cost of poverty

30
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE REPORTS THE COST OF POVERTY WINTER 2001-2002 | VOLUME #115

Upload: independent

Post on 18-Jan-2023

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

NatioNalCouNCilofWelfare | �

NatioNalCouNCilofWelfarerePortS

the cost of poverty

WINter 2001-2002 | voLUMe #115

The Cost of PovertyVolume #115Winter 2001-2002Reprinted Winter 2007

Copies of this publication may be obtained from:

National Council of Welfare9th Floor, 112 Kent StreetPlace de Ville, Tower BOttawa, Ontario K1A 0J9

Tel.: (613) 957-2961Fax: (613) 957-0680

E-mail: [email protected] Site: www.ncwcnbes.net

Également disponible en français sous le titre : Le coût de la pauvreté © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2007Cat. No. H68-53/2002EISBN 0-662-31553-7

t a B l e o f C o N t e N t S

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | �

iNtroDuCtioN... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 1

WHatiSPoVertY?... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3

WHoliVeSiNPoVertYiNCaNaDa?. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 5

HoWCaNWeMeaSuretHeCoStofPoVertY?. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 7

HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS?... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 9

He�lth . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 9

Just�ce... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11

Hum�nr�ghts�ndHum�nDevelopment . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 12

Work�ndProduct�veC�p�c�ty. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 13

Ch�ldDevelopment .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 15

WHatNeeDStoBeDoNe?... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19

CoNCluSioN. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 21

aBouttHeNatioNalCouNCilofWelfare .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 25

The Cost of Povertyh�sbeendevelopedbytheN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�re(NCW)todr�wthe�ttent�onofthepubl�c�ndpol�cy-m�kerstohowexpens�vepovertyre�lly�s.inthe2001Speechfromthethrone,thefeder�lgovernments�gn�lled�comm�tmenttoendpoverty.inthev�ewoftheCounc�l,th�s�snotonlywelcomed�ndnecess�ry,�t�sposs�ble.G�venourl�ckofsuccess�nthep�st20ye�rs,however,�t�lsocle�rlyrequ�res�newn�t�on-w�de�ppro�ch.theex�st�ngp�tchworkofprogr�ms�crossthecountry�s�sfullofb�rr�ers�ssupports�ndth�ss�tu�t�onurgentlyneedstoch�nge.

th�sp�perw�sconce�vedpr�ortotheSeptember11,2001�tt�cksontheun�tedSt�tes�ndthebeg�nn�ngofthew�ronterror�sm.theseevents,however,m�kethesubjectofth�sp�perevenmorecr�t�c�l.asmuch�swedesp�sethehorrific acts perpetrated by a relatively fewterror�sts,wemustf�cethere�l�tyth�tpoverty�ndthegre�tg�pbetweenthe“h�ves”�ndthe“h�ve-nots”�noursoc�ety,w�th�n�ndbetweencountr�es,�sa core issue in this and many conflicts.

theCounc�lh�s,overtheye�rs,documented�nddescr�bedpoverty�nC�n�d��npubl�c�t�onssuch�sWelfare Incomes,Poverty Profile,Justice and the Poor �nd,mostrecently,

Child Poverty Profile.thest�t�st�cs�nthesepubl�c�t�onsshowtheextentofpoverty,howdeeply�npovertym�nypeoplel�ve�ndwho�smostvulner�ble.

The Cost of Poverty�snot�boutthepeoplewhol�ve�npoverty�t�nyg�ventime. Instead it reflects a challenge to our �ssumpt�ons�boutpoverty�tself-�ndabout whom it hurts - so that we can find more�nnov�t�ve,l�st�ngw�ystoprevent�t.ifyou�re�mongthosewho�rewell-off,or�tle�strel�t�velycomfort�ble,�ndth�nkth�tpovertydoesnot�ffectyou,youcouldnotbemorewrong.C�n�d�c�nnot�ffordthehum�nm�seryortheeconom�cl��b�l�tyth�tpovertybr�ngs.

i N t r o D u C t i o N

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | 1

Canada does not have an official povertyl�ne,�lthoughthere�resever�lme�surescommonlyused,pr�m�r�lySt�t�st�csC�n�d�’slow-incomeCut-offs(liCos),wh�chshowhowm�nypeoplein Canada spend significantly more than the�ver�geonthenecess�t�esofl�fe.theliCos�lso�llowustoseehowdeep�npovertyorhowveryf�rbelowthecut-offsomepeoplel�ve.allme�suresofpoverty�rerel�t�ve.the�ssue�snotsomuch�boutme�surement�s�t�s�boutv�lues.Howpoor�ndexcluded�rewe�rew�ll�ngto�llowsomepeopletobe�nourwe�lthysoc�ety?Quest�ons�boutpovertyme�surement�reoftenusedtod�str�ct�ttent�onfromwh�t�sre�lly�mport�nt,such�strends,wh�chtelluswhetherwe�redo�ngbetterornot,�ndp�tterns,wh�chtelluswh�tc�rcumst�ncesm�kesomepeoplemorevulner�bletopoverty.

Povertyr�tesc�nv�ry�gre�tde�ldepend�ngongovernmentpol�c�es�ndpr�or�t�es.forex�mple,�comp�r�t�vestudyofpovertyr�tesforlone-p�rentmothersshowsm�rkedd�fferences�mongcountr�esw�thcomp�r�bleeconom�cwe�lth,from47%�ntheun�tedSt�tes�nd40%�nC�n�d�to25%�nfr�nceto�n�m�z�nglylow3%�nSweden1.

Poverty�susu�llyme�sured�ntermsof�ncome,butpeoplec�n�lsobe�mpover�shedbyl�ckof�ccesstootherresources,bysoc��lexclus�on�ndbythestressof�nsecur�ty.W�thch�ng�ngf�m�ly�ndworkp�tterns,there�sgrow�ngrecogn�t�onoftheproblemoft�mepoverty.ifyouh�ve�youngch�ldor�d�s�bledf�m�lymemberwhorequ�resc�re,forex�mple,youh�vefewerhours�v��l�ble�n�d�yforother�ct�v�t�essuch�sp��dwork,�tr��n�ngcourseorevensleep.Wel�ve�n�veryf�st-p�cedsoc�etywhere�ver�geC�n�d��nspurch�set�me-s�v�nggoods�ndserv�ces,such�sc�rs,busr�des,conven�encefoods,m�crow�veovens,bulksuppl�es�ndb�bys�tt�ngserv�ces,wh�ch�renotposs�ble�fyou�rel�v�ng�npoverty.th�sm�kespoverty�tselfveryt�me-consum�ng,someth�ngth�t�sr�relyt�ken�nto�ccount�ndes�gn�ng�ncomesupport,educ�t�onorl�bourm�rketpol�c�es.Wh�leeveryonemustm�ketr�de-offsbetweent�me�ndmoney,thecho�ces�v��l�bletopeoplel�v�ng�npoverty�reseverelyconstr��ned.

l�ckof�ccesstootherresources�s�lsoclosely�ssoc��tedw�thpoverty.S�fe,�dequ�te�nd�fford�blehous�ng�scr�t�c�l.it�snotjust�m�tterofphys�c�lshelter,bec�usehous�ng�s�lso�s�teofeconom�c�ct�v�tywherefood�sproduced,ch�ldren�rer��sed,

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | 3

W H a t i S P o V e r t Y ?

self-employmentc�nbegener�ted�ndcommun�tyt�es�rebu�lt.

educ�t�on�s�notherex�mple.Somepeoplel�v�ng�npoverty,such�sun�vers�tystudents,w�llmoveoutofpovertyqu�ckly�ndst�youtbec�usethey�redevelop�ngsk�lls�ndknowledgetohelptheme�rngood�ncomes.ontheotherh�nd,peoplel�v�ng�npovertywhoh�veminimal education and great difficulty �ccess�ngfurthereduc�t�onortr��n�ng,�rel�kelytosufferprolongedpoverty.

for�dults�ndch�ldren,poverty�lsoc�nme�nlonel�ness�ndexclus�onfromsports,recre�t�on,culture�ndother�ct�v�t�es�roundwh�ch�nd�v�du�lconfidence, friendships and other pos�t�vesoc��lrel�t�onsh�ps�rebu�lt.forch�ldren,espec��lly,th�sc�nh�velong-l�st�ngeffects.accesstos�fety�ndsecur�ty�s�lso�n�ssue.Povertyform�nywomen�ndch�ldren�softend�rectlyl�nkedtodomest�cv�olence�nd�buse.M�nycr�m�n�loffendersh�vebeen�bused�sch�ldren.andch�ldrenwhogrowup�nne�ghbourhoodswherestreetcr�me�ndv�olence�reprev�lent�revulner�bleto�dopt�ngth�sk�ndofbeh�v�ourorbe�ngv�ct�msof�t.

thepowertom�kedec�s�ons�ndpl�nyourl�fetobestmeetyourownneeds�s�lso�poverty�ssue.forsomepeople,p�rt�cul�rlyfor�dultsw�thd�s�b�l�t�es�ndwomenw�thyoungch�ldren,l�ckof�utonomyc�nm�kethemvulner�bletopoverty.ifthey�redependentonsomeoneelse�nthehouseholdfor

�ncome�ndd�y-to-d�yhelp,theym�ynotbe�bletom�kedec�s�ons�nthe�rownbest�nterests�ndc�nbeleft�nseverepoverty�ftherel�t�onsh�pends.Womenover55w�thl�ttlel�bourforceexper�encewhodon’tyetqu�l�fyforold�gesecur�ty�re�pr�meex�mple.Peoplel�v�ngonsoc��l�ss�st�ncec�nbefurther�mpover�shedbysuch�complexwebofrules,regul�t�ons�nddeme�n�ngtre�tmentth�tthe�rownneeds�nd�b�l�t�es�reunderm�ned,le�d�ngtodepress�on�ndhopelessnessforthefuture.

4 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | WHat iSPoVertY?

NCW

M�nyC�n�d��nsm�yexper�encespellsofpoverty�nthe�rl�fet�me.therefore,thesh�reofthepopul�t�ond�rectly�ffectedbypoverty�scons�der�blyl�rgerth�nthepovertyr�tefor�nyoneye�rwould�nd�c�te.SomeC�n�d��ns,however,�reespec��llyvulner�bletoh�ghr�tesofpoverty�swell�sdeep�ndpers�stentpoverty,�nclud�nglone-p�rentmothers�ndthe�rch�ldren,abor�g�n�lpeople,peoplew�thd�s�b�l�t�es�nd�mm�gr�ntswho�rev�s�blem�nor�t�es.BeforethedevelopmentofC�n�d�’spubl�cpens�onsystem,sen�orc�t�zenswere�mongthepoorest.overthel�st30ye�rs,however,the�reconom�cs�tu�t�on

overall has improved significantly. Now, thef�ceofpovertytendstobemuchyounger,belong�ngoftentoch�ldren,espec��llypreschoolers,�ndthe�rp�rents.evenwhenbothp�rents�reemployedthef�m�lyc�nf�llbelowthepovertyl�ne�fthejobsp�yloww�ges.

oneofthemostd�sturb�ngover�lltrends�nC�n�d��sthel�rge�ndcont�nu�ngg�pbetweenther�ch�ndpoor.

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | 5

W H o l i V e S i N P o V e r t Yi N C a N a D a ?

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | 7

H o W C a N W e M e a S u r et H e C o S t o f P o V e r t Y ?

there�rem�ny�nd�c�torsofthehum�ncostofpoverty,fromlowb�rth-we�ghtb�b�es�nd�ncre�sed�llnesstolowerl�bourforcep�rt�c�p�t�ontof�m�lyd�s�ntegr�t�on�ndyoungl�veslosttohom�c�deorsu�c�de.Des�gn�ngpubl�cpol�cy,however,�lsome�nsm�k�ngdec�s�ons�boutwh�t�soc�etyc�n�fford�ntermsofmoney—howmuch�progr�mwill cost compared to its benefits—in order tosetpr�or�t�es.

One of the difficulties with measuring the costofpoverty,�swell�sotherm�ttersrel�tedtohum�nwell-be�ng�ndqu�l�tyofl�fe,�sth�teconom�c�ndsoc��lpol�cyh�veh�stor�c�llydevelopedond�fferenttr�cks,w�thoutrecogn�z�nghow�nterdependentthey�re.inveryb�s�cterms,econom�cpol�cyh�sconcerned�tselfw�thmoney�ndsoc��lpol�cyw�thpeople.thew�youreconomyh�str�d�t�on�llybeenme�suredprov�des�n�llustr�t�on.econom�cperform�nce,�sdeterm�nedby�country’sGrossDomest�cProduct,me�suresthes�zeofthem�rketwheremoney�sexch�nged.itdoesnotcons�derwh�tthemoney�susedfor.Perc�p�t�GDPm�ytellushowwe�lthy�country�scomp�redtoothersbut�tdoesnottellusmuch�bouthowpeoplel�ve�nth�tcountry.ats�m�l�rlevelsofperc�p�t�GDP,somecountr�esh�ve�fewverywe�lthypeople�ndm�ss�vepoverty,wh�leothersoc�et�esh�vegre�terequ�l�ty.

M�ny�ct�v�t�esm�ycontr�butetoeconom�cgrowthbutnottowell-be�ng.M�nyother�ct�v�t�escontr�butetowell-be�ngbutdonotshowup�sv�lu�bletotheeconomy.forex�mple,them�rketeconomygrowswhenpeoplebuy�lleg�ldrugsorgunsorwhenweh�vetocle�nup�fterhum�n-c�usedd�s�stersth�tresult�nperm�nentd�m�getotheenv�ronment.But�rewebetteroff?ontheotherh�nd,soc��llyv�lu�ble�ct�v�t�essuch�sr��s�ngch�ldren,c�r�ngforrel�t�ves�ndfr�endswhenthey�res�ck�ndkeep�nghomes�ndcommun�t�escle�n�nds�fedonotcount�nGDP�fthey�renotdoneforp�y.th�s�s�nenormousproblembec�usethem�rketc�nnotsurv�vew�thouthousehold�ndvolunteerwork.inf�ctC�n�d��nsspendmoret�me�nunp��dth�np��dwork.thehouseholdeconomycontr�butedtheequ�v�lentof�bout12.8m�ll�onfull-t�mejobs�n1992�t�nest�m�tedv�lueofbetween$235�nd$374b�ll�on.th�srepresentsbetween34%�nd54.2%ofGDP2.

GDPc�n�lsoseemtogrowwhenproduct�onsh�ftsfromthenon-m�rkettothem�rketsectoroftheeconomy.theste�dy�ncre�se�nwomen’sp�rt�c�p�t�on�nthel�bourm�rketoverthel�st30ye�rs,forex�mple,h�sledto�noverst�tementofeconom�cgrowth3.intheextremec�se,wecould�ncre�seGDPbyp�y�ngsomeoneelseforpr�ct�c�llyeveryth�ngexcepte�t�ng�ndsleep�ngbutwh�t

NCW

8 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWCaNWeMeaSuretHeCoStofPoVertY?

NCW

wouldbethepo�nt�fsoc�etyf�lls�p�rtforl�ckofhum�nconnect�ons?Soc�et�es�rebu�lt�roundhum�nrel�t�onsh�ps�ndv�lues,notm�rkets�gn�ls.Wedonot�b�ndonourch�ldrenthew�yf�ctor�esorfields are disposed of when they fail to be profitable or if a better deal comes along.

inthev�ewoftheN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�re,governmentpr�or�t�esh�veoftenbeenthewrongw�y�round,go�ngoverbo�rd�nlett�ngthem�rketoversh�dowhum�nneeds.inf�ct,�nC�n�d�s�ncethem�d-1970s,GDPh�sr�sen�gre�tde�lbuthum�nwell-be�ngh�snot.Wemustlook�tthem�rket�s�tre�lly�s—�v�lu�bleveh�cle�ntheserv�ceofhum�nwell-be�ng,butnotthego�lofhum�nende�vour.forth�sre�son,we�reconcernedwhenm�rket-b�sedterms�reusedwhenreferr�ngtohum�nbe�ngs.forex�mple,�termsuch�s“hum�nc�p�t�l”tendstobeused�n�w�yth�treducesther�chnessofhum�nc�p�c�ty�ndcre�t�v�tyto�setofsk�llsth�t�reuseful�ncurrentm�rketcond�t�ons.S�m�l�rly,thephrase “social capital” does not reflect thecomplex�tyofhum�nrel�t�onsh�ps�ndbelong�ngthroughf�m�l�es,culture,k�nsh�p,ne�ghbourhoods�ndmuchmoreth�tsust��nssoc�et�es�ndeconom�es.Whentheterr�bleeventsofSeptember11occurred,peoplere�chedforthe�rcellphones,nottodemonstr�tethe�rtechnolog�c�lsk�llbuttoc�llthe�rlovedones.

there�s�syetno�ntern�t�on�lly-recogn�zedsetofsoc��l�nd�c�torstome�surehum�nwell-be�ngcomp�r�bletothew�yGDP�s�ccepted�s�me�sureofthem�rket

economy.Butthere�sgrow�ng�nterest�ndthere have been significant developments in this field, including government and non-governmentwork�nC�n�d�4.there�re�lso�ntern�t�on�lefforts,such�stheun�tedN�t�ons’Hum�nDevelopmentindex,wh�chf�ctors�n�nequ�l�tybetweenwomen�ndmen�nd�nequ�l�tybetweenr�ch�ndpoor.theeurope�nun�on�s�lsowork�ngon�setof�nd�c�tors.Wh�leGDPh�sonecommondenom�n�tor—money,soc��l�nd�c�tors�ncludev�r�ousme�suresofhe�lth,educ�t�on,p��d�ndunp��dworkt�me,le�sure�ndrest,e�rn�ngs�ndother�ncome,p�rt�c�p�t�on�npubl�cl�fe�nds�fety�ndsecur�ty.

thenextsect�onprov�desbothsoc��l�ndeconom�c�llustr�t�onsofhowexpens�vepoverty�s�ndhowmuchbetteroffwewouldbe�nhum�n�ndeconom�ctermsbylower�ngpovertyr�tes�ndr��s�ngthel�v�ngst�nd�rdsofpeople�ndeepestpoverty.

