We're Cutting What Now?: Hardship Fund, Christmas Bureau and Child Care Edition

Over the next two weeks there's going to be a lot of talk about which programs and services to cut and which should avoid the chopping block. But you also get the sense that not enough is known about each of these programs, what they do and how much they each cost. 


Over the next week or so I'll do a series here at the Clamshell going through the various programs in a summary format so that when something comes up it's easy to look up information or explain a program to someone else. 


Today: The Hardship Fund, Christmas Bureau and three child care centres


Hardship Fund: This fund is designed to assist seniors, disabled people and the 'working poor' who live on their own and are not using any other kind of social program like ODSP with the purchase of needed prescription medication, wheelchairs, prosthetics, glasses and dental care. The idea behind the fund is to act as a care provider of last resort for people who fall through the cracks of other programs. 


The numbers: The Hardship Fund assists 1,300 people annually at a cost of $900,000. This works out to 60 cents on the average property tax bill. 


The case for it: Treating healthcare issues before they become worse saves much more money done the line. For instance, it's better to provide the needed prescription medication for an individual at home than wait for a chronic condition to escalate to the point where he or she needs critical care. But more than the hard costs, there's also the matter of respect and dignity both for the people in need and the city at large. After all, how can our city have respect and dignity for itself if it sells out those values for its seniors for 60 cents? 


The case against it: Not only does every little bit help, but the Hardship Fund is exactly the kind of thing the provincial government should cover. Toronto is not in the business of covering the province's social service costs. Cutting the Hardship Fund comes with a request for the province to do its share and fund the difference, and with this we can go towards the more fair and equitable relationship with the province that Toronto needs. 


The politics: In September, there was a 23-22 vote to cut the fund in principle. Jaye Robinson was in dissent while Gloria Lindsay Luby, James Pasternak and Ron Moeser voted to cancel it. 


Candidate Rob Ford: When I'm Mayor, the gravy train party will come to an end, ladies and gentleman, and more money will be spent on seniors. That's where money should be spent. -Rob Ford speaking at a midtown seniors mayoral forum in June 2010.  


Further reading: The Toronto Star did a good profile on a senior who used the fund to get a bed she needed that would not give her bed sores: 


The Wellesley Institute also did a report on the fund.


The city website. 


The Christmas Bureau: Since 1956, a bureau that is run in the last few months of the year to co-ordinate charitable donations from outside groups. The idea is that one central body that has access to identifying the people in need of Christmas gifts (through social services) can more efficiently allocate the gifts,leaving outside groups to fundraise and promote their cause, which they are better geared to do. 


The numbers: The Christmas Bureau assists 138,000 children and families at a cost of $151,000. This works out be ten cents on the average property tax bill. 


The case for it: If this program didn't exist, it would be exactly the kind of thing Rob Ford would want. The Christmas bureau is already an efficiency; it ensures that there's not a duplication of resources and that the best candidates for gifts are connected with the program. Additionally, it's exactly the kind of thing that that makes our city more livable and lends credence to 'Toronto the Good'. 


The case against it: The Christmas Bureau is a nice to have but not a must have. This is the kind of program that the city should let the non-profit sector to take over. 


The politics: In September, there was a 25-20 vote to cut the bureau in principle. Ford ally Michael Thompson was in dissent while Ana Bailao, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Ron Moeser and Jaye Robinson supported cutting it. 


Mayor Rob Ford: It's our goal to make this holiday season a festive and memorable one for everyone in the city of Toronto - Ford at the launch of the City of Toronto toy drive 


Further Reading: Torontoist did an excellent summary of the Bureau a few weeks ago. 


The city website 


Child care: The budget proposes closing three child care centers: St. Mark's at Queen and Lansdowne, Belleview at College and Bathurst and Greenholme-Albion in Etobicoke. Meanwhile, existing child care fees could rise $500 per child. 


The numbers: There are currently 55 city-run daycares and closing these three would save around $1 million annually, or 65 cents on the average property tax bill. The three daycares provide 100 child care spots and there is currently a waiting list of 20,000 for the city's child care subsidies. 


The case for it: Judging by the waiting list, there's clearly not enough capacity for child care demand as it is, let alone cutting it. These programs ensure proper care for children and enable parents- particularly single moms and low-income earners- to stay off social assistance, work, progress in their careers and add to the tax base rather than taking away from it. 


The case against it: With the province providing all-day kindergarten, the need for child care will diminish. Besides, what are we doing in this business anyway? Can't the private sector do it better?


