Social Assistance Advocacy, the ‘905 Belt’
and the “Next 100 People Walking Down Yonge Street”

John Stapleton - Community Undertaking Social Policy Fellow
St. Christopher House - January 2003
 
The importance of the “905” Belt and the “Next 100 People Walking Down Yonge Street” On October 4, 1993, Bell Telephone subdivided the Greater Toronto Area into two mandatory dial-based Area Codes: * Toronto kept the 416 designation; and  * All the outlying areas, generally more prosperous & young received a new 905 designation

Following the 1995 provincial election, it was noticed that each and every one of the ridings “in the 905” had voted for the new government– a real surprise of homogeneity. This gave rise to the expression “ The 905 belt”, a swath of people who, along with seniors, became a force to be reckoned with for years to come.

 The “next 100 people walking down Yonge Street” is much more amorphous as a concept. Over a number of years, I had the privilege to attend focus groups on the topic of social assistance or what is commonly known as welfare. Over and over again, people came into the focus group meeting rooms and with rare exception, expressed their unhappiness with welfare programs. One person in the group would always see no problem and would increase social assistance benefits if they could. The others, usually 8-10 would display strong opinions essentially on what I have come to term, the illegitimacy of welfare. “Too many entitlements”, “too many people wanting something for nothing”, “ too much fraud”, “ not enough investigating” always interspersed with a vague anecdote about the friend of the friend who knew someone who was fraudulently collecting assistance  There was also inordinate interest in what recipients of welfare thought about getting welfare: “Do these welfare people ever stop and think about the taxpayer who is working his backside off so they can sit at home?” If the issue of children in poverty was raised, invariably the question arose” Why are they having children? – Where is the father?”

When I came away from these focus groups, I often walked down Yonge Street and took the Subway afterwards. On these occasions, I always had what I call a recurring “epiphanette”: The people in the focus groups look like the people on Yonge street and in the Subway car, the same gender, age and ethnicity profile. 

Download the document to learn more about what the public think and how we can inform their notions of welfare.

Understanding Civil Servants: A Short User's Guide for Advocates

Introduction:

Civil servants in provincial and the federal governments comprise a very important part of government machinery in the world of an advocate. After all, these are the people that have the inside scoop in their ministries and departments, the ones who can help with a proposal with all the right buzzwords to make it fly. They know the constraints and they know what will be seen favourable and unfavourably within their respective departments. After all, these are the people who will be reviewing your proposal and making recommendations for approval or denial.Yet advocates often find civil servants hard to understand when they are trying to pursue their advocacy work.Advocates find out quickly that civil servants don't seem to be able to make decisions, even on small matters. They seem to be overly cautious and unhelpful when you meet with them in groups or with their superiors, but very animated and full of advice as to the best way to proceed when you meet them one on one.Why are civil servants like this? Why does their advice change from situation to situation? Why are they so cautious? Why do they seem to make life so difficult for people trying to make proposals to improve a service or make life better for Canadians? After all, government is supposed to be working for the people and ought to have goals that are not wholly dissimilar to those of the advocate.The answers are not that hard to understand when one looks into how the Civil service works as opposed to an advocacy agency. The purpose of this user's guide is to develop a common frame of reference for the advocate and the civil servant so that the advocate can understand what the civil servant is saying and why he or she is saying it. It will show you how best to work with them and understand and work in the world that they inhabit.Best of all, it will show you how to be successful.

Learn more about civil servants and how to apporoach our provincial government - download the document

A Primer on the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) Clawback 
For Advocates
March 31, 2003
 
Introduction to the NCBS

o Despite Canada’s economic recovery in the 1990’s, child poverty persisted causing an increased interest in solutions and ways to use work and labour market policy as a way to decrease child poverty.

o At the First Ministers meeting in 1996, there was a joint agreement to address child poverty through a new partnership, in line with SUFA. (Social Union Framework Agreement).

What the Provinces, Territories and the Federal Government Agreed to Do

o Before July 1998, provinces and territories agreed with the federal government to a National Child Benefit model called the “Recovery Reinvestment” model through a Reinvestment Framework. The federal contribution to the NVB initiative was to be the National Child Benefit Supplement.

o The federal government originally had a program called the Working Income Supplement (WIS – 1993 to 1997) that was replaced by the NCBS. The only families with children receiving WIS were families where one or both of the parents realized a certain threshold of earnings.

o In the design of the NCBS, the federal government did not want to stipulate in its income test that a threshold of earnings must be realized. Their reasons were as follows:

o The WIS was undersubscribed and small;

o  An income test on “earnings only” meant that there were inequities where:

§ Some families with low amounts of other forms of income got no WIS while those with the same amount in earnings received it;

§ Other families with no income at all were ineligible for WIS

o The earnings test was cumbersome and difficult to administer.

Accordingly, when the NCBS was put into place, there was a test of income only (not earnings) so that parents of similar income received similar benefits. This approach corresponded more closely with anti-poverty as well as equity objectives.
 

Nevertheless, the federal government remained concerned that the WIS program that largely DID NOT GO TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS would be replaced by a program that would go to welfare recipients. 

It was clear that the federal government did not want the NCBS to be seen as a federally funded welfare rate increase for families with children.

The federal government and several provincial and territorial jurisdictions also wanted the new benefit to support independence through increasing attachment to the paid labour force.

To resolve this concern, the federal government proposed the recovery-reinvestment model that would offset social assistance payments from the new NCBS and pay the offset amount into new reinvestments for children.

In addition, by paying the NCBS “outside” of welfare, it would provide new incentives for families with children to leave welfare for work, in order to ensure that parents would “keep” the money. This is sometimes called “lowering the welfare wall”. 

All provinces and territories agreed to this approach except New Brunswick where the NCBS was not offset in any way.

In addition, with the introduction of the NCB initiative, provinces and territories agreed with the federal government that families receiving social assistance would not “lose” as a result of the implementation of the NCBS.

In June 1998, the federal government passed into law, most of the important elements of the February 1998 Federal Budget.

One of these elements was a change to the Income Tax Act creating a new income security program the federal government called its “contribution to the National Child Benefit (NCB) initiative”. This contribution was called the National Child Benefit Supplement or NCBS.

The NCBS is a tax benefit that combines with the CTB to form the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB).
 
The NCBS is an addition to the CTB that is paid out according to different rules from the CTB, to low income families with children.

The NCBS is paid out to all low income families whose income is below the (2003) threshold of $21,529 regardless of number of children; and

The eligibility for NCBS (in 2003) phases out completely when a family’s net income reaches $33,487.

What Happens “On the Ground”: Some Technical Concerns

The federal government did not have to identify the NCBS separately from the CTB as a special supplement in order to put the program in place. For example one overall Child Tax benefit could have been paid with different reduction rates over different bands of income.

In fact, the NCBS was identified separately in the Income Tax Legislation so that it may be offset (or reduced) against provincial social assistance payments for children.

Accordingly, the NCBS was passed into law in 1998 as part of the Budget, by the federal government, for the purposes of offset. 

Starting in July 2003, the NCBS and other amounts are as follows:

Download the document to read the rest