Sudbury Social Justice News - December 1, 2013

EVENTS & MEETINGS:

1) Monday, December 2: Meeting of the Sudbury Workers' Education and
Advocacy Centre
2) Tuesday, December 3: Anti-Poverty Presence at City Council Budget Deliberations
3) Wednesday, December 4: Ontario-wide Day of Action Against the Planned First Nations Educaiton Act - Sudbury
4) Wednesday, December 4: Anti-Poverty Rally and Protest on City Budget
5) Saturday, December 7: Screening of *The Ghost in Our Machine* to
Benefit Wild at Heart Wildlife Refuge Centre
6) Saturday, December 7: The Sudbury Holiday Feast -- A Fundraiser for
reThink Green
7) Monday, December 9: Meeting of Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty
8) Saturday, December 14: Monthly Action to Raise the Minimum Wage

NEWS, ANALYSIS, & CALLS TO ACTION:

1) Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty submission to the City of Greater Sudbury's budget process

EVENTS & MEETINGS:

(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)

Monday, December 2: Meeting of the Sudbury Workers' Education and
Advocacy Centre

Time: 6:30pm
Location: Offices of the Sudbury and District Labour Council (Suite 209 upstairs in 109 Elm Street, which is across the street from the Native Friendship Centre)

This meeting is for workers who may be having problems at work because of working conditions, discrimination, lack of protection, low wages, or unstable employment.

Workers' centres are organizations that are committed to improving the lives and working conditions of people in low-wage and unstable employment. For more than a year, people in Sudbury have been meeting to figure out how to make this happen here, and it can only succeed with lots of active participation and input from all corners of the community.

If anyone has any questions, they can contact us by email at sweac@gmail.com

The Sudbury Workers' Education and Advocacy Centre on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SudburyWorkersCentre

(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)

Tuesday, December 3: Anti-Poverty Presence at City Council Budget Deliberations

Time: 4pm
Location: City Council Chambers, Tom Davies Square (200 Brady Street, Sudbury)

The Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty is asking people to join us at the city council meeting on December 3rd.

The city will be looking at the budget options at a meeting starting at 4:00. One of the budget options is for the city to contribute to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) to help make up for the difference in funding that CHPI receives vs what was given through the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB). This is an important fund for people on OW and ODSP, as their monthly payments are small enough many struggle to survive and there is absolutely no way they can put money aside for emergencies like last months rent for a new apartment or a new bed to replace one damaged by flooding.  We need to show the city council that there is lots of support for funding this.

Please also contact your city councilors (http://www.greatersudbury.ca/inside-city-hall/city-council/) beforehand.

(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)

Wednesday, December 4: Ontario-wide Day of Action Against the Planned First Nations Educaiton Act - Sudbury

Time: 10am to noon
Location: Beginning from Tom Davies Square (200 Brady Street, Sudbury)...see below for details

END FIRST NATIONS POVERTY, NOT OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE!

In conjunction with other First Nation organizations in Ontario, the Anishinabek Nation will be hosting a rally in Sudbury, Ontario on December 4th, 2013 to oppose the planned First Nation Education Act.

10:00 am – Gather at Tom Davies Square, 200 Brady St

10:30 am - March along Paris St. to INAC office at Rainbow (formerly City) Centre

10:45 am - Round Dance, intersection of Paris and Elm Streets

11:00 am- March to N’Swakamok Native Friendship Centre, 110 Elm St.

11:30 am- Presentations about FNEA

DON'T FORGET TO INVITE YOUR FRIENDS!

Other events taking place in Ontario that day include:

Toronto AADNC Offices - Organized by AIAI
Brantford AANDC Offices - Organized by Six Nations
Thunder Bay AANDC Offices - Organized by NAN

If you can't attend the event, please consider signing the Chiefs of Ontario petition at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/573/898/984/stop-canadas-proposed-first-n...

Ontario Chiefs taking action against First Nations Education Act:
http://anishinabeknews.ca/2013/11/27/ontario-chiefs-taking-action-agains...

The Anishinabek Nation have been developing their own education system for member communities; see the following news story to learn more:
http://anishinabeknews.ca/2013/11/14/anishinabek-continue-to-pursue-own-...

The Anishinabek Nation Youth Leadership have recently taken action against Minister Valcourt; click the link to learn more:
http://anishinabeknews.ca/2013/11/21/youth-tell-valcourt-this-is-not-con...

An article by Tracey O'Donnell about 'Doing education our own way'
http://anishinabeknews.ca/2013/11/13/anishinabek-education-system-doing-...

Education Act repeats mistakes, threatens futures: Madahbee:
http://anishinabeknews.ca/2013/10/25/education-act-repeats-mistakes-thre...

The Grand Council Chief said the FNEA fails First Nations students in three key areas:
http://www.anishinabek.ca/article4.asp

This event on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/events/223860071119694/

(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)(4)

Wednesday, December 4: Anti-Poverty Rally and Protest on City Budget

Time: 3pm
Location: Rally & Meal in Memorial Park at 3pm, to city budget meeting in City Council chambers at Tom Davies Square (200 Brady Street) at 4pm

On the fourth of December we will be having a free meal and quick rally in Memorial Park starting at 3:00 before heading over to city council.

The city will be voting on the budget at a meeting starting at 4:00. One of the budget options is for the city to contribute to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) to help make up for the difference in funding that CHPI receives vs what was given through the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB). This is an important fund for people on OW and ODSP, as their monthly payments are small enough many struggle to survive and there is absolutely no way they can put money aside for emergencies like last months rent for a new apartment or a new bed to replace one damaged by flooding.

Please also contact your city councilors (http://www.greatersudbury.ca/inside-city-hall/city-council/) beforehand.

(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)(5)

Saturday, December 7: Screening of *The Ghost in Our Machine* to
Benefit Wild at Heart Wildlife Refuge Centre

Time: 2pm
Location: Former Rainbow Cinemas downtown (40 Elm Street, Sudbury)

The Best of Hot Docs Film Festival will run from December 6 to 8 at the former Rainbow cinemas downtown.

A benefit screening of film, The Ghosts in Our Machine will take place on:

Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 2pm at the former Rainbow Cinemas - 40 Elm Street, Sudbury Tickets are available online (see link below) or from the Walden Animal Hospital in Lively.

$5 from the sale of each ticket will directly support Wild at Heart Wildlife Refuge Centre!

Click here to see the trailer: http://vimeo.com/59741668#
Official website for the film: http://www.theghostsinourmachine.com/

THE GHOSTS IN OUR MACHINE illuminates the lives of individual animals living within and rescued from the machine of our modern world. Through the heart and lens of acclaimed animal photographer Jo-Anne McArthur we become intimately familiar with a cast of animal subjects. Each story and photograph is a window into global animal industries: Food, Fashion, Entertainment and Research. All part of an epic photo project called We Animals, McArthur has documented the lives of animals around the world with heart-breaking empathic vividness. THE GHOSTS IN OUR MACHINE charts McArthur’s efforts to bring wider attention to a topic that most of humankind strives hard to avoid. Are non-human animals property to be owned and used, or are they sentient beings deserving of rights?

"I feel like I’m a war photographer. I am photographing history and photographing changes in history right now, in terms of animal rights and where it’s going." - Jo-Anne McArthur

"Really powerful… a truly eye opening experience… I only hope THE GHOSTS IN OUR MACHINE can change the way people treat animals the way “Food, Inc.” changed the way people eat." – Jason Priestley, Actor, Director

"This is a masterful film. It should be essential viewing for everyone." – JAMES CROMWELL, Actor

This screening is sponsored by the Walden Animal Hospital.

For more information about the Best of Hot Docs Film Festival in Sudbury, click here: http://www.facebook.com/events/581744591899127/

We hope to see you there!

This event on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/events/553050534776689/

(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)

Saturday, December 7: The Sudbury Holiday Feast -- A Fundraiser for
reThink Green

Time: 6pm to 10pm
Location: 140 Durham Street

Join us at The Parkside Centre for THE celebration of local food, art, and culture! Featuring live music and entertainment, silent auction, diverse selection of local cultural foods, beer sampling, cash bar, and more!
Single adult admission - $40
Set of 6 tickets - $200
Set of 10 tickets - $320
Get your tickets here at our office at 176 Larch, through anyone of our Board members or online by following this link
http://www.rethinkgreen.ca/index.php/holiday-event

This event on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/events/677942655570643/

(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)(7)

Monday, December 9: Meeting of Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty

Time: 6:30pm to 8:30pm
Location: Offices of the Sudbury and District Labour Council (Suite 209
upstairs in 109 Elm Street, which is across the street from the Native
Friendship Centre)

The venue is wheelchair accessible. Children are welcome to attend, or childcare support is available upon request.

S-CAP is a direct-action anti-poverty organization based in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. We provide direct-action support work assisting individuals in their struggles with welfare and ODSP, housing, employers, and others who deny people what they are entitled to in order to meet their needs. In addition, we mount campaigns against and support educational work about regressive government policies as they effect working people and people living in poverty. We believe in the power of people to organize themselves. We believe in the power of resistance!

La coalition contre la pauvreté de Sudbury (S-CAP) est un organisme d’action directe luttant contre la pauvreté. Elle se trouve à Sudbury en Ontario.

Le travail de la coalition se base dans l’action directe et consiste à apporter de l’aide aux individus dans leurs luttes pour l’assistance sociale, l’invalidité, le logement, l’emploi et à les aider à faire face aux gens qui leur refusent ce à quoi ils ont droit pour rencontrer leurs besoins. De plus, la coalition fait des compagnes de sensibilisation et de dénonciation par rapport aux politiques gouvernementales régressives quant à leurs effets sur les travailleurs et travailleuses et les personnes vivant dans la pauvreté.

La coalition croit au pouvoir des personnes de s’organiser elles-mêmes; elle croit au pouvoir de la résistance!

Please call us (249-878-7227)

Email us at sudburyCAP@gmail.com

S-CAP on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/257339454351403/

(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)(8)

Saturday, December 14: Monthly Action to Raise the Minimum Wage

Details TBA!

NEWS, ANALYSIS, & CALLS TO ACTION:

(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)

S-CAP Budget Submission

The City Must Maintain CSUMB Policies and Rates for CHPI Funding and associated discretionary funding!

A report from the Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty (S-CAP) to the City Community Social Services Committee, the Finance and Administration Committee, and City Council.

Nov. 28, 2013

Executive Summary

On January 1, 2013 the provincial government cut the vital Community Start Up and Maintenance program (CSUMB) through which people on social assistance were able to meet their community start-up and homelessness prevention needs. This was replaced by the municipally administered and lower funded Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). Community protests got an extra $42 million added into the CHPI funding for addressing community start-up and homelessness prevention needs until March 2014.
      * S-CAP was assured in January 2013 that the new municipal “application process is the same and the amounts are consistent” with the previous CSUMB. But soon there were attempts to massively cut back exceptional circumstances funding levels which were restored with the assistance of City councillors. City staff then conducted a ‘consultation’ with social agencies, often dependent on City funding, and not with people living in poverty themselves. While S-CAP asserted the need to maintain CSUMB levels and policies for CHPI community start up and homelessness prevention funding City staff proceeded to develop different criteria for funding and for cutting back funding after March 2014. There was a ‘consultation’ meeting with some of the social agencies, and the development of a survey, report and recommendations coming out of this.
      * Only one of these recommendations was passed at the Community Services Committee meeting on Oct. 21st. The rest were deferred to the City budget process. City staff were directed to meet with members of S-CAP (this occurred on Nov. 21st) and to consult with people on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). So far City staff  have not been able to do this but S-CAP held a focus group on Nov. 17th at which people expressed their need for CSUMB rates and policies to be maintained for CHPI funding.   
      * On Sept. 17th the Finance and Administration Committee on the initiative of S-CAP and some City Councillors decided to move CHPI funding into Appendix A the category that can be considered for more City funding in 2014. What you are reading is the S-CAP submission to this budget process.
      * Other municipalities and regions have taken up their responsibility to people living in poverty as this has been abandoned by the province and have been adding more municipal and regional funding to shore up community start up and homelessness prevention funding in 2014. We are asking for Sudbury to do the same.
      * S-CAP is asking that the City of Greater Sudbury commit City funding to maintain CHPI funding at CSUMB policies and levels in 2014. At the very least this means more municipal funding to maintain support levels for all of 2014 at the same level as for 2013. This is the only position that will begin to meet the needs of people living in poverty in our city. The City has the responsibility to make sure that the basic needs of people living in poverty in Sudbury are met.     
      *
Table of Contents  

1) Introduction and Background information  

2) The June 17th ‘Consultation’ Meeting With Social Agencies.

3) The Survey and the “CHPI Community Partner Survey Report”

4) The Request For Decision – Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) Program Report, Oct. 9, 2013.

5). The Budget Process and the Finance and Administration Committee

6). Our discussions with and support work for people on OW and ODSP.

7)  How are other Municipalities Responding?

8) The City Must Maintain CSUMB Policies and Rates for CHPI Funding and associated discretionary funding

1) Introduction and Background information  

The Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty (S-CAP) is an anti-poverty activist group supporting the human rights and needs of people living in poverty in relation to Ontario Works (OW), the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), landlords, employers and working against homelessness. We do direct support work for people living in poverty and also organize and participate in campaigns against regressive government policies that hurt people living in poverty.  

The knowledge base we speak from is the direct support work we do with and for people living in poverty. We start with the needs of those most directly affected – in this case people living in poverty themselves. These are the people who must be centrally involved in any real decision making process that affects them. The City also has a direct responsibility to meet the needs of people on social assistance and those living in poverty more generally, especially as meeting these needs is abandoned by other levels of government.

The provincial government cut the mandatory and very vital Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) on January 1st 2013 as part of a broader austerity agenda. The CSUMB allowed people on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) to access $799 for individuals and $1,500 for people with children every two years for their community start up and maintenance needs. This funding allowed people on social assistance to prevent themselves from becoming homeless, to move, to set up a new home, to purchase necessities for their homes, to prevent their utilities or heating from being cut off, and to flee violent and abusive situations. This was a crucial benefit for people on social assistance. Under the CSUMB people who had already received funding in the last 24 months were also entitled to more funding under the exceptional circumstances clause if they encountered a flood, fire, bed-bug infestation, domestic violence or another housing or health-related emergency.

The provincial government cut this benefit on Jan. 1st 2013, but as a result of protests across the province (including the action that led to the arrest of the S-CAP 11 and that also included lobbying by municipalities including Sudbury), the provincial government moved $42 million in

one-time extra funding into the municipally administered Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) to assist in addressing people’s housing and maintenance needs. This still meant that a significantly lower amount of funding was being spread over trying to meet the needs of a larger number of people. As well, the resulting patchwork of different municipal programs that has emerged across the province since the end of the CSUMB has destroyed the universality of this social program. People on social assistance now get different amounts of support depending on where they live. This is another reason why the CSUMB needs to be restored.

In Sudbury OW has administered CHPI funding for people on OW, ODSP and other people living in poverty but no new program was put in place to respond to these needs. Luisa Valle, Director of Social Services for the City of Sudbury assured SCAP by e-mail in January 2013 that the new municipal “application process is the same and the amounts are consistent” with the previous CSUMB procedures. We soon found out this was not true. CHPI unlike the CSUMB was no longer a mandatory benefit and there was a split between CHPI funding proper and the associated discretionary funding that was no longer allocated on the basis of the CSUMB policies. In May we were informed that the amounts for exceptional circumstances funding would be drastically reduced from the CSUMB levels with only $200 for individuals (down from $799) and $300 for families (down from $1500). S-CAP sought out council's support then in raising the amounts but before the motion could be voted upon City Staff temporarily raised the amounts, pending a discussion with social agencies on June 17, a discussion that did not involve people living in poverty. Even though it was decided to maintain these rates until the end of March 2014 S-CAP has still had to support numerous people on OW and ODSP who have been refused CHPI funding by OW but who had fully justified claims. It is only with S-CAP’s support that these people have received the funding they are entitled to. And City staff  have proposed criteria for cutting back CHPI funding for those who need it after March 2014.

Below you will find our analysis of the ‘consultation’ process with some social agencies and the survey, report and recommendations that came out of it. You will also find our report on the focus group discussion we had with people on OW and ODSP to find out more about their CHPI funding needs and how other municipalities are taking on responsibility for funding these needs.  It is our firm position from talking to and working with people living in poverty that the only perspective that begins to meet the needs of people living in poverty in the City is to have CSUMB policies and rates maintained for CHPI and associated discretionary funding.  We urge you in the strongest possible terms on Dec. 4th to allocate funding for all of 2014 to ensure that community start up and homelessness prevention funding under CHPI can be maintained at CSUMB levels.  We return to this position in the concluding section of this report.  

2). The June 17th ‘Consultation’ Meeting With Social Agencies.

This was in our view a sham ‘consultation’ process since people living in poverty were not involved or consulted. The only people ‘consulted’ were some of the people in social agencies, who were then asked to rank their priorities in a follow-up survey which was to be used for establish priorities for both funding and cutting back on funding.

S-CAP held a community protest outside the venue of the “Community Agency Consultation” on CHPI on June 17th, 2013. This was to ensure that those attending this consultation between City Staff and a number of social agencies, who are often themselves dependent on City funding, heard the needs and concerns of people living in poverty directly. We also did a presentation inside as the only group there representing the needs and concerns of people living in poverty themselves on our position that the City needs to maintain CSUMB rates and policies for CHPI and associated discretionary funding. This means expanding the provisions of CHPI funding beyond simply preventing homelessness. Our presentation included the following:

“So far Sudbury OW and the City had interpreted CHPI funding very narrowly to almost entirely focus on the prevention of homelessness to the neglect of other housing needs. The needs of the homeless are crucial but CHPI and associated discretionary funding must also be available for:

1). People on social assistance moving to significantly improve their housing stability (ie for reduced rent, improved living accommodations etc.).

2). People moving to another town to be closer to work, for school, to live with family or another good reason must be eligible.

3). People on ODSP must still be entitled to disability specific items – things that they may need because of their disability that someone else wouldn’t (electric can openers, air purifiers, stepping stools, door openers, etc.) if what they need is not covered anywhere else.

4). People fleeing domestic abuse and imminent health hazards must be eligible for CHPI and associated discretionary funding. People needing to relocate as a result of domestic violence must be eligible to the full amount of funding, and this includes exceptional circumstances funding.  

5). Those who have to move as a result of a disability (moving to supportive housing, moving to a more accessible place, or somewhere that will better accommodate them) must still be eligible.  

6). The criteria for basic and for exceptional circumstances funding under CHPI must include circumstances where if people do not get it, it will be harmful to their health and welfare or that of their spouse or children.”

After our collective presentation and a brief discussion period most S-CAP members left since we did not want to participate in setting criteria on how funding to people living in poverty would be cut which was the clear agenda of the meeting. A few S-CAP members stayed behind as observers.  

An S-CAP observer who stayed behind reported that a number of people from social agencies disputed aspects of what City staff were claiming and a number said we should refuse all cuts in funding as we put pressure on the province to restore the CSUMB. Not everyone at this 'consultation' after people from S-CAP left agreed with this attempt to prioritize funding under CHPI that would lead to some needs not being met as provincial funding decreased. However, City staff  have proceeded as if there was unanimous agreement on this from the social agencies when this was not the case. These debates and discussions at the 'consultation' meeting are not visible at all in the survey or the reports that were based on it.

For instance, a number of individuals from various social agencies emphasized the importance of obtaining additional funding for this program.  However, this did not lead to any meaningful discussion on how this could be done.  The aim of this ‘consultation’ meeting from the start appeared to be trying to steer people into creating some list of things to cut under CHPI.  Nobody at the meeting expressed an opinion that some of the things covered under the CSUMB did not need to be covered under CHPI.

There was concern raised too about the priorities presented and the lack of inclusion of some important considerations.  Even though the City presented the “Housing First” approach vision for CHPI as a good thing that would “shift the focus of services over time from reactive responses to homelessness to services that focus on more proactive and permanent solutions,” it was pointed out that this was not likely to be the case.  Focusing on getting people into housing does not keep people housed.  The truly proactive approach would be to focus on the maintenance of good homes for people living in poverty.  It was pointed out by some that this supposed proactive aspect of the Housing First Strategy is contradicted by its focus on “crisis intervention and short-term stabilization.” When the core values of this system were presented, people expressed that this system needed to focus on sustaining housing and putting a stop to the “revolving door.” It was also expressed that the adequacy and safety of housing needs to be a focus as well.  But these important concerns raised at the ‘consultation’ were not reflected in the survey or in the reports based on it.

3)  The Survey and the “CHPI Community Partner Survey Report”

Following the ‘consultation’ a survey was sent to the social agencies that were present. This survey did not reflect all of the concerns raised at the ‘consultation’ by people from the social agencies that have just been mentioned and certainly did not reflect the presentation made by S-CAP. Again this was not sent to people living in poverty themselves – those who will be most directly affected by these decisions.

We undertook an analysis of this survey and it is clearly designed to produce criteria for cutting back on CHPI funding for 2014 and to move much further away from CSUMB rates and policies for this CHPI funding. Two assumptions are made at the beginning of the survey: a) that because of a loss of funding transfers from the province, there is less money for programs to prevent homelessness and to get people housed and b). since only one of the seven principles in the provincial CHPI guidelines addresses people’s needs (and then only very obliquely – ‘people centered’ does not necessarily indicate needs centered), the actual needs of people living in poverty are not the priority. The priority is the Housing First Approach. And the core values that it agues were endorsed at the ‘community consultation’ are articulated within this priority.

The survey clearly starts from the standpoint of the Provincial government and its policies and cutbacks on funding (including the cutting of the CSUMB) and not from the needs of people living in poverty and the homeless which is always our starting point. People living in poverty is not an expression found in the entire questionnaire. The survey does not include the option of demanding the reinstatement of the CSUMB from the province or more funding from the province or the city. At no time is there any consideration that more funds might be had, as from the City budget for example.  That option simply does not exist in the survey

This then allows the questionnaire to be narrowed, after question #2, to stay within the parameters of CHPI established by the Province to provide the two outcomes they stipulate: 1) that people who are homeless obtain and retain housing; 2) that people at risk of homelessness remain housed. The questionnaire actually reminds people at this point that CHPI funding is limited though it acknowledges funding may be available elsewhere for some of the options.

There is one brief mention of the cut to the CSUMB but there is no discussion of its character or of the possibility of maintaining its policies and amounts in the priorities for CHPI funding. There is no attempt to address the fact that people on OW/ODSP will have less supports with the loss of the community start-up. The survey then quickly shifts to the provincial guidelines for CHPI funding prior to the injection of the extra $42 million to the municipalities for one year in Dec. 2012 to assist in addressing CSUMB related needs. There was no commitment in the survey to people living in poverty having a social and human right to safe and affordable housing, the right to maintain a household and the right to move.The survey is entirely posed within the framework of existing CHPI guidelines and is not more broadly posed. Only four funding areas are mentioned (emergency homeless shelters, housing and related supports, other services and supports, and homelessness prevention). These are the four areas laid out and then respondents were asked to rank their priorities for funding in each of these categories.

There is also no obvious place to assert the need for exceptional circumstances funding and for addressing the needs of those fleeing violence and abuse. There is nothing in the questionnaire specifically addressing women and their children fleeing violent situations.  The ‘Emergency Shelter Solutions’ would cover presumably their initial shelter and support needs.  The options within the other three categories of the survey that address the move from shelter to housing would be the housing allowance attached to the person option  in the ‘Housing with Related Supports’ which seems to cover rent only, and the household set up option. Instead through a focus on prioritizing different programs and forms of funding the survey provides a recipe for cuts to existing funding and programming. The survey is clearly designed to develop priorities for funding under CHPI which with the assumed lower funding after March 2014 will become criteria for making cuts in support for people living in poverty.

In the report based on this survey  called the “CHPI Community Partner Survey Report” there is no mention of the previous CSUMB program and it claims social agencies (many of who rely on City funding) to be “community partners.” Again the missing community is people living in poverty themselves! The social agencies were surveyed “to identify priorities for administering the CHPI funding” not to determine how best to meet the needs of people living in poverty in Sudbury. Predictably the first two priorities the social agencies identified within the choices the survey gave them were priority one – emergency shelter solutions (which used to be an entirely different funding stream from the CSUMB) and priority two homelessness prevention funding. All the other needs that used to be addressed under the CSUMB are de-prioritzed. ‘Household Set-up’ is the option in ‘Housing with Related Supports’ relating to CSUMB-like priorities that deals with non-exceptional circumstances (transportation, furniture, last month’s rent, utility deposits). Since this category was given the least priority, it suggests housing literally means a roof over ones head for the purposes of CHPI.  Beds, fridges and stoves etc are not included. This is further confirmed in ‘Other Services and Supports’, the category listed as the third priority, which actually deals with exceptional circumstances such as fire, flood, and discharge from an institution.  To make matters worse these options are not even the ones chosen as the two top priorities within the category. Options that address the move from shelter into housing fall under the last priority for funding.

This report therefore provides criteria for funding which are at the same time criteria for not funding certain needs under CHPI if funding is decreased. And the report that City staff developed from this as far as we can determine did not go back to the social agencies involved in filling out the survey for discussion and revision prior to being presented to the Community Services Committee. This is why we characterize this as a sham consultation process designed to develop criteria for cutting back on support for homeless and poor people.

4) The Request For Decision – Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) Program Report, Oct. 9, 2013.

Based on this survey and report Gail Spencer and other City Staff prepared a report to the Community Services Committee for the meeting of Oct. 21, 2013 for a decision on CHPI funding. In this report the ‘consultation’ is referred to as a “community partner consultation” (and not a social agency consultation) and later even as a “community consultation” and the proposed recommendation “would direct staff to allocate funding ... based on the priorities determined” through this so called “community partner consultation.” The report clarifies that the priorities for funding will be “emergency shelter solutions and homelessness prevention” and as a result these will be the priorities for CHPI funding. It will only be if “other funding opportunities become available” that funding will be allocated to “the priorities based on the community ranking.” It is clear that if “there is a reduction in the funding received ... the corresponding reduction will be administered to the program to ensure allocations within budgetary guidelines.” These are the operative clauses in the report and since there is no request for more City funding (unless more funding comes through from the province which there are no signs of at present) this is recipe for cuts to vital support for people in poverty. In other words after March 2014 if no new provincial funding becomes available these criteria will be used to cut back on badly needed funding for people living in poverty. When it comes to housing with supports which includes funds for household set up the report states it is only “Where funding is available, [that] rent supplement and housing allowance programs will continue to be supported.” The possible forms of funding outlined do not include many of the previously mentioned areas that were covered under the CSUMB. This will be unacceptable to people living in poverty in Sudbury!  If these cuts go through this will also mean that people in Sudbury will be able to access less funding than people in other municipalities across the province. Do people in Sudbury deserve less than elsewhere?   

At the community services committee on Oct. 21st committee members Claude Berthiaume and Joe Cimino were successful in getting everything recommended in this report but the section mandating the sending of another letter to the province asking for the reinstatement of the CSUMB deferred to the budget decision making process where CHPI funding will also be discussed. Furthermore, City staff were directed to meet with members of S-CAP (which happened on Nov. 21st) and to consult with some of the people they had not involved in their ‘consultation’ – that is people on OW and ODSP -- about their CHPI needs.

5). The Budget Process and the Finance Committee

Last June 18th S-CAP made a presentation to the City budget process asking for more City funding to be allocated to CHPI funding to maintain CHPI policies and funding at CSUMB levels for 2014. On Sept. 17th the Finance and Administration Committee decided to move CHPI funding into Appendix A the category that can be considered for more City funding in 2014. This report is part of our input into this budget making process. We would have looked forward to being able to make a presentation as part of this process on the urgent need for City funding to maintain CHPI funding levels for 2014.   

6). Our discussions with and support work for people on OW and ODSP.

On Oct. 21st the Community Services Committee requested responses from people on OW and ODSP to what they want to see covered in CHPI funding. People have approached S-CAP for CHPI funding support since the beginning of 2013 for household appliances, beds, furniture, for last month’s rent, and prevention of becoming homeless. We have supported a number of exceptional circumstances applications for those who were forced into homelessness and those in health and other emergency circumstances.

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.     

We note than a number of these needs conflict with the priorities City staff have established for CHPI funding in 2014. Since City staff  have not yet been able to respond to the directive coming from the Community Services Committee on Oct. 21st for consultation with people on OW and ODSP about their needs and concerns this S-CAP focus group information was given to Luisa Vale and Gail Spencer at the meeting we had with them on Nov. 21st.   

7) How are Other Municipalities Responding?

Many municipalities, unlike Sudbury, responded to the impending cut to the CSUMB on Jan. 1st 1, 2013 by setting up their own replacement funds (like the Housing Stabilization Fund in Toronto) with municipal funding to ensure that people’s community start up needs were met. Most of them have generally maintained CSUMB rates and policies for people living in poverty. Many of them used the extra $42 million gained from opposition to the cut to the CSUMB to enhance these programs. Like anti-poverty groups many municipalities (including Sudbury) have been calling for the reinstatement of the provincial CSUMB program. Many municipalities and antipoverty groups have in the meantime also been asking for the extra $42 million to be put back into CHPI and related funding for 2014 and for later years. But so far there is no sign of any movement from the Liberal provincial government on these matters. We have to operate on the assumption for now that no new provincial funding is coming for 2014.

