WHEN MOM MUST WORK:
FAMILY DAY CARE AS A WELFARE-TO-WORK OPTION

Executive Summary

This study examines the potential of family day care as an employment option for people on social assistance. It responds to the new era of welfare reform with its emphasis on labour market participation and corresponding efforts by policy makers to simultaneously address several important social and economic needs: welfare 'dependency', and the lack of jobs and child care.

The project begins with the premise that employing social assistance recipients in family day care is inherently neither a good nor a bad idea. To qualify as a successful strategy, however, it would have to provide:

• sustainable, secure and adequate employment providing sufficient earnings to raise a family out of poverty;
  
  
• an assured level of quality in the care of children that is acceptable to parents and appropriate to healthy child development; and
  
  
• a contribution to community cohesion.
  

To ascertain the above, the study undertook: a national and international review of literature pertaining to family day care, social assistance and community development; a review of U.S. welfare-to-work evaluation studies; a survey of provincial/territorial/municipal officials and community key informants to determine welfare-to-work policies, practices, pilots and training programs in their respective jurisdictions designed to encourage social assistance recipients to become family caregivers. The study also sought to determine what impediments or supports exist for the practice.

A panel, with expertise in child care, social assistance policy and community economic development oversaw the work, reviewed the findings and developed recommendations. A symposium of government and community experts also assessed the findings and made recommendations.

Major findings

The research suggests family day care as welfare-to-work strategy faces two major hurdles: the deficit in public policy on child care undermines the quality of the service and the employment potential of the sector; and welfare policies result in deep poverty and make it increasingly difficult for recipients to access the supports and develop the skills needed to acquire secure and viable employment.

Whether examined from the social assistance/labour market or child care perspective the research concludes the option, while it holds some potential, is not a quick-fix. The study found that efforts to use family day care as 'walk-on' employment are counterproductive. Not only are they expensive, they fail to achieve their labour participation goals and result in child care arrangements that are at times alarmingly poor.

The quality of the care produced is important to children and is a major factor in successful welfare-to-work strategies involving parents. Among the case studies reviewed are projects delivering good child care, reasonable jobs and improved neighbourhood services. These models address both the particular circumstances of welfare recipients and the needs of children, and desire of parents, for quality care.

The findings underscore the importance of welfare-to-work strategies providing family sustaining employment. Moving from welfare poverty to in-work poverty, or cycling between the two, has very negative social outcomes. For example, merely moving families off welfare does not improve prospects for children if family income remains near the poverty line.1

This has serious implications when considering family child care as an employment option. If the caregiver's earnings, in combination with social transfers and in-kind supports, do not lift her from poverty then both her own children and the additional children she cares for may be at risk.

How the option is pursued is therefore of great concern to parents, caregivers, and decision makers. The interests of children and society are not served by public investments that produce poor quality care environments.

Occupational Status of Family Day Care Providers

Those who work in family day care are drawn by their affection for children, 2 and the desire to stay home with their own children, and earn an income. 3 The ability to combine work and family responsibilities suggests home child care as a desirable employment option for social assistance recipients; particularly single parents with young children. However, the nature of the work, coupled with the socio-economic circumstances faced by many on welfare, impedes participation.

Examinations of the sector question its ability to deliver a family sustaining income on its own. This is a large and important field employing over 285,000 people. Of these, over 96% are women, 89% have partners and 87% have children living with them. Analyses of the remuneration they receive indicates that for the overwhelming majority, income from family day care is a supplement either to a spouse's income, or to the income provided by the state through social assistance.4

The average gross earnings for full-time work in family day care are $15,600. Net income however is only $8,400 before taxes. Almost half (46%) of the income is required for ongoing expenses related to providing care. As self-employed people, caregivers do not have access to benefits. Little wonder that two-thirds are dissatisfied with their income, and half are dissatisfied with their working conditions.5

A transition from welfare to work in family day care as the primary source of income is likely to be a transition from deep welfare poverty to deep in-work poverty. The differential between average earnings from family day care and the average earnings of all employment is huge. On a full-time/full-year basis caregivers earn 4.5 times less than the average worker. A single parent with a child making average earnings in regulated family child care would fall more than $13,000 below the poverty line and $2,500 below average welfare payments. Income transfers from the federal child benefit, the GST tax credit, plus working income supports offered by some provinces would moderately reduce, but not eliminate, the poverty gap.

Quality in Family Day Care

Family day care is the poor cousin in Canada's under-resourced patchwork of child care services. Many experts are sceptical of its potential as a welfare-to-work program based on well-founded concerns about child care quality. North American evaluations studies have uncovered serious violations, particularly in the unregulated sector.6

Canadian and US findings document the importance of child care quality to the success of welfare-to-work initiatives. A McMaster University study found that over a two-year period mothers, whose children received regulated child care services, were able to leave welfare at much higher rates. In addition: the mental health of parents improved; there was less need for counselling services; and gains were made in the behaviour and social activity of the children. There were also considerable cost savings through reduced use of health, social and correctional services among parents and children provided with child care.7

The quality of care matters deeply to parents. In Toronto 98% of parents who require child care in order to participate in mandatory welfare transition activities choose licensed care over unregulated options.8 US studies consistently demonstrate that parents are less likely to complete training programs or hold steady employment if dissatisfied with their child's care arrangement.

A substantial body of research demonstrates the importance of quality care for children. It has the ability to compensate children from disadvantaged backgrounds and provide early detection and intervention for children with special needs. Conversely studies indicate that even advantaged families are unable to compensate for poor quality care arrangements.9

Research demonstrates that child care which supports children's well-being and development is associated with certain conditions. These include:

• low adult/child ratios;
  
  
• caregiver education and training in child development;
  
  
• caregivers who feel valued, are paid adequate wages, and have satisfactory working conditions;
  
  
• low turnover of caregivers and children;
  
  
• appropriate physical environments; and
  
  
• regulations supporting quality standards and adequate enforcement.
  

Family day care has additional unique needs. Knowledge of child development and a rapport with parents must be combined with an ability to identify and access community resources and sound business practices. Making the conscious choice to care for children over other kinds of work; having the support of other family members; the ability to balance work and family obligations, and having connections with other providers are also factors.10

Although training is a key determinant of quality less than 40% of providers have any child care related training.11 There is little incentive to accumulate credentials. Fee schedules never exceed those of untrained staff in group settings and most fall far below.

Public resources to establish and operate family day care homes are limited. Among the provinces and territories: three make no provision; five offer support of under $500 annually; the remainder have grants of less than $1,500 a year. Recipients accessing grants may have the funding deducted from welfare income. Even when grants are not deducted, they do not cover all costs associated with establishing a family day care home. The recipient could still have substantial, additional expenditures to bring housing and equipment in line with licensing standards.

Expanding home-based care in the informal sector, outside of provincial regulations, also faces hurdles key informants noted. While there are unmet needs for more regulated child care choices, care for infants, and care for children with disabilities, as well as flexible and non-standard hour care, the demand for unregulated care has largely been fulfilled.

Most caregivers have been in the field for a short time and they don't view family day care as a long-term career option. The high turnover of caregivers and the large numbers who report dissatisfaction with their work should raise alarms for policy makers, since caregiver satisfaction is a major determinant in the quality of care provided.

Family day care is a poorly designed service. The key factor influencing caregiver earnings is the number and ages of children in care. The majority of providers care for fewer children than provincial regulations allow. How many children she has of her own, housing factors and personal capacity all influence the number of children in a provider's care. But the fact that most providers take less than standards permit is an indication that adult-child ratios are too high.

The piecework nature of family day care is the source of the conflict between the provider's livelihood and the quality of care she delivers. Under the current arrangement only by taking in as many children as possible and cutting the operating expenses that contribute to quality care can earnings increase.

The research found examples in the US where including family day care as an employment option in welfare-to-work strategies actually harmed existing child care services. Reducing welfare benefits, more stringent requirements and few bona fide employment options increased the likelihood of child care being a coerced or inappropriately chosen occupation. Policy makers lowered standards to compensate for the lack of supports and inadequate skills. In some cases public resources were diverted from regulated to unlicensed arrangements, resulting in a decrease in licensed services.

Child care is highly skilled and demanding work. Deep poverty and the nature and circumstances of the lives of many welfare recipients exclude them as candidates. Studies find that compared to the general population, a larger portion of people on social assistance has more limited education and work experience. An estimated 60% have been victims of childhood and spousal violence, and violence tends to be an issue in their lives.12 Canadian and US studies report high levels of depression among recipients. An issue of major concern, since depression in caregivers is associated with the poorest outcomes for children.

There are many issues to be addressed in welfare-to-work programs, but the above underlines the imperative that those who enter the family day care field freely choose to do so and demonstrate a capacity for the work.

Lessons from the case studies

While earnings from home child care may supplement welfare income, they are an unlikely substitute. The remuneration and problems associated with life in deep poverty mitigate against family child care as a ready job opportunity for recipients. Several Canadian provinces and the majority of American states have already arrived at this conclusion.

No province explicitly promotes family day care as a welfare-to-work employment option. Key informants identified community-based programs that could support the practice. Some provincial welfare policies discourage it. Self-employment is not a choice under British Columbia's welfare system. Ontario's new welfare transition policies insist the recipient totally leave the system, which tends to exclude family day care as an alternative.

The study examines an Alberta program designed to train recipients for group child care. Its challenge is finding participants. Few who complete the training go on to work in the field, likely because child care earnings in the province are particularly low and child care provisions for participants end with the training period. Pilot projects in Saskatchewan also ran into problems when recipients abandoned the work because of its heavy demands.

One small pilot reviewed by the study is currently under development in Manitoba. Its difficulties include the overall costs of the program, finding recipients with suitable housing and, securing care for the trainees young children. The study also investigates developments under Quebec's new family policy. While the province has made quick and considerable improvements in pay, training and support to the sector, it is still experiencing problems attracting and retaining family day care providers. The expansion of low cost care means mothers of young children have a wider range of employment choices and show a preference for jobs where the pay and working conditions are better.

In the US, 31 states studied and rejected employment in the child care sector as part of their policies to meet federally-ordered welfare-to-work objectives.

The US models reviewed illustrate two different welfare-to-work approaches. Initiatives in Boston and New York share common features focused on addressing the requirements of work in child care as well as the needs of the trainees. These include intensive screening and training; child care for the recipient's children both during training and when employment is secured; and on-going monitoring and mentoring. Sufficient public funding for the sector ensures that employment opportunities are available for graduates.

As a mechanism to increase the number of child care workers these are expensive projects; requiring substantially more resources than would be required to recruit and train from a different population group. While there are many benefits for participants, the underdevelopment of the child care sector means income prospects for recipients upon graduation improved only marginally.

Initiatives in Nebraska and Wisconsin are also expensive but had much lower success rates with their target populations. Considerably fewer resources went to recruiting, training and assisting recipients to overcome obstacles. In the Nebraska project 27% of participants established businesses while only 18% no longer receiving welfare. Wisconsin dramatically increased public funding to expand child care as part of its welfare reform package. It lowered entry standards to the field assuming that employment opportunities would include welfare recipients. However less than 2% of recipients who started out in family day care in 1996 were still providing care three years later. The quality of care was also at issue. Investigative reports exposed gross violations of state standards.

Reducing poverty and welfare-to-work policy options

Welfare is the income program of last resort when the labour market and other social security schemes and public services do not provide an alternative. Adequate spending on income security and greater reliance on income programs, other than welfare, reduces poverty more effectively. The level of wages and earnings is also an important factor. Canada is more generous than the U.S. in its spending on income security, but is below the average spent among 20 OECD countries. Canada lies between the US and Europe in the proportion of its social security spending that is on social assistance. Canada's experience in effectively addressing poverty among the elderly points to the importance of income transfers other than welfare to more effectively reduce poverty among working age adults, children and families.

Research suggests there are two broad approaches to welfare-to-work: a workfare approach which seeks rapid labour market entry usually into low-skilled, low-wage employment; and, the human resource approach which works in conjunction with other policies to make longer-term investments in human resources and labour market development and generally leads to higher paying more secure jobs.13 The latter approach has proven to be much more successful as a strategy for supporting the transition of welfare recipients to work, preventing poverty and preventing a return to welfare.

The human resources strategy is the approach in much of Europe. It involves longer term investments in human and labour market development and maintaining a reasonable social minimum established through welfare. The strategy requires that reforms go beyond welfare into areas such as child benefits, education, child care, income supplements, job creation, labour standards and the like.

The US is dominated by 'workfare' type strategies, characterized by cuts in benefits, restricting eligibility for benefits and mandatory participation in programs and work for welfare which do little to develop long-term employability, and create a revolving door for recipients of welfare-to-work in deep poverty. The strategy has made considerable in-roads into Canada.

Workfare approaches invest little in human and labour market development and are less successful because poverty, inequality and unemployment feed upon one another. For example, the term "hysterisis" describes how high unemployment is self-perpetuating: those out of work for long periods eventually become unemployable. Long term unemployment makes skills obsolete and increases the incidences of illness, drug abuse, crime, victims of domestic and child abuse, separation and divorce and so on. These burden welfare programs by increasing the likelihood of larger numbers of people landing on assistance, and by making it more difficult for them to leave.14

Extended periods of unemployment leads to exclusion from the world of work, but not necessarily to social exclusion if income is adequate and social networks are maintained. Add poverty to the mix, and social exclusion is likely.15 Having a healthy, skilled and motivated workforce is vital to economic growth. The literature emphasises the links between inequality and the depreciation of human capital and harm to economic growth.16

The challenge of changing family structures

Changes in women's roles and in family structures are relatively new challenges for social welfare systems. Many European countries have responded by playing a facilitative role to assist parents in reconciling the demands of work and family. Policy directions include: paid maternity leaves and job protected parental leaves; family allowances that cover substantial portions of the cost of raising a child; state assured child support to single parents; and extensive child care systems.17

The Anglo-American countries have taken a different approach. Canadian governments, one comparative study notes, "with the exception of Quebec, ... have left families to fend for themselves in adapting to this change."18 Another study ranks Canada 9th among the 14 countries in policies that support maternal employment. 19

The number of families and children who rely on welfare underscores Canada's lack of progress on family policy. Children are one of the largest single groups to rely on welfare (39%) and 70% of them live in single parent families. Single parents and their children make up 43% of the people on welfare, and 23% of all recipients are couples and their children. The largest component of government transfers to single parents is welfare (39%).20

Events associated with transitions in and out of poverty and welfare are similar in Europe and North America; however, in Europe far smaller portions of the population become or remain poor.21 Single parents are also more vulnerable. Studies indicate that large portions of lone mothers on social assistance move on and off assistance because of marginal work, changes and responsibilities within their family, lack of access to child care, training and unemployment insurance.22

Low wage jobs can also trap single mothers. The longer one works for low pay, the lower the chance of escaping it. In Canada, between 1993 and 1995 only a fifth of workers in low-paid jobs escaped those jobs. Only one in twelve lone mothers working for low pay escaped.23

Developing employment-oriented policies includes improving minimum wage levels. Canada's minimum wages have eroded considerably in value over the past two decades. Minimum wage hikes were part of the US welfare reform package, for example, and did not have an adverse effect on employment growth and assisted recipients in their transition to work. As a prominent business journal noted, "(a) society with a work ethic needs jobs that pay a living wage." 24

Recommendations

The potential of the child care sector as a player in welfare-to-work strategies rests with the public policy decisions of government.25 While the returns are substantial, good child care under any circumstance requires substantial investment. Any reasoned consideration of family day care as an employment option for welfare recipients will require policy frameworks and investment levels adequate to produce both quality care and sustainable employment. Additional resources will be required to address the numerous barriers social assistance recipients encounter.

• Develop family child care projects that test models of employment including ones that offer providers: employee status and/or protections, adequate earnings and benefits (i.e. health, dental, optical, vacation, illness, disability, pension), adequate and reasonable hours, and job security.
  
  
• Develop projects that test other models of remuneration. These might include adequate designated operating grants for food, activities and supplies and payment schedules determined by factors other than the age of the child.
  
  
• Develop training and education programs designed to promote quality care, ensuring these programs are accessible to recipients who freely chose and are personally suited to the field. As a minimum, programs recruiting recipients to work in family day care should include:
  
  
  
  • a screening process including criminal and health screening of the applicant and other members of the household;
    
    
  • literacy and numeracy assessment;
    
    
  • an orientation providing a frank overview of the demands and limitations of the field and assistance in developing realistic expectations for the future as a child care professional.
    
