Ready To Do Better - ARCHDIOCESE OF KINGSTON AND PEACE/Task Force... · Ready To Do Better The...

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty

“Poverty is the condition of a human being who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to

acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate integration and

participation in society”

Province of Quebec, Bill 112, An Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion

Cover Photo: Courtesy of the Elizabeth Fry Society Of Kingston

Final Report – October 2007 ii


A Word of Thanks The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty has enjoyed a tremendous level of cooperation, assistance and good will as it has pursued its mandate. We extend our sincerest thanks to the entire community. We’d like to offer a special thanks to those named below, and an apology to anyone whose name we’ve inadvertently omitted. Mayor Harvey Rosen Bill Payne Betsy Donald Alice Gazeley Alec Ross S. Sherry Sharna Sugarman Benjamin Chen Craig Jones Linda Cassidy Andrew Robbins Frances Raven Lisa Finateri Dianne Sharpe Marty Schreiter Shelley Sayle-Udall P. Hodge Michele Harvey Bryan Metcalfe Daniel J. Dionne Pete Beattie Sherri Nelson John Queenan Nancy Burtch Amanda Munro Darlene Barrowman Rick Whitcomb Michele Cole Sue Hendler Shera Buchholz Cindy Downey Daphnee Aalders Michelle Hudgin Cristin Strong Michael Cummings Carol M. Paradis June Dornan George Biro Sharon Buffett Jim Gordanier Bonnie Ferguson Patrick Wallace Jennifer Lindsey Michael Curtis Volker Busse

Laurie McKnight K3C Counselling Chris Dow Margaret Baird Amy Paauw John Palmer Marijana Matovic Stephen Fox Jen Zuiderveen Ray Snyder Sheila Bond Darlene Johnson Terri Fleming Kim McCormick Sister Pauline Lally John Osborne Harlee Scott Lily Inglis George Upchurch Helen Finley Helen Maberley Wendy Christoper Trish Crawford Bill Crowe Helen Crowe Peggy Malcolm Rob Grice Sister Joan Kalchbrenner Julia Lebedeva Glen Laubenstein Lance Thurston Adèle Lafrance Glenn Stresman Dan Norman Bhavana Varma Roland Billings Dave Remington Judy MacGillivary Ruth Mott Ian Ritchie Elizabeth MacDonald Kevin Smith Bruce Hutchins Suzanne McGurn Rene Baines

Brian Brophy Carynne Arnold Diana Ingster Stephanie Atwood Melanie Steers Ann Armstrong Eva Purkey Jeffrey Lowes Sacha Clarke-Squair Mike Storm Lynn Tooke Social Issues Network Sandra Berg Jo McAlpine Sally Barnes Kathy Wood Kim Carquez Marian Burdsall Dale Vinkle Steve Alls Greg Grange Jennifer Barnhart Theresa Greenwood Sarah Withrow Jamie Swift Elizabeth Cashman Charmaine Burrows Geoff Coons Kate Black Melissa Hurley Laretta Parkinson Eliza McCoubrey Monique Brooks Wayne Westfall Linda Stevens Pam Havery Holly White Jody Riddle Paul Sequin Anthony Steel Jim Stevens Mary Goldberg Amanda Horoway Candie Abreu Christine McMillan

Final Report – October 2007 iii


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................1 Background ..........................................................................................1 Findings................................................................................................1 Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction ....................................2 Summary of Recommendations...........................................................3 Recommendations .....................................................................................6 Doing Better: The Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction .......6 Doing Better: Task Force Recommendations ......................................7 Background to Recommendations ...........................................................16 A Community Divided.........................................................................16 The Root Causes of Poverty ..............................................................22 The Community’s Response to Poverty.............................................24 The Communal Cost of Poverty .........................................................31 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................34 Appendix A – Text of the Mayor’s Task Force Announcement ..............A-1 Appendix B – Public Consultation Details ..............................................B-1 Tables and Diagrams Figure 1 – Average Family Income by Kingston Neighbourhood.............18 Figure 2 – Low Income Cutoffs for 2001 and 2005 ..................................19 Figure 3 – Incidence of Low Income in Kingston (2001) ..........................19 Figure 4 – What Kingstonians Earn .........................................................20 Figure 5 – A High-Level View of the Social Services Funding Allocation 26 Figure 6 – Average Rental Rates for the City of Kingston .......................27 Figure 7 – 2007 Funding Distribution to 3rd Party Agencies (Extract) ......28 A Note on Terminology We use the term “community” extensively throughout our report. Unless otherwise qualified, our reference is to the society encompassing the full population of the City of Kingston.

Final Report – October 2007 iv

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Mayor Rosen announced the formation of the Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty in early March 2007, asking it to convene a permanent, inclusive community roundtable to serve in a planning and advisory capacity on poverty-related issues. In addition, the Mayor asked the Task Force to assess the community’s current response to poverty and to provide recommendations on how that response might be improved locally and/or through lobbying for change at senior levels of government.

Poverty is the price the Kingston

community pays for its economic,

geographic, ideological, and organizational

divides

With funding provided by the Community Foundation of Greater Kingston, the Task Force has been co-chaired by Kingston Community Health Centres Executive Director Hersh Sehdev and Partners in Mission Food Bank Executive Director Sandy Singers. Filling out the group is organizational consultant Rose Mercier, Home Base Housing Program Manager Bill Crosier, and Councillor Rob Hutchison. Findings The Task Force’s summary finding is simple: Poverty is the price the Kingston community pays for its economic, geographic, ideological, and organizational divides. The cost to the community is in human life and potential, tens of millions of dollars annually, and untold lost opportunity. Poverty alleviation alone is not good enough; we must pursue poverty reduction. The success of a community-wide poverty reduction initiative is almost entirely dependent on the community’s willingness to learn to work better together. Our report title, “Ready To Do Better,” reflects our certainty that the community is anxious to move past its traditional patterns of behaviour in the shared interest of reducing poverty, and is eager for leadership in doing so. Our title also implicitly acknowledges and honours the many blessings that provide a solid launch point for the journey the community is about to undertake. We’re in an exciting period of growth and prosperity. We have an abundance of assets and resources to work with. Already, across the city and across the spectrum of human services, we have many positive, critically important activities and initiatives that safeguard and foster quality of life and the overall health of the community. And yet… If “community” is to have any meaning, we must surely embrace our responsibility for a diabetic neighbour who undergoes a double amputation, is released from hospital, and returns that night to a mattress on the floor of an emergency shelter.

Final Report – October 2007 1

The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better If “community” is to have any meaning, we must surely embrace our responsibility for a pregnant neighbour who sits alone in an empty house, judiciously conserving her only food: a loaf of bread. And if “community” is to have any meaning, we must surely embrace our responsibility for the 17 percent of our neighbours – one-sixth of our “community” – who subsist below our de facto poverty line, and who stand an excellent chance of continuing to do so unless we truly are ready to do better.

As a critical first step in

doing better, the Task

Force has convened an

inclusive Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction

Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction As a critical first step in doing better, the Task Force – as mandated – has convened an inclusive Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction. Scheduled to meet for the first time on November 1st, this 24-member body will offer the community the extraordinary (i.e. transitional) leadership capacity it requires in mounting an effective poverty-reduction campaign. The Task Force will be asking the Roundtable to move quickly in establishing meaningful poverty reduction targets, and to then hold the community accountable for their achievement. Moreover, the Roundtable must develop an in-depth understanding of all facets of poverty in the local community – the problem and the community’s response – such that it can function credibly as a knowledge-base, think tank, facilitator, and lens through which the impact of public policy decisions on the poor can be assessed. Several of our recommendations – outlined on pages 7 through 15 – suggest specific activities the Roundtable will undertake in fulfilling its role. Best practices in other Canadian cities (e.g. Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, etc.) tell us that the Roundtable: • Must be owned by the broad community and not under the control of

one or two agencies. • As a facilitator, it pursues its objectives through other agencies and

organizations. • Its life-expectancy should be finite. Its general evaluation processes

should contemplate a wind down or major repurposing of the initiative in the three- to five-year range in response to the changing needs of the community.

• It must have a stable base of core funding. We’ve estimated this at $130,000 per year, allocated principally for a staff of two.

Discussions continue with a partnership of four local agencies – including the City of Kingston – to provide a base of financial and administrative support for the Roundtable. Our recommendations include a call on Council to approve a three-year contribution to the initiative.

2 Final Report - October 2007

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Summary of Recommendations While compelling, the notion of a Task Force delivering a road map to poverty eradication is unrealistic. If poverty were that easy, it wouldn’t be an issue. We’ve focused our recommendations on poverty reduction “ends” statements. By doing so, our hope is that, in lieu of a map, we’ve equipped the community with a compass for the learning journey ahead. At a “structural” level in the community, our two most fundamental recommendations call on the City’s Department of Community and Family Services and the Kingston Economic Development Corporation (KEDCO) to take a significantly more prominent leadership role in championing inclusive quality of life in the community. We invite rigour around these expanded roles by calling for the inclusion of community performance measures in each organization’s performance evaluation.