It has been hard to collect information on how other municipalities are responding given that many of them are behind Sudbury in their budgetary discussions and decision making processes. But this is what we do know:

Hamilton: The City is stepping in to cover the shortfall from provincial funding cuts for community start up and homelessness prevention programs. It is dipping into its reserves for homelessness prevention funding and to add emergency shelter beds. The emergency and community services committee has endorsed tapping reserves in 2014 to cover an expected $2.1-million shortfall in homelessness prevention funding. This will include $1.5 million for the Housing Stability Benefit (their municipal replacement program for the CSUMB).

Niagara:  Niagara Region’s Housing Stability Plan (their region’s replacement for the CSUMB), introduced last year for a one-year period, will be continued on a permanent basis with regional funding support. The region has made a permanent commitment to support for community start up and homelessness prevention needs.

Peterborough:Final decisions have not yet been made but so far they are projecting that their Housing Stability Fund (HSF, their municipal replacement program for the CSUMB) which now sits at $800,000 for 2014 should be set at $1 million for next year. On Nov. 25th City Council decided to add in another $150,000 for the HSF from Social Services Reserves.

Toronto:The major budget deliberations are just starting. But both the Community Development and Recreation Committee and City Council have announced their commitment to maintain the Housing Stabilization Fund (their municipal replacement program) after the extra $42 million runs out at the end of March, with significant municipal funding.  

As can be seen many municipalities are taking up their responsibility to people living in poverty as the provincial government is abandoning them. We urge the City of Greater Sudbury to also take up this responsibility.

8) The City Must Maintain CSUMB Policies and Rates for CHPI Funding and associated discretionary funding

Our position is that CSUMB polices and rates must continue to exit for CHPI funding and that the City must ensure the allocation for 2014 after the end of March is at the very least the amount of funding allocated for the equivalent period in 2013 from both the province and the City. This is necessary since the province has not renewed the $42 million for 2014 and the City has a direct social responsibility to support people living in poverty. We do know that in 2012 the provincial CSUMB funding that the City received was $2,034,643 and prior to the announcement of the extra $42 million for 2013 the City was only to receive only $755, 042 in 2013. The difference here is close to $1.3 million. But the City received more than this from the province in 2013 and we are not entirely sure how much the City is projected to receive for these needs from the province in 2014.  

At this point we are unable to attach a dollar amount to this request since we are not privy to the financial figures of the City and we do not know exactly how much has been spent on CHPI in 2013. While we have requested these figures from City staff but they have not been forthcoming. But we argue that the City must ensure that at the very least an equal amount of funding is available to meet people’s needs in 2014 as in 2013.

This CHPI funding must also conform to CSUMB policies and rates and cover not only those in direct danger of homelessness but also people on social assistance moving to significantly improve their housing stability (ie for reduced rent, improved living accommodations etc.); people moving to another town to be closer to work, for school, to live with family or another good reason; people on ODSP who need disability specific items – things that they may need because of their disability -- if what they need is not covered anywhere else; people fleeing imminent health hazards; and circumstances where if people do not get it, it will be harmful to their health and welfare or that of their spouse or children. This would mean funding available to assist in preventing homelessness, paying moving costs, to replace essential furniture, pay rent or hydro arrears and to be safe from abusive relationships.

We are thereby requesting that the city allocate municipal resources to make up the gap left by provincial funding cuts so as to be able to continue offering Sudbury's poorest residents at least the same assistance that they had in 2013. Think of this funding as an investment in people and our community. Think of it as an economic stimulus package as it will be spent locally as soon as it is received. Think of is as a way of reducing poverty related health care costs. Think of is as our social responsibility, but take very seriously the need to support Sudbury residents with community start up and maintenance needs.

For too many people it would mean the difference between hardship and homelessness with all the related personal and societal costs associated with that and maintaining a home. Provincial and municipal budgets must not be balanced on the backs of the poor. Regardless of the outcome S-CAP will continue to actively support people living in poverty so that their needs get addressed.

 Please contact SCAP for more information at 249-878-7227 or at sudburycap@gmail.com