Welfare? Or What? Shifting thinking about poverty reduction and income programs

By Tyler Hnatuk, CACL

This speech was presented on 3 November, at End Exclusion 2011, and was accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation [download presentation (PPT 299K), read PowerPoint text below].

Good morning, it's a pleasure to be here today to share with you some of the research that we have been doing related to poverty reduction and income programs.

First, I'd like to provide you with some context for the material I am presenting. We have heard about some of the poverty reduction initiatives across Canada. In 2008 Ontario also launched a poverty reduction initiative. One of the prominent features of the poverty reduction initiative in Ontario was the commitment to conduct a review of social assistance. This review of social assistance is now well underway and there are numerous people in the room who have been a part of that process.

My comments today are focused on research that we have undertaken as part of the CURA Project—Disabling Poverty/Enabling Citizenship—on the process and directions for income security reform in Ontario as it relates to people with disabilities. In our research we have been informed by the ongoing process of the social assistance review in Ontario. We have taken a step back to look at a framework for analysis for thinking about income programs and their role as poverty reduction interventions—that is emerging through this process.

The announcement in Ontario of a review of social assistance was met with a mixed feelings and reactions from the disability community. On the one hand, there was a sense of relief and optimism—the Ontario Disability Support Program—the main income support system for people with disabilities in Ontario—has long been considered in need of review and reform by many. And on the other hand, there has been a real sense of concern about the implications of overhaul and reinvention of the income support system. There is concern that some of the small gains that have been made over the years would be put at risk.

This process of considering the possibility of a new income program has led to some important conversations that are relevant across the country as other provinces and territories consider review and reform of income programs as part of their anti-poverty interventions. I would point those who are interested in knowing more detail about the social assistance review, to the websites of the Income Security Advisory Center and to the main submissions of the ODSP Action Coalition: Dignity, Adequacy, Inclusion—a submission developed through a rigorous community process of consultation and policy dialogue that was rooted at every step, in the experiences of recipients of ODSP.

What are the shifts in thinking about the nature of poverty that are beginning to be revealed in the process and politics of reform in Ontario? And, further, how do these shifts in thinking relate to broader shifts in Canada and internationally and where do they take our policy analysis about income programs and disability? These are the questions that we are currently working on.

Let's begin with the different poverty reduction initiatives across the country we have been hearing about today. We find different definitions and different understandings of poverty. There has been a lot of discussion in Canada about how to define and measure poverty. When we think about poverty, people have traditionally tended to think of it as meaning not having enough money to provide for basic needs. There have been different attempts made to decide "just exactly how much is enough" for basic needs and what counts as a basic need. This has been called an absolute definition of poverty.

Two different measures of absolute poverty have been the Basic Needs Poverty Line—as developed by the Fraser Institute and the Market Basket Measure of Statistics Canada. Both measures are based on the estimated cost of a basket of goods and services that are deemed essential. The Basic Needs Poverty Line calculates a poverty threshold that is lower than the Market Basket Measure as it is based on a basket of goods that is more restricted whereas the Market Basket Measure calculates a for a threshold that goes somewhat beyond mere subsistence.

The problem of using an absolute measure of poverty is that it doesn't take into account the position of a person in relation to the community around them. Relative measures of poverty are an attempt to look at income inequality and the difference in the share that a person has in the wealth and benefits of a society. Two measures of relative poverty are the Low Income Cut Offs and the Low Income Measure. The Low Income Cut Off is what is most commonly referred to as the "poverty line". The measure that is chosen for income poverty is significant. For example, if only an absolute measure of poverty is used, it is possible that poverty rates will appear to be stable even as income inequality and other forms of exclusion are rising.

Earlier this summer, the conference board of Canada expressed alarm over rising income inequality in Canada. They released a report detailing that income inequality is rising faster in Canada than in other countries. They expressed concern because rising rates of income inequality point to an increasing 'social distance' between members of a community—it shows that the benefits of society are not being equally distributed. People with disabilities have been particularly vulnerable to being left out of increased prosperity and the benefits of Canadian society. We know, for example, that Canadians with disabilities experience disproportionately low levels of employment, educational achievement, and participation in postsecondary training and education, and access to affordable and adequate housing.

When we bring the issues of social distance, inequality and living standards into view, we expand the narrow income focus of traditional definitions and measures of poverty. We can see that there are many intersecting factors in the relationship between poverty and disability. Income levels affect housing status; housing status and access to disability supports affect access to education skills and training, which affects labour market access—which in turn affects income, and so on. An absolute definition and measure of poverty not only makes rising levels of income inequality invisible, it also risks concealing the intersecting nature of the inequality and exclusion people face. Relative approaches open a view to income inequality but need to be expanded to reveal the broader range of factors that are involved.

This suggests the need for a multidimensional approach to understanding poverty. Indeed, poverty reduction strategies have often adopted a multidimensional approach with efforts and policy reform in the areas of housing, education, income security, employment, disability supports, health and so on. Some strategies have also adopted social and economic inclusion as a goal or framework for organizing the initiative. However, even in poverty reduction strategies where the broader dimensions of poverty are recognized, there is still a risk that income programs are treated discretely—and in fact counteract gains made in other areas.

So what does it mean to apply a lens of social and economic inclusion to income programs? We have looked at many different models of social and economic inclusion and have adopted the following definition: People with disabilities want to be socially included in the sense that they, like others, want:

• To participate as valued, appreciated equals in the social, economic, political and cultural life of the community (i.e. in valued societal situations).
• To be involved in mutually trusting, appreciative and respectful interpersonal relationships at the family, peer and community levels.

It involves interrelated factors such as:

• basic needs of material well-being: housing, nutritious food, clothing, health needs
• income levels;
• employment and access to inclusive labour markets;
• skills, training and education;
• access to disability related supports;
• self-esteem;
• family and relationships; and
• civic, legal and political rights.

There are a few different instances of reform and redesign of income benefit programs that are ongoing in Canada. Governments are paying increased attention. Currently, people with disabilities are up to six times more likely to be dependent on social assistance than people without disabilities and are overrepresented in social assistance case loads. These social assistance benefit programs provide a degree of income support but recent comparative studies have shown that even the most generous programs in Canada provide rates that are only slightly better than the most restrictive estimate of the amount of money that is actually needed to command basic needs. Most provide far less, and they often do so with rules that undermine the other dimensions of social and economic inclusion such as housing, employment, education, family and relationships and self-esteem.

Applying a lens of social and economic inclusion to disability income benefit programs leads to some tough questions about the very purpose and rationale of the programs: are they welfare? Pension? Disability related support? Income security? Replacement of employment income? Are they compensation for inaccessible labour markets?

There is little clarity about these underlying questions in most programs currently operative in Canada.

The answers to these questions affect every aspect of program design from benefit rates and eligibility to rules affecting subsidized housing, student loans, employment supports, assets and even family and relationships. Some have proposed that people with disabilities should receive a pension type benefit with higher rates and less punitive rules. But is such a pension benefit founded on an assumption of being unemployable?

It is our observation that we are at something of a crossroads. In the past decades we have significantly broadened our understanding of poverty—and at the same time we have broadened understanding of disability. We understand poverty to be about more than having low income—and that raising incomes in isolation of other measures will make people only marginally better off. Moreover, if income benefit programs bring people with disabilities closer in pace with their peers, but come with rules that undermine other important capacities such as employment, or access to affordable housing, or relationships, then they perpetuate the trappings of poverty.

New conceptualizations of disability as implemented in the UN Convention understand disability as the interaction of impairment with features of the environment that act as barriers. This reframing of disability brings us into new territory. It exposes the well understood fact that disability is not a stable category—there is great diversity in the experiences of disability. This indicates different needs and different policy interventions. It introduces an understanding of disability that is by nature individualized and localized.

The policy development and consultation process currently happening in Ontario has revealed the extent to which our thinking in relation to poverty and disability has progressed and broadened. Our systems and policy development tools have yet to catch up. We can look internationally and see other systems struggling with the same puzzles and trade-offs. Advocacy groups such as the ODSP action coalition in Ontario are using the new international tools of the UN convention to frame ideas about how income programs can move beyond traditional welfare based notions of support to enact supports that can actually provide poverty escape routes and enable people in building their capacities.

This is the forum that exists in Canada for cross-jurisdictional discussion on these issues. As we evaluate income programs and proposals for reform we need to be asking how they fit in to a social and economic inclusion framework for people with disabilities. Does the program have rules that negatively affect a person's relationships, self-esteem, housing, employment, access to education? Is there a poverty escape route provided by the program? Does it invest in people so that they are able to build their capacity to escape poverty? We have aimed high in our thinking about these issues. Our thinking has outgrown the traditional welfare based notions of the last century and we shouldn't feel compelled to accept compromise in policy options if they are working with the same tools and trade-offs rather than reflecting a vision of social and economic inclusion.

I'm looking forward to the rest of our discussions today as we struggle with some of these complex issues.