Michal Perlman

Canada can better prepare to retrain workers displaced by disruptive technologies: �鶹ֱ��app experts

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:20:46 +0000

Canada can better prepare to retrain workers displaced by disruptive technologies: �鶹ֱ��app experts

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 01/22/2020 - 11:20

Cutline

The last truck assembled on the General Motors production line In Oshawa, Ont. in 2019, shown on a phone at a local sports bar where GM workers congregated (photo by Aaron Vincent Elkaim/Canadian Press)

Topic

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

Faculty of Arts & Science

Graduate Students

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Political Science

The Conversation

�鶹ֱ��app Scarborough

Canada must prepare for the growing need to retrain workers displaced by disruptive technologies. To do so, governments must have a thorough sense of the effectiveness of current employment retraining programs.

High-quality evaluations of employment training programs will help policy-makers identify the best models to prepare workers for the future – and also help them avoid deepening inequality.

But right now in Canada, there is no central body that evaluates a vast array of employment training programs across the country. Instead, as a study we conducted revealed, responsibility for many programs is divided across government levels, and these programs are under-researched. A lack of co-ordination and data-sharing to bolster policy research and development will become a major problem unless the federal government takes a stronger leadership role.

The federal government says it has the vision and political appetite to improve Canada’s training infrastructure. Such an effort needs to be backed by investment in evaluating training programs organized and delivered by all levels of government in Canada.

A smart cart, part of a pilot project, is shown at a Sobeys grocery store in Oakville, Ont., in November 2019. With a smart cart, shoppers can skip the cashier or self-checkout as their carts scan any items put into them, track their total bill and accept payment (photo by Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

Dramatic shift

The global labour force is experiencing a dramatic shift as a result of rapidly changing technologies. A McKinsey Global Institute study from 2017 estimates that as many as 375 million workers globally (14 per cent of the global workforce) will likely need to switch occupations and learn new skills.

A recent analysis of the potential effects of automation on Ontario’s manufacturing and financial sectors suggest many of the province’s occupations will be reshaped as these sectors adopt new, more efficient technologies. In financial services, demands for skills have already changed since 2013.

Technological innovations have provided incredible economic opportunities for some types of workers. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs report predicts strong growth not only in tech-heavy areas like robotics, but also in non-tech support positions like customer service and sales.

That said, individuals who have difficulty adapting to rapidly shifting work environments, or who don’t have the time and capital to invest in new skills, will likely find themselves left behind.

Policy interventions needed

Existing research indicates that, without concerted policy interventions, the Canadian labour market may become increasingly polarized, split between high-income cognitive-intensive jobs and low-income manual occupations.

Canada’s current retraining programs for people who lose their jobs or struggle to find work tend to be targeted, focusing on a particular age group, educational or social background or employment history.

To find the right fit, individuals must navigate a range of federal, provincial or municipal organizations. Although this “many cooks” structure may allow for more responsiveness to local needs, the many options make it difficult for users to understand what assistance they’re entitled to and who is responsible for it.

Future Skills initiative

The current Liberal government seems poised to update Canada’s worker-support infrastructure. Among its numerous planned investments in job training, the 2019 federal budget earmarked $225 million for Future Skills, an initiative that aims to prepare Canadians for the future of work by “exploring major trends shaping the future and testing innovative approaches.”

For a country that has historically spent well below the OECD average on job training programs, this proposed initiative signals a much-needed shift in the status quo.

The 2019 budget also suggested that the government will take a more active role in overseeing and evaluating current job training programs. It described the results of a 2018 Horizontal Skills Review that examined more 100 job training programs organized within four age-based categories. The budget stated that: “ …the Government believes targeted changes could be made to help Canadians more easily navigate the programs and supports they need, improve the way that programs reflect emerging skills needs in the labour market and improve how programs show results so that decision-makers can better identify and invest in ‘what works.’”

The government also affirmed it will target emerging skills, simplify access to training programs and, importantly, publish data on the programs’ effectiveness.

Yet to share findings

Now is the time for the federal government to share the empirical findings of its skills review.

This is necessary so that industry groups, researchers, other levels of government and the public alike can make use of this data and analysis to inform decisions about training and ensure the federal government follows through on its commitments.

We need robust public data on program effectiveness to help the organizations – governmental, non-profit and for-profit – that deliver training ensure that it’s effective and relevant in the context of rapid technological change.

Reorient training supports

Existing research, including the Public Policy Forum’s Brave New Work series, highlights key priorities. Canada needs training systems to emphasize foundational skills and address inequities in the labour market. These should be based on shared information about best practices and knowledge relevant to changing labour markets.

Canada is in a strong position to prepare for the future of work compared to many places. It has a well-developed bureaucracy and a federal government interested in improving existing programs in order to help more Canadians who face labour market disruption to secure decent work.

To fulfil this potential, researchers and all agencies or offices with a hand in evaluating and developing quality programs need public data about what programs exist and how effective they are. The beginning of 2020 is an excellent time for our provincial governments, as well, to advocate for this priority as they revisit their employment training contracts.

