higher than the average for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, at 42%. Not only are the figures staggering, but evidence shows that the physical and social environments where the elderly are left to die are inhumane.

    In their high-level and peer-reviewed policy briefing report titled Restoring Trust: COVID-19 and the Future of Long-Term Care, experts from reputable Canadian universities (York University, Conestoga College, University of Toronto, Université de Montréal, University of Alberta, University of Ottawa, Mount Saint Vincent University, and University of Calgary) share their research findings on challenges encountered with respect to Canada’s response to, and recovery from, COVID-19. These experts form the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) Task Force on COVID-19, chaired by Professor Carole Estabrooks (University of Alberta). The purpose of this initiative is to synthesize and frame evidence that will help policy-makers make informed and shared decisions.

    To understand the real story of the LTC COVID-19 deaths and what it will take to solve this enduring crisis, the RSC has adopted a systematic and comprehensive approach to guide their work. This is evident in three focus areas: context and policy status before COVID-19, vulnerabilities exposed as a result of COVID-19, and principles for action and leading options.

    Findings from the review of the context and policy status before the pandemic show that the complexity of the health and social profiles of our elderly (e.g., advanced age, dementia, chronic medical conditions, low immunity status, limited access to uninsured services, etc.) that live in the LTC-nursing homes is beyond what the capacity of the current workforce is capable of and trained to provide care for. Other key findings such as the ongoing decline in the ratio of regulated health care professionals to unregulated health care professionals (care aides and personal support workers), heavy workloads, lack of formal training and education, as well as low wages and poor employee benefits have been identified as chronic issues that caused direct negative impacts on patient safety and quality care.

    Additionally, the review shows that the LTC facilities had not met the safety regulations related to the prevention and control of communicable diseases. These included lack of visitation policies and practices, shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and other essential supplies, and inadequate training on how to use PPE and conduct screenings for COVID-19. These vulnerabilities along with the chronic issues that emerged from the analysis of the context and policy status have hindered LTC capacity to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in preventable deaths.

    Moving forward, the RSC has provided recommendations that derive from the collected evidence, targeting all levels of governments (federal, provincial, and territorial). The RSC has called for a reform and redesign of the current LTC sector. The key recommendations focus on adopting a strategic, targeted, and sustainable approach to solve the enduring LTC workforce crisis. These recommendations include establishing national standards that focus on revamping the LTC infrastructure by providing continued funding support for pandemic resources and beyond, staffing and staffing mix in nursing homes, and establishing appropriate and regulated education and training for the LTC workforce.

    The implementation plans for these standards should be taken seriously and start immediately by stakeholders at the provincial and territorial level of government. Meaning, urgent action plans should be put in place with emphasis on enhancing the quality of staff education and training, as well as working conditions of the health care professionals—regardless of their level—including work benefits and mental health support. Moreover, emphasis on the need and value of creating a robust and transparent data collection system that captures and tracks the essential variables and elements related to quality of care and quality of life for both the residents and health care professionals is a crucial step toward a better and safer future for LTCs.

    While it is evident from the policy briefing report that Canada’s LTC sector is in dire need of change, many concerning questions begin to arise as a result of uncertainty, like who is going to take initiative and be the voice for fundamental change in the sector? Furthermore, it is unclear how soon this will happen, given that the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. Another concern lies with the health and well-being of our elderly people and their families. Their voices, along with those of health care professionals and front-line workers, should be heard, expressed, and valued as well.

     Publication Source:

    Estabrooks, C. A., Straus, S., Flood, C. M., Keefe, J., Armstrong, P., Donner, G., . . .Wolfson, M. (2020). Restoring trust: COVID-19 and the future of long-term care. Royal Society of Canada.   https://rscsrc.ca/sites/default/files/LTC%20PB%20%2B%20ES_EN.pdf

     ABOUT THE RESEARCH REVIEWER:

    Mona Haimour is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Health Systems and Sustainability at MacEwan University. Her commitment to enhance women’s health and public health started during her work overseas. She specializes in sustainability, priority populations, and health equity. Her personal interests include running, jumping rope, and reading.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”0px|20px|0px|20px|false|false” border_color_left=”#a6c942″ custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_testimonial author=”Posted by:” job_title=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3IiLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJiZWZvcmUiOiIiLCJhZnRlciI6IiIsIm5hbWVfZm9ybWF0IjoiZGlzcGxheV9uYW1lIiwibGluayI6Im9uIiwibGlua19kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiI6ImF1dGhvcl93ZWJzaXRlIn19@” portrait_url=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3JfcHJvZmlsZV9waWN0dXJlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnt9fQ==@” quote_icon=”off” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”job_title,portrait_url” _module_preset=”default” body_text_color=”#000000″ author_font=”||||||||” author_text_align=”center” author_text_color=”#008ac1″ position_font=”||||||||” position_text_color=”#000000″ company_text_color=”#000000″ background_color=”#ffffff” text_orientation=”center” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”0px|0px|4px|0px|false|false” custom_padding=”32px|0px|0px|0px|false|false”][/et_pb_testimonial][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.65)” header_font_size=”20px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||50px|||” custom_padding=”48px|||||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9jYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiUmVsYXRlZCBjYXRlZ29yaWVzOiAgIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJsaW5rX3RvX3Rlcm1fcGFnZSI6Im9uIiwic2VwYXJhdG9yIjoiIHwgIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnlfdHlwZSI6ImNhdGVnb3J5In19@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Research Update: August 2020

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ custom_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.3″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” border_width_bottom=”1px” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_post_title meta=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”||3px|||” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][/et_pb_post_title][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_image src=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boxes_1.gif” title_text=”boxes_1″ align=”center” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”-2px||-1px||false|false” custom_padding=”||7px|||”][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ make_equal=”on” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px|auto|0px|auto|false|false” custom_padding=”37px|0px|44px|0px|false|false”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px|false|false” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ custom_padding=”||32px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_button button_url=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Research-Update-August-2020.pdf” button_text=”Download the August 2020 Research Update” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_button=”on” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#008ac1″ custom_margin=”||19px|||” custom_padding=”||5px|||”][/et_pb_button][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_line_height=”1.6em” header_2_font=”|600|||||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#008ac1″ header_2_font_size=”22px” header_3_text_color=”#000000″ header_3_font_size=”20px” header_4_text_color=”#000000″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”95%” module_alignment=”left” custom_margin=”44px|0px|2px|-96px|false|false” locked=”off”]

    The Edmonton Social Planning Council, in collaboration with our volunteers, strives to provide stakeholders and community members with up-to-date reviews on recently published social research reports and publications.
    In this issue, we have the following reviews:

    • COVID-19 and the Future of Long-Term Care Reviewed by Mona Haimour
    • Economic Implications of Social Distancing Reviewed by Natty Klimo
    • Youth Homelessness and COVID-19 Reviewed by Mohamed Mohamed
    • A Look at Alberta’s Oil and Gas Bailout by Hanna Nash
    • Job Transformation and Automation Reviewed by Jenn Smyth

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”0px|20px|0px|20px|false|false” border_color_left=”#a6c942″ custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_testimonial author=”Posted by:” job_title=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3IiLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJiZWZvcmUiOiIiLCJhZnRlciI6IiIsIm5hbWVfZm9ybWF0IjoiZGlzcGxheV9uYW1lIiwibGluayI6Im9uIiwibGlua19kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiI6ImF1dGhvcl93ZWJzaXRlIn19@” portrait_url=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3JfcHJvZmlsZV9waWN0dXJlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnt9fQ==@” quote_icon=”off” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”job_title,portrait_url” _module_preset=”default” body_text_color=”#000000″ author_font=”||||||||” author_text_align=”center” author_text_color=”#008ac1″ position_font=”||||||||” position_text_color=”#000000″ company_text_color=”#000000″ background_color=”#ffffff” text_orientation=”center” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”0px|0px|4px|0px|false|false” custom_padding=”32px|0px|0px|0px|false|false”][/et_pb_testimonial][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.65)” header_font_size=”20px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||50px|||” custom_padding=”48px|||||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9jYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiUmVsYXRlZCBjYXRlZ29yaWVzOiAgIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJsaW5rX3RvX3Rlcm1fcGFnZSI6Im9uIiwic2VwYXJhdG9yIjoiIHwgIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnlfdHlwZSI6ImNhdGVnb3J5In19@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Research Update: Understanding Support Barriers for LGBTQ2 People

