Social Assistance, a Legal Right

The Family Allowances programme was started by the federal government in 1945 and added to in 1964, by the Youth Allowances programme. Currently these programmes provide monthly payments of

$6 for a child under 10
$ 8 for a child aged 10-15
$10 for a child aged 16 or 17.

These are universal programmes. That is, payments are equally available to all families with children, regardless of the amount of family income.

It is estimated that about one-fifth of Canadian families are "poor", by certain definitions. Under the rules of the Family and Youth Allowances programmes the four-fifths of families who are not living in poverty, so defined, have an equal right to receive allowances. Since scarce funds are diverted to people who do not need them, do these allowances meet the criterion respecting the best use of tax dollars? I would suggest that a move toward selectivity would achieve a greater degree of fiscal responsibility.

The Family and Youth Allowances programmes do meet the criterion of administrative simplicity. Upon the birth of a child, the parents simply fill out and mail a form. Payments automatically begin and they continue until the child reaches the age when he is no longer eligible.

Generally speaking, Family and Youth Allowances meet the criterion of acceptance by the public. The welfare of children has long been accepted as being the ultimate responsibility of the community. Payments which are clearly made for the benefit of the children are unlikely to be strongly criticized. Criticism is even less likely when programmes are of universal nature, since everyone is treated equally and no one who receives the benefit is singled out. In light of current proposals those of you with children might ask yourself the question: Would you prefer to see the family allowances you now receive directed to those in greater need?

The Federal Old Age Security programme is considered universal in nature. Any person aged 65 or more who meets the residence requirements is assured a monthly benefit of $80.00 regardless of whether he has a large income, extensive assets or no other income to begin with.

Even though the incidence of poverty is more than twice as high among the aged as among the reminder of the population there is, nevertheless, a substantial group (living well above the poverty line) receiving funds. Again I would ask a question, is it the best use of tax dollars to include in this programme every person over 65 even though some have been able to accumulate large resources. Is it fiscally responsible?

The Old Age Security programme certainly does meet the criterion of administrative simplicity. Once the application is processed, the cheque can be mailed out very routinely.

Old Age Security receives wide public acceptance. Along with children, the aged were among the first groups accepted as having a legitimate claim to financial assistance from the community. Neither children nor the aged are expected to work. Policies of mandatory retirement at age 65, or earlier, which have become increasingly more common in recent years may even be increasing the acceptability of financial aid for the aged.

The universality of the programme, as in the Family and Youth Allowances programmes, removes any stigma which might otherwise be attached to the receipt of Old Age Security, and thereby furthers the programme's public acceptability.

Guaranteed Income Supplement

The Guaranteed Income Supplement by amendment to the Old Age Security Act of 1967, concentrates on those whose need is greatest. It provides for the payment of additional amounts for aged persons who are deemed to be in need on the basis of their previous year's income.

The plan's administration is also simple. Every aged person receives an application for the Supplement when he begins to receive Old Age Security and again at the beginning of each subsequent year. The amount of the Guaranteed Income Supplement to which he is entitled, if any; is based on the amount of his taxable income in the previous year.

The Guaranteed Income Supplement does meet the criterion of public acceptance for several reasons

- First, since it was based on the Old Age Security Programme which was already well established, it had some "built-in" acceptability.

- Second, because support for the aged is so widely accepted, the supplement carries no stigma even though it differentiates between the "aged poor" and other aged.

- Third, because it is more fiscally responsible (i.e. related to the effective and efficient use of tax dollars in social assistance), it has even greater acceptability among some segments of the public than the universal Old Age Security programme.

There are two major Social Assistance programmes in Ontario -

- General Welfare Assistance, which is administered "municipality",

- Family Benefits which is administered by the Province.

To give you a brief description of these programmes the provincially administered Family Benefits programme applies to three major groups:

- The blind and permanently disabled (almost 50 per cent of all cases)

- Mothers with dependent children (over 30 per cent of all cases)

- Aged persons who are -lot eligible for Old Age Security, and wives over age 60 of Old Age Security recipients (about 15 per cent of all cases)

- The remaining, approximately 3 percent, of cases are foster children and persons who are chronically ill.

During 1971-72 we will spend $120 million of $275 million in Family Benefits.

All of these groups may generally be considered to require long-term social assistance, for example -

- A permanently disabled person will continue to receive assistance unless he becomes sufficiently rehabilitated to become self-supporting.

- A mother may be expected to continue to require assistance until her children become independent.

The locally administered General Welfare Assistance programme applies primarily to short-term assistance. It is more inclusive than Family Benefits in that anyone whose income and resources are inadequate to meet his needs may receive assistance if he is not fully employed. Some groups may be covered by either Act, depending on their circumstances.

- A mother with dependent children, for example, may apply for General Assistance if she expects to require only short-term assistance or while she is awaiting determination of her eligibility for long-term Family Benefits.

Other groups, for example temporarily disabled persons, may receive only General Assistance, whereas the permanently disabled are covered by the Family Benefits programme.

Employable persons who are unable to find employment are also eligible for General Assistance. This brings me to a topical subject and one on which I would like to speak from a practical standpoint. Unemployment has increased in Ontario during the twelve-month period from 2.7 per cent in November, 1969 to 4.0 percent in November, 1970.

During 1969-70 we spent $52 million on General Assistance. We now anticipate that we will spend $77 million in this programme in 1970-71. Should our social assistance machinery be expected to stand this additional burden?

Evaluation of these two provincial programmes in terms of our criteria--fiscal responsibility, administrative simplicity, and public acceptability, yields a mixture of satisfaction and recognition of areas which can be improved.

Both programmes direct funds only to the needy. They are not universal demogrants, available to everyone in a given group who applies. A person is entitled to social assistance under either programme only after it has been determined that he has inadequate income of his own to meet his needs. As a result of this selectivity scarce financial resources are concentrated on those who are in greatest need.

Administratively our programmes are not simple. In fact, they tend to be complex. Some persons feel that they should not have to go through the application procedures for social assistance under the General Welfare Assistance and Family Benefits programmes. There are several forms which must be filled out. Medical certificates, birth, death, marriage certificates, and other certification may be required in specific cases. The assets of applicants must be examined to determine the amount of their own financial resources, and to ensure that they are eligible for assistance.

One of the greatest concerns of those of us who are working in the field of social assistance is how to develop a system which is both selective (to maintain responsibility for tax dollars) and at the same time maintain the dignity of the applicant.

Public acceptability of Ontario's social assistance programmes is difficult to judge since it varies considerably from one segment of the population to another. For example, while some persons applaud the fiscal responsibility which permits funds to be concentrated on those whose need is greatest, others complain that the selective approach somehow stigmatizes the applicant. Conflicting attitudes sometimes appear in the same person. For example you have probably all, at some time, seen a "Letter to the Editor" from an irate person complaining that his local municipality or the provincial government spend too much on social assistance, but making no mention of programmes such as Family Allowances which divert millions of dollars in social assistance to many who are not in need.

One reason for the lack of complete public acceptance of our social assistance programmes is the "work ethic", that is, the belief that all able-bodied persons should work. As I mentioned earlier, universal programmes are accepted not necessarily because they are universal, but because they concentrate on groups which society does not expect to work; groups such as children and the aged. Since many recipients of General Welfare Assistance and Family Benefits are neither aged nor children, some segments of the public feel that they should work. Yet, a closer look would show that the great majority of our social assistance recipients are either unable to work or jobs are not available for them.

- A person medically certified as permanently disabled by definition unable to work to support himself although with the aid of Rehabilitation Services, he may in time become capable of doing a limited amount of work, perhaps in a sheltered workshop.

- The conflicting values of the public with regard to recipients of social assistance are perhaps most evident in relation to the mother with dependent children. While middle class mothers often are criticized for "shirking their responsibilities" when they choose to go to work, the mother who receives social assistance is criticized for not going to work.

- Unemployed men are another target for severe criticism when they receive social assistance. Yet, what other alternative is there for an unemployed man who wants to work but who cannot find a job, and whose Unemployment Insurance benefits have been exhausted?

There is, therefore, a stigma attached to the receipt of assistance arising from the concept that all able-bodied persons should support themselves. I should say that our programmes support the idea of the work ethic, that persons should support themselves, where possible. They also recognize that there are those outside the labour force due to disability, family responsibilities, or lack of suitable jobs. Our experience does not support the view that anyone outside the labour force who receives social assistance is either lazy, a failure or in some sense inferior. External appearances are often deceiving.

In my view, our programmes in Ontario are increasing in public acceptability as more and more of the public comes to recognize the fact that groups such as sole support mothers, and fathers who are involuntarily unemployed have claims on society as legitimate as those of children and the aged.

Ontario residents have equal legal right to social assistance from both the universal federal programmes and Ontario's selective programmes, even though the administrative procedures differ.

- An aged person who meets residence requirements has a legal right to Old Age Security.

- A mother with dependent children who is unable to meet her family's need through her own financial resources has an equal right to social assistance under FBA or GWA.

Both the Family Benefits and General Welfare Assistance Acts state that allowances "shall" be paid to eligible applicants.

Public Acceptance and Legal Rights

After reviewing the title of this talk, I look at our Social Assistance programmes and I have formed the opinion that they meet the criteria of financial responsibility and administrative simplicity. Let us look at public acceptability in the light of the title of this speech. It seems to me that this is the last barrier we have to overcome and attitudes are changing.

A Board of Review was established under The Family Benefits Act in 1966. Now, whenever an adverse decision is made with regard to an application for social assistance the applicant or recipient is notified of his right to appeal the decision before this Board.

The discretionary element in decision making cannot be the same in Social Services and Social Assistance. The counsellor providing a rehabilitation service, for example, must evaluate his client's abilities, co-operativeness, needs, progress and many other factors. He must continually exercise his judgment in deciding on the appropriate type of treatment for his client.

An applicant for social assistance should know what his rights are. He should know for example, who is eligible for assistance, what he is eligible for and what discretionary areas there are.

There axe some publications available from my department describing our social assistance programmes, as well as copies of the Acts and their Regulations.

Probably the most important source of information is the fieldworker or interviewer whom the applicant first meets. This is an opportunity for the applicant's rights and procedures to be explained clearly and in language which he understands.

We are now working on other ideas for improving communications with both recipients and potential recipients. It has been suggested that we publish a handbook which explains the applicant's rights simply and briefly. We are studying this possibility. It could be that because of the complexity of the legislation, and the tremendous variation among applicants as to age, education, ability to speak English and so on several handbooks, rather than one would be a better solution.

Another possibility is the development of general information centres which would offer information on the full range of public and private services. Potential applicants could telephone or visit such a centre for information. This approach would permit adjustments to be made to meet the needs of individuals who are emotionally distraught, who speak languages other than English, or who have other problems. Referrals to various services and other agencies could also be made in this setting.

Whether it be a handbook, information centres, both, or some other technique, we will find better ways of informing potential applicants of their rights.

In summary, our programmes are fiscally responsible; using tax dollars efficiently and effectively we are striving to develop simpler administrative techniques which will help to maintain the applicant's dignity. Public acceptability of our social assistance programmes may be the most difficult of the three criteria to attain.

Universal systems in some areas have been simple to sell. Most people do not object when everyone is treated equally. We have accepted a greater challenge. Although it has not been so publicly acceptable, we have decided on a selective approach in order to concentrate limited funds where they are needed most.

Social assistance in Ontario is a legal right. We hope that by improving communications channels we can develop more public acceptance of selective social assistance programmes.

The gratitude of the Club was expressed by Mr. Joseph H. Potts, Q.C.