Poverty in Guelph: Part Three of My Conversation with Jaya James

In the first part of my conversation with Jaya James we talked about how the government interacts with poor people and how it is failing to deliver either financial or individual support to people who are struggling to survive in a complex and competitive society. In the second part, we talked about the social relationships that sustain us as human beings, and how these fall apart and fail the poor. In this last part, we talk about the individual psychology of poverty plus the relationship between Hope House and the institution that founded it, Lakeside Church.

&&&&

Jaya James, Executive Director, Hope House.
Photo by Bill Hulet 

Hulet: You mentioned earlier "the tyranny of the moment". Could you expand a bit on that?

James: I don't know where Mary Chrome got it from---she was our social worker for a while. But she 

Mary Crome, MSW, RSW.
Photo c/o Canadian Federation of
University Women, Guelph Chapter.
Used under the "Fair Use" provision
of the Copyright Act.

used that phrase a lot, so I have to credit her for it.

The tyranny of the moment is this idea---and I don't think it only applies to low income populations, but that's where my experience has been. When you are on low income you are always trying to figure out where you are going to get your next immediate need met. You're not thinking about a month, you're thinking about today.

So today "How are you going to get fed, clothed, sheltered". The next day you spend thinking "How am I going to get fed, clothed, sheltered". This creates this cycle that essentially means you are really focused on this moment in time and it discourages you from doing longer range thinking. 

And yet we all know that when we want to move towards a goal often we have to do things in the short term that may not get us there immediately but ultimately will get us to our bigger goal. So we have to have this "future gazing" experience. If you are spending all your energy and time trying to think of how to get food, clothing and shelter, or even about to get your emotional needs met, you don't have time to think about the future. "Where do I want to go?" "How can I make things different?" "How can I move towards what I want to do?" "How can I get this longer term situation addressed?"

Mary Chrome always used to remind us: "Remember that when someone comes in---and they might have eaten very well---but they need food "Now! Now! Now!"---remember that they are in the "tyranny of the moment"". 

At that moment they are hungry and they're afraid that they will not find food again. So if you can work through---without asking "Why?" questions but instead "What?". So help them list "So here's all the things that are available to help people exit out of that tyranny of the moment. They the can relax a little and say "Okay"". 

Sometimes it's as simple as giving someone a granola bar and letting them eat a little bit of the edge off. Then we can talk a bit about "what do you have in your cupboard back home?" Sometimes they do have food back home but they don't know how to use it. So if we've got those things, let's see if there are a couple of different meals that we can make with that. 

We can also ask "When was the last time you were in for a food market shop?", "Can you do that?" "No, you've already been in this month." "Have you been to Chalmers in the last two weeks?" "No? Then let's work that into what we're going to do."

When you are trapped in the sense of "fight or flight" phase. There again is that cognitive redirection in ability and you can't make wise decisions---or perhaps the most wise decisions. It doesn't mean you always make bad decisions. That's not the best way to phrase this---. 

Hulet: The window of opportunity shrinks and you have to grab the first thing you see. 

James: Right! You're grabbing the first thing instead of what you may actually want.  

&&&&

The issue that James is talking about when discussing the "tyranny of the moment" has all sorts of important ramifications that should be mulled over. Let's start with a common trope that is used to suggest things about why some people succeed in life, and some do not: the so-called "marshmallow test". When I searched for a video on YouTube that talked about it, I found a great many---here's the shortest one. 

It basically involves giving children an option involving a marshmallow: either eat it now or wait 15 minutes and get to eat two. The results were then compared to later life outcomes: Scholastic Aptitude Tests, body mass index, educational attainment, etc. This seemed to indicate that the ability to defer eating a piece of candy showed an innate ability to defer gratification that resulted in later life success. 

I suspect that the reason why this story is so popular---other than being an excuse to show videos of cute children fussing---is because it neatly fits into many people's preconceived notions about poverty. That is, that people are poor simply because they make bad choices. The problem with this idea---and many other similar ones---is that it is based on the flawed assumption that the world that each person inhabits is just like everyone else's. It is easy to look at these children from the vantage point of a safe, secure, dependable, middle-class life and see their behaviour as being the result of "poor will power". 

But what if you live in a world where nothing is safe, secure, or, dependable? In that world, things like marshmallows don't stay put if you leave them alone---they disappear. In that case, the old saying "the bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush" kicks in. That's what the "tyranny of the moment" is all about. 

Abraham Maslow, from Wiki Commons.

Abraham Maslow  was a psychologist who posited that people have a set of needs that stack one on top of another like the blocks in a pyramid. One has to deal with the first layer before they can even think about dealing with what goes above. He called this the "hierarchy of needs", and it explains "the tyranny of the moment" that James is talking about. 

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Image by J. Finkelstein, c/o the Wiki Commons. 

Many people living in poverty are stuck on the first layer of the pyramid. They have day-to-day concerns about finding food, shelter, warm clothes, etc. This means that they have trouble even thinking about things like employment, safety, etc. And the idea that they would think about developing a connection in the community, self-confidence, etc, must just seem totally alien to people who are sleeping rough, begging on the streets, and, traveling from hand-out to hand-out. 

They can't reach any further up on the pyramid to deal with the other needs that are above them. But this creates enormous problems because this prevents them from dealing with the "5 dimensions of well-being" that James talked about in the last article on the subject.

• physical
• spiritual: that you are able to find meaning and purpose in your life, that you have a role in the world 
• emotional: that you're able to receive and deal with your emotions in a positive, healthy way---especially your negative emotions, how do you deal with them when you are really angry or frustrated, or ashamed
• relational: that you have a group of family or friends who would be "there" if you were to disappear or if something wrong was happening with you, and who would work with you, trying to get you back. encouraging, cheering you on 
• financial

Remember that James said 

If you are really strong in the other areas besides finance you're going to be OK because your community will take care of you. If you've got a really strong sense of what your purpose is, you will be out there pursuing opportunities. If you've got good emotional health, then you will be able to express yourself in a way that people can accept, or, at least can hear. 

The problem is, however, that the outrageously mean way we treat poor people in our society means that many people on Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program get stuck in the "tyranny of the moment", or, on the first floor of Maslow's hierarchy of values pyramid. Not only because the amount of money they receive is so paltry, or because the city hasn't been building social housing (or any for that matter) in sufficient quantities to keep people from "living rough", but also because of the ridiculous rules and regulations----plus the lack of sufficient front-line staff to help people negotiate it. Remember my quote from the Munk School of Public Affairs and Public Policy in my first article on poverty:

Social assistance recipients and their caseworkers spend a great deal of time filling out application forms and documenting their continued eligibility, rather than on activities that will help recipients move out of poverty. While accountability and program integrity are important, the current system understands accountability in terms of individuals completing paperwork, rather than in terms of accountability for producing results across the system.  

This sort of bureaucratic runaround goes a long way to maintain the sense of insecurity that leaves people on the ground floor of the hierarchy of needs, or, as James says, the tyranny of the moment. That keeps them from being able to work on whatever they lack in the five dimensions of well-being. Frankly, it's a testament to the resilience of the human spirit that anyone ever manages to claw themselves out of dire poverty.

&&&&

Hulet: I have to ask this---. What's your relationship to Lakeside Church?

James: In 2012 Lakeside Church created a separate legal entity, called "Lakeside Hope House". Definitely we were created by Lakeside Church. 

We just turned seven. Initially all the staff---it was just 2---and all the volunteers were from Lakeside Church. Separate legal entities, separate boards, but really from an influence perspective they were really, really, tightly tied.

Over time as they organization has grown there still have been people who have volunteered from Lakeside Church who volunteer and who financially support Hope House. And we still have a couple on the Board---we have a nine member Board---who attend Lakeside Church. 

Rather than completely controlling Hope House because that's where all the volunteers and board members came from, I'd say that now it's more of a "many stake-holder" in the work here. But we do have a separate board and have separate policies and procedures, and we are not a faith-based organization. That was the way they designed it.

Hulet: I thought I had to ask that.

James: To be honest I was completely confused when it was first explained to me. It took me several times hearing before I could understand the relationship.

Hulet: Thanks for explaining. I asked because that is an issue in this town. People are quite afraid of Lakeside Church because of what they see South of the boarder. The influence of evangelical churches on the life the nation. So I had to ask.

James: That's fair.

We're always afraid of the things we haven't had an experience with, or have had a negative experience with a specific group. One of the things I was surprised by---pleasantly surprised by---was the diversity of thought in the membership. Even on issues that I thought were very clearly defined in the evangelical tradition. That they don't all fall within the stereotype understanding of what that belief system should be. There is a real range of thought. 

That was eye-opening for me because I had always thought "they are one of those big churches"---I had always attended a small community church. In my mind "big ones" were always for show and they didn't have as much connection between people. And yet the individuals I met there impressed me so I thought that there was more to see and I shouldn't just paint them all with the same brush. 

Do they have some challenges and things that I don't agree with? Yup. But that's how it is with everything in life.

Hulet: It's been a problem in our modern society. People want to form into football teams and then smash heads at the scrimmage line. 

James: Yeah. We struggle with talking with each other and having real conversations. In general we all want to be with others that all think like us, which isn't healthy. 

If someone thinks different from us many folks think we have to vilify them---just because they think different from us---which gets back to my habit of saying to myself "just because they have a different though doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong". 

We do make values statements such as in general murder is wrong, but sometimes these ideas do different between cultures. 

For example, I have some friends who's way of dressing is different from the way that I think I need to dress. But we've found ways to communicate and have a relationship and talk through things like clothing without thinking "because you dress that way there must be something deficient about you".

We're never going to be able to deal with hard and big challenges of our world if we can't even have conversations about the simple things---like clothes.

Hulet: There's an idea I came across years ago that has stuck with me: "the community of the dialogue". The idea is that you can't have a community without an on-going conversation.

James: I like that. That may show up in something we do in the future. It's a beautiful idea. 

&&&&

This ends my conversation with Jaya James. If you think that these articles are worth reading, why not support the work I do? Of course, you can subscribe through Patreon or Paypal. If you have a business, or are on the board of a community group, union, etc, why not consider buying an advert? Contact me about rates. If you can't afford either, at least share a link over social media. 

&&&&

Furthermore, I say onto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

Poverty in Guelph: My Conversation With Jaya James, Part Two

Executive Director of Hope House, Jaya James.
Image by Bill Hulet. 

Hulet: One of the most expensive parts of providing government programs is hiring the people who can work one-on-one with people to navigate the system. So the management tries to save money by just throwing forms at people, telling them to fill in the paperwork and then bring it back.

As you say, someone who has voices in their head---and stuff like that---maybe doesn't have much education, and is all stressed-out---those are not the sorts of people who are not going to function well in that sort of environment. But the bureaucracy saves a lot of money by cutting back on the front line staff.

It's not just an issue with the government. I was talking to the chair of the Meridian Credit Union a while back. She was talking about banks getting rid of all the tellers, and forcing people to use banking machines instead. It's a great way to save money to get rid of all the front-line staff.

I sorta got the impression from the website that Hope House---as a charity---is trying to provide the front-line staff. Is that a fair way to describe part of what you do?

James: It's not language I'd use---but it definitely makes sense. So it's good for me to hear. 

Gabor Mate, a Canadian physician, one of the most prominent people in how to treat people with mental health problems and addictions, he has a saying that we use:

The opposite of poverty is not wealth, it's community. 

Gabor Mate. Image c/o the Wiki Commons

When we look at everything we were going to do we talk about the 5 dimensions of well-being:

• physical
• spiritual: that you are able to find meaning and purpose in your life, that you have a role in the world 
• emotional: that you're able to receive and deal with your emotions in a positive, healthy way---especially your negative emotions, how do you deal with them when you are really angry or frustrated, or ashamed
• relational: that you have a group of family or friends who would be "there" if you were to disappear or if something wrong was happening with you, and who would work with you, trying to get you back. encouraging, cheering you on 
• financial

If you are really strong in the other areas besides finance you're going to be OK because your community will take care of you. If you've got a really strong sense of what your purpose is, you will be out there pursuing opportunities. If you've got good emotional health, then you will be able to express yourself in a way that people can accept, or, at least can hear. 

And if you've got a strong set of relations then even if you've lost your home for a period of time you probably have someone who will take you in for a period of time until you get back on your feet again. 

What we find with individuals who tend to be part of  multi-generations with low income is that it's not so much that they've lost the financial wherewithal---even though they have lost that---it's that they are really struggling with the other pieces. They have really weak relationships and/or they have never learned or had the opportunity to learn how to communicate things that are very legitimate---like "I'm really angry"---in a manner that our society considers acceptable and appropriate. And they don't have a sense that what they do and where they fit in the world actually matters---that the world would be worse off if they weren't  here.  

When we design an approach or a program that serves our goal---I'm not saying we always achieve it by any stretch---our goal is to recreate community. We know that any worker or agency is going to have set hours when they are open or closed. But if we can create spaces we can encourage people to get out and socialize and make friends with others. That encourages people to help one another to each see their problems in new ways.

It might be the case that Hope House is closed on any particular day. But if someone who comes here meets---let's say "Aileen"---at Hope House, and she has a particular strength, and, they're friends now, so that person knows that he can call her and tell her that he doesn't know how to deal with this particular thing. Or,  maybe he can just say "today I'm just not feeling so great---can I just chat?"

It's trying to rebuild something that never was perfect in society but maybe was stronger. That sense of social responsibility for each other. The sense that people really need to care for others. It wasn't just about your self and your immediate family. It was a broader thing that included others. That's what we are always trying to do---create those spaces where---as you said---if you're struggling with mental health challenges you need that "one-on-one" to work through things. Especially if at the same time you are suffering social isolation. You need to have that experience of seeing someone look you in the eyes and identify and be concerned and it mattering to them how you are feeling. 

So that's why our cafe space is set up with tables with multiple chairs. We want people to sit together and talk. It's why we have arts and crafts---so people can do things together. It's why we have music. Again, it's things to help people form more relationships.

&&&&

Hulet: Here's a new question about visibility and invisibility. I have a friend who gave up having a car later in life and at that point she realized that there are a lot of poor people in Guelph. She hadn't noticed this when she was driving. Now she walks to a lot of places and takes the bus. Before, she drove everywhere---and these people just didn't exist.

How much of a problem is the fact that the poor and marginalized are just invisible to the mass of voters?

James: I think that that is very accurate because I know that I live in the downtown and I always walk but until I started doing this work I didn't think I paid attention the same way. I'd see someone and I'd realize that they were struggling. But it wouldn't register in my mind the same way it does now. Now when I see someone I don't just think "There's a person", Instead, I think "There's Bill, there's John, there's Tammy, there's Frank." They've become a person. So it's not just that they are invisible in the sense that you don't see them, but they're also invisible in the sense that you don't see them as people. I see them as people. Unless you can do that, they are just part of the mass of collective "person hood" rather than individuals with individual interests, and strengths and weaknesses. 

I find as well---this has been almost three years and I'm terrible with names, I really struggle with remembering words. I work really hard to learn people's names. I've learned that if someone is having a hard day---. If you can acknowledge them by name, it is almost instantaneously a calming influence. If I've had to use something generic---like "buddy", or "sir", or "man", or "hey you"---that that can be like adding fuel to the fire. Right? Just being able to call someone by name, reminds them that they are being seen. 

Here's an example of how this works. I saw this really beautiful thing the other day when I was walking downtown. 

If I see people screaming and yelling and shouting downtown I know most of them now. I don't have this fear anymore. Because I know them well enough I have a very good read of whether or not they are an actual danger to others. I saw one of these individuals that I know. He's a young gentleman who was walking around and he was yelling at the top of his lungs and he was walking around, walking around. I could see people were moving away, and I didn't know his name exactly and he was moving somewhere else. 

He was far enough off that for me to get involved I'd have to be yelling at him. But I was across the street and I saw this other woman call out to him. And she came over over and started talk to him. She gave him a big hug and then he was absolutely quiet. He sat down and she gave him a couple things from her bag. And she sat down and he was absolutely calm. The transformation was so quick it happened in probably 30 seconds from when she called him over and made eye contact with him. I wasn't close enough to see, but I'm assuming that there was some request first before she gave him a hug. She gave him a hug and it was like---. 

In my mind it was like he was yelling and being noisy and all these things to be disruptive because he just wanted someone to acknowledge that he existed. And she did that. She acknowledged that he existed. 

That's the piece that we are losing as a society. It's not just that with low income. There are a lot of individuals who come here who are not wealthy---but definitely not low income, who have enough to meet all their needs but they live by themselves and they're alone. You can sense that loneliness, that they want people to interact with them, that they want people to know that they matter, that they contribute. It's hard in the way we are operating right now for people to find these spaces. 

Most spaces---there are exceptions---but most spaces have rules about the time you can stay there. Don't loiter. You always have to be buying something. Don't make too much noise---libraries are great places to meet in in some sense, but they're not great for talking. 

There's the loss of those spaces where people would gather together and have those discussion and check in. It used to happen through things like service clubs and clubs in general, or through faith communities, or through general civic engagement in general. Now a lot of that stuff is breaking down and the things that are rising up and take the space don't fill the need. You can say that through something like Facebook people are connected. But there not connecting, they're following. 

It's almost like now we are creating a generation of people who are just "stalkers". Who are watching what everyone is doing, but are not really involved in what they are doing. I'm watching my friends and what they're kind of doing but we're not actually having real conversations, and really connecting, and having that eye contact. And sometimes even physical contact. 

&&&&

Hulet: I used to work in security at the university library and one of the things that I had to do that really stuck in my mind was an incident where there was a guy who showed up one night when it was 30 degrees below zero. He had a coat, but no hat or gloves. He had a guitar and an old Tim Horton's coffee cup that he was holding onto like a talisman.

I had to kick him out into the cold when the library shut down. I asked him if he had a place to go. He said that there was an all-night Tim Hortons where he could stay. I asked the police if there was some sort of emergency shelter. They said "nope" and gave me the usual explanations why there was nothing they could do. I don't know if any of the it---or all---was true. But I felt really crappy about sending that guy out the door with no place to go on that really awful night.

Here's my question. Most people are nice and want to help other people. What is it about institutions that changes these folks so they can participate in such cruel ways of treating people? There's a certain brutality about institutions and what they make people do.

There's something about professionalism that I find really disconcerting. It's sort of like you're trained to not care. You're not allowed to "bend the rules". As a charity I suppose that this isn't quite the issue---at least as much.

James: Any time we try to create some kind of consistency---which you're doing to try to treat everyone fairly---it can also stop you from seeing the "uniqueness" of the situation. So it's always something that we have to be aware of and think through.

So I think that the thing that you speak of can also happen in charities too. In our attempts to make things more uniform and consistent and fair, we can forget that we are not all cut from the exact same cloth and there is a uniqueness---and that's messy. The majority of humans do not like messiness. We like things to be neat and tidy. 

We like to be able to define "it" and develop plans for "it" and standardize "it". Or perhaps our culture likes to create things this way. But to be "human", to be able to truly embrace the human side of yourself----you have to be always willing to break away from that a bit. 

It's not easy and it's something I have been struggling with for a long time. One of the first books I ever read by Jean Vanier was Becoming Human---his Massey lectures. He was really talking about this. How our institutions in making things professional remove the humanity from us. 

Jean Vanier, original photo by Kotukaran.
C/o Wiki Commons. 

&&&&

Just a reminder that I put a lot of work into these articles. I won't ever hide them behind a paywall, because I know that many people simply cannot afford to buy news. But those of you who can, why not become partners with me in informing the public? You can do that by subscribing through Patreon or Paypal. It's really easy to do---and even as little as $1/month is greatly appreciated. 

&&&&

Hulet: I was at a meeting years ago and a fellow said that the biggest dividing line in our society are our values. Some values or ways of seeing the world make you very successful and others really hold you back.

James: That reminds me of the "Circles Program" we do for the community. 

It's something that came out of the U.S., where it's been operating for over 25 years. It grew out of research that was aimed at trying to understand why people were getting trapped over and over in poverty. A very simplified version of the conclusions was that every level of society has hidden "rules of engagement". When you are in low income the hidden rules that you have tend to clash with the hidden rules of middle to upper income. What's acceptable and how you engage and how you communicate tends to be what holds you back. 

So the program they came up with and offer is really not that complex. All it is is taking people who are middle to upper income, making them take the course "Bridges Out of Poverty"---so they understand why people make the decisions they when they are low income. That way they learn that there actually are often rational reasons why they act the way that they do. That way the middle and upper income participants can learn to understand and have compassion for the individuals with low income. 

Then they had courses for low income people called "Getting Ahead" which was really just focused on answering the question "What do you want for your future?" This is necessary because these poor people have been captured by "the tyranny of the moment".  

Then the program gets the two groups to get together once a week for 18 months. They spend about 3 hours together, share a meal, have some sort of educational component. Then it breaks up into smaller groups, where the individual who's leading the family out of poverty is talking with her "allies"---who are middle to upper income---about the challenges they've had. The job of the "allies" is to help shed light on these "hidden rules" that they've never been taught because it wasn't the experience of the people around them. 

Incidentally, we found through this exercise that the individuals on low income are able to help middle to upper income people---especially as they are entering retirement---when their income is dropping for the very first time. They still have more than enough to live on, but there's that anxiety about "Gosh there's only 2/3's of what I had to live on before---".

The low-income people are able to explain "Did you know that if you do this and this and this you can save a lot?". There becomes this reciprocal, back and forth where both sides are teaching each other. 

Hope House is working in partnership with the county and public health to do this. 

So we run the program. We've found that during that 18 month period about 30% of the individuals will come off social assistance including Ontario Works. 100% will hit the goals that they've established for themselves.

Not everyone's goal is to get off Ontario Works or some other form of social assistance. It might be to get their health under control---maybe they have high blood pressure, or diabetes. 

So 100% of the people will hit their goals. And it's not that during that time together that they were really getting intensive training. It's not like we are doing job training. All they are doing is sharing and discovering what is missing from most individuals---is knowing what is or isn't considered "acceptable".  

So as Elaine Weir would say "I grew up in a middle-income family. When I was getting ready

Elaine Weir, Bridges out of Poverty Facilitator,
addressing the Mayor's Dialogue
on Poverty. Photo by Adam Donaldson.
Used with his permission. Cropped by Bill Hulet
Read and listen to his story here.

for my job interviews my parents were coaching me on what's the right clothing to wear to a job interview." So depending on the job it's various degrees of business dress. For individuals on low income when they're getting ready for a job interview they're focused on "Is this clean? Does this fit well?" and not think about whether it is appropriate for that type of interview. Because that's never been a priority within their community. So they might walk in with something that they've made a real effort choosing---it's clean, it fits well, but the people on the other end might think "well that's really casual for this role". So already you're getting "knocks" against you that might not know. But no on at the end of an interview is going to tell you that if you'd dressed up more it would have helped. Or, when you're speaking try to avoid those words. Or, reframe that experience in this way and it shows it in a more positive light.  

But I've had the gift of having parents do that training for me my whole life. I had really supportive parents and I could always go to them and they would coach me through things. Many people don't have that experience in life. They haven't hand---whether it is because their parents were working all the time, more maybe their parents themselves never had a role model that they could follow---. There're a bunch of potential reason behind it, but they haven't been told about what we call "hidden rules of society". 

Hulet: I have a friend that has been quite successful in her life who once told me that she'd noticed that upper class people usually use their full names when introduced---because they are always interested in building their networks, because those are important for their success. Whereas working people generally just use first names because it is less "formal"

James: That's a very good example of what I'm talking about.

Hulet: I have another friend who's a scientist---or at least was for many years. He comes from a working class back-ground. He was involved with a woman who was doing her Phd. and both her parents were academic scientists. He said he was absolutely flabbergasted by the amount of scholarship money she was able to vacuum up---because her parents were coaching her how to get it.

James: How to apply---.

Hulet: Or even to apply. Lots of scholarships go untapped because no one applies. So it's not just lower income people and the middle-class. It's people on all levels.

James: Yes! It's people on all levels. Every level has it's own rules. And then add to that the additional piece that there're cultural rules that play on top of that.

Hulet: Well, clothing certainly has an influence.

James: Yeah, clothing. But even expectations of where your priorities fall. For example, greater degrees of emphasis on family. What you want to do with your kids versus what you will let them do on their own. 

I find it fascinating to see how those cultural things work out because that reminds me that there's more than one way to see the world. As I get older there's a saying that I repeat to myself: "Just because it's not the way I would do it doesn't mean that it's wrong".

I say that to myself because I think it's really easy---for me anyway---to look at something and think "That's not the way to do it. That's not right!" But that's not correct. There often are multiple ways that things can be done and will still get you to an outcome. It's okay to have people approach a problem in different ways. 

&&&&

I think that this is a good place to stop the conversation for now. I think that there is still one more installment that I can write on this subject. It will come when it comes---.

Furthermore, I say onto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

Poverty: A Conversation With Hope House's Jaya James

Jaya James, Executive Director, Hope House.
Original photo by Scott McQuarrie, Ward 1 Studios.
Cropped by Bill Hulet.

One of the things that I find most frustrating about our modern society is the way we all seem to be separating ourselves into little "sub-communities" with our own experiences and ways of looking at the world. It's understandable that this is happening. The world is already very complex, people's education and work expertise are becoming more and more specialized, and, modern technology allows people to find that fraction of the population that have similar interests and values to their own. Increasingly, we don't live in geographic communities but rather "communities of interest".

The big problem with this separation into different sub-communities is that we create what business consultants call "information silos". That is to say, groups of people tend to congregate with people who have similar life experience and expertise but are walled-off from others with significantly different life experience or expertise. (Those are people in a different "silo".) It's easy to begin to think that your life has been the same as everyone else, and that government policy needs to be created only to deal with your particular experience---because everything else is "nonsense". In a democracy people need to have some basic level of knowledge about what is happening to everyone in their community before they will be able to elect officials to pursue policies that will work for all people---not just themselves. This blog is---among other things---an attempt to provide some of that information.

One of the biggest problems that I see is that some sub-communities are much better than others at telling their stories to everyone else. To a large part this comes down to who has the money to advertise their concerns about their particular problems. Another part involves the sheer numbers of people affected. I see ads on YouTube from the oil industry suggesting that the tar sands are just OK. I also see lots of "warm bodies" protesting the climate emergency. But poor people have a huge disadvantage when it comes to fighting for the attention of the general population. There are several reasons. They are poor, so they can't pay for advertising campaigns. There aren't that many of them, so they can't influence elections or stage huge protests. And they are generally too busy just treading water to put much energy into making a fuss.

For those of you who don't know---that "silo thing" thing again---Hope House is a downtown initiative aimed at helping the poor folks of Guelph survive in a world where there is increasingly little space for them to live. It's housed at 10 Cork Street in the Downtown Core. Last June I was privileged to spend a couple hours with its Executive Director, Jaya James. We talked about a lot of things, but they all centred around the issue of poverty---why some people are poor, what it's like, and, what can we do to deal with it. I learned a lot. I hope that what follows will also inform my readers.

Hope House, 10 Cork Street East, in downtown Guelph.
As viewed from Gordon Street. Photo by Bill Hulet.

Like a lot of deep thinkers who are trying to give honest answers, James sometimes struggles to find the right words. (It's a lot easier to be glib when you are just repeating well-worn "talking points" or reinforcing people's pre-conceived ideas.) Just to be as clear as possible, I've edited our conversation a little bit. At the same time, I've tried to retain some of the flavour of our conversation. James tries very hard to express herself in a very nuanced way to ensure that her language expresses concern for the dignity of all human beings. This concern can make her a bit hesitant to make forceful, universal statements. To my way of thinking, however, this makes me tend to trust her opinions more than I would otherwise.

&&&&

Bill Hulet: What's the relationship between mental illness and poverty?

Jaya James: That's a very good question. 

Everyone who comes to Hope House we call a "community member"---we try to use that language to remind ourselves that they are part of our community. We know that the community members that tend to stay with us over the long term---versus community members that come in during periods of their life for a number of different reasons---are the ones that usually have one of three things: 

• developmental delay
• a physical disability
• a mental health issue

Sometimes it's a combination of those things. And sometimes on top of that they have an addiction issue. We also know many people who have mental health issues, also have addictions and part of that is because they are attempting to self-medicate. 

This experience they are having---they are trying to get relief. Drugs are a way of doing that and if you don't have access to the right drugs, then you are going to get access to whatever drugs are available. 

So we know as well it's very common for individuals with significant mental health challenges to also have addiction issues. So if you take that combination of just mental health---which makes it very challenging to hold down a job---because you don't fall neatly into whatever box they want you to fall into. This also forces you to fall into primarily one of two things: reliance on the community to support you or reliance on social assistance services. 

"We also know---at least in Canada---these are fairly complicated systems to navigate. So when you're struggling with mental health issues, you're also being asked to understand and work with a process that requires your cognitive ability to be clear to some degree. You've got to do this, and you've got to do this, and you've got to do this,---then you've got to go back to this,---and then it's over to there. 

A large part of the on-going work of the support staff at Hope House is that system navigation. Many of the agencies that are doing poverty relief, they have individuals helping with the system navigation because mental health makes it very challenging to manage all the different ways we have to work through the system." 

&&&&


The Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy has a program titled "Ontario 360" which analyses public policy with a fact-driven approach. It recently published a report titled Resetting Social Assistance Reform. Part of the report spoke to the problems that James is talking about.

Social assistance recipients and their caseworkers spend a great deal of time filling out application forms and documenting their continued eligibility, rather than on activities that will help recipients move out of poverty. While accountability and program integrity are important, the current system understands accountability in terms of individuals completing paperwork, rather than in terms of accountability for producing results across the system.  

Monitoring and reporting for social assistance far exceed the requirements of nearly any other source of support for individuals or businesses – including supports that are far more valuable financially (such as child benefits).

Resetting Social Assistance Reform, p-18

&&&&

Hulet: If you are a person with psychiatric issues, do you have to be totally destitute---no savings, no house, etc---to get onto a disability pension? Also, are you expected to "take the meds"?

James: The main component for mental health, the government assistance would be the Ontario Disabilities Support Program. Your disability has to be proved. There's a process you go through to prove that you really are disabled and not be able to work again. That's the big thing---not being able to work again. 

I haven't heard that you are required to take your meds, but I haven't asked either, so that might be a requirement. I know that many people struggle with getting the documentation they need to demonstrate that they need the support. That can be for a variety of reasons. 

One would be that you have to make sure that the documents get to your doctor and make sure that the doctor fills out the form. Most doctors will charge a fee for filling out this extra paper work. And it has to go back. And the case worker may decide that it's not complete enough and send it back. Or they may want a second opinion. 

You don't have to be---to my knowledge---destitute to do it, but the amount of money you're going to get on your Ontario Disability Support will mean over time that you will use up whatever savings you may have---which will leave you with nothing. I'm not totally up to date about it, but I believe that the amount for a single person is $1200 to $1400/month. That's to cover your rent, food, everything. In Guelph I believe I read the other day that the average bachelor or one bedroom was around $1100/month. 

I know that many people on Ontario Disability try to find a room mate. But depending on your mental health issue it might be good to live with someone else---or it might be triggering and cause more trouble. 

You are in this tight financial box that you are trying to function in a very tight real estate market so that's an added pressure that's put on and that's one of the things people see as being very common. 

If you have very low income, the amount of money you are expected to live on using social assistance is way below what you need to live a healthy lifestyle. As a result, you tend to have these compounding cycles. If you are spending your time always trying to find ways to supplement---. 

Maybe I only have enough money to pay rent. I still have to find food and clothing. And that eats up a lot of energy. Not that there aren't systems across the city that you can use. There's the food bank, and you can go to support groups and community cupboards. There're lots of pockets, but it's not that you can go there when it's convenient for you---most limit you to a once a month visit, or every two weeks. That means you have to patch things together and that takes a lot of time. 

&&&&

I've included a chart below from the Income Security Advocacy Centre that describes the financial situation that poor people face in Ontario when they go on social assistance, in the form of either Ontario Works (OW) or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Just to give you and idea about how low the shelter allowances are in this chart, I get the National Rent Report from Bullpen Consulting emailed to me on a regular basis, and the latest one stated:

Although Guelph was not included in the 36 cities in the graphic, the city had an average monthly rent for a one-bedroom of $1,522 and average monthly rent for a two-bedroom at $1,778.

In short, the Ontario Works maximum shelter allowance for a single person---$390---only provides 26% of the cost of the average single bedroom apartment in Guelph. The Ontario Disability Support Program is marginally better---$497---but it still only provides 33%. Even if you rent a two-bedroom unit and get a roomie, the results are only marginally better at 44% and  56%, respectively. 

Family Type	Current				New as of Sept / Oct 2018
OW	Basic Needs	Max Shelter	Max OCB	Total	Basic Needs	Max Shelter	Max OCB	Total
Single	$337	$384	$0	$721	$343	$390	$0	$733
Single Parent - 1 child	$354	$632	$114	$1,100	$360	$642	$117	$1,119
Single Parent - 2 children	$354	$686	$229	$1,269	$360	$697	$234	$1,291
Couple	$486	$632	$0	$1,118	$494	$642	$0	$1,136
0BCouple - B1 child	$486	$686	$114	$1,286	$494	$697	$117	$1,308
Couple - 2 children	$486	$744	$229	$1,459	$494	$756	$234	$1,484
ODSP
Single	$662	$489	$0	$1,151	$672	$497	$0	$1,169
Single Parent - 1 child	$805	$769	$114	$1,688	$815	$781	$117	$1,713
Single Parent - 2 children	$805	$833	$230	$1,868	$815	$846	$234	$1,895
Couple	$954	$769	$0	$1,723	$969	$781	$0	$1,750
0BCouple - B1 child	$954	$833	$114	$1,901	$969	$846	$117	$1,932
Couple - 2 children	$954	$904	$230	$2,088	$969	$918	$234	$2,121

Chart copied from the Income Security Advocacy Centre's statement on Sept 10, 2018

(Just in case you are wondering, "OCB" means "Ontario Child Benefit", which is a further assistance program for children in poor families.)

Resetting Social Assistance Reform also supplies the following background information. To apply to both Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program people have a maximum allowable amount of assets. People are expected to "spend down" their savings to this point before they can apply for assistance:

Ontario Works

• Single Person $10,000
• Single Parent with one child $10,500
• Single Parent two children $11,000
• Couple $15,000
• Couple, one child $15,500
• Couple, two children $16,000

Ontario Disabled Supplement Program (ODSP)

• Single Person $40,000
• Single Parent with one child $40,500
• Single Parent with two children $41,000
• Couple $50,000
• Couple with one child $50,500
• Couple with two children $51,000

It's important to understand that there are exemptions to these numbers. Household assets like furniture are exempt under the ODSP and Ontario Works, as is the principle residence and an automobile. Furthermore, there are also exceptions for things like student scholarships (as long as the recipient stays in school), and a few other things. But as you can see, Ontario Works expects people who have managed to amass savings for their retirement, to buy a house, or, to start a business to burn through most of their savings before they can apply for assistance.

&&&&

I feel a bit weird asking for money in the middle of an article about people who are desperately poor. But the fact remains that what I'm providing is something that requires a lot of work to produce. If you think it's worth reading---and you can afford it---why not subscribe? Even a dollar a month is appreciated. You can do it through Patreon or PayPal. 

&&&& 

One of the things that's become clear to me is that to do changes in your life that might lead towards a healthier well-being, you have to have energy. And if your energy is being expended trying to survive you don't really have the capacity to make whatever change you might want to make to get you to a better spot. 

Hulet: Especially if what energy you do have is being drained by your anti-psychotic drugs.

James: Right! Right!

So society has this weird expectation that if you are in a low-income situation you should "change" and those changes will address your problems. But at the same time our system is set up---or has evolved, I wouldn't say it was intentionally designed, it's more like pieces have all come together this way. Our system has evolved to give you the least amount of capacity to to actually make a change.

Hulet: People often just don't understand how much hard work it is to survive when you are poor.

James: There's a TED talk about research that shows that when your income is low your IQ actually drops because of the stress it puts on the human system. I think the TED talk was "being poor makes you stupid" or it might be "makes you dumb". 

The example he used was a community that is above subsistence, but they are farmers that get all their money at once when they sell their crop. Even if the crop in the fields looks great and they can expect a good return, when they take a test---because they are getting to the end of their reserves---their IQ drops. This is because as the money disappears they have the natural concern about "what if something goes wrong?"

What the presenter was trying to say is that sometimes when we look at the decisions that people on low income are making and we are concerned about their choices----it's because they aren't functioning at their highest capacity, because they are in a high stress situation.

&&&&

I rooted around on the Web and eventually found what I think is the TED talk that Ms. James is talking about. The title is "Poverty isn't a Lack of Character: it's a Lack of Cash". The point he is making is that people who are poor end up mired what he calls "the scarcity mentality", which limits their ability to make the best choices in life.

&&&&


I know myself that when I've had some physical health things and whenever I've had to deal with that testing, I often have to have them repeat things because my brain just will not process as well as normal---because it's into that stress mode. 

I think that this is interesting research because it suggests that if we can help stabilize incomes at a point where people aren't stressed all the time, we are building additional, personal capacity for people on top of simply saving people all the time and effort that people put into searching for resources. In effect, we are opening up space for people to develop higher level thinking.  

I don't know if that's the right way to describe it---but the point is to help people to be able to use their full cognitive ability.

Hulet: That's the same phenomenon that even middle-class people experience. If you've ever had to navigate a complicated bureaucratic procedure that is tremendously important to you, the result is the same. Your ability to think clearly constricts and you stop being able to easily make good decisions. How could piling pressure onto poor people possibly help them get out of poverty?

&&&&

Resetting Social Assistance Reform also talks to this matter.

However, in practice, social assistance does not achieve the goal of connecting people to employment. The system has consistently prioritized punitive rules and mechanisms in the name of accountability and limiting beneficiaries, rather than lowering the barriers to employment. For example, people receiving social assistance face strong incentives not to work. Recipients have their benefits reduced by 50 percent for each dollar they earn from employment (with an exemption on the first $200 earned each month). By contrast, the top one percent of tax filers in Canada pay an effective combined federal and provincial tax rate of 31 percent.

Resetting Social Assistance Reform, p-15 

The report goes on to describe the way the "welfare trap" holds onto people by cutting off important benefits like drug plans, subsidized housing, childcare, etc, before people have gotten more than a tenuous hold onto employment. This includes things like pushing people off social assistance when they get temporary work, which means that they cycle in and out of Ontario Works---sometimes several times in one year. The extreme emphasis on finding employment immediately forces some recipients to take the very first job that comes along---whether it is abusive, dangerous, or just a terrible fit for the person's skill set. In the long run, this dramatically limits the ability of people to permanently enter the work force. 

I think that this might be a good place to stop for now as we've already raised a fair number of points. 

&&&&

Furthermore, I say onto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!