| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立暨南國際大學 === 社會政策與社會工作學系 === 92 === The social assistance policy has long been in dispute and criticized in Taiwan, particularly the low rate of poverty resulted from the strict review system that people get rejected and questioned. How the existing social assistance system can help the most needy people? Actually, there is a marginal group of poor people who cannot be included into the system. How to make up such gap is now the major concern of the public for social assistance reform.
As the current social assistance based on the philosophy and values of welfare dependence and work ethics, the requirements of working ability and payroll limit become the eligibility for social assistance. Under such circumstances, many people with working ability but without real incomes or with low pay can not be entitled to have benefits under the social assistance system of the Government.
The purpose of the study is to explore if the requirements of working ability and payroll limit is appropriate and necessary, especially for the emerging of new poverty and working poor? With qualitative research method, there are two targeted groups we conduct interview, including social workers, who are responsible for reviewing social assistance, and the cases, who are not eligible for social assistance. The data is collected by means of in-depth interview on the targeted groups. We find:
1.The population with working ability and their incomes recognized by social workers vary a lot. The reason for this great difference is mainly from the lack of a clear definition, makes social workers conducting their reviews according to his/her subjective judgment, thereby failing to effectively restrict the discretionary administrative powers.
2.Both social workers and the cases ineligible for social assistance do not think fit and necessary to define “working ability” based on “age” and then calculate the “work income” as specified in Social Assistance Law. They stressed that the “income” shall be recognized according to the fact, while the age shall be limited from 20 years old to 60 years old, or the employment opportunity for elderly people shall be increased.
3.Social workers are very concerned with “working poor”. They believes that there shall be a mechanism to integrate functions of governmental departments such as labor, social welfare and education in order to provide necessary services, such as career counseling, employment matching, unemployment benefits, and social aids.
4.Social workers do expect labor department and their services such as career counseling and employment to play the key role in solving the problem of working poor. The social administration is regarded as the residual provider of “remedy measures” only.
5.Social workers treat the school dropout youth or minor not schooled and not employed with an attitude of “tolerance and forgiveness” in terms of recognizing their working ability and incomes. They argue that education policy shall be integrated with employment policy in order to provide the “national cadre in future” with positive vocational education and training. In particular, the policy shall offer prestigious incentives of motivating the youth to join in and this will in turn reduce the chance of youth crime and will improve social order.
6.Although social workers are “compassionate” for the unemployment of elderly, they are not in a position to provide necessary assistance outside the law and feel powerless.
7.For the cases ineligible for social assistance, they still agree with the cancellation of social benefits to those persons who would not like to work. They desire to receive vocational training and employment matching, but also worry about the restriction of educational background and unable to look after young children.
8.The cases ineligible for social assistance are willing to feedback to “repay the kindness offered by others”, and believe that they will not count on the assistance from government or others once their lives are improved.
Based on these findings, the conclusions and suggestions of the research are stated below:
1.Conclusions:
(1)There is necessary to concern with working poor as a new kind of poverty.
(2)Social workers shall be empowered to be the key role in social assistance.
(3)We need to reconsider or amend the definitions of working ability and payroll limit.
2.Suggestions
(1)As far as the definition of working ability is concerned, it is suggested that work incomes shall be calculated based on the fact, or referred to the U.K. and U.S.A. systems based on “cases” by compiling the “Case Study Guidelines” in order to provide a feasible way.
(2)For the cases with working ability applying for social assistance under category of low-income household, it may be listed as “provisional low income household” and “suspending low-income household”. It may also sign contract with these cases to request them to participate in “work welfare schemes” and for necessary vocational training, thereby referring to the “exemption from interest calculation” of Hong Kong for work incomes in order to increase the saving capacity of the poor families to accumulate their property that will enable them to get out of poverty.
(3)Social workers shall try to integrate resources from labor department to provide the outlet with career planning for the needy cases, thereby establishing a collaborative mechanism between social and labor administrations. Social workers shall also work as advocator on the behalf of the poor people to speak out their needs and make feasible comments in light of discrimination in employment, disconnection of vocational training and employment, lack of localized employment opportunities, insufficiency for measures on nursery care, and rigid conditions for unemployment benefits. These need to be strengthened in term of employment welfare services.
|
|---|
