SUBJECT: SOCIAL SUPPORTS
PURPOSE: This briefing note
is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to social supports
provided by the government.
ISSUE: There is not
enough interpersonal support on the matter of providing social programs to individuals.
Background:
The government provides numerous social
support programs for people who may be experiencing difficulty. Some of these programs include and are not
limited to employment insurance, child benefit, pension plan, welfare,
disability and students. People have to
meet the eligibility requirements set forth by the government. Criteria looks at need or means tests, assets
and income. They are providing these
services to reintegrate people back into society. Ascertaining the support of the government requires
a case manager where he or she is sufficiently educated in order to make
decisions to grant or refuse applications.
Although these programs are effective, it does not take into account the
interpersonal well being of people. Let
us delve deeper into the issue. Let us
say that a person is taking care of one child and she is a single parent. She has a boyfriend who abuses her and she is
scared that she cannot escape him or if she tells someone there may be
retaliation. What this situation is
missing is a support system that this individual can access. Another example includes, a person admitted
to the hospital for psychological issues as requested by the family. This person has been going through a roller coaster
of unemployment and has significant amounts of stress. The family thinks it’s a mental issue
however, symptoms indicate that it is a matter of stress. This person then gets diagnosed with
schizophrenia resulting from the input of the family. The patient believes this is wrong. He or she has no one to turn to or even
consult at this time. This person now qualifies
for disability assistance. However, he
is miss diagnosed. He would like to
sue. As he has been going through his
unemployment rollercoaster, he lost contact with a lot of his friends because
he was unable to keep up financially with events that they had planned. The problem here is that this individual lacks
a witness, someone who is on his side. Therefore,
if the government can provide a buddy system upon application to social
supports we can solve the problem of individual isolation. People that are on social support programs experience
a lot of shame. They are less likely to
socialize with people because of this.
There is also a growing concern of others being ill mannered to those
receiving these payments from the government.
These people are insensitive an unempathetic. With a buddy system in place, these people
receiving supports can ascertain a witness and also reduce costs on expenses
such as rent.
Considerations:
Canada spends and allocates significant tax
payer money to these social support programs.
In 2016 – 2017 they allotted $48.1 Bn to elderly benefits, $22 Bn to children’s
benefits, $20.7 Bn to employment insurance and $13.3 on Canada social
transfer. As it becomes evident this is
a significant portion of the budget. These
social supports aim to bring people back into the community as active
citizens.
A major problem in Canada is the issue of isolation
and loneliness. People receiving these
payments as stated earlier already experience a significant amount of shame. A person experiencing social isolation can be
described as a person with few social contacts, little meaningful interaction,
or lack of mutually rewarding relationships.
People that are lonely experience a subjective emotion. Therefore, the difference here is that isolation
is objective while loneliness is subjective.
According to the non profit Angus Reid Institute and Cardus they found that
23% of respondents they studied are considered desolate. They found that those with income less than
$50000 are twice likely to be found in this desolate grouping than those with
incomes of $100000 or more. Being in the
desolate group means that those people are both lonely and isolated. Another group which is pertinent is the isolated
but not lonely group which accounted for 15% of the respondents. This means that 38% of respondents experienced
a lack of meaningful interpersonal relationships which means that they are less
likely to have a witness if in the event that they may need it. The stakeholders for this matter are those
receiving payments and the government.
Options:
Option 1:
Increase the amount of the payments.
This is not a feasible option. The amount paid to these people is sufficient
to meet basic needs however, these people can partner up themselves to reduce
expenses. Furthermore, developments in natural,
supplements can also reduce expenses for food.
Supplements such as agar and several types of seaweed available in pill
form reproduce the feeling of being full.
This can also be supplemented with multivitamin pills to ensure that
these people get the adequate daily intake of nutrition. Rather than increasing payments, perhaps the
government can regulate these supplements and invest in research so that they
may reduce the costs that these people incur.
Public acceptability for this option is very low as those receiving support
from the government are often shamed.
Option 2:
Provide a buddy system.
The feasibility of this option is very
high. The government can conduct
background checks when attempting to facilitate such system. Government offices can be used to pair people
via interviews. Both parties present
should express a desire to join resources, so that they may wean off of the
social supports given by the government.
This option would increase the safety and security of the recipients as
they will be more likely to solve their problem of isolation and loneliness. People that are paired will experience less
shame as they have someone to experience their problem with. This option improves people interpersonal situations
which can alter the trajectory of their life.
This is a very sustainable option as people that are paired can have the
option to reduce rental costs to half.
There is moderate public acceptability for such program as property
owners would cause an uproar.
Option 3:
Education.
This is very feasible as education can be
provided at the high school level. Integration of social support programs in
the secondary curricula will ensure that those going out into the community
will be more competent about the city around them. They will be more agile and resilient as a
result of education. Currently,
teenagers who just graduated high school are left to flounder and figure out
their way in the community by themselves.
Having the peace of mind that the government is there to support will
ensure that these young adults know what to do if they get into a precarious
situation with their livelihoods. This
option will increase the efficiency of the community as people will be more
aware of what’s available. The government
can reduce expenses on other programs which aim to inform people about their
services as it becomes part of the high school curriculum. This option is very sustainable and will build
a community that is well armed to take on the brave new world. This option ensures the security of each
eligible citizen.
Option 4:
Status quo: Not working which is
why we have options.
Doing nothing leaves people in a state of
desolation. This option is the most feasible
however, it is the least responsible. The
government needs to ensure that we have a strong work force which creates a tax
base. Providing social supports is like
the catalyst for an efficient society. With
this option, people will be not only isolated and lonely, they could
potentially be at risk. Therefore, the
safety and security of the citizens is not being supported.
Recommendation:
Option two is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment