Project Outline

Project Summary:   St. Christopher House proposes to convene a process with diverse stakeholders to develop practical, responsive and "modern" strategies for income security for working-age people in Ontario.

Problem to be addressed:
Factor 1: Over the past ten years, income security has improved for seniors (e.g. via increases to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security) and for some lower-income children (e.g. via the National Child Benefit). However, working-age adults have experienced a frozen minimum wage, a reduction in eligibility for Employment Insurance and reduced welfare rates.

Factor 2: A significant proportion of low-income adults cycle in and out of employment and social assistance. It is not uncommon in our community income tax work to find people with several T4 slips from short-term contracts or part-time jobs as well as in receipt of social assistance. One of the consequences is that they lose assets obtained while working (due to welfare limitations) that could be used for education, training or work-related expenses. We believe this is particularly true of the newer immigrant communities who particularly face barriers to stable employment. This likely has direct bearing on the emergence of "racialized poverty" in Toronto.

Factor 3: St. Christopher House, through our frontline experience, is well aware of the widespread dissatisfaction with the welfare system by welfare recipients and service-providers (i.e., stigmatizing and demeaning program, inadequate income levels, uneven access to benefits, problematic "community participation" requirements, perverse disincentives and traps).

Factor 4: Through our work with John Stapleton and the Community Undertaking Social Policy (CUSP) project, we have learned more about the widespread dissatisfaction with the welfare system by the public (i.e., it is seen to be an expensive program for taxpayers, perceived to support unacceptable behaviour by recipients, and perceived to be a program that is susceptible to fraud).

Factor 5: Through our connections with social policy networks, we are also now aware of new initiatives in other jurisdictions (e.g., European "new welfare architecture", Quebec anti-poverty legislation, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia's welfare changes, American work on assets, the Australian process for "welfare reform"). These new ideas need to be examined for their potential value to Ontarians.

Taken together, these factors lead us to conclude that diverse stakeholders in Ontario need an opportunity to come together to develop alternative income security strategies for low-income, working-age adults.

Project Description
St. Christopher House proposes a three-stage process that will emphasize the development of practical, responsive and modern strategies for income security. Our proposed process is inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders in order that we may benefit from diverse perspectives and so we can broaden the understanding of, interest in, and commitment to income security.
The proposed 3 stages are:

1. preparation with key stakeholders
2. multi-stakeholder focus groups with diverse individuals and groups
3. broader dissemination of the designs and raising of public awareness across Ontario with partner provincial associations or networks

Stage 1: preparation with key stakeholders

The first task of Stage 1 is to design and test a "background workshop" that will help increase interest in and knowledge of concepts and reference points about income security (e.g. the 1988 Transitions report). The primary target of these outreach workshops are diverse community members affected by poverty and the participants, volunteers, staff and Boards of frontline agencies so they can participate readily and meaningfully in subsequent dialogues with policy-makers and academics. We believe it is crucial that these stakeholders participate vigorously in this project. Part of the workshop will also be information about the role and influence of public opinion so that subsequent design discussions include this important consideration.

The second task of Phase 1 is to interview 10 leading income policy "experts" about their best thinking to date on various aspects of income security. At the same time, John Stapleton, the Community Undertaking Social Policy (CUSP) policy expert based out of St. Christopher House in 2002/03, will distil and summarize alternate designs or components of improved income security in other provinces and internationally.

Some examples of possible approaches include:

• "welfare deconstruction" - this approach proposes separating out the various monetary and non-monetary benefits of income security programs and re-allocating supports to a broader continuum of working-age adults who may be in and out of employment
• "life cycle/social inclusion"
• "human capital formation"

We also will examine the linkages to new developments and proposed strategies that are related to provincial income security, particularly Employment Insurance, national Pharmacare, childcare, affordable housing and immigration policy.

Stage 2: design process

Multi-stakeholder focus groups provide a forum for airing ideas, testing possible recommendations with the people most affected and broadening the base of support for constructive change to income security programs.

We are mindful of the significant time constraints on many of the stakeholders so we are proposing series of events rather than a process dependent upon a working group or committee. Our goal is to have forums that are not necessarily dependent upon continuity and consistency of participation yet still provide meaningful interaction between diverse ideas and perspectives. Nor are we proposing any significant time spent on lengthy papers and reports.

Given the numbers of stakeholders with critically important views, we are proposing approximately 12 forums. The website will also provide an ongoing forum for information-sharing for those who are interested.

Susan Pigott, CEO of St. Christopher House, will chair and facilitate these forums with support from the other project staff. She also will be the lead in liaising with government about this project. Rick Eagan, Community Development Coordinator from the St. Christopher House Community Response and Advocacy (CRA) team will be the lead coordinating participation of community members, especially those directly affected by income security programs. Maureen Fair, Director of Community Response and Advocacy (CRA), will be the lead coordinating the participation of frontline agencies and sectoral networks. John Stapleton, consultant, will be the lead coordinating the participation of policy experts and academics. A group from the Maytree Leaders for Change program is also working with this project in a variety of roles.

The roles of the St. Christopher House staff, John Stapleton and the Maytree Leaders include:

• motivating and supporting broad participation by diverse stakeholders, including briefing stakeholders about the perspectives of others
• problem-solving, mediating and conflict resolution as different perspectives and proposed solutions get sorted out
• managing and coordinating the information flows, e.g. via the website, so that different stakeholders can keep abreast of developments
• disseminating information broadly to the larger public, e.g. via media, when appropriate

We intend to experiment with mixing the stakeholders in each forum. Throughout the design phase, we will be supporting the participation of diverse community members in the design forums mixed with other stakeholders. However, since that can be an intimidating experience for many, we will also discuss the proposed initial design with various program participants and frontline staff within St. Christopher House and with other organizations who serve diverse low-income people. This key input will be incorporated into the evolving design.

From the beginning of the design process, we will be asking stakeholders to consider trade-offs so everyone understands the reality of implementation early on. At the same time, we will be cautious about making trade-offs before we have tested any new designs with diverse stakeholders.

Stage 3: public awareness/education/mobilization

By the spring of 2004, we will be better able to determine the next stage of raising public awareness and interest in the need for new income security strategies and mobilizing support for change. Some preliminary ideas regarding Stage 3 include:

• Working with provincial associations of key stakeholders to have forums across the province (following the IMPACS model for their Charities and Advocacy campaign).
• Conduct a telephone poll to test out key concepts of the new design with the public
• While some individuals involved in media will be invited to attend some of the forums, we will take the proposed new design to all the relevant media

Conclusion

The purpose of this proposed process is to capture the knowledge and interest of diverse stakeholders in order to develop a new approach and broad support for income security for working-age Ontarians.