Accountability and Funding as Impediments to Social Policy Innovation: Lessons from the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities

Abstract

Social policy innovation in Canada remains stunted despite recent attempts at social policy renewal via intergovernmental agreements. The fusion of accountability and policy learning is typically blamed, yet this ignores other potential factors. This article examines the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities to highlight impediments to social program expansion and reform within governments as well as between governments, and how the design of recent agreements serves to reinforce those impediments. We find that the linkage of accountability and policy learning means that learning gets caught up in long-standing federal-provincial disputes over jurisdiction, and leads to a perverse form of learning. We also find significant barriers to innovation in the nature of federal government funding, which provides neither incentives for "have provinces" to expand their programming nor sufficient funds for "have not" provinces to successfully transform their programs.

Assessing the Ability of Disability Organizations: An interprovincial comparative perspective

“…The descriptor "traditionally" is used in recognition of the fact that since 2009-2010 Ontario has received equalization payments from Ottawa thus becoming a have not province, while the exact opposite situation has occurred with Newfoundland and Labrador-it is now a have province (Finance Canada, n.d.). However, the provinces are grouped into their traditional categories to reflect the time period of study [2005][2006][2007][2008][2009][2010], to stay consistent with earlier work highlighting funding impediments (e.g., Graefe & Levesque, 2010), and the fact that the recent changes in financial status will not yet have had adequate time to trickle down to disability organizations and dramatically alter finances.…”

“…A series of reports in the 1980s and 1990s challenged the custodial care model, and culminated in the 1998 In Unison report (Burns & Gordon, 2011;Graefe & Levesque, 2010). This document elaborated a clear vision for persons with disabilities in advancing their full participation in society.…”

“…In essence, new monies were used to fund existing programs to ensure their continuation. More broadly, funding has proved to be insufficient, with officials from disability organizations stating that much more could be done if only jurisdictional battles were set aside and funding increased (Graefe & Levesque, 2010).…”

“…The lack of innovation in labour market programming for persons with disabilities in Canada has been well documented (HRSDC, 2008;Graefe & Levesque, 2010). Efforts to move from the delivery of broad vocational programming to innovative and targeted measures that prepare persons with disabilities for entry into the labour market have been met with limited success in that there have been few new programs introduced.…”

“…Combining employment programs for persons with disabilities from various government initiatives into one portfolio in order to claim federal funding, as was done by Prince Edward Island, does not qualify here as innovative, given that no new programs were developed and existing programs were repackaged and continued (Graefe & Levesque, 2010). Alternatively, the enhancement of labour market programming, such as an increase in the number or length of time that services are offered, would be considered innovative given such enhancements would be new to the state adopting it (even though such changes may not be the most provocative).…”