Interview
with V.P. CUPE, Hamilton - Wentworth Region
September 28, 2002

In an effort to clarify the effects of the new Social Service Program,
the writer conducted several interviews in the Hamilton - Wentworth community,
the first city to use the new re-vamped computer system.

This interview was done by researcher/writer Maggie Hughes. Not to be REP rinted without permission.

MH - I have been down to speak to some of the activists in the area. I wanted to hear your point of view. Let's start with the activists. Do you think they have any justification for complaints?

REP - Absolutely

MH - How those complaints tie together with any complaints you may have gotten from your front line workers.

REP - Well, the activists have a valid concern in that our ability to deliver an efficient service, and when I say efficient, I mean - to what we use to be able to deliver - has been hampered, quite extensively by this new computer system.

MH - Can you elaborate?

REP - I mean there are a number of "glitches" with the system that still haven't been worked out.

MH - How long have they been there?

REP - Since it was loaded out. One of the things that happened during this process, when they developed the SDMT, was to rush it. In my opinion the whole process was rushed. One of the things they did in order to try and meet the deadlines… of Anderson Consulting, and Accenture thereafter …was to rush it.

MH - Wasn't it the Province deciding when to introduce the program?

REP - Well it was the Province and …it was Anderson and the Province … their contract together, right. I guess they had contracted to have this service up and running by such and such a date. Anderson split, and became Accenture …who was still servicing the program. Then it became Accentures deadline. I know it was extended a couple of times, because we were supposed to roll it out on several different occations and were unable to because the technology piece wasn't quite finished.

Another thing they did was, at the developmental stage we had a situation where, Policy and Procedure, the arm of the government that sets down the rules in conjunction with changing the system… changed at the same time.

I don't even know how many changes to the directives, the regulations around Ontario Works

MH - It seems like every month.

REP - At that time it was …in fact the Ontario Works Legislation was the biggest overhaul of a piece of Legislation.

MH - Were the policies in place before the computer program was written, or at the same time.

REP - No, they was in place. Harris changed policy in 1996.

MH - So your saying Harris introduced it, because I had heard from some P.C. members that it was the NDP who first wanted to change this legislature, when they were in power.

REP - No…..

MH - That's completely erroneous?

REP - Yeah, totally a PC agenda. One of the first things he did after taking his oath of office was to cut the welfare benefits by 22.6% right off the bat. And introducing the Ontario Works Legislation. As they got to the point where they were going to develop the process and introduce this new technology, they had to revamp the rules and regulations around it again in several different ways.

MH - So were these rules written in conjunction with the computer program?

REP - No… rules and regulations were written before the program. The regulation was already there, but changes had to be made for it to be in conjunction with this new SDMT (service delivery municipal transfer) system. So there were some things that were adjusted "around" the Legislation.

MH - So, the program had no excuse not to be written for the Legislation?

REP - That was one of the points I wanted to get to. What happened was, the people that developed the program, the developers, the tech guys…didn't seem to be talking to the people making policy.

The SDMT project was a huge huge project and there were a number of people on it. People that were sequandered from different municipalities to help out. People from Accenture, people from the ministry, all of those people worked together, but they worked in different groups.

So you might be in design applications, or you might have been in the employment supports component. None of these people really seemed to know what everybody else was doing. So while development and design were developing the "actual" technology, that is, how things should work when you input certain information, it doesn't "appear" that everybody else was brought into it at the same time.

So Policy and Procedure sector who were making decisions on how we were going to deliver Ontario Works, or further deliver it, didn't seem to be talking to the design and technology people. So for example, if you were working and your job was made redundant, and you were applying for welfare in Hamilton Wentworth, - once there was an exhaustion of that money, you could apply for welfare, and you would be eligible once the two weeks were exhausted.

(So if I had my last pay, and it was a two-week pay, once I received that pay, two weeks after that pay I'm eligible for welfare.)

The old Legislation used to speak to it. But the new technology doesn't allow you to do that. Now, we go by "blue slips". So a recipient hands in a blue slip on a monthly basis called an income statement. Tin the computer the income reporting period goes from the 15th of one month to the 14th of the next month.

MH - So your saying the timing is a problem or the process?

REP - The process is there, but the timing doesn't work. So what happens is people don't get the assistance they should have gotten, or they would have gotten normally. They changed the Legislation, or they "interpreted" the Legislation, to say that the process was correct, to "meet" the technology.

Our system, or the way we did business before, suddenly no longer worked.

Something that we did in Hamilton- Wentworth, was now suddenly completely different, because of the introduction of this technology, Clients would have to actually hand in that blue slip - their first blue slip - declaring their last income, and that declared income, would come off their next cheque.

