Women-only programs have special significance in preparing women to enter the traditionally male dominated occupations of trades, technical, and operations work. Adult women wishing to train in these areas often have seemingly disparate skills and lack confidence in their ability to do this work. In these cases, "women at similar stages of learning, competing, and cooperating with each other can provide a healthy and productive atmosphere to grow in. Once a woman has achieved some general mastery, she is then ready to enter training and employment on a more equal footing" (1).

Training programs that respond to specific barriers women face in the workplace are continually being established by organizations familiar with these issues. YWCAs, women in trades and technology groups, immigrant women's centres, aboriginal women's associations, disabled women's networks and many other organizations across the country have become experts at designing and delivering the diverse bridging programs women need to enter and succeed either in further specialized skills training or employment. These distinctive programs recognize the academic and skills education women require as well as the necessity for personal and professional development. They acknowledge the diversity of women's experiences as well as the commonalities.

But government funding for women's programs is threatened as a result of the recession and growing unemployment. The funding structures continue to change and the shift of responsibility for training to provincial jurisdictions looms on the horizon. Re-entry women, young women, farm women, immigrant women, and women on social assistance all have less access to training than they did two years ago. The current requirement by an increasing number of transition programs that all participants be UI recipients makes many women ineligible for any training.

Since 1985, funding for the Canadian Jobs Strategy (CJS) has declined by more than forty percent in real terms and, "designated groups, relative to other EIC client groups, have been disproportionately affected by recent budget cuts and policy changes" (2). In the past, there has been a requirement under CJS funded training for designated group targets; however, this requirement seems to be disappearing (3). National standards which will ensure the equitable participation of all designated groups are in the developmental stages and we trust they will be implemented soon across Canada. However, the immediate future of successful programs for women has been undermined.

In reviewing the extensive literature on training issues for women in this country, the same problems and the same barriers--barriers which prevent women from finding a training program, from being able or eligible to enter it, and from being able to survive while in it-- are brought up over and over in every study and article. The many societal barriers which prevent women from achieving good jobs in the first place are the very reasons why transition training programs are so critically necessary. These include poverty, violence, racism, discrimination against women of colour, aboriginal women, those with disabilities and lesbians, the double working day which both single and attached mothers face, and low self-esteem or limited career expectations resulting from prevailing sex-role stereotyping.

In 1988, the City of Halifax reviewed the Canadian Jobs Strategy initiative and identified the following barriers in CJS-sponsored programs: "inadequate flexibility. insufficient childcare allowances, high risk of losing support when becoming eligible for certain programs, missing a day of training means cut in pay, grade 10 eligibility requirements, long waiting periods, insufficient training opportunities, inadequate notice when new programs start, and racism" (4).

In their study on employment and disability conducted in 1991, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped (COPOH) highlighted the following major barriers: "physical barriers, attitudinal barriers, literacy barriers, lack of access to information, inadequate support, disincentives from income security programs, and lack of consultation on [the] needs [of people with disabilities]" (5).