A case in point:
the N.B. Works program

The N.B. Works program (in New Brunswick) makes use of training provisions under the LFDS. It is a six year federal/provincial national pilot project which began in 1992 with a budget of $177 million and the goal of helping 3000 social assistance recipients move into the work force.

Although one of the program's main target groups is single mothers, who constitute about 71 % of the active participants, none of the program's three stated goals included reducing the poverty in the province among women with children by helping female social recipients qualify for quality jobs. Rather, the goals are generic: to increase the employability of social assistance recipients, to foster a desire for training and upgrading among social assistance recipients, and to save social assistance costs by moving social assistance recipients into the work force. The aim is to help participants earn at least up to a grade 12 while gaining job experience following a co- operative education model.

Although the program is aimed largely at women, the "w" word is not mentioned once in the official government document, released in May 1992, describing the program. It is therefore not surprising that the realities of female trainees and workers were not adequately acknowledged when the program was put into practice.

A preliminary evaluation in 1993 found that, among other things, participants complained of being victims of sexual harassment, of being required to do meaningless work during the job experience component, and of having inadequate financial assistance during their training. About a quarter of the single mothers dropped out, although the evaluators thought this to be normal given problems associated with the quick start up of the program. Adjustments were made in midstream, including the development of a sexual harassment policy.

All good intentions aside, the example of this program indicates that better planning was required as far as the female clientele were concerned. Better planning would have taken into consideration the realities women face in the work place, such as sexual harassment and real child care and training costs. It remains to be seen whether the program will actually help women move beyond poverty, or whether it will just move most participants from poverty on social assistance to poverty in the labour force.

The question of how far the program intends to take its participants into the labour market is important because its answer will determine such things as what type of a grade 12 equivalency is considered sufficient for these trainees: bare-bones or full-fledged, one with minimum math, science and language requirements, or with all the prerequisites necessary for entering the training and educational programs of a technologically-demanding work-place of the future. In short, how much training is considered good enough for women?

Since the objectives of the program are not tied to the larger goal of reducing labour force inequality and labour force poverty among women, of rectifying the occupational and sectoral segregation of women, or of eliminating the systemic barriers that impede women's progress in the labour force, I fear the program may only reinforce the poverty in which these women live. The fact that the program's final objective is for "suitable work," not quality jobs, perhaps says it all.