The Commission, which the provincial government announced last November, has been conducting public consultations across the province this summer, but Commissioners Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh were only in Niagara one day with only one session of that day devoted to hearing from those with lived experience. Knowing that many more individuals living on either Ontario Works (OW) or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) would like to have their say, the executive directors of SMUN and NNCLC—Susan Venditti and Jennifer Pothier, respectively—decided to host an event that would form a report to be submitted to the Commission by its Sept. 1 deadline. Knowing this columnist’s bent toward social justice issues, I was asked to co–facilitate the discussion with Pothier.

Perhaps because of attendance at other similar events, Venditti said she’d be happy if 35 people turned out. But even before the doors opened for people to sign up, a long line up had formed. 68 people ultimately participated in the nearly 2.5 hour event, which was comprised of individual comments and group table discussion giving every participant the chance to get their views on the record.

The discussion began with each participant being asked, “If you could change one thing about OW or ODSP, what would it be?” Considering how criminally inadequate these rates are, it wasn’t a big surprise that several wished for an increase in rates. Currently, a single individual (one of the largest segments of the caseload in Niagara and across the province) on OW gets just $592 a month while a single individual on ODSP gets $1,053. These rates are scheduled to increase by a whopping one percent in November thanks to a generous Premier Dalton McGuinty. After this latest measly increase is taken into account, that single on OW will receive $598 with the same on ODSP receiving $1,064. If it weren’t for the fact people on social assistance are barely surviving, one’s almost tempted to say, ‘Don’t spend it all in the same place.’
The second common wish centred around either enhanced employment supports or a job. This stands in sharp contrast to the picture the Mike Harris Conservatives used to like to paint of a bunch of people looking only for a handout. He used this myth to help win public approval for his government’s gutting of social assistance rates by 21.6 percent in 1995.

Sadly, though, with the economy still trying to recover, many of those hoping for a job will probably be left waiting a while longer. If anything, it’s because of the massive number of job losses Ontario experienced before the official start of the recession in 2008 and since that time that led many to OW in the first place. Despite another of those myths Harris loved to promulgate, people aren’t quitting their jobs just so they can do nothing and get paid for it. (This myth always rang hollow because even before the Harris cuts, OW rates were still below the poverty line. For that very reason, it always invited the question, ‘Who in their right mind would quit a job just so they could face regular hunger and potential homelessness?’ Then again, I’ve since learned that when it comes to Conservatives, they never let facts or reality get in the way of a good spin.) People are on OW not because they quit their job but because their job went to another country or was eliminated.

One woman had a wish many of us take for granted: a nice, white smile. Just imagine what a knock on one’s self–esteem it’d be to smile in the mirror only to see rotting or missing teeth. But also consider her chances for employment. Who is going to hire someone with a mouth full of rotting or missing teeth? Teeth that are rotting or missing thanks to trying to survive on soup kitchen and food bank food without any real dental attention thanks to the very government that happily promotes its poverty reduction strategy. The only dental services an adult on OW will get is the removal of a tooth and that’s only if they’re experiencing pain.

Some found it hard to narrow down to one, but considering this was the first time many had been asked for their views, they can’t be faulted. If anything, I was surprised at how well many expressed their hopes and suggestions for reform. And like Pothier and Venditti, I was also dumbfounded at some of the stupid rules people have faced under these programs. Even I, a true cynic, was shocked at some of the downright petty things these people have had to face.

But I’m reminded that if McGuinty had kept some of the promises he made in 2003 and 2007, this roundtable wouldn’t have been necessary. In 2003, his Liberals promised to not only increase social assistance rates, but to index them with inflation. Since 2005, his government has increased rates almost every year but at rates below the rate of inflation. We’re now in a situation where, according to Campaign 2000, “in real dollars, social assistance rates are lower now than at any time since 1967.” That’s a distinction even the miserly Harris government never achieved. And for that woman whose only wish was a white smile, there was McGuinty’s 2007 promise to create a dental program for low–income families. In that same election, he also promised to “make real progress on poverty reduction” within this last term. Instead, poverty has increased in the last term.

I only hope, for the sake of those who came out to express their hopes and views, that the eventual report the Commission tables with the government next summer is acted upon. Before then, whoever is elected in October could get a head start by implementing the $100 healthy food supplement anti–poverty groups and others have asked the Liberals to implement for the last two years.

See this article on The View’s website

If he is bent on slashing spending and getting rid of civic employees, he’ll dismiss it out of hand.

The scheme was drafted by a coalition of mental health activists. It was costed by Sarah Shartal, a lawyer at Roach Schwartz and Associates who has spent 15 years fighting for Torontonians with disabilities. It calls on the city to move people with mental illness and addiction problems out of its homeless shelters. Civic workers would help them to apply for provincial disability support ($1,053 a month). This income would allow them to rent a private apartment.

Many of these people now live on welfare ($592 a month). They qualify for disability support, but they aren’t able to fill out the complicated application form and they don’t have a family doctor. Since the late 1990s, Shartal has been doing it for them free of charge. It’s not just a matter of paperwork; she finds forgotten OHIP numbers, lost identification papers, and missing financial records, then hunts down the people themselves on the streets, in the ravines and in the drop-in centres.

But she can’t afford to do it full time. And the people who work at Toronto’s social agencies are already struggling to meet clients’ basic needs. So the coalition is asking the city to expand the mandate of its Streets to Homes program to allow its employees to help clients apply for disability support.

The beauty of this proposal is that the benefits outweigh the costs tenfold. Here’s why:

• Disability support funding comes out of the provincial treasury, whereas welfare is financed jointly by Queen’s Park and the city. By removing 30 per cent of the homeless from its welfare rolls, Toronto could save $67 million annually.

• Warehousing people in homeless shelters is extremely expensive. It costs $73.23 per night — the province pays $43 and the city pays $30.23 — to keep a person in a municipal shelter. If 1,500 people were taken out of the system, Toronto would save $16.4 million a year.

Policing, public health and weather emergency expenditures would go down if people with mental disabilities had a safe place to go at night.

Although the city would have to invest approximately $12 million to beef up its housing services, its economy would get an $18 million boost. The newly qualified disability support recipients would have enough income to buy groceries, use public transit, purchase household items and pay property taxes through their rent.

All told, Shartal estimates, the savings would be $101,894,750 a year.

But the real benefit is that the proposal would bring stability to Torontonians with debilitating mental conditions. Community agencies would know where to find them to ensure their rent was paid, they were eating properly, taking their medications and not sinking into isolation and despair.

To a right-wing ideologue any scheme that requires a small investment for a large saving is a non-starter. But if Ford is genuinely interested in innovative ideas — the kind he won’t hear from consultants or bureaucrats — he’ll at least get his budget advisers to check out this one.

Assuming Shartal’s estimate is in the right ballpark, it would move the mayor much closer to his goal of balancing next year’s city budget than closing libraries ($13 million), cancelling funding for AIDS prevention ($1.6 million) or eliminating student nutrition programs ($3.8 million). It would make more financial sense than selling off money-making assets such as parking lots. And it would demonstrate that Ford is smarter than his critics think.

See Carol Goar’s column on the Toronto Star’s website here

It has been 20 years since anyone took a look at social assistance rates in this province, to which end a provincial commission has been on tour.

The commission held a community consultation at CAMH the other day. I bumped into a friend there. Her name is H. She’s on disability. She knows better than I do that no one in this city can live in dignity on disability.

The rates themselves are disabling.

We chatted before the meeting began. I asked her why she came. She said, “I have five issues. The first is, we don’t get enough money, period, end of sentence.

“We can’t look after our basic needs. I’ve had to borrow money to buy clothes. I don’t mean party dresses. I mean a parka and boots to do my job in winter.” She works part-time. Her work takes her outdoors. She works outdoors, in spite of the fact that such work is not good for her.

The second issue?

“No more clawbacks.” She was referring to the cruelty of living well below the poverty line, and at the same time having her benefits cut if she earns a little extra money on the side in order to get by.

The third issue?

“The rules that violate privacy and prevent long-term relationships.” Huh?

“If you’re on benefits and you get married, the person you marry has to sustain you. But if the person you marry is on benefits, then all you get is $150 — you don’t get two incomes, you get one, plus the $150.”

Let me repeat that:

If she had a beau, and if he proposed, and if he had a regular job, she’d have to give up all her benefits if she said yes. But if her beau was on benefits, and they wed, she would lose all her benefits, except for $150.

That is the price of love in Ontario if you are disabled in some way: Couples are forced to lie together, in order to live together.

The fourth issue?

“The quagmire of rules. You can’t keep track of them all. There’s way too many. You follow one rule and you violate another and you don’t even know it. You don’t even know all the benefits you’re entitled to.”

Stay healthy, my friends.

Her fifth issue?

“We’re viewed as criminals; they think that we steal money. I get threatening letters if I’m a day late submitting my income report — computer letters, threatening to cut me off. And the letters are not specific about what documents you need.”

It seems to me that such letters should come with an advisory: “Failure to submit the proper forms in a timely manner may result in serious injury or death.”

H. also talked about how hard it is to afford glasses; her eyesight is bad and getting worse, and her prescription costs more than the glasses allowance.

She also knows people who use wheelchairs or scooters, but who can’t afford to pay their share of those costs.

The commission reviewing social assistance in Ontario is headed by Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh.

Lankin was an MPP and a cabinet minister; she is also a former head of the United Way Toronto. Sheikh is an economist who was the Chief Statistician of Canada.

They are just wrapping up the initial round of consultations, and will make a preliminary report in December. The final report is due next year.

They should have asked H. to join them on the commission.

See Joe Fiorito’s column on the Toronto Star’s website

In its fifth year, the SD&G Coalition for Social Justice held elections for a new executive recently, and set out a mission statement to push the group forward.

The coalition’s mission statement claims it “aims to enhance and advance the full spectrum of human rights for everyone in the community,” including on issues like poverty, women’s rights, gay rights, disability and accessibility to social assistance and employment.

Through activism, fundraising, raising awareness and discussing issues, the coalition’s vice-chair Jason Setnyk said the group hopes to fuel social change.

“We have a great community in Cornwall, but is there room for improvement? Yes,” Setnyk said. “And that shouldn’t be a discouraging remark. We should be optimistic, hopeful and loving when thinking about what we can do to make our community more inclusive and more fair.”

Recently, the coalition met to discuss recommendations for a province-wide review of social assistance programs currently being undertaken in Ontario.

In a letter of response, the coalition forwarded the review board a list of 15 recommendations about improvements to programs, including Ontario Works, employment insurance and the Ontario Disability Support Program.

“(We’re) advocating for all people,” Setnyk said. “Everyone deserves a voice, an opportunity to live in a fair and just society.”

Setnyk said the coalition also expects to focus on a number of other social just ice issues in the community, including lobbying the provincial government to raise the minimum wage from $10.25 to $12.

“I find it bizarre that someone can be working full-time and still be poor,” Setnyk said. “Someone working full time should be able to afford housing, food and a few small luxuries. They shouldn’t have to choose between paying their rent and buying groceries.”

Elaine MacDonald, co-founder and a executive member of the coalition, said the group is committed to rallying for issues that aren’t addressed by most politicians.

“For those issues that won’t get touched by anybody else, the coalition will be there to champion them,” MacDonald said. “The fact that we’re making noise, somehow I hope it has some effect. That’s probably going to be the greatest achievement (of the coalition).”

On Oct. 28, the coalition will host a memorial dinner for Denise Vernier, who died last year after going missing in September. Vernier had bipolar disorder, and advocated for changes to the Ontario Disability Support Program.

Setnyk said the dinner will act as a fundraiser for various social justice causes in the community.

“Dinner where we can bring the community together to talk about some issues and raise some money for good causes,” he said.

One idea, Setnyk said, is to create a scholarship through St. Lawrence College that would be awarded to a student studying in the social justice field.

The Denise Vernier Memorial Dinner and Silent Auction will be held at the Army, Navy, Air Force Club at 14 Marlborough Street. The event begins at 6 p.m., and tickets can be purchased for $10.

Read this article on the Standard Freeholder’s website

One in five renters in Ontario spends more than half their income on housing. Among food bank clients, the share of rent is even higher, consuming an average of 72 per cent of household income.

Declining tenant incomes have been a major underlying reason behind the growth of the affordability problem. In the City of Toronto alone, the median income of renter households fell by an average of $6,396 between 1981 and 2006. The bad news is that housing affordability is taking an increasing toll on households. More than 152,000 households are now waiting up to 15 years for subsidized housing — a rise of 18 per cent in just two years.

The good news is that a solution is within our grasp.

Along with a growing number of Ontarians, we propose a new Ontario Housing Benefit — a strategic and practical idea that would effectively help low-income Ontarians pay the rent and move out of poverty.

This measure would draw on lessons learned from housing benefits in other jurisdictions and would build on the best features of the Ontario Child Benefit — an initiative that is credited with helping to reduce child poverty in this province.

An Ontario Housing Benefit can provide assistance to low-income tenants to help them meet their rent payment.

Similar to the Ontario Child Benefit, an Ontario Housing Benefit can reduce financial barriers that exist for people when they try to move from social assistance to employment. The benefit can vary according to city size, family size, a tenant’s income and rent paid. There should be no clawbacks for social assistance recipients.

Housing benefits have been shown to be effective anti-poverty tools in other jurisdictions, including Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. It’s time for Ontario to catch up.

Unlike other provinces, the only permanent housing benefit — known as a shelter allowance — in Ontario is paid exclusively to social assistance recipients. The working poor do not get help to cover the cost of their housing.

A new Ontario housing benefit would extend shelter benefits to the working poor, who also have high shelter costs, while also supporting those on social assistance.

On May 6, 2009, all three parties in the Ontario Legislature voted for the Poverty Reduction Act, building on the significant achievement of a commitment to reduce child and family poverty by 25 per cent in five years. A housing benefit could be a crucial part of the plan to meet this goal.

The provincial government, through its Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, has committed to exploring the idea of a new Ontario Housing Benefit. So, too, has the Social Assistance Review Commission.

Much as the Ontario Housing Benefit has bridged the interests of renters, anti-poverty advocates, social policy experts and landlords, all three Ontario parties have also expressed openness to the idea.

Although no party in Ontario has yet made a public commitment to pursue a housing benefit, we hope the coming election opens up space for all parties to show their support for this innovative measure.

A carefully designed, fiscally prudent benefit is smart policy to help low-income renters make ends meet and take pressure off subsidized housing waiting lists. The design we have proposed would cost the provincial treasury $240 million annually and provide an average monthly benefit of about $100 to nearly 200,000 low-income tenants.

The cost of not acting is much higher. Poverty costs Ontario an estimated $38 billion a year in increased expenditures in health care, social assistance and foregone tax revenues.

An Ontario Housing Benefit, while not a magic bullet, would be a cost-effective tool to advance social assistance reform, help the homeless and help working poor people with low incomes to live closer to where they work.

Landlords like it, renters like it — it’s a win-win situation. So let’s make it an election issue and, after the election, work toward building a new Ontario Housing Benefit in 2012.

Gail Nyberg is executive director of Daily Bread Food Bank. Vince Brescia is president and CEO of the Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario. Sharad Kerur is executive director of the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Housing.

Read this Op Ed on the Toronto Star’s website

— Dr. Munir Sheikh, commissioner, provincial social assistance review commission.

As understatements go, Sheikh’s is a dramatic one.

The 18-month review of social assistance in Ontario that he is undertaking with commissioner Frances Lankin will be the largest — and we hope most thorough — examination of social assistance programs since the late 1980s. In the interim, those programs have taken a beating, most significantly during the Mike Harris years of ideologically based cuts.

Sheikh is right that this is not about small fixes. Our social assistance system is well and truly broken. The rules are numerous, complex and often seem arbitrary; some are downright punitive. Benefit rates bear no relationship to the actual cost of basic necessities. People on social assistance — Ontario Works (OW) or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) — do not have enough money to feed themselves properly.

Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada who quit last summer on principle over the cancellation of the long-form census, and Lankin, a former NDP MPP and cabinet minister as well as the former head of the United Way of Toronto, have a huge job ahead of them. In a meeting with The Spectator’s editorial board earlier this week, they said they are determined to produce recommendations that are practical, achievable and sustainable.

Just a cursory examination of social assistance rates reveals them to be woefully inadequate. Even a single person earning minimum wage at a full-time job falls below the low income cut-off — essentially what we used to call the poverty line. But a single person on OW generally receives about $592 per month. That’s $19.10 per day to live on. A bachelor apartment in Hamilton goes for about $501 per month; that leave less than $3 a day for everything else. It’s difficult to fathom how people manage to survive. Is it any surprise the majority of those who use our food banks are social assistance recipients?

The problem with our broken social assistance system is not only about the inadequacy of the benefits. There are more than 800 rules that make the system a nightmare to navigate. The focus is too much on eligibility — is this person disabled enough to be on ODSP; is that person trying hard enough to find work to be on OW?

But, at the same time, the system operates on a clawback basis that penalizes many of those who do enter the workforce, leaving them no further ahead. Where, then, is the incentive to find paid work? Why work part-time if you are punished for such initiative, if it doesn’t actually improve life for your family? Clearly, it’s a no-win situation.

If benefit rates are evidence-based, will it cost taxpayers more? Probably in the short term, but not necessarily in the longer term, provided the system is reformed to make it easier for recipients to move into paid work and, ultimately, into a life of greater dignity.

Many complain about fraud in the system. There is no doubt it exists, but it is minuscule relative to the system as a whole. And, if we are so upset by that type of fraud, why do we not rail as loudly against those who cheat on their income tax?

The social assistance system is balkanized where it needs to be unified, monolithic where it needs to be flexible. The recommendations that come out of this review will not be ready before October’s provincial election. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the province must ensure the system is fair and sensible.

Read this editorial on the Hamilton Spectator’s website

You can listen to the interview on the CBC’s website by clicking here.

Here is an unofficial transcript of the conversation:

Matt Galloway (MG): How could Ontario’s social assistance programs better help those who need them and encourage those who can work to find work?

Those are the questions being asked by the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario.

Yesterday we heard a first-hand perspective of Karen Hearn, single mother of two who’s on the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP. She talked about how difficult it was simply to make ends meet and then try and figure out a way to lay a path for a better future for herself based on what she received through ODSP.

Today, we’re joined by one of the Commissioners currently travelling this province seeking suggestions. Frances Lankin is the former president of United Way Toronto. She is in Hamilton this morning. Frances, good morning.

Frances Lankin (FL): Good morning, Matt.

MG: You are on the job, having met with people in Windsor and London. You are on your way to Niagara later on today. What are you hearing about social assistance and, well, let’s start with what’s going wrong?

FL: Well I think that people look at this system and say, there’s two goals. One is to provide transition support to help people get back into the paid labour force, and the other is for those who can’t work to provide adequate income and support in their lives to live a life with some dignity and not be in abject poverty. And what we’re hearing is a pretty loud consensus that the system is not working, it’s not meeting those goals, and that tweaking and tinkering just won’t do. It requires fundamental reform.

MG: Where are the faults, from your perspective, and based on what you know through your reviews but also in your time with United Way Toronto where, as I said earlier, you knew through that, and you saw the need in this city, and how people relied on programs like that for a helping hand.

FL: Well, if the help that’s required is help to get back into the paid labour force, there’s a couple of things at play that are pretty critical.

First of all, for people who have found themselves in the situation of being on social assistance, there’s probably some major crises in their lives. And the first thing that’s required are the kind of helping supports to stabilize a person’s life. They may have lost their housing, they may require support with child care, there could be medical issues that need to be addressed. And often the system doesn’t integrate and provide those kinds of supports that will help a person stabilize their life in order to take the next step back to employment.

With respect to employment services, there are a myriad of programs, it’s hard to find your way through the right door to get the right support. And often the kind of training that people get, or the kind of help and program supports they get, don’t lead to a job that can become a permanent job that can help lift them and their families out of poverty. Often, it’s into a job where there is a contract, it’s short-term, there’s no benefits, and people and their families start into a cycle, a downward spiral. It can be very, very depressing for individuals, they can’t get ahead, they end up mired in debt, and that’s when they get stuck into the system.

MG: It’s that idea of not getting ahead that’s key. One of the things we know is that, we heard this yesterday from Karen Hearn who’s on ODSP, is that the cost of living doesn’t seem to be factored in to what people are getting back. And so, as you say, there’s no opportunity for people to move themselves forward because they can barely stay afloat as it is.

FL: We’ve been hearing from all of the community voices, and before we started our travel and community visits we’ve been meeting with provincial organizations. There’s a very loud cry for us to have a methodology to establish social assistance rates. And as we heard in Hamilton last night, people are calling for an evidence-based approach. By that they mean, let’s take a look at what the average cost of housing is in a community, let’s look at what food costs are, transportation availability and costs are, and build, from the ground up, a rate that will help people live in the community where they are from.

The other thing that we hear, however, is that that has to be established in the context of the labour market that we see and that people will be entering. And there’s a real challenge there for policy makers, I think, to figure this out, because that labour market is seeing an increase in the kind of jobs that government calls non-standard jobs, in the community it’s referred to as precarious employment. Low wage, short-term, no benefits. And so, creating a system where those things work together, there’s a lot of pressure and there’s a lot of trade-offs, and the answers perhaps are not all within the design of the social assistance system. There are some fundamental things going on in our economy that, in communities, we have to talk about and we have to get policy makers to consider in the whole mix of issues that are on the table.

MG: Do you honestly believe that this will be taken seriously, in a time of austerity, in a time of pulling back, but also in an election year where social assistance often isn’t politically, a review of social assistance isn’t politically expedient?

FL: Matt, I’ve spent most of my adult life honestly believing that these things are important and that someone will listen if we keep working. And so, that hasn’t changed about me or I wouldn’t have said yes to this.

MG: Believing they’re important is one thing, but believing that the politicians that are responsible for changing this are actually going to take this on in a meaningful way is another.

FL: So, I think, yes, I do believe it and here’s why I believe it. The consensus that exists around the fact that the system is broken, that it’s not working, is very strong. And that goes across all three political parties in the Ontario legislature. We’re meeting with representatives of government but we’re also meeting with representatives of opposition parties. And we have heard directly that people think things need to be fixed. There may be different opinions about what needs to be fixed, and we need to work to listen and to build responses to a broad cross-section of views.

What I think is really important about the work that’s going on right now is we’ve asked communities to convene community consultations that bring business, labour, broader community, people with lived experience, first nations, front-line workers, together to identify the challenges and the solutions together. To try and build a social consensus. If we can get any kind of consensus emerging, I think governments of any political stripe will want to respond to try and make the system better.

MG: Frances, good to talk to you.

FL: You too, Matt. Take care.

Economist Dr. Atif Kubursi and Hamilton Community Legal Clinic staff lawyer Craig Foye presented a report to council Monday about the economic impact of spending by Hamiltonians living on social assistance. They requested councillors endorse the report and write to the province, emphasizing the need for an “evidence-based” model for setting social assistance rates.

Council’s endorsement came on the same day Frances Lankin and Dr. Munir Sheikh, who were appointed last year to a provincial social assistance review commission, visited various agencies in the city and held a forum at the Hamilton Convention Centre in which they received public input.

After a lengthy debate, city council voted 8-6 to write to the commission, the premier and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, stressing the need for an independent social assistance review board that would set rates based on what it costs annually to maintain a residence and buy basic necessities.

They are also directing the economic development department to come back to council about incorporating “pro-poor” and community economic development strategies into the overall economic policy in its five-year strategy.

Current social assistance rates “are arbitrary numbers and they are politically determined. They have no connection at all to the actual cost of basic necessities in communities across Ontario,” Foye said.

“The rates … should be based on evidence, should be rationally connected to the actual costs of goods and services in the communities in which the individuals and families receiving those benefits reside.”

Kubursi’s findings are an example of the type of evidence needed in analyzing social assistance rates, as they point to the economic benefit of the programs, Foye said.

The Economic Impact of Social Assistance in Hamilton document indicates the $368 million received by adult beneficiaries of Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program in 2009 generated about $440 million of income for the province. About $296 million remained in the city.

The expenditures also led to the equivalent of 5,441 full-time jobs in the province. More than 3,383 of these positions were in the city, according to the findings.

“Societies … are no longer judged by their economic prowess in terms of their growth, but by the extent by which they take care of their bottom 10 per cent,” said Kubursi, an economist with Econometric Research Limited.

But Mayor Bob Bratina cautioned councillors multiple times not to move too quickly in endorsing the report until staff has looked it over and come back to council.

He raised concerns about the report over the fact philanthropic contributions made in Hamilton were not factored into the data.

Later in the day, Lankin and Sheikh met with the authors of the local report to discuss their findings and their campaign for a new way of setting social assistance rates.

During a meeting with The Spectator’s editorial board, Lankin and Sheikh noted some of the dominant public feedback they have been receiving, including criticism of the “maze” of eligibility rules and a push to make recipients work-ready.

The commissioners are visiting 10 communities this summer before releasing a document outlining options for recommendations by the end of the year.

One of their concerns is designing a benefit structure that provides sufficient support but does not create different standards that discourage recipients from seeking work, Lankin said.

Sheikh echoed the public’s concern.

“I don’t think there is an anchor to the existing benefit structure. It’s not quite clear as to how these benefits get set. (That’s) one thing we’re looking at,” he said.

The commissioners have a year to put together a report with an action plan.

Read this article on the Hamilton Spectator’s website

When governments put money in “hard” infrastructure, such as repairing a road, they are confident it will pay for itself. The immediate economic impact of paying for workers and materials is obvious. The longer term payoff in terms of producing economic activity is nevertheless much greater, yet involves a complex web of relationships that cannot be directly observed. While we cannot directly see the cause-effect relationship of efficient transportation systems, experience has taught us that such infrastructure is needed for economic growth.

Yet, when governments invest in people and social services, somehow these direct and indirect benefits fall off the radar. These investments become merely charitable redistribution. Politicians speak about them as if we are simply shovelling money into a hole and covering it over. It is treated as a burden without positive economic impact. We therefore underinvest in social infrastructure, even if it is crucial in creating wealth, pushing high-tax countries like Sweden to the top of world competitiveness rankings. High taxes can be good for growth when wisely invested in developing individual and collective productive capacities.

Two events this Monday, July 4, bring the issue of social investment to the fore. First, Dr. Atif Kubursi, emeritus professor of economics at McMaster, will present his report on the economic impacts of social assistance to city council in the morning. Then, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, the commissioners of the provincial Social Assistance Review, will hold an open public consultation at the Convention Centre starting at 6:30 p.m.

Kubursi’s report on the economic impact of social assistance benefits in Hamilton is an eye-opener in making the short-term economic impact clear. Using a Regional Impact model, Economic Research Limited demonstrated that recipients spend their money on goods and services, creating and sustaining jobs: The $368 million spent on benefits creates $ 439.3 million in value added in Ontario ($296.2 million locally) and maintains 5,441 Ontario jobs (3,383 locally).

While social assistance does not pay for itself in the short term, even here 40 per cent of the cost ($144.6 million) is returned to the federal and provincial coffers through taxes.

This impact is not surprising, because social assistance recipients are not in a position to save, so the entire benefit is flowed into the local economy. And once it is there, its impact is multiplied more than benefits for the wealthy, because more of it is spent on local products and services.

Other social investments such as Quebec’s $7/day child care program entirely pay for themselves, as the presence of the program enables more parents to work and pay taxes. Indeed, Université de Montréal economist Pierre Fortin found a $1.49 return for every dollar invested in this program.

Kubursi’s report focuses on the direct impact of social assistance. But just like a road, social investment has much greater indirect impacts in terms of enabling people to build skills, maintain health, and weather economic dislocation, personal crises, or harm or accident. Just like cars can go so fast precisely because they have brakes, people can take the chances that enrich our society when they know they’ll be supported on the off chance they fail.

On this front, we could ask whether social assistance expenditures are as productive as they could be, and indeed whether increasing funding might be a more prudent investment. Submissions to the provincial Social Assistance Review, which stops in Hamilton Monday, underscore the many features that limit the developmental capacities of social assistance. These include the need to spend down all one’s assets in order to qualify, the absence of qualifying training geared to long-term labour-force attachment, the lack of child care spaces, and an administrative culture that sometimes treats recipients as if they were children.

But perhaps most fundamentally, levels of benefits for single people on Ontario Works are at about 40 per cent of the poverty line. This pushes recipients into monthly cycles of extreme hunger, that over time lead to physical and mental health problems. It also pushes them into insecure housing, making securing a roof more urgent than securing a job, and indeed denying the stability needed to confidently seek work.

In sum, higher benefits, better training, accessible child care and affordable housing are all areas where making further investments would allow us to achieve the far greater and dynamic economic benefits made possible by our existing investments. Be it the Kubursi report or the story of the child-care system that pays for itself, it is clear that investing in people is like investing in roads. To treat it as money wasted is to ignore the evidence, and to forego our greater prosperity.

Peter Graefe teaches social policy at McMaster University.

Dr. Atif Kubursi, a professor at McMaster University and economist for Econometric Research Limited, is speaking to city councillors Monday about the findings published in The Economic Impact of Social Assistance in Hamilton report.

Commissioners who were appointed by the province to review social assistance, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, are also in Hamilton Monday for public input on the programs.

“People tend to think of social assistance (as) a social burden and many people tend to focus on abuses of the system,” Kubursi said Saturday. “What they really should see is that these people are really victims of a market economy and that when we take care of them, we are also taking care of ourselves and that whatever assistance we give them seems to also create jobs.”

Kubursi and Hamilton Community Legal Clinic staff lawyer Craig Foye looked at the city’s community services data on local OW (Ontario Works) and ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) adult beneficiaries. They found OW benefits were about $123.6 million and ODSP benefits were about $244.1 million in 2009.

The report indicates the $368 million received by beneficiaries in Hamilton generated about $440 million in economic activity across the province — $296 million of which remained in Hamilton.

The expenditures also led to 5,441 full-time equivalent jobs in the province. More than 3,383 of these positions were in the city, according to the findings. Foye noted these employment opportunities are “spinoff” jobs — not jobs in social assistance administration.

The economic impact of this spending is determined based on multipliers, or how the initial expenditure resonates in the economy, he said.

“Because most people on social assistance are receiving below subsistence levels of income, any money that you’re giving them is being spent, really, 100 per cent; none of it’s being saved in the vast majority of cases and it’s being spent locally,” he said.

The report, which was submitted by Econometric Research Limited, also pegs the total cost of OW and ODSP programs at about $368 million. The net cost, however, is around $223 million after factoring in tax collected by all three levels of government.

The report not only challenges the notion of social assistance as being a burden — it emphasizes societies are assessed by how well they take care of their most vulnerable groups, Kubursi said.

“If these people are not getting social assistance, there will be social dysfunctions that will come.”

Read this article on the Hamilton Spectator’s website