    Research Update: Understanding Support Barriers for LGBTQ2 People

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ custom_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.3″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” border_width_bottom=”1px” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_post_title meta=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”||3px|||” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][/et_pb_post_title][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_image src=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boxes_1.gif” title_text=”boxes_1″ align=”center” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”-2px||-1px||false|false” custom_padding=”||7px|||”][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ make_equal=”on” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px|auto|0px|auto|false|false” custom_padding=”37px|0px|44px|0px|false|false”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px|false|false” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ custom_padding=”||32px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_line_height=”1.6em” header_2_font=”||||||||” header_2_text_color=”#008ac1″ header_2_font_size=”24px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”95%” module_alignment=”left” custom_margin=”6px|0px|2px|-96px|false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

    Note: this is excerpted from the May 2020 edition of our “Research Update” publication. The Edmonton Social Planning Council, in collaboration with our volunteers, strives to provide stakeholders and community members with up-to-date reviews, prepared by our volunteers, on recently published social research reports and publications.

    Reviewed by Hanna Nash

    In Provider Perspectives: Understanding Support Barriers for LGBTQ2 People, NorQuest College researchers Cindy Boucher and Kassi Boyd examine the difficulties and perspectives of front-line workers when providing services to Edmonton’s homeless, or at-risk of homelessness, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit (LGBTQ2) community.

    When exploring the specific obstacles affecting staff in relation to their work with homeless or at-risk members of the LGBTQ2 community, Boucher and Boyd discovered three central difficulties experienced by most organizations in Edmonton: a lack of resources for staff, limited contact with self-identified LGBTQ2 members, and continued fear from members of LGBTQ2 groups to identify themselves and their unique needs to organizations. The results of Boucher and Boyd’s study is restricted to interviews held with 35 individual front-line service providers in Edmonton. Research from the organizations themselves was limited and difficult to procure.

    Organizations offering help to these individuals facing homelessness often do not have relevant policies, procedures, or guidelines readily available for staff to reference. In addition, most staff reported that they did not feel that they were adequately educated in current LGBTQ2 culture and systemic barriers to fully understand how homelessness is influenced by gender identification and sexual orientation. Although most interviewees expressed an interest in receiving education on the LGBTQ2 community, most support staff indicated that they were unaware of ways to become more informed. This in turn creates a lack of consistent aid available for those who are vulnerable as they are subject to individual staff biases, and by the onus for staff to access external resources and knowledge.

    Self-identification is not a requirement for clients who seek help. Not being aware of which clients are part of the LGBTQ2 community creates added challenges for support staff when helping individuals specific to this community. Many support staff could not indicate the number of LGBTQ2 clients they may have had, or in fact whether they had ever helped an LGBTQ2 client. This additional difficulty prevents front-line staff from understanding a client’s specific needs and struggles. Furthermore, most organizations rely on a generalized client-focused approach, whereby staff assess each client and provide resources regardless of who they are. Although this blanket approach is done in the interest of aiding in a non-discriminatory fashion, it does not take into consideration the specific challenges the LGBTQ2 community faces, such as risks to physical or mental health.

    This leads to the third most identified barrier. As many members in this community have experienced traumatic events related to their gender identification and sexual orientation, many choose not to self-identify. As a result, these LGBTQ2 members often do not feel safe in expressing their individual circumstances, and believe that they are risking their safety by exposing themselves to a front-line service worker. Front-line service staff identified this as a barrier to current and continued help for the community, suggesting that without increased self-identification, resources specific to their needs will likely not be made available to them or their community. Assets, particularly government funding, will likely only be made available with proof and justification for a population. This study also demonstrated that although many front-line staff respect an LGBTQ2 individual’s right to conceal their sexual orientation or preferred gender, staff were generally unable to give specific reasons or examples for why an individual would refrain from self-identifying.

    Boucher and Boyd provide many insights into the difficulties front-line staff experience when trying to provide aid to homeless or at-risk LGBTQ2 people. Further research into specific populations within the community could provide governments and society with an enhanced understanding of the impediments faced by front-line service providers. For example, this study does not distinguish the unique concerns between age groups, gender, or health within this population.

    Additionally, as this research was undertaken with the help of front-line staff who volunteered to speak to Boucher and Boyd, it presents a difficulty in truly understanding the position that organizations take when aiding members of the LGBTQ2 community. Boucher and Boyd do take into consideration that the people who volunteered to take part in their study are most likely open to supporting the LGBTQ2 community, and consequently, much of this research is based upon individual biases and interests rather than the outcomes of clearly identified and consistent policies of organizations providing aid.