Addressing complex human

need with a complicated bureaucratic

system creates an environment

that is unhealthy for the recipient

and administrator

alike

We ask Community and Family Services to move beyond the interests and dictates of senior levels of government, to truly become this community’s lead social services agency. In fact, we go further: we ask the department to position Kingston on the leading edge of innovation in social services programming and delivery. It’s a long way from here to there, and “there” is almost certainly best defined by the department itself. We can only suggest a couple of preliminary steps. • We ask the department to lead the community in knitting together the

web of strategies (e.g. housing, childcare, transportation, food access, employment, etc.) that will constitute our poverty-reduction strategy – if not our community development / sustainability strategy.

• We ask the department – with Council – to push back on senior levels

of government so that we can move away from the social welfare “tattered patchwork” to coherent funding of our locally-defined strategic priorities.

• Addressing complex human need with a complicated bureaucratic

system creates an environment that is unhealthy for the recipient and administrator alike. We ask the department to undertake a comprehensive service review to ensure that its leadership in meeting local needs is reflected in respectful, dignified, and accommodating interactions with members of the community.

We ask KEDCO to expand its role by taking on the challenge of managing and upgrading the local labour force in order to maximize and exploit employment opportunities that minimally provide a living wage for community residents.


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better We ask KEDCO to undertake an asset inventory of the community, with immediate priority given to lower-income neighbourhoods, and that this inventory informs a multi-year labour force strategy. We recognize that KEDCO routinely faces the challenge of employers not being able to find qualified staff, even while we have an issue with unemployment. We ask KEDCO to bring daylight to this situation – to lead the community through this apparent paradox.

We ask Community and Family Services to undertake a

comprehensive service review

At the level of the individual, our recommendations call for the community to adopt several principles that, taken together, could be viewed as a resident’s bill of rights. In all cases, we see community adoption beginning with a resolution of Council. Our principle-centred recommendations are: • The community adopts the principle of a living wage for all employees

(this is currently identified as $10.25 per hour). We call on Council to lobby the province for speedier implementation of a living wage. We also call on the Roundtable to engage the business community in a program of voluntary adoption of this principle – as has been done in other communities (e.g. Kitchener-Waterloo).

• The community adopts the principle of a living income benefit for

those receiving an Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program benefit (this is currently identified as 1995 levels with an appropriate cost of living adjustment). We call on Council to lobby the province for a return to a living income benefit.

• The community adopts the principle that all residents are entitled to be

treated with dignity and respect. As noted, we ask Community and Family Services to undertake a comprehensive service review, including consideration of the design of the service area at 362 Montreal Street.

• The community adopts the principle that all residents have the right to

safe, adequate housing. We call for implementation of the City’s housing strategy, rigourous enforcement of property standards by-laws, a review of the building code to look for opportunities for building more affordable adequate housing, and mixed-housing initiatives that foster better neighbourhood integration.


quality childcare. We call for development of a childcare strategy that ensures affordable childcare is available in the quantity, locations, and times needed to support overall community development.


food. We call for development of a food strategy that ensures all residents have access to a food retail outlet. We call on the City to



become an active partner in community gardens. We call on the Roundtable to engage community partners in establishing food preparation and cooking classes throughout the community.


access parks and recreation. We call on the City’s Culture and Recreation department to develop a strategy for community-wide access to practical, affordable recreation. We ask the department to consider the impact of user fees on lower-income residents, support of youth programs such as the Church Athletic League, and re-purposing of neighbourhood arenas. We call on the City to rehabilitate beaches and facilities at Lake Ontario Park, Richardson Beach, and Doug Fluhrer Park.

Without effective

partnerships and

collaborations, many of our recommend-

ations are little more than pie-

in-the-sky

The balance of our recommendations calls for: • Recognition of Kingston Transit’s potential role as a poverty-reduction

asset. Longer term poverty reduction might call for unconventional approaches to transit fares, routes and schedules.

• Additional resources and the pursuit of better coherence in the human

services network in order to serve the vulnerable. This includes a call for a community-wide health strategy that ensures all residents have access to medical, mental, and dental health services. It also includes a call for development of a strategy around access to affordable legal services.

• Pursuit of an equitable property tax system, particularly regarding the

payment of grants on land holdings of senior levels of government. Virtually none of our recommendations can be pursued by a lone person or lone organization. Without effective partnerships and collaborations, many of our recommendations are little more than pie-in-the-sky. And so we conclude by reiterating: the success of a community-wide poverty reduction initiative is almost entirely dependent on the community’s willingness to work better together. Working better together involves a willingness to experiment; a tolerance for imperfection, mistakes and failure; and a steadfast commitment to making Kingston a more inclusively-healthy, sustainable community.


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better RECOMMENDATIONS NOTE: The Task Force was mandated by the Mayor to convene the Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction, rather than simply providing recommendations on its structure, mission, etc. This planning and advisory body is instrumental in our recommendations. We therefore open our Recommendations section with a discussion of the Roundtable. Doing Better: The Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction As a critical first step in doing better, the Task Force – as mandated – has convened an inclusive Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction. Scheduled to meet for the first time on November 1st, this 24-member body will offer the community the extraordinary (i.e. additional) leadership capacity it requires in mounting an effective poverty-reduction campaign.

The Roundtable

must establish meaningful

targets for local poverty

reduction and hold the

community accountable for achieving them

The role of the Roundtable is two-fold. • It is expected to develop an in-depth understanding of all facets of

poverty in the local community – the problem and the community’s response – such that it can function credibly as a knowledge-base or think tank, offering expertise in the community’s efforts to reduce poverty and its impacts.

• Moreover, in its capacity as a visionary leader, the Roundtable must

establish meaningful targets for local poverty reduction and hold the community accountable for achieving them.

Consistent with a servant-leader model, we anticipate the Roundtable will conduct its work with and through existing community agencies and organizations. In essence, its value to the community will be its ability to step back to see the forest for the trees, and to make that perspective available to the community. Although it is convened as a permanent body, we foresee a major review and renewal or possible wind down of the initiative at the three- to five-year mark, depending on the interests of the community. The Roundtable will be composed of twenty-four members appointed for three-year terms (initially staggered in equal lots of one, two and three-years) and consisting of: • Six members who have experienced poverty in the community • Six members who represent program/service delivery agencies and

organizations in the community and can speak to the experience of those serving people living in poverty

• Twelve community leaders and champions whose vision, commitment and influence are noted for making a difference in this community.


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty As a group, the Roundtable will reflect the following qualities: • Demonstrated knowledge and/or experience of community needs as

related to poverty issues • Detailed knowledge and/or experience of local services and programs • Background in exploring issues • Comfort in working with varied information, ranging from abstract

ideas through budgets and numbers • Confidence and credibility in representing varied interests in a

community-based committee environment • Leadership, independent thought, and a willingness to consider risk • Excellent one-on-one communications skills and strong community

networking abilities. Newspapers, the city’s website and other communications media were used to advertise for applications and nominations to the Roundtable. As a group, the Task Force developed and applied an evaluation process that dictated the selection of Roundtable members.

Poverty reduction in Kingston is

dependent on how the

community chooses to set

aside its divisions to

work together in addressing a

problem that costs us all

The Roundtable requires resources to fulfill its mandate, estimated at $130,000 per year. Discussions continue with a partnership of four local agencies – including the City of Kingston – to provide a base of financial and administrative support for the Roundtable. Our recommendations include a call on Council to approve a three-year contribution to the initiative. Doing Better: Task Force Recommendations While compelling, the notion of a task force delivering a road map to poverty eradication is unrealistic. If poverty were that easy, it wouldn’t be an issue. We do identify some “to dos” in our recommendations, but we cannot overstate our conviction that poverty reduction in Kingston is dependent on how the community chooses to set aside its divisions to work together in addressing a problem that costs us all. The City of Hamilton’s poverty roundtable adopted an operating principle of “no blame” as a means of keeping its initiative looking forward rather than back. This may be an excellent example for Kingston to follow. What advances we might make in social cohesion and quality of life if, through discipline if not instinct, we put aside distrust and criticism in favour of actively supporting a community-wide bid for a more inclusively-healthy, sustainable future. The Task Force recommends that:


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better The community develops its poverty reduction leadership capacity. To this end, we recommend: • In conjunction with convening partners in the community, City Council

approves three-year funding of the Community Roundtable on Poverty Reduction.

• The Roundtable gives immediate priority to the development of

poverty reduction targets and timelines, tied to an ongoing evaluation process.

• Council supports by resolution poverty reduction targets and timelines

developed by the Roundtable. • Community and Family Services’ mandate be expanded to

encompass leadership in understanding and addressing the social services needs of the local community.

• Community and Family Services be allocated the resources and the

responsibility to develop and/or compile and/or consolidate in conjunction with the community the web of strategies that constitute the community’s overall poverty-reduction/community development plan. These include, but may not be limited to, strategies around housing, childcare, food security, transportation, employment, and health.

• Community and Family Services be evaluated on the community’s

performance against these strategies. Poverty reduction be considered part of overall community and economic development and sustainability. To this end, we recommend: • KEDCO be made accountable for local labour force performance. This

includes but is not limited to labour force participation and employment quality as measured by employee earnings, benefits, duration of employment, and employment type (full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal).

• KEDCO investigates best practices in providing greater career

opportunities for those employed in lower-waged retail and service sector jobs.

• KEDCO develop a comprehensive community asset inventory. Initial

emphasis must be on assets in the lower-income neighbourhoods of the city, the inventory will include such assets as available education and skill levels, available non-parenting hours, available mobility, available capital for investment, etc.


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty • KEDCO produce a multi-year labour force strategy. The strategy will

be based on the asset inventory and will be inclusive of the full community.

• KEDCO be evaluated on the community’s performance against this

strategy.

The community invests in a comprehensive understanding of the issue of poverty. To this end, we recommend: • In conjunction with community partners and under the leadership of

the Social Planning Council, the Roundtable continues to support the proposed development of a community social profile. This profile should include indicators that constitute how the community will measure poverty. The initial profile should serve as a baseline measurement of poverty. This profile should be regularly updated. The Community

should adopt the principles of

a living wage for income

earners and living income

benefit for social welfare

recipients

• The Roundtable pursues with Queen’s University and other

community stakeholders the opportunity to initiate a research project into the root causes of poverty in this community.

• The City allocates resources to, at a minimum, update the City’s

Neighbourhood Profiles with 2006 Census Data. Opportunities should be pursued to incorporate these profiles and a community social profile.

• The Roundtable continues to explore and document the community’s

response to poverty, making this knowledge base available to the community. Who is doing what and how much is being spent by whom will form the basic knowledge base needed to enhance the community’s poverty alleviation and reduction strategies.

The community adopts the principle of a living wage for all employees (this is currently identified as $10.25 per hour). To this end, we recommend: • Council supports by resolution the principle that full-time employees

are entitled to a living wage. • Council lobbies the province for speedy implementation of a living

wage. • Council and the Roundtable encourage the local business community

to voluntarily adopt a living minimum wage and other community development-friendly human resource practices (resource material in this regard is available through the Vibrant Communities initiative).


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better The community adopts the principle of a living income benefit for those receiving an Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program benefit (this is currently identified as 1995 levels with an appropriate cost of living adjustment).To this end, we recommend:

• Council supports by resolution the principle that Ontario Works and

Ontario Disability Support Program benefits be returned to a living income level

• Council lobbies the province for implementation of a living income

benefit for Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program benefit recipients.

• Council lobbies the province for an end to the clawback of the federal

child tax benefit. Kingston should

position itself on the leading

edge of innovation in

social services

programming and delivery

Kingston position itself on the leading edge of innovation in social services programming and service delivery. To this end, we recommend: • Through the Roundtable, Kingston aligns itself with the Vibrant

Communities Pan-Canadian Learning Partnership. • The Roundtable act as a coordinating body for information to help

advance the mutual causes of Kingston and its Municipalities United for a New Deal (MUND) partners in lobbying on poverty issues with senior levels of government.

• Council and Community and Family Services lobby the province to

establish Kingston as a pilot site for increased local authority in social services spending as a means of reforming the current one-size-fits all approach.

• In the short term, Community and Family Services consolidate

multiple flow-through funding streams into strategic streams (e.g. housing, childcare, etc) that lessen administrative demands on delivery agencies.

• In the longer term, Council lobbies the province to consolidate multiple

streams of funding into strategic categories (e.g. housing, childcare, income subsidy, etc.) that allow the community to pursue (i.e. fund) made-at-home strategies.

• In conjunction with the education community, the Roundtable pursues

opportunities for the provision of adult education and remedial education programs after-hours in neighbourhood schools.

• The Roundtable pursues opportunities for the provision of support and

expansion of existing early intervention programs such as Better



Beginnings and Success by Six, and to implement innovative programs such as Toronto’s Regent Park Pathways to Education.

Planning processes and frameworks consider the needs of all citizens and opportunities for community development. To this end, we recommend: • Council and City administration use the Roundtable as a lens for

viewing the impact of public policy decisions and practices on low-income residents of the community, and opportunities for poverty reduction and community development.

• The Roundtable formalize the lens function by developing and making

available to the community a planning review tool/procedure that allows the impact of public policy decisions and practices on low-income residents to be assessed in a fast, efficient, and accurate manner. The

Roundtable should be

used as a lens for viewing the

impact of public policy

decisions and practices on low-income

resident

• The Roundtable investigates the use of tools and methods to assist

the community in putting a human face on poverty. • Planning decisions be aligned with and guided by the web of poverty

reduction-related strategies referenced throughout these recommendations (e.g. strategies for housing, childcare, transportation, the labour force, etc).

The community adopts the principle that all residents are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. To this end, we recommend: • Council supports by resolution the principle that all residents are

entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. • Community and Family Services initiates a service-enhancement

review that emphasizes the importance of respect, dignity, privacy, and accurate and helpful information in dealing with all residents of the city, and that these values are incorporated into the mission statement of the department.

• The design of the service area at 362 Montreal Street and its

attendant procedures, be reviewed in terms of respect, dignity and privacy afforded residents of the city.

• Unique and creative opportunities be pursued to enhance service

accessibility through outreach initiatives (e.g. one-stop satellite service offices, mobile offices, etc.).


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better • Community and Family Services be allocated the resources to

identify/develop and implement best practices in holistic approaches to social services delivery.

• The Roundtable initiate a poverty-reduction public awareness

campaign that educates the community on the issue of poverty and its costs to all resident, endeavours to eradicate the stigma associated with it, and engages the community in a campaign to reduce poverty and its impacts.

The community adopts the principle that all residents have the right to safe, adequate housing. To this end, we recommend:

• Council supports by resolution the principle that all residents have the

right to safe, adequate housing.

A public awareness campaign is needed to

educate the community on the issue of

poverty and to eradicate the

stigma associated

with it

• Council approves the required resources to ensure rigorous and uniform enforcement of the City’s property and housing standards by-laws within the City’s boundaries.

• Council and the Roundtable support implementation of the City’s

housing strategy. • In conjunction with the City’s Building Department and the local

construction industry, Council lobbies the province for building code amendments that promote construction of affordable, adequate housing.

• In conjunction with the City’s Planning Department, Queen’s

University and St. Lawrence College, Council seek opportunities for mixed-housing initiatives that better integrate neighbourhoods and increases rental housing stock in the city core.

The community adopts the principle that all residents have the right to quality childcare. To this end, we recommend:


right to quality childcare. • As a component of the community’s web of poverty reduction

strategies, Community and Family Services develop a community-wide childcare strategy that ensures that affordable childcare is available in the quantity, locations, and times (e.g. after-hours) required to support community development.


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty The community adopts the principle that all residents have the right to food. To this end, we recommend:


right to food. • As a component of the community’s web of poverty reduction

strategies, Community and Family Services develop a food-access strategy that ensures the City’s planning processes are informed by required locations for food retail outlets.

• The Roundtable supports the efforts currently underway by local meal

and food providers to ensure the community’s needs are being fully met in an effective manner.

• The City becomes an active partner in the development of community

gardens. • The Roundtable works with community partners to establish food

preparation and cooking classes throughout the community.

The community adopts the principle that all residents have the right to access parks and recreation. To this end, we recommend: • Council supports by resolution the principle that all residents have the

right to access parks and recreation. • The City’s Culture and Recreation department take the lead in

developing a community-wide recreation strategy that ensures that practical, affordable, and accessible recreation – including open greenspace - is available to all residents of the community.

• As part of its community strategy, Parks and Recreation consider the

impact on lower-income residents of user fees at City facilities (e.g. pools, rinks, etc.)

• As part of its community strategy, Parks and Recreation consider

ongoing support of youth programs such as Pro-Kids, the Church Athletic League, day and summer camps.

• The City undertakes rehabilitation of the beaches and facilities at Lake

Ontario Park, Richardson Beach, and Doug Fluhrer Park. • “Re-purposing” of neighbourhood arenas be considered in light of the

impact on neighbourhood youth of the withdrawal of recreational facilities and programs.


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better The community fosters its human services network to support the needs of the vulnerable. To this end, we recommend: • Council lobby senior levels of government for greatly enhanced

mental health programs and services. • The Roundtable serve as the communications and facilitation

infrastructure, or hub, for informal collaboration and coordination of human services delivery in the community.

• The Roundtable work with community stakeholders and partners,

including the Local Health Integration Network and the Kingston District Dental Society, in developing a community health strategy that ensures all residents have access to basic medical, mental, and dental health services. A community

health strategy is required to ensure that all residents have access to basic

medical, mental, and dental health

services

• The Roundtable work with community stakeholders and partners,

including Legal Aid and the local law society, in developing a strategy that ensures all residents have access to basic legal services.

Public Transit is recognized and engaged as a poverty-reduction / community-development and sustainability tool. To this end, we recommend:

• Public Transit be made available free to children and those in need. • Kingston Transit implements a day-fare option. • Working with community stakeholders and partners, Kingston Transit

ensures its routes, schedules and fare structure are aligned with the community’s poverty reduction / community development strategies.

• Kingston Transit and Kingston Access Bus service ensure that the

needs of mobility-challenged residents are being met. Distribute the burden of property tax and, therefore, the programs and services it funds equitably amongst all property owners, private, commercial and institutional. To this end, we recommend: • Council and the City aggressively pursue full payment of property

taxes on land holdings of senior levels of governments. • Council and the City ensure that property tax collection policies are

fairly and evenly applied across the community.


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Virtually none of our recommendations can be pursued by a lone person or lone organization. Without effective partnerships and collaborations, many of our recommendations are little more than pie-in-the-sky. We conclude our recommendations by reiterating that the success of a community-wide poverty reduction initiative is almost entirely dependent on the community’s willingness to work better together. Working better together involves a willingness to experiment; a tolerance for imperfection, mistakes and failure; and a steadfast commitment to making Kingston a more inclusively-healthy, sustainable community.


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better BACKGROUND TO RECOMMENDATIONS Mayor Harvey Rosen announced the formation of the Task Force on Poverty on March 6, 2007, asking it to convene a permanent, inclusive community roundtable to serve in a planning and advisory capacity on poverty-related issues (see Appendix A for the text of the Mayor’s announcement). In addition, the Mayor asked the Task Force to assess the community’s current response to poverty and to provide recommendations on how that response might be improved locally and/or through lobbying for change at senior levels of government.

Kingston was recently

assessed Canada’s third

most sustainable city with the

country’s smartest workforce

The Task Force has been co-chaired by Kingston Community Health Centres Executive Director Hersh Sehdev and Partners in Mission Food Bank Executive Director Sandy Singers. Filling out the group is organizational consultant Rose Mercier, Home Base Housing Program Manager Bill Crosier, and Councillor Rob Hutchison. Administrative/clerical support has been provided by Elizabeth Cashman and Charmaine Burrows, through the Mayor’s office. Under municipal procurement provisions and with funding support from the Community Foundation of Greater Kingston, project coordination support has been provided by David Morris, an external consultant.

Through the late spring and summer, the Task Force conducted a number of community consultation sessions and took part in numerous information gathering and sharing events (see Appendix B for details of the consultation process). The group’s findings are the basis of the report and its recommendations. A Community Divided Kingston was recently assessed as Canada’s third most sustainable city1 with the country’s smartest workforce.2 Virtually every vista affords a view of bustling prosperity - from stately homes on tree-lined streets in our historic downtown to construction activity in the burgeoning suburbs and a thriving recreational and cultural life. The community is serviced by a robust and active cadre of not-for-profit, publicly funded, and faith-based organizations and agencies. In a relatively small urban centre, two historic universities and a community college lend an ongoing vitality and vibrancy to the atmosphere of the city. In the face of such obvious prosperity, it’s easy for visitors and residents alike to believe that the habitual panhandler on Princess Street is the extent of poverty in Kingston; that a loonie or a twoonie or a dismissive 1 Corporate Knights Magazine, 2007 Urbanization and Investment Double Issue online, www.corporateknights.ca/content/page.asp?name=cities_2007_writeup 2 Statistics Canada study of the number of PhDs per capita, as reported by the Kingston Whig-Standard, May 31, 2007.


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty “get a job” will address the problem. Within this prosperous environment, it’s much more difficult to believe: • The story Kim McCormick of Home Base Housing tells of a middle-

aged male diabetic being released from hospital following a double-amputation and returning to sleep that evening on a mattress on the floor in the emergency shelter.

• The story Terri Fleming of Ryandale Shelter tells of the productive,

middle-aged, middle-class male who fell sick. Unable to continue working, our social welfare system insisted that he exhaust his life savings and fall into abject poverty before the “safety net” was there to catch him.

The economic

divide in Kingston is stark and is

made more so by the relative size of the city

• The story Public Health Nurse Darlene Johnson tells of a local woman who wasn’t gaining weight during her pregnancy. Following a series of expensive but inconclusive medical tests, a visit to the woman’s unfurnished home uncovered the simple fact that she had nothing more to eat than a loaf of white bread.

• The story “George” tells of the social welfare system that found

funding to remove his rotten teeth, but four years later has yet to fund dentures.

• The story one citizen after another tells of being labelled as a second-

class citizen by the social welfare system, unworthy of dignity, respect, basic privacy, or a fighting chance, and often relegated to a particular neighbourhood of the city.

• The story one human services agency after another tells of dealing

with yet another generation of labelled citizens. The economic divide in Kingston is stark and is made more so by the relative size of the city. Drawing upon the City of Kingston’s Neighbourhood Profile data, Figure 1 highlights the range of average family incomes across Kingston neighbourhoods. • Alwington, St. Lawrence, and Westwoods, the three highest income

neighbourhoods, have average family incomes (AFI) of $132,191, $121,144 and $104,576 respectively.

• The three lowest income neighbourhoods - Cataraqui Westbrook,

Joyceville and Rideau Heights - have AFIs of $31,729, $32,551 and $33,585 respectively. In fact, these three neighbourhoods have AFIs that are less than half of Kingston’s overall AFI of $68,396 (2001 Census). For reference, the median family income (2001 figures) is $58,321


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better

Figure 1 – Average Family Income by Kingston Neighbourhood1

Average Family Income by Kingston Neighbourhood

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

100,000110,000120,000130,000140,000

38 -

Cat

araq

ui W

estb

rook

40 -

Joyc

eville

10 -

Rid

eau

Hei

ghts

08 -

Willi

amsv

ille

15 -

Hille

ndal

e

20 -

Pols

on P

ark

03 -

Inne

r Har

bour

09 -

King

scou

rt &

Nov

elis

32 -

Rav

ensv

iew

18 -

Mar

kers

Acr

es

21 -

Bals

am G

renv

ille

24 -

Mea

dow

broo

k

19 -

Fairw

ay H

ills

42 -

Bayr

idge

Wes

t

30 -

King

ston

Mills

14 -

Cal

vin

Park

05 -

CFB

Kin

gsto

n

13 -

Ports

mou

th

34 -

Aude

n Pa

rk

36 -

Sutto

n M

ills

37 -

Gar

dine

rs

25 -

Wat

erlo

o Vi

llage

27 -

Elgi

nbur

g-Si

lver

s C

orne

rs

35 -

Bayr

idge

Eas

t

02 -

Que

en's

07 -

Sunn

ysid

e

26 -

Cat

araq

ui N

orth

33 -

Hen

ders

on

28 -

Shan

nons

Cor

ners

45 -

Woo

dbin

e

39 -

Shar

pton

-Gle

nval

e

44 -

Mile

Squ

are

16 -

Stra

thco

na P

ark

11 -

Gre

enw

ood

01 -

Syde

nham

41 -

Lem

oine

Poi

nt

29 -

Gle

nbur

nie

22 -

Red

dend

ale

04 -

Cat

araq

ui R

iver

Eas

t

43 -

Wes

tbro

ok

31 -

St. L

awre

nce

06 -

Alw

ingt

on

Neighbourhood

IncomePopulation Size

1 Source: City of Kingston Community Neighbourhood Profiles, http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/neighbourhoods/index.asp


http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/neighbourhoods/index.asp


Economic disparity and poverty are not necessarily one and the same, but in a community of Kingston’s size, how does a $100,000 difference in average family income between neighbourhoods not result in social issues? Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cutoff (LICO) is Canada’s most commonly used proxy for a “poverty line.” LICOs are established for various sizes of families in various sizes of urban areas. Anyone earning below these thresholds is said to be facing hardship. Recognizing that 2001 Census household economic data remains the most current (2006 Census household economic data will released in spring 2008), Figure 2 below provides before-tax LICOs for 2001. For reference, 2005, the most current LICOs, are also provided.

How does a $100,000

difference in average family

income between neighbourhoods

not result in social issues?

Figure 2 – Low Income Cutoffs for 2001 and 2005

Family Size 2001 Before-Tax Low Income Cut-Off

2005 Before-Tax Low Income Cut-Off

1 Person $16,362 $17,8952 People $20,369 $22,2763 People $25,041 $27,3864 People $30,404 $33,2515 People $34,482 $37,7116 People $38,892 $42,5337 People or more $43,300 $47,354

Statistics Canada uses the LICOs to derive “Incidence of Low Income.” Based on this, Figure 3 below presents a sobering view of Kingston. Figure 3 – Incidence of Low Income in Kingston (2001) Total Population 114,195 Total – Economic Families* 30,855 Incidence of Low Income 3,839 As a percentage 12.4 Total – Unattached individuals 15 years and over 19,150 Low Income 7,665 As a percentage 40.0 Total – Population in private households** 109,475 Low Income 18,755 As a percentage 17.1

* “Economic Families” refers to two or more household members who are related to each other by blood, marriage, common-law or adoption, and thereby constitute an economic family. The average Economic Family size in Kingston is 2.92 people. **“Population in private households” is distinct from “persons in collective households.”



As noted, the most current Census data shows 18,755 members of the community – one-sixth of Kingston’s population – living below the de facto poverty line. Taking these numbers a step further: Statistics Canada sets the average family size for Kingston in 2001 at 2.92 people. The LICO for a family of three at the time was $25,041. This number, stacked up against the average family incomes in our lower-income neighbourhoods, gives a sense of how closely entire neighbourhoods tread the poverty line. Averages, of course, don’t tell the story of the individuals and families living at the bottom of the range. In the absence of 2006 Census data, if it were assumed, for the sake of discussion, that the incidence of low income numbers contained in Figure 3 above have remained relatively static since 2001. As of December 2006, Ontario Works (OW) was providing benefits to 4,683 of the 18,755 people living beneath the LICO. The Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) was providing benefits to 6,497 more. A simple tally indicates that there are 7,575 people living below the poverty line and receiving neither OW nor ODSP benefits. This may be as closely as we can approximate the number of “working poor.”

7,575 may be our closest

approximation of the number

of working poor

Another telling perspective on the economic divide in Kingston is presented in Figure 4 below. Our two largest labour force groups encompass those earning in excess of $60,000 per year and those earning in the minimum wage range. Figure 4 – What Kingstonians Earn

What Kingstonians Earn

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

$0

$1,000 - $2,999

$5,000 - $6,999

$10,000 - $11,999

$15,000 - $19,999

$25,000 - $29,999

$35,000 - $39,999

$45,000 - $49,999

$60,000 and over

Labour Force Population

Inco

me



This figure is disturbing on two counts. First, one does not see the even distribution of population across the income bands that one might intuitively expect to see. Second, with the poverty line for a single person falling within the $15,500 - $19,999 income band, our second largest labour force group – and all groups below it – may be, at best, just “getting by.” Figure 4 also highlights the fact that almost 35,000 people in the local labour force report earnings below the annualized equivalent of minimum wage. Princess Street continues as Kingston’s most recognized divide. It lingers in the collective consciousness that the “haves” live south of Princess and the “have nots” live north. Not only does this type of thinking unfairly label a significant part of our city and establish north-enders as something less than full citizens, it ignores the reality that south-enders can also find themselves living in poverty. Elderly women, pensioned and alone, struggling to hang onto family homes are a case in point. And no matter how wide our illusion of Princess Street as a divide, there is no escaping our commonality in the matter of poverty: one way or another, as we’ll discuss below, we all pay for it.

There is growing

recognition on all sides of Kingston’s

divides that the health of the community is dependent on

holistic bridging of

differing points of view

Divides in the community extend beyond the opposite sides of Princess Street and straight economics. Ideologically, there are those in the community disposed to view prosperity as the root cause of poverty – to view prosperity and social justice as mutually exclusive. And there are those disposed to believe – in the face of little evidence - that prosperity eventually “trickles down” to everyone in need. There are those who believe segments of the community – often geographically based, as noted above - have nothing to contribute to the community. And there are those who set themselves up as champions for segments of the community that they see as being incapable of making a contribution. Ironically, both perspectives serve to disenfranchise entire segments of the community. The optimism inherent in our report title, “Ready To Do Better,” is most directly attributable to our strong sense that there is growing recognition on all sides of Kingston’s divides that the health of the community is dependent on holistic bridging of differing points of view. York University Professor Brenda Zimmerman speaks of communities as ecosystems, where the health of the system is reflective of the health of all organisms within it. No one can step outside of the ecosystem to effect change, Professor Zimmerman notes, change must be effected from within. We believe the time is ripe to effect positive change.



The Root Causes of Poverty The Task Force’s informal discussions with research staff at Queen’s University suggest that identification and analysis of the root causes of poverty in Kingston would be worthy of a major research project. Such a project would validate or dispel the intuitively compelling - but as yet unsubstantiated view - that correctional institutions and the inmate families they attract, our mental health facilities, and Kingston’s attractiveness as an urban centre between Toronto and Ottawa generate greater needs in this community than in others. Moreover, such a study would lend itself to recommendations on new public policy and program options to address legitimate causes. We have below provided a recommendation in this regard. In advance of such a research project, we asked the community for its views on root causes. The responses are consistent with what might be considered known root causes, and fall into several categories.

At the current minimum

wage, a person working 40 hours per week, 52

weeks of the year, earns an income below

the poverty line for a single

adult

Employment

There is a general sense of a shortage of jobs and a more particular sense of decline in the quality of available employment. Accessible jobs tend to be low-pay, low-skill, entry-level positions that provide little or no opportunity for advancement. Positions are often part-time, even when the employer’s overall requirement is full-time. Spreading available hours over a number of employees minimizes the employer’s commitment and risk exposure to the individual employee. The employee can be deprived a living income and the benefits that might be accorded a full-time employee. At the current minimum wage of $8.00 per hour, a person working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks of the year, earns an annual gross income of approximately $16,640. This is $1,255 below the poverty line of $17,895 for a single person. Again, as Figure 4 above indicates, minimum wage rates are a significant consideration for Kingston given the number of people apparently at this basic wage level. Faced with the choice of subsistence living on social assistance or subsistence living with one or more “McJobs,” it’s admirable that a segment of the community continues to choose the latter.

For some, barriers to even basic employment may include mental health issues, lack of education and/or literacy skills, poor job training and employment readiness skills (finding a job, interviewing, etc.), and/or a criminal record. In truth, these are the more obvious barriers. The more subtle include:

• Lack of “access” to a permanent address and/or telephone number when completing a job application,



• Lack of access to appropriate clothing for a job interview and/or employment (everything from business-wear for the interview to personal safety equipment such as work boots for the job).

• Lack of access to transportation to the interview or job (because public transit is not available, or the person can’t afford bus fare before receiving their first pay cheque);

• Personal health and hygiene issues: the Task Force heard more than one account of poor dental health and/or missing teeth/dentures acting as an employment barrier.

Health

There is a pervasive view that Kingston has a high percentage of individuals with multiple disabilities and limited life skills and/or self-destructive patterns that lead to inter-generational cycles of poverty. It was suggested to the Task Force that there is a high prevalence of mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and addiction, and that the mental-health treatment system is inadequate, disjointed, under-resourced and inadequately supported in the community. Programs tend to be rigid, with tight eligibility criteria that deprives a significant number of individuals of services. People are required to fit into programs, not vice versa.

There is a pervasive view that Kingston

has a high percentage of

individuals with multiple

disabilities and limited life skills

and/or self-destructive

patterns

Not surprisingly, the Task Force heard about the critical issue of poor access to family physicians. But it also heard as many comments about poor access to dental care. While many personal issues might be concealed in a job interview, poor dental health is not one of them.

The corollary to the aforementioned health issues is that the population is living longer. This puts elderly people without family support systems at risk. Housing

Also not surprisingly, the Task Force heard that overall demand for housing, fuelled in part by competition from the student market, serves to inflate rental rates and deflate the overall quality of housing stock. There is a dearth of affordable, suitable housing.

This is perhaps the best-recognized poverty-related issue in the community and is being actively addressed by Community and Family Services and the United Way. It’s interesting to note that the cost of housing was not identified as a root cause of poverty as frequently as the health issues noted above. This may indicate that the community sees the housing issue as a “given.” It may also indicate the need for far greater attention to health issues.



Education

Comments in this regard ranged from issues around basic literacy and education levels to poor access to targeted job/trade training. Learned family patterns vis-à-vis education may contribute to multi-generational issues. Limited access to special needs programming and accommodation may also cause issues. Child Care

A lack of quality, affordable daycare and early childhood education, particularly for children at risk, was flagged as a barrier to employment and (re)education/(re)training programs. Strategically located childcare and “after hours” service to accommodate the needs of parents who are working shifts are required.

There is a focus on treating

symptoms rather than dealing with root causes

Transportation

The Task Force heard of a lack of adequate public transportation that would allow people to easily/affordably travel between jobs, daycare centres/schools and home. We recognize that Kingston Transit recently implemented a major revamping of its service and has undertaken a study of its fare structure. We see both of these initiatives as positive. General

There is focus on treating symptoms (e.g. food banks, hot meals, shelters) rather than dealing with root causes. This keeps successive generations of families living in poverty. There is a lack of consistent financial and educational support for the working poor. The Community’s Response to Poverty A key challenge in assessing the community’s response to poverty is determining what will and what won’t be considered within scope of the analysis. Poverty avoidance, alleviation and reduction are broad concepts that defy rigid definition. At some level, virtually all human services could be said to be contributing in one or more of these three areas. Beyond the challenge of scope, community response is multi-tiered, each level presenting its own barriers to analysis. Federal Surprisingly, the federal government cannot readily quantify its program spending on a community-by-community basis. Determining payouts over a given period of time for key poverty avoidance programs such as Employment Insurance and Old Age Security would require major research resources beyond those of the Task Force.



As a proxy, it’s interesting to note that Service Canada administers a funding pool of approximately $70B annually. This amounts to $2,125 per capita nation-wide. While a straight per capita calculation is no doubt overly-simplistic, this would suggest an annual allocation of something in the order of $245M for Kingston. Provincial Beyond the social welfare system we discuss below, various provincial ministries fund programs that may have an impact on poverty avoidance, alleviation or reduction. Various healthcare and skills development initiatives are an example. Enumerating these would also require research resources beyond those of the Task Force. Provincial / Municipal The heart of the community’s current response to poverty is the provincially and municipally funded social welfare system – with the odd dash of federal spending thrown in – administered by the City’s Community and Family Services Department, with several interconnections with Frontenac County’s welfare system. It is a system the National Council of Welfare describes as a “tattered patchwork,” and our research suggests produces tattered results.

The social welfare system is described as

a “tattered patchwork”

In should be noted that the Task Force undertook its mandate with confidence that social services in this city are administered in a skilled and professional manner by a competent, caring staff, intent on addressing the needs of fellow Kingstonians while respecting legal and fiduciary responsibilities. Our interactions with Community and Family Services over the last several months have only reinforced this point of view. Regrettably, our view of the social services “system” is not similarly positive. Consultant and author Gary Klein offers a distinction between the concepts of “complicated” and “complex” that may be useful in this part of our report. Complicated, Klein suggests, is shooting a rocket to the moon and having it return to earth with its human cargo intact. This requires an extraordinary level of coordination and strict adherence to extensive rules. Child-rearing, on the other hand, is complex. As any parent knows, there’s an even chance that what works today won’t work tomorrow; what works with one child may produce significantly different outcomes with another. To borrow Klein’s terminology, our social services safety net is a complicated system applied to a complex problem. In fact, to suggest it is a “system” is somewhat misleading. Rather, it gives the impression of an “incrementalized” array of funding streams that collectively views the



benefit recipient as nothing more whole and complex than an assortment of bureaucratically addressable needs. Figure 5 below provides a simplistic and high-level view of how social services funding was allocated in 2006 - a total of $111.7M of which the City’s net contribution was $22.4M. It should be noted, at this juncture, that the provincial government announced on August 20th of this year that it will “upload” the Ontario Disability Support Program beginning in 2009, a saving of approximately $14M for Kingston taxpayers. Figure 5 – A High-Level View of the Social Services Funding Allocation

ProgramNo. of $ Streams

2006 GrosExpenditu

s re

2006 Net City Contribution

136 7,119,490231 5,634,540518 1,006,520436 33,028

835 441,920609 1,748,987111 194,261422 5,084

977 2,390,252

545 11,934,509302 1,584,651847 13,519,160

-7,289,700

Housing Programs 6 12,916,Ontario W orks Programs 7 25,564,Childcare Programs 5 5,740,Homemaking Programs 1 141,

Community & Family Services AdministrationHousing Admin 507,OW Admin 3,536,Childcare Admin 413,Homemaking Admin 25,Total Community & Family Services Administration 4,482,

ODSP Cost ShareODSP Allowances & Benefits 59,672,ODSP Administration 3,169,Total ODSP Cost Share 62,841,

Ont Municipal Partnership FundingTotal 111,687,145 22,413,290

Complication is not solely inflicted on

the city department

and individual recipients

The simplicity of Figure 5 belies the extraordinary challenge involved in extracting this perspective from the breath-takingly complicated web of provincial, municipal and county monies that constitute the social services allocation. And although the figure suggests the existence of definable program areas (e.g. housing, childcare, etc.), this is somewhat of an artificial construct for the purposes of this presentation. In fact, the City department’s focus is at the level of funding streams, not program areas. Housing, for instance, includes funding from former federal and provincial projects, funding to the local housing corporation, rent supplement funding, the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program funding, rent bank funding, and emergency energy funding. Similarly, there are seven streams that constitute the Ontario Works “program,” and five within childcare. Complication is not solely inflicted on the city department and individual recipients.



Community and Family Services administer funding that is distributed through 19 funding streams to 69 third-party agencies in the community. These include 24 housing, hostel and homelessness service organizations; 48 childcare facilities; Ontario Works; Homemaking Services; and the Seniors Centre. A quick scan of the agency / funding stream matrix, an excerpt of which is presented in Figure 7 below, highlights the fact, for instance, that the average daycare centre receives funding through four streams. One affordable housing provider receives funding through a record seven funding streams. It is not only the City that’s burdened with the inherent administrative load. The often-scarce resources of not-for-profit agencies are diverted from providing service to applying for – often in a competitive atmosphere - and responding to the paperwork requirements of multiple funding contracts.

Confronted with the bewildering web of funding streams, one might reasonably conclude that the provincial / municipal social safety net is designed to entrap individual recipients in the system. From the get-go, a Community and Family Services manager noted, “We require people to become too poor before they qualify for benefits.” Once poor, treading water may be the best one can hope for. Figure 6 below summarizes average rental rates for Kingston against the shelter allowance provided under OW and ODSP. Recognizing that these are programs of last resort, it is a disturbing to note that the more than 11,000 benefit recipients are expected to magically top up the benefit allowance in order to maintain basic shelter. In reality, recipients are forced to choose between rent, food, utilities and other basics of life. Figure 6 – Average Rental Rates for the City of Kingston2

Number of Members in Household

Size of Dwelling

2005 Kingston Average Rent Per month

2005 OW Maximum Shelter Allowance Per month

2005 ODSP Maximum Shelter Allowance Per month

1 Bachelor $513 $342 $436 2 1 Bedroom $660 $538 $686 3 2 Bedroom $807 $583 $744 4 3 Bedroom $995 $634 $808 5 $683 $871

6+ $708 $903

“We require people to

become too poor before

they qualify for benefits”

2 Source: United Way “Community Plan on Housing and Homelessness in Kingston 2006”




Figure 7 – 2007 Funding Distribution to 3rd Party Agencies (Excerpt only)

Organization

Form

er F

eder

al &

Pro

vinc

ial P

roje

cts

($4,

462,

500)

Loca

l Hou

sing

Cor

pora

tion

($4,

496,

704)

Ren

t Sup

plem

ent (

$3,0

52,2

00)

Con

solid

ated

Hom

eles

snes

s Pr

even

tion

Prog

ram

(CH

PP) (

$1,1

93,4

18)

Ren

t Ban

k ($

140,

359)

- (tw

o (2

) yea

r fun

ding

)

Emer

genc

y En

ergy

Fun

d ($

19,4

63)

Nat

iona

l Chi

ld B

enef

it R

einv

estm

ent

($63

4,19

1)

Emer

genc

y H

oste

ls -

OW

Per

Die

ms

($64

0,82

9)

Ont

ario

Wor

ks -

Hos

tels

to H

omes

(H2H

) ($

135,

000)

Chi

ldca

re F

ee S

ubsi

dy ($

2,58

3,55

5)O

ntar

io W

orks

Chi

ldca

re ($

685,

250)

Chi

ldca

re W

age

Subs

idy

($2,

147,

830)

Chi

ldca

re S

peci

al N

eeds

Res

ourc

ing

($56

7,52

5)

Chi

ldca

re P

ay E

quity

($12

2,50

3)

Bes

t Sta

rt O

pera

ting

($88

1,75

0)

Bes

t Sta

rt W

age

Impr

ovem

ent (

$68,

678.

)

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces

Inve

stm

ent S

enio

rs

(Gra

nt) (

$90,

000)

Hom

emak

ing

Serv

ices

($16

8,87

6)

Brid

ge F

undi

ng th

roug

h So

cial

Ser

vice

s St

abliz

atio

n R

eser

ve ($

250,

000)

Affo

rdab

le H

ousi

ng -

Ren

tal &

Sup

port

ive,

B

row

nfie

lds,

Dua

l Dia

gnos

is, H

ome

Ow

ners

hip

($ 7

,533

,000

)

Complex Co-Op Nursery School

Corner Clubhouse Day CareDawn HouseDutch Heritage VillaElizabeth Fry/Kaye HealeyFrontenac Club Day Care

Frontenac County Child CareFrontline Nursery SchoolGently Rocking HorseHealthy Horizons DaycareHelen Tufts Nursery SchoolHigh Hopes Day CareHome Base HousingJohn Howard Society

2007 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION TO 3RD PARTY AGENCIES

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Statistics Canada tells us that, whether they are on benefits or in the ranks of the working poor, 36 percent of Kingstonians are renters, and almost half of that group pays more than 30 percent of household income on gross rent. The United Way suggests that 23 percent are paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing, placing people at risk of homelessness. It’s noteworthy that while Partners in Mission Food Bank continues to serve about 5,800 individuals per year (i.e. 5,800 distinct individuals make use of the Food Bank one or more times per year), five years ago, 5 – 6 percent of the Food Bank’s client base represented working poor individuals. This rate has now increased to 12 percent.3

Current benefit levels make it

clear that there is no

expectation that social services

funding is an investment in a

better tomorrow

Local Community Organizations More than 1,600 organizations providing services to the City of Kingston are listed on the Volunteer & Information Kingston database. While this listing includes some for-profit businesses, the vast majority are not-for-profit organizations and agencies, including faith-based initiatives. As noted below, these organizations may draw funding from various levels of government. They may also be funded through the local funding community (e.g. Community Foundation, United Way, Ontario Trillium Foundation) and other sources, including private donations. Addressing who is doing what and who is spending what will require a community mapping/inventory initiative well-beyond the resources of the Task Force. Observations Perhaps the broadest statement that can be made about the community’s current response to poverty is that it is ad hoc and reactive. The relationship between the tiers is at the level of operational funding agreements, with little or no reference to shared measurable outcomes as a result of that funding. Current benefit levels make it clear that there is no expectation that social services funding is an investment in a better tomorrow. The “system” is simply intended to spread the cost of making today marginally tolerable. Community and Family Services operates as the remote administrative arm of senior levels of government, most notably the province. It administers not a safety net, but a bureaucratic web that dictates a primary focus on gatekeeping rather than meeting need in the community. As brokers in the marriage of complex need and complicated response, it seems hardly surprising that front-line City staff is prone to reporting stress and burn-out, and citizens, relegated to the status of “recipients,” are prone to reporting disrespect and indignity. Can it be a healthy

