MEDIA RELEASE: S-CAP Report to Greater Sudbury Community Services Committee

Out of the Cold Shelter for the Entire Winter and for Community Start-Up  and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) funding and policies for CHPI Funding.

Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty Initial Report to the City of Greater Sudbury Community Services Committee – Monday, January 20th 2014.

·         This report is dedicated to all the homeless people who have died on the streets in Sudbury.

Members of the City of Greater Sudbury Community Services Committee:

The Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty is an activist anti-poverty group. We take our direction from the needs and concerns of people living in poverty themselves. We undertake direct support work for people in poverty when they have problems with Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP); with homelessness; with landlords; and with employers. We also campaign against regressive government policies that hurt people living in poverty including the cutting of the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB), the earlier slashing of the Special Diet Supplement, and against the possible merger of ODSP with OW.  

We are talking to you tonight about two of the major problems facing people living in poverty in Sudbury. Firstly, there is the need for a replacement out of the cold shelter for homeless people for what the Mission in past years was able to provide. Secondly, given the experiences we are encountering with people living in poverty being denied what they need under CHPI funding we need to move as quickly as possible towards providing CSUMB rates and policies for CHPI funding.

The City Cannot Leave the Homeless Out in the Cold! The need for shelter space for the entire winter.

It has been a cold winter so far and for people trying to survive outside the situation is desperate. For people excluded from the existing shelters (for instance because they are identified with drinking or with taking drugs) or not willing to stay in them for a number of legitimate reasons (relating to safety and health concerns and disagreements with shelter policies) there have been nights when the Mission has been open since the City has declared it to be a cold weather emergency (which is -15 or -20 with wind-chill) but others when it has not been. As John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty put it sarcastically referring to the situation in Toronto, but this is also very relevant to Sudbury: “of course City officials know that everything is just fine at -14 and there is only a problem when it turns -15.”

S-CAP has been collecting information on the street about how people have been surviving with the Mission being closed many nights. First of all how homeless people find out about whether the Mission is open at night is unclear (it seems to be whether the lights are on or not) and we know there have been a number of nights when homeless people have arrived at the Mission only to find out it is not open. We know that on the nights that it is closed that more people are sleeping outside, sometimes on the concrete right outside the Samaritan Centre. Even on the nights when the Mission is open it operates only as a limited warming station and instructions from the Health Unit do not allow people to actually sleep there. On at least one occasion when someone did try to sleep there the police came to pick the person up and kept them in a cell overnight where at least they had a place to sleep.

Other people living in poverty are stepping in to try to meet the needs of homeless people given that the City is not meeting its responsibilities to the homeless. On the nights when the Mission is not open some people in poverty, who have very little to begin with, are inviting people who are complete strangers to sleep on their floors. The City has downloaded dealing with helping the homeless onto other people living in poverty. More people are also forced into couch surfing if they have friends who will let them do this and others are trying to survive outside. In general these homeless people are being forced more and more underground and are being forced to sleep in unsafe and unhealthy situations. The City has a responsibility to all people living in the City including homeless people and it is failing them.

We call on the City to establish as soon as possible a replacement out of the cold shelter for the entire winter so that homeless people have the warmth, safety and security they need. This must  be a place where people can actually sleep – people who are homeless cannot be deprived of sleep! There are many venues that could be used for this in Sudbury ranging from schools (including school buildings that have been closed down), churches and Tom Davies Square itself. The space is available and we know that the City social services budget has a surplus of at least $300,000 so funding is also available. The problem is one of political will and we urge the City to do the right thing.

In Toronto the recent organizing of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) and other anti-poverty activists has led to the expansion of shelter space including for women fleeing violence and abuse and Metro Hall (the equivalent of Tom Davies Square) is now open as an evening warming station for cold weather emergencies.

Problems with CHPI policies and funding – we need CSUMB policies and rates for CHPI funding.

We were very glad to be able to assist in the City locating the funding to be able to provide CHPI funding for all of 2014. But there are major problems with how these funds are being distributed under City guidelines and policies. In our support work for people living in poverty we have encountered a number of problems people face when trying to access CHPI funding (see our report for the City Budget process on CHPI funding – we can send copies to anyone who wants one). These include problems with people getting adequate funding for beds, for furniture, and for needed household appliances. There have also been people having difficulties getting exceptional circumstances funding until S-CAP has intervened.

