Re: Ontario takes a pass on real welfare reform, Opinion May 6

The post Province Playing Welfare Shell Game appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

Community gets Government attention on single adults

After several years of community advocacy, the Ontario Government finally acknowledged in its 2013 Budget that single adults on social assistance are living in especially severe conditions of hardship and hunger. Once again, the Government adjusted social assistance rates by 1%, the current rate of inflation, but added a $14 top-up for single adults without children on Ontario Works.

Community advocates for a poverty-free Ontario have been campaigning since 2009 for benefit increases that would begin to relieve the tremendous deprivation of single adults living in deep poverty at less than 40% of the official Ontario poverty line. They can finally claim a clear breakthrough with the Government on the plight of single adults, even if the actual rate increases this year are not at the level needed.

Contending that the Government was taking a “balanced approach” to achieving “prosperity” and “fairness,” Finance Minister Charles Sousa actually tips the balance in the direction of continuing austerity.

In March, an assembly of more than 100 Poverty Free Ontario partners from more than 20 communities across the province framed a Six-Point Plan for a social justice budget.   Measuring the 2013 Budget against the PFO Plan shows some minimal gestures towards social justice, but no clear leadership or firm conviction to pursue a social justice agenda for the most vulnerable Ontarians living in deep poverty.

Measuring the Budget against the Six Point Plan for Social Justice in Ontario

1) Increase the Basic Needs Allowance by $100/month for OW and ODSP recipients as the first step towards adequacy in social assistance rates.

Clearly, the Government has come nowhere close to the $100/month rate increase for which PFO has been advocating especially for single adults on OW/ODSP, a group entirely neglected in the 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy.  A $14 top-up for single adults on OW on a general overall adjustment of 1% does, at least, indicate that this part of the social assistance caseload is now on the Government’s radar.

Still, these provisions are again misrepresented in the Budget as rate “increases”, when, in fact, they are partly a cost of living adjustment to maintain the purchasing power of current rates.[1] The additional 1% for 2013 in the Ontario Budget does match the year over year increase in the Consumer Price Index at March 2013 and will provide $6.06 more a month to a single adult on Ontario Works. The $14 top-up will bring the single rate up by $20/month to $626.06, which for the first time since 1995 will be an increase in the real income for single adults (2.3%).

While not the $100/month increase that PFO has been pushing for, this is at least a small step towards real rather than strictly inflationary increases.

ODSP single adults, however, do not appear to be included in the $14/month top-up, the shocking rationale being that this will “begin to reduce the disparity in rates between ODSP and OW recipients.” (p. 91). This is an early signal that the potential future “harmonization” of the OW and ODSP caseloads would be more about reducing benefits to the lowest common denominator than moving all recipients in the direction of decent living standards.

2) Index OW and ODSP rates, starting immediately, to keep up with the annual inflation rate.

The 2013 Ontario Budget once more provides a discretionary one-year commitment to a cost of living adjustment but does not index social assistance rates to the cost of living in the same way that seniors’ benefits are adjusted annually to the rising cost of living.  Especially in a year when the actual increased cost of living is low compared to previous years (1% compared to the 2%+ range in previous years), the Government missed an opportunity to show not only a strong gesture towards fairness but also a confidence in its economic recovery program to cover off cost of living adjustments for social assistance recipients in future years.

3) Ensure that all increases to social assistance or changes arising from the proposed integration of the current programs do not lead to any reductions in basic needs and housing allowances for persons currently receiving ODSP and Ontario Works, or to cuts in benefits such as the Special Diet Allowance or the Disability Worker’s Benefit.

There is nothing in the 2013 Budget that indicates any of the provisions will be implemented at the cost of existing programs such as the Special Diet Allowance or the Disability Workers’ Benefit. This is encouraging, although measuring success by what programs are saved is a comment in itself on our state of mind in an austerity climate. The community should remain vigilant that these programs are not threatened as budget provisions become implemented.

4) Introduce an earnings exemption for social assistance recipients with working hours so that a 50% clawback on earnings does not apply on at least the first $200/month earnings, and preferably not on the first $500.

It has been known for several months that the Government intended to allow social assistance recipients with working hours to keep the first $200/month of earnings without a clawback on their OW/ODSP benefit.  This is one of the minor recommendations of the Social Assistance Review, and will make a difference in the lives of social assistance recipients with some working hours.  To its credit, the Government will clawback earnings higher than $200 monthly at a rate of 50% and not 57% as recommended by the Social Assistance Review Commissioners. Frankly, it is unconscionable that any clawback applies to recipients who find work until their earnings begin to approach the poverty line.

5) Commit to the principle that the minimum wage should ensure a full time, full year worker earns an annual income 10% above the Ontario Income Poverty Line [LIM 50], and to an implementation plan that will achieve that goal.

