ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

28
ONWAA 2011 !"#$%&' )$#&*+ ,+-.$%+ /01&"&2#%$#'%23 /22'4&$#&'" !"#$%&&%'( *' *+, !'-%./ 0&&%&*.(-, 1,2%,3 4'$$%&&%'(,5& 6'5 7(*.5%'

Upload: coachdee

Post on 11-Feb-2017

82 views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

ONWAA 2011

!!!!

!"#$%&'()$#&*+(,+-.$%+(/01&"&2#%$#'%23(/22'4&$#&'"(

((

!"#$%&&%'()*')*+,)!'-%./)0&&%&*.(-,)1,2%,3)4'$$%&&%'(,5&)6'5)7(*.5%')

!

! !

Page 2: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

ONWAA 2011

Historical Context

The historical context regarding First Nations in Ontario is well documented and has not

changed since the 1992 provincial report, Principal Report on New Social Assistance Legislation for First

Nations in Ontario. Concerns identified by First Nations regarding legislation, policy and

jurisdiction have been repeatedly raised in the past. Therefore, ONWAA feels strongly that

sufficient work and study had been completed in 1992 regarding First Nation income security

programs. Unfortunately little First Nation specific legislation, policy or solutions regarding

these issues has been done.

It is important to understand that prior to European contact First Nations were economically

self-sufficient and self-governing. Solutions and responses to challenges were effective, locally

driven and consistent with the culture and social structure of each nation. Overtime, First

Nations lost their economic self-sufficiency and capacity to respond to social challenges. Instead

of dealing with economic and social issues in a cultural and community context, solutions were

provided through federal and/or provincial European governments. Often, this resulted in

negative consequences and results.

Past solutions were culturally foreign - rooted in a social structure, value system and set of

principles that were inconsistent with First Nation cultures and ignored community views and

processes. Ontario’s current social assistance program has also been developed using a Western

cultural perspective and value system. The program promotes individual wellbeing and

responsibility and assumes all people and communities have access to a healthy economic base

and belief in the wage economy, to the exclusion of an Indigenous worldview based on

communitarian values.

Page 3: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

ONWAA 2011

Different and Contrasting Views

The existence of a social assistance system was developed from the philosophy that there would

always be some individuals that require assistance in a wage-based economy. Thus, the social

assistance system is intended to act as a safety net in a properly functioning economy. With this

in mind, Ontario’s social assistance program is not, and has never been intended to act as a long-

term income support system. Sadly in First Nations, as some communities experience income

assistance dependency levels in excess of 80%, long-term broad based dependency on social

assistance is often the norm.

First Nations have different cultural values to helping and sharing in comparison to the Western

sense! (Hewitt, 2000). Helping those less fortunate or struggling, regardless of the reason, is

broadly promoted within the First Nation community context. Sharing and helping without

judgement is fundamental to the cultural and value system of communities. Similarly, rather

than offering conditional help on a short term basis, First Nations provide assistance to people

and families unconditionally and will continue to provide help to the family until they no longer

require assistance, regardless of how long that may take. In short, the person or family will stop

receiving help when they determine they no longer need it, not when the community or provider

determines they are no longer in need. This concept promotes responsibility for the family, while

the latter assumes responsibility to them and provides assistance through formal power and

control structures.

Page 4: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

Dependency

Income assistance and poverty levels experienced within First Nations clearly demonstrate

that the solutions offered by external stakeholders and federal and provincial governments do

not produce desired outcomes or effects. Rather, some First Nation Elders and Leaders

argue that the social assistance system has done more harm that good to the community.

When considering that in some communities’ income assistance dependency is as high as 80%

this view has some validity. The solution to high unemployment and poverty has been to try

to assist community members through social assistance. This response further entrenches the

individual, family and community into the provincial social assistance system. Widespread

community poverty has created an inability to turn to the extended family or clan within the

community for the assistance, further eroding the ability to develop local solutions, control

and best practices.

The level of income assistance dependency has, along with the impact of the residential

schools system, helped generate and sustain an unacceptably high level of social b a r r i e r s .

T h i s can be seen in the significant (and also continuing) contrasts between on and off

reserve rates of child protection activity, family violence, school drop-out, suicide, accidental

death, substance abuse, various health problems, etc. (First Nation’s project Team Report,

Principal Report on New Social Assistance Legislation for First Nations in Ontario, 1992;

MacNeil, 2008).

Page 5: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

!

Location and Economic Circumstance

Provincial social assistance systems are further problematic because they do not adequately

respond to the local economic and geographic circumstances experienced by First Nations. For

example, the current system has an underlying assumption that assistance should be relatively

short in duration for “employable” individuals. The current system also has the basic assumption

that there is a healthy labour market at the local level and that the individual is at fault for their

current situation. To repair this, the person must participate in employment programs in order to

obtain the skills, education and/or experience necessary to become attached to the labour market.

This basic assumption is not the reality experienced in the majority, if not all, First Nations in

Ontario. It is widely accepted by First Nations that what “works” in Toronto or Sault Ste. Marie

will have very little practicality in Sandy Lake or Sagamok.

A system designed with the assumption that assistance should be temporary or should promote a

quick engagement to the labour market cannot be a viable solution to communities with a severely

depressed economy and/or multiple social barriers. Furthermore, the current system is provincially

and/or regionally centralized; monitored and managed by central or regional agencies. These

agencies are all located off reserve and have little, if any, true understanding of the issues faced by

First Nations on a daily basis. Thus, they measure program administration, successful program

delivery, outcomes, the issuance of discretionary benefits, program interventions, etc. using Euro-

Canadian cultural norms and values; further creating program cultural alienation at the local delivery

and recipient level (Freire, 1972; Gurstein, P., Lovato, C. & Ross, S., 2003).

Page 6: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

.!

The Historical Response to First Nation Concerns

Past governments have gradually introduced improvements to the system; however, there is still

much to be done. Typical responses have attempted to improve services and supports; while there

has been no movement on improving the underlying barriers that have caused these challenges; the

contradiction between the Euro-Canadian cultural influences of programs and the cultures of First

Nations.

There have been some improvements in social assistance delivery and systems since 1965 but it is

not clear which or whose outcomes are being achieved. Regional and central ministry offices often

view an effective social assistance program to be one based solely on administrative delivery

outcomes. Therefore, a “good” program accepts and complies with Euro-Canadian delivery

standards; audits, notes, governance, etc. Whether the program actually responds to the needs of

the community or truly helps those in need is not measured. Program success is typically measured

solely using non-cultural, external measures of success.

In 2004 ONWAA’s Executive Director was told by a regional supervisor/manager in response to

programs that displayed poor governance models “It has always been like that, it doesn’t seem

to matter what we try to do”. Rather than question whether the program properly addressed the

needs and wants of the community, this person deemed the deliverer and community to be at fault.

Furthermore, the statement “…what we try to do” clearly outlines the philosophy of external rather

than local solutions. If something ineffective has “always been” one would think a different

approach and solution would be needed. Perhaps the time has come to listen to the local

Leadership, Administrators and community and ensure that any social assistance reforms affecting

First Nations reflect the following principles identified in 1992:

1. First Nation controlled - provided under the authority and sanction of First Nation

government and fully accountable to First Nation members.

2. First Nation determined - designed and developed within the community by the

membership.

3. First Nation specific - designed to address community needs in harmony with local culture

and social structure.

4. First Nation based - managed and delivered within the community.

Page 7: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

/!

Current System

Issues

First Nations have long been sceptical of social assistance reform. Typically, input obtained from

First Nations and/or ONWAA has been received, reviewed and shelved; with little to no movement

reflecting the identified needs of First Nation communities. The severe cuts in basic needs and

shelter rates in 1994 and the implementation of workfare in 1998/99 without First Nation

consultation only reinforced this mistrust. Having so many community members dependent on the

system, and the history of reforms, it is easy to understand why scepticism exists. The issue of

program changes, jurisdiction, local control, etc. came to the forefront in 1999 when the

Muskegowuk Tribal Council challenged Ontario’s legal authority to implement sweeping reforms to

social assistance without First Nations consent. Although there have been many improvements to

Ontario Works and the relationship with MCSS has improved immensely since that time there are

still many concerns with the program. Concerns can be broken down into four separate categories:

1. Program Administration

2. Financial Assistance

3. Employment Assistance

4. Program Benefits

As the social assistance review is primarily focused on employment assistance, this concern will be

discussed and analyzed in detail first.

Page 8: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

0!

Employment Assistance

The primary objective of Ontario Works employment assistance is to provide supports to people so

that they may enter or re-enter the labour market. This is offered through the general program

philosophy that Ontario Works is intended to be a short-term program of last resort. Accepting

this, Ontario Works has an underlying assumption that a healthy local labour market is accessible for

the program recipient. The fixation on employment is further identified through the primary

employment outcome targets, which delivery agents must work towards throughout a two-year

planning cycle:

1. Increased earnings, and;

2. Increased employment.

Even though the local program establishes employment outcome targets, such targets are negotiated

with a ministry regional office. Programs are to show an increase in outcome targets, compared to

the prior years(s) baseline (actuals). Once again, the program assumes there is access to a healthy

local labour market and that demand for labour is always increasing. This assumption has proven to

be false in the federal, provincial and First Nation context. Measuring employment assistance

success solely on these two outcomes is not realistic nor does it capture all of the actual supports

and positive client outcomes that are being achieved. For example, having someone return to

school, or learn new skills, increase their self esteem, or work on an addiction or re-engage with the

community at large are amazing individual and program successes. The provincial program needs to

measure and support personal engagement, participation and milestones to truly reflect and

recognize the excellent work that is being done at the community level. Measuring the program

solely on economic indicators merely reinforces the belief that Ontario Works will not work in First

Nations with a depressed labour market.