A central problem is the separation of CHPI funding focused on preventing homelessness and the associated discretionary funding administered by OW that is no longer disbursed along the lines of the provincial CSUMB program which allowed people to access funds for community start up expenses every two years. Instead the City Discretionary Benefits Policy provides low amounts of funding for such necessities as beds (a maximum of $300 – we ask you to find quality beds for this amount in Sudbury), washers ($300 for a family with children and $240 for singles/couples without children), and will not fund dryers at all since they are not considered “necessities.”   Such items as pots and pans and clothing for community start up which are often necessities are not covered in the policy and these were covered under the CSUMB.  If people are able to access housing itself but are not able to sustain it through getting the needed items to maintain their home this is not only not meeting their needs but can also lead to them becoming homeless again. Focusing only on getting people into housing does not keep people housed. CHPI funding, like under the CSUMB, must include funding for community start-up needs at rates that will allow people to get what they need to set up a household.

We have therefore re-written the City CHPI policy (see attached) to get it to conform as much as possible to the policies and rates of the former CSUMB program. This would now mean that people can get a maximum of $800 as singles/couples without children for their needed household and start-up needs and $1,500 for families with children every two years. We remind you that in other cities including Toronto, Peterborough, Hamilton, and the Niagara Region they have decided that their municipal support programs do more than is mandated in a narrow sense under CHPI to assist people living in poverty and this is what needs to be done in Sudbury as well.

On October 21, 2013, the Community Services Committee asked City staff to consult with people on OW and ODSP to see if revisions were needed to their CHPI and Discretionary Benefits Policy guidelines. So far they have not done this. But S-CAP did a focus group last fall with people on OW and ODSP on what their needs are in relation to CHPI funding.  We reprint the section from our Budget Report on this below:

“To find out more about people’s needs and concerns SCAP held a focus group discussion with nine people on OW and ODSP on Nov. 17th. Issues raised were the following: that  CSUMB/CHPI was the only recourse people had to get a bit of money for  buying larger items (Revenue Canada rebates are no longer in a lump sum, but spread over several disbursements; and there is no more other clothing allowances or moving expenses covered elsewhere under OW/ODSP, etc);  CSUMB rates and policies must be maintained for CHPI funding; there is a need to use last month’s rent in any emergency situation and not just for evictions; last month’s rent must be offered in broader circumstances; CHPI and associated discretionary funding needs to cover the full costs of a bed; exceptional circumstances funding must remain at the same funding level as under the CSUMB;  CHPI funding must help people to stay housed; people must be continuously informed that they can access CHPI and there must be easily available and publicly accessible information on what is available and the criteria that are being used; moving expenses to move to places with lower rent must be covered;  the mandatory aspect of this benefit must be reinstated; furniture and household items must be covered; there cannot be a reliance on religious institutions with their restrictive criteria (eg. The Salvation Army); there should be less reliance on shelter options and more focus on getting people long-term, sustainable housing; substandard and unsafe housing is a health issue for people on social assistance and there is a lack of affordable housing; there is a need for more transparency and for information on the  CHPI funding breakdown; there needs to be a review of the Housing First Approach; more compassion and consideration is needed;  there needs to be more people working on this given the volume in the case-loads for existing workers; and workers and supervisors need to made more accountable.”     

The needs people talked about require changes in the City guidelines and we have attempted to incorporate this into our re-written guidelines. These revised guidelines would begin to meet many more of the needs of people living in poverty in Sudbury and we urge the City to adopt them.

We certainly hope that the City will adopt these revised guidelines but if the City is not willing to re-write this policy at this time there must be a significant raise in the amounts allocated under the Discretionary Benefits policy so that people can afford to get more of their community start up needs met through these benefits. Raising the allocated amounts is important but another way of doing this is to remove the arbitrary caps imposed on funding for household necessities.

Regardless of what is decided S-CAP will continue to actively support people living in poverty in Sudbury.

Yours sincerely,

Anna Harbulik, Gary Kinsman and Clarissa Lassaline for the Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty.