Poverty: Reduction or Redemption Part 1

Poverty Reduction

The Poverty Reduction Strategy is a Government, province wide approach to transform Newfoundland and Labrador from a province with the most poverty, to one with the least over a ten year period. The strategy includes initiatives and programs which target the groups most vulnerable to poverty.

The Plan was announced in March of 2004, and the working document published in June of 2006, leaving leaving a relative gap of five years, where little to nothing being done to lower poverty in the province.

The groups that the strategy is geared toward are predominantly: Minimum Wage and Part Time Low Income Earners, Seniors, Disabled, Unemployed, Single Parents and Social Program Recipients.

For the purpose of the piece, I’d like to note the orientation of certain program deliverables from HRLE and the income support system. These programs are obviously designed to be abused, but given the minuscule amounts given to clients in a time of such overwhelming costs of living levels, even the biggest of Grinch and miser would have to yield to the need for recipients to do so.

Program Overview
Monthly Rates
Applying for Income Support
Child Benefit
Health Related Services
Support Trusts
Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement
Services for Victims of Violence
The Appeal Process
The Online Mail-back System (TOMS)
Moving into the Workforce
Family Justice Services

Under the income support program, there is no real distinction lent to what could be called a real eligibility versus questionable eligibility client applications. I surround myself with a very diverse group of acquaintances, friends and foe even. I do not understand stereotypes, prejudice or classification of people, thus my personal network of information, and persons willing to share it are huge.

Let’s examine some true to life scenarios, discovered by my own research of persons I spoke with and whom allowed me to write about their very personal information. The following talks about these six acquaintances with their families, all in one way or another, they are being serviced by HRLE. No real names, address or telephone information used in this article.

1. John and Sarah - has two boys 7, 11 and one girl 5. Both parents are physically abl to work; Mother has some post secondary education, and father grade 12. All are living in subsidized housing. The family receives $900.00 per month in child benefits, $650.00 income support, and a special medical diet subsidy for Mother of $125.00. Kicker: Dad works full time driving cab, Mother working four nights a week, bar hostess. Approximate income 4,200.00 – 5,200.00 monthly, Both Employable.

2. Justin Case – Single Person, Spinal Bifida, confined to wheelchair, CONA grad, living in city owned apartment, Income support $932.00, $450.00 of it for rent. Unemployable for physical type jobs.

3. Greg and Nancy – w/ two girls, 5 and 1. Both parents are physically able; mother and father has post secondary education. Living in subsidized housing, family receives $700.00 child benefits, $640.00 income support and, they use food banks, drug cards, and when necessary to see a doctor it has been the case where ambulance has been used to get to hospital for flu symptoms and HRLE supported cab fare back. Employability for both is high.

4. Dick & Jane: Both Physically Disabled, Both receive HRLE & HCS support, both live in their own apartments in two different buildings, both receive home care allowance, one for 12 hours per day, other 4 hours per day. both receive basic personal income of approximately 650.00 each. Neither are very employable for most tasks. Dick and Jane have entered into a relationship, and feel they are ready to live together. Our system says “NO”. No, unless one or the other gives up entire benefits. Dick and Jane feels their cohabitation will save government $29,063.20 in rent and home care costs alone, they cannot afford to live as a couple on one basic income, as a result our system will pay twice.

5. Benny and June: Both Physically able, Both receive HRLE support, both live in their own housing apartments, in two different buildings, both receive basic personal income of approximately 450.00 each per month. both are very employable for all tasks. Benny receives child benefit of $300.00; June receives $400.00 because her child is under age six. Benny and June have entered into a relationship, and felt they are ready to live together. But realize their losses if they cohabitate. Outside of their combined government income, Benny works at a private business for cash, $400.00 weekly. Their net income $3200.00. How? A week at one apartment, a week at the other. Illegal? No, outside the cash job.

6. Don Juan Marko: Physically disabled, uses three home support workers per week to deliver his care. One worker has taken a personal liking for Mr. Marko and would like to explore the interest. Our system says, if Mr. Marko were to live common law or marry his able body care taker, she can no longer be paid, and a review would determine if he qualified for any continued home care given his now being living either married or common law. Subsequent to that, should there be a E.I claim or subsequent income involved after layoff of worker, then Mr. Marko would also be reviewed under the income thresholds.

Is it just me thinking this, or is our system set up to offer protection to those best able to abuse it, and ignore the needs of those who need it most. As a tax payer it bothers me to know that some lazy bastard who doesn’t want to work is reaping rewards from my earnings, while some dear lady can’t get her oxygen covered off due to black and white policy.

I am amazed at how we can offer the income support package so easy now! “APPLY ONLINE” even! What a joke, and the best kick in the face, these services are being offered under our labor department, oh my god, can it get better?

I attended an assessment by Eastern Health of a disabled lady from Mount Pearl some years ago, where the lady was trying to recoup some lost home care hours. That lady was lambasted with a 20+ page document, laced with questions that had zero reference to the issue or need at hand. The interview, mostly medical in nature, was conducted by two social workers, who from my opinion would be clueless in reference to this ladies disability. Shortly after deriving that thought, god love her, (social worker) proved me right, when she asked her client if she still had her prostate.

My point is simply this, If we put a person sitting in a wheelchair, visibly deformed, one arm missing, oxygen prongs up their nose and airway through the throat we subject them to repeated and painful annual reviews in order to get even the smallest amount of help. However, if you send up a guy with a wife and two youngsters you are granted the world.

The criteria for eligibility is all wrong, social welfare in this province was never intended for those people who did not want to work, but rather for those who could not. Since confederation we have been trained to depend on safety nets, whether welfare, EI, CPP or OAS, but for just as long our government has become to lax on it's delivery.

There needs to be a multi divisional structure for client intake, and review of existing clients set-up, with an ability to work assessment being the first review process.

The sure thing we do know is, even at minimum wage, a 40 hour work week will pay more than welfare payments, though not much more. however for argument sake, if the earnings are not sufficient enough to support the cost of living boundaries and strategies as set by our national poverty line, then provincial governments must be ready to implement the dust laden promises written in the planned strategies.

In order that our most vulnerable are properly taken care of, we must instill a belief in all those with welfare dependency syndrome that working for your income is better for the heart, soul health and community.

How would we accomplish this? It would take some ingenuity and effort, and it would take a full shovel ready systemic, unilateral approach by HRLE and divisions of, that affect any program offered to sustain our poor.

This system would first have case workers, work with program applicants to determine their physical and mental ability to work, where a green light is evident, the case worker would
pre-arrange job interview/job matches with listed employers. How would this happen? This would happen with HRLE using it's own resources such as The Career Beacon, LMIWorks, Service Canada Job Bank, and other such resources that would link employers to employees. These jobs would be guaranteed by agreement's between government and employers by such incentives as job wage sharing for a defined period of time. These jobs would be guaranteed and un-denied by eligible income support applicants, in other words, if you refuse a job, your application would be denied.

Indeed the devil would be in the details, there would need to be great strides made to make it work, but the need to get those not needing to be on the system off it and into the work force would be worth any effort.



Brudder