It has been a crazy week…

by John Laforet
posted on July 24th, 2008 at 10:39:11 am

So I have not kept up with my original time line for posting the poverty related pieces I have been working on. It was very tight to begin with. This past week has been fairly hectic and I’m still working through some of the things I would like to say. For that reason there will be a bit of a delay.

I should have something, although maybe not poverty related to share in the next day or two. I’ve started working on a piece on a topic that is very near to my heart and my initial reason for seeking public office, the Guild Inn. The Gardiner announcement and the unique view I often have of that particular stretch of the Gardiner has prompted me to look a little deeper into the issues and consequences surrounding tearing down the chunk that has been in the news.

So there is much to come, but just not right now…

Re-Cap of Poverty Meetings

by John Laforet
posted on July 21st, 2008 at 15:35:35 pm

The Politicians and the Poverty Meetings:

Overall the three poverty meetings Scarborough I am going to discuss were very well attended. The meeting held by Minister Best and the meeting the City held had fairly similar audiences participating.  Minister Best gave very compelling remarks that did not appear to be rehearsed, or prepared. Her eyes, voice and body language showed the sincerity in her beliefs. At the City meeting, Councillor Joe Mihevc from St. Pauls (Ward 21) in downtown Toronto spoke. He delivered a prepared speech, heavy on rhetoric and not well crafted for the audience. The only Scarborough Councillor present was Councillor Ainslie from Scarborough East (Ward 43). Councillor Ainslie did not speak at all during the two and half hours. Neither Councillor milled around to actually listen to the discussions happening in the small groups. Both looked at the speakers at the microphones during presentations, but took few notes as City staff were taking notes for Toronto’s submission. Negative comments about the municipal government for whatever reason were not recorded. The CASSA meeting had the best attendance of politicians with Trustee’s Neethan Shan (Markham) and Nadia Bello (Toronto) actively participating, Shan as MC and Bello as the education panelist. Minister Chan also attended the meeting. He appeared to be actively listening and demonstrated this by recalling the key points each of the panelists had made during their portions of the meeting. He gave some brief remarks, and then told the audience he would then deliver his prepared speech. Off the cuff he was very good, on message it was what is to be expected.

Meeting Summaries:

I want to talk first about the meeting dynamics and something that rubbed me the wrong way at Minister Best’s meeting and the City meeting. I am going to be as frank as I can while being weary not offend anyone or be misunderstood.

I want to start by saying I think advocacy groups with grassroots support are integral to democracy and have an important place in the creation of public policy. But some of what I saw during these meetings, which were not intended to be stakeholder consultations as much as they were community consultations did not sit very well with me.

 At both meetings those who were most vocal were people involved with organizations that had set agendas on poverty reduction and, at least in my view did not necessarily need to use rare public meetings between elected officials and their constituents to further convey their opinion. Organizations have an ability to meet with a Minister privately, commission reports to gain earned media coverage of their opinions, and send out a news release and have some hope of being quoted. The average citizen can call their MPP or write them a letter and in most cases speak to a constituency assistant who will pass along their concerns, or may schedule a meeting if the MPP and this individual have some shared availability during business hours on a Friday. It seems to me, open forums should be used to allow for an honest dialogue between people and their representatives.

 I had hoped much more of the conversation would be dominated by members of the community who were not necessarily affiliated with organizations who either are entirely advocacy based or work on the ground to address some of the effects of poverty. It might be somewhat controversial to say, but I at least found, particularly when these individuals were reporting on behalf of their groups it was very clear the outcomes of the conversations within their groups were heavily influenced by the dominant players.

As someone who has led group discussions that were similar, but not quite focus groups as part of a report for the federal government on democratic reform, I am aware of the ability for two or three people to really control a conversation, simply by being more comfortable speaking. The issues we were discussing were also opinions strongly held and of deep importance to everyone. They are also hard questions. People who do not constantly think about them, do need more time to articulate their position, develop their ideas and the patience of others to do so. With the absence of trained facilitators to encourage discussion and call on those who are particularly quiet, it is almost impossible to ensure they are heard.

Having these individuals present is not necessarily all bad; I guess it really may depend on their level of involvement and openness to allow for other views to come forward. At least two of the participants with clear affiliations,  regularly spoke on behalf of their groups and were frequently hostile toward the government at both Minister Best’s and the City’s meeting. The message was very similar, although group memberships were different at both events. I am not suggesting they ignored the other views that were raised, but certainly at the reporting stage the focus was more so on the views they expressed than equal emphasis on everything. Let me contrast this with something really positive a community organization did at Minister Best’s meeting. A local organization that has done tremendous work with youth in our community brought maybe eight or so to participate. The man who works with them did an amazing job in ensuring the youth with got to participate in this discussion, share their opinions and at each reporting stage one of them gave the summary. I was very impressed by this and very happy to see it happen.

During Minister Best’s meeting I sat at a side table just to listen and observe. At the City meeting, I participated in a small group and ultimately reported on it’s behalf towards the end of the session.  The group I participated in at the City consultation had an interesting mix to it. I was one of six participants, two were volunteers with a religiously based, but non-denominational charity, two participants worked for a social services agency, I and the other individual were both students. The other student was involved with an advocacy campaign on poverty alleviation, and in fairness, I am involved in politics in both partisan and non partisan ways. We however were fairly balanced and focused our conversations more on people we’ve met, experiences we were aware of and solutions as we see it. No one was particularly driven by anything but the compelling facts each of us brought from our different backgrounds. When I was asked to report on behalf of my group, I initially declined by saying “the night is young“, but opted to in the third round of reporting. We spent a few minutes making sure I had everything in my notes before I spoke, mindful of the need to ensure the conversation, not my own passions were reflected.

The CASSA meeting was probably the best attended and the most informative of all. I have to admit, I was only able to stay for the first half of the agenda as I had to be at work for 9pm. CASSA had done some previous consultations with its member agencies and determined the four main issues that relate to poverty and assembled an excellent panel of individuals within the South Asian community that deal with these issues on the ground on a daily basis. The main thrust behind the CASSA meeting was a need to ensure that the South Asian community is actively participating in the poverty reduction consultations that some of the more unique challenges facing this community are also addressed.

At all three meetings representatives from poverty reduction advocacy organizations handed out pamphlets with their recommendations on what the government ought to do to alleviate poverty, something I found informative certainly. At CASSA’s meeting member organizations also had some brochures present, which really showed some of the quality work they do to ensure among other things, labour standards are known to workers who are prodominately new Canadians.

The common themes that came out of the three meetings include:

These are in no particular order. I think trying to order the reforms required to reduce poverty would make properly ordering the sides of a Rubik’s cube seem easy.

Housing – The discussion was mainly focussed on the need to create affordable, livable housing in our city. Particularly from the CASSA meeting there was a discussion about hidden homelessness and multiple families living in a dwelling intended for a single family. It was a good point that needed to be made because as was said at the meeting, it is something that is often justified away and therefore never really addressed.

Minimum Wage and Income – In general all meetings called on minimum wage increases to a more livable wage. There were some differences of opinion in how fast the minimum wage ought to increase and at what point can the increases stop, level out or adjust to inflation.

Improved Social Assistance – Social assistance was a major part of all discussions. The primary focus was the inadequacies in the amount of social assistance available to those who require various forms of assistance. Barriers to moving off assistance were also mentioned due to the claw back structure as well as opposition to the cutting of the back-to-school allowances and winter clothes allowances to social assistance recipients. Many called on the government to at least restore the cuts Harris made in 1995 (approximately 22%) and adjust it for inflation from 1995 to 2008 and moving forward.

Childcare – Childcare came up repeatedly as a major challenge particularly to low income single parents. Two stories that touched me came out of discussions on child care. A social worker talked about the pregnant teens she works with and advocates for and the challenges of keeping them in school during their pregnancies. She told us that a handful of high school graduates she has been working with were accepted to college or university, but the costs of child care in some cases would keep them from being able to attend. This should not happen. Another story came from a single mother with two children who is pursuing her Masters at University and is aware that when she graduates she will crash into a major financial wall. Her biggest fear was what would happen when she lost her childcare subsidy, not to mention her rent subsidy or the fact that she’ll need to begin paying off a mammoth student loan that in many places could disguise itself as a mortgage.

Heath Care – In more than one meeting the government was called on to end the 3 month waiting period for persons new to Ontario being eligible for OHIP coverage.

Recognizing Foreign Credentials – Particularly as a way to address poverty in communities with high rates of recent immigration the government was called on to make it far easier for foreign credentials to be recognized. The reality for many well educated professionals who immigrate to Canada is search of a new life, find their skills not recognized and then being put in a position of working either through temp agencies or at low paying jobs that do not allow them to sustain their families.

There were other ideas that came out of the conversations as well and of those many involved social programs, but were not necessarily linked directly to poverty alleviation.

I learned quite a bit attending these meetings. In many cases they helped me refine my views a bit, and in some cases re-affirm what I’ve already held to be the best approach to poverty alleviation. Like many Ontarians I am hopeful that the provincial government will come out with a meaningful report with recommendations that will do more than paper over some of the major issues surrounding poverty in this province.

Child Poverty in Ward 43

by John Laforet
posted on July 20th, 2008 at 20:40:22 pm

I realized that I did not re-cap the poverty meetings I’ve attended yesterday as previously planned. I thought it was probably best to talk about child poverty in my community and then talk about what came out of the poverty reduction meetings in Scarborough. It just seems to flow better that way. 

Child Poverty in Ward 43 (City Ward Report on Child Poverty)

Just to put it in perspective I’m going to start with some City of Toronto data (which I will exclusively rely on for the purposes of this post) and go into some discussion. Stylistically speaking “City” will refer to the municipal government, while “city” will refer to Toronto as a whole. 

Key Facts:

Ward 43 has the highest rate of child poverty in all of Scarborough and the third highest rate of child poverty in the city of Toronto. 

41% of children in Ward 43 under 14 live in poverty compared to 30% across the city as a whole. 

In total Ward 43 has 5125 children under 14 living in families below the low income cut off and only 985 of those children receive subsidized childcare. 503 children are on a waiting list. The City believes of the 24 000 subsidized spaces, Ward 43 is entitled to 1029, still more than 4 000 spots short of even just the number of children below the low income cut off. 

The LICO – Low Income Cut Off is defined as $22,964 for a family of two or $34 572 for a family of four. It is also commonly referred to and generally accepted as the “poverty line”.

In neighbouring Ward 44 where half as many children live in poverty and the incidence is both the lowest in Scarborough and the 4th lowest in the City overall, there are 46% more subsidized childcare spaces than the City feels is equitable. Ward 43 by contrast has 41 fewer subsidized spots than the City believes it ought to.

As of July 10th (when I began to research the hard numbers on vacant childcare spots) there were 113 vacant subsidy spots in Ward 43, representing over 20% of the current waiting list. Ward 44 had 44 vacant subsidy spots and as of July 18, had 48 vacant spots. This represents more than the 41 spots the City believes Ward 43 deserves under the equity guidelines. As of July 18th, Ward 43 had 110 vacancies. Lets hope the City fills vacancies at a faster rate then this usually. Here is a link to the Children Service’s page that makes this information public. 

Discussion of Child Poverty in Ward 43 and Toronto

While I believe child poverty everywhere must be addressed, I think it is important to focus most on neighbourhoods and communities where child poverty is highest. When it comes to practical applications of poverty reduction, I believe the City does have the opportunity to lead through programs and support to low income families. It should start by immediately filling all vacant childcare spots in Wards where the City has stated too few subsidized spots are available to children. The City should re-allocate the vacant subsidies in Wards where the city believes there are too many subsidized spots to those below the equity guidelines. While I do not believe the 24 000 current subsidized spots is enough, particularly when over 100 000 children are eligible for subsidized daycare, I do think that the current spots do need to be distributed fairly first, and that new money also ought to be distributed in a fair way across all city wards in future.

In places like Ward 43 where child poverty is so overwhelming the City should work with local school boards, the province and outside groups to support breakfast programs in all K-8 schools to give children a fair shot at learning. It has been said repeatedly it is far more difficult to learn on an empty stomach. This spring, I spoke with a woman at a community event who runs a breakfast program at a local school in my community. The challenges facing these programs in just ensuring they have the resources to go all year are immense. They ask parents to send $5 a week to school with their child if they are able to help cover the cost, but the reality is many parents cannot afford to. 