The 2013 Budget makes no changes in the minimum wage and promises only to study the issue for possible future action by setting up an Advisory Panel.  It is difficult to take the Government’s commitment to job creation seriously if it allows minimum wage earners working full-year, full-time to still fall about $1,000 below the poverty line annually. The Raise the Minimum Wage campaign has made the case definitively for bringing the minimum wage to 10% above the poverty line, and there is more than enough evidence that this will stimulate the economy and not cost jobs.

The Government shows only timidity here when it should be showing leadership and bold action.  The community should call for the terms of reference of the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel to include a plan for raising the minimum wage over a reasonable period of time to 10% above the official poverty line for full-time, full-year earners.

6) Index the minimum wage immediately to keep up with the annual inflation rate.

Without any action on point #5, there was, of course, no action on this front either.

Related Budget Provisions

The 2013 Ontario Budget contains other measures related to PFO’s Six Point Plan:

• While the Budget document avoids the use of the term “adequacy” when speaking of social assistance rates, it states that the Government will follow up on the Commissioners’ recommendation to develop “benchmarks to support a consistent method for setting social assistance rates in the future” (p. 91).  Presumably, this will be done by setting up an independent “rates board” as previously championed by MPP Ted McMeekin, now the Minister of Community and Social Services. If this is the latest route to rate adequacy in what seems to be an interminable journey, the community should insist that the rates board report out well before the next budget cycle is complete on the rate targets necessary to achieve adequacy and a two-three year timeline for getting there, with the first significant instalment due in the 2014 Budget.

• The Budget increases liquid asset limits for single adults on OW from $606 to $2,500 and for couples from $1,043 to $5,000, a long overdue measure first proposed in the 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy. OW recipients will be allowed to receive gifts of up to $6,000 per year without affecting their benefits, which provides some relief from what has amounted to a tax on contributions from family and friends to the well-being of social assistance recipients.

• The Budget is picking up on its implementation schedule of staged increases to the Ontario Child Benefit after a one-year hiatus in the 2012 Budget, increasing the maximum OCB benefit to $1,210 per eligible child this year and a final increase to $1,310 in July 2014. This is one year later than promised in the 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy and the 2009 Budget.

Fairness Demands Bolder Action

There was hopeful talk during the lead-up to this Budget that the Government may be considering some actual moderate increases in taxes or restoration of corporate taxes that have cost the public treasury so much in recent years.  It is disappointing that the 2013 Ontario Budget promised to retain the tax cuts that have been implemented, while boasting that for yet another year its deficit is projected to come in under original projections by several billion dollars.

A truly balanced approach between prosperity and fairness would acknowledge that the Government has some fiscal room for greater fairness to the most vulnerable in Ontario by its faster than anticipated progress in reducing the deficit.  Applying even less than one-third of the resources available from the ahead of schedule deficit reduction to Ontario’s poorest citizens would not only improve their health and well-being but would also contribute significantly to stimulating local economies across the province.

Social assistance reform was proposed by the Government in its 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy. After five years of study and consultations and as the Government sets up another Cabinet Committee to develop a second Poverty Reduction Strategy as required by legislation, it is a sad commentary that such minimal progress on social assistance reform has been made.  The path to real improvement in the material living conditions of Ontario’s poorest is proving to be long and tortuous. It demands a Government and Parliament with both the conviction and the courage to show strong leadership on a social justice agenda.

Community advocates for people living in deep and working poverty across the province can take some credit for the small gains made in the 2013 Budget.  We got the Government’s attention. We now need to help embolden its commitment to further serious reform.

For further information contact:

Peter Clutterbuck, SPNO Coordinator
(416) 653-7947   cell (416) 738-3228
pclutterbuck@spno.ca
Web site: www.povertyfreeontario.ca

The post PFO Bulletin #12 – PFO on the 2013 Ontario Budget appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1734&ea.campaign.id=19624

Inequality is taking a deeper hold in Ontario, despite a promise by our political leaders to address poverty. Please urge our political leaders to keep their word.

The post Now is the time to tackle Poverty in Ontario appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

Prior to her election as Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and becoming the new Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne declared that she wanted to be known as the “social justice premier”.   This statement raised some hopes and expectations among community advocates for low income people for serious action on social assistance reform and the minimum wage.

Since assuming leadership of the Government, Premier Wynne has not been very specific about her social justice agenda. The Throne Speech in March included only a few brief references to affordable housing and several recommendations in the recent social assistance reform report by Commissioners Lankin and Sheikh.  Besides generally referring to interest in helping social assistance recipients move into employment, the only specific recommendation that the Premier has expressed an interest in acting on is the $200 per month earnings exemption for social assistance recipients with working hours before implementation of the clawback on their earnings.

Neither has either opposition party leader has shown any greater interest in serious social justice action to this point. Mr. Hudak’s policy proposals harken back to the worst visions of workfare and punitive practices of the Mike Harris days.  Ms. Horwath has shown no inclination to go beyond the earnings exemption recommendation in her negotiation on the spring provincial budget with the Premier.  Social justice for the most vulnerable is searching for a champion among our political leadership in Ontario.

