On the Annual Review Process: So Many Outstanding Issues Still to Address

 

By Kendall Worth!

Two months back, I wrote a BLOG on the Annual Review process that Income Assistance (IA) recipients must undergo each year. While experiences vary between recipients and across caseworkers, most clients consider the process to be highly stressful, invasive and arbitrary. They simply feel that their voices are not being heard.

Since that BLOG was posted in April, I have had multiple discussions about the Annual Review process with other IA recipients, informed by their most recent round of reviews.

I should mention that I have written about the need to reform the Annual Review process for many years. I first flagged it in a 2016 article in the Nova Scotia Advocate. And then revisited it again in a 2019 article, when I wrote about efforts of the Benefits Reform Action Group and other poverty advocates to get the review process reformed as part of the larger commitment of the Liberal Government to “transform” the entire Employment Support and Income Assistance (ESIA) program.

At that time, anti-poverty advocates were firmly told by the Minister that eliminating the annual review process was NOT part of the larger Transformation agenda. We were informed that the Department NEEDED to have in place a review of some sort to ensure that IA recipients are getting every benefit they are entitled to, given on-going changes in program policies and criteria, as well as each individual’s changing conditions and circumstances.

As we all remember, the larger reform / transformation agenda was scrapped shortly after the Conservative Gov’t of Tim Houston was elected in 2021. This left the Annual Review and other issues basically untouched. Since then, the Minister has introduced increases in some benefits, and made some changes to specific policies and criteria. But there have been no substantive changes to the Annual Review process.  

Beyond the Annual Review, conversations in my community as well as advocacy efforts have underlined many of the outstanding issues with the IA system. Many of these were raised in a conversation I had in 2019 with Alec Stratford, Executive Director of the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers, - and which I wrote up here. These included:   

·        Strengthening Educational Standards of IA Case workers: the varied and often unsatisfactory experiences of clients dealing with IA Case workers prompts us to propose that ALL such caseworkers be required to have a Social Work degree. Currently, too many clients walk away from their review meetings with the impression that their caseworker simply does not understand the complex reality of their lives. Hopefully, the proposed educational upgrading would improve caseworkers’ understandings of poverty and disabilities, as well as improve their engagement skills  with clients.

·        Reforming ESIA Policies: Even the most capable and empathetic caseworkers cannot perform well if Departmental programs and policies are poorly designed. In this context, two major changes still awaiting reform are:

·        Access to the Special Diet Allowance which remains tightly constrained and unevenly accessed. This has been an issue for years – I recounted my personal experience here - and my policy analysis here. I most recently wrote about this issue again, just last year.

·        Secondly, I have discussed the unfairness of Gov’t policies against client cohabitation many times, most recently here and here.  But this policy remains in place and is an ongoing obstacle to improved well-being for many IA recipients. 

Many IA clients have bad experiences attempting to address these and other issues in their Annual Review, - the one opportunity when they can actually speak directly with their case worker about programs and benefits. Clients find themselves walking a very narrow line, trying to make the case for eligibility to the benefits in question while attempting not to annoy or alienate their caseworker.

So, how could the Annual Review process be reformed or adapted so that it is less stressful and more effective for both parties? My experience is that everyone in my community has an opinions on the Annual Review process, but those opinions are often quite varied. Given that the Government insists on maintaining some form of Annual Review process, - what can be done to improve it?

I will explore that question further in a future BLOG.  But for today, here is a sample of the input I have received from two First Voices from my community.  

Michael and Rochelle are two IA recipients who most recently shared their experiences of the Annual Review process. (As always in my reporting of First Voices, - these are not their real names, but  pseudonyms to protect their privacy and diminish the risk of stigma and harassment. I have discussed these issues in earlier BLOGs both on stigma and the use of fake names.)

Up until two years ago, both Michael and Rochelle had a professional advocate who would accompany them to their annual review.  I am a big supporter of the advocate idea, - see this article from many years back, - not just for annual reviews, but for any meetings with your caseworker.

It is always better to have a second set of eyes and ears in such meetings, - even if they are not “professionals”.  In the case of Michael and Rochelle, their advocate was someone who they used to go to for Counselling. This individual has since left Nova Scotia and they have not been able to secure a replacement, so they must attend their annual reviews alone.

In Michael’s case, he feels that without an advocate in attendance, the Caseworker talks down to him and there is now a clear lack of respect in their meetings. More directly, the Caseworker has suspended his telephone allowance following a decision to no longer accept the submission from Michael’s doctor that access to a telephone was needed for medical reasons.

In the case of Rochelle, she also feels that without an advocate for support, she is disrespected in formal meetings with her Caseworker. She feels that the Caseworker just wants to hurry through the meeting as quickly as possible. Rochelle also feels that the Caseworker was insufficiently supportive of her request to access the new Disability Supplement. As a result, it was several months before she actually started receiving the Supplement.

Clearly, there remain many issues with the Annual Review process that need to be addressed. Since the idea of abolishing Annual Reviews appears to be a ‘non-starter’, we must look at ways to make it more effective and less stressful. 

It is not clear that the Government currently has any intention to address this issue. Nonetheless, I will continue to advocate for improvements to the Annual Review process. As in so many matters, - we can only “Stay tuned!” and hope for the best.

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