設立「低收入在職家庭津貼」對香港低收入在職家庭的勞動力市場狀況及生活質素的影響

「低收入在職家庭津貼計劃」(低津)於 2016 年 5 月 3 日正式推出，接受申請，並由在職家庭津貼辦事處負責審批。而在職家庭津貼辦事處在其網頁公佈的「低津」計劃目標為「鼓勵自力更生，紓緩跨代貧窮」，旨在紓緩低收入在職家庭(特別是有兒童)的經濟負擔，並鼓勵家庭成員持續就業、自力更生，多勞多得。為評估「低津」是否能夠達到原先設想的政策效果，以及了解領取「低津」對低收入在職家庭的生活質素的影響，本研究獲得香港特區政府中央政策組「公共政策研究資助計劃」的資助，採用縱向研究設計，並同時採用定量和定性這兩種研究方法以提供多樣化的數據從不同角度作深入分析設立「低津」對低收在職入家庭所產生的影響。

政策推出初期，「低津」的申請人數遠低於預期。本研究透過全港人口的代表性樣本的第一階段電話問卷調查發現，只有極少數的被訪在職家庭能符合申請「低津」的家庭入息、資產及工時要求，尤其是對於單親在職家庭來說，能符合工時要求是很困難的。透過個案研究發現，「低津」申請人在申請「低津」的過程中遇到不少困難。他們對「低津」的申請資格及申請程序缺乏認識。基於文化教育水平的差異，申請人或代為填寫申請表的家人均感到表格複雜。他們不懂如何去填寫家庭入息及計算工作時數，往往需要較長時間完成表格。當準備申請文件時，不少「低津」申請人認為向僱主索取工作證明存有困難。僱主有時不願意提供工作證明，甚至會責罵及質疑他們索取文件的目的。遞交申請後，申請人仍要承受著「低津」辦事處的壓力。例如被「低津」辦事處職員多次要求補交文件。在申請過程中，申請人與家人因準備文件而爭拗時有發生，不但影響家庭關係，更延長申請的時間。

就「低津」對本港勞動力市場以及申領家庭生活質素所來帶的影響，縱向對比問卷調查結果（主要為量化數據）發現：不少合資格家庭中負責主要收入來源的家庭成員為滿足「低津」申請條件，有策略地增加工作時數，更積極地投入勞動力市場，以獲取相應津貼。然而，這些低收入人士所從事的工種多為低時薪、低學歷要求及勞動強度高的工作。工時的增加並沒有提高他們對工作的滿意度。另一方面，已領取「低津」家庭因收入增加而提升消費意欲，他們更願意投放在外出休閒活動而不是飲食方面。至於家庭開支的分配上也出現一定變化，這些家庭在領取「低津」後傾向增加對未成年及青壯年成員的投入，投放在老年成員的開支相對減少。至於生活質素方面，來自已領取「低津」家庭的被訪者在整體生活滿意度和對生命感到有意義這兩個指標上並無出現明顯變化；然而，這些被訪者對生活感到快樂的程度並沒有相應增強，反而出現下降的情況。

第二階段的焦點小組所得到質化數據進一步確認，縱使申請「低津」的過程中出現各樣困難，但津貼確實改善已獲發「低津」家庭的生活質素。有被訪者打算以「低津」繳付子女的學費及課外活動費，希望改善孩子的學習表現，提升他們的競爭力，將來有望脫貧。另一方面，有被訪者打算以「低津」為孩子購買質量較好，營養較高的食物，改善他們的健康。除此之外，有被訪者表示已運用津貼與家人出外用膳及旅行。透過參與不同的休閒活動，子女可以增廣見聞，家人的關係亦轉趨緊密。此外，有部份被訪者以津貼金額償還債務及繳付租金，紓緩家庭的經濟壓力。

綜合上述縱向量化及質化研究的各項發現，我們認為「低津」在一定程度上實現了其政策目的，即鼓勵低收入人士就業及紓緩其家庭經濟壓力。然而，實證數據同樣反映政策的推行尚有不少改善之處。為了低津能惠及更多低收入在職家庭，我們認為調整申請低津的門檻是必需的。

我們建議取消每月工作 192 小時領取高額「低津」的規定，改為只要每月工作144 小時便可領取現時高額「低津」。我們亦建議容許家中不同工作人士的工時合併計算，只要這些家庭成員的工時總和超過 144 小時便符合資格申請。至於所有單親及有特殊照顧需要的家庭的工時規定建議減少至 36 小時。

在計算家庭每月入息方面，我們建議不以一般住戶的入息中位數而改以在職家庭入息中位數為標準設上限。至於同住長者的收入若是由政府發放的經濟援助津貼則不應計算在申請「低津」家庭的入息內。

在津貼金額方面，我們建議取消以工時劃分的基本及高額津貼差別，改為只設家庭津貼，根據家庭每月入息的多少，若低於在職家庭入息中位數 50%的家庭可獲發全額家庭津貼$1000(以每個家庭計)及全額兒童津貼$800(以每名兒童計)，有關金額會逐步下降，至收入高於在職家庭入息中位數 65%但少於 70%的家庭最低可領取家庭津貼$250(以每個家庭計)及全額兒童津貼$200(以每名兒童計)。

考慮到居於租住私人樓宇的兒童之居所惡劣情況，我們進一步建議為人均居住面積少於 60 平方呎的兒童增加 200 元特別津貼。我們建議放寬合資格兒童的年齡上限，將領取兒童津貼的兒童年齡上限提高至 24 歲。21 歲至 24 歲的兒童子女須正在接受全日制教育方可領取兒童津貼。

最後，在申請程序方面，我們建議申請者只需於第一次申請時提供工作證明及僱主聯絡方法。第二次起若僱主及工作崗位沒有改變，可酌情處理減免證明要求，以簡化申報制度。另外在「低津」辦事處的網頁中加入工時計算器的功能，協助申請人換算年假及病假的工時。

The ‘Low-income Working Family Allowance’ (LIFA) Scheme was launched on May 3, 2016, when the Working Family Allowance Office opened for application and assessment. According to the webpage of the Working Family Allowance Office, the objectives of the LIFA Scheme are to encourage self-reliance and ease intergenerational poverty. It aims to alleviate the economic burden of low-income working families, encourage them to remain in employment, keep them from falling into the CSSA safety net, promote upward mobility for the children and youth of these families, and break the vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty.

