Who (or does)
Psychotherapy Help During
an Employment Transition?
Presentation at Cannexus 2012
January 23, 2012
John Griffiths – Goodwill Career Centre
Rebecca Machado – King’s University College
Goodwill International
1902
– Goodwill was founded in
Boston by Reverend Edgar
Helms
– He saw a way to help
people struggling with
poverty by providing them
with opportunities to work
in a social enterprise that
refurbished and sold
donated goods.
Goodwill International
Today
North America’s largest non-profit provider of
employment services
183
member organizations in 16 countries
166
autonomous Goodwill organizations in
North America, of which 7 are in Canada
2009
Goodwill served 1.9 million people placing
someone in a job every 50 seconds
Goodwill Industries, Ontario
Great Lakes
1943
London Goodwill Industries began in a church
basement through the collaboration of nine local social
service agencies in London
Today
$11 million social enterprise
330 people employed, approximately 6,000 clients served
10,000 visits per year to our Employment Resource
Centre
Daya Counselling
Founded in 1985 as Interfaith Counselling,
with the goal of providing personal
counselling services to those who might
not be able to afford to pay.
 In 2008 changed to Daya Counselling
 Employs qualified counsellors at the
masters level or above

Partnership: HRDC, Daya,
Goodwill
1998
– Goodwill Career Centre funded by HRDC to provide
assessment, case management, and employment
counselling to unemployed individuals.
– Goodwill Career Centre has worked with just over
12,000 clients
– HRDC funded Daya Counselling to provide personal
counselling services Career Centre clients
– Over the duration of that partnership, just over 650
clients were referred to Daya and 260 people
accessed personal counselling
Transition to Employment
Ontario

The EO transformation (August 2010)
ended government support for the
partnership between Daya and Goodwill
Research Partnership: Daya,
Goodwill, Kings University College
Daya and Goodwill sought partnerships to
support research, including appropriate
ethical oversight
 King’s University College Thanatology
program was interested in research
regarding responses to non-death loss,
including job loss

Research Areas

Experience of Job Loss (length of notice, sense of

Present Employment Status
control/choice)
employed, full or part time, unemployed)
Depression
 Grief
 Self-efficacy
 Hope
 Optimism

(employed, self-
Method
Timeline
T1 = date participant lost their job
(24 participants had pending unemployment, and were
excluded from analyses)
T2 = date of initial participation in research
T3 = date of second participation in
research
(approximately six months after T2)
Method
Participant recruitment occurred in two phases
 Phase One: (February 22, 2010 – September 28, 2010, n = 674)
Workshop registration ->
STUDY INVITATION & PARTICIPATION (T2) ->
Workshop participation ->
Individual session with Employment Counsellor ->
Psychotherapy referral offered if relevant
Phase Two: (February 4, 2011 – December 31, 2011, n = 36)
Workshop registration ->
Workshop participation ->
Individual session with Employment Counsellor ->
Psychotherapy referral offered if relevant ->
STUDY INVITATION & PARTICIPATION (T2)

*Invitation to participate in Follow up study (T3) issued via telephone, email, or
mail 6 months after participation in initial study (T2)
Starting Demographics (T2)
vs Follow-up Demographics (T3)
TOTAL participants = 668/129
 Gender

 Male = 432 (64.7%)
 Female = 235 (35.2%)
 Male = 71 (55%)
 Female = 58 (45%)

Age
 M = 39.96 years, SD =11.21 (n = 635)
 M = 45.58 years, SD =10.17 (n = 126)
Duration of Unemployment
T2
M = 7.29 months,
SD =10.93
(based on n = 635)
*42 are considered
outliers based on
designation after
UpperQuartile(9) + 1.5x
IQ range(7) = 19.5
T3
M = 13.64 months,
SD =9.44
(based on n = 123)
Starting Demographics (T2)
vs Follow-up Demographics (T3)