Page 9: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

1!

Recommendation:

Ensure the social assistance program is both employment and socially focused. While there is

general acceptance that the desired end is to assist a person find and maintain employment, the path

and duration this will take is dependent on many variables. Accepting this, the program needs to

formally recognize that the true objective of the program should be “increasing a person’s

employability”.

If permanent exit of social assistance into meaningful employment is the desired outcome, it must

be accepted that this process involves many steps, supports, the acquisition of transferrable skills

and knowledge and the availability of local jobs. Therefore, to find and maintain meaningful

employment a person must ultimately work at increasing their employability to a level that achieves this

objective. Increasing employability could be measured through a variety of ways, such as:

1. Measuring active participation rates in a program,

2. Measuring participation activities that are completed,

3. Measuring increases in community engagement and community capacity increases,

4. Locally developed measures using community and program benchmarks and goals.

Part i c ipat ion:

Participating in employment supports is a mandatory requirement for people without a participation

deferral. Failure for someone to meet his or her participation requirements could result in becoming

ineligible for social assistance. Being forced to participate is not a viable option for success (Pearce

& Larson, 2006). Forced participation reduces trust, discourages intrinsic motivation and is merely a

means to accomplishing an end. Within a First Nation context, forced participation creates power

and control structures and can affect the entire community in a negative manner. Supporting a

person through active participation is the desired option.

Page 10: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-,!

People choose to participate in activities based on an expectation of reward for their effort (Lee and

Schuler, 1982; Pearce & Larson, 2006); based on this, it is easy to understand that where there is a

healthy labour market people would participate based on the expectation that the effort put forward

could lead to a meaningful employment opportunity. In First Nation communities, the expectation

of securing employment as a direct result of program participation (skills training, education, etc.) is

not always valid. This reality can create real participation barriers, as people will, quite rightly,

question putting forward the effort when the chance of future economic gain is not possible.

While there are limited economic opportunities in some communities, this should not be a reason to

dismiss employment assistance. Employment assistance and active program participation are an

effective strategy to increase community capacity and overall engagement. Employment supports

can also be an effective healing strategy, increase local cultural understanding or be part of a long-

term community economic development plan if implemented properly.

Recommendation:

Include real participation incentives in the program. Currently, the program provides or covers

Employment Related Expenses (ERE) to support participation. This is crucial for success, but the

program needs to go further. Unlike the reality of many municipalities, the prospect of securing

employment is not a realistic motivational factor in many First Nation communities. Incentives

should be locally determined and controlled, thus ensuring that such incentives are based solely on

the needs of the community and people in receipt of social assistance. Incentives for active

participation or for completing participation requirements can act as a motivational tool in

economically depressed communities.

Page 11: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

--!

Current Employment Assis tance Act iv i t i es :

The current list of EA activities includes:

! Job search and job search support

! Skills development and training

! Learning, Earning and Parenting (LEAP)

! Addiction services

! Basic education and literacy

! Community placement

! Employment placement

There are three primary concerns that ONWAA has identified with the current list of activities

and/or the way they are supported.

1. Cultural Activities. There is no formal recognition of people engaging in cultural activities as

an effective and appropriate support. Diversities in cultures and worldviews between MCSS

and First Nations can create a service barrier at the local level in this regard (Restoule, 1997).

For example, one First Nation has been trying to increase self-sufficiency in youth

community members who receive social assistance. As an activity, the program hired a

traditional outdoorsman to show members how to hunt, fish and live off the land. This

involved a 10-day excursion into the wilderness where people hunted, fished, gathered

berries and prepared their own food and shelter. This program was developed in an effort

to reinvigorate traditional knowledge, increase self-sufficiency and self-esteem. When the

Ministry regional office learned of this, the workers were informed, “they were an

employment program, not a recreation program”.

The regional office looked at this program as not being a valid employment program, when

nothing could be further from the truth. Participants become more self sufficient; acquired

hunting, fishing and harvesting skills; built and developed trust; increased their self esteem;

Page 12: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-+!

learned leadership skills etc. Such skills go a long way towards increasing someone’s

employability (Evans, 2007).!

Recommendation

Include cultural activities as a viable, recognized program participation activity as a healing

and engagement strategy (Chandler and Lalonde, 1998; MacNeil, 2008). Such activities must be

locally defined and delivered. Culture and cultural activities must be identified only by the

community, the program and/or the individual and not be influenced or approved by an outside

entity.

2. Addiction Services. Only 10 First Nations out of 47 communities delivering full Ontario

Works have been provided with the Addiction Services Initiative. This initiative provides

increased funding to the program for enhanced services and supports to help people deal

with addiction issues and barriers. The high rate of addictions experienced in many First

Nations are widely known and well documented

(http://www.ccsa.ca/Eng/Statistics/Canada/GHAS/Pages/default.aspx, September 23,

2011). Increased interventions, services and supports are required to benefit the high

numbers of people in need.

Recommendation:

Expand the Addiction Services Initiative to include all Ontario Works employment

assistance delivery sites.

3. Childcare. There are only 55 daycare centres in Ontario’s 111 Ontario Works delivery

communities (http://chiefs-of-ontario.org/Assets/Early%20Childhood%20Education.pdf,

September 23, 2011). Lack of appropriate childcare creates a huge barrier for sole support

parents and/or parents who are both actively participating in the program at the same time.

Page 13: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-2!

Prior to 2005 the Ontario Works program provided an additional budget line to provide

formal and informal daycare. This budget line was removed and any communities that have

implemented employment assistance post 2005 do not receive this funding. This occurred

when MCSS transferred all daycare responsibilities to the Ministry of Children and Youth

Services and subsequently to the Ministry of Education. As ONWAA understands it, the

ministries absorbed the funding during the program transfer, but the resources were never

provided to First Nations. This has resulted in inequitable access to service and supports for

people on social assistance, depending on their place of residence.

Recommendation:

Provide separate childcare funding to all Ontario Works employment assistance delivery

sites in Ontario.

Page 14: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-3!

Financial Assistance

It is an understatement to say that the Ontario Works assistance rates do not allow people on

assistance to maintain a healthy and productive lifestyle. Rates may be kept low in the belief that

poor income assistance rates encourage people to seek and obtain employment in order to better

their personal financial circumstance. Again, this belief is rooted in the assumption that there is a

healthy and active labour market in the local community for people to exit to. ONWAA believes

that the social assistance rates for Ontario must be sufficient to ensure all people are cared for and

receive a decent standard of living.

Poli cy

The Ontario Works program is a labyrinth of eligibility criteria, rules, exemptions and provision of

special benefits. The following are some primary concerns that ONWAA has identified with the

current program. The concerns should not be considered complete, as they are numerous and often

unique depending on community circumstance and regional location.

1. Ontario Works Rates and Benefit Levels

The current rates and established provincial benefit levels are too low to provide people with a

decent standard of living, cause undue hardship for people and need to better reflect the actual cost

of living and/or raising a family.

Recommendation:

Develop a benefit structure that is fluid, flexible and fair. Benefit levels need to be sufficient to

ensure people maintain a basic standard of living.

Page 15: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-4!

2. Living With Parent Rule

The Living With Parent (LWP) rule generates the most complaints of all ONWAA membership

inquiries.

ONWAA conducted a preliminary analysis of the policy impacts in December 2009 and analyzed

data from fifty nine (59) First Nations in Ontario, out of 111 (Akwesasne inclusive). The findings

are more alarming and dramatic than originally suspected.

Survey Results (59 community sample size with a caseload totaling 6,235):

! 94.92% of communities are affected by the Living With Parent Rule,

! 26.83% of Ontario Works cases fall under the Living With Parent Rule (1673 cases).

• 18.19% are single (1134 cases)

• 5.77% are sole support (360 cases)

• 2.87 % are couples (179 cases).

Findings (homes where LWP rule applies):

! Highest number of people residing in one (1) home: 34 (5 families)

! Average number of people living in each home where the LWP applies: 7

! Highest number of families living in one (1) home: 8

! Average number of families living in the home where the LWP rule applies: 4

In ONWAA’s survey, 94.92% of respondents reported overcrowding conditions in their

communities, due to housing shortages. There literally is no place for people to reside other than

their parent’s home once they turn 18 for 26.83% of the First Nation caseload. Note: This number

does not reflect/include people who are denied assistance under the LWP, only people determined

“eligible” under the rule. i.e., Person turns 18, applies for assistance, is determined to be a “dependent adult”

under the policy and is not included in the statistic because the parents are not in receipt of social assistance in their

own right.