This research aims to evaluate whether the LIFA Scheme can achieve its planned policy outcomes and understand the impacts of the scheme on the quality of life of low-income working families. It was funded by the Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding Scheme of the Central Policy Unit of the HKSAR government. The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect multiple sources of data from different perspectives to scrutinize the impacts of the LIFA Scheme on low-income working families.

In the initial implementation of the LIFA Scheme, the number of applicants was much lower than the expected figure. With reference to the representative sampling telephone survey of the Hong Kong population in our Time 1 study, only a small number of working families could meet all eligible criteria (household income, assets, and working hours) for applying for the LIFA Scheme. For single-parent families, it was especially difficult to meet the minimum working hour requirements.

Our case study revealed that applicants encountered certain difficulties during the application process and were not aware of the eligibility and application procedures for the LIFA Scheme. Owing to the gap in literacy and educational levels, filling in the application form was a complicated task for the applicants or their family members who helped them. Most of them spent a long time completing the application form, especially in sections requiring the calculation of family income and working hours, which they did not understand.

For the preparation of related documents, obtaining proof of work from employers was extremely difficult for quite a number of applicants. Employers were reluctant to provide proof of work and even blamed or questioned the purpose of asking for the documents. In addition, applicants faced pressure from the Working Family Allowance Office after submitting their applications, such as being requested multiple times by staff to submit additional documents. During the application process, it was not uncommon for applicants and their families to quarrel over preparing the documents, which strained family relationships and lengthened the application process.

Regarding the impacts of the LIFA Scheme on the Hong Kong labor market and the living quality of applicant families, the following key findings emerged from the analyses of longitudinal data from Time 1 and Time 2 surveys. To obtain the corresponding allowance, a number of key working members from LIFA families strategically increased their working hours and proactively participated in the labor market to fulfill eligibility criteria. However, job satisfaction among low-income earners did not improve despite longer working hours. Most low-income applicants held jobs with low salaries, low educational requirements, and heavy physical labor. Families receiving LIFA showed higher consumer sentiment due to increased income, yet they were more willing to spend on leisure activities rather than food and beverages, as the cost-effectiveness of leisure activities was perceived as higher than dining out. Additionally, the intra-household distribution of resources changed: LIFA families tended to raise expenditures on children and adults while reducing spending on elderly family members. Regarding quality of life, there was no significant change in indices of overall life satisfaction or the meaning of life (eudemonic well-being) among LIFA family respondents. The degree of happiness in life among LIFA family respondents did not increase but instead declined.

From the qualitative data obtained in focus group interviews at Time 2, informants confirmed that, despite the many difficulties in the application process, the allowance improved the quality of life for their families. Some informants spent the allowance on tuition fees to improve their children's academic performance, instilling hope for them to escape the cycle of poverty in the future. Others used the allowance to buy better quality and more nutritious food to improve their children’s health. Some informants reported using the allowance to dine out and travel, with participation in leisure activities widening their children’s horizons and enhancing family intimacy. Additionally, some informants used the allowance to repay debt and rent, alleviating economic pressure on their families.

Based on the above longitudinal research findings (both quantitative and qualitative), we concluded that, to a certain degree, the LIFA Scheme achieved its original policy objective of relieving the financial pressure of low-income working families. However, empirical evidence shows that the policy and its execution need improvement. To increase the number of beneficiaries of the LIFA Scheme, we recommend adjusting the eligibility criteria.

We recommend abandoning the working hour requirement of 192 hours per month for receiving the Higher Allowance and changing the eligible criterion to 144 working hours per month. We also recommend allowing the total working hours of all working members in a family to fulfill the working hour requirement.

For the limit of family income, we recommend adopting the median monthly income of working households rather than general family households. Furthermore, financial assistance from the government to elderly household members should be excluded from family income.

For the level of allowance, we recommend canceling the two levels of basic rate and higher rate for the Family Allowance based on the number of working hours. The level of Family Allowance and Children Allowance should be calculated according to family income. If family income is lower than the 50% threshold of the median monthly income of working households in Hong Kong, each family should receive a full-rate Family Allowance of $1,000 and a full-rate Children Allowance of $800 for each eligible child. The allowance level should then gradually decrease to the minimal level of Family Allowance ($250 per family) and minimal level of Children Allowance ($200 per eligible child) based on family income.

In consideration of the disgraceful living conditions of the children living in private rental housing, we further suggest to add an extra Children Allowance $200 for those children living in private rental housing with per capita living area less than 60 square feet. We suggest increasing the upper age limit of eligible children to 24 years. For those children age 21 to 24 years, only those in full-time education are eligible for receiving Children Allowance.

Lastly, about the application process, we recommend that the applicants only need to submit the proof of their work and provide the contact of their employers when they apply for the LIFA Scheme for the first time. From the second time of application, if the applicants have not changed their employers and position at work, they can be discretionally exempted from providing the proof to simplify application and declaration procedures. We suggest the Working Family Allowance Office to add an online calculator to their webpage for the applicants to convert annual leave or sick leave to working hours.