November 22/05 Report
Start time: 9:38 am. Adjournment: 11:05 am.

Present: Merulla; Bratina; Jackson (out 1x for 2 min); Kelly (out 3x for 20 min); Morelli (arrived at 9:45 am , out 1x for 1min).

Also present: Bruckler from 10:18 to 10:52 am

Media : Ken Mann (CHML until 10:40 am ); Kevin Werner ( Brabant ); Maggie Hughes (CFMU).

CATCH: Don

Changes to the Agenda : Added delegation request for next meeting. Accepted.

5.1  100% Funded Positions (HSC03026(e)) (City Wide)

5.2 Obesity Update (SPH05056) (City Wide)

Both 5.1 and 5.2 approved without any discussion.

STAFF PRESENTATIONS

7.1 2006 National Child Benefit (NCB) Strategy (SPH05035(a))/ (FCS05085(a)) (City Wide) "T he National Child Benefit Supplement (NCB) is part of the Canada Child Tax Benefit issued by the Government of Canada. The NCB is called a supplement because it is designed to provide extra support to low-income families with children. The Province of Ontario deducts or "claws back" this supplement from families receiving Ontario Works (OW) assistance and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) assistance. This deduction is approximately $100 per child per month. The City of Hamilton receives 20% of these funds annually (approximately $2.8 million) and is required to reinvest it in programs and supports that attempt to reduce the depth of child poverty, promote employment for parents, and reduce overlap and duplication."

Staff presentation by Mark Weingartner . Explains background. Monies currently used for "18 programs administered through the Public Health and Community Services department and 26 community based programs have been administered, that's this year in 2005. These programs serve Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Supports Program, and low-income, no-income families with children. Examples of these types of programs include food security, utility arrears, health, recreation, afterschool programming, childminding and employment preparation." Report tabled last June and the committee "was interested in returning NCBS funds to families receiving social assistance, but raised some concerns over discontinuing existing programs." Initial look at hydro funds to replace NCB funds. August 10 report said hydro funds not appropriate for this. "The following eight points will outline the 2006 strategy that's being proposed.

#1: .the transition of the provincially mandated LEAP program, the Learning Earning and Parenting Program, as well as the Layette Program by including them as enhancement requests in the 2006 city of Hamilton budget process. The impact of this transition will also be partially mitigated by using some of the 2005 NCB unspent funds. Three programs align with public health programs and will be put forward as part of the public health enhancements for 2006. The overall strategy with public health enhancement dollars has been to move grant funded programs to stable funding to cover maintenance increases and add new services in priority areas. In 2005. funds used to offset a portion of the community health bus program. For 2006 it is recommended that the remainder of the community health bus funding, plus the public health nurse component of the community based parent and child program and the youth net program be moved off of NCB funding using the public health enhancement dollars. Should all of these enhancements be approved in the 2006 public health budget, this will allow a total of $1 million from the 2006 NCB budget to be re-allocated." Option is to continue using NCB funding for these programs.

"#2: In an effort to return NCB funds to those families from whom it was taken, the PHCS department proposes to develop a new program that directs a portion of Hamilton's municipal NCB funds back to OW and ODSP families with children exclusively. These funds would be available for food, housing costs - such as rent and utilities - clothing, transportation, personal care items, recreation, child care or other miscellaenous individual needs as determined by the individual families. Similar programs exist in London, Peterborough and Toronto.

#3. The department plans to develop this new program over the next 4-6 months with a launch date planned for the second quarter of 2006. This will allow sufficient time to develop a model for Hamilton . One of the major considerations is whether to deliver this program in-house through PCHS department or through a community partner through a purchase of services agreement. An analysis of options was developed and a subsequent report will come to council. Initiation of this program in 2006 is dependent on whether or not the proposed budget enhancements are approved. The department will also continue to review internal program during the year to determine whether synergies or duplication exist and if additional programs can be transitioned to this new model.

#4 The proposed 2006 strategy will not include a call for new proposals in order to avoid creating new program dependency on NCB funds. So there will be no new call for program proposals.

#5. The 2006 strategy proposes to continue to fund internal and community based programs for the 2006 calendar year. Funding levels are still to be determined, however attempts will be made to maintain them at or near 2005 levels. The city will receive approximately $2.9 million funds in NCB funds as its 20% of the NCB clawback." Varies slightly because it is based on OW and ODSP caseloads. Current funding cycle is January to December. "In past years, a call for proposals has been issued during the summer, and community organizations have been notified of their status by the beginning of December. This process and accompanying timeline are no longer possible this year. Programs need to be apprised of their 2006 funding status in the next few weeks. In order to facilitite this, existing programs will be required to submit an abbreviated application or program update and it would include things like an audited financial statement, annual report, the current year's program budget, year to date program statistics, and a proposed budget for 2006."

#6. Because NCB funds are clawed back directly from families receiving social assistance, the 2006 strategy will focus more directly on providing supports to OW and ODSP families. NCB funded programs will be strongly encouraged to provide services to at least 80% OW and ODSP families with children. Existing programs will be required to submit a program update as mentioned, and in that update they will be asked how they propose to do this. Some programs already do serve 80% or more. Some are slightly less than that. And the department would help to facilitate this kind of a transition. Some programs may oppose identifying clients based on source of income, based on professional or philosophical grounds, or they may have limited capacity to track usage statistics in this manner. The department would assist with these challenges, however programs that choose not to continue with NCB funding because of these changes will be offered up to 6 months of funding to wind down their program or secure alternate funding.

#7 The 2006 strategy will also include a consultation in the first quarter on options to shift programming away from NCB re-investment funds, so as to return in the most direct way possible back to those families from which the monies were taken. This consultation will also examine the impact on programs and whether other options for funding exist.

#8. PCHS department will continue to develop strategies to transition NCB funding or NCB funded programs away from NCB funding in order to increase funds available exclusively for OW and ODSP families with children - those from whom it was taken.

.OW and ODSP families with children in Hamilton are struggling to meet their basic needs. Since the introduction of the NCB program by the federal government, the financial situation of families living on social assistance has continued to deteriorate. The City of Hamilton doesn't endorse the clawback and has requested that the province discontinue the practice. There have been several communications sent to the Premier. And this approach also fits with the current focus on tackling poverty in Hamilton . And lastly, the majority of those consulted agree that the NCB should not be deducted from social assistance payments to families with children. Many people and organizations in the broader community support a change in direction that would see the municipal portion of the clawback returned to those families from whom it was taken. ."

Merulla notes previous request from committee to use Hydro funds to support transition. Asks Priel to explain funding. Priel : "What we've managed to do, is to find, to move about a million dollars in programming off of the NCB clawback and onto the municipal tax base. And though this isn't the total amount that we would have liked to have moved over, in conversation with finance that was the best that we could do in this particular budget year, recognizning that we still have some work to do. But I think it was a huge step forward in terms of the city finding those additional dollars and start to move things off of the NCB clawback and I would think that across the province in terms of other municipalities who are still charging things to the NCB clawback similar to us that we might be one of the first municipalities that has actually moved out ahead and said that this isn't right in our community and we're willing to take the impact on the levy." Merulla asks about additional steps. "I know the will of this committee and entire council is to see the entire issue dealt with." Asks when. Priel says work to do in 2006 in consultation. "I'd be hopeful that we'd be able to do that in the 2007 budget year." Merulla: "And under the circumstances, I guess we should be very pleased that we have moved one step towards ultimately dealing with this issue." Commends staff. Asks about $600,000 surplus. Status? Priel : ".most of that money, except for about $200,000 has been committed. So there was some of that carryover that was going to be committed to helping offset the $1 million, but that most of it has been committed, and we expect that it will be spent - that $600,000 which was carryover right from 2001. It was a buildup and a carryover and we've actually managed to commit most of it." Weingartner clarifies that some of it was allocated in 2005, about $300,000. [20:35] Bratina : Asks about harmonizing issues. Priel says no impacts on current program if budget is delayed.

7.1.1 Mr. Jeff Wingard, Social Planning & Research Council Says he also works with community groups "The Income Security Working Group, which is a committee of local agencies and community volunteers, and people living in poverty, have identified this clawback as one of the key issues that they are working on in their work to relieve property. .group called Stop the Clawback, which is a subcommittee of the Income Security Working Group. We've certainly been active in speaking to this council on this issue over the past few months and certainly appreciate the progress that we're making. We've reviewed the report, but I think one of the things we need to do before we get into the meat of this report is remember where this money is coming from. In our community 15,000 people access food banks every month; 7000 of those are children. 50% of the folks who access food banks are on Ontario Works. There was a survey that was done in Toronto by the Daily Bread Food Bank, and they asked families who were accessing that food bank, if you had the clawback money in your pocket, would you still need food banks? And 50% said no, not at all. 25% said our dependence would be much less, and the other 25% said well, we don't know, we'd need to see the money before we could decide if we need the food banks or not. We do a lot of work with food banks at the Social Planning Council and we know that they are grappling, trying to deliver food to more and more people in our community. We need to start thinking about ways to reduce that - the number of people that are seeking. And we really feel that returning the clawback is one concrete way to do that. . echo . praise of city staff.. This is progress. We would also commend city staff for bringing forward a recommendation to create a new program to return the money directly to folks that it was taken from. We're still disappointed and unsatisfied that families on social assistance are being asked to continue to carry this burden for the majority of programs for another year, because that in fact is what we're deciding to do. So we had a couple of questions about what the new program would look like, and one of the issues that arises is how the money is actually returned to folks on social assistance. Do we ask them to go to an agency; to get on the bus, and go to an agency downtown, fill out an application form, and maybe qualify for the money. Or are there ways that we can do it more directly. When people get social assistance cheques, you get the amount, its printed, and then right on the cheque it says the amount deducted for National Child Benefit, and the reduction is noted right on the cheque. What our committee would hope is that we could find a way to return that money right on the cheque so that we can forego the administration costs and we can just get the money back to people directly. We spoke briefly to staff about this idea and we think this certainly is something that needs to be explored through the legal department to determine what is permissible under the legislation. And I want to give you just one example of how that might work. There are a number of discretionary benefits that people on OW can qualify for - for example back to school benefits - and those are discretionary benefits that can be plugged in on a social assistance cheques and appears right below. So you get a couple of hundred bucks when kids go back to school. I would suggest that we explore looking at those discretionary benefits as a way to return the money directly to people on social assistance. Can we create a discretionary benefit - school supports, family supports - that returns money right on the cheque to folks. . would be a highly effective way of getting the money back to all the folks that it's taken from." Says some of them and the mayor met with Ontario finance minister Dwight Duncan yesterday and issue was raised. "And we said, you know, people are getting left behind in Ontario 's economy because of this clawback. And unfortunately I can't say that we were overly encouraged that they're going to move on this issue soon. I think one of the things that means for this community is that we need to find new ways of advocating for the end of this clawback. We are commending the city for taking this stance and taking steps that this is the wrong way to fund programs. Philosophically, this council has said again and again it's the wrong thing to do. We need to find new ways of communicating that message to the province. And I think the city identifying resources to take programs off of the clawback issue makes a strong statement about its commitment and we need to communicate that to senior officials in the provincial government, because I think we all know that the real answer to this problem is to get the province to end the clawback and to provide funding from its revenue sources to fund the programs." [28:44]

Merulla agrees the provincial government "is the real problem" and proposes amendment that council continue lobbying the province "for their miserable failure in addressing this issue". And he thinks staff is open to using discretionary funds as Wingard requests if possible, and he says he'll move both amendments.

7.1.2 Ms. Abigail Salole, Social Action Committee of the Ontario Association of Social Workers She's part of an action committee that is Hamilton-based. "This is a definite step in the right direction and I think it really puts Hamilton ahead of a lot of other communities. It shows a lot of initiative and really spearheading something that will have a lot of impact on people's lives. The inadequacy of income support for people who are on Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Programs has been recognized by many groups, since it's been cut back by 21% in 1995. Hamilton social workers are among these groups urging provincial, federal and municipal governments to ensure that all Hamiltonians have enough income for adequate food and housing. Dr. Elizabeth Richardson in a recent meeting . expressed that the current social welfare rates are woefully inadequate and this city's own report that we're reviewing today says that since the introduction of the National Child Benefit program the financial situation of families living on social assistance has actually continued to deteriorate. Sandra Pupatella in a recent CBC conversation even admitted that she'd be the first one to stand up and tell you that I don't believe that people can live healthily with the amount that people receive on welfare. The city's report signifies that the city is really ready to embrace a made-in-Hamilton solution to poverty and at the same time not let the provincial and federal governments off the hook - because this is their responsibilty as well. We support that the city of Hamilton is not waiting for the provincial government, because we also realize that it's very clear that the provincial government is not going to do anything about this soon.

(36 minutes for all of item 7.1)

7.2 Homemakers and Nursing Services Program Update (HCS03012(c)) (CityWide)

(45 minutes for this item)

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1  Ontario Works Addiction Services (SPH05034) (City Wide) No discussion.

8.2 Strong Start Funding Under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (SPH05058)(Ward 1 and Ward 2) No discussion.

8.3  Utilities Arrears Program Update (SPH05053) (City Wide) No discussion.

8.4 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP)- 2005/2006 Funding Allocation (SPH05057) (City Wide No discussion.

Further report/transcription may be posted at a later date.