Basic income program gave people enough to improve themselves
Einstein apparently never defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Someone else did.
Regardless of who said it, the sentiment applies nicely to the Ford government’s approach to poverty reduction.
Their plan is simple: Kill the basic income pilot, halve expected increases and take 100 days to develop a “sustainable Social Assistance program that focuses on helping people lift themselves out of poverty.”
A hundred days to reform social assistance? Give me a break.
I have seen this movie before. I even had a front-row seat. I had the privilege of serving as minister of community and social services, and was notionally in charge of Ontario’s broken and Byzantine system of social assistance. One program for those with disabilities (ODSP) and one for those in dire straits with nowhere else to turn (Ontario Works).
As with every minister before me, I was charged with “fixing” social assistance. I was told that our programs were too expensive and did little to transform people’s lives. I attended countless briefings, met with a slew of stakeholders and received several expert reports. And, although there was much thoughtful work, the magic bullet never appeared. In fact, when I saw reports prepared for previous ministers, I discovered many of the same ideas repeated over and over again.
Why is reform so difficult?
Mainly because we can’t agree on the purpose of social assistance.
Is it about compassion? Is this about an incredibly wealthy society determining that everyone deserves a safe place to sleep, decent food and the bare essentials of life? Or is this about creating opportunity? Should social assistance programs provide those struggling with the tools to break out of their situation, even if it requires a bit of tough love?
As we never have that conversation, the system tries to do both, with poor results. We offer financial assistance to those in need, but in order to discourage applicants, make sure that it is not enough to make a difference. We offer programs and services to help people transition to employment but maintain a whole raft of rules to catch cheaters and layabouts, which often act as a perverse disincentive to finding a job.
And every government tinkers and fiddles with the programs ending up with the same results — a system that doesn’t adequately support recipients or serve as a solid platform to have them move on.
It is hard to be minister and not have Einstein’s non-quote ringing through your ears.
That is what was so exciting about the basic income pilot. It was not doing the same thing over and over again.
The premise was simple. It recognized that people tend to be poor because they don’t have enough money. It asked what would happen if we eliminated most of the confusing and sometimes draconian rules of our current system and simply provided those living in poverty with adequate income to allow them to improve their lives.
Of course there are fairness issues. Of course there will be the odd lazy person who is undeserving of support. But as early reports from the field have shown, some of them published in this newspaper, the extra support has already begun to transform people’s lives. Men and women who were living in dire circumstances have been able to find stable housing, eat properly and, in some cases, pursue learning opportunities as a first step to employment.
Before concluding whether a basic income program is the answer, we need to assess the results of the pilot and consider different program designs. That is why the former government set aside three years to watch it play out.
I don’t envy Lisa MacLeod, the new minister in charge. She is about to review the same reports and attend the same briefings as I did and discover that most of the solutions on offer are far from new and won’t work.