    Boucher and Boyd’s research addresses the concerns that have been overlooked by society and the very organizations that exist to help those who are most vulnerable. If organizations were held accountable to implement specific policies and procedures, perhaps front-line service staff would be more effective in helping the LGBTQ2 community.

    Publication SourceBoucher, C. & Boyd, K. (2018). Provider Perspectives: understanding support barriers for LGBTQ2 people. NorQuest College. Retrieved from: http://homewardtrust.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Boucher-and-Boyd-2018.-Understanding-support-barriers-for-LGBTQ2-people.pdf

    Volunteer Research ReviewerHanna Nash enjoys ballet performances and other live theatre, as well as outdoor sports and travelling to new countries. Hanna is interested in sharing information and knowledge to Edmonton’s diverse communities.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”0px|20px|0px|20px|false|false” border_color_left=”#a6c942″ custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_testimonial author=”Posted by:” job_title=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3IiLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJiZWZvcmUiOiIiLCJhZnRlciI6IiIsIm5hbWVfZm9ybWF0IjoiZGlzcGxheV9uYW1lIiwibGluayI6Im9uIiwibGlua19kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiI6ImF1dGhvcl93ZWJzaXRlIn19@” portrait_url=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3JfcHJvZmlsZV9waWN0dXJlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnt9fQ==@” quote_icon=”off” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”job_title,portrait_url” _module_preset=”default” body_text_color=”#000000″ author_font=”||||||||” author_text_align=”center” author_text_color=”#008ac1″ position_font=”||||||||” position_text_color=”#000000″ company_text_color=”#000000″ background_color=”#ffffff” text_orientation=”center” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”0px|0px|4px|0px|false|false” custom_padding=”32px|0px|0px|0px|false|false”][/et_pb_testimonial][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.65)” header_font_size=”20px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||50px|||” custom_padding=”48px|||||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9jYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiUmVsYXRlZCBjYXRlZ29yaWVzOiAgIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJsaW5rX3RvX3Rlcm1fcGFnZSI6Im9uIiwic2VwYXJhdG9yIjoiIHwgIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnlfdHlwZSI6ImNhdGVnb3J5In19@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Research Update: Measurement and Evaluation Practices in Canada’s Charitable Sector

    Research Update: Measurement and Evaluation Practices in Canada’s Charitable Sector

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ custom_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.3″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” border_width_bottom=”1px” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_post_title meta=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”||3px|||” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][/et_pb_post_title][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_image src=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boxes_1.gif” title_text=”boxes_1″ align=”center” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”-2px||-1px||false|false” custom_padding=”||7px|||”][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ make_equal=”on” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px|auto|0px|auto|false|false” custom_padding=”37px|0px|44px|0px|false|false”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px|false|false” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ custom_padding=”||32px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_line_height=”1.6em” header_2_font=”||||||||” header_2_text_color=”#008ac1″ header_2_font_size=”24px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”95%” module_alignment=”left” custom_margin=”0px|0px|2px|-96px|false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

    Note: this is excerpted from the May 2020 edition of our “Research Update” publication. The Edmonton Social Planning Council, in collaboration with our volunteers, strives to provide stakeholders and community members with up-to-date reviews, prepared by our volunteers, on recently published social research reports and publications.

    Reviewed by Shawna Ladouceur

    This article summarizes findings from a 2018 survey conducted by Imagine Canada. Imagine Canada is a national organization providing programs and resources to strengthen charities, promote corporate giving, and support the charitable sector through accreditation, corporate recognition, public policy advocacy, and research.

    Organizational stakeholders, policymakers, the media, and individual Canadians want to see how the charities they support are affecting the populations they serve, as well as the impact on broader systems. But given the diverse range of potential approaches to measurement and evaluation, an even wider range of possible uses for the results produced, and the incredible diversity of stakeholders and audiences with whom to engage, charities seek a common understanding around norms and expectations. Imagine Canada works with charities to establish a cohesive narrative for this increasingly important conversation, and this survey laid groundwork for the development of this common understanding with an in-depth look at the current state of evaluation.

    Seeking to benchmark current practices, categories for this survey included: aspects measured and evaluated; methods employed; how results were used; the role of funder relationships; enablers and barriers affecting evaluation capacity and ability to make use of findings; opinions about evaluation and measurement; the role of evaluation-related networks; the effect of dedicated evaluation staff; and the role and effect of employing external evaluators.

    An overview of survey results indicated 96% of charities evaluate their work in some way. Method and resources employed can be affected by: the size of the organization—small (<$150,000 annual revenue), medium ($150,000 -$5 million), or large (>$5 million); charitable subsector (grant making, fundraising and voluntarism; arts, culture, & recreation; education; social service; and health); and region of Canada in which the charity operates. Aspects measured include: outputs, outcomes, quality, long-term/systemic impacts, return on investment, and other measures. A range of both quantitative (administrative data, statistical compilations, surveys, web statistics, and experimental studies) and qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups, logic models / theories of change, and case studies) are employed, with measurement tools used seemingly correlated to aspects being measured.

    Results from evaluation can be used in many different ways. For the purpose of this survey, these were subdivided into four major categories and eighteen distinct uses. Categories included: stakeholder reporting/ communications; organization/ program-planning and decision-making; learning; and organizational performance. The most common of the eighteen distinct uses were: reporting to the organization’s board of directors, funders, or other supporters; evaluating achievement of objectives; learning from outcomes; revising existing programs; and supporting the development of new ones.

    When examining evaluation capacity and ability to make use of findings, the survey exposed both enablers and barriers. Listed in order of influence, these included: support from organizational leadership; staff buy-in; staff knowledge, skills, tools, etc.; stakeholder buy-in; funder support; external evaluators/ consultants; capacity of funded/ supported organizations; staff time; and financial resources. These factors function as barriers when absent, and enablers when present.

    An examination of funder relationships found that 90% of charities surveyed received some form of external funding. Charities that received funding dedicated to evaluation tended to a more comprehensive review. Regular communication between funders and fundees appeared to be key to making best use of evaluation results, and served to promote a positive view of this relationship.

    Key survey findings indicated that satisfaction with evaluation capacity and ability to make use of results were strongly correlated with enablers and barriers. Of note, opinions about evaluation did not seem to vary according to what charities evaluate, how they evaluate it, or how they use evaluation results. Involvement with evaluation networks increased overall satisfaction. Charities with dedicated evaluation staff were more likely to draw on a number of specific methods and resources, have significantly more positive opinions about evaluation, and to see potential enablers and barriers as enablers. While this survey found that charities working with external evaluators reported being less satisfied with evaluation capacity, they actually tended to demonstrate greater capacity, evaluating more involved aspects of their work and drawing on more sophisticated methods. Speculation as to this phenomenon is presented as multifactorial and seemingly complicated.

    This survey provided a starting point on which to base a coordinated narrative for the conversation charities are having with Canadians. Such narrative will certainly serve to increase trust and confidence, strengthen charities, and promote giving in support of the charitable sector. Given the heavy statistical nature of this report, this review can only provide a broad overview of the large repository of valuable statistical information presented in this survey. Please see the full report for detailed analysis.

    Publication SourceLasby, David. (2019). The State of Evaluation—Measurement and Evaluation Practices in Canada’s Charitable Sector. Imagine Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.imaginecanada.ca/en/research/state-of-evaluation

    Volunteer Research ReviewerShawna Ladouceur is a Registered Nurse who sees the impacts of the social determinants of health in ways that demand action. She has extensive experience working directly with vulnerable populations in the inner city. Her personal interests include skiing, hiking, biking, running, reading and travelling.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”0px|20px|0px|20px|false|false” border_color_left=”#a6c942″ custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_testimonial author=”Posted by:” job_title=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3IiLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJiZWZvcmUiOiIiLCJhZnRlciI6IiIsIm5hbWVfZm9ybWF0IjoiZGlzcGxheV9uYW1lIiwibGluayI6Im9uIiwibGlua19kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiI6ImF1dGhvcl93ZWJzaXRlIn19@” portrait_url=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3JfcHJvZmlsZV9waWN0dXJlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnt9fQ==@” quote_icon=”off” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”job_title,portrait_url” _module_preset=”default” body_text_color=”#000000″ author_font=”||||||||” author_text_align=”center” author_text_color=”#008ac1″ position_font=”||||||||” position_text_color=”#000000″ company_text_color=”#000000″ background_color=”#ffffff” text_orientation=”center” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”0px|0px|4px|0px|false|false” custom_padding=”32px|0px|0px|0px|false|false”][/et_pb_testimonial][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.65)” header_font_size=”20px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||50px|||” custom_padding=”48px|||||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9jYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiUmVsYXRlZCBjYXRlZ29yaWVzOiAgIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJsaW5rX3RvX3Rlcm1fcGFnZSI6Im9uIiwic2VwYXJhdG9yIjoiIHwgIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnlfdHlwZSI6ImNhdGVnb3J5In19@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Research Update: Earnings Inequality and the Gender Pay Gap in Canada

    Research Update: Earnings Inequality and the Gender Pay Gap in Canada

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ custom_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.3″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” border_width_bottom=”1px” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_post_title meta=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”||3px|||” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][/et_pb_post_title][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_image src=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boxes_1.gif” title_text=”boxes_1″ align=”center” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”-2px||-1px||false|false” custom_padding=”||7px|||”][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ make_equal=”on” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px|auto|0px|auto|false|false” custom_padding=”37px|0px|44px|0px|false|false”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px|false|false” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ custom_padding=”||32px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_line_height=”1.6em” header_2_font=”||||||||” header_2_text_color=”#008ac1″ header_2_font_size=”24px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”95%” module_alignment=”left” custom_margin=”0px|0px|2px|-96px|false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

    Note: this is excerpted from the May 2020 edition of our “Research Update” publication. The Edmonton Social Planning Council, in collaboration with our volunteers, strives to provide stakeholders and community members with up-to-date reviews, prepared by our volunteers, on recently published social research reports and publications.

    Reviewed by Jenna Horning

    Earnings inequality between men and women has been a long-held issue in society. While there are many social and cultural elements at work, Earnings Inequality and the Gender Pay Gap in Canada: The Role of Women’s Under-representation Among Top Earners by Aneta Bonikowska, Marie Drolet, and Nicole M. Fortin, attempts to understand the gap strictly through economics and accounting exercises. Using the Longitudinal Work File, “a 10% random sample of Canadians who file a T1 tax return or receive a T4 Statement of Remuneration from an employer” (p. 1), the researchers analyze trends and explore “the role that gender differences in industry of employment play in the gender earnings gap” (p. 1).

    Firstly, a discussion of trends in annual earnings and female shares by selected percentiles is presented. Annual earnings are grouped into four different categories, the “bottom 90%, next 9%, next 0.9% and top 0.1%” (p. 2), to understand how earnings have changed over time. The overall trend for each group is discussed but the one observation that stands out the most is that “earnings gains in Canada have been the largest among individuals at the top of the distribution” (p. 2). Corresponding numbers prove this to be true. From 1978-2015, “the next 0.9% average annual gains were twice that of the previous group—at 1.9%” (p. 3), while “the top 0.1% gains were larger still—at 4.2% per year” (p. 3). Ultimately, the researchers discover that the higher within the earnings group, the higher the income gains will be over time.

    Secondly, what can be considered the most important aspect to this research study is how the trends in earnings gains impact the overall gender earnings gap. Two factors play a part: “the representation of women within each earnings group, and the earnings of women relative to those of men within each group” (p. 3). What the researchers find is that the “share of women in the top earnings groups increased” (p. 3) but women still “remained significantly under-represented in each group” (p. 3). The article then discusses the “annual earnings of women relative to those of men varied across the top earnings groups” (p. 3). Within two earnings groups, the next 9% and the next 0.9%, “the average annual earnings of women corresponded to more than 95% of the average earnings of men over most of the reference period” (p. 3). While the researchers do note that estimates for the 0.1% are “sensitive to the business cycle and are more unstable given the smaller underlying sample size” (p. 3), they do observe that women’s earnings relative to men’s were falling over time until the late 1990s when the trends appeared to reverse. The data shows that while the number of women within each earnings group is increasing, they are still under-represented.

    Thirdly, an element that could provide further explanation towards the researchers’ findings would be an exploration of “occupations or educational attainment” (p. 7). The data sample used within the research, however, did not record this information, leading to a potential downfall. While not as specific, “information on the industry sector and . . . industry classification” (p. 7) could be considered, providing some insight into the differences between men and women among earnings groups, as large shares of men and women are employed within different sectors. For example, more men are employed in “mining, oil and gas, [and] utilities” (p. 7), while more women are employed in “educational services and health care” (p. 7). However, within the next 0.9% and top 0.1%, “the top three industrial sectors . . . are the same for women and men” (p. 8). While looking at industry as opposed to occupation doesn’t provide as much detail, it does provide a general trend that could be used towards further discussion.

