No abstract

This study explored the ways in which health social workers (HSW) address the social determinants of health (SDH) within their social work practice. Social workers (n = 54) employed at major hospitals across Toronto had many years of practice in health care (M = 11 years; SD = 10.32) and indicated that SDH were a top priority in their daily work; with 98% intentionally intervening with at least one and 91% attending to three or more. Health care services were most often addressed (92%), followed by housing (72%), disability (79%), income (72%), and employment security (70%). Few HSW were tackling racism, Aboriginal status, gender, or social exclusion in their daily practice.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 282 million cases and almost 5.5 million deaths (WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard, 2022). Its impact, however, has not been uniform. This analysis examines differences in COVID-19 cases and mortality rates amongst different welfare states within the first three waves of the pandemic using repeated measures Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Liberal states fared much better on the number of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and excess deaths than the Conservative/Corporatist welfare democracies. Social Democratic countries, in turn, did not fare any better than their Conservative/Corporatist counterparts once potential confounding economic and political variables were accounted for: countries’ economic status, healthcare spending, availability of medical personnel, hospital beds, pandemic-related income support and debt relief, electoral events, and left-power mobilization. The pandemic-related welfare responses after the first wave were similar across all three types of western democracies, but the differences in pandemic outcomes remained. The somewhat better outlook of the Liberal states could be attributed to the so-called social democratization of the Anglo-American democracies, but also to the fact that neoliberalism could have flattened the previous differences between the welfare states typologies and could have brought states closer to each other, ideologically speaking, in terms of welfare provision.

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore the meaning making theoretical perspectives underlying the creation and development of a public mentoring program, allegedly designed as an inclusionary strategy for facilitating newcomers' labour market integration. Building upon findings outlined in the program's latest Evaluation Report (Bejan 2011) and drawing upon participant-observation as an inductive field-based research strategy, this paper questions the uncontested legitimization of the cited program as a positive inclusionary strategy and claims it perpetuates the very same discriminatory practices and systemic barriers that impede immigrants' ability to fully participate within the Canadian labour market. It further argues that, despite its affirmed inclusionary objective, the program's formation is rooted in theoretical perspectives that justify exclusion, reproducing and maintaining, by extension, an exclusionary status quo. As a result, it rejects the application of social capital and social inclusion/exclusion theories, those hypothetically deemed to be guiding the program's development, and those traditionally used as explanatory for newcomers' inability to successfully participate within the labour market. It then proposes a structural perspective as a theoretical base to direct the program's future design. Its conclusion emerged from the author's interpretative framework, that only a structural approach will draw attention to the power imbalances and discrepancies between Canadian-born individuals and newcomers, as they relate to the issues of labour market participation and subsequent economic gains. L'objectif de cet article est d'analyser sous un angle critique la signification des perspectives théoriques sous-jacentes à la création et au développement d'un programme de mentorat public censé viser une stratégie inclusive qui faciliterait l'intégration des nouveaux arrivants dans le marché du travail. À partir des conclusions exposées dans le dernier Rapport D'Évaluation (Bejan 2011) de ce programme, et selon une méthode de recherche inductive qui s'appuie sur les observations de participants, nous questionnons ici sa légitimation incontestée comme stratégie inclusive et positive, et nous affirmons qu'elle perpétue des pratiques discriminatoires et des obstacles systémiques qui limitent la capacité des immigrants à prendre pleinement part au marché du travail canadien. Nous soutenons en outre que, malgré les objectifs inclusifs visés, l'élaboration de ce programme prend ses racines dans des perspectives théoriques qui justifient la pratique de l'ostracisme, ce qui a pour effet de reproduire et de soutenir un statu quo exclusif. Par conséquent, nous rejetons dans cet article l'application des théories d'un capital social et de l'inclusion / exclusion sociale , aussi bien celles considérées comme propres à guider le développement de ce programme, que celles traditionnellement utilisées pour expliquer l'incapacité des nouveaux arrivants à trouver leur place dans le monde professionnel. Ensuite, nous proposons une perspective structurelle comme base théorique pour diriger les futurs développements du programme en question. En conclusion, ce qui ressort du cadre interprétatif de l'auteur, c'est que seule une approche structurelle attirera l'attention sur les déséquilibres de pouvoir et les écarts entre les personnes nées au Canada et les nouveaux venus, en ce qui a trait à la question de l'accès à l'emploi et des gains économiques.