It has been almost five years since the social assistance reform was announced as one of the cornerstones of the Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy.  Such lengthy research, consultation and study were not required for an earnings exemption to be the only specific measure under consideration.

The budget to be delivered in April offers an opportunity for the Premier to show “good faith” in her expressed intention to be the “social justice premier” for all Ontarians.  To that end, Poverty Free Ontario invited Premier Wynne to meet with PFO delegates from across Ontario for a discussion of their proposals for a social justice agenda.  Sadly, the Premier’s Office has not formally acknowledged nor responded to the invitation.

Still, more than 100 PFO leaders from more than 20 communities all across Ontario came together in Toronto for a day on March 8.   They discussed and endorsed the following Six Point Plan for a Social Justice Agenda:

1. Increase the Basic Needs Allowance by $100/month for OW and ODSP recipients as the first step towards adequacy in social assistance rates.
2. Index OW and ODSP rates, starting immediately, to keep up with the annual inflation rate.
3. Ensure that all increases to social assistance or changes arising from the proposed integration of the current programs do not lead to any reductions in basic needs and housing allowances for persons currently receiving ODSP and Ontario Works, or to cuts in benefits such as the Special Diet Allowance or the Disability Worker’s Benefit.
4. Introduce an earnings exemption for social assistance recipients with working hours so that a 50% clawback on earnings does not apply on at least the first $200/month earnings, and preferably not on the first $500.[1]
5. Commit to the principle that the minimum wage should ensure a full time, full year worker earns an annual income 10% above the Ontario Income Poverty Line [LIM 50], and to an implementation plan that will achieve that goal.
6. Index the minimum wage immediately to keep up with the annual inflation rate.

The PFO community leadership assembled on March 8 asked that invitations be made to the Premier and Opposition Leaders for meetings with a cross-community PFO delegation prior to the budget to discuss a social justice agenda based on the preceding Six Point Plan.   

For further information contact:

Peter Clutterbuck, SPNO Coordinator
(416) 653-7947   cell (416) 738-3228
pclutterbuck@spno.ca
Web site: www.povertyfreeontario.ca

[1]It is fitting to footnote here that Commissioners Lankin and Sheikh’s recommendation for the $200 earnings exemption in their report actually proposes that the clawback on additional earnings be increased from the current 50% to 57% — not indicated in the body of their report but in footnote #46 on page 73, reducing the benefit to recipients of even this minimal measure of reform.

PDF Version of Bulletin #11

The post PFO Bulletin #11 – PFO’s Six Point Plan for Action on Poverty Eradication appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

For Immediate Release:
4:00 PM, Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Ontario Speech from the Throne

Fair Ontario still a faint hope for people in deep poverty

Community leaders and groups across Ontario calling on the new Premier for action on a social justice agenda to improve the living conditions of more than 1.6 million Ontarians living in poverty were offered faint hope in today’s Speech from the Throne. Reference to recommendations for social assistance reform by Commissioners Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh did not even make the Summary of Highlights posted at the front end of the speech. http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/home/index.php

Poverty Free Ontario (PFO), a province-wide network of individuals and organizations in 25 communities across Ontario, advocates for a provincial government commitment to end the deep poverty experienced by Ontarians living on social assistance and to end the working poverty of people earning the minimum wage.

The new Government under Premier Wynne’s leadership states its commitment to implement recommendations in the Lankin and Sheikh report to help people find employment and to introduce an unspecified earnings exemption for social assistance recipients before benefits are clawed back.  The Government will make a special effort on supporting youth job creation.  The Speech also recognized the need for affordable and secure housing.

“These measures are not unimportant, but we hope they are only the first glimmers of the Premier’s social justice agenda,” says Peter Clutterbuck, PFO Coordinator, “We were really hoping to see some evidence of the Government’s intention to introduce the $100/month increase in benefits to people on social assistance as also recommended by Commissioners Lankin and Sheikh. A fair society cannot tolerate so many of its members experiencing monthly cycles of hunger and hardship at great cost to their health and well-being.”

“We remain hopeful that the Government’s first budget will more strongly reflect the social justice mission that the Premier has espoused,” adds Clutterbuck.

Poverty Free Ontario is an initiative of the Social Planning Network of Ontario (SPNO) working with local community groups across the province www.povertyfreeontario.ca

-30-

Media Contact:

Peter Clutterbuck, SPNO,
416-738-3228 and 416-653-7947
pclutterbuck@spno.ca

PFO Media Release Feb. 19 2013 (PDF)

The post Fair Ontario Still a Faint Hope for People in Deep Poverty appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

In a letter to Premier‐designate Kathleen Wynne, Poverty Free Ontario encourages Wynne to fulfill her promise as the “social justice” premier.

Click HERE to read the full letter sent to Kathleen Wynne on behalf of Poverty Free Ontario and anti-poverty advocates representing groups and organizations in more than 20 communities across the province.

The mission of Poverty Free Ontario is to eliminate divided communities in which too many adults and children live in chronic states of material hardship, poor health and social exclusion. An Ontario free of poverty will be reflected in healthy, inclusive communities with a place of dignity for everyone and the essential conditions of well‐being for all.

The post Poverty Free Ontario Reminds Wynne of Her Commitment to Social Justice appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

Dr. Eric Hoskins, MPP for St. Paul’s and Ontario Liberal leadership candidate, launched his policy platform on Monday, December 17 with a luncheon talk at the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto. In his speech titled “A Prescription for a Healthy Economy,” he asserted that “a healthy economy leaves no one behind.” (see http://ericforleader.ca/ for his full address).

Dr. Hoskins laid out a five point program in his prescription:

1. Transforming the health care system to get “better care for less money”.
2. Mandating a new Metrolinx regional authority to develop and implement a 20 year transportation infrastructure plan based on The Big Move.
3. Job creation focusing on targeted programs for youth employment and integration of skilled newcomers into the economy.
4. Rural and northern economic development (Respect for Rural Ontario) through measures such as access to hi-speed internet and gas revenue funded infrastructure development.
5. Tackling poverty through implementation of the key recommendations of the recent Social Assistance Review Commissioners Report, fully implementing the increases to the Ontario Child Benefit and increasing the minimum wage so that a full-time worker would earn enough to escape poverty.

Dr. Hoskins expressed support for the “key recommendations” of the Social Assistance Review Commissioners’ report recommendations, although not specific in terms of the $100/month rate increase. He did indicate that he supported integration of the OW and ODSP caseloads for a “one-stop shopping” approach and the Pathways to Employment model for helping people on social assistance move into employment, which remain subjects of much community debate.

It is notable, however, that Dr. Hoskins made a specific commitment to raising the minimum wage so that no full-year, full-time earner would live below the poverty line, clearly recognizing the imperative of ending working poverty in a healthy economy that leaves no one behind.

Dr. Hoskins did not refer in his talk to the impending cuts and changes to the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit program, which threatens the health and well-being so many social assistance recipients across the province.

The inclusion of tackling poverty in his policy platform raises it to a prominence that has waned since the 2008 poverty reduction strategy. There is room for Dr. Hoskins to even further develop his anti-poverty platform. But, the question is where is the rest of the Liberal leadership field on ending deep and working poverty in Ontario with clear and specific measures?

Eric Hoskins: increase minimum wage to tackle working pvoerty

 “A healthy economy leaves no one behind”

Dr. Eric Hoskins, MPP for St. Paul’s and Ontario Liberal leadership candidate, launched his policy platform on Monday, December 17 with a luncheon talk at the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto. In his speech titled “A Prescription for a Healthy Economy”, he asserted that “a healthy economy leaves no one behind.” (see http://ericforleader.ca/  for his full address).

Dr. Hoskins laid out a five point program in his prescription:

1.      Transforming the health care system to get “better care for less money”.

2.      Mandating a new Metrolinx regional authority to develop and implement a 20 year transportation infrastructure plan based on The Big Move.

3.      Job creation focusing on targeted programs for youth employment and integration of skilled newcomers into the economy.

4.      Rural and northern economic development (Respect for Rural Ontario) through measures such as access to hi-speed internet and gas revenue funded infrastructure development.

5.      Tackling poverty through implementation of the key recommendations of the recent Social Assistance Review Commissioners Report, fully implementing the increases to the Ontario Child Benefit and increasing the minimum wage so that a full-time worker would earn enough to escape poverty.

Dr. Hoskins expressed support for the “key recommendations” of the Social Assistance Review Commissioners’ report recommendations, although not specific in terms of the $100/month rate increase.  He did indicate that he supported integration of the OW and ODSP caseloads for a “one-stop shopping” approach and the Pathways to Employment model for helping people on social assistance move into employment, which remain subjects of much community debate. 

It is notable, however, that Dr. Hoskins made a specific commitment to raising the minimum wage so that no full-year, full-time earner would live below the poverty line, clearly recognizing the imperative of ending working poverty in a healthy economy that leaves no one behind.

Dr. Hoskins did not refer in his talk to the impending cuts and changes to the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit program, which threatens the health and well-being so many social assistance recipients across the province. 

The inclusion of tackling poverty in his policy platform raises it to a prominence that has waned since the 2008 poverty reduction strategy.  There is room for Dr. Hoskins to even further develop his anti-poverty platform.  But, the question is where is the rest of the Liberal leadership field on ending deep and working poverty in Ontario with clear and specific measures?

The post Eric Hoskins: Increase Minimum Wage to Tackle Working Poverty appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

At the link following, you will find Agripina’s story. She recounts how she had to go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to win $8,000 owed to her by her employer.

At the bottom of the page on this link, there is an email set up to send a message to the Minister of Labour demanding action to enforce protection for workers against the kind of experience that Agripina had.

http://www.workersactioncentre.org/12-days-of-action/

SPNO is sponsoring this 8^th Day of Action in support of WAC’s campaign to Stop Wage Theft.

We urge you to send a message to the Minister and to promote similar action today throughout your organization and your local community networks.

The holiday season will be happier for all Ontarians when all workers receive a fair return on their labour.

The post The 8th Day of Action to Stop Wage Theft appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

Poverty Free Ontario (PFO) and its community partners across the province have consistently advocated to the Ontario Government for an end to deep poverty for people on social assistance and an end to working poverty for low income earners.  PFO has urged the Commissioners to support those commitments since they assumed their task in early 2011.  While long-term social assistance system reform may be undertaken, PFO has stressed the urgency of implementing immediate action to improve the material living conditions of low income people, given that research shows they have a significantly higher incidence of death, suicides and chronic illnesses than the population as a whole (Wellesley Institute, 2008).

The Commissioners have recognized that current benefit levels to people on social assistance are inadequate and recommend a rate increase that, if implemented now, would provide some improvement in the living conditions of social assistance recipients.  The overall thrust of their report fails, however, to address the structural conditions that maintain currently high poverty levels in Ontario, and, in a number of ways, presents serious risk to the most vulnerable part of the social assistance caseload, persons with disabilities.

Several Income Improvements Proposed

There is no question that the Commissioners’ mandate was undermined by Government action in recent years to cut and reduce programs and benefits to people on social assistance (PFO Media Release, Oct. 25). These Government measures were severe enough that the Commissioners’ resolve to continue their work is admirable.  Since the 2011 provincial election, an austerity agenda introduced via the Drummond Report and the 2012 Ontario Budget has only further constrained the climate for serious positive change.

The Commissioners do recommend some measures that could make some difference in the lives of social assistance recipients if implemented now.

• The Commissioners state that current benefit levels are inadequate to meet daily living costs and acknowledge the work of the Put Food in the Budget campaign (PFIB) and municipal council support across the province in calling for an immediate $100/month increase to all single adult recipients as a “down payment” on adequacy.[1]  At a cost of $770 million, this would be the first real income increase for people on social assistance since the 22% rate cuts in 1995. Regrettably, the Commissioners recommend that part of the cost of that increase be paid for by eliminating most of the Special Diet Allowance (SDA, $200 million) and a work-related benefit for people with disabilities ($30 million).
• The Commissioners propose that recipients be allowed $200 in an earnings exemption above their monthly benefit before a withdrawal rate of 50% on additional earnings applies. With existing federal and provincial tax credits ($1,076) and the maximum earnings allowance ($2,400), a single adult’s annual income could reach $11,776, still in deep poverty at only 60% of the income poverty line, but a significant increase over the current benefit level.
• The Commissioners recognize that the creation of a single standard benefit rate can negatively affect the income position of certain parts of the caseload (disabled persons under different living conditions) and recommend “grandparenting” for these situations. This provision is explicitly not recommended, however, for disabled people on SDA, who have a higher incidence of medically-related food deficiencies.
• The Commissioners propose raising the asset limits allowable for OW recipients to the same level as ODSP recipients ($6,000 for singles and $7500 for couples), and allowing up to $60,000 asset exemption for RESPs for the children of recipients.

The following summarizes PFO’s major concerns with respect to the Report’s provisions for major transformative and structural reform of social assistance.

Propose a Minimal Subsistence Standard for Adequacy

Although the Commissioners agree that adequacy is an issue for people on social assistance, PFO has serious concerns about their perspective and approach to adequacy in a “transformed and restructured’ system. They dismiss the Low Income Measure (LIM, 50% of median income) as the benchmark for adequacy and propose a new “Basic Measure of Adequacy” (BMA), which is a subsistence measure that returns to the charity standard of a bare minimum.

The Commissioners’ dismissal of the LIM as an income measure for adequacy is specious. LIM is a measure of income deficiencies.  Both the United Nations and the European Union recognize 50% of median income as a minimum level for low income people to meet their basic living conditions and to participate in community life.  The LIM is a measure of inadequacy, not just income.

The table following compares the proposed BMA for a single person and sole parent with one child compared to the Low Income Measure, which the Ontario Government adopted as its official income poverty line in its Poverty Reduction Strategy in 2008.

The proxy BMA for Ontario used by the Commissioners in their report would keep both a single person and a single parent with one child at about 70% of the LIM, Ontario’s official income poverty line.  While the BMA would alleviate the income situation of recipients from their current depth of poverty, as a long-term measure of adequacy it would still condemn them to lives of hardship in deep poverty below 80% of the LIM.

It is a serious concern that in converting social assistance into a system that measures recipients in terms of their “distance from the labour market”, the Commissioners have sacrificed the notion of the suffering and hardship experienced by their “distance from the poverty line”.  Surely, this is the true measure of minimal adequacy in terms of both employment earnings and income supports.