    Overall, the research study provides a look at the differences in earnings between men and women among earnings groups, and then further through industrial distribution. Those present within the top earnings groups tend to earn more over time, more men are present within higher earnings groups than women, and within the top two earnings groups industrial sectors are the same for men and women. By strictly presenting the evidence through statistical and hypothetical exercises, the study fails to provide an explanation as to why these differences exist. For someone not familiar with these principles, elements of the discussion can also be difficult to understand. Ultimately, women have made gains to limit the gender earnings gap, but the gap still exists and the question of why is left unanswered. To benefit further sociological study surrounding the gender pay gap, the overall observed trends could be used. In the end, there is still work to be done to understand income inequality among men and women and thus, work to eliminate it.

    Publication SourceStatistics Canada. (2019). Earnings Inequality and the Gender Pay Gap in Canada: The Role of Women’s Under-representation Among Top Earners. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/11-626-X2019002

    Volunteer Research ReviewerJenna Horning holds a Bachelor of Communication Studies degree and currently works for an association representing Alberta’s water and wastewater operators. She is an active volunteer for several Edmonton festivals. She loves research and writing and is using these skills to learn more about social policy issues.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”0px|20px|0px|20px|false|false” border_color_left=”#a6c942″ custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_testimonial author=”Posted by:” job_title=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3IiLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJiZWZvcmUiOiIiLCJhZnRlciI6IiIsIm5hbWVfZm9ybWF0IjoiZGlzcGxheV9uYW1lIiwibGluayI6Im9uIiwibGlua19kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiI6ImF1dGhvcl93ZWJzaXRlIn19@” portrait_url=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3JfcHJvZmlsZV9waWN0dXJlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnt9fQ==@” quote_icon=”off” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”job_title,portrait_url” _module_preset=”default” body_text_color=”#000000″ author_font=”||||||||” author_text_align=”center” author_text_color=”#008ac1″ position_font=”||||||||” position_text_color=”#000000″ company_text_color=”#000000″ background_color=”#ffffff” text_orientation=”center” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”0px|0px|4px|0px|false|false” custom_padding=”32px|0px|0px|0px|false|false”][/et_pb_testimonial][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.65)” header_font_size=”20px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||50px|||” custom_padding=”48px|||||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9jYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiUmVsYXRlZCBjYXRlZ29yaWVzOiAgIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJsaW5rX3RvX3Rlcm1fcGFnZSI6Im9uIiwic2VwYXJhdG9yIjoiIHwgIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnlfdHlwZSI6ImNhdGVnb3J5In19@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Research Update: A Basic Income for Alberta

    Research Update: A Basic Income for Alberta

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ custom_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ _builder_version=”4.7.3″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” border_width_bottom=”1px” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_post_title meta=”off” featured_image=”off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”||3px|||” border_color_bottom=”#a6c942″][/et_pb_post_title][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.0″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_image src=”https://edmontonsocialplanning.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/boxes_1.gif” title_text=”boxes_1″ align=”center” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” custom_margin=”-2px||-1px||false|false” custom_padding=”||7px|||”][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ use_custom_gutter=”on” gutter_width=”1″ make_equal=”on” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”100%” custom_margin=”0px|auto|0px|auto|false|false” custom_padding=”37px|0px|44px|0px|false|false”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.6″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px|false|false” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ custom_padding=”||32px|||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ text_line_height=”1.6em” header_2_font=”||||||||” header_2_text_color=”#008ac1″ header_2_font_size=”24px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”95%” module_alignment=”left” custom_margin=”5px|0px|2px|-96px|false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]

    Note: this is excerpted from the May 2020 edition of our “Research Update” publication. The Edmonton Social Planning Council, in collaboration with our volunteers, strives to provide stakeholders and community members with up-to-date reviews, prepared by our volunteers, on recently published social research reports and publications.

    Reviewed by Sandra Gosling

    This is a summary and critical review of the Parkland Institute’s report, A Basic Income for Alberta. Co-authors are Alison McIntosh, a research manager at Parkland Institute with experience on health and social policy issues, including basic income, and Rebecca Graff-McRae, a post-doctoral social science and humanities research fellow at the University of Alberta.

    The Parkland Institute’s report provides a summary and analysis of the complex sides of the basic income debate, and is an illustration of what a basic income policy could look like in the province of Alberta. Basic income can be defined as “an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement” (Van Parijs, 2004, as cited in McIntosh & Graff-McRae, 2019, p. 7). The report is laid out by first outlining the various definitions and conceptualizations of a basic income, then exploring the different policy schemes for implementing a basic income, deconstructing the political debate, and providing a critical analysis of how basic income could and could not work in Alberta.

    What makes this report unique to other literature is that it goes beyond contextualizing the left and right political divisions of basic income to provide critical analysis of the changing complexities of poverty, the nature of work, and policy directions for social and economic institutions. It moves away from the attitude that basic income is a simple solution to complex social and economic issues.

    It is made clear throughout the report that while basic income has distinct and measurable benefits for those who are disadvantaged, it does not address the structural causes of income insecurity. Additionally, the realities of Alberta’s political sphere are included to reflect practical considerations for such a policy. The authors deconstruct the policy framework of basic income to demonstrate that it is only the first step to eliminate poverty and support those at risk. It is honest in its limitations, especially with consideration to the other causes of inequality such as gender, race, (dis)ability, geography, age, and citizenship status.

    One limitation of the report is that it fails to consider the current administrative complexities of the welfare system and the future administrative complexities of implementing a basic income. While it recognizes that the current schemes of social and income assistance have not been sufficient for meeting at-risk individuals or household needs, it does not attempt to analyze why that is. Research outside of this report demonstrates that the current welfare system stigmatizes individuals, limits autonomy, and invades privacy; issues that a basic income would propose to eliminate (Pereira, 2014). A basic income—whether managed federally or provincially—would also require complex administrative coordination and consolidation of existing programs, which the authors of this report fail to address.

    In summary, this is a comprehensive analysis of basic income that addresses the many benefits to individuals and households, as well as the many risks to policymakers and public services. It demonstrates that the future of basic income policy is largely dependent on future ideological shifts to re-conceptualize economic prosperity and the role of government and individuals before it could ever be implemented successfully.

    Publication Source: McIntosh & Graff-McRae. (2020). A Basic Income for Alberta. Parkland Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.parklandinstitute.ca/a_basic_income_for_alberta

    Additional References: Pereira, R. (2014). Economic security in the twenty-first century: How guaranteed annual income (GAI) confronts multiple imperatives. Home Oeconomicus, 31, 1, p. 159-179.

    Volunteer Research Reviewer: Sandra Gosling is a socio-economic researcher, with special knowledge and interest in evaluating the social and economic benefits and consequences of policy decisions related to a variety of issues including industrial development, poverty, human trafficking, child welfare, and Indigenous rights.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”4.7.4″ custom_padding=”0px|20px|0px|20px|false|false” border_color_left=”#a6c942″ custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_testimonial author=”Posted by:” job_title=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3IiLCJzZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJiZWZvcmUiOiIiLCJhZnRlciI6IiIsIm5hbWVfZm9ybWF0IjoiZGlzcGxheV9uYW1lIiwibGluayI6Im9uIiwibGlua19kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiI6ImF1dGhvcl93ZWJzaXRlIn19@” portrait_url=”@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9hdXRob3JfcHJvZmlsZV9waWN0dXJlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnt9fQ==@” quote_icon=”off” disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”job_title,portrait_url” _module_preset=”default” body_text_color=”#000000″ author_font=”||||||||” author_text_align=”center” author_text_color=”#008ac1″ position_font=”||||||||” position_text_color=”#000000″ company_text_color=”#000000″ background_color=”#ffffff” text_orientation=”center” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”0px|0px|4px|0px|false|false” custom_padding=”32px|0px|0px|0px|false|false”][/et_pb_testimonial][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|off|off” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”rgba(0,0,0,0.65)” header_font_size=”20px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||50px|||” custom_padding=”48px|||||”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9jYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiUmVsYXRlZCBjYXRlZ29yaWVzOiAgIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJsaW5rX3RvX3Rlcm1fcGFnZSI6Im9uIiwic2VwYXJhdG9yIjoiIHwgIiwiY2F0ZWdvcnlfdHlwZSI6ImNhdGVnb3J5In19@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]