These living conditions are taxing on the basic housing infrastructure and unless items are deemed

an “emergency home repair” the item is not repaired. As a result of under-funded housing

Page 16: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-.!

programs by INAC and the ineligibility of “FEE SIMPLE” property entitlements, as found off

reserve, the repairs are left unattended.

Recommendation:

1. Eliminate the Living With Parent rule,

or at minimum:

2. Provide an exemption to the Living With Parent rule, as follows.

Exemptions to the Living with Parents Rule:

Regardless of financial dependence/independence determination, the ‘living with parents’ rule does

not apply if:

! In the opinion of the Administrator, no reasonable alternative housing arrangement outside

of the parental home is currently available within the delivery agent’s geographic delivery

area.

Examples of no reasonable housing arrangements may include:

! No private or public local rental units or options are currently available,

! No other living arrangement is possible in the community due to housing shortages,

! Current overcrowding of housing units exists within the community,

! Any other reason deemed acceptable by the Administrator.

2. Ontario Works Northern Allowance

The Ontario Works program recognizes that the cost of food and basic necessities is substantially

higher in isolated First Nation communities. To address this high cost, the legislation includes a

“Northern Allowance” to the basic needs portion for these communities. Even though there is a

Page 17: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-/!

northern allowance, it does not come close to offsetting the unreasonably high costs of food and

basic necessities in isolated communities. In addition, no other benefits include a northern

allowance such as;

1. Special Diets

2. Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Nutritional Allowance

3. Full-time Employment Start-up

4. Non-Health Discretionary Benefit maximum ($250.00) OR program calculation ($8.75/case)

5. Community Start-up and Maintenance

Failure to include an adequate Northern Allowance in all benefits results in people living in remote

communities enduring undue hardship and having less purchasing power for necessities when

compared to all other regions in Ontario.

Bananas ~ $5.69/kg ($12.54/lb) Potatoes - $17.69 for 10 lbs

116 diapers ~ $67.39/case

Recommendation:

1. Ensure the northern allowance is increased to reflect the additional, true, cost of

basic necessities for these communities.

2. Expand the northern allowance to all benefits for communities north of the 50th

Parallel.

Page 18: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-0!

3. Basic Necessities in Remote, Semi-Remote and Rural Communities

Ontario Works provides the same monthly benefit calculation for all of Ontario, excluding isolated

First Nations that receive northern allowance. This broad social policy assumesthat all communities

have access to food and other basic necessities within the confines of their local community, or

alternatively, that the costs of basic necessities in Ontario is uniform across all regions. This

assumption is simply wrong and has damaging effects on individuals’, families’ and community

health across many First Nations in Ontario.

ONWAA has numerous examples where this policy creates even greater disparities amongst people

in receipt of social assistance and does not reflect the reality of the local community. One example

can be found in Pic Mobert First Nation. The community is located 39kms away from the town of

White River and 68kms away from the town of Marathon. Pic Mobert has no local grocery or

general store. The only access to local supplies within the community is a convenience store, which

supplies people with gas, snacks, etc. To purchase food and basic necessities people must travel to

the nearest town, which costs approximately $12.00 by personal auto or $55.00 via taxi (return). For

a single person on assistance this equals 5.4% or 24.6% of their monthly entitlement, which is

significant when considering that a lone person only receives $224.00 in basic assistance every 30

days. It should be noted that there is no public transportation whatsoever available in the region.

Recommendation:

Include a monthly health related travel benefit to people without access to local basic

necessities, which is reflective of the local transportation costs. This benefit calculation will

need to be flexible to allow for the wide and diverse variablesfacing each community. This benefit

will ensure that all people in Ontario have equal access to food and basic necessities.

4. Assets

As written, the current policy regarding personal assets is a barrier to people on assistance in one of

two ways:

Page 19: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

-1!

1. Requiring someone to dispose of all personal assets prior to becoming eligible for assistance

creates a barrier to labour market entry or re-entry as they have depleted all personal

resources and supports needed to help lift them back out of poverty.

2. It promotes and encourages further dependency on the system. In a First Nations context,

to be eligible for assistance a person or family is required to dispose of boats, motors,

ATV’s, etc. However, disposing of such items makes that person or family further

dependent on the system, as they no longer have the means of harvesting their own

traditional food (fish, deer, moose, berries, etc.).

Recommendation: 1. Allow people who are on social assistance to maintain a reasonable level of assets

appropriate to the region in which they reside which can support a return to work (e.g., tools

related to crafts or trapping), or assist with traditional harvesting of food.

2. Allow assets used for traditional First Nation cultural purposes to be exempt from all

asset rules, regardless of the value.

5. Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)

First Nation people living on reserve are under represented within the ODSP when compared to

municipal program recipients. Off reserve, approximately 52% of all people receiving income

assistance in Ontario receive ODSP benefits, or 48% receive OW benefits

(www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/reports/ow_quarterly.aspx, October 3, 2011).

While there are no public OW or ODSP program statistics for First Nations, a voluntary survey of

ONWAA members found the following:

ODSP OW Highest percentage of ODSP 41% 59% Lowest percentage of ODSP 8% 92% Average 24% 76%

Page 20: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+,!

These informal statistics are alarming and indicate the following:

1. People living in municipal delivery areas are more likely to be in receipt of income

assistance due to disability, while people living in First Nations are in receipt of

income assistance due to suppressed economic conditions, or

2. Disabled people are not accessing the disability program when they may be eligible

for program benefits within First Nations.

1.) Higher rates of OW receipt versus ODSP may be a direct result of the lack of employment

opportunities in many First Nations. It is a reasonable assumption that fewer job opportunities

would result in a higher percentage of abled bodied individuals being unsuccessful in securing

employment. This would ultimately result in increased receipt of OW compared to ODSP.

2.) ODSP is administered, delivered and managed by Ontario public service employees. ODSP

workers are located in municipal or urban settings and there are no staff employed in or located

on a First Nation. ONWAA members have reported the following barriers to First Nation citizens

applying for and accessing ODSP under the current structure:

1. People do not want to be served by an off reserve entity (they are comfortable with

and trust the local Ontario Works office and workers),

2. Limited access to medical supports and physician assessments in the community,

3. No local psychological testing available in the community,

4. If someone is denied ODSP they do not have access to similar appeal supports that

exist in a municipality (legal clinic, legal aid, etc.),

5. Limited capacity of the OW office to screen people and complete referrals to ODSP,

6. People are unaware of existence of the program,

7. Past application/referrals have been denied, branding the program as too

cumbersome and difficult to access.

Regardless of the reason why people are not accessing the ODSP, in ONWAA’s opinion the data

clearly indicates that the current program is not designed to meet the needs of First Nation people.

Page 21: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+-!

Recommendation:

1. Include the ODSP into the 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement.

2. First Nations directly administer the ODSP within their territory.

Page 22: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

++!

Program Administration

The administration of income assistance has long been a contentious issue. The issues are

complicated and include resources, jurisdiction and accountability.

Resources

The administration of the Ontario Works program is to be funded equally between Ontario and the

municipal delivery agent. First Nations receive their municipal allocation from the federal

Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). Currently, and

historically, the Department refuses to fund First Nations program equallywith municipal programs.

Instead of providing funding equal to that of municipalities, the Department chooses to fund the

program using a “reasonable comparability” approach. Despite specific requests, AANDC has not

been able to provide a formula, range or approach to how it determines “reasonable comparability”.

The end result however, is that First Nations do not receive the same base funding to deliver

Ontario Works as their municipal counterparts.

In 2010 MCSS advised all deliverers that it was working on the development of a new Ontario

Works funding formula. All stakeholders (municipal and First Nation) were invited to engage in

discussions about how a new funding approach would ensure, among other things, funding equity

for all delivery sites. Even though the review and new funding approach has been implemented by

Ontario, by AANDC’s own admission OW programs are being funded based on the availability of

their regional budget pressures and not in response to the resources required to administer an

effective and equitable program. Funding inconsistencies and shortfalls inevitably result in reduced

program outcomes, standards and results; but First Nations are expected to deliver the same

program and services. In short, they are set up to fail.

Full Ontario Works Delivery Sites:

On June 16, 2011 AANDC announced their response to the new Ontario Works funding model

developed by Ontario. On June 17, 2011 ONWAA submitted a letter to the Minister of MCSS

requesting assistance in addressing this historical funding shortfall.

Page 23: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+2!

Financial Assistance ONLY Delivery Sites:

Communities delivering only financial assistance within their territory are funded at a benchmark

developed by AANDC (then INAC) in 2008. This benchmark funding has not changed for any

communities even where the local caseload has increased substantially. This funding formula is out-

dated and insufficient to address the actual needs of the community, program and people on

assistance.

Part-time Sites

Historically, First Nation income assistance delivery sites with a caseload of 35 have been deemed

part time sites. These programs are funded 100% by AANDC and have specific challenges and

barriers. With no program scale, programs funded using a cost-per-case approach have little if any

relevance.

Recommendation:

In conjunction with First Nations, Ontario needs to identify minimum program funding levels for

all program types (full, financial and part-time) that ensure minimum service and delivery standards

for people accessing and delivering the program across Ontario.

Jurisdic t ion

A fundamental issue for most First Nations remains jurisdiction. The dependency and poverty levels

experienced in many communities demonstrates that the current system is not and has not worked

in First Nations. The current program has often had a weakening effect on the relationships

between the local community, program administrators and First Nations, which implies that

devolved administrative control of provincially defined and regulated services is most likely to

remain insufficient (First Nation’s Project Team Report, Principal Report on New Social Assistance

Legislation for First Nations in Ontario, 1992).

Page 24: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+3!

The jurisdictional issue transcends the local delivery and administration of the current social

assistance program “First Nation Social Service Administrators are responsible to feed and clothe

the community” (ONWAA Member, 2011). This statement reflects the disproportionately high

levels of reliance on income assistance in first Nations. It also indicates another reality; i.e., that

First Nation program deliverers are responsible to the community, while at the same time

accountable for program compliance and outcomes to the provincial Ministry.

In this context, it is easy to see the difficult job and complexities that exist when delivering Ontario

Works in a First Nation community. Administrators personally know and want to help their

community members who receive assistance, yet they must adhere to the provincial policy and

legislation governing the program even though the program does not always reflect the barriers and

realities that exist at the local community level. In response, they try to bridge their two realities,

attempting to make the program serve the needs of the community while also meeting the

compliance standards of the program. As one can anticipate, the Administrators cannot meet both

needs and often fall short of satisfying one or both obligations.

Recommendation

Engage First Nation Leadership in the provincial reform process so that communities best

identify specific jurisdictional reforms and the most appropriate process(es). Once

jurisdictional reforms are identified, a process for achieving them needs to be implemented.

Page 25: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+4!

Recommendations for the Future

Establishment of a First Nation Policy Body

Ontario needs to establish a First Nation policy body inside the Ministry that works with and responds solely to First Nation specific policy issues. The current approach is to have “one” provincial system for all of Ontario. This allows Ontario to manage and implement its desired ends but does not encourage innovative First Nation policy and program solutions. Moving from a one-size-fits-all approach to a flexible, community approach to issues will improve program outcomes for all stakeholders.

Broad Based Program Outcomes

Ultimately, Ontario Works is a pre-employment program rather than an actual employment program. The program needs to acknowledge that its primary objective is to support people in increasing their employability and measure the success of achieving this objective.

Flexibility

Where economic opportunities are limited, the program needs to be flexible to allow communities to identify and work towards achieving ends that are important to the community. A community could focus its efforts on healing, increasing community capacity, education, etc. The program needs to allow for the identification of local program outcomes to be achieved rather than merely in providing flexibility in how the services are provided in order to achieve provincial outcomes.

Program Eligibility

Program eligibility needs to continue to have local involvement. The gradual inclusion of income tax based program benefit eligibility is not ideal within First Nations, as many people do not file income tax returns on a regular basis. If benefits were ever to be integrated into the income tax system First Nation Leadership must be consulted and agree to this type of eligibility determination.

Page 26: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+.!

Monitoring and Accountability

The program needs to be revised to ensure that program deliverers are truly accountable to the communities and people they provide service to rather than being accountable to the provincial/federal governments. First Nations need to be more involved in monitoring program results and outcomes and in identifying and developing strategies for improving outcomes and reducing delivery barriers. Having a program where the local deliverer is employed by the First Nation but ultimately accountable to external agents/policy creates structural program barriers.

Calculation of Benefits

The calculation of program benefits needs to reflect the actual needs of the person to provide a minimum standard of living. If the program is intended to provide a person’s “basic needs” then the benefits must be calculated at a level that achieves this goal. To achieve this objective, an expert panel should be developed to recommend income assistance rates and benefits, and review policy on an annual basis. Such rates must address regional and local disparities in living costs, including food, shelter and transportation.

First Nation “Opt Out” Clause

There needs to be an “opt out” clause in any social assistance program for First Nations. An “opt out” clause would provide First Nations the authority to not adhere to specific policy areas should the policy conflict with the community or cultural realities of the nation.

Seamless Program Integration

There needs to be better system integration between all community social programs, including: Ontario Works, ASSETS, Housing, Child Welfare, Education, etc. Current service delivery “silos” create unnecessary barriers and influence program and community outcomes.

Program Administration

The social assistance program needs to be less complex to administer with an increased focus on helping people rather than policy compliance. Currently, deliverers utilize substantial resources in meeting administrative and reporting requirements. The program’s “red tape” needs to be eliminated and program administration needs to focus primarily on helping people.

Page 27: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+/!

Disability

Any long-term social program (disability) needs to be administered/managed by First Nations.

Programs managed off reserve are not effective in providing help, service, supports or local

accountability.

Page 28: Ontario native welfare administrators association 2011

!

"#$%!&!!!'()**!+,--!

+0!

Bibliography !

*56%7895:!;<=>!!?#7@A!BC<@6C996!?6DE#F<95:!+,,3>!!GGG>EC<%H8I9HI95F#7<9>97$J*88%F8J?#7@A!K+,BC<@6C996K+,?6DE#F<95>L6H>!

B#5#6<#5!E%5F7%!95!MDN8F#5E%!*ND8%:!O<78F!(#F<958:!P5D<F!#56!QRF<8!"%9L@%!'S%7S<%G>!

BC#=N%78:!T9N%7F>!!)C98%!T%#@<FA!B9D5F8U!!"DFF<5$!FC%!O<78F!V#8F>!!"7#EF<E#@!*EF<95!"DN@<8C<5$:!-11/>!

?S#58:!ME9F!W>!X+,,/Y>!!Z9DFC!M%58%!9H!B9==D5<FA[!!\9<E%!*56!"9G%7!P5!B9==D5<FA!B95F%]F8>!!^9D75#@!9H!B9==D5<FA!"8AEC9@9$A:!\9@D=%!24:!X.Y:!.12I/,1>!

O<78F!(#F<95_8!"79`%EF!a%#=!T%L97F:!"7<5E<L#@!T%L97F!95!(%G!M9E<#@!*88<8F#5E%!V%$<8@#F<95!H97!O<78F!(#F<958!<5!'5F#7<9>!!bD%%58!"7<5F%7!H97!'5F#7<9:!-11+>!

O7%<7%:!"#D@9>!!"%6#$9$A!9H!FC%!'LL7%88%6>!!B95F<5DD=!P5F%75#F<95#@!"DN@<8C<5$!c79DL:!-1/,>!!!

cD78F%<5:!">:!V9S#F9:!B>!d!T988:!M>!X+,,2Y>!!Z9DFC!"#7F<E<L#F<95!P5!"@#55<5$[!!MF7#F%$<%8!H97!M9E<#@!*EF<95>!B#5#6<#5!^9D75#@!9H!e7N#5!T%8%#7EC>!\9@D=%!-+!X+Y:!+31I+/3>!

fG%<FF:!W9D$!X+,,,Y>!!*!B@#8C!9H!)97@6S<%G8[!!?]L%7<%5E%8!O79=!a%#EC<5$!*N97<$<5#@!MFD6%5F>!!aC%97A!P5F9!"7#EF<E%>!\9@D=%!21!X+Y>!

V<$CF=#5:!?>:!f%76:!W>!d!Q<FEC%@@:!*>!X+,,.Y>!!?]L@97<5$!FC%!V9E#@!P=L@%=%5F#F<95!9H!'5F#7<9!)97g8>!!MFD6<%8!<5!"9@<F<E#@!?E959=A:!\9@D=%!/0:!--1I-32>!

Q#E(%<@:!Q%@#5<%!M>!X+,,0Y>!!*5!?L<6%=<9@9$<E!MFD6A!9H!*N97<$<5#@!*69@%8E%5F!T<8g!<5!B#5#6#[!!aC%!Q%#5<5$!9H!MD<E<6%>!!^9D75#@!9H!BC<@6!#56!*69@%8E%5F!"8AEC<#F7<E!(D78<5$:!\9@D=%!+-!X-Y!2I-+>!!!

"%#7E%:!(<gg<!^>:!V#7895:!7%%6!)>!X+,,.Y>!!f9G!a%%58!h%E9=%!?5$#$%6!<5!Z9DFC!W%S%@9L=%5F!"79$7#=8[!!aC%!"79E%88!9H!Q9F<S#F<95#@!BC#5$%!<5!#!B<S<E!*EF<S<8=!'7$#5<i#F<95>!!*LL@<%6!W%S%@9L=%5F#@!ME<%5E%:!\9@D=%!-,!X2Y:!-+-I-2->!

T%8F9D@%:!h7%=56#!X-11/Y>!!"79S<6<5$!M%7S<E%8!a9!*N97<$<5#@!B@<%5F8>!!cD<6#5E%!d!B9D58%@@<5$:!\9@D=%!-+!X+Y>!!!

MECD@Fi:!T>:!f%ECC#D8%5:!^>:!)798EC:!B>!X+,-,Y>!!*!Q9F<S#F<95#@!aC%97A!9H!V<H%IML#5!W%S%@9L=%5F>!!"8AEC9@9$A!7%S<%G:!\9@D=%!--/!X-Y!2+I.,>!!!

aDC<G#<!M=<FC:!V<56#>!!W%E9@95<i<5$!QAFC9@9$<%8>!!e5<S%78<FA!9H!'F#$9!"7%88:!-111>!

!

!

!