In the absence of daycare spaces, after school programs become even more important, especially for school aged kids. Not only do they provide children with an opportunity to either enhance their learning outside of the classroom or participate in some sort of physical activity, but they allow parents to buy time before needing to pick up their children after work. 

I’m going to share some of the graphics that came from the City’s Ward Specific reports on children. Please click the following link and select “High Proportion of Children Living in Low-Income Families” and “Electoral Wards”. The red dots are the high proportions. Notice how Ward 43 is almost entirely red except a small portion of Seven Oaks in the north east corner and all of Guildwood in the south? Because these two neighbourhoods have next to no child poverty, what this means is in the areas that do the incidence is far higher than the reported 41%. There are a bunch of other comparisons you can do between standardized test scores, library registration of children under 12, etc. and incidence of child poverty as well. The data is really compelling, take a look… I can’t discuss it here or this post will turn into a novella in no time!

The next graphic is a chart that compares Ward 43 family income to that of the City of Toronto. I’ve made it as big as I can here.

I want to provide some perspective on these numbers. The LICO – Low Income Cut Off for the purposes of this chart is defined as $22,964 for a family of two or $34 572 for a family of four. Almost 20% of families live on less than half what is considered to be the poverty line. That means a single mother with one child and an income of less than $11 500 or a two parents with two children and an income of less than $ 17 500. Those are nearly impossibly low sums to live on, particularly while raising a child. You will also notice in Ward 43 of families living on less than 50% of the LICO, single parents make up significantly more of these families in Ward 43 than in the city as a whole.

The solution to low income is obviously a having a higher income. But that requires an ability to work, particularly under conditions that will make earning a higher income possible. This generally means full time. Below is a chart I’ve put together using City of Toronto data on average daycare costs. Consider the barrier daycare costs create to even being able to seek employment. 

Keep in mind the costs below are both averages and monthly. 

Just how is a single parent supposed to make it work? How can a two parent family become a double income family with such high child care costs? It seems clear to me that the solution is a program either similar to Quebec’s much discussed $7 a day system of child care or an expansion of Toronto’s income based subsidy system. 

I believe the City should immediately fund the 15 000 children currently on the waiting list to receive daycare subsidies, and begin to budget annually for a ramping up of the childcare subsidy until at least the 112 000 children living in families with incomes under $40 000 who are also eligible have the opportunity for subsidized childcare. The City should also find a way to expand the current system to allow single parents who are looking to enter the workforce to immediately receive a subsidized daycare spot for their child once they’ve formally accepted an offer of employment. This would be a step that would allow parents to re-enter the work force by removing an existing barrier.

I also have an idea for something the City should stop doing.

The text below comes directly from the City of Toronto’s Employee Guide. It is on page 37 between “Fitness Centres” and “Meditation Rooms”. I’ve been having trouble with the graphic, so I’ve included the text in italics below as well.

“Employees who work directly for the corporation of the City of Toronto are eligible for priority admission to any of the City’s 58 directly operated child care programs or its home child care program. In addition, employees may be eligible for a child care fee subsidy. Priority admission does not apply to employees of the agencies, boards, commissions and corporations. 

For more information about child care centres, call 416-392-3317.

For more information about home child care, call 416-392-3366.”

Children’s Services states that Toronto’s current licensed daycare capacity only covers 21% of Toronto children. Further, it would stand to reason that the City’s 58 directly operated child care programs would be prioritized not for city staff, but for low income families. I don’t even want to get started on the “employees may be eligible for a child care fee subsidy” portion. – This should stop. According to the City’s website there are 1921 children on waiting lists for the some 3043 spots the City directly operates. These numbers are as of July 20th 2008. Why should the pool of 33 000 city employees have first dibs on these spots? Do you think the 1921 families with children on waiting lists for City operated daycare spots are aware of this? I wonder if the 88 000 families who are eligible but not receiving subsidies for childcare are aware of the child care provisions made specially for City employees. 

The good news is the City sees the importance of child care to maintaining a solid civil service, the bad news is the City’s approach to maintaining this is compromising the private sector’s ability to compete for a talented pool of people who attempt to balance a family life with a career.