MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401809645 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v8i1.42507

Report of the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario: Taking Stock Two Years Later

2015· article· en· W4401809645 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Munir A. Sheikh

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Sciences and Governance
Établissements canadiensCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCommissionStock (firearms)Political scienceBusinessHistoryFinanceArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In early 2011, the Government of Ontario struck the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance to review the social assistance programs and make recommendations for improving them. The programs were characterized by unsustainable growth in caseloads and program expenditures and poor outcomes for program participants. Imagine the challenges: program costs running far ahead of revenue growth; an incredibly complex system with over 800 rules, 240 benefit rates, 50 children’s benefit rates, and 30 plus specialized benefits for those who qualify; persistent high growth in caseloads of persons with disabilities; and the difficulty for many who leave the program to keep their jobs for long periods of time. The base benefit rate was inadequate, at $600 a month (now $656). However, many receiving specialized benefits face serious disincentives to work, particularly those with disabilities, as such benefits are unavailable outside social assistance, implying an effective clawback rate of 100%. For some it is not worth getting a job, as their welfare benefits are larger than the incomes they can earn. In its final report, the Commission recommended steps to improve system sustainability, reduce complexity and improve work-related outcomes, while providing appropriate income supports during periods of need. The Commission presented its report to the government more than two years ago. It recommended that the program be “transformed” though: eliminating specialized benefits, which would finance a higher basic benefit rate to improve adequacy; providing needed specialized benefits, such as benefits for those with disability and extended health care, outside the program to all who need them to improve work incentives; providing improved and effective employment benefits and services to all who could work, even those with a disability, to improve labour market outcomes; simplifying the program so caseload workers could spend their time helping clients rather than wasting it on figuring out complex rules; and, with these changes, there was no rationale to have two separate programs, one for general welfare clients and the other for people with disabilities, and thus replacing them with one unified program to be delivered by municipalities and funded by the province. The government response can be summarized with four key points. First, it acknowledged the importance of the analysis in the report and the need to transform the program. Second, it has taken steps to raise the level of assistance for single adults relying on Ontario Works, make some income exempt and to make employment supports more effective. Third, it has suggested more consultations and discussions with relevant stakeholders to chart a future course. Finally, the key recommendations in the report that focused on changing the basic program structure, or “transforming” it, have not been acted upon to date. The factors that led to the establishment of the Commission described above continue unabated and indeed have become more serious: program costs are projected to grow 16.1% over three years to 2014-15, outpacing both revenue growth of 8.3% and cumulative inflation of 4 %; caseloads of those with disabilities over the last three years have risen another 7.3%; and the program is as complex today as it was two years ago. In light of this, it has become even more urgent for the Ontario government to transform the program, including changes in its basic structure, consistent with the Commission’s recommendations. The need for reform and the Commission’s recommendations are both clear for improving economic and social outcomes in Ontario.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,026
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,118
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,855

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0260,047
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0090,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,002
Communication savante0,0100,003
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,007

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,144
Tête enseignante GPT0,420
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetSocial Sciences and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207