Risks in a Standard Rate with “Building Blocks”

The Commissioners propose a basic standard benefit rate for social assistance recipients modified for persons sharing living accommodations (86% of the combined standard rate) with income supplements for health, disability and sole support parenthood outside the social assistance system and available to all Ontarians on low incomes.

While the Commissioners’ wish to simplify the system is understandable and their consideration of the needs of low income working people is admirable, there are risks involved in this approach that should be recognized.  People on social assistance have often been denied access to benefits when they are made available to a broader population, such as the claw-backs that occurred with implementation of the National Child Benefit in the 1990s.  There is legitimate concern that adjusting the basic rate in a way that establishes a lower standard and includes supplements for certain conditions creates more opportunities for targeted cutting or for introducing supplements in a way that do not necessarily ensure families that the “building blocks” will leave them better off than when they received a benefit based on family size.  Notably, when the Ontario Child Benefit was introduced to “take children out of the social assistance system”, the Basic Needs Allowance for parents on social assistance was reduced by the same amount (Human Dignity for All presentation, slide 11, 2011).  The OCB then became the target for austerity in the 2012 Budget when the Government decided to delay its implementation for two years.

Safeguards will be required to ensure that the standard base rate does not become just a floor of inadequacy for a set of income supplements that may be subject to variable Government commitment to maintain.  This is one of the reasons that PFO and PFIB have always argued that the $100/month Healthy Food Supplement should be incorporated into the Basic Needs Allowance rather than be separately administered, which the Commissioners have adopted in their recommendation for the rate increase.

Institutionalizing Divisive Trade-offs Among Low income People

In PFO Bulletin #9, we expressed concern about the trade-offs that the Commissioners were proposing in their Discussion Paper (February 2012) for setting a benchmark for social assistance rates.  The Commissioners now propose to institutionalize these trade-offs in terms of finding a satisfactory balance among three objectives: adequacy, fairness between social assistance recipients and low income working people, and a financial incentive to work.

Although the Report recommends removing the distinctions between OW and ODSP recipients into one harmonized pool, it wishes to retain the separation between people on the system and the working poor, when both have the same interest – access to incomes allowing stable and decent living conditions.  The balancing “trade-offs” test not only perpetuates the myth that the interests of social assistance recipients and working poor people are in conflict with each other, but it would also institutionalize this division in the restructured and transformed social assistance system.  This approach in no way challenges the Government nor the larger public to assume a moral responsibility to commit to both benefit rates and minimum wages at levels that ensure decent living conditions for all people in the bottom 30% of incomes.

The discussion of the minimum wage as a “reference wage” for determining fairness also raises concern. Referring to the upcoming review of the minimum wage, the Report argues that changes in the minimum wage should be linked to “Ontario’s economic performance, labour market conditions, and earnings distribution.” PFO contends that a true benchmark of adequacy for low income earners is an hourly minimum wage ensuring that a full-time, full-year worker earns enough to live out of poverty.

PFO continues to call for Government to set a decent floor for living conditions for all low income people in Ontario, which means:

1. Social assistance rates that bring all recipients above 80% of the official Ontario income poverty line (i.e. out of deep poverty);
2. Raising the minimum wage to $12.50 by 2014 so that all full-time, full-year workers earn income that would bring them 10% above the poverty line.
3. Setting the clear objective of creating labour market conditions and job opportunities that establish a “living wage” as the true benchmark of an inclusive, healthy and equitable society.

“Embracing Workfare”?

Commenting on the Social Assistance Review, Toronto Star columnist Martin Regg Cohn (October 25) writes that the Commissioners “have implicitly embraced the once controversial goal of workfare (where possible).”  This is a disturbing conclusion for a policy journalist to come to in his analysis of the recommendations of the Social Assistance Review.

PFO does not believe that the Commissioners have any resolve to compel social assistance recipients to work for their benefits at rates well below the minimum wage, which is the truest definition of workfare. Still, Regg Cohn’s commentary illustrates the clear thrust of the Report’s recommendations towards moving people aggressively off of social assistance and into the labour market, albeit with supports. Indeed, the clear benchmark for success for all recipients is to close or at least reduce their “distance from the labour market”.  They very clearly see labour force attachment as the primary route to social assistance reform.

PFO agrees that gainful employment is the preferred way for low income people to meet their living requirements and participate fully in community life when circumstances allow them to join the workforce.   There is a concern, however, that the Commissioners’ focus on employment overemphasizes reducing the social assistance caseload and associated costs rather than ensuring recipients move into stable, decent jobs. For example, the proposed performance and accountability measures for employment services provided by a mix of public, private and non-profit providers would emphasize caseload reductions and successful labour force attachment, which will require careful vigilance against “creaming” the most job-ready candidates and safeguards against short-term job placements that don’t hold.   Managing, monitoring and evaluating progress on moving recipients aggressively into employment may well consume much of the administrative savings that the Commissioners suggest will be generated by a transition from a “surveillance” model to pay for a highly individualized labour force attachment model.

The Commissioners acknowledge the poor job market and the prevalence of precarious versus sustainable employment opportunities in today’s economy.  They have established some key relationships with the business community and indicate the readiness of a number of corporate leaders to assist with promoting the hiring of people from the social assistance caseload, including persons with disabilities.  The Commissioners think that the restructured system in addition to supporting recipients with employment training and other services should also be more responsive to the needs and requirements of employers in preparing people for the job market.

Social assistance and an integrated employment and human services support system will be expected to ensure that individualized Pathways to Employment plans are prepared and implemented for all recipients. Responsiveness to the needs and requirements of the labour market as identified by employers is also expected at the same time as a panel of corporate leaders works to create understanding and readiness in the business community for hiring and employing people ready to leave social assistance.

A key question remains, however, with respect to the quality, stability and decency of the jobs that will be available to people ready to exit social assistance.  PFO wonders as well whether the engaged business community will be as ready to support measures of adequacy for people at the low end of the labour market. For example:

• Would the business panel support a minimum wage at a level that would ensure a full-time, full-year worker earns an income that brings her/him out of poverty?
• Would the panel promote and contribute to job creation that establishes “living wages” as the desirable standard for employment in any community?

Most Vulnerable at Highest Risk

It is not surprising that the ODSP Action Coalition, advocating for people with disabilities on social assistance, has expressed grave reservations about parts of the Social Assistance Review Report. PFO shares those concerns.

Integration and harmonization of systems always carries greater risks of lowering the bar of benefits to the lowest common denominator than raising those at the low end towards the higher end.  People on ODSP have been recognized as having higher living costs as a result of their limiting physical or mental conditions, which has been traditionally recognized in terms of a higher Basic Needs Allowance than people on Ontario Works.  Even when the Harris Government cut OW by 22% in 1995, it froze but did not cut the ODSP rate.

In terms of the impact of even the modest improvements that the Commissioners recommend in the short-term, the real costs would be borne by part of the ODSP caseload.  ODSP recipients would receive a disability supplement on top of the new standard rate so that they would not during transition to an integrated system be worse off than what they currently receive. But, it is proposed that the $100/month increase in the standard rate to all recipients be paid for partially ($200 million) out of the elimination of Special Needs Diet, which a higher proportion of persons with disabilities count on for medically necessary nutrition. Plus, another $30 million of the rate increase cost would come from elimination of a work related benefit to persons with disabilities.  The Commissioners explicitly recommend that these income losses not be avoided through supplements nor that current SDA users be grandparented to continue receiving their medical nutrition benefit ($100-$250/ month).  The net result for many ODSP recipients will be a significant reduction in monthly income.

With this start to social assistance reform, people on ODSP are well-advised to be cautious about how transformation of the system will improve their living conditions in the long run.  There are not many targets set in the Commissioners’ Report but one clear objective is to reduce the increase in the ODSP caseload from 5% to 3% a year and there are clear savings projections made from moving people with disabilities off of social assistance into employment.

This is a sensitive area, which the Commissioners acknowledge.  Many people with disabilities on the system want to and can work with support on a full-time or part-time basis.  But the aggressive push to labour market attachment raises anxieties about narrowing the definition of disability and unreasonable expectations that threaten the loss of eligibility should recipients show any reluctance or perceived “non-compliance” with the Pathways to Employment planning process.  Plus, there is some anxiety about transferring administration of the social assistance system to the municipal level, since ODSP has been administered at the provincial level.

In many ways, the most vulnerable part of the social assistance caseload is assuming the highest risks in the proposed transformation of the system.

Conclusion

In the end, the Commissioners’ Review is just a report. There remains no Government commitment to act on any of the recommendations including the urgently needed benefit increase. First responses from the Minister of Community and Social Services indicate no willingness to do anything about social assistance rates.

And, of course, the Ontario Legislature is prorogued, unlikely to sit again until mid-winter, and even then any meaningful Government business may well be delayed further by a provincial election.

The cynical promise of social assistance reform in the 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy was betrayed by an interminable process to set up and undertake a review on which the Government shows no interest in acting.

Regardless of further debate about the long term shape of social assistance reform, the Commissioners have, at least, clearly acknowledged the community’s consistently expressed call for a significant increase in the social assistance rates to single adults by $100/month as well as a modified rate increase ($86/month) for recipients living together as a first step towards adequacy.

While the Provincial Parliament may not be in session, there is still a political moment to demand public declarations of support by the Opposition parties, Liberal candidates for the party leadership, and all MPP backbenchers for the immediate measures in the Commissioners’ Report that will alleviate the living conditions of people on social assistance. Specifically, that would be:

1. The $100/month rate increase to single adults and the modified rate increase for recipients living together;
2. The $200/month earnings exemption before benefit claw-backs; and
3. Increasing the asset limits to $6,000 and $7,500 for singles and couples on social assistance respectively.

Contrary to the Commissioners’ recommendations, the community should insist that maintaining the SDA is critical to the health and well-being of many recipients, especially those with disabilities.

PFO joins other voices in the community and the labour movement in challenging the political claims of austerity that Ontario is without fiscal capacity to address deep poverty for those on social assistance and working poverty (PFO Bulletin #4). Revenue recovery through reversing tax cuts over the past decade remains the responsible political path for a just social order in Ontario.

For further information contact:

Peter Clutterbuck, SPNO Coordinator

(416) 653-7947   cell (416) 738-3228

pclutterbuck@spno.ca                                                                  Web site: www.povertyfreeontario.ca

The post PFO Bulletin #10 – Final Report on the Social Assistance Review: Limited Improvements, Serious Concerns appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.

3:00 PM, Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Release of Final Report on the Social Assistance Review

Commissioners show constraints of austerity climate

Social Assistance Review Commissioners Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh released their long awaited Final Report on the Ontario Social Assistance Review today.

Community advocates for serious and immediate social assistance reform can feel some sense of achievement that the Commissioners acknowledge that OW and ODSP rates are too low to enable recipients to have access to adequate nutritious food. The Commissioners acknowledge the position of the Put Food in the Budget campaign and recommend an immediate $100/month rate increase as a “down payment” on moving toward adequacy. Regrettably, they suggest that this be partly paid for by eliminating the $230 million Special Diet Allowance to recipients with medical conditions requiring certain nutrients for their health and well-being.

“Proposing a $100 a month increase to the single rate is encouraging and the Commissioners are very clear that rates need to move towards adequacy,” says Peter Clutterbuck, PFO Coordinator,”but why does this have to mean the elimination of the Special Diet allowance? In their other proposals for moving toward a new integrated system, the Commissioners recommend maintaining supplements and existing benefits to make sure recipients are not worse off during the transition period.”

The Commissioners propose more than 100 recommendations on all aspects of social assistance that will require careful community discussion.  The Commissioners attempt to outline a vision of a more simplified and coherent social assistance system. It is clear, however, that they felt the constraints of the austerity climate that the Ontario Government introduced with its 2012 budget.

Plus, the Commissioners had to work against the tide of the Ontario Government’s action in the last few years that has continued the austerity agenda of hunger and hardship directed at people on social assistance started by the Harris Government in the mid-nineties and has included the following measures:

• Cutting the Basic Needs Allowance for single parents by $125 a month per child after introducing the Ontario Child Benefit (another clawback called “rate restructuring”);
• Ending the clothing and back to school allowances for children on social assistance;
• Cutting the real incomes of people on social assistance through reducing cost of living adjustments to half the rate of inflation in the last two provincial budgets;
• Changing the medical conditions qualifying for the Special Diet Allowance so that thousands of social assistance recipients lost access to nutritious food critical to their health;
• Withdrawing planned increases to the OCB for two years in the 2012 budget; and
• Cutting the Community Start-Up and Maintenance funding to municipalities for people on social assistance.

Poverty Free Ontario (PFO) has maintained a consistent focus on the need for major structural reforms to end deep poverty (incomes falling below 80% of Ontario’s official income poverty measure) and to end working poverty (minimum wage level that brings a full-year- full-time earner out of poverty).

On first review of the Commissioners’ Report, PFO is dismayed that they discount Ontario’s official income poverty measure (i.e. Low Income Measure – 50% of median income). Not only was the LIM set as Ontario’s official income measure in its 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy, but the LIM is also internationally recognized as the income poverty measure of the United Nations and the European Union.  Notably, the proposed subsistence line set by the Commissioners’ “Basic Measure of Adequacy” would condemn a single person or a two person family to a life of deep poverty at 70% of Ontario’s official income poverty level.

Another major concern that requires further investigation is the proposed integration of Ontario Works and the Ontario Disabilities Support Program into a unified system. While the Commissioners show some care in recommending that persons with disabilities should be in no worse off income position while this transition is made, the recommendations reflect a push towards the labour market for persons with disabilities that must be watched vigilantly to avoid workfare strategies, especially given the Commissioners’ recommendation of integrating ODSP and OW administration at the municipal level.

PFO will be consulting with its community partners across Ontario in the coming days to more fully develop its response to the Commissioners’ Report.

Poverty Free Ontario is an initiative of the Social Planning Network of Ontario (SPNO) working with local community groups across the province www.povertyfreeontario.ca

-30-

Media Contact:
Peter Clutterbuck, SPNO,
416-653-7947 and 416-738-3228
pclutterbuck@spno.ca

PDF version of media release

The post Commissioners Show Constraints of Austerity Climate appeared first on Poverty Free Ontario.