Put Food In The Budget
Sign the Petition to Put Food In The Budget
Nutritious food is essential for good health. As part of our belief that fighting poverty is the best medicine money can buy, the 25in5 Network for Poverty Reduction, in partnership with the Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa), is launching an Ontario-wide campaign for a Healthy Food Supplement.
We are calling for the immediate introduction of a $100 monthly supplement to the basic needs allowance for all adults receiving social assistance. The existence of widespread food insecurity and chronic illness related to poor nutrition is the result of our society’s collective negligence and a failure of public policy.
For the last ten years the Ontario Government has mandated the province’s 36 local health units to collect and report the annual cost of a Nutritious Food Basket in their areas. These reports consistently show a vast gap between the level of benefits received by people on social assistance and their ability to meet their basic food requirements along with other necessities of life.
There is no current formula for establishing social assistance benefit levels and the basic needs allowance is set far below actual market costs. We are pleased the government has created its Social Assistance Review to evaluate the true cost of living in communities across Ontario and we look forward to a new benchmark for income adequacy in setting benefit rates. This is a hopeful development. And hope matters.
In the meantime, it is critical to the health and wellbeing of social assistance recipients that the government takes a first step toward income adequacy by introducing a $100 per month Healthy Food Supplement. The Supplement will serve as a down payment in closing the monthly gap of food deficiency while reducing the negative health effects of poverty.
It will also stimulate spending in our local economies. As a recent Globe and Mail editorial says, the idea of putting money in the hands of low-income people who will spend it in their communities “is an idea with remarkably wide consensus…
In these times, putting money in the hands of those who need it is good policy.”
Put food in the budget. Promote health and fight poverty.
If you are on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program, what difference would the $100 Healthy Food Supplement make to you each month? Write up to 100 words below in the comments box.
Comment from Ang
My name is Ang and I struggle to get by on the Ontario’s Disability Support Program. As a volunteer here at The Stop Community Food Centre and as someone who has lived in this neighbourhood for twenty years, I see so many of my friends and community struggle to make it through each and every day. I thought I would try to say one hundred words about the importance of a one hundred dollar healthy food supplement. I have a lot to say about this topic, so this is not an easy thing to do.
————————————————-
- Healthy, good foods like milk, fresh fruit and vegetables, meat and poultry, are expensive and are luxury items that are out of reach for people on social assistance.
- Because we cannot afford the good, vitamin-rich food we need, so many of us slide deep into depression.
- In our neighbourhood, depression, stress, anxiety and loss of dignity, are treated with prescriptions and anti-depressants, but so many of these symptoms could be alleviated by addressing the root causes of poor health.
- The food bank here is busting at the seams because of increased demand. I have seen the numbers of people that eat at the drop-in here multiply immensely in the last year. I find this very worrisome.
- We need to see this healthy food supplement in the provincial budget. To me, the benefit will be priceless.
Comment from Linda
The proposed $100 monthly food supplement for people like me living with multiple chronic disabilities and trying to survive on ODSP and eat a healthy diet translates quite simply to the following – the ability to purchase: Apples, Asparagus, Bananas, Blackberries, Blueberries, Bread, Cauliflower, Cheese, Chicken, Cranberry Juice, Eggplant, Eggs, Grapes, Kiwi Fruit, Mango, Margarine, Milk, Orange Juice, Oranges, Peanut Butter, Peppers, Pineapple, Plums, Potatoes, Rice, Salmon, Sardines, Sausages, Spinach, Stewing Beef, Strawberries, Tomatoes, Yogurt, Zucchini…items above and beyond the clearance items, food bank food and pre-packaged low cost/low nutrition items that now form the main part of my diet.
