Human Resources Minister Diane Finley says the federal government “can’t do everything” to meet Canada’s social challenges and is looking at the corporate and not-for-profit sectors to help deliver more services and tangible results.

Speaking to a few hundred Conservative supporters at the Manning Centre conference in Ottawa, Finley said millions of taxpayer dollars are spent annually on such social issues as tackling poverty, often without substantial improvements.

With that in mind, the minister said new approaches to philanthropy and addressing social issues are needed. The federal government can no longer afford to continue spending money on the same old approaches and expect to achieve better results, she said.

“Governments can’t do everything to meet our social challenges. Governments can’t simply fund every demanded service without regard for the taxpayers’ ability to pay,” Finley said in her speech at the Manning Networking Conference, which has seen Conservatives from across the country gather in the nation’s capital.

“Governments can, however, facilitate and empower others to deal with social challenges.”

The Conservative government is considering a number of new alternatives when it comes to the “social economy,” she said, including more strategic investing by government, the corporate sector and not-forprofit agencies to achieve measurable improvements.

Finley specifically noted in her speech the government is considering “pay-for-performance agreements” in which federal dollars are only paid when clearly identified targets are met. Such an approach would have the private sector more involved in addressing social challenges and delivering innovative solutions, she said.

In the same vein, she said the Conservatives are considering developing – as one of many options – what are known as social-impact bonds.

She said the bonds are essentially a contract between the government and private investors that provide upfront capital to finance an organization – often a not-for-profit agency – to deliver a social program.

The federal cash for the program is tied to results, so the government will pay the investor the agreed premium and the original investment only if the agreed outcomes are achieved, she said.

Adopting social-impact bonds would transfer the financial risk away from the government and taxpayer – who pay upfront without any guarantee of results – to the social group that will be paid for results, Finley said.

“Our approach will be incremental, it will be respectful of the government’s fiscal situation. The government cannot afford to do everything and we will need to leverage if we’re going to have maximum impact,” she added, promising the government will still take care of the vulnerable.

“We’re not relinquishing any of our responsibilities. What we are doing is creating more space and more freedom.”

The minister noted that last year she established a voluntary advisory panel on social partnerships that is providing the federal government with a number of new approaches to addressing social challenges.

Finley is already helping lead a contentious federal government examination of the public pension system. The Harper government has promised reforms are coming to programs such as Old Age Security – including possibly increasing the qualifying age to 67 from the current 65 – although the changes wouldn’t affect current seniors or those nearing retirement.

Kate Bahen, managing director of Charity Intelligence, an agency that conducts research and analysis on charities, said Canadians for “far too long” have been giving billions of dollars annually to charities without asking what sort of results it delivered.

< http://www.theprovince.com/business/performance+poverty+plan/6284580/story.html >

All Delon St Clair needed to get off welfare and go to college was $400.

But none of the systems supposed to be helping low-income people escape poverty seemed willing or able to help.

St Clair, 27, was accepted into a one-year applied science and technology course at Seneca College last month, a prerequisite for the college’s firefighter program. His Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) loan was approved last week.

But his college dreams of training to become a firefighter were dashed when Seneca insisted he make a $400 tuition down payment by Friday or forfeit his place in class.

St Clair’s monthly welfare cheque is just $565 and he had already spent more than $300 of that on December rent for the subsidized apartment he shares with his mother in the Jane-Finch community.

The welfare office wouldn’t help because tuition is covered by OSAP. But his OSAP loan won’t be available until he starts classes on Jan. 9.

St Clair’s employment counsellor doesn’t understand why Seneca and other colleges are suddenly putting the financial squeeze on OSAP students like St Clair, when in the past it was easier to have tuition deposits deferred.

“This is definitely something new and it is a real struggle for my clients who are all on OSAP,” said Nicola Holness, who is with JVS Toronto’s Youth Reach, a program that helps people aged 16 to 30 find work or go back to school.

St Clair never had trouble finding work until the recession hit and he was laid off in 2009. Since then, he has sent out more than 100 job applications, to no avail.

But when Toronto Fire Services held a recruitment fair last winter, he took a course in CPR and set his sights on going back to school to become a firefighter.

“I really want to get off welfare, but I don’t think I can do that unless I go back to school,” he said.

A spokesperson for Seneca College said students have always been required to make a minimum tuition down payment. The college’s associate registrar is available to meet with students to discuss alternate payment arrangements if there are “extenuating circumstances,” added Emily Milic.

Toronto welfare officials say they are starting to see more people in St Clair’s situation as colleges tighten up deposit policies.

But the city’s hands are tied, said Darrin Vermeersch, of Toronto Social Services.

“All we can do is deal with this on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

“This is affecting the poorest of the poor, who can’t access the funds but who could benefit the most,” he added. “Clearly this is not in the best interest of anybody — not the resident, or the government or the taxpayer.”

Late Wednesday, as a result of the Star’s queries, Toronto social services wrote St Clair a cheque for $465 to cover the tuition deposit as well as the late fee. Seneca also offered to meet with him.

St Clair is relieved his financial barrier to college entrance has been lifted. But he wonders if his experience has changed anything.

“I don’t know what this means for other people in my situation,” he said.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1102242–price-of-moving-from-welfare-to-work-400 >

A 2009 decision to boost the Ontario Child Benefit to cushion struggling families during the recession helped pull 19,000 children out of poverty, advocates say in a new report on the province’s anti-poverty efforts.

But on the third anniversary of Ontario’s Dec. 4, 2008 pledge to cut child poverty by 25 per cent by 2013, more action is needed if the province hopes to meet its target, warns the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction in a report being released Monday.

“Given the slow recovery from the recession and growing income inequality, now is not the time for the provincial government to sit on its laurels,” says Mike Creek, chair of the network which represents more than 100 provincial groups and individuals working to eliminate poverty.

“Targeted action is urgently needed, including expanding poverty reduction targets to include adults — especially singles — and addressing equity for groups more at risk of poverty,” adds Creek of Voices from the Street, which provides advocacy training for people with histories of homelessness.

Child poverty in Ontario dropped by 4 per cent to 14.6 child per cent in 2009. However, Ontario’s progress is still a long way off its 25-per-cent goal of lifting 90,000 children out of poverty, the coalition says.

Toronto single mother Jasmine Russell is grateful for the extra $42 a month in child benefits she began receiving in July 2009 for each of her boys ages 8 and 16.

However, the increase, which boosted her monthly child benefit to $92 per child, was offset by welfare restructuring that caused her monthly cheque to drop by almost as much.

If she could complete high school and get a job, then she would be truly ahead, says Russell, who has struggled on and off welfare since she became pregnant as a teenager.

“Every time I got a job, all the money went to babysitting,” she says. “I couldn’t get a (daycare) subsidy to go back to school because I wasn’t in school for enough hours. It was just impossible.”

Russell’s monthly federal and provincial child benefits amount to $793 and barely cover food, clothing and school supplies for her growing boys, she says. Meantime, there is little left from the family’s $971 monthly welfare cheque after Russell pays her $800 rent.

“Everything goes to my boys,” she says, “I buy my clothes at the dollar store or Salvation Army.”

The network’s report says there is common ground across all provincial parties to move forward on poverty reduction.

This includes a new housing benefit to help low-income households and support for the province’s social assistance reform commission, expected to report next summer. All parties have also expressed support for allowing people on welfare to keep more of their earnings from part-time jobs, reviewing the minimum wage, raising the child benefit to $1,310 and strengthening employment protections for vulnerable workers.

Since 2008, Ontario has used Statistics Canada’s Low Income Measure (LIM) after taxes to measure poverty. By this measure, a child living in a family with an income that is less than half of the median family income, after taxes, is considered poor. Russell’s annual after-tax income is about $21,600. The after-tax LIM for a parent and two children in 2009 was about $27,975.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1096936–child-poverty-easing-in-ontario-report-says >

The move was made with the best of intentions. It should eventually improve life for low-income Ontarians. But right now many of them are falling into an unforeseen snare.

In 2010, the Ontario government announced a change to the way it pays tax credits to the province’s poorest citizens. Instead of getting one lump-sum payment at the end of the year, they would get smaller amounts every three months. The objective was to produce a steadier income flow.

Most recipients shrugged. They were struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table and keep the most aggressive bill collectors at bay. A change in the timing of their sales, property and energy tax credits wouldn’t help.

But it did affect them in a way most didn’t realize. They could no longer go to a tax preparation company at filing time and get an advance on their refund. Under the new system, there were no lump-sum tax refunds.

Few alarm bills went off at first because the switchover was gradual. But this year, social agencies and legal aid clinics started detecting distress signals.

Low-income people, thinking they could get a tax refund in time for Christmas, were still going to tax preparers. But instead of the usual cheque (worth between $900 and $1,500 depending on the size of the household) they were being offered a new deal.

The company would still prepare and file their tax return. But they had to agree to open a new savings account and notify Canada Revenue they wanted all of their federal and provincial tax benefits — everything from their national child benefit to their HST credit — deposited in this new account. They also had to sign up for a prepaid debit card, allowing them to withdraw money from their account.

Some took the bait. They soon discovered the tax preparation company had taken its fee out of the first deposit in the account (usually a monthly child benefit payment), leaving them short of rent money. Then they found out their new “bank account” had a monthly fee. Finally, they discovered that every time they used their debit card — to withdraw money, buy something, even check their balance — there was a $2 transaction fee.

Desperate to get out, they sought help. The lucky ones, whose contracts were less than 10 days old, could still be extricated. But for most, the deadline had passed.

Legal-aid advisers and social workers told them to contact their MPP immediately and ask for assistance. (In most cases, they had to figure out who the person’s MPP was and make the call themselves.)

While trying to get the existing contracts nullified, lawyers are scrambling to prevent new cases. But it is difficult because low-income people are often isolated, don’t keep track of their money and don’t respond to messages they don’t understand.

The government knew there would be transitional glitches when it phased out lump-sum tax refunds. What it did not anticipate was that the tax preparation companies, faced with the loss of a lucrative chunk of their business, would come up with a scheme like this.

There is nothing illegal about what they’re doing. But it is exploitative.

It will take a battery of correctives to undo this mess. There will have to be a province-wide information blitz in clear simple language; a concerted effort at every welfare office to steer clients away from commercial tax preparation companies; probably new regulations and perhaps a new method of delivering government benefits.

Legal aid clinics, social agencies and community organizations will have to redouble their efforts to connect low-income Ontarians with volunteer tax filers or Revenue Canada’s Telefileservice.

Economists will have to figure out a way to keep the poor filing annual tax returns, now that the financial incentive is gone.

And policy-makers will have to get better at assessing the risks of administrative tinkering.

On paper, an adjustment in the payment schedule for tax credits may look like a harmless change.

In real life it can mean a miserable Christmas for families already beset by hardship.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1094567–goar-minor-adjustment-a-major-problem-for-poor >

It’s hard to criticize Ottawa, along with the major banks, when it comes to the generosity and promotion of the Registered Disability-Savings Plan.

The grants are generous enough that someone contributing $1,500 can receive $3,500 from the federal government every year to a maximum of $70,000. At the lowest income level, you can get up to $1,000 a year and maximum of $20,000 lifetime by just applying without putting up a cent of your own money.

And the banks? Some have been better at promoting RDSPs than others but the truth is the program is not profitable for them so their participation should be appreciated.

Yet, in the three years since the program was announced, just 48,000 accounts have been opened, serving only a fraction of those eligible.

So last week the Conservative government, to its credit again because it was the Tories that started this ball rolling, announced a review of the plan. The public has until Dec. 16 to comment.

“[The RDSP] has been a remarkable success,” said Jim Flaherty, the federal Finance Minister. “It has worked well and we want to make sure it is working as well as it should work. We are going to try make it even better than it is already is.”

Mr. Flaherty credits financial institutions for making people aware of RDSPs. “I have to tell you the financial institutions stepped up to the plate on this one because it’s not a money maker for them but in my view it was a matter of important social policy, enlightened social policy,” he said. “I won’t name the financial institutions but a couple of them totally stepped up to the plate.”

I can tell you one is the Bank of Montreal, a leader in the field from the beginning; it now controls about 50% of the market.

Mark Stewart, director of product development and management for BMO Investments Inc., says his bank’s submissions to Ottawa will focus on making it easier for Canadians to open RDSPs.

“There is a lack of awareness out there about RDSPs,” said Mr. Stewart, noting a BMO survey found only 5% cent of Canadians with disabilities hold RDSP accounts. Another 44% of those with disabilities had never heard about the plan.

Setting up the plan is not that difficult but it does require that you be eligible for the disability tax credit which can only be filled out by certain healthcare professionals and has to be approved by the Canada Revenue Agency. Health-care workers have complained about the complexity of the forms and Mr. Flaherty said changing that is under consideration.

The government will also consider rules covering guardianship of plans which have made it difficult to open accounts in some provinces. The 10year rule, which says you can’t withdraw cash from the plan until a decade after your last contribution or face repayment of the grant money, could change.

Another factor sighted in low participation is the rule that forces you to collapse the plan – and again pay back grants – if you become no longer disabled. People who some sort of episodic diminished capacity are impacted by this.

Jack Styan, managing director of RDSP Resource Centre at Ability Tax Group, said he’s still shocked how word just has not gotten out about the plan.

“I was talking to a group of lawyers last week and they hadn’t even known about it. If it hasn’t crossed their path, how is the average working Joe or someone with a disability supposed to know,” he says.

My owns two cents – I think informing those eligible for RDSP should occur on the front lines with health-care practitioners playing a key role. Think of the Registered Education Savings Plan. You can’t seem to step foot in a pediatrician’s office without spotting pamphlets for the RESP program.

Whatever the answer, the message needs to get out. The RDSP is a great program. Spread the word. Please.

< http://www.financialpost.com/news/Disability+credit+plan+well+kept+secret/5606493/story.html >

There has been some talk lately of welfare in this province as we head into the election to be held in October.

We have been reminded of the cruelty that happened on our doorstep with the Kimberly Rogers case. I hope we never forget what happened when she died from being under house arrest while convicted of fraud. She was collecting welfare while getting OSAP. Heaven forbid someone should try and lift themselves out of poverty by going to school. The Liberals will try to paint Progressive Conservative Tim Hudak as another Mike Harris because he is suggesting bringing back the lifetime ban for anyone convicted of welfare fraud.

But will that generate any kind of real debate about welfare and its draconian rules and unlivable rates? Of course not. No politician wants to talk about the reality of people living in poverty in this province.

We are living in a scary time right now where well-paying jobs are scarce and it seems like we are heading into another global recession.

People who have good jobs and investments like to think they will never have to rely on the system, but in reality, all it takes are a few twists of fate to be in a situation where welfare could be your only option.

For example, you lose your job, for some reason, like many in Ontario you are unable to collect Employment Insurance and after your run through what savings you have, what do you do? Unable to find a job, you realize to survive you have to go on welfare.

What if, all of a sudden, you are faced with a catastrophic illness and are unable to work, your benefits run out and your only option is Ontario disability and only if you qualify. If you don’t qualify your only other option is welfare.

So, if you are single and on welfare, you would be expected to survive on $592 a month. It doesn’t matter if you have rent that is $600 or more a month, all you get is $592. Would you be able to survive on that? If you are single with one child, the rate on welfare is $1,005. We always hear politicians talk of child poverty, well that’s it. Child poverty doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Just how do you have enough money to put adequate food on the table or pay the hydro bill? But it’s easier to talk of children being poor then adults who may need help.

The fears of many who lived through the Mike Harris cuts to welfare of 21% are valid, when they think of his former cabinet minister, Tim Hudak, possibly winning the election. When Harris made those cuts, welfare for a single person sat at $663 a month.

According to John Stapleton, a policy analyst and former senior civil servant, “if governments had pegged rates to inflation, the welfare rate today would be $932 a month.” For all of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s talk when he was campaigning in two elections about raising the rates and getting rid of poverty in this province, his government has only managed to raise the rates by 3% or 4% over the years. As I said the rate is now at $592 and less then it was in 1993.

In November 2010, McGuinty appointed a commission to do an extensive review of social assistance in this province. I had hope, at first, when I heard who would be the two members of this commission: former NDP cabinet minister and head of United Way in Toronto, Frances Lankin, and former head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh. They have been going all over the province listening to the stakeholders, including those on assistance, talk of their experiences with the system.

But what has stood out for me about this commission is the final report will not be released until July 2012, long after the provincial election. Even if the Liberals win this election, which is up in the air at this point, would I expect them to act on any recommendations? Oh, they might do some things that don’t cost a huge amount of money, but fundamental changes? Actually, raising the rates so people can eat and pay rent at the same time? I’m not sure even the NDP would do that.

The reality is that many in this province live paycheque to paycheque and carry huge credit card debt. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that any type of blip in the economy could throw many into poverty.

It’s time governments started seriously discussing a guaranteed annual income.

Next week, I’ll look at who has been the biggest supporter of this and what it would mean for Canadians.

Ruth Farquhar is freelance writer based on Manitoulin Island.

< http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3258284 >

Toronto will soon become the first major Canadian city to permanently replace the iconic welfare cheque with a debit card, a move that will produce savings for both Ontario Works recipients and a government that is itself scrounging for cash.

About 65,000 of Toronto’s recipients receive their payments via direct bank deposit. Many of the 35,000 who receive cheques do not have bank accounts, and many cash the cheques at payday lending outlets that charge high fees they can scarcely afford.

Money Mart, for example, charges $2.99 per cheque plus 3 per cent of the cheque total. That amounts to $249 per year for a recipient who is single, $403 for a childless couple.

“Last year, we did the tax returns for about a thousand people. Their average income was $11,000,” said Diane Dyson, director of research and public policy at Woodgreen Community Services. “Even saving a couple of dollars on the transaction fees — those small differences make a big difference.”

The cards, to be distributed in the fall or winter, will be reloaded monthly. Recipients will be able to use them to withdraw cash at ATMs and to make electronic payments at point-of-sale terminals.

The switch from paper to plastic will save the city $1 million to $2.5 million per year, said Toronto Employment and Social Services general manager Heather MacVicar.

“It’s better all the way around,” MacVicar said. “It’s easier for the residents than trying to deal with the cheque, and it’s a much more streamlined process administratively for the city.”

The city may not force “certain” recipients to convert to cards, MacVicar said, but its goal is to have all or almost all recipients make the switch.

Welfare cards have been adopted successfully by several U.S. states, including New York, California and Michigan. Recipients of U.S. federal payments are required to switch to direct deposit or cards by 2013.

But cards have occasionally been the subject of controversy. State and federal politicians havesought to prevent recipients from using them at casinos, liquor stores and tattoo parlours, among other places. Advocates for the poor, in turn, have argued that governments should not use the cards to try to engineer social behaviour.

There is no indication to date that Toronto politicians are interested in imposing restrictions.

“I’ve been hearing people gripe for years — ‘People get a welfare cheque, and the first thing they do is go to the liquor store, the beer store.’ Well, usually when I get my paycheque, one of the first things I do is go to the liquor store or beer store,” said government management committee chair Councillor Paul Ainslie, a right-leaning ally of Mayor Rob Ford.

“You should have some enjoyment in life. I think it’s a little draconian to start saying, ‘You’re on welfare, and this is exactly how you’re going to spend the money we give you.’”

The cards will be designed so that its users cannot be easily identified as welfare recipients. Other details, such as whether withdrawals will be subject to ATM fees, are still to be determined.

The cards will eliminate cheque fraud. They will also reduce the stigma associated with cashing a government cheque, Dyson said, and make recipients safer: they will no longer have to carry large amounts of cash, and the PIN-protected cards can be quickly cancelled if they are lost or stolen.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1036322–debit-cards-to-replace-welfare-cheques >

As she begins consultations in the city with Canada’s highest unemployment rate, the woman charged with reviewing the province’s welfare system says a fundamental overhaul is needed to help lift families from poverty.

Frances Lankin, recently appointed commissioner of the province’s new Social Assistance Review Commission, told the general meeting of the United Way for Windsor and Essex County Tuesday that the system may be too complicated and irrational.

“We’ve been asked to simplify the rules,” said the former NDP provincial cabinet minister. “There are now 800 rules. How does anyone navigate through? It’s not humanly possible for a caseworker to know all the (eligibility) rules without bogging down in administration …. There’s no time left to help families.”

In addition, she said, the benefit rates, which are supposed to guarantee a basic living for recipients, seem to be based on random numbers.

“It’s not rational,” she said. “It’s not related to how much it may cost for shelter, healthy meals, clothing.”

A typical single recipient gets about $580 a month and a family with children might get $900 monthly.

“The rates are very low,” said Ronna Warsh, the city’s commissioner of community development and health. “That’s why people are using food banks. After paying rent and utilities they have nothing left to feed themselves.”

As of May, 10,117 Windsor area residents and families were enrolled in the Ontario Works program with the city’s social services department. That number is down less than half a percentage point since the beginning of the year, but up nearly one per cent from May 2010.

Warsh, said that number would be “at least 500 families higher” if not for innovative programs the city has developed in partnership with employers, investors and the regional economic development commission, to match assistance recipients with jobs.

Two years ago, only two per cent of welfare recipients went to work each month in Windsor. That number is now 26 per cent.

“It has been very successful,” said Warsh. “It just makes common sense. To get people off assistance you need to work with employers.”

Lankin called it an urban myth that people can do better staying on welfare than earning a wage working. But she added, the number of working poor is on the rise and, even after the recession, there is no guarantee earning power will ever fully recover for many.

“Therein lies the challenge,” she said.

Lankin said Windsor was chosen as the place to begin the community consultation process because of its high unemployment rate and the fact it has “taken the brunt of the recession,” and also because it is a “resilient community” that knows how to reinvent itself.”

Lankin said the commission, will criss-cross Ontario to meet with social service providers, charities, agencies and the public to find ways to more effectively get people back into jobs while continuing to provide financial assistance for those who are not working.

Lankin said low-wage and part-time jobs, as well as contract work, are the fastest growing sectors of the economy.

She said government cuts to welfare rates over the past two decades were made to encourage people to seek jobs. However, with the job market offering lower paying jobs, and families living below the poverty line, we may now be in “a race to the bottom.”

Lankin acknowledged the outcome of the election may end up determining the shape of any resulting reforms.

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” she said. “We’ve met with the social assistance critics from the opposition parties. But, at the end of the day, the government will decide what to do with the report. Our job is to build consensus, to find solutions that can be acted upon.”

< http://www.windsorstar.com/business/rule+welfare+system+assailed/5021452/story.html >

Ginny Witkowski has been a single mom in abject poverty, and later — by circumstances also beyond her control — a married mother of six in abject poverty.

Now a successful Winnipeg business owner, Witkowski says poverty is poverty. To be frank, she found more pride in her situation as a desperate single mom.

“There was a sense of pride about me because I did it,” Witkowski said in an interview. “I worked hard and I figured it out and I didn’t get help from anyone.”

A new national study by Statistics Canada shows poverty is still much higher among single mothers than among the general public. But with one in five single moms living in poverty, they have seen a steady improvement for the last 15 years — even during the recession.

The same study, released Wednesday, found that almost a third of single men are living in poverty.

Single men have long wrestled with a poverty problem, and 2009 was no different. The percentage living with low incomes was 30.1, up from 27.9 per cent in 2008.

The report challenges Canadian understanding of who needs help, why, and how to help.

Witkowski’s tale is instructive.

Twelve years ago, Witkowski clawed her way out of single-parent poverty by dint of wits and hard work.

“I didn’t know about help, and there’s so many resources for women in that situation. I didn’t know they existed,” she said.

“I remember feeding my kids rice for dinner. No vegetables, no meat. I had nothing but water to drink. It was really a difficult time.”

But after putting her life back together and remarrying, Witkowski fell back into poverty when, during a troubled pregnancy, she was bedridden in hospital for five months.

Her fledgling financial-services business collapsed and her husband was forced to quit his evening shift-work to look after their five kids. Witkowski emerged from hospital as a mother of six and her husband had no job to go back to.

When her family went on social assistance, “we had people who had the attitude, ‘Well, what’s your problem?’” said Witkowski.

“I remember feeling not just humbled, but humiliated. Not that you could help it. It’s just the negative stigmatism tied into it.”

Her response: “No, not everyone is a deadbeat. Trust me.”

Having experienced the reality, Witkowski is concerned that so many single men are now faring so poorly.

“Running back probably 10 years ago they started to develop programs for women, but they just assume men can take care of themselves,” she said. “So that was kind of overlooked.”

About 21.5 per cent of single mothers were living below the low-income cutoff in 2009, according to StatsCan. That’s less than in the 23.4 per cent in 2008 and steep drop from the mid-1990s, when more than half of single mothers were considered to be living in poverty.

The dramatic improvement is partly because single mothers are far more active in the workforce now than 15 years ago, says Armine Yalnizyan, senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Many single moms now get divorced after spending some time in the workforce, and are able to resume working after splitting up, Yalnizyan said. Their incomes take a hit, but not so hard that they fall into poverty.

Plus, key social programs developed in the late 1990s have greatly benefited mothers, said Toronto-based social scientist John Stapleton. The benefits are usually attached to children — such as the Child Tax Benefit.

Stapleton believes child support has also improved as courts have become more vigilant, and are able to enforce guidelines and use DNA evidence to force fathers to pay more.

The job market has also helped mothers. With Canada’s economy turning toward services rather than manufacturing, low-skilled jobs often favour women rather than men, said Stapleton.

Rob Rainer, executive director of Canada Without Poverty, says the traditional skill set of men has taken a marketplace beating.

In forestry and manufacturing, for example, many jobs traditionally held by men are now automated. The Canadian economy has generated new jobs, but they’re often in the services sector, and often they’ve been given to women.

Stapleton notes — echoing Witkowski — social services tend to ignore single men.

“They just don’t get anything. They don’t get supports.”

Most benefits that single men can collect are small boutique tax credits, or welfare payments that prevent them from building up assets, said Stapleton.

And that’s where Witkowski’s experience is particularly illuminating.

Trapped in poverty, she entered the SEED Winnipeg Inc. program with a notion to start a special-events party business.

SEED provided $500 as an interest-free loan and provided courses on how to develop a business plan and personal finance.

Witkowski, with her background in financial and insurance services, knew how to handle money. “I just didn’t have any!”

Over the first year of the business, as long as Witkowski re-invested 100 per cent of her revenues back into the business her profits weren’t deducted from her social assistance.

She also benefited from a separate, matched savings program which allowed Witkowski to save one dollar and have the program contribute three dollars — again, conditional on all the savings going back into the business. She turned $1,000 in savings into $4,000 in working capital.

“It’s awesome,” said Witkowski. “Because for low-income families, you’re counting quarters to go buy milk. You’re looking for the day-old bread. It’s next to impossible to get ahead once you’re behind.”

Many jurisdictions, including Ontario, demand people applying for social assistance first sell off any assets, leaving them with no cushion and no capital — let alone helping them build up capital through innovative programs.

“You just need someone to give you that chance,” said Witkowski.

“It’s not giving a hand-out because you have to come up with the initial (dollars) for it. It’s like saying, ‘Look, we’re giving you an opportunity here, a chance.’”

Her success story in the face of a life of hard knocks doesn’t make Witkowski boastful.

“I’m just one of hundreds,” she said.

< http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/home_family/123944969.html >

Proponents say the cards are cheaper than issuing paper cheques and help recipients avoid excessive fees charged at payday advance lenders.

Critics say the cards give government a way to track how welfare dollars are spent and single out beneficiaries to store clerks.

Welfare is already a highly charged issue for the general public, said policy expert and former public servant John Stapleton.

“There will be the suspicion that we are making it too convenient,” he said.

But after pouring over information submitted by a number of potential partners, Joe Manion, director of program development with Toronto Employment and Social Services, said his team is confident the plan to modernize the system makes financial sense for both government and clients.

“We are certainly keen on it,” Manion said. “Cheques can be both expensive and cumbersome.”

Only a small minority of welfare recipients don’t have bank accounts and still receive cheques.

Since banks don’t have to cash welfare cheques, this group has a tough time with tellers because of their appearance, behavioural issues or lack of identification, Stapleton said. As a result, many are forced to pay high fees at dedicated cheque-cashing joints.

Manitoba is also considering issuing debit cards to its 12% of clients who do not receive their welfare benefits via direct deposit.

If it gets off the ground, Toronto’s will likely be the first such program in the country after failed attempts in B.C. and Alberta.

Manion said those programs got the boot for various reasons that the city has already considered. Pay Links, the card issuer in the 2006 Alberta pilot project, for instance, was having financial difficulties.

The initiative was cancelled for a number of reasons, said Fiona Wiseman, a spokesperson with the Alberta Ministry of Employment and Immigration.

For one, Pay Links, which later went bankrupt, could not meet the province’s privacy standards and the project came at a time of fiscal restraint. The program would have cost an additional $1.5 million to implement.

The B.C. government found that a pilot project with 20,000 benefit holders in Victoria cost more than the traditional cheque process.

Since scrapping the plan, the Alberta government has teamed up with CIBC to get more welfare recipients bank accounts for direct deposit.

Manion said his team has also studied success stories south of the border where debit cards have been issued to welfare recipients for years.

Big Brother is watching

Though electronic benefits transfer cards for welfare recipients in some U.S. states have been around since the late 1990s, they’re still making headlines.

Earlier this month, leaders at the U.S. Senate finance committee introduced a bill to ban welfare recipients from using their government-issued debit cards at casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores.

Last year, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger banned the use of the cards at casino machines and issued an executive order requiring welfare recipients to promise they will use cash benefits only to “meet the basic subsistence needs” of their families.

An estimated $5 million in California cash benefits was spent or withdrawn from ATMs at casinos and poker rooms between January 2007 and May 2010.

Through an access to information request, a local news outlet in New York also recently found thousand of dollars are regularly being withdrawn from ATMs at casinos, bingo halls, strip clubs and liquor stores.

stefania.moretti@canoe.ca

< http://money.canoe.ca/money/business/canada/archives/2011/05/20110530-102428.html >