Not My Work - IP is with ONWAA

1. !
ONWAA 2011
!
!
!
!
!"#$%&'()$#&*+(,+-.$%+(
/01&"&2#%$#'%23(
/22'4&$#&'"(
(
(
!"#$%&&%'()*')*+,)!'-%./)0&&%&*.(-,)1,2%,3)
4'$$%&&%'(,5&)6'5)7(*.5%')
!
! !

2. !
ONWAA 2011
Historical Context
The historical context regarding First Nations in Ontario is well documented and has not
changed since the 1992 provincial report, Principal Report on New Social Assistance Legislation for First
Nations in Ontario. Concerns identified by First Nations regarding legislation, policy and
jurisdiction have been repeatedly raised in the past. Therefore, ONWAA feels strongly that
sufficient work and study had been completed in 1992 regarding First Nation income security
programs. Unfortunately little First Nation specific legislation, policy or solutions regarding
these issues has been done.
It is important to understand that prior to European contact First Nations were economically
self-sufficient and self-governing. Solutions and responses to challenges were effective, locally
driven and consistent with the culture and social structure of each nation. Overtime, First
Nations lost their economic self-sufficiency and capacity to respond to social challenges. Instead
of dealing with economic and social issues in a cultural and community context, solutions were
provided through federal and/or provincial European governments. Often, this resulted in
negative consequences and results.
Past solutions were culturally foreign - rooted in a social structure, value system and set of
principles that were inconsistent with First Nation cultures and ignored community views and
processes. Ontario’s current social assistance program has also been developed using a Western
cultural perspective and value system. The program promotes individual wellbeing and
responsibility and assumes all people and communities have access to a healthy economic base
and belief in the wage economy, to the exclusion of an Indigenous worldview based on
communitarian values.

3. !
ONWAA 2011
Different and Contrasting Views
The existence of a social assistance system was developed from the philosophy that there would
always be some individuals that require assistance in a wage-based economy. Thus, the social
assistance system is intended to act as a safety net in a properly functioning economy. With this
in mind, Ontario’s social assistance program is not, and has never been intended to act as a long-
term income support system. Sadly in First Nations, as some communities experience income
assistance dependency levels in excess of 80%, long-term broad based dependency on social
assistance is often the norm.
First Nations have different cultural values to helping and sharing in comparison to the Western
sense! (Hewitt, 2000). Helping those less fortunate or struggling, regardless of the reason, is
broadly promoted within the First Nation community context. Sharing and helping without
judgement is fundamental to the cultural and value system of communities. Similarly, rather
than offering conditional help on a short term basis, First Nations provide assistance to people
and families unconditionally and will continue to provide help to the family until they no longer
require assistance, regardless of how long that may take. In short, the person or family will stop
receiving help when they determine they no longer need it, not when the community or provider
determines they are no longer in need. This concept promotes responsibility for the family, while
the latter assumes responsibility to them and provides assistance through formal power and
control structures.

4. !
Dependency
Income assistance and poverty levels experienced within First Nations clearly demonstrate
that the solutions offered by external stakeholders and federal and provincial governments do
not produce desired outcomes or effects. Rather, some First Nation Elders and Leaders
argue that the social assistance system has done more harm that good to the community.
When considering that in some communities’ income assistance dependency is as high as 80%
this view has some validity. The solution to high unemployment and poverty has been to try
to assist community members through social assistance. This response further entrenches the
individual, family and community into the provincial social assistance system. Widespread
community poverty has created an inability to turn to the extended family or clan within the
community for the assistance, further eroding the ability to develop local solutions, control
and best practices.
The level of income assistance dependency has, along with the impact of the residential
schools system, helped generate and sustain an unacceptably high level of social b a r r i e r s .
T h i s can be seen in the significant (and also continuing) contrasts between on and off
reserve rates of child protection activity, family violence, school drop-out, suicide, accidental
death, substance abuse, various health problems, etc. (First Nation’s project Team Report,
Principal Report on New Social Assistance Legislation for First Nations in Ontario, 1992;
MacNeil, 2008).

5. !
!
Location and Economic Circumstance
Provincial social assistance systems are further problematic because they do not adequately
respond to the local economic and geographic circumstances experienced by First Nations. For
example, the current system has an underlying assumption that assistance should be relatively
short in duration for “employable” individuals. The current system also has the basic assumption
that there is a healthy labour market at the local level and that the individual is at fault for their
current situation. To repair this, the person must participate in employment programs in order to
obtain the skills, education and/or experience necessary to become attached to the labour market.
This basic assumption is not the reality experienced in the majority, if not all, First Nations in
Ontario. It is widely accepted by First Nations that what “works” in Toronto or Sault Ste. Marie
will have very little practicality in Sandy Lake or Sagamok.
A system designed with the assumption that assistance should be temporary or should promote a
quick engagement to the labour market cannot be a viable solution to communities with a severely
depressed economy and/or multiple social barriers. Furthermore, the current system is provincially
and/or regionally centralized; monitored and managed by central or regional agencies. These
agencies are all located off reserve and have little, if any, true understanding of the issues faced by
First Nations on a daily basis. Thus, they measure program administration, successful program
delivery, outcomes, the issuance of discretionary benefits, program interventions, etc. using Euro-
Canadian cultural norms and values; further creating program cultural alienation at the local delivery
and recipient level (Freire, 1972; Gurstein, P., Lovato, C. & Ross, S., 2003).

6. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
.!
The Historical Response to First Nation Concerns
Past governments have gradually introduced improvements to the system; however, there is still
much to be done. Typical responses have attempted to improve services and supports; while there
has been no movement on improving the underlying barriers that have caused these challenges; the
contradiction between the Euro-Canadian cultural influences of programs and the cultures of First
Nations.
There have been some improvements in social assistance delivery and systems since 1965 but it is
not clear which or whose outcomes are being achieved. Regional and central ministry offices often
view an effective social assistance program to be one based solely on administrative delivery
outcomes. Therefore, a “good” program accepts and complies with Euro-Canadian delivery
standards; audits, notes, governance, etc. Whether the program actually responds to the needs of
the community or truly helps those in need is not measured. Program success is typically measured
solely using non-cultural, external measures of success.
In 2004 ONWAA’s Executive Director was told by a regional supervisor/manager in response to
programs that displayed poor governance models “It has always been like that, it doesn’t seem
to matter what we try to do”. Rather than question whether the program properly addressed the
needs and wants of the community, this person deemed the deliverer and community to be at fault.
Furthermore, the statement “…what we try to do” clearly outlines the philosophy of external rather
than local solutions. If something ineffective has “always been” one would think a different
approach and solution would be needed. Perhaps the time has come to listen to the local
Leadership, Administrators and community and ensure that any social assistance reforms affecting
First Nations reflect the following principles identified in 1992:
1. First Nation controlled - provided under the authority and sanction of First Nation
government and fully accountable to First Nation members.
2. First Nation determined - designed and developed within the community by the
membership.
3. First Nation specific - designed to address community needs in harmony with local culture
and social structure.
4. First Nation based - managed and delivered within the community.

7. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
/!
Current System
Issues
First Nations have long been sceptical of social assistance reform. Typically, input obtained from
First Nations and/or ONWAA has been received, reviewed and shelved; with little to no movement
reflecting the identified needs of First Nation communities. The severe cuts in basic needs and
shelter rates in 1994 and the implementation of workfare in 1998/99 without First Nation
consultation only reinforced this mistrust. Having so many community members dependent on the
system, and the history of reforms, it is easy to understand why scepticism exists. The issue of
program changes, jurisdiction, local control, etc. came to the forefront in 1999 when the
Muskegowuk Tribal Council challenged Ontario’s legal authority to implement sweeping reforms to
social assistance without First Nations consent. Although there have been many improvements to
Ontario Works and the relationship with MCSS has improved immensely since that time there are
still many concerns with the program. Concerns can be broken down into four separate categories:
1. Program Administration
2. Financial Assistance
3. Employment Assistance
4. Program Benefits
As the social assistance review is primarily focused on employment assistance, this concern will be
discussed and analyzed in detail first.

8. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
0!
Employment Assistance
The primary objective of Ontario Works employment assistance is to provide supports to people so
that they may enter or re-enter the labour market. This is offered through the general program
philosophy that Ontario Works is intended to be a short-term program of last resort. Accepting
this, Ontario Works has an underlying assumption that a healthy local labour market is accessible for
the program recipient. The fixation on employment is further identified through the primary
employment outcome targets, which delivery agents must work towards throughout a two-year
planning cycle:
1. Increased earnings, and;
2. Increased employment.
Even though the local program establishes employment outcome targets, such targets are negotiated
with a ministry regional office. Programs are to show an increase in outcome targets, compared to
the prior years(s) baseline (actuals). Once again, the program assumes there is access to a healthy
local labour market and that demand for labour is always increasing. This assumption has proven to
be false in the federal, provincial and First Nation context. Measuring employment assistance
success solely on these two outcomes is not realistic nor does it capture all of the actual supports
and positive client outcomes that are being achieved. For example, having someone return to
school, or learn new skills, increase their self esteem, or work on an addiction or re-engage with the
community at large are amazing individual and program successes. The provincial program needs to
measure and support personal engagement, participation and milestones to truly reflect and
recognize the excellent work that is being done at the community level. Measuring the program
solely on economic indicators merely reinforces the belief that Ontario Works will not work in First
Nations with a depressed labour market.

9. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
1!
Recommendation:
Ensure the social assistance program is both employment and socially focused. While there is
general acceptance that the desired end is to assist a person find and maintain employment, the path
and duration this will take is dependent on many variables. Accepting this, the program needs to
formally recognize that the true objective of the program should be “increasing a person’s
employability”.
If permanent exit of social assistance into meaningful employment is the desired outcome, it must
be accepted that this process involves many steps, supports, the acquisition of transferrable skills
and knowledge and the availability of local jobs. Therefore, to find and maintain meaningful
employment a person must ultimately work at increasing their employability to a level that achieves this
objective. Increasing employability could be measured through a variety of ways, such as:
1. Measuring active participation rates in a program,
2. Measuring participation activities that are completed,
3. Measuring increases in community engagement and community capacity increases,
4. Locally developed measures using community and program benchmarks and goals.
Participation:
Participating in employment supports is a mandatory requirement for people without a participation
deferral. Failure for someone to meet his or her participation requirements could result in becoming
ineligible for social assistance. Being forced to participate is not a viable option for success (Pearce
& Larson, 2006). Forced participation reduces trust, discourages intrinsic motivation and is merely a
means to accomplishing an end. Within a First Nation context, forced participation creates power
and control structures and can affect the entire community in a negative manner. Supporting a
person through active participation is the desired option.

10. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-,!
People choose to participate in activities based on an expectation of reward for their effort (Lee and
Schuler, 1982; Pearce & Larson, 2006); based on this, it is easy to understand that where there is a
healthy labour market people would participate based on the expectation that the effort put forward
could lead to a meaningful employment opportunity. In First Nation communities, the expectation
of securing employment as a direct result of program participation (skills training, education, etc.) is
not always valid. This reality can create real participation barriers, as people will, quite rightly,
question putting forward the effort when the chance of future economic gain is not possible.
While there are limited economic opportunities in some communities, this should not be a reason to
dismiss employment assistance. Employment assistance and active program participation are an
effective strategy to increase community capacity and overall engagement. Employment supports
can also be an effective healing strategy, increase local cultural understanding or be part of a long-
term community economic development plan if implemented properly.
Recommendation:
Include real participation incentives in the program. Currently, the program provides or covers
Employment Related Expenses (ERE) to support participation. This is crucial for success, but the
program needs to go further. Unlike the reality of many municipalities, the prospect of securing
employment is not a realistic motivational factor in many First Nation communities. Incentives
should be locally determined and controlled, thus ensuring that such incentives are based solely on
the needs of the community and people in receipt of social assistance. Incentives for active
participation or for completing participation requirements can act as a motivational tool in
economically depressed communities.

11. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
--!
Current Employment Assistance Activities:
The current list of EA activities includes:
! Job search and job search support
! Skills development and training
! Learning, Earning and Parenting (LEAP)
! Addiction services
! Basic education and literacy
! Community placement
! Employment placement
There are three primary concerns that ONWAA has identified with the current list of activities
and/or the way they are supported.
1. Cultural Activities. There is no formal recognition of people engaging in cultural activities as
an effective and appropriate support. Diversities in cultures and worldviews between MCSS
and First Nations can create a service barrier at the local level in this regard (Restoule, 1997).
For example, one First Nation has been trying to increase self-sufficiency in youth
community members who receive social assistance. As an activity, the program hired a
traditional outdoorsman to show members how to hunt, fish and live off the land. This
involved a 10-day excursion into the wilderness where people hunted, fished, gathered
berries and prepared their own food and shelter. This program was developed in an effort
to reinvigorate traditional knowledge, increase self-sufficiency and self-esteem. When the
Ministry regional office learned of this, the workers were informed, “they were an
employment program, not a recreation program”.
The regional office looked at this program as not being a valid employment program, when
nothing could be further from the truth. Participants become more self sufficient; acquired
hunting, fishing and harvesting skills; built and developed trust; increased their self esteem;

12. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-+!
learned leadership skills etc. Such skills go a long way towards increasing someone’s
employability (Evans, 2007).!
Recommendation
Include cultural activities as a viable, recognized program participation activity as a healing
and engagement strategy (Chandler and Lalonde, 1998; MacNeil, 2008). Such activities must be
locally defined and delivered. Culture and cultural activities must be identified only by the
community, the program and/or the individual and not be influenced or approved by an outside
entity.
2. Addiction Services. Only 10 First Nations out of 47 communities delivering full Ontario
Works have been provided with the Addiction Services Initiative. This initiative provides
increased funding to the program for enhanced services and supports to help people deal
with addiction issues and barriers. The high rate of addictions experienced in many First
Nations are widely known and well documented
(http://www.ccsa.ca/Eng/Statistics/Canada/GHAS/Pages/default.aspx, September 23,
2011). Increased interventions, services and supports are required to benefit the high
numbers of people in need.
Recommendation:
Expand the Addiction Services Initiative to include all Ontario Works employment
assistance delivery sites.
3. Childcare. There are only 55 daycare centres in Ontario’s 111 Ontario Works delivery
communities (http://chiefs-of-ontario.org/Assets/Early%20Childhood%20Education.pdf,
September 23, 2011). Lack of appropriate childcare creates a huge barrier for sole support
parents and/or parents who are both actively participating in the program at the same time.

13. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-2!
Prior to 2005 the Ontario Works program provided an additional budget line to provide
formal and informal daycare. This budget line was removed and any communities that have
implemented employment assistance post 2005 do not receive this funding. This occurred
when MCSS transferred all daycare responsibilities to the Ministry of Children and Youth
Services and subsequently to the Ministry of Education. As ONWAA understands it, the
ministries absorbed the funding during the program transfer, but the resources were never
provided to First Nations. This has resulted in inequitable access to service and supports for
people on social assistance, depending on their place of residence.
Recommendation:
Provide separate childcare funding to all Ontario Works employment assistance delivery
sites in Ontario.

14. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-3!
Financial Assistance
It is an understatement to say that the Ontario Works assistance rates do not allow people on
assistance to maintain a healthy and productive lifestyle. Rates may be kept low in the belief that
poor income assistance rates encourage people to seek and obtain employment in order to better
their personal financial circumstance. Again, this belief is rooted in the assumption that there is a
healthy and active labour market in the local community for people to exit to. ONWAA believes
that the social assistance rates for Ontario must be sufficient to ensure all people are cared for and
receive a decent standard of living.
Policy
The Ontario Works program is a labyrinth of eligibility criteria, rules, exemptions and provision of
special benefits. The following are some primary concerns that ONWAA has identified with the
current program. The concerns should not be considered complete, as they are numerous and often
unique depending on community circumstance and regional location.
1. Ontario Works Rates and Benefit Levels
The current rates and established provincial benefit levels are too low to provide people with a
decent standard of living, cause undue hardship for people and need to better reflect the actual cost
of living and/or raising a family.
Recommendation:
Develop a benefit structure that is fluid, flexible and fair. Benefit levels need to be sufficient to
ensure people maintain a basic standard of living.

15. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-4!
2. Living With Parent Rule
The Living With Parent (LWP) rule generates the most complaints of all ONWAA membership
inquiries.
ONWAA conducted a preliminary analysis of the policy impacts in December 2009 and analyzed
data from fifty nine (59) First Nations in Ontario, out of 111 (Akwesasne inclusive). The findings
are more alarming and dramatic than originally suspected.
Survey Results (59 community sample size with a caseload totaling 6,235):
! 94.92% of communities are affected by the Living With Parent Rule,
! 26.83% of Ontario Works cases fall under the Living With Parent Rule (1673 cases).
• 18.19% are single (1134 cases)
• 5.77% are sole support (360 cases)
• 2.87 % are couples (179 cases).
Findings (homes where LWP rule applies):
! Highest number of people residing in one (1) home: 34 (5 families)
! Average number of people living in each home where the LWP applies: 7
! Highest number of families living in one (1) home: 8
! Average number of families living in the home where the LWP rule applies: 4
In ONWAA’s survey, 94.92% of respondents reported overcrowding conditions in their
communities, due to housing shortages. There literally is no place for people to reside other than
their parent’s home once they turn 18 for 26.83% of the First Nation caseload. Note: This number
does not reflect/include people who are denied assistance under the LWP, only people determined
“eligible” under the rule. i.e., Person turns 18, applies for assistance, is determined to be a “dependent adult”
under the policy and is not included in the statistic because the parents are not in receipt of social assistance in their
own right.
These living conditions are taxing on the basic housing infrastructure and unless items are deemed
an “emergency home repair” the item is not repaired. As a result of under-funded housing

16. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-.!
programs by INAC and the ineligibility of “FEE SIMPLE” property entitlements, as found off
reserve, the repairs are left unattended.
Recommendation:
1. Eliminate the Living With Parent rule,
or at minimum:
2. Provide an exemption to the Living With Parent rule, as follows.
Exemptions to the Living with Parents Rule:
Regardless of financial dependence/independence determination, the ‘living with parents’ rule does
not apply if:
! In the opinion of the Administrator, no reasonable alternative housing arrangement outside
of the parental home is currently available within the delivery agent’s geographic delivery
area.
Examples of no reasonable housing arrangements may include:
! No private or public local rental units or options are currently available,
! No other living arrangement is possible in the community due to housing shortages,
! Current overcrowding of housing units exists within the community,
! Any other reason deemed acceptable by the Administrator.
2. Ontario Works Northern Allowance
The Ontario Works program recognizes that the cost of food and basic necessities is substantially
higher in isolated First Nation communities. To address this high cost, the legislation includes a
“Northern Allowance” to the basic needs portion for these communities. Even though there is a

17. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-/!
northern allowance, it does not come close to offsetting the unreasonably high costs of food and
basic necessities in isolated communities. In addition, no other benefits include a northern
allowance such as;
1. Special Diets
2. Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Nutritional Allowance
3. Full-time Employment Start-up
4. Non-Health Discretionary Benefit maximum ($250.00) OR program calculation ($8.75/case)
5. Community Start-up and Maintenance
Failure to include an adequate Northern Allowance in all benefits results in people living in remote
communities enduring undue hardship and having less purchasing power for necessities when
compared to all other regions in Ontario.
Bananas ~ $5.69/kg ($12.54/lb) Potatoes - $17.69 for 10 lbs
116 diapers ~ $67.39/case
Recommendation:
1. Ensure the northern allowance is increased to reflect the additional, true, cost of
basic necessities for these communities.
2. Expand the northern allowance to all benefits for communities north of the 50th
Parallel.

18. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-0!
3. Basic Necessities in Remote, Semi-Remote and Rural Communities
Ontario Works provides the same monthly benefit calculation for all of Ontario, excluding isolated
First Nations that receive northern allowance. This broad social policy assumesthat all communities
have access to food and other basic necessities within the confines of their local community, or
alternatively, that the costs of basic necessities in Ontario is uniform across all regions. This
assumption is simply wrong and has damaging effects on individuals’, families’ and community
health across many First Nations in Ontario.
ONWAA has numerous examples where this policy creates even greater disparities amongst people
in receipt of social assistance and does not reflect the reality of the local community. One example
can be found in Pic Mobert First Nation. The community is located 39kms away from the town of
White River and 68kms away from the town of Marathon. Pic Mobert has no local grocery or
general store. The only access to local supplies within the community is a convenience store, which
supplies people with gas, snacks, etc. To purchase food and basic necessities people must travel to
the nearest town, which costs approximately $12.00 by personal auto or $55.00 via taxi (return). For
a single person on assistance this equals 5.4% or 24.6% of their monthly entitlement, which is
significant when considering that a lone person only receives $224.00 in basic assistance every 30
days. It should be noted that there is no public transportation whatsoever available in the region.
Recommendation:
Include a monthly health related travel benefit to people without access to local basic
necessities, which is reflective of the local transportation costs. This benefit calculation will
need to be flexible to allow for the wide and diverse variablesfacing each community. This benefit
will ensure that all people in Ontario have equal access to food and basic necessities.
4. Assets
As written, the current policy regarding personal assets is a barrier to people on assistance in one of
two ways:

19. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
-1!
1. Requiring someone to dispose of all personal assets prior to becoming eligible for assistance
creates a barrier to labour market entry or re-entry as they have depleted all personal
resources and supports needed to help lift them back out of poverty.
2. It promotes and encourages further dependency on the system. In a First Nations context,
to be eligible for assistance a person or family is required to dispose of boats, motors,
ATV’s, etc. However, disposing of such items makes that person or family further
dependent on the system, as they no longer have the means of harvesting their own
traditional food (fish, deer, moose, berries, etc.).
Recommendation:
1. Allow people who are on social assistance to maintain a reasonable level of assets
appropriate to the region in which they reside which can support a return to work (e.g., tools
related to crafts or trapping), or assist with traditional harvesting of food.
2. Allow assets used for traditional First Nation cultural purposes to be exempt from all
asset rules, regardless of the value.
5. Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
First Nation people living on reserve are under represented within the ODSP when compared to
municipal program recipients. Off reserve, approximately 52% of all people receiving income
assistance in Ontario receive ODSP benefits, or 48% receive OW benefits
(www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/reports/ow_quarterly.aspx, October 3, 2011).
While there are no public OW or ODSP program statistics for First Nations, a voluntary survey of
ONWAA members found the following:
ODSP OW
Highest percentage of ODSP 41% 59%
Lowest percentage of ODSP 8% 92%
Average 24% 76%

20. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+,!
These informal statistics are alarming and indicate the following:
1. People living in municipal delivery areas are more likely to be in receipt of income
assistance due to disability, while people living in First Nations are in receipt of
income assistance due to suppressed economic conditions, or
2. Disabled people are not accessing the disability program when they may be eligible
for program benefits within First Nations.
1.) Higher rates of OW receipt versus ODSP may be a direct result of the lack of employment
opportunities in many First Nations. It is a reasonable assumption that fewer job opportunities
would result in a higher percentage of abled bodied individuals being unsuccessful in securing
employment. This would ultimately result in increased receipt of OW compared to ODSP.
2.) ODSP is administered, delivered and managed by Ontario public service employees. ODSP
workers are located in municipal or urban settings and there are no staff employed in or located
on a First Nation. ONWAA members have reported the following barriers to First Nation citizens
applying for and accessing ODSP under the current structure:
1. People do not want to be served by an off reserve entity (they are comfortable with
and trust the local Ontario Works office and workers),
2. Limited access to medical supports and physician assessments in the community,
3. No local psychological testing available in the community,
4. If someone is denied ODSP they do not have access to similar appeal supports that
exist in a municipality (legal clinic, legal aid, etc.),
5. Limited capacity of the OW office to screen people and complete referrals to ODSP,
6. People are unaware of existence of the program,
7. Past application/referrals have been denied, branding the program as too
cumbersome and difficult to access.
Regardless of the reason why people are not accessing the ODSP, in ONWAA’s opinion the data
clearly indicates that the current program is not designed to meet the needs of First Nation people.

21. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+-!
Recommendation:
1. Include the ODSP into the 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement.
2. First Nations directly administer the ODSP within their territory.

22. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
++!
Program Administration
The administration of income assistance has long been a contentious issue. The issues are
complicated and include resources, jurisdiction and accountability.
Resources
The administration of the Ontario Works program is to be funded equally between Ontario and the
municipal delivery agent. First Nations receive their municipal allocation from the federal
Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). Currently, and
historically, the Department refuses to fund First Nations program equallywith municipal programs.
Instead of providing funding equal to that of municipalities, the Department chooses to fund the
program using a “reasonable comparability” approach. Despite specific requests, AANDC has not
been able to provide a formula, range or approach to how it determines “reasonable comparability”.
The end result however, is that First Nations do not receive the same base funding to deliver
Ontario Works as their municipal counterparts.
In 2010 MCSS advised all deliverers that it was working on the development of a new Ontario
Works funding formula. All stakeholders (municipal and First Nation) were invited to engage in
discussions about how a new funding approach would ensure, among other things, funding equity
for all delivery sites. Even though the review and new funding approach has been implemented by
Ontario, by AANDC’s own admission OW programs are being funded based on the availability of
their regional budget pressures and not in response to the resources required to administer an
effective and equitable program. Funding inconsistencies and shortfalls inevitably result in reduced
program outcomes, standards and results; but First Nations are expected to deliver the same
program and services. In short, they are set up to fail.
Full Ontario Works Delivery Sites:
On June 16, 2011 AANDC announced their response to the new Ontario Works funding model
developed by Ontario. On June 17, 2011 ONWAA submitted a letter to the Minister of MCSS
requesting assistance in addressing this historical funding shortfall.

23. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+2!
Financial Assistance ONLY Delivery Sites:
Communities delivering only financial assistance within their territory are funded at a benchmark
developed by AANDC (then INAC) in 2008. This benchmark funding has not changed for any
communities even where the local caseload has increased substantially. This funding formula is out-
dated and insufficient to address the actual needs of the community, program and people on
assistance.
Part-time Sites
Historically, First Nation income assistance delivery sites with a caseload of 35 have been deemed
part time sites. These programs are funded 100% by AANDC and have specific challenges and
barriers. With no program scale, programs funded using a cost-per-case approach have little if any
relevance.
Recommendation:
In conjunction with First Nations, Ontario needs to identify minimum program funding levels for
all program types (full, financial and part-time) that ensure minimum service and delivery standards
for people accessing and delivering the program across Ontario.
Jurisdiction
A fundamental issue for most First Nations remains jurisdiction. The dependency and poverty levels
experienced in many communities demonstrates that the current system is not and has not worked
in First Nations. The current program has often had a weakening effect on the relationships
between the local community, program administrators and First Nations, which implies that
devolved administrative control of provincially defined and regulated services is most likely to
remain insufficient (First Nation’s Project Team Report, Principal Report on New Social Assistance
Legislation for First Nations in Ontario, 1992).

24. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+3!
The jurisdictional issue transcends the local delivery and administration of the current social
assistance program “First Nation Social Service Administrators are responsible to feed and clothe
the community” (ONWAA Member, 2011). This statement reflects the disproportionately high
levels of reliance on income assistance in first Nations. It also indicates another reality; i.e., that
First Nation program deliverers are responsible to the community, while at the same time
accountable for program compliance and outcomes to the provincial Ministry.
In this context, it is easy to see the difficult job and complexities that exist when delivering Ontario
Works in a First Nation community. Administrators personally know and want to help their
community members who receive assistance, yet they must adhere to the provincial policy and
legislation governing the program even though the program does not always reflect the barriers and
realities that exist at the local community level. In response, they try to bridge their two realities,
attempting to make the program serve the needs of the community while also meeting the
compliance standards of the program. As one can anticipate, the Administrators cannot meet both
needs and often fall short of satisfying one or both obligations.
Recommendation
Engage First Nation Leadership in the provincial reform process so that communities best
identify specific jurisdictional reforms and the most appropriate process(es). Once
jurisdictional reforms are identified, a process for achieving them needs to be implemented.

25. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+4!
Recommendations for the Future
Establishment of a First Nation Policy Body
Ontario needs to establish a First Nation policy body inside the Ministry that works with and
responds solely to First Nation specific policy issues. The current approach is to have “one”
provincial system for all of Ontario. This allows Ontario to manage and implement its desired ends
but does not encourage innovative First Nation policy and program solutions. Moving from a one-
size-fits-all approach to a flexible, community approach to issues will improve program outcomes
for all stakeholders.
Broad Based Program Outcomes
Ultimately, Ontario Works is a pre-employment program rather than an actual employment
program. The program needs to acknowledge that its primary objective is to support people in
increasing their employability and measure the success of achieving this objective.
Flexibility
Where economic opportunities are limited, the program needs to be flexible to allow communities
to identify and work towards achieving ends that are important to the community. A community
could focus its efforts on healing, increasing community capacity, education, etc. The program
needs to allow for the identification of local program outcomes to be achieved rather than merely in
providing flexibility in how the services are provided in order to achieve provincial outcomes.
Program Eligibility
Program eligibility needs to continue to have local involvement. The gradual inclusion of income
tax based program benefit eligibility is not ideal within First Nations, as many people do not file
income tax returns on a regular basis. If benefits were ever to be integrated into the income tax
system First Nation Leadership must be consulted and agree to this type of eligibility determination.

26. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+.!
Monitoring and Accountability
The program needs to be revised to ensure that program deliverers are truly accountable to the
communities and people they provide service to rather than being accountable to the
provincial/federal governments. First Nations need to be more involved in monitoring program
results and outcomes and in identifying and developing strategies for improving outcomes and
reducing delivery barriers. Having a program where the local deliverer is employed by the First
Nation but ultimately accountable to external agents/policy creates structural program barriers.
Calculation of Benefits
The calculation of program benefits needs to reflect the actual needs of the person to provide a
minimum standard of living. If the program is intended to provide a person’s “basic needs” then
the benefits must be calculated at a level that achieves this goal. To achieve this objective, an expert
panel should be developed to recommend income assistance rates and benefits, and review policy on
an annual basis. Such rates must address regional and local disparities in living costs, including food,
shelter and transportation.
First Nation “Opt Out” Clause
There needs to be an “opt out” clause in any social assistance program for First Nations. An “opt
out” clause would provide First Nations the authority to not adhere to specific policy areas should
the policy conflict with the community or cultural realities of the nation.
Seamless Program Integration
There needs to be better system integration between all community social programs, including:
Ontario Works, ASSETS, Housing, Child Welfare, Education, etc. Current service delivery “silos”
create unnecessary barriers and influence program and community outcomes.
Program Administration
The social assistance program needs to be less complex to administer with an increased focus on
helping people rather than policy compliance. Currently, deliverers utilize substantial resources in
meeting administrative and reporting requirements. The program’s “red tape” needs to be
eliminated and program administration needs to focus primarily on helping people.

27. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+/!
Disability
Any long-term social program (disability) needs to be administered/managed by First Nations.
Programs managed off reserve are not effective in providing help, service, supports or local
accountability.

28. !
"#$%!&!!!
'()**!+,--!
+0!
Bibliography
!
*56%7895:!;<=>!!?#7@A!BC<@6C996!?6DE#F<95:!+,,3>!!GGG>EC<%H8I9HI95F#7<9>97$J*88%F8J?#7@A!
K+,BC<@6C996K+,?6DE#F<95>L6H>!
B#5#6<#5!E%5F7%!95!MDN8F#5E%!*ND8%:!O<78F!(#F<958:!P5D<F!#56!QRF<8!"%9L@%!'S%7S<%G>!
BC#=N%78:!T9N%7F>!!)C98%!T%#@<FA!B9D5F8U!!"DFF<5$!FC%!O<78F!V#8F>!!"7#EF<E#@!*EF<95!"DN@<8C<5$:!-11/>!
?S#58:!ME9F!W>!X+,,/Y>!!Z9DFC!M%58%!9H!B9==D5<FA[!!9<E%!*56!"9G%7!P5!B9==D5<FA!B95F%]F8>!!^9D75#@!9H!
B9==D5<FA!"8AEC9@9$A:!9@D=%!24:!X.Y:!.12I/,1>!
O<78F!(#F<95_8!"79`%EF!a%#=!T%L97F:!"7<5E<L#@!T%L97F!95!(%G!M9E<#@!*88<8F#5E%!V%$<8@#F<95!H97!O<78F!
(#F<958!<5!'5F#7<9>!!bD%%58!"7<5F%7!H97!'5F#7<9:!-11+>!
O7%<7%:!"#D@9>!!"%6#$9$A!9H!FC%!'LL7%88%6>!!B95F<5DD=!P5F%75#F<95#@!"DN@<8C<5$!c79DL:!-1/,>!!!
cD78F%<5:!">:!V9S#F9:!B>!d!T988:!M>!X+,,2Y>!!Z9DFC!"#7F<E<L#F<95!P5!"@#55<5$[!!MF7#F%$<%8!H97!M9E<#@!*EF<95>!
B#5#6<#5!^9D75#@!9H!e7N#5!T%8%#7EC>!9@D=%!-+!X+Y:!+31I+/3>!
fG%<FF:!W9D$!X+,,,Y>!!*!B@#8C!9H!)97@6S<%G8[!!?]L%7<%5E%8!O79=!a%#EC<5$!*N97<$<5#@!MFD6%5F>!!aC%97A!
P5F9!"7#EF<E%>!9@D=%!21!X+Y>!
V<$CF=#5:!?>:!f%76:!W>!d!Q<FEC%@@:!*>!X+,,.Y>!!?]L@97<5$!FC%!V9E#@!P=L@%=%5F#F<95!9H!'5F#7<9!)97g8>!!
MFD6<%8!<5!"9@<F<E#@!?E959=A:!9@D=%!/0:!--1I-32>!
Q#E(%<@:!Q%@#5<%!M>!X+,,0Y>!!*5!?L<6%=<9@9$<E!MFD6A!9H!*N97<$<5#@!*69@%8E%5F!T<8g!<5!B#5#6#[!!aC%!
Q%#5<5$!9H!MD<E<6%>!!^9D75#@!9H!BC<@6!#56!*69@%8E%5F!"8AEC<#F7<E!(D78<5$:!9@D=%!+-!X-Y!2I-+>!!!
"%#7E%:!(<gg<!^>:!V#7895:!7%%6!)>!X+,,.Y>!!f9G!a%%58!h%E9=%!?5$#$%6!<5!Z9DFC!W%S%@9L=%5F!"79$7#=8[!!
aC%!"79E%88!9H!Q9F<S#F<95#@!BC#5$%!<5!#!B<S<E!*EF<S<8=!'7$#5<i#F<95>!!*LL@<%6!W%S%@9L=%5F#@!ME<%5E%:!
9@D=%!-,!X2Y:!-+-I-2->!
T%8F9D@%:!h7%=56#!X-11/Y>!!"79S<6<5$!M%7S<E%8!a9!*N97<$<5#@!B@<%5F8>!!cD<6#5E%!d!B9D58%@@<5$:!9@D=%!-+!
X+Y>!!!
MECD@Fi:!T>:!f%ECC#D8%5:!^>:!)798EC:!B>!X+,-,Y>!!*!Q9F<S#F<95#@!aC%97A!9H!V<H%IML#5!W%S%@9L=%5F>!!
"8AEC9@9$A!7%S<%G:!9@D=%!--/!X-Y!2+I.,>!!!
aDC<G#<!M=<FC:!V<56#>!!W%E9@95<i<5$!QAFC9@9$<%8>!!e5<S%78<FA!9H!'F#$9!"7%88:!-111>!
!
!
!