Apples (1LB/Fuji)(@ Food Basics) $0.79
Apples (1LB/Granny Smith)(@ Metro) $1.49
Asparagus (1LB)(@ Price Chopper) $1.49
Bananas (1LB/Organic)(@ Loblaws) $0.79
Blackberries (1 Pint)(@ Loblaws) $2.50
Blueberries (6OZ)(@ Food Basics) $1.67
Bread (Whole Wheat/570G loaf)(@ Food Basics) $1.49
Cauliflower (Large/White)(@ Loblaws) $1.99
Cheese (750G/Cheddar)(@ Food Basics) $5.99
Cheese (750G/Mozzarella)(@ Food Basics) $5.99
Chicken Breasts (1LB/Skinless)(@ Price Chopper) $2.88
Chicken Drumsticks (1LB)(@ Food Basics) $1.99
Cottage Cheese (500G)(@ Shoppers Drug Mart) $1.99
Cranberry Juice (1.89L)(@ Metro) $2.00
Eggplant (1LB)(@ Metro) $1.49
Eggs (1 Dozen/Large/White)(@ Food Basics) $1.99
Grapes (1 LB/Red & Black/Seedless)(@ Loblaws) $1.49
Kiwi Fruit (2LB)(@ Food Basics) $1.67
Mango (Large)(@ Sobeys) $0.99
Margarine (907G/Soya)(@ Loblaws) $2.99
Milk (1%/4L)(@ Food basics) $3.97
Orange Juice (1.75L)(@ Metro) $2.50
Oranges (1 LB)(@ Food Basics) $0.69
Peanut Butter (1KG)(@ Loblaws) $3.49
Peppers (4 Pack/Red Bell)(@ Sobeys) $2.99
Pineapple (@ Food Basics) $1.67
Plums (1 LB)(@ Food Basics) $0.99
Potatoes (15LB/Russet)(@ Price Chopper) $4.99
Rice (8KG Bag)(@ Price Chopper) $9.88
Salmon (213G/Sockeye)(@ Loblaws) $1.67
Sardines (106G)(@ Shoppers Drug Mart) $0.99
Sausages (1.25 KG)(@ Sobey’s) $7.99
Spinach (142G)(@ Price Chopper) $2.49
Stewing Beef (1LB)(@ Food Basics) $4.99
Strawberries (1LB)(@ Price Chopper) $1.99
Tomatoes (1LB)(@ Food Basics) $0.99
Yogurt (750G)(@ Price Chopper) $2.49
Zucchini (1LB)(@ Metro) $1.49
Total: (Based on prices February 15, 2009) $99.93
Check out the videos of people commenting on the Food Supplement on the YouTube Channel
Links to Other Relevant Sites
-
25in5 Network for Poverty Reduction
-
Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa)
- Follow the campaign on Facebook
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Correction to my piece about the Auditor General’s report:
The current amounts of assitance are $585 and $1042. And I came to Ontario, not Ottawa, in 1969.
A correction in my comment: When I came to ONTARIO in 1969… Not to Ottawa. Sorry about that.
Reuel S. Amdur
41, chemin Lavoie
Val-des-Monts, QC J8N 7N2
819-671-5526
Approx. 1125 words
Auditing the Ontario Auditor General
by
Reuel S. Amdur
Consider this an audit of the Ontario Auditor General’s 2009 Annual Report. While most of my comments will be addressed to social assistance, let’s begin with a reference to remarks about Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Rental and Supportive Housing Program: “. . . more than half of the units in this program would still be unaffordable for households on the waiting lists, or eligible to be on the lists.” This is an important observation, reflecting the actual situation of those in need of shelter. A parallel consideration of social assistance is totally lacking.
Is the level of assistance adequate to meet basic needs of individuals and families reliant on social assistance? In constant dollars, they have less money now than under Mike Harris, a remarkable thing considering that he cut Ontario Works (OW) rates by 21.6%. It is not as if the information on the health effects is not in. For example, we have University of Toronto Professor Valerie Tarasuk’s study which shows that the Ontario Nutritious Food Basket is out of reach for recipients. Ontario governments of all stripes have refused to employ nutritionists and home economists to determine real need.
The grossly inadequate assistance ($572 per month for a single person on Ontario Works and $1040 on the Ontario Disability Support Program—ODSP) may have something to do with why the special diet campaign which was of such concern to the Auditor General (AG) was undertaken. The campaign involved getting medical reports completed so that recipients could come closer to a decent standard of living. The alternative to such a campaign would be rather simple: a decent amount of money for recipients in their regular monthly allowances.
Another question that the AG might have asked is why there is such a huge difference between OW and ODSP. When I came to Ottawa in 1969, the rate for a single person was almost the same for the two programs. Now the ODSP rate is almost double, and rate increases are always percentage increases, increasing the gap between OW and ODSP ever more. Is the difference a matter of prejudice against the unemployed? Only the disabled are “deserving,” it appears. Yet, the stomach size does not vary from OW to ODSP.
The headlines about the AG’s 2009 report were all about overpayments. Some of the overpayments were fraud, but far from all. In fact, a great many are simply normal changes in financial circumstances, for example adjustments on heating bills. Overpayments also occurred due to error, both client error and error by the ODSP and OW workers. The amounts of overpayments listed by the AG are cumulative, from 2003. If one looks at just 2008-2009, the increase in ODSP overpayments for clients who are still active is $9.2 million, which would be about $20 per case (450,000 cases). For OW, the AG notes that $140 million is the accumulative overpayment. For 202,181 cases, that amounts to $70 per case. He does not tell us how much this year’s overpayment is in excess of last year’s. The question remains, is the rate of overpayment, aside from the minor changes in financial circumstances that arise, in an acceptable range?
If one looks at fraud (not simply errors) on income tax or EI, for example, the rates and amounts dwarf the overpayments on social assistance. Perhaps the AG should look at fraud on provincial income taxes, for example.
One factor causing overpayments is the complexity of the system. There are so many rules, some completely incomprehensible, that it is a challenge for staff to apply them. In 1988, the Transitions report of the Social Assistance Review Committee called for the system to be simplified. Since then, the NDP government increased complexity exponentially, followed by Mike Harris who increased it astronomically. The AG complains that reviews required by the laws and regulations are not completed in a timely manner. What do you expect? He notes an average ODSP caseload of 266, with 351 in one office.
The complexity of the system also leads to underpayments. Unlike overpayments, underpayments expire if not caught. It would have been interesting if the AG had studied underpayments thoroughly, to compare them to overpayments. At a macro level, underpayments exist when people are kept on OW when they should be receiving ODSP.
The AG repeats the lie that OW is a program of “temporary income support.” I was a supervisor in an OW office in Ottawa, and one occasionally ran across cases with histories with the department going back 20 years. Shortly before I left, I saw two with 25-year histories. Transitions recommended that anyone on for over two years should be transferred to the provincial program, with higher benefits.
AG Jim McCarter gives detail about rates of approval of applicants for ODSP, time it takes, etc. The key issue, as indicated by the fact that many cases drag on and on, on OW, and that rates of acceptance for ODSP vary widely from adjudicator to adjudicator and from Social Benefits Tribunal member to SBT member—the key issue is that the system does a very poor job of distinguishing between the disabled and those not. And the purpose of the exercise is, in any case, simply punitive.
There are three other matters that this audit of the AG report will now touch on. First, the AG notes that in the internal review, which follows on request from the applicant who has been turned down, the decision of the Disability Adjudication Unit is sent to the applicant in writing. What the AG fails to note is that the written document is a totally uninformative form letter. Boilerplate.
The report also notes that an ODSP recipient can have trust funds up to $100,000. In fact, there is no limit to the amount that a recipient can have in a Henson Trust. And finally, a word about medical reviews that are required in many ODSP cases. The AG comments on the backlog and the failure to do reviews in a timely fashion. Perhaps the issue of workload and complexity have something to do with this.
One might well ask why ODSP staff could not do a preliminary screening for medical reviews. If the situation has clearly not improved sufficiently, why involve a doctor again? Perhaps you have heard the rumor that it is sometimes difficult to get in to see a doctor to fill out ODSP papers, especially if you do not have a family physician. Of course that also raises the question about the practice in ODSP of promoting clerks to positions of handling caseloads, without additional training.
AG Jim McCarter, for your next report we look forward to improvement in your analysis. You can do better if you really try.
-30
I am a single mother who is on the cusp of receiving no benefits from either Ontario Works or ODSP. It is interesting for me to read these comments as most of the facts are correct except for one thing. It is the system that has to change, not one individual program, such as food allowance. ODSP recipients receive more than people on Ontario Works for rental allowances, basic needs etc.
It is the rent prices, gas prices, land taxes that are increasing societies cost of living, which in turn is the provinical and federal government.
We have so many supplimental benefits such as food banks, emergency funds, Ontario Works, LIPPY, ODSP, geared to income that it is costing more money than putting all these organizations together, creating one provincial supplimentary program. This will cut down on adminstrative fees, such as rent for government agencies buildings, government employment, wages that are above minimum wage which also include medical benefits.
Just something to think about.
i think that i agree with this initative and i also think that we should be supportive of those in need in our community
I believe there are numerous steps that could be taken to alleviate the misery of life on O.W. or ODSP. Raise the amount for housing (because clients use their food allowance to find affordable housing), raise the amount of basic needs so good nutrition will save money in health care in the long run. While family are allowed “gift” monthly financial help to those on ODSP, there is no tax benefit in doing so. A tax break here would be at least an incentive. Keeping in mind that much of Canada is rural, a more realistic amount for necessary medical related travel would also help. Whenever the client needs something extra, including seasonal clothing, it must come out of basic needs. There has to be a better way to care for those who are marginalized by health or circumstances.
I am personally dissatisfied with the income that the government thinks that those on ODSP should receive. For example, the amount given for shelter for a mother and child is $850. This is rediculous as there is not a 2 bedroom out there worth living in for less than $825. And without rental caps, the person is forced to move within a few years as the rent becomes too high and the individual becomes even more indept because of the necessary move. Do I think that $100 a month should be provided to individuals on ODSP. Absolutely!!!!! No matter what the money is for, it is absolutely necessary for people on disability just to help them to survive. Our alloted amount is nothing less than a joke.
HMM INSTEAD OF TALKING SO MUCH ABOUT IT…LETS FIND OUT WHEN WE’RE GETTING IT!!!
when are we getting it??
Of course I agree with this initiative this is a very good idea to help to many people!I think it is vital that we support those who are in need.