Race






(2 unknown/3 unknown)
White = 564 (84.4%) vs 113 (89.7%)
Black =17 (2.5%) vs 2 (1.6%)
Asian =20 (3.0%) vs 3 (2.4%)
First Nations =6 (0.9%) vs 0
Hispanic =31 (4.6%) vs 5 (4.0%)
Other =28 (4.2%) vs 3 (2.4%)

Language

Residency Status
(53 unknown/7 unknown)
 English first language = 572 (85.6%) vs 107 (82.9%)
 Other first language = 88 (13.2%) vs 16 (12.4%)




(1 unknown)
Canadian Citizen = 638 (95.5%) vs 118 (92.9%)
Landed Immigrant = 5 (0.7%) vs 1 (0.8%)
Permanent Resident = 22 (3.3%) vs 8 (6.3%);
Refugee = 2 (0.3%) vs 0
Starting Demographics (T2) vs
Follow-up Demographics (T3)
Educational Attainment:
 Primary School = 10 (1.5%) vs 2 (1.6%)
 High School = 265 (39.7%) vs 35
(27.3%)*
 Technical/Trade School = 57 (8.5%) vs 10
(7.8%)
 College = 186 (27.8%) vs 54 (42.2%)*
 University = 87 (13.0%) vs 22 (17.2%)
 Graduate School = 10 (1.5%) vs 2 (1.6%)
 Other = 51 (7.6%) vs 3 (2.3%)
 Unknown = 2 (0.3%) vs 0 (0%)
Starting Demographics (T2)
Follow-up Demographics (T3)

Marital Status







(12 unknown vs 3 unknown)
Married = 228 (34.1%) vs 50 (39.4%)
Common-law = 76 (11.4%) vs 8 (6.3%)
Single = 244 (36.5%) vs 39 (30.7%)
Divorced = 54 (8.1%) vs 18 (14.2%)
Separated = 50 (7.5%) vs 11 (8.7%)
Widowed = 4 (0.6%) vs 1 (0.8%)
 *10 participants reported a change in marital status
Number of Dependents
 M = 1.10, SD =1.27 (based on n = 564)
 M = 0.87, SD =1.15 (based on n = 126)
 *12 participants reported an additional dependant at T3
 *15 participants reported a decrease between 1 and 4
dependents at T3
Psychotherapy
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
T2: # of
participants
593
44
31
Gender
M= 395, F= 197 M= 25, F= 19
M= 12, F= 19
Age (years)
M = 39.54,
SD M = 43.10,
= 11.15,
SD = 10.59,
n = 566
n = 42
M = 7.09,
M = 8.98,
SD = 10.85,
SD = 10.16,
n = 560
n = 44
M = 43.93,
SD = 12.10,
n = 27
M = 8.52,
SD = 13.28,
n = 31
105
15
(sig @ p<.05)
Duration of
Unemployment
at T2 (months)
(ns)
T3: # of
participants
9
Depression


Measured via Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
(CES-D; National Institute of Mental Health, Radloff, 1977)
20 items (4 reverse coded)
 E.g., “I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me”

Participants rate how frequently they have experienced each item in
the previous week.
 4 response choices:
 Rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day)
 Some or a little of the time (1-2 days)
 Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days)
 Most or all of the time (5-7 days)

Scoring: Sum of scores indicates prevalence or intensity of
depression symptomology; higher scores indicate greater report of
depression symptomology
 Minimum score = 20, Maximum score = 80
Acceptable internal consistency reliability:
T2 - Cronbach’s a = .80
T3 - Cronbach’s a = .83
Depression & Employment Status

At T2:
 Depression scores were positively correlated with duration of
unemployment at T2 (r = .11, p <.01)
 Depression scores were NOT correlated with employment status
(full time, part time, unemployed)

At T3:
 Depression scores were associated with employment status. Full
time employment (M = 34.11, SD = 15.02, n= 27) was associated
with significantly lower scores on the CES-D than unemployment (M
= 43.22, SD = 15.69, n= 74). Participants who had obtained parttime employment reported scores in between these; difference from
either alternative was not statistically significant.
 Depression scores were not significantly correlated with duration of
unemployment at T3
Depression & Other Factors
Depression scores were correlated with
age (r = .12, p <.01)
 Depression scores were not associated
with:

 Amount of household income previously derived
from job (in 20% categorical intervals labelled all,
most, about half, less than half, and very little)
 Amount of daily activity related to the job (in 20%
categorical intervals labelled all, most, about half,
less than half, and very little)
 Gender
Depression and Control

Degree of control over
leaving a job was
associated with mean
depression scores at T2.
– Statistically significant
differences between
“unsure” and “completely
voluntary”
– Trend of increasing
depression scores with
decreasing choice
– Similar trend at T3,
although only 2
participants in “completely
voluntary” category
prevent model from
reaching significance
Depression & Psychotherapy
T2 CES-D
scores**
T3 CES-D
scores*
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 37.90,
SD = 11.98,
n = 560
M = 37.72,
SD = 14.92,
n = 98
M = 50.65,
SD = 9.75,
n = 43
M = 52.50,
SD = 17.26,
n=8
M = 47.53,
SD = 14.46,
n = 30
M = 51.64,
SD = 11.15,
n = 14
*significant differences, p < .05; **significant differences, p < .01
In both cases “no psychotherapy group” reports lower incidence of depression
symptoms
Depression & Psychotherapy
No Psychotherapy
Individual
M = 0.72,
change in CES-D SD = 10.64,
score
n = 94
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = -2.00,
SD = 18.55,
n=8
M = 1.57,
SD = 14.55,
n = 14
Change calculated as T2 – T3 = change.
No statistically significant differences observed
A lot of variability in reported experience, and few participants in psychotherapy
related groups
Trend: Improvement/fewer symptoms reported by those who attended
psychotherapy and by those who never requested it; poorer scores/more
symptoms reported by those who requested psychotherapy but did not attend.
Optimism

Measured via Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R;Scheier, Carver &

10 item scale, with 6 relevant items and 4 filler items
5 response options offered as a rating scale:

Bridges, 1994)






strongly disagree
Disagree
neutral
Agree
strongly agree
Scoring: sum of scores of 6 relevant items
 Increase in scores represents increased report of positive life orientation
 Minimum = 6, Maximum = 30
Acceptable internal consistency reliability:
T2 - Cronbach’s a = .82
T3 - Cronbach’s a = .88
Optimism and Employment Status

At T2:
 LOT-R scores were negatively correlated with duration of
unemployment at T2 (r = -0.08, p <.05)
 LOT-R scores were NOT correlated with employment status (full
time, part time, unemployed) at T2

At T3:
 LOT-R scores were not significantly correlated with duration of
unemployment at T3
 LOT-R scores were NOT correlated with employment status (full
time, part time, unemployed) at T3
LOT-R scores at T2 were strongly, positively correlated with
LOT-R scores at T3 (r = 0.70, p <.001), suggesting this
may be fairly stable over time
Optimism and Psychotherapy
T2 LOT-R
scores**
T3 LOT-R
scores**
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 20.02,
SD = 4.81,
n = 573
M = 19.88,
SD = 5.08,
n = 96
M = 16.16,
SD = 3.94,
n = 43
M = 13.00,
SD = 2.88,
n=8
M = 17.97,
SD = 6.06,
n = 29
M = 17.00,
SD = 5.84,
n = 14
**significant differences, p < .01
In both cases “no psychotherapy referral” group reports more positive life
orientation than those who “requested psychotherapy but did not attend.” Those
who requested and attended at least one session of psychotherapy fell in the
middle
Optimism and Psychotherapy
No Psychotherapy
Individual
M = 0.41,
change in LOT-R SD = 4.28,
score
n = 92
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 0.25,
SD = 3.62,
n=8
M = 0.71,
SD = 3.22,
n = 14
No statistically significant differences observed
Minimal variability in reported experience, corroborating the stability of this
element on an individual level over time.
Hope
Measured via the Adult Hope Scale (AHS;Snyder,
Cheavens & Sympson, 1997)
 12 item scale, with 4 items assessing “agency,” 4
items assessing “pathways” and 4 filler items
 8 response options offered as a rating scale:

 Definitely false, mostly false, somewhat false, slightly false,
slightly true, somewhat true, mostly true, definitely true
Acceptable internal consistency reliability:
T2 - Cronbach’s a = .87
T3 - Cronbach’s a = .92
Hope
Agency: expectation that one will be able to take
the necessary action (e.g., “I meet the goals I
set for myself”)
 Pathway: availability to find pathways toward
the desired goal (e.g., “I can think of many ways
to get the things in life that are important to
me”)
 Scoring: sum of scores of relevant items

 Increase in scores represents increased report of positive life
orientation
 Subscale Minimum = 4, Maximum = 32
 Total scale minimum = 8, Maximum = 64
Hope and Employment Status

At T2:
 AHS total scores were negatively correlated with duration of
unemployment at T2 (r = -0.11, p <.01); As well, AHS-Pathway
scores were negatively correlated with duration of unemployment at
T2 (r = -0.10, p <.05)
 AHS scores were NOT correlated with employment status (full time,
part time, unemployed) at T2

At T3:
 AHS scores were not significantly correlated with duration of
unemployment at T3
 AHS scores were NOT correlated with employment status (full time,
part time, unemployed) at T3
AHS scores at T2 were strongly, positively correlated with
AHS scores at T3 (r = 0.68, p <.001), suggesting this
may be fairly stable over time
Hope and Psychotherapy
T2 AHS total
scores**
T3 AHS total
scores**
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 48.67,
SD = 8.95,
n = 564
M = 47.84,
SD = 10.38,
n = 97
M = 40.05,
SD = 9.03,
n = 42
M = 39.13,
SD = 11.32,
n=8
M = 43.68,
SD = 10.12,
n = 28
M = 40.40,
SD = 12.47,
n = 15
**significant differences, p < .01
In both cases “no psychotherapy referral” group reports more positive life
orientation than those who “requested psychotherapy but did not attend.” Those
who requested and attended at least one session of psychotherapy fell in the
middle, but were only significantly different from the “no referral” group
Hope and Psychotherapy
Individual
change in AHS
score
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 2.22,
SD = 8.18,
n = 94
M = 0.38,
SD = 12.12,
n=8
M = 3.43,
SD = 8.03,
n = 14
No statistically significant differences observed
Minor variability in reported experience, corroborating the stability of this element
on an individual level over time.
Trend: perhaps a greater increase in hope for those who attended psychotherapy?
Nearly 10x the change for those who did not attend, but could just be “noise”
General Self-Efficacy



Measured via the General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale
(GSE;Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995)
10 item scale
4 response options offered as a rating scale:
 Not at all true, hardly true, moderately true, exactly true

Sample item: “I can usually handle whatever comes my way”

Scoring: sum of scores of all items
 Increase in scores represents increased report of general self-efficacy
 Total scale minimum = 10, Maximum = 40
Acceptable internal consistency reliability:
T2 - Cronbach’s a = .90
T3 - Cronbach’s a = .94
General Self-Efficacy and
Employment Status

At T2:
 GSE total scores were negatively correlated with duration of
unemployment at T2 (r = -0.09, p <.05)
 GSE scores were NOT correlated with employment status (full time,
part time, unemployed) at T2

At T3:
 GSE scores were not significantly correlated with duration of
unemployment at T3
 GSE scores were NOT correlated with employment status (full time,
part time, unemployed) at T3
GSE scores at T2 were strongly, positively correlated with
GSE scores at T3 (r = 0.62, p <.001), suggesting this
may be fairly stable over time
General Self-Efficacy and
Psychotherapy
T2 GSE total
scores**
T3 GSE total
scores
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 31.79,
SD = 4.54,
n = 560
M = 31.46,
SD = 5.21,
n = 97
M = 28.44,
SD = 5.32,
n = 41
M = 26.63,
SD = 9.26,
n=8
M = 29.62,
SD = 5.14,
n = 29
M = 28.00,
SD = 6.16,
n = 13
**significant differences, p < .01
In T2 the “no psychotherapy referral” group reported greater general self-efficacy
than those who “requested psychotherapy but did not attend.” Those who
attended at least one session of psychotherapy fell in the middle (ns).
General Self-Efficacy and
Psychotherapy
Individual
change in GSE
score
No Psychotherapy
Requested
psychotherapy but
did not attend
Attended at least
one session of
psychotherapy
M = 0.99,
SD = 4.71,
n = 93
M = 0.57,
SD = 5.03,
n=7
M = 0.69,
SD = 5.95,
n = 13
No statistically significant differences observed
Minimal variability in reported experience, corroborating the stability of this
element on an individual level over time.
Employment and Psychotherapy

No statistically significant differences in
employment outcome based on referral or
attendance in psychotherapy
General Observations
Those who requested psychotherapy
displayed a trend toward reporting more
depression symptoms, and reporting less
self-efficacy, positive life orientation
(optimism), and hope
 Generally, from “best off” to “worst off”:
No
Psychotherapy
requested
Psychotherapy
requested and
attended
Psychotherapy
requested but
not attended
General implication: those who used
psychotherapy services were appropriate
recipients (i.e., not just using it because it
was there)
 Additional barriers may exist for those
who are most distressed, as they were
least likely to follow through on available
support.

Observation from workshops suggested that
many of those who declined to participate were
among those visibly distressed at the time;
these individuals were not included or counted
in any way.
 Follow up study enabled tracking of numbers
who declined to participate:

 7 out of 25 referred participants declined to participate in
T2/chose not to complete the questionnaire
 5 of these 7 did not attend counselling, despite requesting a
referral
 this is proportionate to those who did participate in the
study/complete the T2 questionnaire for this portion of the
study, but high compared to the original study.
A note on control:

Of 125 participants who completed this
question at T2 and T3, 26 reported a
different amount of control over having
ended their previous employment
situation.
Unanswered Questions

More conclusive data desirable in order to
establish:
– differences in employment outcomes for those
who attended counselling vs not
– change in emotional wellbeing for those who
attended counselling vs not
– interaction between supportive services (e.g.,
psychotherapy, employment counselling,
educational opportunities), employment
status, and wellbeing
Plans going forward
Project continues to July 2012
 Hope to have T3 completed by approximately 20
additional participants across counselling
conditions
 Acquire additional “baseline” data about
employment outcomes for the agency and
community hosting this research for comparison
 Open to suggestions from Cannexus 2012
attendees!

Big Issues with Small Numbers
Numbers at T3 – too low for many comparisons
to be made.
 Unknown reasons for completing/not completing
T3… are the 20% of participants who chose to
participant significantly different from the 80%
who did not?

 E.g., unknown employment status for those who did not
complete T3 – did people who got jobs not come back for
the follow up study? Or were those who were too
discouraged refuse to participate?
Employment Outcomes at GCC
Prior to Aug 1/10
Current Study
- T3
Since Aug 1 2010
EO 0
weeks/e
xit
12 week
follow up
3415 (68%)
332 (50%)
340 (61%)
training/school
225
67
33 na
self-employed
228
10
12
25
17 na
12 week follow up
employed
not searching/unable
to work
unemployed/job
searching
unknown/lost contact
TOTAL
6 month
follow-up
43 (34%)
7
1185
259
159
77
(1590)
(62)
(68)
(669)
5053
693
561
127
Beyond the Present Research
Replication – new sites, larger numbers,
varied methodology
 Need for qualitative research to confirm
meaning of some of the quantitative ideas
 Engage practitioners in discussion,
planning (any volunteers?)

Interested in more information?

John Griffiths –
jgriffiths@goodwillindustries.ca

Rebecca Machado - rmachad@uwo.ca