BC's Badly Broken Welfare System
BC Libs created 'overly complex' maze that kept needy off rolls: ombudsman
Welfare minister Coleman: Changes in the works.
The good news is the provincial government is promising to fix the welfare system. The bad news is they broke it really, really badly and much damage is already done.
"A lot of these problems have been really bad for seven years," said Sarah Khan, a lawyer with the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre. "Many of them have been chronic since 2002."
The problems go back to the period after Premier Gordon Campbell's BC Liberal Party first formed government. As the Tyee reported in a 2004 series, Campbell's reforms led to a huge drop in the welfare caseload. While the government claimed the drop was from people going back to work, much of it with the help of private job placement companies, there was plenty of evidence the new rules were being used to rule ineligible people who would previously have gotten help.
In 2005, after trying to get the government to change many of the policies, Khan filed a complaint with the Ombudsman's office.
That complaint led to the recent release of Ombudsman Kim Carter's Last Resort, a 121-page report that found the welfare system is "overly complex" and not designed to meet the needs of the people applying for help. Kafkaesque bureaucracy was keeping people from getting assistance, she found.
Communities suffer
That broken system affected not just the people denied assistance, said Khan, but communities across the province.
"We think the increases in homelessness are directly attributable to the problems identified in this report," Khan said. Had the Liberals fixed these problems years ago, or not created them in the first place, she said, "There's no way we could have seen the levels of homelessness we see now."
Ombudsman Carter did not look at homelessness in her report, but in an interview said a well-functioning system would reduce the chances of people falling through the cracks. "You don't want a system that has a gap there so people lose everything. It's very hard to get people back. You want something that will catch people and tide them over."
Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman is responsible for both income assistance and homelessness. Asked about the connection between homelessness and the difficulty people have getting welfare, he said, "I don't agree with that at all. Homelessness is a whole different issue with mental health and addictions. It's way beyond something that's just social assistance."
The NDP's income assistance critic, Jagrup Brar, said there are many factors contributing to homelessness, including the low minimum wage, the lack of affordable housing and insufficient care for people with addictions and mental illnesses. But welfare plays a part too: "Making it hard for people to access income assistance supports is part of that gain."
Unemployment low, homelessness up
The number of homeless have doubled in many communities, including Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria, Brar said. "It's very hard to understand why the number of homeless people will go significantly up when the unemployment rate was very low. It's clear there is something wrong with the public policy."
Others point to limiting welfare as a big part of the problem. "It's contributed to where we're at right now with so many destitute people," said Susan Henry, a community worker and advocate at First United Church in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. "When you don't have any income, or this tiny income, how can you afford to have a place?"
For several years people who are homeless have been allowed to sleep in the church. That number exploded after 2002, she said. "It was just awful," she said. "A lot of the damage has already been done quite some time ago."
Henry was very positive about Carter's report. "It confirms everything we saw," she said. "It reveals the central ugliness of welfare."
Things have improved slightly, she said, but she's dubious about the Liberal government taking credit. "You created the problem in the first place," she said. "The ministry is seizing credit for solutions that we, the advocacy community, forced them to create."
Change is underway: Coleman
Coleman too was positive about Carter's report. "She was really good working with my office," he said. "It was a pretty good collaborative process between us to see how we could improve things."
Welfare Fixes Slow in Coming
In a recent letter to Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman, NDP North Island MLA Claire Trevena said that fixes the government promised in 2006 are still not in place.
In particular, ministry staff are supposed to do emergency needs assessments for people within 24 hours. The commitment was made at the start of the ombudsman's investigation in 2006 following BCPIAC's 2005 complaint.
"I repeatedly hear instances of people who are homeless, who are destitute, being told by ministry staff to come back for an assessment at a later date," Trevena said.
One person from Campbell River had a rat infestation in her home, was about to have her electricity cut off and had no money for food, Trevena wrote. Still, it took 10 days to get an emergency needs assessment. "This is not unusual in Campbell River or in other parts of the province."
Ombudsman Kim Carter's report released last month included 25 recommendations for improving the welfare system. The housing and social development ministry accepted all but one, but warned it may be slow to implement them.
"The ministry is experiencing extraordinary demands for service at this time in the face of the current economic situation," said a response from deputy minister Cairine MacDonald included in Carter's report. "While we will make every effort to expedite work to implement the recommendations of the report, immediate client needs will be our most pressing priority." – A.M.
There were things that were obviously unfair, he said, like requiring single parents whose children were younger than three years old to go through a three week job search before they could get welfare, even though once they gained assistance they would not be required to work.
"When I got the ministry last year, a lot of those questions were my first questions coming out of the box, so we'd already started to change those things," Coleman said. "I thought, if you have children under three, and you're going to get social assistance, why [are] we going to send you on a job search when you've got to take care of your kids?"
Coleman said his comments were not a criticism of Claude Richmond, from whom he'd inherited the ministry.
In fact, the ministry responsible for welfare has had three different names since 2001, and five different ministers. Besides Coleman and Richmond, Stan Hagen, Susan Brice and Murray Coell have held the post.
The major changes happened under Coell's watch. A former social worker himself, the B.C. Association of Social Workers unanimously passed a motion saying they had lost confidence in him.
Coell defends his record
In a March interview, Coell defended the changes he oversaw in 2001 and 2002. "In a system that revolves around people, you have to be willing to change as the times change," he said. "In our early part of our mandate of course the job was to get people back to work, which we did."
He asserted the 100,000 drop in the welfare caseload was due to the government's success getting people back to work, though Carter pointed out in her report, as others have before, that the government has no evidence to support the claim.
"We're now in a different economy, which will have different challenges," Coell said. "At the time we had the best advice we could to make sure people got employment. The economy helped with that. I think the retraining programs really helped."
Asked about the criticism he took personally, including the BCASW censuring, he said, "I think [that will happen] anytime you make change, and we made major change to the welfare system, and it needed to be done. You had at one point six out of 10 single parents on welfare in British Columbia and one out of 10 people on welfare in British Columbia. It wasn't needed. What was needed was retraining and the ability to create jobs, and we did that."
There's plenty of blame for members of the Liberal government to share, said the NDP's income assistance critic, Jagrup Brar. "It's not any individual, it is the government," he said. "It is the B.C. Liberal government responsible for this mess."
Providing welfare should be based on individual's needs, he said. "I don't think you can tie this policy to the economic cycle. The social safety net is there to support people in their tough time regardless of what the economy is doing."
He added, "The changes they made were more ideological."
Related Tyee stories:
- Welfare's New Era: Survival of the Fittest
The provincial government's tough rules have spawned fear, pain, a little black comedy, and very real tragedy. TYEE SPECIAL REPORT: PART 1 - Welfare application process 'unduly complex': Ombudsman
- How BC Trimmed 107,000 People from Welfare Rolls
Some got jobs. Red tape, death likely knocked out far more. - 'Welfare to Work' Didn't Work
BC Libs sat on own report showing no real gains.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Gary
13-04-2009
If anyone reading this
If anyone reading this article actually believes that this government is working to fix their broken system then they definitely have not been watching how Premier Photo Op works. The election is under way and the lies will be spewed forth. If they were actually were serious about changes to help the people of this province they wouldn't have broken the system in the first place.
What's happening with all those hotels that they bought to house the homeless? Nothing. They could have fixed all this by acting on their promises. But they chose to ignore ALL of it
morechatter
13-04-2009
And the Fat Man Sings
More porridge please?
Is it not a poverty to decide that a child must suffer through sexual abuse or even die so that you may live as you wish? And are you living as you wish with all those tax breaks, like the carbon tax and the increased poverty while the rich get richer, while children die and the tax payer is turned on because he might get a couple bucks back during recessioanry times. Who is going to pay the highest price? BC kids with their little hearts and their little souls, and then society will pay.
Questions one might ask of a system who so readily puts women and children to the streets while feeding them the cities garbage, now thats the reality check, and the fat man well he has sung his song of six pence and a pocket full of rye for all British Colombians except for those in need as even the poor wee one's they are forced to work the streets for their daily bread.
I just heard of massive cuts going through for kids in need of help and there is nothing to compare it to anymore as British Colombians treat their children the worst in the country. And its getting harsher so I don't know where Coleman is coming from but its not a place of honesty as he rips apart the system and leaves chaos.
morechatter
13-04-2009
And the NDP critic is right
Its got nothing to do with the need of British Colombians or why would those on the system be left so needy while workers notes read, as follows:
Needy, looking for resources, sent away.
Its about the need of the Liberals to tear apart a social system and the people it administers to as human rights violations are atrocious while those on the system are ridiculed, intimidated and harassed to keep clients from accessing their needs.
Many of the workers on the system can not wait to get out as they are forced to administer hardship and it goes against every moral fiber, or so they say.
MichaelT
13-04-2009
"Homelessness is a whole
"Homelessness is a whole different issue with mental health and addictions. It's way beyond something that's just social assistance."
stunning obliviousness
southpaw
13-04-2009
Anyone wondering if there's
Anyone wondering if there's a correlation between the abhorrent way we treat people needing welfare, and the exploding violence and criminal activity ?
Starving people will do things they never even dreamed of, when they are faced with this! It's not rocket science.
morechatter
13-04-2009
And Micheal T
Its stunningly obvious that homelessness is about not having enough money for a home or at least a liveable one. As those with mental health issues and addictions are already on the system that dosen't give them enough money to rent a place and its why people are homeless.
http://tiny.cc/zvSMS
wally
13-04-2009
Campbell's Libs in
Campbell's Libs in particular and NeoCon governments generally, have been dedicated to growing an underclass for many years now. It may be that they believe a large pool of desperate near-citizens is good for business because of the ready pool of cheap labour. Maybe it's just some kind of fundamentalist ethic that consigns to the heap those whose beliefs are "flawed". It really doesn't matter. Once there is a large population segment who believe they've nothing left to lose things start to break down rapidly. The problem here is getting to no-return proportions and the squandered opportunities are even harder to recapture now that we have a global economic melt down to endure.
Campbell's government has spent the last eight years honing a fiscal/social policy that has no place in the 21st century. It's tenets and aims were outmoded 40 years ago and will, if allowed to continue, certainly destroy the hopes and dreams of all but the most pampered of our citizens.
MacKenna
13-04-2009
The first big cut happened on the NDP's watch
In 1996, the NDP cut nearly 50,000 from the rolls and this started the first wave of homelessness. The NDP made it harder to collect regular benefits and most people who could, shifted to disability benefits. Both the NDP and the Liberals are at fault for the mess the welfare system is in today.
The NDP also made the decision to close Riverview and turf mentally ill people into the community. Most of these folks need some kind of ongoing support system and they found themselves with none.
trueman
13-04-2009
accumulation of policy decisions
Political opportunism drives much of our social policy shifts. Mackenna is correct as far as he goes. The NDP in the mid 90's cut a swath through the welfare numbers. They were egged on by a brutally efficient bureaucracy obsessed with reducing dependency on the dole. This was manna for the Libcons. It suited their objectives; to reform the social safety net...to enhance it by reducing need. They were totally unrelenting in their obsession and clearly have added pounds of fleshy poverty to the underclass.
The liberals went out of their way to make an unpleasant and conflicted system excessively punitive and bureaucratic. In doing so, they created a pretense that people would be retrained, made more usefull and less dependent. Noble to be sure but done in a painful and insulting manner, complexified by drawn out application processes and weeding of need.
I think what is needed is a clear means of support for those who need it and a means to limit services to the few who don't or who scam. The constant revision of the system only wastes precious dollars and only benefits those contractors and charlatans who have devised a better welfare reform mousetrap.
carfreed
13-04-2009
ofcourse it creates homelessness
I can tell the whole story.And I will be.
20 years of 25 years in BC moving: not because I was a bad tenant.(actually, one place I pulled out all the rotting old cheap toxic carpeting, sanded and varethaned the floors and painted the whole place. The owner promised me she would never sell the house. That was in the fall. She did in the spring and my oldest daughter graduated in a the midst of a boxed up house.In those 20 years landlords were flipping property, renovating and raising rents. I was college educated, had no drug problems,except for caffeine and trying to raise children and find a new career having left a farm share to give my children the benefits of a larger urban culture.
20 years of little ladders and very long snakes.
Now you have to dispose of all assets and use the sale up before they will help.
Suppose you had stocks, were unemployed, and due to this recession, they are now 50% or less.You haven't found work, your UI has run out. Well, you have to take a loss and use up that stock money before you get some assistance. If you have a little bit of savings for a needed reconditioned transmission, or some auto repair or emergency need, forget that too. Live on it until
you are scraping bottom.
Live in a mouldy place with old plumbing, cheap paint and old vinyl that needs to be constantly scrubbed then waxed to make it livable.When appliances break, hunt the thrift stores, craigslist or research all the free listings hoping to find something else ready to break down.
Living in a tent rather than paying for the likes of this seems a whole lot better.
Rolf Auer
13-04-2009
The BC Libs
It's class warfare, pure and simple. The BC Libs have never tried to hide their disdain for the poor. Witness Campbell refusing to raise the minimum to a livable level.
bcliberals_suck
13-04-2009
Sinking to the Bottom
The "fix" is in alright. Fix it until it won't work at all anymore. It will be easier to privatize that way and there won't be as many people on the rolls when the American corporation takes it over. Privatize the profit, socialize the losses.
As many have suggested, it's the neo-Liberal agenda (by SoCreds in sheep's clothing) that have set so many in BC down this path to oblivion. When so many were hurting, during a boom time, we will lose many more as the Rich gobble the rest of the world up into it's greedy, gaping maw, to our very destruction.
Even those of with educations, with experience and skills are caught beneath the wheels of the BC Liberal bus, where we found in our darkest hours our government has betrayed us, our taxpayer dollars go into the pockets of corporations and shady BC Liberal insider friends who help the Evil Overlords privatize it all. It will all be gone soon, but only if they get in again.
