Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spending in social assistance often increases when the income supports available
through surrounding programs are eroded. For example, the relationship between
the erosion of other disability programs, like WSIB and CPP-D, and the growth of
ODSP has been documented by John Stapleton in numerous papers and
presentations that can be shared with government.
support and housing. Reducing the incarceration rate of persons with mental health
disabilities is an important objective in which access to ODSP plays a critical role.
Reforms to social assistance that may cause program spending to increase slightly
could create savings in other ministries and advance other policy objectives. For
example, exempting at least 50% of child and spousal support payments would
provide a positive incentive to seeking support rather a coercive one. This could
reduce the pressure on Family Courts and Legal Aid systems, in addition to
reducing conflict between separating or separated parents. Increased cooperation
between separated parents may even mean that MCSS spending does not increase
substantially. Most importantly, children would the benefit from increased incomes.
These are but a few examples that point to the importance of a comprehensive, interministerial approach to social assistance reform. We support the budget announcement
that the reform process be led by the Poverty Reduction Cabinet Committee for this
reason. Leadership from the Cabinet Committee would also reinforce poverty reduction
as a framework and a lens for social assistance reform in other words, poverty
reduction would become the cornerstone of social assistance reform.
Social Assistance Reform since 2008
ISAC has been advocating for the transformation of social assistance since Ontario
developed its 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy. We noted then that the current programs
were the legacy of a punitive approach to poverty, and that in their current form would
continue to undermine the success of any poverty reduction strategy. We were pleased
that social assistance reform was included in the 2008 Strategy, but progress on reform
has been limited and, in fact, several changes have been made to OW and ODSP that
have made the lives of people who rely on these programs more difficult.
Having participated in the Social Assistance Review Advisory Councils (SARAC) work to
develop terms of reference for a full review, we continue to support its recommendations,
and in particular the need to examine the range of and interactions between income
security programs, and to take a broader, more comprehensive approach to income
supports than a focus on a welfare model approach allows.
The final report of the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario
contained many important recommendations for improving Ontario Works, but many of its
recommendations on ODSP are highly problematic and indefensible. We believe that this
is at least in part a function of focusing too narrowly on reform within the social assistance
system and not looking for solutions outside of the programs themselves.
The Commissions work must be understood as one step in the development of
recommendations for change, but not the blueprint for reform.
Rule Changes in Budget 2013
Ontarios 2013 budget took modest but critical steps towards improving the Ontario
Works program by implementing some of the Commissions recommendations. The
increase in asset exemptions, the $200 employment income exemption, allowing
$6000/year in gifts, and the additional increase for singles on Ontario Works were
Submission on Ontarios Next Poverty Reduction Strategy Income Security Advocacy Centre October 2013
important steps. They were a signal that government understands where many of the
problems in social assistance lie.
But it is important to recognize that these changes represent long-standing
recommendations from the low-income community and from policy experts; in other
words, they represent a consensus among stakeholders. Indeed, most of the budget
changes were recommended by SARAC in 2010 as short-term rule changes that could
be made prior to reform. They are important improvements, but are not transformative.
Primarily, they help to mitigate the deep poverty that has been a prerequisite to accessing
and remaining eligible for Ontario Works.
However, of deep concern was the differential application of this years 1% rate increase
to families receiving ODSP benefits. Unlike Ontario Works recipients, recipients of ODSP
received the extremely modest increase only to the portion of the benefit attributable to
the person with a disability and not his/her spouse or children.
This change appears to stem from the Commissions recommendation that the spouses
and children of persons with disabilities should not receive benefits greater than those for
dependents of persons on OW. But embedded in this recommendation lie assumptions
that are highly contested and have never been the subject of consultation or supported by
empirical research. Worse still, this recommendation appears to have been implemented
without explicit announcement.
There needs to be a clear understanding by not only those working on social assistance
reform but also those preparing the next poverty reduction strategy for Ontario that the
reforms made in the late 1990s reduced OW benefit rates to punishingly low and unsafe
amounts. The differential in benefit rates between OW and ODSP must be understood in
this context, not in one that implies that ODSP rates have risen beyond what is needed.
Indeed, despite rate increases, ODSP rates have not kept pace with inflation. No one can
afford to be red-circled in future rate increases. And it should go without saying that a
poverty reduction framework should ensure that no further cuts be made to a system, and
to Ontarians, that have been starved for decades.
Future Reform Processes
It is critical that further steps on social assistance reform take place in a transparent
manner. Government needs to be clear about the direction it is heading. We have
received mixed messages about governments response to the Commissions report in
one instance government announced an intention to implement the report, while in other
announcements the report has been described as simply a starting point.
If it is the intention of government to use the Commissions report as a guide or blueprint
for reform, this needs to be stated publicly, and broad public discussion must take place.
The Commissions review process, while broadly consultative, was focused around two
discussion papers and did not provide the public an opportunity to respond to draft
recommendations. The recommendations, particularly with respect to ODSP, are
sufficiently controversial that they should not proceed without broad public discussion
and, critically, clarification about what their implementation could actually mean for the
people who depend on these programs.
Submission on Ontarios Next Poverty Reduction Strategy Income Security Advocacy Centre October 2013
support, including instituting a minimum wage that takes full-year full-time workers out of
poverty; increasing employment standards coverage and enforcement; instituting
employment equity legislation; increasing the ability of workers to unionize; creating a
good jobs strategy for Ontario; and instituting a public system of extended medical and
dental supports.
Reduction of the OW and ODSP caseload must not be a poverty reduction strategy
target. There are many ways to reduce the numbers of people receiving assistance that
do not include successful integration into an inclusive labour market that provides a living
wage. Caseload reductions must only be an outcome of good quality supports that
successfully move people into the kinds of jobs that are sustaining and sustainable.
Poverty Reduction and Equity
Ontarios next poverty reduction strategy must adopt an equity approach. We and others
have highlighted the important recognition contained in the Poverty Reduction Act 2009
to the differential risk of poverty among different groups in Ontario, stemming from the
barriers to full participation in society that are placed in their way, including various forms
of discrimination and racism. This recognition must be coupled with distinct, strategic, and
targeted action.
Different supports and services are needed for different groups to adequately address the
barriers they face and to make headway on poverty by addressing root causes. This is
why we call for an equity approach. Addressing poverty through generic responses that
ignore the differential experience of poverty among different groups in Ontario society is
not only inappropriate but will not be successful.
Poverty Reduction and Austerity
For government to make a serious commitment to poverty reduction, it must abandon its
focus on spending restraint and refocus on investing in Ontarians. Committing to allocate
and/or raise the revenues necessary to make the required investments will be key to
progress on poverty reduction. The next strategy must also identify how much money
government is going to invest in each of its program areas and in what year these
investments will be made.
Countless reports have demonstrated the need for more money, not less, and
investments in the Ontario Child Benefit and other poverty reduction initiatives have
demonstrated the success of an investment approach. Reducing poverty cant be
accomplished by doing more with less. Investing resources is required.
Conclusion
We appreciate the governments commitment to poverty reduction and the important
progress on reducing child poverty that has been made to date. This next five-year period
is a critical opportunity for government to continue to make progress, to expand the focus
of poverty reduction beyond children, and to be more strategic in its approach. We hope
that our recommendations will assist in achieving these objectives.
Submission on Ontarios Next Poverty Reduction Strategy Income Security Advocacy Centre October 2013
October 8, 2013