Background Resources for the Framing Session:

Building the Business Case for the Role of Cities Reducing Poverty

Throughout its first phase of work (2002-2011), Vibrant Communities Canada (VCC) encouraged the development of multisectoral collaborative structures that could oversee local poverty reduction and social inclusion strategies in 13 municipalities across the country.

Convener groups worked to build the number of partners from among government, the community sector, business representatives and people with lived experience of poverty. Of these four, business was perennially acknowledged by the majority of local conveners as the most difficult sector to engage.

By contrast, Vibrant Communities projects in Hamilton and Saint John experienced – and continue to experience – a high level of business involvement. In the case of the Business

Community Anti-Poverty Initiative in Saint John, business leaders themselves began organizing to lead the poverty reduction charge in 1997, well before VCC was launched. Hamilton business leader Mark Chamberlain chaired the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction between 2005 and 2010. He has continued to help carve out a role for business in Canada’s efforts to create a more equitable society. These two examples notwithstanding, VCC has had only limited success in involving business in a sustained and meaningful way in its work. A more common experience is to involve employers in strategies that address work force issues or donate funds to a particular initiative.

Phase two of VCC, Cities Reducing Poverty, now wishes to build a Business Case for the role cities and community leaders can play in reducing poverty. It is recognized that poverty is often expressed most prominently in cities and regions and that citizens often look to their local governments for solutions.

In order to help build a business case for Cities Reducing Poverty, the Caledon Institute reviewed a number of research and issues framing publications with the following questions in mind:



What are the economic and social costs of poverty?



Why cities must lead?



How can cities reduce poverty?

Papers reviewed

1. Vibrant Communities Calgary published Poverty Costs: An Economic Case for a Preventative

Poverty Reduction Strategy in Alberta . It asks provincial decision makers to consider how much they are spending on poverty alleviation costs that could be averted by investing in poverty reduction.

- 1 -

2. The External Costs of Poverty: A Conservative Estimate was prepared in response to a request for information from United Way Calgary as a way to strengthen its case for continuing to support its sustained poverty reduction effort. This report focuses on the ‘external’ costs of poverty, by which it means costs incurred by people other than those who live in poverty.

3. The “Working Poor” in the Toronto Region: Who are they, where they live, and how the trends are changing . This paper provides a definition of the working poor (“persons with nontrivial paid earnings who live in a household with low income”), measures its incidence in

Toronto, provides a future forecast of the numbers, and identifies areas of the city in which the working poor live.

4. Mending Canada’s frayed social safety net: The role of municipal governments was published as part of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Quality of Life Reporting System

(QOLRS). It focuses on the growing municipal role in filling the gaps in Canada’s fraying social system and argues that provincial and federal governments have serious funding choices to make.

5. The Costs of Poverty: An Analysis of the Economic Cost of Poverty in Ontario , produced by the Ontario Association of Food Bank, “…focuses on the significant costs of poverty and the societal benefits that could be realized by attacking the roots of poverty, as opposed to the shortage of money through which they manifest themselves.”

6. A business case for fighting poverty , produced by Oxfam Great Britain looks at the benefits to business of lowering poverty rates. It presents a business case for action, an overview of how businesses interact with poverty, poses four key questions for business and provides an overview of Oxfam’s work to engage business.

7. The Dollars and Sense of Solving Poverty by the National Council of Welfare provides many arguments that support the assertion that we can make effective investments that will result in an end to poverty.

8. In its Cost of Poverty in BC report , the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) presents the argument that the costs of inaction are so large that they far exceed the costs of poverty reduction. Its analysis builds an economic case for increased government investment in poverty reduction in addition to the moral arguments. 9. CCPA’s The Cost of Poverty in Nova

Scotia and 10. Cost of Poverty in Prince Edward Island presents poverty figures for those provinces.

Two papers by Caledon Vice President Sherri Torjman – 11.Reclaiming Our Humanity and

12. Poverty Policy – are less concerned with poverty statistics and more concerned with articulating the many issues and areas for involvement in poverty reduction. Elements from the two papers that focus on the role of municipalities are highlighted.

- 2 -

1. Briggs, A. and C. Lee. (2012). Poverty Costs: An Economic Case for a Preventative Poverty

Reduction Strategy in Alberta. Calgary: Vibrant Communities Calgary and Action to End

Poverty in Alberta. http://www.actiontoendpovertyinalberta.org/

Central question of the report: How much are we spending on poverty alleviation costs that could be averted by investing in poverty reduction?

What are the economic and social costs of poverty?

Deteriorating health and mental health, decreasing trust among citizens, and increased spending on health and justice systems are all measurable outcomes of poverty and growing inequality (p.1). Economic evidence of the poverty costs can be calculated using public service costs (health care, crime, intergenerational and lost opportunities costs).

The paper builds a strong financial case for reducing poverty and the policy levers it focuses upon are mainly federal government income support mechanisms. “The conclusions are clear: investing in poverty prevention would be much less costly in the long run than spending to alleviate poverty in perpetuity. It was this compelling cost-benefit approach to poverty reduction that instigated this report in Alberta.” (p.2)

“Our calculations show the following:



$1.2 billion in health care costs



$560 million in costs attributable to crime



$473 million – $591 million in intergenerational costs



$4.8 billion – $7.2 billion in opportunity costs



$7.1 billion – $9.5 billion in Total Yearly External Costs of Poverty in Alberta” (p.1)

Why cities must lead

“We describe the equal importance of recognizing that poverty alleviation strategies are a key part of poverty reduction but so too are poverty prevention strategies, which require a view to longer-term outcomes and targeted investments rather than perpetual spending” (p.12).

The paper does not specify where leadership for poverty reduction work resides, though it identifies the roles played by nonprofit, for profits and the three levels of government.

Municipalities contribute by: “providing housing, infrastructure, social inclusion, early childhood development, recreation, education, and skills building to their residents. They can target certain aspects of poverty by putting property aside for affordable housing development, developing infrastructure that increases local access to amenities, and allowing people to access municipal services at lower or more equitable rates and with minimal requirements for proof of need.”

(p.17)

Within the municipal discussion, communities are mentioned as have the capacity to:

“lower vulnerability to poverty on a voluntary basis through affordable housing developments

(such as co-operatives), social inclusion, community childcare options, and generally by

- 3 -

providing a social safety net for community members. Communities have an important role to play in poverty reduction at the localized level, but they do not have the capacity to be universal in their approach, nor do they have the capacity to be comprehensive in their approach – they provide a key piece of a much bigger puzzle.” (p.17)

How can cities reduce poverty?

This question falls outside the bounds of this report.

- 4 -

2. Shiell, A. and J. Zhang. (2004). The External Costs of Poverty: A Conservative Estimate .

Calgary: United Way of Calgary and Area. http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/vc/cal_costsofpoverty04.pdf

Prepared in response to a request for information from United Way Calgary as a way to strengthen its case for continuing to support its sustained poverty reduction effort, this report focuses on the ‘external’ costs of poverty, by which it means costs incurred by people other than those who live in poverty.




Increased costs of health care in Calgary of at least $3.35 million per year and possibly as much as $16.3 million



Increased costs associated with the schools system of at least $4.9 million and perhaps as much as $7.9 million



Costs elsewhere in the economy could amount to as much as $32.6 million per year

(highlights page)

“Using the LICO approach, data for 1995 suggest that 20% of people in Calgary are living in households with incomes below the low income threshold. One quarter of children aged

5 years or less in Calgary live in low income households. Aboriginal people, recent immigrants, lone parents and people with disabilities are more likely than average to experience poverty.

For many of these people, poverty is a transient experience, but 30% of people living in poverty do so for protracted periods of three years or more.” (p.i.)

“…savings in the order of $8.25 million could be made each year if we were to implement successfully an effective and sustained poverty reduction strategy. This comes from reductions in the cost of health care and special education and the benefits that arise to us all from higher rates of high-school completion. If our more speculative estimates about changes in other sectors of the economy prove correct, then the costs of poverty could be closer to $56 million per year.” (p.ii)

Traditional tools used to measure poverty (LICO, Low Income Measure, Federal Market

Basket Measure) were contrasted with a measure of poverty developed by Chris Sarlo for the

Fraser Institute (the Basic Needs Index – the notion of poverty is one of subsistence. He specifies and estimates the cost of a basic diet in order to derive an estimate of the income required to sustain a family.) “According to Sarlo’s figures, the rate of poverty in Canada is closer to 5%

(rather than 11%) of the population, while child poverty rates are closer to 10% (rather than

20%)…. estimates do not mean that fewer people experience low income. Rather, his work complements the figures produced by Statistics Canada by providing additional information about the depth of poverty.(p.7)

“… external costs of poverty therefore relate potentially to the additional burden on the health care system, resources forgone because of lack of educational attainment, increased costs associated with policing and the judicial system and the costs associated with providing programmatic support for people living in poverty.” (p.10)

- 5 -

$400 million per year is spent on income support for people who live in poverty in Calgary.

The amount “…represent[s] a transfer of income from one sector of society to another (in this case from tax-payers to welfare recipients… simply changes which Albertans have access to the resources that this money can buy.” Which includes associated administration costs.


Despite the fact that this paper is Calgary-focused, it makes no specific mention of how the City could take part in the work of poverty reduction. However, municipally-funded programs (policing, etc) are included in the paper.

The paper makes a point of distinguishing between programming done by United Way and its agencies and the avoidable costs of poverty – i.e., that it would be outside its scope to calculate the real costs of offering this type of programming and then adding to their list of avoidable costs.

“The ‘Poverty Matrix’ compiled by the United Way of Calgary and Area does an excellent job of illustrating the scope of anti-poverty activity in the city. The matrix identifies 10 funding agencies, 140 provider agencies and more than 300 distinct programs aimed at preventing poverty or alleviating its impact where it occurs. This represents a substantial amount of activity and probably a significant cost. In terms of this report though, the costs that we are interested in are the avoidable costs were it possible to reduce poverty. Not all of the costs of these programs are avoidable in this sense.” (p.25)


Some of the costs might be reduced or addressed by city-led initiatives, e.g., the decision of where to locate community clinics.

Policing costs: “…if we could alleviate poverty in the city, would we expect to see a reduction in the rate of crime and consequent savings in the cost of the criminal justice system?

…. a difficult question to answer. The level of criminal activity is not strongly associated with absolute levels of poverty though it is related to income inequality.” The report cites US work that moved poor families into higher income neighbourhoods and the significant and substantial reduction in violent crime rates among young people that resulted. (p.24)

In summary, income re-distribution through the tax system is a highly effective way of reducing the number of people living in low-income households…. a number of policy initiatives have been shown to be effective in reducing poverty and the reliance on income support.

…there are grounds for believing that the external costs of poverty can be reduced and at little or no net cost to government. (p.30)

- 6 -

… the ‘Self Sufficiency Project’ which aimed to ‘make work pay’ by providing an additional incentive payment to the recipients of social assistance who took up full employment

(Michalopolous et al., 2002). (p.29)

… investing in universal, high quality, early child care and conclude that the economic benefits exceed the costs by a factor of 2 to 1. (p.30)

… programmatic support in the form of subsidized child care and recreational activities for families receiving social assistance increased the children’s participation in physical and social activities, reduced their use of health and social services and reduced the levels of behavioral disorders (p.30)

… Families who also received directed support with employment training, financial assistance and health promotion in addition to child care and recreation, were also more likely to come off social assistance, and the savings that this generated for the provincial government effectively paid for the program (p.30).

- 7 -

3. Stapleton, J., B. Murphy and Y. Xing. (2012).

The “Working Poor” in the Toronto Region:

Who are they, where they live, and how the trends are changing . Toronto: Metcalf Foundation,

February. http://metcalffoundation.com/publications-resources/view/the-working-poor-in-the-torontoregion-who-they-are-where-they-live-and-how-trends-are-changing-2/

This paper provides a definition of the working poor (“persons with non-trivial paid earnings who live in a household with low income”, p.9), measures its incidence in Toronto, provides a future forecast of the numbers, and identifies areas of the city in which the working poor live.


This paper focuses specifically on providing details of Toronto’s working poor. It argues that this demographic has been studied at a national, but never a municipal, level. The authors believe it is important to put their information together with studies done on inequality in the labour market and income inequality. It concludes by pointing to a number of policy areas critically affected by this important but often neglected topic.

The paper further defines working poor as someone who:

 has an after-tax income below the Low Income Measure (LIM)

 has earnings of at least $3,000 a year

 is between the ages of 18 and 64,

 is not a student

 lives independently (p.9)

Key features of the working poor:

 they most commonly work in sales and service occupations

 they work a comparable number of hours and weeks as the rest of the working-age population

 they are more likely to be living without an adult partner than the rest of the working-age population

 working-age immigrants to Canada are over-represented among the working poor

 they are only slightly less educated on average than the rest of the working-age population

 fewer own their own homes

 they tend to be younger as a group than the working-age population as a whole (p.10)

Why cities must lead.

Though this question is not explicitly dealt with, the working poor experience poverty in their lives as citizens of Ontario’s largest municipality. Understanding the defining characteristics of this population and applying this knowledge to municipally-led work on employment and income inequality is an essential part of the work of solving poverty.

- 8 -

“113,000 working-poor individuals in the Toronto Region in 2005. In the Toronto

Region, this population had increased by 42% between 2000 and 2005. Of these persons, 70,700 lived in the city of Toronto. The cities of Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, and

Markham all experienced increases in the number of working poor living within their borders within that five-year time span. In Toronto, the working poor are clustered in the inner suburbs and the southwest corner of the city. The city’s core has a very low incidence of working poverty.” (p.10)

Key features of the working poor:

 they most commonly work in sales and service occupations

 they work a comparable number of hours and weeks as the rest of the working-age population

 they are more likely to be living without an adult partner than the rest of the working-age population

 working-age immigrants to Canada are over-represented among the working poor

 they are only slightly less educated on average than the rest of the working-age population

 fewer own their own homes

 they tend to be younger as a group than the working-age population as a whole (p.10)

Issues identified as further impacting this population: i. as the number and proportion of retired person increases, “All working-age adults, including the working poor, will be expected to bear more and more of the responsibility to work productively and support those who are no longer part of the labour market.” (p.46) ii. Is the way we structure work – issues of wage inequality, job growth primarily among precarious or part-time work – contributing to the rise in working poverty? (p.46) iii. Working poor may also have postsecondary education. “… what does this say about the economic returns people are getting from education? Is higher education contributing to or detracting from a person’s ability to use work as a ladder to opportunity? (p.46) iv. Identity issues: Are gender, immigration status, and racialization acting as barriers to people’s ability to use work as a way out of poverty? Are particular subgroups such as newcomers or lone mothers over-represented in the working-poor population? (p.47)


Not a focus of this paper.

- 9 -

4. Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2010).

Mending Canada’s frayed social safety net:

The role of municipal governments. Quality of Life in Canadian Communities: Theme Report

#6. http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Mending_Canadas_Frayed_Social_Safety_Net_The_role

_of_municipal_governments_EN.pdf.

This report was published as part of the FCM’s Quality of Life Reporting System (QOLRS). It focuses on the growing municipal role in filling the gaps in Canada’s fraying social system. Its reference period is from 2001 to 2006, with some inclusion trends dating to 1991.


FCM’s Quality of Life Reporting System surveys 24 communities, homes to more than

17 million people (54 percent of Canada’s population).

Three key findings: i.

poverty persists, despite economic growth ii.

traditional social policy tools have eroded (restrictions on employment insurance, elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan, reduced federal investment in social housing, welfare rates that have declined since 1994) iii.

our social safety net is fraying; there is a looming deficit in our municipal social infrastructure (p.6)

Across Canada “…rates of poverty and income inequality increased dramatically over the past 10 years, after almost 20 years of continuous decline.” (p.8)

Trends noted:

 most QOLRS communities have seen an increase in income disparities and the number of working poor families

 increases in working poor in most QOLRS communities

 Canada’s three largest cities (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) have the highest proportion of low-income families



QOLRS communities have a higher proportion of children living in low-income families than the Canadian average

 slight decrease in the percentage of families receiving Social Assistance

 welfare income increasingly less adequate to cover basic living costs (p. 10-16)

Much information is available regarding the rates of poverty and labour market attachment for vulnerable groups (seniors, persons with disabilities, recent immigrants, lone female parents, youth, Aboriginals). (p.22-35) Details of the impact of poverty on municipallysupplied supports and services is well detailed. (p35-54)

- 10 -

Why cities must lead.

