Cohabitation and Social Assistance

 Changing Section 6.1.8 of the ESIA Manual…Cohabitation. 

By: Kendall Worth!

 

 

When I wrote for the NS Advocate I touched several times on social isolation and the causes of it. Those “causes” of social isolation included discussion about the impact of Section 6.1.8 of the Employment Support and Income Assistance (ESIA) Policy Manual. Section 6.1.8 means that you get reduced income if you live with someone else on social assistance. Sharing of financial resources is not allowed. My last article about this issue, touched on how life could be different for those Income Assistance Recipients affected by that section of the ESIA policy manual, (especially during COVID restrictions) if that part of the policy manual did not exist.

And for more on this Topic see: https://nsadvocate.org/tag/cohabitation/

Ever since I started reporting on this topic, I have been hearing from, and having conversations with people, from different walks of life/including some in a better financial situation. This includes a senior bureaucrat who works at the Department of Community of Services, who has concerns about the changes to Section 6.1.8 of the ESIA policy manual. Informants have mixed opinions about whether the whole section should go, some believing that Section 6.1.8 needs changed but not necessarily eliminated.

A dietician I interviewed said: “Another important thing to consider is the way that living with someone can help people to healthier by allowing people to pool resources, which include money to bulk buy or buy larger amounts of food on sale. It also allows people to pool other resources to make the best use of things like the time it takes for grocery shopping, food preparation, and budget management. As well, for those with disabilities, or who just don’t like cooking, it allows people to pool their abilities and skills to create means of social support in their lives that those who aren’t living on social assistance have access to. In other words, people who don’t live on social assistance have a right to live with who they wish, and they benefit from that in many different way. People living on social assistance shouldn’t be prevented from the enjoying the same things that other people enjoy.”

She used those points during her interview as reasons why she personally would support a change in section 6.1.8 of the Employment Support and Income Assistance Policy Manual.

Over the past couple of years, I have had conversations with people who tell me that they are not sure whether or not they support a change in Sections 6.1.8 of the Employment Support and Income Assistance (ESIA) Policy Manual. Some people, including some Income Assistance recipients, themselves, say: “Kendall, as much as we agree with the fact that people should not lose income from their Income Assistance because of their decision to cohabit; the other side to this is that what the policy says about cohabitation is the law.” In fact, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA --they make the tax rules and collect your taxes owing) definition is based on a “full conjugal relationship” and is not appied for 12 months, and the ESIA policy manual is based on sharing finances, and is likely immediate --  two different things. 

 

I have also spoken to those who are not on social assistance – the financially-better-off-community - who, over the last few month, have told me:

“Kendall, even though, I have never been on Income Assistance, I have some knowledge of the Employment Support and Income Assistance program. As people who go to work everyday and pay our taxes, we also do not support section 6.1.8 of the ESIA policy manual.”

I appreciate their support, but compare that to the response of some others. These people have never had to rely on Income Assistance, and do not claim to know much about the system. Nevertheless, they have opinions about it.

They say things like: We go to work everyday and pay our taxes. If some people need to be receiving an allowance from our tax dollars in order to be able to live, then they are not functionally (mentally) capable of having romantic relationships. Our tax dollars should not be supporting their romantic relationships. Some of your articles in the NS Advocate indicated that people on social assistance are often mentally challenged and cannot really live well independently. It should then be mandatory for them to live in group homes where some independence is taken away from them in order to receive assistance.

I responded and I was enraged: “Excuse me, but not every Income Assistance recipient is mentally challenged! Some are, but you may be be surprised, that most income assistance recipients have what it takes to live independently!”

People need to drop their stigmatizing attitudes against ESIA recipients being in relationships. in my early days of my reporting for the advocate, I wrote a story with a major example of the stigma, faced by couples, who choose to live together on welfare. It would be an advantage to Income Assistance Recipients, especially the ones who have someone in their lives in whom they have a romantic interest , if Section 6.1.8 of the ESIA manual changed.

One person I talked about the ESIA Program and cohabitation asked “Kendall, does the community (of people I advocate for) understand that a common law or married couple combining their income can create wealth?”

I should point out that the person who asked me this question happens to be a-financially-better-off person who may not know the welfare system from a hole in the Ground.

I responded: “this idea of a couple creating wealth might be true in a world of folks with disposable incomes, but this is not true when the common law or married couple is on Income Assistance. Under the current Standard Household Rate, if two persons with disabilities received their own separate cheques, they would each get $950.00 x 2 = $1900. However, that is not the case when you live together as a couple. When you live together, you get $1,342 a month, this means 1,342 – 1900= $558. As a couple, they are loosing $558.00 a month! Considering that, how could they accumulate wealth!?”

I want to end by saying that I believe it is very wrong for people to have discriminatory beliefs about people on welfare entering romantic relationships. All stigma needs to end. We need to stop encouraging people on social assistance to lead lives of social isolation. The combination of Section 6.1.8 of the ESIA policy, and people’s stigmatizing attitudes, are encouraging Social Isolation in Income Assistance Recipients.