    
• Training and education programs must address the requirements of child care work as well as the needs of the recipient. Training programs should provide:
  
  
  
  • stipends to cover additional costs associated with training i.e. transportation, school supplies, etc.;
    
    
  • quality care for the trainees' children;
    
    
  • basic math and language skills and/or preparation for high school completion or secondary education;
    
    
  • training in the appropriate official language to convey at least emergency communication competency;
    
    
  • knowledge of child development; curriculum development and teaching methods;
    
    
  • content appropriate to the age, developmental needs and special requirements of the children served;
    
    
  • training to appropriately serve multi-cultural communities;
    
    
  • training in communication skills with parents and other adults;
    
    
  • information on licensing requirements; how to access system and community supports;
    
    
  • small business skills training;
    
    
  • a combination of both in-class and significant practicum experience under qualified supervision;
    
    
  • a credential that can be applied to further college-level study or job advancement.
    
  
  
• Working conditions and ongoing support once the provider is in the field:
  
  
  
  • financial and technical assistance to upgrade homes to meet safety and quality standards; and to purchase or access equipment and supplies;
    
    
  • continued access to training;
    
    
  • economic rewards, through differential pay scales linked to levels of training and type of service provided;
    
    
  • access to extended health benefits for themselves and their families;
    
    
  • ongoing mentoring by experienced providers; or other formal peer support and assistance.
    
  
  
• Develop a market for caregivers' services by supporting the capacity of the parents to access quality care options for their children. Subsidy availability for parents, or low cost care as in Quebec, were essential factors contributing to the success of the models that produced sustainable employment and quality care.
  

Welfare Policy Options

• Poverty depletes social and human capital. Increase welfare benefit rates and index them against inflation.
  
  
• Extend basic drug, optical and dental benefits on a time-limited basis to recipients who exit welfare for work. Develop provincial programs outside of welfare to extend basic benefits to lower income earners.
  
  
• Develop more generous earnings exemptions to encourage and support the work efforts of recipients.
  
  
• Simplify welfare rules, particularly around self-employment, and work toward common provincial policies.
  
  
• Ensure welfare-to-work programs are voluntary; have adequate resources and provide recipients with supports; provide an early, accurate and mutual assessment of needs; provide multiple options - including those that are longer-term; and are evaluated.
  
  
• Take a stand against welfare bashing, and provide the public with accurate information regarding the welfare system and recipients.
  
  
• Develop outreach strategies to recipients who provide informal family childcare to assist if the recipient so chooses in developing career plans that include training and education and would bring them into the formal, licensed sector.
  

Related Income Security, Education and Labour Market Policy Options:

Neither the child care sector nor systems of social assistance operate in isolation. The human resource approach actively involves and invests in other systems to provide social protection, support families and children, and develop skills and the labour market.

• Employment Insurance, not welfare, should be the first line of defence against disruptions in earnings. EI should be expanded to provide more adequate levels of earnings replacement and broader income protection against current employment risks and realities, including: longer unemployment; part-time employment; intermittent employment, and self-employment; and maternity and parental leave.
  
  
• Recognise the additional income needs of families with children, and prevent disruptions in earnings because of family related events. Increase child income benefits (e.g. up to $4,000 per child) and end the clawback of the child benefit supplement from welfare. Develop a system of assured child support. Develop income alternatives to welfare for single parents with very young children.
  
  
• Raise the basic wage floor by setting provincial minimum wages at levels to ensure full time work provides earnings above the poverty line. Index minimum wages so they don't erode in value.
  
  
• Develop earned income supplements as a complement to (not substitute for) an adequate wage floor. Ensure ease of access both in terms of earnings thresholds and administration.
  
  
• Make employment and wage provisions under provincial labour codes fully applicable to in-home caregivers.
  
  
• The growing personal responsibility for the costs of tuition and attendance in training and education programs is a barrier for recipients and for low-income earners. Develop outreach strategies, financial and child care supports to make appropriate training and education affordable and accessible for recipients and low-income earners, including post-secondary programs for occupations like early childhood education.
  
  

Endnotes:

1 National Academy of Science (1996) New Findings on Children, Families and Economic Self-Sufficiency: Summary of a Research Briefing, Deborah Phillips and Anne Bridgeman Editors, National Academy Press, Internet: www.nap.edu/

2 Canadian Child Care Federation (1998) Providing Home Child Care for a Living: A Survey of Providers Working in the Unregulated Sector in their Own Home, Ottawa.

3 Canadian Child Care Federation (1998) Providing Home Child Care for a Living: A Survey of Providers Working in the Regulated Sector, Ottawa.

4 Income from child care is a frequent supplement to welfare income. In some provinces family day agencies report that 25-50% of their providers receive their basic income from social assistance.

5 Beach, J., Bertrand, J., Cleveland, G. (1998) Our Child Care Workforce: From Recognition to Remuneration, Ottawa: Child Care Human Resources Steering Committee.

6 Galinsky, E. et al. (1994) The study of children in family child care and relative care, New York: Families and Work Institute. US News and World Report, (November 3, 1997) "Workfare Mary Poppins: Should welfare moms take care of other people's kids?"; Doherty, Gillian, (1991) Quality Matters in Child Care, Huntsville, Ont.: Jesmond Publishing.

7 National Council of Welfare, (1999) Preschool Children: Promises to Keep, Ottawa. P.72.

8 Commissioner Community and Social Services (October 19, 1998) Survey of Single Parents, Report To Toronto City Council, Toronto; Social Assistance Review Committee (1986) Transitions: Report of the Ontario Social Assistance Review Committee, Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario; National Council of Welfare, (1997) Another Look at Welfare Reform, Ottawa; National Council of Welfare (1999) Preschool Children: Promises to Keep, Ottawa; Metro Campaign 2000 (1998) Child Poverty in Toronto, Toronto: Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

9 Doherty, Gillian (1991), Quality Matters in Child Care. Jesmond: Huntsville, Ont.

10 Kyle, I. J. (1999) "Rethinking carework in home child care: Providers' perspectives in context," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont.

12 NOW Defense Fund (1996) Report from the Front Lines: The Impact of Violence on Poor Women. National Organization of Women: New York.

13 Mitchell, A. (December 1997) "What is a Successful Welfare to Work Program?" Women and Welfare, Vol. 1, Issue 6, Toronto: Workfare Watch. Friedlander, D, Burtless, G. (1995) Five Years After: The Long-term Effect of Welfare-to-Work Programs, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Torjman, S. (1996) Workfare: A Poor Law, Ottawa: Caledon Institute on Social Policy.

14 Osberg, L. (1996) Unnecessary Debts, Chapter 7, Toronto: James Lorimer and Company Publishers.

15 Haataja, A. (March, 1999) Unemployment, Employment and Social Exclusion, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 195, Luxembourg.

16 Osberg, L. (March, 1995) The Equity/Efficiency Trade-Off in Retrospect, address to conference, Laurention University, Halifax: Dalhousie University.

17 O'Hara, K. (1998) Comparative Family Policy: Eight Countries Stories, Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc, p. 8.

18 O'Hara, K. (1998) Op Cit.

19 Gornick, J., Meyers, M., Ross, K. (October, 1996) Supporting the Employment of Mothers: Policy Variation in Fourteen Welfare States, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 139, Luxembourg.

20 Calculated from estimates in National Council of Welfare (1998) Profiles of Welfare: Myths and Realities, Ottawa. Statistics Canada (August 4, 1999) "Family Income" The Daily Ottawa www.statcan.ca.

21 Duncan, G., Hauser, R., Schmaus, G., Jenkins, S., Messinger, H., Muffels, R., Nolan, B., Ray, J., Voges, W. (1996) "Poverty and Social Assistance Dynamics in the United States, Canada, and Europe" in Poverty, Inequality and the Future of Social Policy: Western States in the New World Order, Katherine McFate, Roger Lawson, William Julius Wilson, editors, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

22 Noble, M., Smith, J., Cheung, S. (April 1998) news release Lone Mothers Moving In and Out of Benefits, Internet: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, www.jrf.org.uk/. Edin, K., Lein. L. (1997) "Work, Welfare and Single Mothers" Economic Survival Strategies, in American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 2: 253-266.

23 Yalnizyan, A. (1998) The Growing Gap: A Report on Growing Inequality Between the Rich and Poor in Canada, Toronto: Centre for Social Justice.

24 Kuttner, R. (July 21, 1997) 'So Much for the Minimum-Wage Scare' Business Week, Internet: www.businessweek.com.

25 Human Resources Development Canada, (1998) Job Futures, Ottawa, Internet: www.hrdc-drhc.gc.