Alix Jansen is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Toronto; Beth Martin is a project manager at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto; Elizabeth Dhuey is an an associate professor in the department of management at the University of Toronto Scarborough; Linda White is a professor in the department of political science and Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto and Michal Perlman is a professor of applied psychology and human development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

�鶹ֱ��app researchers on unlicensed child care: Why do dog walkers need more permits than care providers?

noreen.rasbach — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 21:25:47 +0000

�鶹ֱ��app researchers on unlicensed child care: Why do dog walkers need more permits than care providers?

noreen.rasbach Thu, 03/01/2018 - 16:25

Cutline

Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada’s minister of families, children and social development, plays with children at a licensed YMCA daycare in downtown Toronto last March (photo by Aaron Vincent Elkaim/The Canadian Press)

Topic

Faculty of Arts & Science

Political Science

Research & Innovation

The Conversation

It may be tomorrow, it may be next week, or perhaps next month but it will happen – another child will die in an unlicensed child-care setting.

Deaths in child care occur with such alarming frequency in the United States and Canada that they tend to resonate in the news for only a short period of time.

A disproportionate number of these deaths occur in unlicensed home child care, where a woman will care for a number of children in her home for a fee. Many countries, including the U.S., Canada and Ireland, allow for these businesses to operate legally but without any real government oversight.

Because of this lack of oversight, we have no idea how many children are cared for or by how many unlicensed providers. We know virtually nothing about what is going on in these homes.

Our research at the University of Toronto aims to understand why governments continue to let these businesses – which care for one of our most vulnerable populations – operate without any real oversight.

In some parts of Canada, dog walkers and hot dog vendors require more permits than some child care providers.

The safety of dogs, and of the food we eat from street vendors, is of course important. And so is the safety of our babies and children.

Prioritizing ‘parent choice’ over quality

Given the risks unlicensed care poses to children, it is puzzling that governments continue to allow these businesses to operate without any review or assessment of quality and safety.

Research that we have just published in the Journal of Risk Research examines this question in the case of Ontario, which reviewed its legislation shortly after four young children (all under the age of two) died in unlicensed home child care within a seven month period in 2013 and 2014.

Daycare operator pleads guilty in hot-car death of 2-year-old Eva Ravikovich https://t.co/oRPUw2Kkkr pic.twitter.com/jJqWn724Fo
— 680 NEWS Toronto (@680NEWS) April 5, 2017

There was significant media attention and subsequent public outcry at these deaths.

Yet when the government developed the new Ontario Child Care and Early Years Act (CCEYA), which came into effect on Aug. 31, 2015, it chose to allow a portion of the home child care sector to remain unlicensed.

Our research suggests a unique set of circumstances have resulted in a serious lack of oversight to ensure that our youngest citizens are in safe and nurturing environments.

Despite the recent deaths in care, we found that the policy debate – in legislative and subcommittee discussions – prioritized concerns of “access” and “parent choice” over evaluation of “quality” and “risk.”

A flawed logic

In worrying about access, policymakers and the attentive public expressed concern that if government increased oversight of unlicensed providers, some of them would fail to meet basic standards and would have to close.

Access to child care is, of course, a major concern for many parents. But shying away from licensing because it might force unsafe or poorly functioning providers to close seems very misguided, to say the least.

When it comes to “parent choice,” the logic runs something like this: Parents know what’s best for their families and should have the option to choose from a full range of options, including unlicensed care.

This logic is flawed in a number of ways.

For starters, it’s a very different logic to that which the government applies to pretty much all other services. Parents don’t have the choice (at least legally) to take their child to an unlicensed dentist or pediatrician, or out to dinner at a restaurant that hasn’t passed health and safety inspections.

There are a couple of factors specific to this sector that need to be attended to. One is that – due to the high cost and frequent shortages of child care – parents across North America often have no choice at all but to take whatever space they can find, regardless of quality concerns. Lower income parents who work irregular hours are really in this bind and use unlicensed care more often.

The other is that “quality” in child care is very difficult to see and assess.

Parents misjudge quality

Experts agree that one of the most important aspects of care is the way that caregivers interact with children.

But identifying quality in interactions is very difficult and generally requires training. Research studies show that parents tend to assess the quality of their child care much more favourably than do trained observers.

Ontario daycare operator gets six years in jail for toddler death https://t.co/UJ9KRlMY33 via @HPCAParents pic.twitter.com/gVPG728p57
— HuffPost Canada (@HuffPostCanada) May 10, 2016

In the U.S., a large-scale policy effort has been made to measure quality and make those quality ratings available to parents. While this does put parents in a better position to make informed choices, it does not replace the need for regulations and oversight to ensure that basic quality standards are met.

Within the content of the hearings and debates we analyzed in Ontario, we did find some discussion of quality and risk.

But these were less frequent than discussions of choice and access to begin with and they decreased as more time passed after the deaths of the four children.

Government oversight will reduce risks

The other part of the problem for policymakers is that it’s hard to quantify just how risky unlicensed care is.

For example, in Ontario we don’t have accurate numbers of child care deaths as coroners do not note the context when deaths in unlicensed child care occur.

What we do know is that while unlicensed care can be of good quality, licensed providers are generally rated as providing higher quality care on standardized measures.

Licensed providers are also required to undergo criminal record checks, fire safety inspections and have up-to-date first aid certifications.

Parents going the unlicensed child care route must do the research, inspect their potential or current care providers, and ask all the right questions. This places a big burden on parents and, arguably, it’s not a task that most parents are well-equipped to take on.

Bringing unlicensed home child care providers out of the cold and into the light of government oversight will go a long way to addressing these gaps in parent information and reducing the risks for children in care.

This policy action is doable. And it will only bring this sector up to the standard of any other sector that matters.

Linda A. White is a professor of political science and public policy at �鶹ֱ��app. Adrienne Davidson is a doctoral candidate in political science at �鶹ֱ��app. Michal Perlman is an associate professor of applied psychology and human development at �鶹ֱ��app.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.