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | 9

H o W D o e S P o V e r t Y C o S tC a N a D i a N S ?

Noone,toourknowledge,h�s�ttemptedto put a global dollar figure on how much povertycosts.it�scert��nlybeyondtheCounc�l’sc�p�c�tytodoso.there�s�mpleev�dencehowever,th�tpovertynotonlyresults�nperson�lhum�nm�sery,but�tdoesnotm�kegoodeconom�csense.thefollow�ng�s�s�mpleselect�onofthew�ys�nwh�chpovertycosts�llofus�ndhoww�serdec�s�onswould�mprovehum�nwell-be�ng�ndproducere�l,long-termeconom�cs�v�ngs.

h e a L t h

The health field provides a key example of howreduc�ng�ndprevent�ngpoverty�nthe first place is more cost-effective than p�y�ngfor�tsconsequences.Popul�t�onhe�lthev�dencepo�ntstothe�ncre�sedcoststothehe�lthc�resystem,�ndthedecre�ses�nthe�c�dem�c�ch�evements,he�lth�ndl�fesp�ns,ofthosepopul�t�ons�tthebottomendofthesoc�o-econom�csc�le.

Spend�ngonhe�lthc�re,however,h�s�rel�t�velym�noreffectonthehe�lthof�popul�t�oncomp�redtotheeffectsofunemployment,forex�mple,orof�ncome�ndsoc��lst�tus.thedeterm�n�ntsofthehe�lthof�popul�t�on�nclude

soc��lsupports,work�ngcond�t�ons,soc��lenv�ronments,phys�c�lenv�ronments,b�ology�ndgenet�cendowment,gender,person�lhe�lthpr�ct�ces�ndculture.Child development has a significant effect onl�felonghe�lthof�nd�v�du�ls,�ndtheover�llhe�lthofpopul�t�ons.He�lthserv�ces�reonly�p�rtofthep�cture—�nd�nexpens�vep�rt�tth�t.

ag��n�nd�g��n,popul�t�onhe�lthrese�rchersh�veshownthe�mport�nceof�ncome�ndsoc��lst�tus.evenwhenpeopleh�ve�lltheb�s�cssuch�s�dequ�tefood�ndshelter,theh�gherthe�r�ncome�ndsoc��lst�tus,thebetterpeople’she�lth.ap�oneer�ngstudy�nthe field, the Whitehall Study, followed thehe�lthofmoreth�n10,000Br�t�shc�v�lserv�ntsforne�rly20ye�rs.itshowedth�the�lth�ndl�feexpect�ncy�mproved�te�chlevel�nther�nksofthec�v�lserv�ce,eventhough�llthepeoplestud�edh�d�dequ�te�ncomes,�nd�llworked�n“low risk” office jobs. Even when the study looked�t“h�ghr�sk”he�lthbeh�v�ourssuch�ssmok�ng,rese�rchersfoundth�ttoppeoplewhosmokedweremuchlessl�kelytod�eofsmok�ng-rel�tedc�uses5.

Popul�t�onhe�lthexpertsdemonstr�tehowstress�sp�rtoftheexpl�n�t�onforthesed�fferences�nhe�lthst�tus.l�v�ngw�thprolongedstresshurtstheb�olog�c�lsystemsof�ll�n�m�ls—�nclud�ng

people—�ndm�kesthemsuscept�bleto�llness.forex�mple,ch�ldrenwhol�vedw�thsomestress�ndwereexposedtostreptococc�l�nfect�onsweremorel�kelytobecome�llth�nwerech�ldrenwhoweres�m�l�rlyexposedbuth�dnoth�dstressfulexper�ences6.WhentheWh�teh�llStudylooked�tthed�fferences�ncop�ngw�thstress�te�chlevelw�th�ntheh�er�rchyoftheBr�t�shc�v�lserv�ce,�tfoundth�t�lthough�llr�nks�nthestudyh�ds�m�l�rlyr��sedlevelsofstresswhentheywere�twork,thebloodpressureofsen�or�dm�n�str�torsdroppedwhentheywenthome.forlow-levelworkers�td�dnot.Both�n�m�ls�ndpeoplewhol�ve�nuns�t�sf�ctory,low-levelsoc��l�rr�ngementsl�ve�nst�tesofconst�nt�lert,neverknow�ngwhentherew�llbe�notherthre�ttothe�rsenseofwell-be�ng7.

These findings about stress help to explain some of the difficulties of parenting while cop�ngw�ththepressuresofh�gh-stress,low-st�tus,low-p�y�ngjobs,l�v�ng�s�s�nglep�rentw�thout�p�rtnertosh�retheburden,orl�v�ngonwelf�re,�npoorhous�ngor�n�run-downord�ngerousne�ghbourhood.oneresultofthesestresses�sth�tthec�p�c�tyofp�rentstoprov�detherespons�veness�nd�ppropr��ted�sc�pl�neessent��lforopt�m�lch�lddevelopment�sser�ouslycomprom�sed.

He�lthproblemsofpoorch�ldrenbeg�nbeforeb�rth�ndpl�cethesech�ldren�tgre�terr�skofde�th,d�s�b�l�ty�ndotherhe�lthproblemsthroughout�nf�ncy,ch�ldhood�nd�dolescence.atb�rth,ch�ldrenfromthepoorestne�ghbourhoods�nC�n�d�h�ve�l�feexpect�ncy

between2�nd5½ye�rsshorterth�nth�tofch�ldrenfromthewe�lth�estne�ghbourhoods.Ch�ldrenfromthepoorestne�ghbourhoodsc�n�lsoexpecttospendmoreofthe�rl�vesw�thd�s�b�l�t�es�ndotherhe�lthproblems.ther�teofch�ldhoodd�s�b�l�tyw�sovertw�ce�sh�ghforch�ldrenfrompoorf�m�l�esth�nforch�ldrenfromr�chf�m�l�es8.

f�nd�ngsfromC�n�d�’sN�t�on�llong�tud�n�lSurveyofCh�ldren�ndYouthfounds�m�l�roverwhelm�ngev�dence.ag��n�nd�g��n,theCh�ldren’sSurveyfoundth�tch�ldren�tthelowerendofthesoc�o-econom�csc�leh�dpoorerhe�lth�nddevelopment�loutcomesth�nch�ldren�nthem�ddle,�ndch�ldren�tthetopofthesoc�o-econom�csc�leh�devenbetterresults.

andp�rents�tthelowerendofthesc�leshowedtheeffectsofl�v�ng�npoverty.theysuffered�ncre�sedstress�ndpoorerfunct�on�ngw�ththe�rch�ldren�ndh�gherlevelsofdepress�on,bothofwh�ch�reboundtoh�veser�ouseffectsonthec�p�c�tyofp�rentstot�kethebestc�reofthe�rch�ldren9,10.

C�n�d�devotes�veryl�rgesh�reof�tswe�lth,effort�nd�ttent�ontotry�ngtom��nt��nor�mprovethehe�lthofthe�nd�v�du�lsth�tm�keup�tspopul�t�on.thesem�ss�veefforts�repr�m�r�lych�nnelledthroughthehe�lthc�resystem,desp�teev�denceth�t�ncome,employment�ndsoc��lst�tuswouldh�ve�gre�terpos�t�veeffect.asc�t�zens�ndt�xp�yers,we�re�llbe�r�ngthecosts.

10 | NCW | NatioNalStrateGY

NCW

10 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS?

NCW

J U s t I c e

Spend�ngonjust�ce�ndcr�me�s�nother�re�wherewe�reputt�ng�gre�tde�lofmoney�ntoveryexpens�veserv�ces,whereresults�request�on�ble,�fnot�nsomec�sestheoppos�teofwh�twe�retry�ngto�ch�eve.

theN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�re’sJustice and the Poor(2000)reportshows�ndet��lhowthere�smuch�nourcr�m�n�ljust�cesystemth�tpushesyoungpeople�ntocr�me�nste�dofhelp�ngthemtost�youtof�t—�nd�t�sl�rgelyrel�tedtopoverty.althoughC�n�d�h�s�rel�t�velylowerr�teofcr�me,espec��llyv�olentcr�me,th�nother�ndustr��l�zedcountr�es,weh�veoneoftheh�ghestr�tesof�mpr�sonmentofyoungpeople�ntheworld,tw�ceth�toftheun�tedSt�tes.

thereportprov�desex�mplesofrese�rchth�t�nd�c�testh�tpeoplefrom�lllevelsofsoc�etycomm�tcr�mes�ndth�tthere�s�ne�r-un�vers�ltendencyof�dolescents,espec��llyyoungmen,tocomm�tm�noroffences.Butthosewho�re�rrested,det��nedw�thoutb��l,j��led�ndg�ventheh�rshestsentences�repeoplew�thlow�ncome.theydonoth�vethef�m�lyconnect�ons,educ�t�on,ste�dyemployment�ndotherl�belsof“respect�b�l�ty”orthe�b�l�tytoh�rel�wyersand pay fines that the more well-off have. forex�mple,lonemothersh�vebeenjailed because they could not afford fines or because they were unable to fulfil a commun�tyserv�cesentenceduetol�ckof�fford�blech�ldc�re.

low-�ncomeoffendersofm�norcr�mesthusgetlockedupw�thexper�encedcr�m�n�lswhog�vethem�dv�ncedlessons�ncr�me.in�dd�t�on,the�rexper�enceerodesthe�rrespectforthel�w,wh�chc�nle�dtofutureproblems.J��l�ngoftenme�nspeoplelosejobs,hous�ng,the�rch�ldren�ndsupportfromf�m�ly�ndfr�endswhocouldh�vehelpedthemthrough�temporary period of difficulty. To make m�ttersworse,theyoftenlosethe�rfuturebec�usetheyobt��n�recordth�tm�kesit very difficult to get what they have lost b�ck�g��n.th�s�s�nextr�ord�n�ry�mountofd�m�gefor�m�noroffence.

th�ss�tu�t�on�snothelpedbycutb�ckstohe�lth,welf�re�ndemploymentserv�cesth�tputmorement�lly�llpeople,homelessf�m�l�es�ndunemployedyouth�ntothestreetswherepeople�re�fr��dofthem.Work�ndf�m�lystress�lsodoesnothelp,nordoesl�ckof�ttent�on�nschoolstotraining in conflict resolution.

ourcurrent�ppro�ch�sthusveryexpens�ve�ntermsofh�gh-cost�nc�rcer�t�on�ndd�m�getohum�nbe�ngs.and�sw�thhe�lth,�t�snotonlythepoorbutther�ch�ndm�ddlecl�sswhop�ytheb�ll.Superv�s�onprogr�mscostlessth�nkeep�ngthe�ccused�nj��lwh�le�w��t�ngtr��l,forex�mple.andthemosteffect�vew�ysofreduc�ngcr�me�tselfh�venoth�ngtodow�ththecr�m�n�ljust�cesystem.they�nvolvesupportprogr�msforf�m�l�es�nvulner�blec�rcumst�nces�ndthecre�t�onofopportun�t�esforyoungpeople.

NatioNalStrateGY | NCW | 11

NatioNalCouNCil

ofWelfareNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE

tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS? | 11

h U M a N r I g h t s a N d h U M a N d e v e L o p M e N t

rel�tedtojust�ce�sthe�re�ofhum�nr�ghts�ndhum�ndevelopment.there�re�ntern�t�on�lleg�l�nstruments�ndC�n�d�’sownCh�rterofr�ghts�ndfreedomsth�tsetouttherespons�b�l�t�esofgovernmentstoensureth�tpeoplec�nexerc�sethe�rr�ghts.theser�ghts,wh�chcoverpol�t�c�l�ndc�v�lm�tters�swell�ssoc��l,econom�c�ndcultur�lones,�re�w�yofest�bl�sh�ngtheb�s�crulesofsoc�ety.inp�rt�cul�r,“progress�ve”,or“pos�t�ve”r�ghtssuch�sther�ghttoeduc�t�on�ndto�re�son�blest�nd�rdofl�v�ng,prov�deth�t�s�soc�ety�ncre�ses�tswe�lth�nd�ts�b�l�tytofosterhum�ndevelopment, these benefits should be sh�redw�thoutd�scr�m�n�t�onongroundsofsex,r�ce�ndm�nyotherf�ctors.

Whenthere�s�h�ghlevelofsoc��lcohes�on,�countryc�ndependon�rel�t�velype�cefulex�stence�nwh�chits citizens have confidence in working co-oper�t�vely.thepresenceofstrongsoc��ldevelopmentshows�n�soc�ety’s�b�l�tytosupportcollect�ve�ct�onsuch�sl�v�ngundertheruleofl�w,enforc�ngcontr�ctsbetweenc�t�zens,�ndsupport�ngc�v�ll�bert�es11—�ngener�l,thoseth�ngsth�tshowth�tpeople�rew�ll�ngtoworktogetherforthecommongood.Countr�eswhoh�vetheworsthum�nr�ghtsrecords�reusu�llythoseth�t�re�lsothele�stpol�t�c�llyst�ble�ndoftendependon�rmedoppress�ontom��nt��n�sembl�nceoforder.evenpeoplewho

�repr�v�legedh�vethe�rl�vesconstr��nedbeh�ndg�tes�ndw�lls�ndsecur�tysystemsoutoffe�rofthosewhoh�vebeendepr�ved.

there�s�strongl�nktotheeconomy�swell.recentworkbyeconom�stssupportsthe�de�th�teconom�cgrowth,�nd�np�rt�cul�r,the�b�l�tyofeconom�estosupportshocks,dependsonthecoherenceofthesoc�ety�ndtheex�stenceofstrongsoc��ldevelopment.Countr�esw�thsoc�et�esth�t�red�v�ded�longethn�coreconom�cl�nes�ndh�vewe�k,host�leorcorruptgovernmentsh�vebeenlessl�kelytowe�thershocks,�ndmorel�kelytocoll�pse.Whenshocksh�t�nthe1970s�nd1980s,countr�esw�ththesewe�knesseswerenot�bletocope,�ndthe�reconom�essufferedprofoundly—�ndsomeoftheseeconom�esh�vest�llnotrecovered12.

aC�n�d��nex�mpleoftheeconom�ccostsof�nequ�l�ty�ndsoc��lexclus�onw�sprov�ded�nthereportoftheroy�lComm�ss�ononabor�g�n�lPeoples.thecosts�ssoc��tedw�ththeeconom�cm�rg�n�l�z�t�onofabor�g�n�lpeoplewereest�m�ted�t$7.5b�ll�on�n1996.ofth�s,$5.8b�ll�onw�sest�m�ted�sthecostofforegoneproduct�onbec�useabor�g�n�lpeople�renot�bletofullyp�rt�c�p�tetothe�rpotent��l�ntheeconomy�nd$1.7b�ll�onforextr�expend�turesonremed��lprogr�mstocopew�thsoc��lproblems13.

inC�n�d�,weh�vebeenmov�ng�nthed�rect�onof�ncre�s�ngpr�v�t�z�t�on

12 | NCW | NatioNalStrateGY

NCW

12 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS?

NCW

�ndderegul�t�on.Weh�vebeensh�ft�ngfromcorpor�teto�nd�v�du�lt�x�t�on,�ndcutt�ngt�xesth�t�retheb�s�sforprogr�msth�tsupportthecommonpubl�cgood.Weh�veseenthedowns�deofth�srecently�nuns�fedr�nk�ngw�ter�nsomecommun�t�es.Cutstoeduc�t�onwereoften�ccomp�n�edbyschoolfeesfor�ct�v�t�esth�tpoorerf�m�l�esc�nnot�fford,m�k�ngschools�s�teofsoc��lexclus�on.Weseegrow�ngstress�sf�m�l�es�ndnon-governmentorg�n�z�t�onstrytocopew�thfewerpubl�cserv�ces�ndgrow�ngconsumpt�onofluxurygoods�longs�de�ncre�seduseoffoodb�nks.atthes�met�me,governments�re�nscre�s�ngly�dd�ctedtog�mbl�ngrevenuestofundb�s�cserv�ces.

th�spol�r�z�t�on�ncre�sessoc�et�ltens�ons.itunderm�nesthepubl�cgood�ndthehum�nd�gn�tyofpeoplewho�retre�ted�scl�entsorsuppl�c�ntswhom�yorm�ynotbedeemedworthyofch�r�ty,r�therth�n�sc�t�zens.th�scostssoc�etythecre�t�ve�ndproduct�vec�p�c�tyof�l�rgeport�onofthepopul�t�on,�tscostsgovernmentsthetrust�ndsupportofthepubl�c�nd�tcosts�soc�ety�tshum�n�ty.

W o r k a N d p r o d U c t I v e c a p a c I t y

Whenwelook�twork�ndproduct�vec�p�c�tywe�lsoseetheun�fford�blyh�ghcostsofpovertytoC�n�d��ns.forex�mple,theCounc�l’s1993report,

Incentives and Disincentives to Work,underl�nedthesh�rpdecl�ne�nthev�lueofm�n�mumw�gess�nce1976�ndthetrendtow�rdp�rt-t�me,prec�r�ous�ndtempor�ryjobs�nste�dofwellp��d,securejobs.oneresultofthed�m�n�sh�ngm�n�mumw�ge�sth�tnom�n�mumw�geworkercouldevenre�chthe1998povertyl�nebywork�ng40hours�week—even�ftheworkerwerew�thoutdepend�nts.aworkerw�thonech�ldtosupportwouldh�vetowork58hours�weektore�chthepovertyl�ne�nV�ncouverwherem�n�mumw�ges�retheh�ghest�nthecountry,�nd103hours�week�nW�nn�peg.acouplew�thtwoch�ldrenwouldh�vetowork113hours�weektore�chthepovertyl�ne�nPr�nceedw�rdisl�nd,�nd151hours�week�nW�nn�peg.

th�scre�tes�nenormousb�rr�ertopeopleenter�ng�ndre-enter�ngthep��dworkforce,espec��llywhentheyh�vedepend�nts.forlone-p�rentmothers,�t�sv�rtu�lly�n�mposs�b�l�tytor��sech�ldrenon�loww�gejobsothey�reoftenforcedoutofemploymentcompletely.thelongerthey�reout,theh�rder�t�storeturn.anotherb�rr�ertol�bourforcep�rt�c�p�t�on�sl�ckofeduc�t�on.iron�c�lly,studentlo�npol�c�esh�vebeenm�demore�ccess�ble�tthes�met�me�smostsoc��l�ss�st�ncepol�c�esnowm�ke�t�lmost�mposs�bleforrec�p�entssuch�ss�nglemotherstopursueh�ghereduc�t�onor�me�n�ngfultr��n�ngcourse.G�venth�t�mother’seduc�t�on�s�lso�strongdeterm�n�ntofherch�ldren’seduc�t�on,th�s�str�g�c�llyshort-s�ghted�nddest�nedtoperpetu�tethecycleofpoverty.

NatioNalStrateGY | NCW | 13

NatioNalCouNCil

ofWelfareNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE

tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS? | 13

thecont�nuedproblemsof�nequ�l�ty�ntheC�n�d��nl�bourm�rketcre�te�dd�t�on�lb�rr�ersforwomenworkerstry�ngtor��sethe�rf�m�l�esoutofpoverty.form�nyre�sons,women’sw�ges�rel�kelytodropsignificantly when they have children, and espec��llywhenthech�ldren�reyoung14.

thew�ysoc��l�ss�st�nce�ndch�ldc�resubs�dystructures�nter�ctc�n�lso�mp�ctontheemploymentoflonep�rents.recogn�z�ngth�tr��s�ngch�ldrenrequ�resp�rent�l�nvolvement�swell�smoney,�t�ss�mplynotworth�tforsomep�rentstole�vesoc��l�ss�st�ncebec�useh�ghm�rg�n�lt�xr�tes,�nclud�ngthereduct�onofsubs�d�es,me�nth�temploymentgener�tesveryl�ttleextr��ncome.forex�mple,onestudyest�m�testh�tsomeoneonsoc��l�ss�st�ncee�rn�ng$8,000�n�ye�rcouldnet�t�ke-home�ncre�seofonly$2,300comp�redtocollect�ngonlysoc��l�ss�st�nce15.inre�ll�fe,thecostofcloth�ng,tr�nsport�t�on�ndotherjob-rel�tedcostsw�llreducewh�t�s�v��l�bletospendonthech�ldren.addtoth�tthereducedt�me�v��l�bletosuperv�se�nd�nter�ctw�thch�ldren,p�rt�c�p�te�nthe�rschoolfunct�onsorsports�ndrecre�t�on,cookme�ls�nddol�undry,�nd�tm�ys�mplynotbeworth�t.

The federal government’s Self-Sufficiency Project�stest�ngtempor�ry�ncomesupplementsto�bout6,000lonep�rentsonwelf�re�nNewBrunsw�ck�nd�nBr�t�shColumb��tosee�f�tc�nhelpmovethemoffsoc��l�ss�st�nceon�moreperm�nentb�s�s.after36months,the Self-Sufficiency Project has shown modestlyprom�s�ngresults.P�rentsh�d

h�gheremployment�nde�rn�ngs,loweruseofwelf�re�ndlowerpovertyr�tes.therel�tedstudyth�tlooked�ttheeffectsof the Self-Sufficiency Project on the development�loutcomesofch�ldrenw�sm�xed,however.oneproblemth�tw�snotedforsomep�rentsw�sthe�nst�b�l�tyofch�ldc�re�rr�ngements.

inf�ct,m�nyoftheprogr�ms�ndpol�c�esth�tshouldsupportlow-�ncomepeoplework�tcross-purposes.l�bour-forcepol�c�es�re�n�dequ�tetosupportlow-�ncomepeopletry�ngtom�kethe�rw�y�ntothel�bourm�rket,�n�dequ�teeduc�t�on�ndtr��n�ngopportun�t�esr��sefurtherb�rr�ers,�nd�de�rthofch�ldc�resp�cesm�ke�tne�rly�mposs�bleform�nyp�rentstop�rt�c�p�tefully�neduc�t�on,tr��n�ng�ndthejobm�rket.Costs�v�ngstogovernmentsth�tcomefromcutt�ngtheseprogr�ms—orneglect�ngtoprov�dethemadequately in the first place—raise costs elsewhere�nthesoc��lsystem.

Students�neduc�t�on�ndtr��n�ngprogr�ms,forex�mple,h�vegre�terdifficulty learning and face greater risk ofdropp�ngout�fthey�restressedbymoneyworr�es,l�ckoft�me,hungeror�nx�ety�boutch�ldc�re�rr�ngements.onestudyest�m�testh�tthelosstoC�n�d��nsoc�etyduetof��luretocompleteh�ghschool�s$4b�ll�on�nnu�lly�nlost�ncomet�xrevenue�ndthecostofprov�d�nggovernment�ss�st�ncedur�ngunemployment16.G�venth�tmostjobs,espec��llythoseth�tp�ywellenoughtosupport�f�m�ly,nowrequ�repost-second�rystud�es,wec�nnot�ffordtoneglect�nvestmentth�tw�llen�ble

14 | NCW | NatioNalStrateGY

NCW

14 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS?

NCW

low-�ncomepeopletopursuefurthereduc�t�on�ndtr��n�ng.

our1997report,Another Look at Welfare Reform, identifies how the push to get rec�p�entsoffwelf�re,�nclud�nglonep�rentsw�thch�ldren�syoung�ss�xmonths,h�ppenedw�thouttheprov�s�onofthef�m�lysupports,tr��n�ng�ndch�ldc�reth�ttheywouldneedtom�ke�successfultr�ns�t�onfromwelf�retothel�bourforce.

Whengovernmentsm�ke�gre�terpr�or�tyofmov�ngpeopleoffwelf�reth�n�ctu�llyreduc�ngpovertyor�ss�st�ngp�rentstocomb�nep��dwork�ndf�m�lyl�fe,thel�bourforce�lsolosesout.M�nycr�t�csh�venotedthed�m�g�ngeffectsofth�s�ppro�chtosoc��lpol�cyonf�m�l�es,�ndp�rt�cul�rlyonf�m�l�eshe�dedbywomen17.We�ref�rtherbeh�nd,not�he�d,�fwelf�rerolls�rereducedbecause cutbacks or disqualifications forcesomewomentoreturnto�bus�verel�t�onsh�psortopl�cethe�rch�ldrenw�thch�ldwelf�re�genc�es.thelong-termcosts�ssoc��tedw�th�ddress�ngv�olenceorprov�d�ngfosterc�re�ndotherch�ldprotect�onserv�cesc�nbem�nyt�mesh�gherth�nthesoc��l�ss�st�ncefundsth�t�res�ved.

Whenwelook�twork�n�tsw�destsense,there�reproblems�nC�n�d�th�tw�llcostusde�rly�nthefuture.there�s�grow�ngpol�r�z�t�onofwork.Somepeopleh�vetool�ttleworkwh�leothersh�vetoomuch.Womenw�thyoungch�ldren�nd�full-t�mejob�re�mongthemostoverworked�ndthemoststressedw�ththedem�ndsof

underp��dworkonthejob�ndunp��dwork�thome.regrett�bly,men�rest�llnowherene�rsh�r�ngrespons�b�l�tyforc�r�ngforch�ldren�n�nequ�t�blew�y.ontheotherh�ndm�nypeople,�nclud�ngmenw�thh�gh�ncomes,�rework�ngverylongp��dhourswh�chle�vesnot�meforf�m�ly.G�venth�tl�ckofp�rent�l�ttent�on�s�keyc�useofbeh�v�our�lproblems,�nclud�ngcr�m�n�lbeh�v�our,th�sc�rr�es�n�ntergener�t�on�lcost.

in�dd�t�on,C�n�d�’spopul�t�on�s�g�ng�ndourl�bourforce�sshr�nk�ng.Yettheverypeoplewew�llmostcounton�sworkers�nthene�rfuturetosust��nourl�bourforce,ourst�nd�rdofl�v�ng�ndourpens�ons�rethepeoplemostvulner�bletopoverty�ndd�s�dv�nt�getod�y:ch�ldren,abor�g�n�lpeoplewhoh�ve�f�ryoungerpopul�t�onth�nnon-abor�g�n�lC�n�d��ns�nd�mm�gr�nts.Wec�nnot�ffordtoloseth�spotent��lby�gnor�ngthehum�ndevelopmentofthesepopul�t�ons.

c h I L d d e v e L o p M e N t

thecostofch�ldpoverty�sthel�st,�ndperh�psmost�mport�nt,�re�th�twew�ll�ddress,bec�usech�ldren�reourfuture.andf��l�ngourch�ldrenc�nh�ve�rrevers�bleeffectsth�tl�m�tthe�rpotent��lfortherestofthe�rl�ves.Desp�teth�s,ch�ldrenh�venotbeenwellservedbypubl�cpol�cy�s�defromb�s�ceduc�t�on�ndth�sle�vesoutch�ldren�nthecr�t�c�le�rlydevelopment�lye�rs.onere�son

NatioNalStrateGY | NCW | 15

NatioNalCouNCil

ofWelfareNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE

tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS? | 15

�sth�ttheyh�vel�ttlepl�ce�nourpreoccup�t�onw�ththem�rketeconomybec�usetheydon’te�rn�ncome.inf�ct,theyconsumeresources�ndl�m�tthe�rp�rents’�b�l�tyto�ddtoGDP.

theothers�deofth�spreoccup�t�on�sth�tc�re�ndhum�nrel�t�onsh�psh�vebeendev�lued�noursoc�ety.Wedonotp�yforc�re�s�publ�cgoodthroughourt�xes�ndwep�yveryl�ttlefor�t�nthem�rket.th�s�sev�dencedbythef�ctth�toutof524occup�t�ons�nC�n�d�r�nkedby�ncome,b�bys�tters�ndn�nn�es�re�tthebottom,wh�lethec�tegoryofe�rlych�ldhoodeduc�tors�nd�ss�st�ntsdoesonly�l�ttlebetter�tnumber50118.th�sworkcont�nuestobedone,however,mostlybywomenwhoh�vet�kenonthecostsofth�ssoc�et�lrespons�b�l�tythat benefits everyone. The cost of child poverty�sthereforel�rgely�lso�costofgenderd�scr�m�n�t�on.interest�ngly,�t�s�nrel�t�ontoch�ldrenth�tsomeofthemostconcrete cost/benefit calculations have beendone.

M�nystud�esofgoode�rlyeduc�t�onprogr�msforh�gh-r�skch�ldren�ndthe�rf�m�l�esshow�rem�rk�ble�mprovement�nthedevelopmentofch�ldrenwhoh�vep�rt�c�p�ted�nsuchprogr�ms.improvementsr�ngedfrombetterschooloutcomestobetterhe�lthst�tus,f�ctorsth�th�ve�d�recteffectonthecostsofpovertytothegovernmentsofC�n�d�.u.S.homev�s�t�ngprogr�msnoted�n�mpress�ve�mprovement�nch�ldhood�njuryr�tes19�ndSwed�shpubl�cd�yc�reprogr�msfoundbetterscoresonverb�ltests�ndschoolsubjects�mongch�ldren

whoenteredthe�rprogr�ms�t�ne�rly�ge20.u.S.He�dSt�rtprogr�msfound�mprovements�n�mmun�z�t�on�ndnutr�t�on�swell�siQscores.M�nyu.S.progr�msh�vefoundth�tch�ldrenwho�ttendedgoodqu�l�tye�rlych�ldhoodprogr�ms�relessl�kelytobepl�ced�nspec��leduc�t�onprogr�ms,lessl�kelytof��l�gr�de,morel�kelyto�ch�eveh�gherlevelsofschool�ndless likely to come in conflict with the law21.

aprom�nentu.S.progr�m�ssessedthecost-effect�venessof�tsworkw�th“h�gh-r�sk”ch�ldren�t�s�v�ngof$7.16foreverydoll�rspentonpreschool.theprogr�mspenton�ver�ge$12,356one�chch�ldfortwoye�rsofpreschool.Whenrese�rchersfollowedupw�ththech�ldren�t�ge27,theyc�lcul�ted�s�v�ngsof$6,287�nelement�ry,second�ry�ndpost-second�ryeduc�t�oncostsbec�usech�ldrenwerelessl�kelytorepe�tgr�desoruseextr�serv�cessuch�sspec��leduc�t�onorres�dent��lschool�ng.Peoplewho�ttendedthepreschoolweremorel�kelytoh�veh�ghere�rn�ngs�s�dults,�ndthe�ncre�se�nthet�xestheyp��dw�sworth$8,847foreveryperson.thepreschool�lumn�werelessl�kelytobe�nvolved�ncr�me—e�ther�sv�ct�msor�sperpetr�tors—�ndthev�luew�sc�lcul�ted�t$12,796�ns�v�ngstothejust�cesystem�nd$57,585�nreducedcostsforv�ct�msofcr�me.S�v�ngstothewelf�resystemwerev�lued�t$2,918�person22.

otheru.S.rese�rch�lsopo�ntstoh�gh-qu�l�tye�rly�ntervent�onforsoc��llyd�s�dv�nt�gedch�ldren�ndthe�rf�m�l�es�s�soundeconom�c�nvestment—forthech�ldren�ndthe�rf�m�l�es,�swell

16 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS?

NCW

tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS? | 17

�sforsoc�ety.emp�r�c�lev�dencepo�ntsstronglytotheeconom�cv�lueofthese�nvestmentsfort�xp�yers,desp�tethe�rh�ghcosts,�nd�c�t�ngth�tshoulder�ngthecostsofcre�t�ngtheseserv�cesshouldnotbe�m�jorobst�cletopubl�cpol�cy23.

there�sC�n�d��nev�dence�swell,th�twhene�rlych�ldhoodeduc�t�onprogr�ms�lsoprov�dec�reth�t�llowsp�rentstoleave their children during the day to finish the�reduc�t�ons�ndt�kejobs,theyfurther�ncre�sethev�lueoftheprogr�mm�ngtotheeconomy.a1998studybyeconom�sts�ttheun�vers�tyoftorontoest�m�tedthe benefits of a high-quality, affordable un�vers�lsystemofch�ldc�re�nde�rlych�ldhoodeduc�t�onth�tcost$7.9b�ll�on.theyc�lcul�tedth�tthev�lueofthe�ncre�sedemploymentofmothers�fsuch�systemex�stedwouldbeworth$6.2b�ll�on,�ndthe�mprovement�nch�lddevelopmentwouldbeworth$4.3b�ll�on—�n�ll,�s�v�ngsof�bout$2foreverydoll�rspent24.

also�nC�n�d�,�prel�m�n�rystudyofQuebec’sun�vers�l,$5-�-d�ych�ldc�resystem�nd�c�ted�th�dsucceeded�nreduc�ngthenumberofs�nglemothersonwelf�reby37%25.althoughtheprogr�mh�sbeenpl�guedbyproblemsoflongw��t�ngl�sts�ndcost-overruns,�tse�rly�mp�cts�re�mpress�ve.Welf�recost-s�v�ngsofth�sn�turecoulde�s�lycompens�teforthecostsof�mplement�t�onofthech�ldc�resystem.furtherev�lu�t�onoftheeffectsQuebec’sf�m�lypol�c�esshouldprov�de�dd�t�on�l�nform�t�ononch�ld�ndf�m�lyoutcomes,theequ�l�tyofwomen�ndmen�nthe

workforce,�ndtheover�llcostofthesepol�c�estothehe�lth,educ�t�on�ndsoc��lserv�cesystem.

atMcM�sterun�vers�ty�project�scurrentlystudy�ngtheeffectsofd�rectserv�ceson765s�ngle-motherf�m�l�es�nd1,300ch�ldrenwhoh�dbeenonwelf�reforfourye�rs.thestudyprov�ded�v�r�etyofd�rectserv�cesth�t�recommonlyusedbyf�m�l�es�nth�ss�tu�t�on:subs�d�zedch�ldc�reorrecre�t�onserv�cesforthech�ldren,publ�che�lthnursesforthemothers,employmenttr��n�ngforthemothers,or�comb�n�t�onof�llfourtypesofserv�ces.

thestudythentr�ckedthehe�lthst�tus,he�lthc�re�ndsoc��lserv�cesexpend�tures�ndwelf�rest�tusofthef�m�l�es.almosth�lf(45%)ofthemothers�nthestudyh�dthes�gns�ndsymptomsofm�jordepress�onwhentheprojectbeg�n.Depressedp�rents�lsoh�dh�gher�nnu�lexpend�turesfortheusethey�ndthe�rch�ldrenm�deofthepubl�che�lthc�re�ndsoc��lserv�ces.

aftertwoye�rs�nthestudy,rese�rchersfoundth�tthedepress�onr�tesofmothersdroppedtoonly20%from�lmosth�lf.thesoc��l�djustmentscoresofmothers�mproved.e�choftheserv�cesofferedtothef�m�l�esresulted�n�n�ncre�seddep�rturefromwelf�re.therese�rchersest�m�teth�tthe�ncre�se�np�rentswhole�vewelf�re�sworth$300,000�ye�rforevery100mothers.thes�v�ngs�nreduceduseofthepubl�che�lthc�resystem�re�dd�t�on�l.aswell,�llthecostsofprov�d�ngtheseserv�ceswerecompletelyoffsetby

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE

18 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | HoWDoeSPoVertYCoStCaNaDiaNS?

NCW

thereduct�on�nthecostsofp�rents’�ndch�ldren’suseoftheserv�cesofphys�c��ns,otherprofess�on�ls�ndthech�ldprotect�onsystem.Prov�d�ngch�ldc�re�ndrecre�t�onserv�ces—evenw�thoutthecomb�n�t�onofotherserv�ces—provedtobethemosteffect�ve,�ndthemostcost-effect�ve26.

Desp�teth�sconcreteev�denceth�tpoverty�scost�ngus�nm�nyw�ys,however,l�ttleh�sch�nged.theN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�re’sdet��led�n�lys�sofSt�t�st�csC�n�d�d�t�forworkth�t�ssoontobepubl�shed�nPoverty Profile 1999showsth�tweh�veb�relym�de�dent�nch�ldpoverty,th�tpreschoolch�ldren�rethemostl�kelyof�ny�gegrouptol�ve�npovertyforsever�lye�rs�ndth�tthes�tu�t�onoflone-p�rentmothersh�snot improved significantly in 20 years. It �lsoshowsth�tmorepeopleexper�encepoverty over time than yearly figures �nd�c�te.Wec�nnot�ffordtoletth�ss�tu�t�oncont�nue.

theN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�rebel�evesth�tour�ppro�chtopoverty�ndwelf�reneedstoch�nge.Wh�t�sneeded,�s�pr�or�ty,�ncludes.

1) LeadershIp aNd poLItIcaL WILL

there�s�gre�tde�lofrese�rch,�n�lys�s,ev�dence�nd�de�sth�tc�nbeput�nto�ct�on.Wh�t�sm�ss�ng�sthele�dersh�p,ch�mp�onsh�p�ndw�ll,espec��llyneeded�tthefeder�llevel,toen�bleC�n�d��nsto�ch�evere�lqu�l�tyofl�feg��ns.

them�rketh�snot�ndc�nnotprov�dethesoc��l�nfr�structure�ndserv�cesth�tsupportthepubl�cgood�ndthen�t�on�lpubl�c�nterest—th�s�stheroleofrespons�blegovernments.

2) coMpreheNsIve aNd hoLIstIc pLaNNINg

theN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�reh�sfrequentlynotedthedifficulties low-income people h�ve�nnegot��t�ngthem�zeofcommun�ty-levelsoc��lprogr�ms,�ndthel�ckof�ntegr�t�onofthev�r�ousserv�ces�ndpol�c�esof�ll

levelsofgovernmentth�tshouldworktogethertosupportpeople.

Governmentsneedtolookser�ously�thowmuchpovertycosts�nthet�me,effort�ndmoneyth�t�rew�stedbys�mplymov�ngcosts�roundfromoneprogr�mto�nother,�speoplesh�ftfromemploymentinsur�ncetosoc��l�ss�st�nce�ndb�ck�g��n,ormove�ntothehe�lthc�reorcr�m�n�ljust�cesystemsbec�usetheyh�vebeenoverburdened�s�nd�v�du�ls.

allpol�c�es,fromt�x�t�ontoemployment,educ�t�on�ndjust�cem�tters,shouldbetested,�ndtheresultsm�de�v��l�bletothepubl�c,toensuretheyw�llhelpreducetheg�pbetweenr�ch�ndpooror�ttheveryle�stdonofurtherh�rm.

if�neuroped�fferentcountr�es�re�bletocometogethertodevelophum�nr�ghts-b�sed�ct�onpl�ns,sett�rgets,develop�nd�c�tors�ndev�lu�teprogress,surelywec�ndo�swell�nonecountry.therecentdifficult history of federal-provincial/terr�tor��lrel�t�ons�ndthegrow�ngd�sp�r�ty�crossthecountrydoesnot reflect what Canadians hold in common�nd�t�sh�ght�meforth�stoch�nge.

NCW | tHeCoStofPoVertY | 19

W H a t N e e D S t o B e D o N e ?

3) BUILdINg oN sUccess

there�regoodex�mplesofwh�tworks�nC�n�d��nd�nothercountr�es.C�n�d�’sun�vers�lhe�lthc�resystem�soneth�t�s�n�t�on�l�con.andourpubl�cpens�onsystem�s�nothersh�n�ngex�mpleofhowdr�m�t�c�llypoverty,�nth�sc�se�mongsen�ors,c�nbereduced�fthere�sthew�lltodo�t.theseprogr�msm�ynotbeperfectbuttheyh�vem�de�re�ld�fference.theyrecogn�zeth�t�nyonec�ngets�ck�ndeveryonegetsolder,th�tpeoplesh�recommonconcernsreg�rdlessofwhetherthey�restudents,employeesorc�reg�vers.

ifwe�doptt�rgetedme�sures�swell�sun�vers�lones,wemust�tle�ststopt�rget�ngpeople�nf�vouroft�rget�ngthec�rcumst�ncesth�tm�kepeoplevulner�bletopoverty.theseme�sureswould�nclude�mprov�ngm�n�mumw�ges,reduc�ngtheseverelyh�ghm�rg�n�lt�xr�tesforpeoplew�thlow�ncome,�dopt�ngmoreprogress�vesubs�d�esforsupportssuch�str��n�ng�ndch�ldc�re,correct�ngforgenderd�scr�m�n�t�on�nd�mprov�ngover�llsoc�et�lsupportforf�m�l�esw�thch�ldren.

4) startINg WIth faMILIes WIth yoUNg chILdreN

Qu�tes�mply,C�n�d�needs�coherentf�m�lypol�cy�s�tdoesnoth�veone.th�s�sthe�re�ofh�ghestr�skofloss�fwedonot�ct.C�n�d��ns�resol�dlybeh�ndun�vers�lsupport,throughpubl�cly-fundededuc�t�on,for�llch�ldrenfromk�nderg�rtentogr�de12,�ndwev�luethed�fference�tm�kestoourch�ldren’sfutures.G�venwh�tweknow�boutthe�mport�nceofe�rlych�ldhooddevelopment,weshouldprov�de�tle�stthes�melevelofpubl�csupportforch�ldrenfromb�rthto�ges�x.todoth�sweneedto�mmed��telyst�rttheprocessofrebu�ld�ngun�vers�l�ty�ndn�t�on�lst�nd�rds�ntoourpol�c�es�ffect�ngpreschoolch�ldren,such�st�xrecogn�t�on�ndch�ldc�resubs�d�es,�ndp�rent�l�ccesstothesupportstheyneedtomeetthe�ncome�ndc�reneedsofthe�rf�m�l�es.accesstothesesupports,�nclud�ngtopost-second�ryeduc�t�on,mustbe�v��l�bletosoc��l�ss�st�ncerec�p�ents.

theex�mpleofsupport�ngf�m�l�esthroughrecent�mprovementstomaternity and parental benefits is a good one, but it is only of benefit tothosep�rentswho�re�lre�dywell�tt�chedtothel�bourforce�nde�rn�nggood�ncomes,notthef�m�l�eswhere�t�smostneeded.an

20 | tHeCoStofPoVertY | WHatNeeDStoBeDoNe?

NCW

tHeCoStofPoVertY | WHatNeeDStoBeDoNe?/CoNCluSioN | 21

equivalent benefit for the babies �ndp�rentswhodonotqu�l�fyforemploymentinsur�ncewouldgo�longw�ytohelppreventpoverty,stress,depress�on�ndf�m�lyd�s�ntegr�t�on�ndwould�mprovech�ldoutcomes.itcouldbecons�dered�n�dv�nceonfutureeicontr�but�ons,g�venth�tthev�stm�jor�tyofyoungmotherstod�yw�llspenddec�des�nthel�bourforceoverthe�r�dultl�ves.

there�snoesc�p�ngtheneedfor�n�t�on�lprogr�mfor�fford�ble,�ccess�ble,qu�l�tych�ldc�re�nddevelopment.

f�rgre�tereffortsmustbem�de,w�th�nthecontextofreduc�ngover�llpovertyr�tes,tobr�ng�ngthose�ttheverybottomup.theNational Child Benefit System, forex�mple,desp�te�tspos�t�ve�spects,�sf��l�ngf�m�l�esonsoc��l�ss�st�nce�ndlone-p�rentf�m�l�es�np�rt�cul�r,bec�use�tdoesnotrecogn�zethet�mel�m�t�t�onsofthe�rl�ves.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE

Poverty�scost�ng�llofusde�rly.Somecosts,thoseofperson�lhum�nsuffer�ng,�res�mply�nc�lcul�blebutthey�renonethelessprevent�ble.othercosts,themoreeconom�cones,m�yst�llbevery difficult to calculate precisely. What re�llym�tters,however,�snotth�tweput�nex�ctnumberonthecostofpoverty.Wh�twe�s�soc�etyneed�stosetcle�rgoals, compare the benefits to the costs overtheshort�ndthelongterm,ev�lu�te

ourprogress�ndunderst�ndth�twegetwh�twep�yfor.thefound�t�onfor�sust��n�bleh�ghqu�l�tyofl�fedoesnotcomeche�ply.Butletus�nvestw�selynow,forthepubl�cgood�ndthepos�t�veresultsthat will benefit all Canadians.

C o N C l u S i o N

1 Christopher, Karen; England, Paula; McLanahan, Sara; Ross, Katherine and Smeeding, Timothy M., edited by Vleminckx, Koen and Smeeding, Timothy M., “Gender inequality in poverty in affluent nations: the role of single motherhood and the state”, in Child well-being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations, (Bristol, UK: The Policy Press, 2001).

2 Statistics Canada, Household’s Unpaid Work: Measurement and Valuation (1995).

3 Ibid.

4 See, for example, the work of GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) Atlantic, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Centre for the Study of Living Standards and the Canadian Policy Research Networks. Several federal government departments have been involved in work on social indicators, including Statistics Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Heritage Canada and Status of Women Canada.

5 Evans, R.G., Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994).

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Wilkins, Russell and Sherman, Gregory J., “Low Income and Child Health in Canada”, in Health and Canadian Society: Sociological Perspectives, Third Edition.

9 Ross, David P., Roberts, Paul A. and Scott, Katherine, Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development Canada, Variations in Child Development Outcomes Among Children Living in Lone-parent Families (October 1998).

10 Ross, David P., Scott, Katherine and Kelly, Mark A., Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development Canada , Overview: Children in Canada in the 1990s (November 1996).

11 Woolcock, Michael, The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes (Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring 2001).

12 Ibid.

13 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Chapter 2, Economic Disparities, Government Expenditures and the Cost of the Status Quo in Volume 5, Renewal: A Twenty-Year Commitment (Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 1996).

14 Harkness, Susan and Waldfogel, Jane, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, The Family Gap in Pay: Evidence from Seven Industrialized Countries (London: London School of Economics, 1999).

15 Cleveland, Gordon, Merrigan, Philip and Hyatt, Douglas, Subsidizing child care for low-income families: a good bargain for Canadian governments? (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, Essay, 1998).

16 Lafleur, B., Dropping out: the cost to Canada (Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada, 1992).

17 Baker, Maureen and Tippin, David, Poverty, Social Assistance and the Employability of Mothers: Restructuting the Welfare States (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999).

18 Statistics Canada, Nation Series (Catalogue 93E0029XDB96005), based on 1996 Census information (1995 constant dollars), sorted by average annual income, full-time employment.

19 Olds, David L.; Henderson, Charles R. Jr. and Kitzmann, Harriet, “Does Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visiting Have Enduring Effects on Qualities of Parental Caregiving and Child Health at 25 to 50 Months of Life”, Pediatrics (Volume 93, Number 1, January 1994).

eNDNoteS | 23

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE

24 | eNDNoteS

NCW

20 Andersson, Bengt-Erik, “Effects of Public Day-Care: A Longitudinal Study,” Child Development (1989), and Andersson, Bengt-Erik, “Effects of Day-Care on Cognitive and Socioemotional Competence of Thirteen-Year-Old Swedish Schoolchildren”, Child Development (1992).

21 Campbell, Frances and Taylor, Karen, “Early Childhood Programs That Work for Children from Economically Disadvantaged Families”, Young Children (May 1996); Spence Boocock, Sarene,“Early Childhood Programs in Other Nations: Goals and Outcomes”, The Future of Children, (Volume 5, Number 3, Winter 1995); Schorr, Lisbeth B., Within our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage (New York: Anchor Books, 1989); Schweinhart, Lawrence J.; Barnes, Helen V. and Weikart, David P., Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27 (Ypsilanti, Michigan: The High/Scope Press, 1993).

22 Schweinhart, Lawrence J.; Barnes, Helen V. and Weikart, David P., Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27 (Ypsilanti, Michigan: The High/Scope Press, 1993); all figures for this study are in US dollars

23 Barnett, W. Steven and Escobar, Colette M., “Economic Costs and Benefits of Early Intervention”, Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention, Meisels, Samuel J. and Shonkoff, Jack P., eds. (New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1990).

24 Cleveland, Gordon and Krashinsky, Michael, The Benefits and Costs of Good Child Care: The Economic Rationale for Public Investment in Young Children (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1998).

25 Orwen, Patricia, “Quebec Child-Care Funding Leads to Drop in Welfare Cases”, Toronto Star (June 1, 2001).

26 Browne, Gina, et al, “Investments in Comprehensive Programming: Services for Children and Single-Parent Mothers on Welfare Pay for Themselves within One Year”, Our Children’s Future: Child Care Policy in Canada, Cleveland, Gordon and Krashinsky, Michael, eds. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001).

aBouttHeNCW | 25

M E M B E R S

Mr.JohnMurphy(Chairperson) — Canning, Nova Scotia

Ms.Dor�sBern�rd— Radisson, Québec

Ms.JudyBurgess— Victoria, British Columbia

Ms.ol�veCr�ne— Mt. Stewart, Prince Edward Island

Ms.anneG�ll— Hay River, Northwest Territories

Ms.M�r��mGreen— Montréal, Québec

Ms.al�ceH�nson— Edmonton, Alberta

Ms.allyceHerle— Regina, Saskatchewan

Mr.alK�v�n�ugh— Riverview, New Brunswick

Mr.D�v�dNorhtcott— Winnipeg, Manitoba

Ms.M�r�lynPeers— Halifax, Nova Scotia

Ms.Sh�unn�re�d— Mount Pearl, Newfoundland

Mr.D�v�dWelch— Ottawa, Ontario

S T A F FInterim Director (September 2001 to October 2002): She�l�regehr

Director: Jo�nneroulston

Senior Researcher: olufunm�lol�(lol�)f�bow�lé

Researcher: D��ner�ch�rd

Administration and Information Officer: lou�seGunv�lle

Administrative Assistant: Cl�udetteM�nn

a B o u t t H eN a t i o N a l C o u N C i l o f W e l f a r e

26 | aBouttHeNCW

M A N D A T EtheN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�rew�sest�bl�shedbytheGovernment Organization Act�n1969,�s�n�rm’slength�dv�sorybodytothefeder�lgovernment.it�dv�sestheM�n�sterofHum�nresources�ndSoc��lDevelopmentonm�ttersofconcerntolow-�ncomeC�n�d��ns.

theCounc�lcons�stsofmembersdr�wnfrom�crossC�n�d��nd�ppo�ntedbytheGovernor-�n-Counc�l.allmembersserve�nthe�rperson�lc�p�c�t�esr�therth�n�srepresent�t�vesoforg�n�z�t�onsor�genc�es.Counc�lmembersh�povertheye�rsh�sreflected expertise in a wide range of social development and social security issues. Members have also reflected varied backgrounds, from education and social work to volunt�rysectororg�n�z�t�on�ndpol�cy�n�lys�s,�nclud�ngexper�encel�v�ng�npoverty.

reportsbytheN�t�on�lCounc�lofWelf�rede�lw�th�w�der�ngeof�ssuesonpoverty�ndsoc��lpol�cy�nC�n�d�,�nclud�ng�ncomesecur�typrogr�ms,welf�rereform,med�c�re,povertyl�nes�ndpovertyst�t�st�cs,theret�rement�ncomesystem,t�x�t�on,l�bourm�rket�ssues,soc��lserv�ces�ndleg�l��d.

Pourvousprocurerdesexempl��resenfr�nç��sdepubl�c�t�onsduConse�l,écr�vez�uConse�ln�t�on�ldub�en-êtresoc��l,9eét�ge,112,rueKent,ott�w�(ont�r�o) K1a0J9.Vouspouvezlesdem�nderp�rcourr�erélectron�quencw@m�g�.comoulesconsultersurnotres�tewebwww.ncwcnbes.net.

NCW