When the Voices of Income Assistance Recipients are still not heard – the use and abuse of Annual Reviews

By Kendall Worth!

As an activist who is also a journalist, I try to be constructive in my BLOGs. Sometimes my articles present the problems faced by people in my community who live in poverty and are likely recipients of Income Assistance.  It is important to hear these voices, - what I call “First Voices” as they express the real life experiences of people living in poverty, and often with mental health issues, here in Nova Scotia. 

But I also want my journalism to propose SOLUTIONS to these problems and challenges. 

• Sometimes, these solutions involve actions that people in my community could take themselves, individually or together. 
• In other cases, the actions I recommend are directed at agencies and non-profits to improve their anti-poverty programs. 
• I also try to propose different ways of seeing the world – and being in the world – to ordinary people who may be unfairly judgemental of their neighbours who live on Income Assistance. 
• Of course, often the solutions I propose are directly mainly at Government policies and programs that will need to change if we ever want to see real improvements in the lives of people. 

With regards to Government policies, I have written extensively about the need for a wholescale reform (a TRANSFORMATION) of our provincial Employment Support and Income Assistance program.  I have also written about much needed changes in Nova Scotia’s mental health services and programs. For over a year, I have been advocating in this BLOG for the establishment of a Social Prescription Program or Social Prescribing Organization to help break the shackles of social isolation that has such a negative impact on the health and well-being of people in my community. 

The Issue of Annual Reviews: 

In today’s BLOG, I want to focus on one specific element of life on Income Assistance: the Annual Review process to which every IA recipient must submit.  This is a VERY unpopular and usually uncomfortable process for many people in my community. People find it intrusive, often humiliating and sometimes abusive. People also find it to be very unbalanced and unfair in terms of power dynamics. 

Under the McNeil Government, there was an initiative launched to “transform” the ESIA program. This announcement raised the hopes in my community that positive changes might be made, including those related to the Annual Review process. 

As I wrote here, anti-poverty activists have been making the point for years that there are MAJOR issues with the Annual Review process of IA recipients.  But as we repeatedly raised these issues to politicians and bureaucrats, it became steadily more apparent that Government was only paying lip service to our concerns. 

As I wrote here, even the best efforts of the Benefits Reform Action Group came up short and BRAG was unable to extract any changes or improvements from the Government.  In response to an Opposition question in the legislature,  the Minister eventually stated her unwillingness to reform the Annual Review process. A few years later, when the Houston Conservatives came to power, the whole ESIA Transformation initiative was scrapped, in favour of a few small top-ups of select benefits. 

So, despite the best efforts of many different individuals, organizations and advocates, zero progress was made on reforming or eliminating the intrusive and humiliating Annual Review process. Looking through my own thick file of articles on this issue with the Halifax Media Coop,  Nova Scotia Advocate and this BLOG, readers can see the length to which we spoke up to be heard on this issue, - but to no avail. 

We had spoken, but we had NOT been heard!

Back to First Voices: 

In today’s BLOG, I will now share the First Voices of Zoey and Janet.  (As I have explained before,  I do not use people’s real names in my BLOGS for issues of privacy and protection. Incidents have occurred where people who know the welfare recipient can be critical and abusive, - reflecting the social stigma that negatively impacts Income Assistance recipients and about which I have written before. )

Zoey Speaks Up:  Zoey told me that she had had her most recent Income Assistance Annual Review in February, and she was NOT impressed with the behaviour of the IA caseworker through that review. 

By way of personal background, Zoey lives with social anxiety, mild depression, and thyroid issues. This means that she in unable to secure long-term employment because of her multiple health related appointments through the week, as well as her required “alone time” due to mental health concerns. To ease her anxieties, Zoey has a therapy cat. 

With regards to benefits, Zoey gets the Standard $1005 plus a $270 Rent Subsidy, and a $40 Special Needs Telephone Allowance. Together, Zoey receives $1315 a month. Her Rent is $900 a months and her power bill $65 per month.  Zoey cannot get a Special Diet Allowance because her doctor is fed up with the process of trying to qualify for a Special Diet Allowance. Interestingly, this is EXACTLY the same issue reported by another First Voice in an earlier BLOG, here. 

Zoey’s Experience of Annual Reviews:

In Zoey’s case she had appealed to get the High Fibre / Low Fat Diet supplement of $54. But following her Annual Review two years back, the decision was made to suspend those allowances and oblige her Doctor to complete further assessments and forms. Not surprisingly, Zoey and her Doctor viewed this action as harassment.  

Just to be clear - issues with the Special Diet Allowance are not new:  I have written articles on this issue dating back more than 10 years, here, here, here and here.  And those articles reveal that the process and criteria for qualifying for Special Diets is exactly the same today as it was BEFORE the ESIA Transformation initiative. In other words, NOTHING has changed! 

For Zoey, the review process took an even worse turn of events when her caseworker instructed her to get rid of her therapy cat.  The cat had been an issue in earlier Annual Reviews, so this year Zoey showed up at her Review meeting with a note from her Doctor saying she has that cat for medical reasons. However, the case worker was not impressed and the decision did not go Zoey’s way.  

This moment underlines the case I made some time back as to why Income Assistance recipients headed into an Annual Review meeting should be accompanied whenever possible by an advocate.  Our experience has been that when an advocate attends the review along with the recipient -  the process of the review, the professionalism of the caseworker and the final outcomes are ALL improved with an advocate present. 

Janet Speaks Up: Janet is an Income Assistance recipient, who receives the $1005 Standard House Hold rate.  As a woman living with depression and anxiety, Janet finds the Annual Review meeting to be a very high-stress event. She feels that her caseworker does not understand or appreciate how negatively this encounter can impact her health and well being.  This is particularly true as she feels that her caseworker lectures her on “being lazy” and “faking” her mental health issues.

To my way of thinking, we need a BIG improvement in the professionalism of IA caseworkers. The process involved and the judgements they bring can have major and very negative impacts on people like Zoey and Jane. This needs to stop. 

Indeed, the whole Annual Review process needs to be re-visited and reformed!  In the meantime, IA recipients like Zoey and Janet should be encouraged to secure professional advocates who will accompany them to their next Annual Review.  Enough is enough!!

Kendall Worth is an award-winning anti-poverty activist who lives with disabilities and tries to make ends meet on income assistance.