MH - So in some cases they're waiting 30 days, is that accurate?

REP - In some cases yeah.

MH - Ok - you said it was a process of Hamilton Wentworth, are not all municipalities the same across the whole Province?

REP - Here's the thing, it should be, but prior to this program, each municipality, developed their own, because each municipality paid for their own service program. Once the service went back to the Province, and the Province started to pay for it, each municipality had to follow their rules.

So it doesn't matter where you go in the Province of Ontario your going to be in the same database. That's the whole point of the government doing this. But, even today, there are a number of differences between municipality, on small things.

Where there would be municipal discretion, where it's our funds.

Under our municipal budget, we have certain monies that go to Social Services beyond what the Province gives us for meeting our targets. So we have "discretionary" funds.

In Hamilton-Wentworth for example, we decided as a municipality, to continue the pregnancy item. Hamilton-Wentworth councilors said … The Province got rid of it because there was that whole issue of "that women were drinking beer and taking cabs" on it, so they weren't giving the extra $36.00 dollars, or whatever it was at the time, to help women during their pregnancy.

There use to be a situation that if you were six months pregnant, you were entitled to an extra $36.00 on your cheque. It ran for six months.

MH - Was there an actually stipulation for what the money had to be use for?

REP - It was a pregnancy fund. It was for, extra vitamins that they might have to take.

You could use it for food or vitamins, or whatever you needed. You didn't have to hand in receipts. It was an extra bit of money to help either a pregnant woman, or a woman who has just had a baby. They could even, not chose to take it while they were pregnant. They could wait until the baby was born, and then run it for six months.

So, the Province as a whole said, no, we're getting rid of that because we believe that "you know, pregnant women are just smoking it and drinking it."

That was their justification.

MH - Was that a researched fact?

REP - No, it was just bull…it was not accurate.

So, in Hamilton-Wentworth, the councilors, the regiional government at the time, said no, that's not acceptable, we believe it is a benefit so we're gonna pay for it ourselves. So we in Hamilton continue to have a pregnancy item. There are municipalities where they don't do it at all.

So there is an area, that even though we are all under the same Legislation, not all municipalities are the same, each municipality has uniqueness.

That's a difficulty for us because the SDMT can't address that.

MH - So what is the 'major" problem?

REP - The major problem for "us", is the technology is not in step with the Legislation. That's one-big-problem. The blue slips, the income-reporting period doesn't match the way the system is designed to work.

MH - This I assume has been discussed, are there any in roads for change?

REP - The project itself has wound down but there is a new group called SAMO.

MH - Is this a Provincial think tank?

REP - Yeah, basically and they continue to work on problems that arise from the system.

You have to remember in fairness, this was a cutting edge concept. I mean, we were going from having stand alone computer systems in each municipality, to a Web based application to deliver a service throughout the Province.

MH - What about the front line worker?

REP - I wanted to get to that.

MH - From my understanding the government said there were too many errors from the front line workers. The workers weren't doing the job correctly. This is why there has to be automation. One of the problems with automation is , your losing the ability to weed and sort, to find credibility factors.

REP - You lose the ability of the human touch. Workers always had the ability to be discretionary. I had a much better picture of what was going on when I had the ability to meet clients in their home. So for me that was a big step backwards. As a welfare worker, as a front line worker when I was in your home doing an interview, I saw a lot more than I can see through the telephone line or a 1 -800 number.

MH - You've lost a valuable tool.

REP - Very valuable, you don't get to see the underlying problems. When we talk over the phone, I don't see how you are living. When I went into the home I could see if there were problems with health care, or if there was a public health issue, that's gone.

MH - Especially for those clients on disability..

REP - Absolutely,

MH - This is the one issue I keep seeing as I talk to people, the government is actually removing your job.

REP - Yep,

MH - Is it causing more hardship? The automation is treating everybody the same. This is where the advocates come in.

REP - Yep, absolutely, and their right. I mean I got into this business of being a Welfare worker to help people. Not to be just a data entry clerk. I wanted to be there to help, and that part of it has gone first. For a lot of people that job satisfaction is gone, because now, you either qualify, or you don't. There's not really a gray area anymore.

I use to be able to say "well yeah, the client probably doesn't qualify necessarily for all of the services, but maybe we can do something here.

MH - What about diets, people that need to be on a special diet because the program doesn't recognize al the subtleties.

REP - Exactly, that's another big problem.

MH - I anything being addressed in your opinion?
Is the union getting anywhere?

REP - We're doing our best but we're not getting anywhere.

MH - What is the problem besides not being listened to?

REP - It's just that …(laughs) they don't want to talk to us. They don't want to hear what we have to say.

MH - That seems to be par for the course across the board with this government. They put a policy in place and that's it, no discussion. So who are they catering to. It doesn't sound like they are catering to the public, the taxpayer, the worker. Could this program be efficient if there were some changes?

REP - I think the concept is good, in that, there are pieces within it which conceptually, are wonderful. For example, the fact that we are all on one system, makes sense.

A client would could leave one area and go to another municipality and still be on the same system.
Until now, we had a stand-alone system in Hamilton that worked in Hamilton only.

The predecessor technology, SIMMS was the mainframe that we were on in Hamilton.

If someone moved from Hamilton to another city, another municipality would have to "call" us to verify information. They had no access to our database.

That's a bonus, the ability to see Provincially what's going on. So there isn't "double dipping". That didn't happen a lot.

So the rational the government was using, saying that double dipping was a reason for this major change is not accurate. You had a very small number of "fraud cases.

The other plus as far as the government is concerned is that overpayments are the responsibility of the recipient. It doesn't matter where the overpayment happened, it gets paid back. I am not saying that I agree with that.

MH - What is the percentage of fraud do you think?

REP - Minimal, maybe less than 10%.

MH - How many years have you been doing Welfare work?

REP - Over twelve.

MH - So you have been in the business long enough to know.

REP - Yeah, and for the most part we "helped" people. There was the odd person that didn't do things right. But for the most part, it was a "valued" job.

MH - So the front line worker was far more qualified at seeing if someone was committing fraud than this system.

REP - Yep

MH - So in a sense, this government has actually shot themselves in the foot as far as being able to spot fraud. They have removed the watchdog.

REP - In a lot of ways I think so. I think it's one of their big mistakes, and I'm not speaking out of turn because I know that certainly there are a number of people that believe the same thing.
While it "may" have cost us a little bit more money, the home visit was the crux of our ability to provide a service. When they took that away that was a big mistake. Now we don't have the ability to decide if someone is trying to commit fraud. I could go into somebody's home, who was supposedly living alone, and see if someone else's stuff there. I don't get that over a phone.

MH - Whose fault is the overpayment?

REP - That's the point, I mean I'm not sure it is even justified, it would depend. I mean there are a number of reasons why it would happen. It could have been an administrative error that showed up, and that's why it's a problem. There's "glitches" in that part of it.

MH - When I speak to front line workers, I hear complaints about the Legislation constantly changing. When I speak to the activists, I hear complaints about documents going missing, and as a result clients get cut off.. Is it because the information isn't getting down to the workers?

REP - No, it's just a different system now. I had above my desk a big roll of files and when someone came in I could just pull it down and retrieve information. Now I do that through the system. When we went to the SDMT a lot of our internal system had to change. Everything from how we received blue slips to how we received mail, and where it goes, and who does what. There was a whole structural change in our own department. So job structures had to change.
Not only did we change our structure with technology and Legislatively; we also changed the way we did business internally.

MH - In other words you are being told by the Province what your job is on a day to day basis.

REP - Yep…

MH - So there is no more "social worker"

REP - I would always hope there is, but we are mandated by the government.

MH - But couldn't that job now be done by anybody that can do data inputting?
Anybody that could listen to a telephone conversation and enter information into the computer. So the whole job is changed. Now your not just talking about your office changing, you're talking about a whole section of the workforce quickly being erased.

REP - Yeah, that would be the Provinces attempt. Now, in Hamilton-Wentworth we received the SDMT and the ISU component (Intake Screening Unit).
From Niagara Falls to Brantford we are the screening process. So when you call for an application you're actually calling Hamilton, once you get through, "if" you qualify. Then the income-screening unit takes your information.
Based on that information that they solicit from you, the questions they ask, and put on the computer system, if you're not screened out in "that" process. The info is then sent to the "system". If the "system" says you don't qualify, then I have to tell you that over the phone.

MH - Do you tell them why?

REP - Yeah, I tell them why and the system in Toronto will automatically generate a letter. The letter goes out to you telling you why you were denied and what the appeal process is.
If it's appealable, because there are a number of decisions that the Ontario Government "removed" our ability to appeal on.

MH - Why is that do you think?

REP - (laughing) Because they want to limit the amount of people that are eligible for welfare.

MH - That's the bottom-line.

REP - Of course.. so if I deny you welfare and I say you don't have the right to appeal that decision, that removes your ability to get welfare period.
What use to happen was, if you were denied welfare you had the ability to appeal the decision. They streamlined the process by screening out people who are no longer eligible for welfare.

MH - So, Social Workers don't make any decisions about who gets and who doesn't get welfare.

REP - It limits it for sure. In Hamilton-Wentworth our intake screening unit is still manned by a welfare worker. You have to be a Welfare Worker in order to work at the ISU. In other municipalities, where they have an ISU, they have gone to using "clerks".
In one of the other areas I heard they even bring in "temps" off the street.

MH - I heard that, some office use file clerks and they don't have an answer for anybody's questions.

REP - Exactly. In Hamilton-Wentworth, we have "seasoned" welfare workers who have been trained, know the Legislation, know what someone might be eligible for, know what the signs are when your talking to somebody that may be eligible. So in this area I think we still deliver a higher level of service because we have welfare workers.
If we lose that ability and it goes to a clerical function, then we will lose yet another step.

MH - How is the Union fairing in that fight.

REP - Right now we are having a heck of a time. In Hamilton we also have a "verification unit". Your then going into an office and having your information verified. So if you said you have a bank account, you have to bring that information into the office.

MH - So all across the whole Province the union is saying the same thing to the government.

REP - Yeah, it doesn't work, (new system) we don't like it. We want what we had.
My concern about the activists is that they are being pitted against our workers because of this Legislation, and that's unfortunate.

MH - I think there needs to be an education process.
Some of the arguments I keep hearing from activists, when I talk to them, is "the workers don't know the directives," so the clients don't know the directives and how then do they find out what the directives are. It seems this information is not being made available to the recipients.
So the question would be, why does the worker not know?

REP - There were so many changes made to the Legislation, and to our way of doing business, that it would be impossible for "anyone" to have kept up.
What they do is.. anything that is changing, we get training on it, but what your talking about is the overhaul of the GWA Act to Ontario Works, the biggest overhaul since the War Measures Act. The impact is still being felt.

MH - Are these changes not just a "clone' of what went on in the U.S. and New Zealand?

REP - Accenture which was Anderson, has worked in other places such as New Jersey, and there is a suggestion that it's the New Jersey model

MH - But aren't we just following in the same steps as what happened when they did Clintons welfare reform?

REP - Some of it yeah..

MH - So is it comparable?

REP - No it's not because there's a number of states where they go so far as to cut you off after five years or whatever. That's not where we are, could we be there, I would imagine if we continue on this way.

MH - But to me it looks like the Ontario government looked at those systems in the States and said, "this looks like a good way to save money."

REP - Yeah…

MH - And really not giving much consideration, not only for the ripple effect, how it would trickle down to the client, but all the job losses on the way down.

REP - We've lost our human touch, and that's a shame. We've lost the validation of humanity. That's a big one.

MH - I have heard some say it should be a civil case, that civil rights are being lost.

REP - I'm hearing, and I don't know where it is as a process, that there will be a charter challenge to some of this stuff.

MH - It appears as if a challenge is justified. You are being denied shelter, you can't get shelter if you don't have money, and you can't get money if you have no shelter. It's a government perpetuated cycle of poverty.

REP - Yep..

MH - It maybe getting worse as workers are perhaps fazed out to be replaced by a grade 10 student doing a co-op for credit rather than a fee.

REP - Yep a huge economic disparity to save some money. To attack what I believe one of the most vulnerable sections of society is what they picked on. Because they are disorganized, because they don't have the money to fight back.
It was an "easy" target for the government

MH - It sounds to me like the union and the activists really need to work together.
What about in the medical area, those with mental illnesses are being deprived.

REP - There are people that function marginally, and have been able to maintain and cope. Now there's a new set of rules, now all of a sudden you don't get your cheque on time because maybe they can't fill out the form properly. That extra stress, that extra pressure, now takes it to a whole different level. So now not only do you have an ill person, you have a homeless person, and a bigger burden on the mental health area and people showing up at hospitals. So there's a ripple effect.

MH - Are there no solutions?

REP - Yeah it needs money.

MH - Does the Province have it?

REP - Of course they do, what have they got a surplus of billions…what little bit of that could work wonders.

MH - Do you think the $180 million dollars spent in revamping the Social services was a waste of money?

REP - Oh absolutely… not a complete waste…there are components that make sense.
But overall? Absolutely. That money could have been spent much better. We paid millions of dollars in consulting fees to Anderson.
They did their contract and they were on their way. If they would come back and see what the impact is…

REP - There's no accountability is there.

REP - No, not through them.

MH - Isn't the government accountable.

REP - I believe so.

Maggie Hughes is a writer/researcher living in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

Return to DAWN Ontario website

Go To Top

Page created October 22, 2002