The politics: A September vote to not pursue child care cuts lost 25-20, with Jaye Robinson, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, James Pasternak and Ron Moeser voting against it. 


Candidate Rob Ford: Ford pledged to invest more in child care with the money found from city gravy, as seen in his Financial Plan Backgrounder below:

Further Reading: The Toronto Star did a piece on this issue a few weeks ago that provides a good outline of how the debate will proceed in Council. 


The city website. 

The Customer Service of Governance

In addition to John Lorinc’s excellent Walrus article, there’s another piece of good city writing this week, this time from The Grid’s EdwardKeenan. Keenan’s article offers suggestions for how Team Ford can right their ship, from focusing on customer service to having meaningful dialogue with critical councillors and the general public.

The advice is really good; it plays into ways that Ford has branded himself in the past, fulfills campaign promises and appeals to individuals who want to give the mayor the benefit of the doubt. Above all, it’s just good governance.

Yesterday morning TTC chair Karen Stintz took up Keenan’s advice by coincidence. She and some of the TTC brass (Gary Webster, Chris Upfold) held a press conference at Bathurst Station to make an announcement on improving customer service, including engaging the public through town halls, a customer service liaison panel and extending service centre hours (see more details at Torontoist here). 

As much as I bristle at the term ‘customer service’ when it comes to government (as it reduces citizens to a one-sided business-style relationship), this is the good stuff. The TTC operates very efficiently from a technical standpoint but could stand improvement in how transit riders use it on a day-to-day basis. It’s also a cheap means for the agency to improve; costs (labour, infrastructure support) are rising faster than fare increases can feasibly be passed, and without changes to the operating subsidy any improvements will have to come from within.

This would have been a good platform to frame the next step for Ford to sell his ideas to the public, where he could say things like, ‘one thing that’s not gravy is treating people with respect.’ He could say that good customer service involves going beyond the minimum requirements and seeking ways to make sure everyone is involved in an open and transparent process that reasonably considers their opinions, needs and wants and he's a man of his word out to meet his mandate.

Here’s how his campaign literature spoke of these issues in his Taxpayer Protection Plan Backgrounder:

These three promises are important as they speak to the values of Ford as a candidate and the values he heard Toronto wanted for its governance. Clearly, transparency, access and real consideration were priorities for both.

But then Giorgio Mammoliti spoke last night. In an incident later related by Kristyn Wong-Tam and Janet Davis’ Twitter streams, the two councillors tried to attend a child care task force meeting chaired by Giorgio Mammoliti. Although they are on the Community Development and Recreation committee, they were refused entry. They were not notified of the meeting (although a sign was posted outside of committee room three), and were told by Mammoliti that he didn’t want the meeting to be ‘political’.

Wong-Tam responded with an open letter on Twitter criticizing the lack of inclusion and going so far as to say that the process contravened the City of Toronto Act. It doesn’t, as Goldsbie pointed out in early morning tweets, as the task force is not bound by the rules of committees since it has less than half of its membership from councillors (there was Mammoliti and six child care operators).

Mammoliti and Wong-Tam at July Executive Meeting. Photo by friendlyfeathers.blogspot.com

So Mammoliti was technically able to restrict Davis and Wong-Tam from participating, but that doesn’t mean 1) he did it in the best, most respectful way possible 2) he should have done it at all.

Maybe he could have recognized there was a strong desire for Davis and Wong-Tam to contribute, and, as per Keenan’s suggestion, given them a meaningful role in future sessions or aspects. Or maybe he could have asked the meeting attendees if they would like to have them come in the room for some or all of the meeting. Or maybe he could have said that he would be happy to brief them afterwards.

Just like customer service has to go beyond the bare essentials to be effective and valued, openness and transparency go beyond checking the City of Toronto Act to see if any laws have been broken.

This isn’t an isolated incident either. It’s a hostile attitude that’s been represented at all night executive committee meetings and in how various motions have been passed or brought up from the Jarvis bike lanes to the Fort York Bridge to the Dundas pedestrian scramble to the port lands fiasco or the citizen advisory committees that were supposed to be brought back to council for a vote (twice!) but have been forgotten or deemed unimportant. It’s this track record that sows distrust into the discourse.

Ultimately, this marks a failure of Team Ford. Sure, they haven’t kept their promises to have openness and transparency (real transparency isn’t voting on every speaking extension) but there’s a larger implication.

Good governance involves connecting people- opposition councillors, regular citizens- to the institutions that represent them. It’s not always easy to be respectful, transparent and open, but if there’s any ‘customer service’ that government should provide, it’s that.