Anyone who is a member of the BC Liberal caucas, who is a Liberal appointee, a senior bureaucrat, all the way down to lowly frontline workers sells their soul if they work in this government. It's what is breaking people. Absolute moral corruption, insanity and the demise of humanity, the absence of compassion. We've been turned into a province of contempt for each other, of greed, of selfishness. We've been conditioned to listen to lies spoken as truth. To step over the bodies of the homeless, our children, our seniors, the mentally ill and addicted.
It is up to all of us to reclaim what's left of BC, if we believe in a future for all of us. There will never be a more important election than the one on May 12th. Please strongly consider what is worth fighting for.
daveallen
14-04-2009
MediaWatch Bias Scorecard LIB-0 NDP-1
I have today made a commitment to follow The TYEE "BC election reporting" up until the election on May 12.
My bias scorecard will be clearly a simple record of the read articles and their bias in a LIB vs NDP format as per the subject of this message.
This scoring is based on my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of anyone in my family, my company or the organizations which I belong to.
If anyone wants or needs to comment to me directly I am
Spam accepted, although not preferred.
homegrown
14-04-2009
Cause and Effect Relationship
Liberals got into power (2002) homelessness increased. It was so easy to observe! It is their fault totally, I think, and I don't know how they can deny it when it is so obvious to anyone who lives in this city and knows what the homelessness level was like before their reign. That level of cruelty and callousness is unforgiveable, and for them to say they are not responsible is a lie.
VivianLea Doubt
14-04-2009
hey dave
Just to clarify, daveallen, I welcome your voice here...
In response to your post "none of the other media you mentioned are asking for donations to do their job", you seem to miss the point. Ultimately, it is the readers who decide what media publishes, as any business person recognizes, whether directly or indirectly. It is precisely because other media have in large part ignored ther obligations to the reader/consumer that their business models are apparently broken. What kind of business will survive when it ignores what its customers want?
The Tyee is simply forging a new kind of business model that works in the internet world, and those business people that don't pay attention will be left behind.
ladze
14-04-2009
Homelessness is complex, but pretty much everybody experiencing
Homelessness is complex, but pretty much everybody experiencing is poor. Ameliorating poverty is a key strategy in eliminating it, however, welfare has not been the only area to undergo a slow death by funding cuts and incessant restructuring. Other health and social programs have shared in this misery and this has left many more vulnerable to homelessness. I hope the Tyee is able to spend some time reviewing the battering social infrastructure has undergone in the last few years - there is no sole cause here - it is coming from all directions and I hope we wake up soon before we are overtaken by a tsunami of poverty.
Bailey
14-04-2009
Homelessness isn't complex
Life is complex. Of course all the homeless are poor. Wages are driven to nothing, unions are under attack and have been for decades. Lies are told about 'big unions' as if there were such a thing, and even working people believe, though it ruins their chances to ever own a home.
There is a complex nut at the center of homelessness that will probably never change; some of the homeless are so because they're insane, or so damaged they cannot function. These will never be able to get a home by their own efforts.
But those are spread across society evenly, not concentrated in one group, so even they remain housed as long as that is possible for them. Because as long as they can, all humans in a cold climate will choose to live indoors.
In about twenty years we will start getting waves of displaced warming refugees coming to our care in large numbers. First the islanders from the oceanic nations which are already being washed over by sea level rises.
Then the lowland cities, coastal areas like Bangladesh and Florida will flood, and that will drive a billion people or so into the care of their neighbours, and they will ask us where they may live.
If, at that time, housing is still a commodity, a thing you need a half million dollars to even contemplate, well, that's a war. They will not keep asking a question with an impossible answer for very long, and they will fight for the right to live, and for their children's right as well.
And millions will be slaughtered and the future will be blighted by that selfishness.
This is not a 'problem' we can fool around with for any longer. Our own homeless are our chance to see the realities of the life we've created out of the prosperity of the last 200 years, and fix that. Face the dismal record we wrote.
If we cannot, if we fail to build something that works, and pretty damn quickly too, what comes will devastate us, and we will have only ourselves to blame.
HawkEyes
16-04-2009
also worth remembering...
"There were things that were obviously unfair, he said, like requiring single parents whose children were younger than three years old to go through a three week job search before they could get "welfare", even though once they gained assistance they would not be required to work."
Ignoring the obvious (how can a single parent in need effectively look for a job, for three weeks no less) -it was this government that lowered the age to three, from five, for parents on welfare to be able to stay home with their children. Developmentally, two of the most critical years for the child were thrown into the toilet.
With the courts sending many newly divorced moms straight to welfare, again when the needs of the children involved will be high - their heavy handed cull remains wrong, wrong, wrong...
This government has never walked their talk or lies.
The worst is that without the Tyee, this wouldn't be an issue.