The Cost of Poverty in 10 Years Later October 2019 Celia R. Lee and Alexa Briggs In This Report

Authors: Celia R. Lee and Alexa Briggs Contributors: Amanda King, John Stapleton Editing: Amanda King, Carolyn Stewart, Ashley Quan Executive Summary 4 Design: Ashley Quan Reference as: Lee, C.R. and A. Briggs. 2019. The Cost of Poverty in Foreword - Chair, Feed Ontario Board of Directors 5 Ontario: 10 Years Later. Feed Ontario: , Ontario. You Can’t Shrink The Economy Bigger - John Stapleton 7 About Feed Ontario Poverty Reduction, a Decade Later 10 Feed Ontario (formerly the Ontario Association of Food Banks) is a network of 130 direct member food banks and over 1,100 affiliate hunger-relief What is the Cost of Inaction? 14 agencies that are united in their work to address and prevent hunger and poverty. Through emergency food support, innovative programming, and a commitment to investigating long-term solutions to poverty, the provincial Can We Reduce Poverty? 20 food bank network works tirelessly to improve the health and well-being of the adults and families it serves. Conclusion 24 To learn more about Feed Ontario’s work and other research, please visit www.feedontario.ca.

10th Anniversary The first analysis in Canada of the cost of poverty was produced by Feed Ontario (formerly the Ontario Association of Food Banks) in 2008, to help shape the provincial government’s strategy to tackle poverty. Since then, it has been replicated in several other provinces including , , , and , towards similar efforts. Cost of poverty analyses for cities as large as Toronto and as small as Grand Prairie have also been undertaken.

While 2019 brings a new context, different social and economic challenges, and a changing political landscape, the crux of the message remains the same: investing in people, through good times and bad, is not only socially responsible but also financially sound.

The opinions and recommendations in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Feed Ontario. Executive Summary Foreword

When looking at poverty in Ontario, ased on our analysis, the very single day there are even incrementally, would only our research tells us that while cost of poverty in Ontario adults and families in increase these costs as time moved overall poverty rates have in 2019 is conservatively Ontario that have to make on. Perhaps more importantly, the decreased, particularly for B estimated at $27.1 - $33 difficult choices between report demonstrated that it costs children and families with children, E billion per year. meeting their most basic needs. Do our society and economy, in the unattached adults and single person I put gas in my car — or do I pay my longer term, more to keep people households are experiencing hydro bill? Do I buy the medicine in poverty than it costs to eliminate Many governments estimate the both greater and deeper levels of that I need — or do I heat my home? it. costs associated with poverty by poverty than before. calculating the dollars spent on Do I pay my rent — or do I put food programs and services for the poor. on the table? There has never been As a result, when governments are This is supported by food bank use data, which shows that single a greater need for this trying to balance budgets, this In 2018 alone, over 507,000 adults, action than there is can lead to cuts or disinvestment person households are not only the children, and seniors accessed a in the social safety net that fastest growing group of food bank food bank in Ontario, visiting over today. these individuals and families are users in the province, but access 3 million times throughout the year. accessing. food banks more often than other This statistic is deeply troubling Now, more than a decade later, we demographics throughout the year. and reflects a growing trend continue to see high levels of food This report, however, understands in the province: it is becoming bank use as more and more families the cost of poverty in a very This report concludes by examining increasingly more difficult for low- turn to our hunger-relief network different way. Instead of looking at a number of case studies that income individuals to afford even for support. Further, we continue to program costs associated with low- illustrate the economic benefits their most basic necessities each see the lasting impact of inaction income individuals, it locates the of reducing poverty, and how we month. on our communities, with poverty cost of poverty in the loss of tax might build on the proven success coming at an even greater cost to revenue and in the increased health of investments that ultimately While food banks work hard to the province and its residents. and justice system expenses that result in cost savings and economic address hunger, a symptom of economies, provinces, and nations growth for the province. poverty, they have long advocated We believe that our vision of ending incur by maintaining people in for investments that address its root poverty and hunger in Ontario is poverty. causes. In 2008, Feed Ontario, then shared by all levels of government, known as the Ontario Association of but that this vision will not be Further, this report argues that Food Banks, released its first Cost of achieved without the committed when a government fails to Poverty report. This report revealed intention to take action against

2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv reduce poverty, when it shrinks that not only does poverty come at poverty. And further, that there has s a financial cost to the province, but never been a greater need for this o expenditures, or makes cuts, it can actually deprive the economy of its it comes at a cost to communities action than there is today. ability to grow, and deprive itself of and the health and wellbeing of the the means to balance the debt and people who live there. This report Michael Maidment deficits that it originally set out to also issued a warning that failure Chair, Feed Ontario Board of address. to take action against poverty, Directors C FEED ONTARIO 4 5 You Can’t Shrink the Economy Bigger John Stapleton

Determining the cost of poverty It holds that if debts and deficits requires an analysis of the are reduced — which require less consequences of maintaining a to be spent on programs that portion of the population in a alleviate poverty (among other state of poverty. By making this things) — wellbeing is enhanced determination, we focus less on because less money is ultimately the individual, community, or spent on servicing the debt while societal advantages of reducing governments ‘live within their or eliminating poverty. Instead, we means’. fixate on the economic costs of maintaining people in poverty. Two arguments are given to support this dominant narrative. The first is This is a different starting point from that money spent by government the usual ‘balance sheet’ approach on poverty alleviation is money that that restricts the economic costs is lost to the economy. It is thought associated with poverty reduction to go nowhere while increasing to the costs of programs that debts and deficits. It goes from the reduce or eliminate poverty. As plus side to the minus side. most of these costs are borne by governments, people living in The second assumes that a national poverty are seen as those who are or provincial economy is the same incurring these costs. Accordingly, as a household economy. In a the poor are often seen as our most household, a family will borrow expensive residents, and those who money to house itself in its early are better off are seen as having years and will pay off its deficits less call on government resources. and debts in its later years. This household will then spawn new This ‘balance sheet’ approach to households that do the same thing understanding the cost of poverty over many generations. generates the dominant narrative in Canada and in Ontario. It uses The problem is that the balance the metrics of debt and deficits to sheet and household narratives are Background understand economic wellbeing. false.

7 In the first instance, dollars are And economies, unlike families, Put simply, an economy cannot work In the end, it is impossible for an agnostic to how they are spent. need to continually grow over like a household without going into economy to “shrink itself bigger”. However consumed, dollars spent many lifetimes. Households simply economic recession and ultimately add to GDP. Money paid to alleviate do not. A household can tighten its Depression. The household that Trying to do so is known as poverty adds to GDP. belt, reduce its deficits and display tightens its belt does not put a ‘disinvestment’, and disinvestment a positive balance sheet without family member out of work. But an is usually practiced in the form of Dollars may be spent efficiently having an adverse economic effect economy that tightens its belt puts reducing resources to the poorest in or inefficiently, but money spent on the household. It can pay off legions of men and women out of our society. Disinvestment locates assisting people in poverty does all its debts and can shrink its size work. the problem of poverty in the not disappear. The only dollars and live within its means within the consumption of the poor and sees that truly disappear are those that wider economy. It can do this, for that consumption as a negative are unspent or deposited offshore. example, through the purchase of Dollars may be that must be curtailed. In this way, Dollars spent on consumption a smaller house, selling a second spent efficiently it locates the problem of poverty recirculate. property and buying a smaller car. or inefficiently but with the people who suffer it. money spent assisting The determination of the cost of people in poverty poverty does exactly the opposite. does not disappear... It locates the cost of poverty in the Dollars spent costs that economies, nations and provinces must meet by maintaining on consumption people in poverty. recirculate. When significant populations are deprived of legal redress, access When government expenditures to health, income, housing, transit, are allowed to increase in line with and work, there are economic the size of the economy, prosperity costs that are commensurate with can continue to be achieved. The the extent of that deprivation. It size of a deficit, or a debt, relative is one purpose of the economic to economic production and size is determination of the cost of poverty much more relevant to economic to measure those costs. performance than any current balance sheet or debt load. However, the larger purpose is to illustrate the logic that economies But when government shrinks can only grow themselves larger by

2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv expenditures, taking just its balance

s allowing the maximum participation sheet into account without regard o of our population — including those to its relative size, it can actually now living in poverty. deprive an economy of its ability to grow, and deprive itself of its means to service the debt and deficits that John Stapleton is an Innovation it originally set out to address. Fellow at the Metcalf Foundation FIgure 1.1 money invested in poverty reduction does not disappear C FEED ONTARIO 8 9 Between 2000 and 2016, the poverty rate in Ontario decreased1, with the Poverty Reduction, proportion of Ontarians under the A Decade Later Low Income Measure dropping by

oo often we hear that It is in using this approach that we -11% poverty will always be with conservatively estimate the cost of Yet income disparity has increased2, us, when good evidence poverty in Ontario at $27.1 – $33 with the income gap between the T from around the world billion per year. poorest 10% and richest 10% of suggests otherwise. What we see Ontarians growing by is that despite observing social and economic progress from poverty Poverty in Ontario reduction investments, we become nervous about the perceived risks Using Canada’s low income of spending. We pull back. We fail measure, today there are 1.57 million +10% to commit to investing in poverty people in Ontario living in poverty, reduction or to build on what we’ve including 382,000 children. Since learned. the last Cost of Poverty in Ontario report in 2008, poverty rates Recent food bank data reflects Over the last two years, the growth in have varied, but 2014-2016 saw this trend. The proportion of visits to a food bank was However, allowing poverty to Ontario’s population accessing persist and grow is ultimately significant decreases. Income disparity, however, has increased. a food bank has declined, but more expensive than continuing its the depth of need has grown 3 times higher alleviation. Our analysis of the Cost tremendously. than the growth in unique individuals. of Poverty in Ontario — marking Recent food bank data reflects this the 10th anniversary of the first of trend. The proportion of Ontario’s its kind in Canada — tells us why. population accessing a food bank Building on our analysis, this report has declined, but the depth of demonstrates the economic case need has grown tremendously. 12% for investing in poverty reduction, Over the last two years, the growth 10% in visits to a food bank was three and highlights case studies that isits give insights on the real-life impact times higher than the growth in 8% Number of V of such investments. unique individuals, illustrating that 6% those experiencing low incomes

2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv 4% s Our analysis estimates the costs are having even greater difficulties General Population o of keeping poverty in place. It affording their most basic needs 2% each month. Unique Individuals tabulates the extra costs incurred in 0% the health care and justice systems 2016 2018 and the tax revenues we forego In addition, two key trends are when people are kept in poverty. emerging in Ontario: children and FIgure 1.2 Growth in food bank unique individuals, the general families with children are faring population of ontario, and food bank visits; Ontario3 C FEED ONTARIO 10 11 While the poverty rate has decreased, the gains have not been equal across better, while individuals and families of food bank users in Ontario, and all demographics. Families with children (two-parent and single parent without children are experiencing use them the most frequently. families) are faring better, but families without children (single people and more and deeper poverty. couples without children) are experiencing more and deeper poverty. In 2018, Ontario’s provincial Between 2012 and 2015, the Ontario government made changes to its approach to poverty alleviation 8% Child Benefit (OCB) brought a 24% 2010: Full Day reduction in child poverty, and a 37% and reduction. While it maintained 7% Kindergarten reduction in children living in deep commitments to invest in suitable 2015: Canada poverty7. The Canada Child Benefit and affordable housing in Ontario Child Benefit 6% (CCB), which topped up the OCB and job creation — two crucial in 2015, played a substantial role areas of investment — it has also 5% 2012: Ontario Child Benefit in bringing families with children prioritized reducing Ontario’s 4% out of poverty, with lone-parent deficit through decreased spending 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 families faring better in particular8,9. on a number of social services and Modest reductions in poverty rates programs. FIgure 1.3 Families with children under the low-income measure4 among families with children that predate this suggest that other Poverty rates have factors are at play, such as better 13% increased among enforcement of child support unattached individuals 12% awards and the advent of full-day and families without 11% kindergarten*. The current goal of the Ontario Poverty Reduction children, who now 10% Strategy is to reduce child poverty represent 72% 9% by 25% between 2014-2019. Results of households 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 should be available soon. experiencing low FIgure 1.4 Families without children under the low-income measure5 In contrast, poverty rates income have increased overall among The desire to be fiscally unattached individuals and families responsible is a fundamental part without children from 2000- The change in food of a government’s job; however, 2016, who now represent 72% bank demographics Single People we cannot expect disinvestment to of households experiencing low reflects this trend. be an effective economic growth income. In addition, inequality and Couples With No Children strategy. As demonstrated by this the depth of poverty among the In particular, the report, pursuing this strategy may poor across Ontario have grown proportion of single Two-Parent Families actually work against the intended 2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv person households from 2008-2016. Usage of Ontario’s

s outcome by delaying the growth of Single Parent Families food banks corroborates these o accessing food the economy and the progress of trends: unattached individuals are banks has grown by 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% the province. the fastest growing demographic 2007 2019

*The intended benefits of full-day kindergarten to children’s academic achievement have already FIgure 1.5 Household composition, food banks begun to emerge. Better academic achievement from an early age decreases the chances that 45% in ontario, 2007 vs 20196 these children will live in poverty as adults. C FEED ONTARIO 12 13 Calculating the Cost

n calculating the cost of those of the second-lowest quintile. poverty, we investigate the The underlying assumption is cost of inaction. How much that increasing the incomes of I does it cost us to allow poverty the poorest quintile would be to persist? associated with decreased use of the healthcare system, less In this approach, we tally costs involvement in the justice system, where there is proven methodology: and higher employment levels. health care and justice system costs, and opportunity costs10. To estimate Figure 2.1 summarizes the the costs of poverty across these estimated cost of poverty in three categories, we divide the Ontario, based on the limited population into five income groups analysis of this report. Depending (quintiles). We estimate how much on how it is calculated, the cost is we might save if we increased the between $27.1 and $33 billion. incomes of the lowest quintile to

Indicator Cost What is Health $3.9 billion Crime $1.1 billion the cost of Opportunity: Taxes Foregone $2.7 - 3 billion Opportunity: Lost Income $19.4 - 25 billion inaction? Total Cost of Poverty, Ontario $27.1 - 33 billion FIgure 2.1: The Cost of Poverty in Ontario

15 This methodology is conservative and services. A study in Hamilton Justice System Costs Opportunity Costs because it only accounts for a showed a 21-year difference few measurable factors. We in life expectancy among 130 In the case of the justice system, The “opportunity costs” of poverty do not account for anticipated neighbourhoods, which was highly those experiencing poverty are refer to lost personal revenue when differences in the use of social correlated with income, poverty more likely to be both victims of people are unemployed or under- services, charitable donations, child and health12. People experiencing crime and show greater use of employed, along with resulting protective services, or impacts on poverty live shorter lives. our court systems that relate to losses in tax revenue20. the business community. Neither appeals, evictions and injury. The do we account for the ripple effects Figure 2.2 shows Ontario’s public linkage between poverty and The major assumption is that of policies that reduce poverty, health costs by income quintile. crime is extrapolated through people who live in poverty will work, which ideally would have multiple By raising the incomes of the literacy measures, which is directly work more, or earn more, given the benefits for all residents of Ontario. poorest 20% to the 2nd quintile to linked to both, and points to the chance. There are two parts to this Investments in public transit, for estimate the difference in public importance of investing in high- assumption: first, that those living example, can be of particular help health care usage, we see that quality education. Through this in poverty are able to work more or to people experiencing lower poverty results in as much as $3.9 correlation, researchers are able to earn more; and second, that they 17 incomes, but benefit everyone in billion annually in health costs13. attribute 4% of crime to poverty , are likely to do so if they are able*. the province — from improving their Using a different methodology, the though this estimate is considered These assumptions are subject morning commute to addressing Public Health Agency of Canada to be very conservative. to labour market and capacity climate change to improving public estimated that about 20% of total constraints. Nonetheless, the 11 health . health care spending is attributable Figure 2.3 shows the costs of crime potential for increased income and to inequities14. In Ontario, that in Canada and Ontario, broken tax revenue is clearly significant. Health System Costs represents $11.5 billion in costs. down by costs to government and In addition, case studies across Our estimate is conservative in to society at large. Given 4% of the globe have shown that people Those living on low incomes comparison. crime can be attributed to poverty, do work more if they can, and experience poorer health for a host the associated cost in Ontario is will seek out work when receiving of interrelated reasons, including $1.1 billion. a basic income21,22, as personal less access to quality food, housing, medicine, work opportunities Costs of Crime in Costs of Crime Attributable to Poverty

Canada ($)18 in Ontario ($)19 in Ontario ($) Costs to 17.4 billion 4.9 billion 196 million Government Share of Public Health Costs Total Public Health Costs in (%)15 Ontario ($ billion) Costs to Society 82.1 billion 23 billion 920 million at Large Poorest 20% 30.9 17.8 2nd Quintile 24.2 13.9 Total Costs 99.6 billion 27.9 billion 1.1 billion 3rd Quintile 16.2 9.3

2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv Cost of Crime Attributable to Poverty in Ontario: $1.1 billion 4th Quintile 14.1 8.1 s

o Richest 20% 14.6 8.4 Total Costs of Crime and Share of Costs Attributable to 16 FIgure 2.3 Total 100 57.6 Poverty

Difference Between 1st Quintile and 2nd Quintile: $3.9 billion *We have assumed that policy interventions would move people to the 2nd quintile. Once given opportunity to succeed, distribution across all quintiles is much more likely. This analysis does not hypothesize which strategies could create more or better employment. It simply tabulates the cost FIgure 2.2 Public Health system costs by income quintile of not having more or better employment. C FEED ONTARIO 16 17 happiness and satisfaction is linked For both scenarios, lost income to productive work23. tax revenue was determined by multiplying the number Unaccounted Costs To determine the opportunity of families being “raised” costs of poverty, we used two by the difference between the Replicating the approach taken in poverty and are likely to remain scenarios: income tax paid by the second in Saskatchewan, poor is 20 – 25%28,29. There are about quintile and the first quintile/ and Toronto, we have adapted 382,000 children in Ontario living in 1. Absolute Cost of Poverty: The families below the LIM. Similarly, the methodology from the poverty. That means that between economic effect of raising the the lost income is the difference original used in 2008 by removing 76,400 and 95,500 children will average incomes of the families between the incomes (after-tax) of intergenerational costs, in order to likely not escape it as adults30. below the Low Income Measure the second quintile and first quntile/ be as conservative as possible — From an economic perspective, this (LIM) to the second quintile families below the LIM, multiplied recognizing that the current loss of means that poverty among children by the number of families. productivity encompasses, at least today incurs future costs in the 2. Cost of Inequality: The in part, intergenerational costs. healthcare system, justice system, economic effect of raising the As shown in Figure 2.5, the and in opportunity costs, and that average incomes of the poorest opportunity cost of poverty in The total costs are not directly when we perpetuate poverty, we 20% to the second quintile Ontario ranges from $22.1 - 28 comparable with the 2008 figure. very tangibly perpetuate its costs. billion. However, the data suggests greater income disparity in 2019 than in 2008, and an associated rise in the Average Average Average Total Number Market After-Tax Income Tax portion of the costs that reflects of Families Income ($)* Income ($) Payable ($) disparity. Non-elderly Economic Families Below the LIM, 8,200 18,400 500 773,000 Intergenerational Costs of After-Tax Poorest 20% 6,400 15,600 600 896,000 Poverty 2nd Quintile 37,700 43,500 4,000 896,000 3rd Quintile 70,400 69,400 9,400 896,000 Children growing up in poverty 4th Quintile 111,400 101,100 17,400 896,000 face more challenges than their peers when it comes to Richest 20% 234,500 184,500 54,900 896,000 nutrition, completing homework, FIgure 2.4 Ontario income data, non-elderly families, 201724 experiencing and coping with learning disabilities, and pursuing 25 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 post-secondary education . Increasing family income improves Estimated Lost Income 19.4 billion 25 billion the vast majority of factors

2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv Lost Income Tax Revenue 2.7 billion 3 billion 26

s impacting child development ,

o Total Opportunity Cost 22.1 billion 28 billion while supporting programs and Opportunity Cost of Poverty in Ontario: $22.1 - 28 billion resources for children are also measurably beneficial27.

FIgure 2.5 Opportunity Costs of poverty in ontario Canadian studies estimate that the *Market income is defined as the total income before tax minus income from government sources. percentage of children who grow up C FEED ONTARIO 18 19 Real-Life Examples

he idea that spending helps In 1974, a basic income experiment us save can feel antithetical. called Mincome was launched in The best evidence, however, Dauphin, . It brought T overwhelmingly supports 1,000 families out of poverty. It ran this approach. In 1969, for example, for 4 years, before being cancelled. US President Nixon announced Unfortunately, key results of the his support for a basic annual experiment were not analyzed until income, following a letter signed almost thirty years later. by 1,200 American economists that supported the idea that there are At the time, there was a fear that unacceptable social and financial analysis would be expensive, and costs to persistent poverty31. likely only prove the assumption that the experiment had Calculating the cost of poverty in failed32. However, three decades Ontario — limited and conservative later, analysis of this evidence as our analysis is — gives us a sense demonstrated that the experiment of the scale of the costs when had succeeded. poverty is allowed to persist. It reminds us that disinvesting does Experiments across the U.S. in the not help us save. In fact, it suggests 1960s33* that pulled 8,500 people the reverse is true: reducing out of poverty showed similar poverty contributes to economic success, and moved politicians and benefit. Real-life experiments, in economists alike to support a basic Canada and abroad, substantiate annual income. But they could this finding. not agree on strategy, and in the end, lost the political will to move Too often we hear that reducing forward. poverty substantially and permanently is not possible — Later, it was said that they had even though Canada has already attempted to fight poverty, and reduced poverty by over 20% since that poverty won. But poverty did 2015. The challenge we have faced not win — people failed to take Can We Reduce over time is one of commitment, the steps to fight it. Experiments not of potential: we have failed to on poverty reduction have build upon what we learn, and to consistently shown that reducing take action. poverty is not only possible, but

*This experiment occurred in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Seattle and Poverty? Denver

21 that it improves quality of life for Does Poverty Reduction better school performance leading in Manitoba, Ontario40, Denver, everyone (not just those living in not only to less use of the justice Seattle, and New Jersey. poverty), reduces costs and can Pay Off ? and court systems, but to more 38 contribute to economic growth. What we have learned so far is and better paid employment . Intergenerational economic We have nonetheless been shy to instructive. Case studies in Canada, In Dauphin, Manitoba, domestic benefits of poverty reduction build on those successes and on the US, the UK, throughout Africa, violence diminished over the course have also been observed, again the knowledge we’ve gleaned. Mexico, and India all show that of the experiment. A study in the in Dauphin: children of Mincome for each of the costs tallied in our U.S., in which a cohort was raised recipients were better off than Experiments on calculation — health, justice and out of poverty through distributed their peers. Helping people out poverty reduction opportunity cost — we can expect casino earnings, saw resounding of poverty, it seems, leads to socio-economic improvements in have shown that to see economic benefit associated individuals investing in their own with poverty reduction, as well as their community. Among them was education, in their children, in their reducing poverty is improved quality of life. a 22% decrease in the likelihood small businesses; improving their not only possible, that youth would have a criminal odds of being hired; and increasing record by age 16. Interviews with their earnings in a lasting way41,42,43. but that it improves Canada’s Mincome experiment local residents revealed that in Dauphin Manitoba showed an parents were working just as much quality of life for Case studies show what cost 8.5% reduction in hospitalizations as before, but experienced less everyone, reduces analyses predict: that savings can in only four years, with substantial stress and felt they were being be expected in health, crime and costs and can savings to the healthcare system, more present and supportive in opportunity costs when poverty and fewer recorded mental health their children’s lives39. contribute to complaints35,36. is reduced. Many ‘cost of poverty’ economic growth. analyses report that eliminating In our calculation of opportunity Improvements in health were poverty would pay for itself, Ontario recently cancelled its costs, one assumption is that people intergenerational: the positive including in Canada, the UK and basic annual income experiment, can and will work, and work more, effects of just four years of poverty the US. In a US case-study in which which involved 4,000 individuals when given the chance. Studies reduction resonated for decades. In redistributed casino earnings were experiencing low incomes34. This from many nations show that people American, British and African cities, used to reduce poverty, the cost is unfortunate, not just because want to work. Providing income raising people out of poverty was savings actually outpaced the these programs are often effective supports typically only result in associated with reduced alcohol, casino revenues through reductions and appeal to the values of right slight decreases in the number of tobacco and drug use, including in crime, improvements in health, and left alike, but because of the working hours, if at all. Across the among those struggling with and less repetition of school opportunity to learn. To create board, decreases are correlated 44 addiction33. As individuals had less grades . effective programs, we need to with: young people investing more stress to cope with, they relied less time in their education, and thereby know much more about income Poverty reduction is not only on unhealthy coping mechanisms. securing better jobs with higher supports and find answers possible — it pays off. to questions concerning the earnings; and, young mothers 2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv

s effectiveness of income support Raising families out of poverty extending their maternity leave to o programs in ensuring improved improves educational achievements better care for their children. In individual well-being, social well- and lowers crime rates. In New addition, people receiving income being and economic prosperity. Jersey’s basic income experiment supports are often also doing in the 1960s, raising families out unrecognized unpaid or informal of poverty increased high school work. These trends were observed graduation rates by 30%, with in poverty reduction experiments C FEED ONTARIO 22 23 Invest in People

e estimate the annual As a province, we need to learn cost of poverty in from our experiences, commit Ontario to be between to knowledge development, W $27.1 – $33 billion. continue refining what we know about poverty reduction, subtly While poverty rates in Ontario have adapt our approaches as we learn, decreased, the data suggests that and incrementally make better income disparity and depth of decisions together. Reducing poverty have increased since 2008, poverty is fundamentally possible, with increasing associated costs. it is better for everybody, and in the longer term, costs less. This tells us we still have work to do, socially and economically. Disinvestment is not the answer. Wise social spending Cost analyses and case studies demonstrate that investing in is a macro-economic the wellbeing of vulnerable strategy – not a line people improves quality of life for item in a government everyone, while also improving both economic and social bottom budget. If anything, lines. Wise social spending is a our failure to commit macro-economic strategy — not a to poverty reduction line item in a government budget. If anything, our failure to commit to is what costs us, time poverty reduction is what costs us, and time again. time and time again. As stated in the first Cost of Poverty Future policy should not result in Ontario report in 2008, investing in program cutbacks to our most in people, through good times and vulnerable; it should invest in them bad, is not only socially responsible and contribute to lasting change. but also financially sound. New policies should be based on the successes of the Ontario Child Benefit. It should expand income supplements to families without children and unattached Conclusion individuals.

25 Endnotes

1. Statistics Canada. 2019. Before-tax and Death in the City of Hamilton. AIMS public health in Canada, 2008: Addressing Economic Journal: Applied Economics, after-tax low income status (census Public Health 2(4): 730-745. Retrieved health inequalities. , ON: Public 2(1): 86-115. family LIM) by family type and family Health Agency of Canada. from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ 40. Ontario Association of Food Banks. 2018. composition. Table 11-10-0015-01. articles/PMC5690439/ 27. McCain, M.N., Mustard, J.F., & McCuaig, K. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan. 41. Ibid. 13. Laurie, N. 2008. 2011. Early years study 3: Making decisions, gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1110001501 taking action. Toronto, ON: Margaret & 42. Save the Children. (June 27, 2009). 14. Health Disparities Task Group of the 2. Statistics Canada. 2019. Upper income Wallace McCain Family Foundation. Advisory Committee on Population Health 43. Bregman, R. 2017. limit, income share and average of and Health Security. 2004. Reducing 28. Corak, M. & Heisz, A. 1998. How to adjusted market, total and after-tax 44. Ibid Health Disparities - Roles of the Health get ahead in life: Some correlates of income by income decile. Table 11- Sector: Recommended Policy Directions intergenerational income mobility in 10-0193-01. Retrieved from: https:// and Activities. Retrieved from: http:// Canada. In M. Corak (Ed.), Labour markets, Additional references: www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/ www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/disparities/ social institutions, and the future of tv.action?pid=1110019301 McCuaig, K. (February 12, 2019). Full- pdf06/disparities_recommended_policy. Canada’s children (pp. 65 -89). Ottawa, Day Kindergarten Is What Ontario Needs 3. Feed Ontario. 2019. Link2Feed. Unique pdf ON: Statistics Canada. For A Stable Future. HuffPost. Retrieved individuals and visits, 2016-2018, Custom 15. Laurie, N. 2008. 29. Fortin, N. & Lefebvre, S. 1998. from: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/the- tabluation. Intergenerational income mobility in 16. Canadian Institute for Health Information. conversation-canada/full-day-kindergarten- 4. Statistics Canada. 2019. Canada. In M. Corak (Ed.), Labour markets, 2018. National Health Expenditure Trends ford-ontario_a_23666870/ social institutions, and the future of 5. Ibid. 1975-2018. Torjman, S. 2012. Recreation and Resilience. Canada’s children (pp. 51 -63). Ottawa: Ottawa: The Caledon Institute of Social Policy. 6. Food Banks Canada. 2019. Household 17. Laurie, N. 2008. Statistics Canada. composition of food bank clients in 18. Zhang, T. (2011). Cost of Crime in Canada, Wilkinson and Pickett. (2009). The Spirit Ontario, 2007-2019, Custom Tabulation. 30. Ontario Minister of Housing. 2017. 2008. Department of Justice. Canada. Level. Penguin Group: Toronto, Canada. 7. Ontario Minister of Housing. 2017. Poverty 31. New York Times. (May 28, 1968). 19. Statistics Canada. 2017. Incident based Reduction Strategy (Annual Report 2017). Economists Urge Assured Income. crime statistics, by detailed violations, Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/ 32. Belik, V. (September 5, 2011). A police services in Ontario. page/poverty-reduction-strategy-annual- Town Without Poverty? The report-2017 20. Laurie, N. 2008. Dominion. Retrieved from: http://www. dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 8. Thomson, S. (February 26, 2019). Big 21. Save the Children. (June 27, 2009). Cash decline in poverty rate offers good news transfers for children—investing into the 33. Bregman, R. 2017. future. The Lancet. 373(9682):2171-2258. to a government that desperately needs 34. Ontario Association of Food Banks. 2018. some. National Post. Retrieved from: 22. Svaldi, A. (October 8, 2016). Nixon-era Hunger Report. Retrieved from: https:// https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ proposal to give “basic income” to all feedontario.ca/hunger-report/ big-decline-in-poverty-rate-offers-good- people springs back to life. The Denver 35. Forget, E.L. 2011. The Town with No news-to-a-government-that-desperately- Post. Retrieved from: https://www. Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian needs-some denverpost.com/2016/10/08/universal- Guaranteed Annual Income Field basic-income/ 9. Statistics Canada. 2019. Before-tax and Experiment. Canadian Public Policy. after-tax low income status (census 23. Bregman, R. 2017. Utopia for Realists. 37(3): 283-305. family LIM) by family type and family New York, New York: Little, Brown and 36. Forget, E.L. 2013. New questions, new composition. Company. data, old interventions: the health effects 10. Laurie, N. 2008. The cost of poverty in 24. Statistics Canada. 2017. Ontario Income of a guaranteed annual income. Prev Med. Ontario. Ontario Association of Food Data, 2017. Canadian Income Survey.

2019 ert y in O ntario t of POv 57(6):925-8. Banks. Toronto: Ontario. Retrieved from: s Income Statistics Division, Custom https://feedontario.ca/wp-content/ 37. Bregman, R. 2017. o Tabulation. uploads/2016/08/CostofPoverty.pdf 38. Ibid. 25. Duncan, G.J., Brooks -Gunn, J., & Klebanov, 11. Briggs, A., Lee, C. and J. Stapleton. 2016. P.K. 1994. Economic deprivation and 39. Akee, R. K. Q., W.E. Copeland, G. Keeler, A. The Cost of Poverty in Toronto. Open early childhood development. Child Angold, and E.J. Costello. 2010. Parents’ Policy Toronto: Toronto, Ontario. Development, 65, 296–318. Incomes and Children’s Outcomes: A Quasi-experiment Using Transfer 12. DeLuca, P.F. and P.S. Kanaroglou. 2015. 26. Butler-Jones, D. 2008. The Chief Public Payments from Casino Profits. American Code Red: Explaining Average Age of Health Officer’s report on the state of C FEED ONTARIO 26 27 Feed Ontario 99 Yorkville Avenue Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario, M5R 1C1 www.feedontario.ca | 416-656-4100