Cities “…form the social infrastructure that a growing number of people rely on to earn a living, raise their families and cope with difficult times. For a growing number of Canadians, their city is their safety net.” (p.ii)

“Social infrastructure is part of the social safety net and includes a wide array of municipal facilities, programs and services. This report highlights a range of social infrastructure with strong municipal involvement, including social housing, emergency shelters, public transit, childcare, recreation and libraries.” (p.5)


The paper suggests that cities are already doing everything they can to support their most vulnerable citizens. It argues that without changes to our current federal, provincial and municipal funding arrangements, cities do not have financial capability to mend the frayed social safety net. Increasing poverty and income inequality “in Canada increased dramatically during the past decade and are now reaching levels above that of the average for OECD countries.” (p.6)

Cities can not turn away from their responsibilities to their citizens; other levels of government must make choices. (p.7)

- 11 -

5. Laurie, N. (2008). Don Drummond, Judith Maxwell, Jim Milway, Adam Spence, Mark

Stabile, and John Stapleton, eds. The Costs of Poverty: An Analysis of the Economic Cost of

Poverty in Ontario . Toronto: Ontario Association of Food Banks, November. http://www.oafb.ca/assets/pdfs/CostofPoverty.pdf

This paper “focuses on the significant costs of poverty and the societal benefits that could be realized by attacking the roots of poverty, as opposed to the shortage of money through which they manifest themselves.” (p. 25)


“Poverty costs the residents of Ontario a staggering $32 billion to $38 billion a year – the equivalent of 5.5 per cent to 6.6 per cent of provincial GDP. As one would expect, most of this cost is borne by the 1.9 million households with the lowest incomes…. But for every dollar that poverty takes from these low-income households, the province as a whole loses an additional 50 cents. That is, for each and every household in Ontario, the cost of poverty works out to at least

$2,300 a year. It shows up in extra costs to our health care system, the costs of crime, the cost of social assistance, the loss of tax revenue that accompanies low earnings, and the intergenerational costs that flow from the likelihood that a significant number of children from poor families will also be poor when they grow up. In total, these social costs of poverty add up to $10.4 billion to $13.1 billion a year.” (p.6)

- 12 -

There are three components of the social costs of poverty, borne by all Ontarians: remedial (health care, crime, social assistance), intergenerational (poor beget poor*), opportunity

(lost productivity and tax revenues).

* comparing incomes of low-income fathers and sons shows that, while a problem, Canadians suffer this ill at a far lower rate than in the US; Canada’s rate is between 20 and 25 percent; US is 40 to 60 percent.

There are many “systemic causes of poverty – social assistance and Aboriginal policies, for example, which need to be overhauled and the immigration selection process fine-tuned. The remaining roots of poverty are associated in large part with serious deficiencies in education, which show up as low literacy, poor language and/or cultural skills, failure in school or simply not enough schooling… there are significant private and social costs of poverty related to health care, crime, lost productivity and lost potential for children who grow up in poverty.” (p.25)

Conversely, society can reduce the costs of poverty – and make significant savings – by providing low-income Ontarians with the education, training and skills they need. Cost savings range from an estimated $5.2 billion to $7.6 billion a year – equivalent to the province’s total current budget for postsecondary education and training. The paper also cautions that these kinds of action should augment, not replace, current poverty alleviation efforts. (p.25)

Caution to Ontario: though recognizing the province’s current funding crunch “…if [the provincial government] starts making the kinds of investments this paper recommends, the costs of alleviating poverty will fall in the longer term; if it does not, those costs will increase.” (p.6)

Stats on groups at risk:



66 per cent of single mothers with young children fall below Statistics Canada’s lowincome cutoff

 the number of recent immigrants with a university degree is about twice that of nonimmigrants and established immigrants – their poverty rate is also double the provincial norm (lack of soft skills and a misalignment of our labour market and immigration policies)



Aboriginal reserve communities in most cases are isolated, their economies underdeveloped, and basic infrastructure is poor. Outside of these reserve communities, the cultural, economic and social barriers to the success of Aboriginal Canadians are severe.

 more than 40 percent of Ontarians with disabilities fall within the lowest income quintile for the province. Rigidities in the income support system mean that the unemployment rate for disabled Ontarians is almost 3.5 times the rate for other Ontarians. (p.9)

- 13 -


Though the paper doesn’t directly implicate cities in poverty reduction work, it leaves room for a level government that can speak to the economic costs of poverty, rather than the moral ones favoured by the provincial and federal governments.


This question falls outside the bounds of this report.

- 14 -

6. Oxfam GB. (2012). A Business Case for Fighting Poverty . http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/private_sector/downloads/business_case_poverty.pdf

Number 2 in a “Briefings for Business” series, this paper looks specifically at the benefits to business of lowering poverty rates – as employers of those living on low incomes, its influence on public policy (as generators of tax revenue), in realizing that its reduction creates more business opportunities, and that understanding the issue help business get into a better frame for working with emerging markets. It presents a business case for action, an overview of how businesses interact with poverty, poses four key questions for business and provides an overview of Oxfam’s work to engage business.


Costs included in this publication are at a global level.

Why businesses must lead (the community contributions businesses can make)

A responsible business:

 understands and measures how it affects poverty, and vice versa

 minimizes negative impacts and invests in establishing higher social standards

 operates transparently and accountably.

How can businesses reduce poverty?

Tools to help business measure and understand its impact on people living in poverty include Oxfam’s 2005 ‘Poverty Footprint’ ( www.oxfam.org.uk/business ). The approach examines views of multiple stakeholders, including producers, processors, workers, and communities in the areas where the business operates.

Adopting a socially-conscious strategy can bring the following benefits to business as detailed in this case – access to resources (untapped labour markets and small businesses); improved employee relations, increased productivity (poverty undermines productivity); market opportunities; and increased social cohesion.

The article asks and answer four questions by which businesses can consider their impacts on poverty and suggests what a responsible business might look like.

1.

How well do you treat your workers?

A responsible business will ensure that international labour standards, particularly freedom of association and collective bargaining, are effectively enforced for its own workers and for those employed in its global supply chain.

- 15 -

2.

Who is involved in your supply, distribution and retail chains?

A responsible business will actively seek to involve poor people in its supply, distribution, and retail chains by transferring the necessary skills, expertise, and technology, and offering fair prices and other terms that will equitably share the value that is created.

3.

How do your environmental impacts affect poor people?

A responsible business will ensure that its use of natural resources does not conflict with the needs of the wider community. It will also measure its carbon footprint, set and meet ambitious targets to cut absolute emissions, and support the introduction of policies to tackle climate change.

4.

Are you consistently responsible in your business activities, including influencing government policy and paying taxes?

A responsible business will support governments in creating a regulatory framework that ensures respect for human rights, protection of the environment, and poverty reduction. It will not use artificial means to minimize tax bills and avoid liabilities, especially in developing countries.

Tamarack blog summary of this article: “In an increasingly competitive world, a social vision can enhance business viability.”

- 16 -

7. National Council of Welfare. (2011). The Dollars and Sense of Solving Poverty . http://www.ncw.gc.ca/c.4mm.5n.3ty@-eng.jsp?cmid=4

This paper provides many arguments that support the assertion that we can make effective investments that will result in an end to poverty.


The poverty gap in Canada in 2007 – the money it would have taken to bring everyone just over the poverty line – was $12.3 billion. The total cost of poverty that year was double or more using the most cautious estimates.

There is a consistent pattern of studies from Canada and other countries showing that investing to eliminate poverty costs less than allowing it to persist.

The indirect and societal costs of poverty are the most expensive ones. Canadians are paying the most in the least productive areas, trying to fix costly problems linked to inequality, insecurity and poverty that are preventable. If someone can’t afford medicine, for example, they end up in an emergency ward; without support for child care, a mother can’t take a paid job; if someone has no home, they can’t manage an illness or employment.

An investment approach is needed to end poverty, not just alleviate its symptoms.

A long-term, investment approach is more appropriate to human wellbeing and development than a short-term spending approach focused largely on costs.

We could achieve better human and financial outcomes by contributing to greater productivity and wellbeing. The results will show up in lower poverty rates, reduced strain on health care and other public service systems, and less stress, anxiety and debt in our lives.


Though this paper does not take a city-oriented approach to the work to be done, it states:

“Societal networks and the ability to have some control over life are important to everyone.”

Cities are where people build their relationship networks.


This paper provides four pillars for dealing with poverty, which together support a CWP approach:

1.

Adopting a Canada-wide Strategy for Solving Poverty that builds on the Council’s four cornerstones as a governance model, builds on existing poverty reduction strategies and initiatives, and continuously improves with experience.

- 17 -

2.

Establishing a Sustained Investment Plan within the strategy that builds human capacity, removes barriers, creates opportunities, and considers interrelationships among policies as well as the changing realities of Canadians over the course of their lives.

3.

Developing a Consistent Design Framework to get the greatest effectiveness from policies and programs. It should be based on: fairness and reasonable reward for work effort; support for autonomy and initiative; portability, security and stability; coordination and simplicity; and accountability and communication.

4.

Fostering an Open Forum for Conversation and Action involving many partners in an ongoing, inclusive pan-Canadian space for sharing ideas, questions, research, evidence, progress reports, and lived experience.

- 18 -

8. Ivanova, I. (2011). The Cost of Poverty in BC . Vancouver: CCPA – BC Office, the Public

Health Association of BC, and the Social Planning and Research Council of BC, July http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2011/07/

CCPA_BC_cost_of_poverty_full_report.pdf

Central assertion of the report: the costs of inaction are so large that they far exceed the costs of poverty reduction. Its analysis builds an economic case for increased government investment in poverty reduction in addition to the moral arguments. Additionally, the writers take a broader view of poverty to extend beyond the lack of financial resources, and include “a cluster of disadvantages of which economic poverty is a key driver.” This is one of the reasons they adopted a relative measure of poverty (the quintile approach) for their analysis.


“Poverty in BC represents a direct cost to government alone of $2.2 to $2.3 billion annually, or close to 6 percent of the provincial budget. The cost to society overall is considerably higher – $8.1 to $9.2 billion, or between 4.1 percent and 4.7 percent of BC’s GDP.”

(p.5) Shorter version: Cost of a plan is $3-$4 billion; cost of doing nothing is $8.1 to $9.2 billion. (cover)

Health care: “If the health care costs of the poorest 20% of British Columbians were reduced by raising their incomes to the levels of the 2 nd

quintile, it would save BC’s health care system $1.2 billion per year.” (p.6)

Crime: “Research published by the federal Department of Justice calculated the total costs of crime in Canada at $99.6 billion (including direct costs, such as policing and the criminal justice system, as well as intangible costs, such as pain and suffering and loss of life).

Based on that report, we estimated the total cost of crime in BC at $18.6 billion.” (p.7)

Lost economic activity: “If poor households were able to escape poverty and raise their after-tax earnings to $33,500 (the average for the second-lowest quintile on the income ladder), overall incomes (GDP) in BC would increase by $6.2 billion.” (p.8)

“It is instructive to consider the size of the “poverty gap” or the total amount of money needed to bring all British Columbians’ incomes to Statistics Canada’s after-tax LICO (also known as the depth of poverty). Statistics Canada estimates that the poverty gap in BC is $2.1 billion,66 which represents a mere 1.1 per cent of the overall provincial economy (BC GDP in

2007 was $192 billion). Closing the poverty gap is well within the means of our province.”

(p.40)


No specific mentions are made of how cities figure into the plan.

- 19 -


The report lists seven priority areas, some of which cities can directly or indirectly impact. The BC plan must:

1. Provide adequate and accessible income support for the non-employed.

2. Improve the earnings and working conditions of those in the low-wage workforce.

3. Improve food security for low-income individuals and families.

4. Address homelessness and adopt a comprehensive affordable housing and supportive housing plan.

5. Provide universal, publicly-funded child care.

6. Enhance support for training and education for low-income people.

7. Enhance community mental health and home support services, and expand integrated approaches to prevention and health promotion services.

- 20 -

9. MacEwan, A. and C. Saulnier. (2010). The Cost of Poverty in Nova Scotia . Halifax:

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Nova%20Scotia%20Offi ce/2010/10/Cost%20of%20Poverty%20in%20Nova%20Scotia.pdf

Similar to the two Calgary papers, this paper provides an economic accounting of the province’s overall poverty costs.


The total economic cost of poverty in Nova Scotia is at least $1.5 to $2.2 billion dollars per year, accounting for between 5% to 7% of Nova Scotia’s GDP in 2008. The portion of the total cost borne by society (the social cost) is at least $500 to $650 million dollars. This corresponds to 6% to 8% of Nova Scotia’s 2007/2008 budget, or around $1,400 to $1,700 for each Nova Scotian household.

Good verbiage: “Private costs are paid by individuals, and for the most part represent unrealized benefits such as lost wages. Social costs are those borne by everyone. The social cost of poverty does not include current social spending on poverty, employment insurance, or social assistance. … we do not view current social spending as a cost of poverty, but rather the cost of meeting our obligations to each other.” (p.8)


Not part of the scope of this paper.


Though not stated or made explicitly, a theme (as with the other provincially-focused papers) is that cities can/should look for places they can develop or support programming or funding in areas that affect poverty levels. A few examples from this paper:

Recommendations for health

“…need to invest in illness prevention and health promotion focused on the social determinants of health including income and social status; social support networks; education and literacy; employment and working conditions; healthy child development; gender; and culture” (p.15)

Recommendations for crime

A 2008 task force on crime in HRM [Halifax Regional Municipality], led by Don Clairmont,

“highlighted social development factors such as affordable housing, jobs, and improved race relations as key factors in any thorough attempt to reduce crime (p.16)

- 21 -

Recommendations for intergenerational poverty

“The extent and the impact of child poverty can be addressed through a combination of programs aimed directly at children, and those that provide support to parents…. Ensuring all workers receive a living wage for work, extending Child Tax Credits and Working Income Tax Credits, and more supports for lone parents” (p.19)

Recommendations for increasing productivity

Promote literacy, provide language services for new immigrants, assess foreign skills fairly, accurately and quickly, use a gender lens when look at barriers to prosperity (pay equity, employment equity, child care provisions – and gain an accurate assessment of whether it’s best financially and socially for a woman to enter the work force), acknowledge systemic social and economic exclusion (include Aboriginal and racially-discriminated groups into discussions, extension of Child Tax Credits and Working Income Tax Credits, and more supports for parents to improve their education).

- 22 -

10. MacEwan, A. (2011). Cost of Poverty in Prince Edward Island . Halifax: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Nova%20Scotia%20Offi ce/2011/01/Cost%20of%20Povery%20in%20PEI.pdf

The total cost of poverty is at minimum between $240 and $320 million per year, which corresponds to about $1,720 and $2,265 per person, per year. In terms of the PEI economy, the cost of poverty is between 5%-7% of GDP, which is consistent with the cost of poverty estimated in other Canadian provinces. (p.1)

Re – 3 questions – see report above.

- 23 -

11. Torjman, S. (2001). Reclaiming Our Humanity . Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy,

December. http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/553820045.pdf


Not a focus of this paper.


“Communities are driven not by organizations that exist by law but by organizations that exist by commitment − because people want and support them.”(p.4)

“The same holds for communities and societies in which there are strong and overlapping networks of formal and informal relationships; individuals in communities and societies with strong social capital tend to be more prosperous, healthier and experience less crime [Helliwell

2001: 6].