3 Source: United Way “Community Plan on Housing and Homelessness in Kingston 2006”


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better environment for anyone when security measures are required to protect those who control and distribute benefits from those who need them? Under the leadership of the City, a housing strategy is now moving towards implementation, however, the community has historically operated with virtually no poverty-related strategies or objectives. We are missing the beacon – or web of beacons – that might see “silos” in the community naturally fall away as we rally to a common cause, if not a higher purpose. When, for instance, the community receives a $6.5M windfall in discretionary affordable housing funding, rather than accelerating the deployment of an adopted housing strategy, we fall into our familiar patterns of contention around how the funding should be allocated, the decision-making process that will be used, and fault-finding around the perceived delay in making that decision. Absent

community-level

strategies, local human

services initiative focus

on poverty alleviation

By way of a further example: the Caledon Institute comments that poverty reduction should not be an end unto itself, but should be approached in terms of direct or ultimate economic purpose. The Institute recommends that community-level poverty reduction initiatives begin, not with a gap analysis, but with an asset inventory that is the basis of market-based strategies that “exploit market niches for beneficiaries.”4 It is striking, then, that the Kingston Economic Development Corporation’s (KEDCO) mandate, “to work with the community to develop world-class products and services that are competitive in global markets,”5 makes no claim to responsibility for the overall economic health of the community. Absent community-level strategies, local human services initiatives, taking their cue - if not their funding - from the provincial/municipal social services system, focus on poverty-alleviation rather than poverty reduction. In the well-intentioned act of responding to immediate need, making life more comfortable for those living in poverty is given priority over dealing with the root causes that might allow us to reduce poverty. Again, the affordable housing issue provides an example. Our response to a chronic waiting list for affordable housing is to push for additional housing units without also looking at how we might help those on the waiting list move away from dependence on publicly-funded units. We sense that most service agencies and organizations in the city recognize the potential benefit of greater coordination – formal and/or informal - of local services. Three key impediments to coordination are: • The provincial / municipal funding framework that can pit agencies

against each other in a competitive bid to secure critical funding;

4 Torjam, Sherri. “Community-Based Poverty Reduction,” February 1998,

Caledon Institute of Social Policy. www.caledoninst.org/cbpr.htm. P.4. 5 KEDCO website, http://business.kingstoncanada.com/aboutus/whatwedo.asp


http://www.caledoninst.org/cbpr.htm

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty • A scarcity of resources that keeps agencies focused on meeting

immediate needs, without the capacity to take notice of their broader operating environment;

• The absence of a beacon of shared, community-wide poverty-reduction targets that tacitly encourage self-coordination towards a common goal.

The Communal Cost of Poverty In 2001 the National Council of Welfare, an arm’s length advisory body to the federal government on matters of concern to low-income Canadians, released The Cost of Poverty.6 The report, referenced here at length, suggests that poverty’s cost to the community can be considered from a number of perspectives.

At birth, children from Canada’s

poorest neighbourhoods

have a life-expectancy 2 –

5 ½ years shorter than that of children from the wealthiest

neighbourhoods

Human Cost • There are many indicators of the human cost of poverty. These

include low birth-weight babies, increased illness, lower labour-force participation, family disintegration, suicide, and homicide.

• Poverty decreases health and life spans. At birth, children from

Canada’s poorest neighbourhoods have a life-expectancy between two and five and one-half years shorter than that of children from the wealthiest neighbourhoods.

• Child development has a significant effect on lifelong health of

individuals and the overall health of populations. Poor children are at greater risk of death, disability and other health problems throughout infancy, childhood and adolescence. The rate of childhood disability was found to be twice as high for children from poor families than for children from rich families.

• Stress related to poverty has been found to impair parenting capacity

and abilities. • Poverty decreases achievement in education and training programs. • Family time suffers for those parents who are forced to work longer

hours in order to generate a “living” wage (similarly for parents who earn above the poverty line but work long hours). The Council notes that parental attention is a key cause of behavioural problems, including criminal behaviour, and so this carries an intergenerational cost.

6 National Council of Welfare, 2002. The Cost of Poverty. http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/OtherPublications/2002Report-TheCostOfPoverty/ReportENG.htm


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better Financial Cost The most evident communal cost of local poverty is the net $22.4M Kingston taxpayers will contribute in 2007 to the overall city/province budget of $116.6M in social services spending. Yet, this amount is just the tip of the iceberg. • It excludes other taxpayer-funded provincial monies that, at least in

part, attempt to mitigate the implications of poverty. Health-care and justice expenditures are cases in point.

• It excludes local taxpayer-funded social security (i.e. poverty-

avoidance) initiatives by the federal government. Employment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan and old-age security are examples (as we noted earlier, a per capita calculation suggests federal spending on social programs in Kingston could be in the $245M range).

“Societal tensions

undermine the public good

and the human dignity of

people who are treated as

clients… rather than as citizens”

• It excludes funding provided through the funder community (e.g.

Ontario Trillium Foundation, Community Foundation and United Way), the faith community, and private donations.

While there are many perspectives on the equity of our taxation systems, there is no avoiding the fact that more people living in poverty means fewer people to bear the burden of the taxation system that funds poverty-related programs and services. The issue of taxation is exacerbated in Kingston with the large land-holdings of senior levels of government that may grant the municipality a pittance in lieu of property tax. Community Corrosion • Polarization along any lines, including economic, increases societal

tensions and destroys social cohesion. Harvard Professor Robert Putnam comments that low social cohesion - social capital, as he terms it – results in low trust and higher “transaction costs” within a community. Acrimony and community divisions over the Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre, Block “D” development, the multiplex facility, and the renaming of Market Square may be but a few recent examples of high transaction costs.

• The Council on Welfare notes that “Societal tensions undermine the

public good and the human dignity of people who are treated as clients or supplicants who may or may not be deemed worth of charity, rather than as citizens. This costs society the creative and productive capacity of a large portion of the population, it costs governments the trust and support of the public and it costs a society its humanity.”


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty • To this same point, in The Flight of the Creative Class, Richard

Florida comments that “harnessing the creative energy of people currently ignored and misused (emphasis added) is crucial to our long-run economic prosperity.”7

Lost Opportunity Cost Calculating the full cost of poverty requires attention to the opportunities lost as a result of poverty and/or the more direct costs associated with it. Simply stated: • What might the community accomplish if the number of citizens

currently living in poverty was reduced by 50 percent? By 75 percent? By 100 percent?

• To what benefit might the City of Kingston otherwise invest $22.4M

per year, or some portion thereof? What might the community

accomplish if the number of

citizens currently living in poverty was reduced by

50 percent? By 75 percent? By 100 percent?

There are also opportunity costs associate with our focus on treating symptoms rather than root causes of poverty. The Council of Welfare notes that cost savings that come from cutting income subsidies, education and training programs, and childcare spaces simply raises costs elsewhere in the social system. As in the for-profit business world, work is underway on full-value accounting systems for social welfare, but much more effort is required in comprehensively tracking the cost / benefit of social programs and services. In the interim, we know that: • Poverty increases the cost of health care, yet studies demonstrate

that reducing and preventing poverty in the first place is more cost-effective than paying for its consequences.

• Spending on health care has a relatively minor effect on the health of

a population compared to such determinants as employment, income and social status.

• The most effective ways of reducing crime are not through the justice

system, but through support programs for families in vulnerable circumstances and the creation of opportunities for young people.

• After-the-fact supervision programs cost less than keeping the

accused in jail. • A prominent U.S. program assessed the cost-effectiveness of its work

with high-risk children at a societal saving of $7.16 for every one dollar spent on preschool.

7 Florida, Richard, 2007. The Flight of the Creative Class. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers. P. 63.


The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better • A 1998 study by economists at the University of Toronto estimated a

savings of $2 for every dollar spent on high-quality, affordable, universal child care and early childhood education.

• Despite its problems, Quebec’s universal $5 per day child care

system is estimated to have reduced the number of single mothers on welfare by 37 percent.

• Limiting or refusing help to women and children involved in abusive

relationships results in much higher long term societal costs than the social assistance funds originally saved.

• Social assistance policies make it almost impossible for recipients

such as single mothers to pursue education or meaningful training courses. Yet, a mother’s education is a strong determinant of her children’s education. Public policy perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

“If you are among those who are well-off, or at

least relatively comfortable, and think that poverty does not affect you, you could

not be more wrong”

• A McMaster University study found that the cost of providing direct

services to single-mother families such as subsidized childcare or recreation services for children, public health nurses for the mothers, employment training for the mothers, or a combination of all these was entirely offset by reduced demand on physicians, other professionals, and the child protection system.

The Council of Welfare concludes its assessment of the cost of poverty by noting: “If you are among those who are well-off, or at least relatively comfortable, and think that poverty does not affect you, you could not be more wrong. Canada cannot afford the human misery or the economic liability that poverty brings.” Summary of Key Findings The key findings of the Task Force can be summarized as: • The community is divided along a number of lines: economic,

geographic, ideological, and organizational; • Poverty costs the entire community; • Like other communities, our response to poverty is a “tattered

patchwork;” • The social welfare system promotes poverty alleviation not poverty

reduction; • An effective poverty reduction initiative is dependent on our working

better together. • Our clear sense is that the community is ready to do better.


Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Appendix A - Text of the Mayor’s Task Force Announcement (March 6, 2007) Members of Council will recall that, during the election campaign, I pledged the formation of a task force to address issues related to poverty. The positive response to my proposal - particularly within our social services sector - is an indication, I think, of our collective sense of possibility in better-serving those in need. I’m pleased to announce this evening the formation of the Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty. In fact, work has been underway on this initiative in my office since the outset of this term of Council. One-on-one conversations with representatives of our social services leadership and front-line staff have framed the terms of reference for the Task Force. These same conversations have identified a few stellar individuals - within the community’s impressive pool of expertise - whose experience, vision and leadership lends itself to helping us take the first steps in addressing the challenges of poverty. I’d like to take a moment to speak to these challenges. As in so many other jurisdictions, poverty in Kingston is a serious issue that is devastating to those caught in its grinding clutches and that jeopardizes quality of life in the community. Our first challenge is to understand the roots of the issue locally. Beyond the more obvious social, economic and health factors, we must understand the role our base of correctional facilities and ex-inmate population play in poverty. We must understand the full implications of student housing consuming what might otherwise be affordable housing stock in our downtown core - housing in a location that virtually eliminates transportation issues for its residents. We must understand the impact of the City drawing from our neighbouring rural municipalities those in need, searching for greater opportunities, services and support in an urban centre. Beyond understanding the roots of the issue, we must quantify the problem. Our social services leaders tell us that poverty is difficult to define and measure, particularly while maintaining a focus on delivering services to those in need. The challenge is exacerbated by the inclusion of issues related to economic inequality – the relative gap between high-income and low-income residents - within the scope of poverty. Incidentally, it’s striking to note that, within our municipality, there is a $100,000 gap in average family income between our highest and lowest income neighbourhoods.

Final Report – October 2007 A-1

The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better Despite the difficulty of doing so, we must establish working definitions and measures. They are critical to our effective allocation of limited resources. They are critical to making any case for additional resources. They are critical to an outcome-based approach to the problem. Currently, in the face of an issue that we have difficulty getting our minds around, a host of agencies, including the City itself, chip away at the monolith. Our service agency leadership tells us that what is missing is a community-wide perspective of who is doing what and an effective mechanism for developing and managing a coordinated, community-wide response. Absent that perspective and mechanism, our planning and decision-making risk being ad hoc in nature. With the best of intentions, we have collectively constructed the social services maze that was the pre-election “Poverty Challenge.” We must transform this maze into a humane, coherent, guided path. We must also develop a community-wide perspective on social services funding. The province and the City currently contribute $107M annually to meet the social services needs of our population – the equivalent of $922 for every man, woman, and child in this community. Additional funding is provided by the federal government, the local funding community through organizations such as the Community Foundation and the United Way, and through the ongoing support of our citizens for dozens of community causes. Despite this level of funding, our service agencies operate in an environment marked by growing competition for shrinking dollars, while sounding warnings of demand outstripping capacity. We have a fiduciary responsibility to understand fully where these dollars are being spent. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that this spending is resulting in the greatest possible benefit to those most particularly in need. Downloading has thrust the City into the role of administrator, arbiter and referee of one-size-fits-all programs unilaterally - if not arbitrarily - rendered by senior levels of government; programs that may or may not appropriately meet the needs of this community. A planning / advisory mechanism must be established that ensures the City’s administrative decisions are informed by, and supported within, the social services community. Further, our ability to lobby senior levels of government for community-tailored programming would be immeasurably enhanced if that same

A-2 Final Report - October 2007

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty mechanism allowed us to speak with a unified voice from a platform of shared priorities. Without question, I’ve asked the Task Force to address a complex challenge, one for which there will not be a hundred-day solution. To help limit the imposition on their volunteered time, I’ve asked for two key deliverables. The first is the convening of a permanent community planning roundtable that, amongst other functions, can serve in an advisory capacity to Council on issues related to poverty. Perhaps in time, this roundtable will provide advice on social issues in general. Members of the Task Force recognize that this planning and advisory body must represent the voices of all of our constituents and speak authoritatively for our service delivery community. I hasten to add that there are several important initiatives already underway in the community that have the potential to play a key role - if not a leading role – in establishing the planning and advisory mechanism that I envision. Community engagement, collaboration, and capacity development will most certainly be at the forefront of Task Force activities. Secondly, I have asked the Task Force to deliver a report by mid-August that will support a bid by the City – perhaps in concert with our MUND partners - for the authority to allocate social services funds as we see fit to meet the unique needs of our community. Our social service agencies have long-known that one size doesn’t fit all; perhaps together we can get that message through to Queen’s Park. I have also asked the Task Force to identify in its report opportunities and gaps that may be addressed through additional funding and/or policy changes that may be pursued at the municipal level or though senior levels of government. No doubt the task is daunting. For that reason, I’m pleased and grateful to be able announce the appointments of the following individuals to the Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty - without exception, all passionate, respected contributors to this community: • Hersh Sehdev – Ms. Sehdev is the Executive Director of the Kingston

Community Health Centres and a long-time advocate for social justice, equity and the removal of barriers for those in poverty. As Members of Council may be aware, the Kingston Community Health Centres encompass the Street Health Centre, Better Beginnings for Kingston Children and the North Kingston Community Health Centre.

• Sandy Singers – Mr. Singers is well-known for a variety of

contributions to the community, notably for his tremendous success as Executive Director of the Partners in Mission Food Band. What

Final Report – October 2007 A-3


may not be as well known is that Sandy has chaired the Ontario Association of Food Banks for the last four years and is a Board and Council member of the Canadian Association of Food Banks. In those roles, he is recognized as an effective advocate and lobbyist for a better deal for the less privileged.

• Rose Mercier – As President of the Social Planning Council of

Kingston & Area for the past five years, Ms. Mercier has led that organization’s evolution to a more inclusive community planning organization, evidenced by the Council’s recent Kingston Roundtable on Quality of Life. Rose brings to the team her professional experience as an organizational development consultant, focusing primarily on the not-for-profit sector.

• Bill Crosier – Mr. Crosier makes available to us his remarkable 17-

year record of success in youth and affordable housing-related initiatives in Toronto, Coburg, Belleville and here in Kingston. Bill’s experience ranges from hands-on program development through not-for-profit executive management and governance. Bill is known in the community for his dedicated work as Program Manager for Home Base Non-Profit Housing.

• Councillor Rob Hutchison – I am pleased to advise Council that

Councillor Hutchison has agreed to sit as Council’s representative on the Task Force. With his extensive background in not-for-profit housing management in Kingston, I have no doubt that, beyond providing a communication link with Council, Councillor Hutchison will make an invaluable contribution to the Task Force.

I’ll conclude my remarks by commenting that there are those who see in this community a divide between “pro-business” and “pro-social justice” interests. There are those who would suggest this Council reflects that divide. To those on both sides of this gap – real or imagined – I say this: the left hand can no more unilaterally resolve our social issues than the right hand can unilaterally dismiss them. With our full support, the real possibility of this Task Force – its real opportunity – is to plant the seed of a truly community-wide, community-based social agenda – an integral part of an overall community and economic development framework. I ask members of Council to join me in offering thanks and good luck to the members of the Task Force. I’m certain we all eagerly await the outcome of its work. Thank you.

A-4 Final Report - October 2007

Ready To Do Better The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Appendix B – Public Consultation Details In pursuing the objectives established by the Mayor, the Task Force consulted with the community: • Six poverty survey questions were developed. These were:

1. How would you rate poverty as an issue in Kingston on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not all serious” and 5 being “the most serious issue facing the community?”

2. What do you think are the main causes of poverty in Kingston?

3. What do you think this community can do to improve quality of life

for people living in poverty in Kingston?

4. What do you think this community can do to actually reduce poverty in Kingston?

5. The Mayor has proposed establishing a permanent community-

based planning and advisory committee – often referred to as a “roundtable” – that can help improve how the Kingston community responds to poverty.

a. Who do you think should be on this roundtable? b. What role do you think this roundtable should play? c. How do you think the Task Force should go about setting up

this roundtable?

6. Any other comments? • The poverty survey questions were posted on the City’s website from

April 20, 2007 until June 15, 2007. The community was invited to submit written responses and/or presentations via email, regular mail or drop off.

• A community consultation session was held Monday, April 30, 2007,

6:30 – 9:30 at Artillery Park. The meeting was presented specifically as an opportunity for those living in poverty, those who have experienced poverty in the past, and those advocating at a grassroots level for those in need to address the poverty survey questions and to make general comments. Approximately 75 people attended.

• A second consultation session was held Monday, May 7, 2007, 9:15 –

noon in Memorial Hall, City Hall specifically for service provider agencies to address the poverty survey questions and to make general comment. Approximately 75 people attended.

Final Report – October 2007 B-1

The Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty Ready To Do Better • A third consultation session was held Tuesday, May 29, 2007, 9:15 –

noon in Memorial Hall, City Hall with members of the funder and faith-based communities. Approximately 50 people attended.

• A fourth consultation process was held Wednesday, May 30, 2007,

6:30 – 9:30 at the Wally Elmer Arena specifically for the general public to address the poverty survey questions and to make general comment. Approximately 30 people attended.

B-2 Final Report - October 2007

Ready To Do Better - ARCHDIOCESE OF KINGSTON AND PEACE/Task Force... · Ready To Do Better The...

Documents

Transcript of Ready To Do Better - ARCHDIOCESE OF KINGSTON AND PEACE/Task Force... · Ready To Do Better The...