Social capital – through the network of bonds and trust that it creates – contributes to social cohesion, especially in light of economic developments that are driving a wedge between the rich and poor families as well as rich and poor nations [Blakely and Suggate 1997].” (p.38)

Great ending quote: “To have a sense of dignity and an appreciation of our special place in the world: Perhaps that’s the essence of reclaiming our humanity.” (p.71)


“Local governments have an especially important role in building community capacity. They can invest resources in several key assets and processes: citizen problem-solving, the formulation of community plans and economic development. Local governments can foster social capital by acting as a bridge among neighbourhoods, community organizations and social institutions and by convening citizens and representatives from diverse sectors in local dialogue. They can encourage the building of a shared vision for the community” (p.41)

“Vibrant communities provide support that meets basic needs. Vibrant communities promote inclusion to enable all members to participate actively in social, economic, cultural and political life. And vibrant communities afford opportunities for the lifelong acquisition of knowledge and skills.” (p.47)

“The three dimensions of vibrant communities are discussed here as though they are distinct entities. In the real world, these dimensions are intrinsically linked. The provision of support is concerned with meeting basic needs as well as providing opportunities for skills development − also a fundamental component of learning. Inclusion encourages all members to participate to the best of their ability and interest, but requires an essential foundation of support. The learning

- 24 -

focus on early childhood development also links to support for families; community-based learning requires citizen engagement that creates inclusion.” (p.48)

Areas where municipalities can/have made an impact (formal and informal supports):

Recreation: “Recreation appears to pay for itself through reduced use of health and social service, such as child psychology, social work and probation. The impact of providing recreational services alone resulted in a 10 percent greater exit from social assistance compared to parents of children who did not receive this service” [Browne et al. 1998]. (p.56)

Inclusion (mobility issues): “Local governments must take the lead in enabling mobility.

Temporary transportation subsidies could be provided to help those trying to move from welfare to work. Bus passes could be made available for distribution through selected community agencies, as in the City of Victoria. Other options include transportation subsidies, carpools for certain individuals (e.g., accessible taxi service for persons with disabilities if there is no parallel transit system) and support for home business or workstations. Fares might be reduced during off-peak hours, making public transit more affordable for all.” (p.60)

Customized training: “Local governments can support the development of an appropriate skills base in their respective regions. They can promote cross-sectoral approaches to training by ensuring that educational institutions work more closely with business to develop appropriate training. This approach is known as ‘customized training’ − a form of skills development that is short term and targeted toward precise job-related needs [Torjman 1999]. (p.67)…. “Customized training programs have not been supported by government or industry in any consistent or systematic way.” (p.68)

Cautions/barriers to municipal action (user fees as the tip of a larger issue): “Local governments are constrained in their ability to tackle these complex social, economic and environmental challenges [Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2001]. Municipalities in most provinces have only limited sources of revenue: property tax, payments from higher levels of government in lieu of taxes and fees from various sources such as development charges, permits and admissions

(and parking tickets!). Neither do they have any say in the key levers – interest rates, international trade agreements and global currency trading – that have a major impact upon some of the problems, such as underemployment and homelessness, with which they must cope.”

(p.61)

- 25 -

12. Torjman, S. (2008). Poverty Policy . Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, October. http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/720ENG.pdf

Central thesis: “Any comprehensive poverty strategy must also recognize and should provide support for the wide range of efforts in communities that are making critical contributions through their collaborative efforts, innovative interventions and policy impact.

At the end of the day, a robust poverty strategy combines public policy and place-based interventions to create a powerful combination of government and community in the fight against poverty.” (p.29)


“An estimated 3.3 million or 10.5 percent of Canadians were poor in 2006. This national average masks wide disparities in the country.

There has been remarkable progress against poverty among Canada’s growing population of seniors, whose risk of poverty fell from 29.0 percent in 1976 to 5.4 percent in 2006. But child poverty has seen much less improvement, at 13.2 percent in 1976 and a still high 11.3 percent at last count. Certain groups − including recent immigrants, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal

Canadians and young single-parent families − face disproportionately high levels of poverty.

Moreover, inequality has widened, with a growing gap between rich and poor [Chief

Public Health Officer 2008: 37; Yalnizyan 2007].

Over the past 25 years, the average income of the wealthiest Canadians increased by 16.4 percent, while those in the poorest households dropped by 20.6 percent [Statistics Canada 2008].

Inequality actually would be much worse if governments did not help reduce the problem both through redistributive social programs, and progressive taxes and benefits.” (p.1)


This paper argues that there are many areas in which cities may support or supplement policies and programs developed at the federal and provincial levels.

“It is in communities (i.e., in place) that the social infrastructure earlier described is created. It includes high-quality child care, parks and playgrounds, and cultural programs. Social infrastructure such as community centres, schools and libraries also serve as safe spaces for residents to come together to discuss concerns, make decisions, learn new skills and provide informal support. The engagement of citizens in solving problems is a core element of placebased approaches to poverty reduction.

In fact, the communities agenda is concerned largely with new forms of decision-making taking root across the country. Local governance bodies − or decision-making tables − are being created to help set a guiding vision for the community effort and its associated strategic plan. These tables usually are composed of diverse sectors, including business, government,

- 26 -

voluntary organizations and people living in poverty. Together, they contribute a wealth of ideas, resources and practical solutions. (p.27)

Specifics mentioned – wraparound service models, policy tables.

Place-based focus – “Place-based efforts across the board would benefit from support for strategic learning. There are excellent proven models for tackling literacy, creating affordable housing and using community resources as a hub for comprehensive approaches. Yet there are scarce resources for building upon and transferring the approaches already known to be effective.” (p.29)


Housing: “… provincial/territorial governments to make these investments because of their relatively high cost. The funds can also help lever additional resources by municipal governments, voluntary organizations and private developers in some cities.” (p.2)…

Repair/retrofit (RRAP) “Some municipalities have introduced emergency repair loans for lowincome homeowners” (p.4)

“The shortage of affordable housing can also be tackled through measures that affect the use and cost of land. Municipal governments are primarily responsible for this policy area. Specific actions in support of affordable housing include the purchase of land explicitly for modestly priced accommodation. Municipalities can change zoning bylaws to set aside, for affordable housing, land designated for other purposes. They can also provide incentives in the form of reduced or waived property taxes for developers involved in affordable housing projects.” (p.4)

… and on the demand side…” financial assistance involves government payment of a designated amount − or rent supplement − to the owner or renter of the property. Tenants pay part of the market rent and the provincial or municipal government, depending on jurisdiction.”

“Communities can take several actions in respect of affordable housing. They can join together all the concerned organizations. A concerted approach promotes strategic planning for the entire region − no matter its size − with respect to land use and development, housing investment and municipal bylaws. Communities can also create new or support existing cooperative housing organizations. Finally, they can speak loudly to the need for adequate public investment in this area, especially in light of the looming policy red flag that threatens some important measures” (p.5)

Early childhood development: “Communities can press for continued investment in various types of early childhood development programs, and family supports. They can also help create these supports in the form of parenting and literacy centres, home visiting, parent and child playgroups, after-school recreation and homework clubs.

Education and literacy: “Communities can press for continued investment in various types of early childhood development programs, and family supports. They can also help create these

- 27 -

supports in the form of parenting and literacy centres, home visiting, parent and child playgroups, after-school recreation and homework clubs. (p.9)

Training: “Communities need to make provision for ongoing upgrading, particularly for workers employed in small firms. There is a significant gap between changing educational and skill requirements, and opportunities for the renewal of human capital. The training offerings now in place have not yet been designed − at least on a broad scale − to match the learning pace that the current economy demands…. One solution that has been found to be particularly effective in the rapidly changing knowledge economy is known as ‘customized training’ [Torjman 1999]. At the core of the approach is the identification of current and prospective job opportunities in various sectors of the local economy and for specific employers” (p.10,11)

“Communities make an essential contribution to the customized training process. They identify current and emerging labour market needs, convene appropriate parties, devise relevant training, find suitable participants and help them link to available employment opportunities” (p.11)

Income supplementation: “Communities can take related action by calling on governments in their respective jurisdictions to index their minimum wages each year to inflation − as is done by most social programs and the federal income tax system. Only Yukon and Alberta adjust their minimum wages to inflation and wages, respectively. Saskatchewan plans to link its minimum wage to Statistics Canada’s low income cut-off and index it to inflation in 2010 [Battle and

Torjman 2008].

Communities can also play a critical role in wage adequacy by encouraging local governments to adopt a living wage policy for both their own employees and those of their suppliers, and by convincing employers to pay higher wages than the legislated bare minimum. Employers actually benefit from paying living wages through reduced employee turnover and improved morale.” (p.12)

Social infrastructure: “Strong neighbourhoods are created through safe community spaces and activities that encourage positive participation. These safe spaces comprise essential social infrastructure, which is as important as physical infrastructure – i.e., local hardware in the form of roads, sewers, water systems and other elements that form its physical plant. (p.24)…. While schools are well situated to act as hubs, other neighbourhood spaces can also be used for this purpose. Early childhood resource centres clearly play that role” (p.25)

“Recreation, sports, and arts and cultural programs help build self-esteem for children and young people. These activities have been found to reduce negative social behaviour in youth and are particularly effective in reducing crime among young offenders, thereby lowering the cost of social services and the juvenile justice system.” (p.25)

“Another policy response intervention focuses upon local recreation policy. Municipalities can make their facilities and programs available at little or no cost to the public or can offer subsidies to families. Although many municipalities currently provide the latter form of financial assistance, the eligibility criteria can be restrictive or demanding. In some communities,

- 28 -

applicants must pay their doctors to complete a medical form to qualify for a subsidy sometimes worth only about $50 − not to mention inappropriate use of the health care system.

Program fees are only one obstacle. Sometimes transportation and child care systems do not match the recreational programming. Communities can play a significant role by helping join up all the disparate pieces − recreation programs, subsides, transportation and child care − that operate in isolation from each other.” (p.26)

“The annual funding will help school boards reduce or eliminate the fees that community groups must pay for the after-hour use of schools. Other jurisdictions can encourage similar forms of support and accessibility of public space. Some communities are also making creative use of private space for public purposes, such as neighbourhood dinners, continuing education classes or support groups.

Finally, local governments can pay more attention to community design which has a significant impact, not surprisingly, on physical health and social well-being. Local councils should focus as much attention on public places for citizens as they do on strip malls for business.

Communities can help in this process, for example, through design charettes that give expression to their concerns. Residents in Saint John, for example, were involved in a five-day planning exercise to help formulate a social housing plan for the city [Makhoul and Leviten-Reid

2006b].” (p.26)

- 29 -

Background Resources for the Framing Session:

Related documents

Products

Support

Background Resources for the Framing Session:

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib