EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................ iv

PART A – BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH PROJECT............................. 1

1. Context of the Study................................................................................................ 2

2. Key Thematic Findings........................................................................................... 5

a) Feed the kids, pay the bills, play by the rules................................................... 5

b) Required to work, but no ‘hand-up’; welfare as work..................................... 6

c) Constant scrutiny, and walking on eggshells................................................... 8

d) Trapped by abuse, trapped by welfare................................................................ 9

3. The Research Partners........................................................................................... 9

4. Conceptual Framing.............................................................................................. 10

5. Methodology........................................................................................................... 11

PART B – KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS................................................................ 13

1. Inadequacy of benefits......................................................................................... 13

a) Welfare Rates and the decision to leave or return........................................ 16

b) OW and the clawback of the NCBS................................................................... 20

2. The Intersections of Abuse, Paid Work and Workfare................................. 21

a) Paid work as a site of abuse............................................................................... 22

b) The realities of paid work in women’s lives.................................................... 27

c) Workfare: “not busy in the right places”.......................................................... 27

i) training/educational programs are hard to access.......................................... 28

ii) workshops and unpaid placements.................................................................. 30

iii) workfare, children’s needs and childcare........................................................ 31

iv) workfare and health/disability issues.............................................................. 35

d) Ontario Works and Earnings.............................................................................. 37

e) Women are not informed of the deferral.......................................................... 40

3. Spousal and Child Support.................................................................................. 42

a) Women are not informed of the waiver............................................................ 44

b) Pressure to pursue support................................................................................ 45

c) When support orders are not honoured.......................................................... 47

4. Spouse in the House............................................................................................. 47

a) Knowledge of the rules........................................................................................ 48

b) Implications of the rules...................................................................................... 49

5. Constantly Living Under Suspicion; Welfare Surveillance.......................... 50

a) Walking on eggshells............................................................................................ 52

b) Repeated demands for information.................................................................. 56

c) Fraud as a weapon of control and domination............................................... 56

6. Difficulties in Accessing Information................................................................ 59

7. Parallels Drawn Between Welfare & Abusive Relationships...................... 64

8. Lack of Knowledge of the Dynamics of Abuse.............................................. 65

a) Disclosing abuse................................................................................................... 66

9. Shelters and Access to Housing........................................................................ 67

10. The Interconnections of Social Location, Welfare and Abuse ................ 71

a) Immigrant and Refugee Women........................................................................ 71

b) Aboriginal Women................................................................................................ 74

c) Women with Disabilities....................................................................................... 76

d) Rural Women ......................................................................................................... 77

PART C – RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 79

References .................................................................................................................. 92

Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................. 97

Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................ 105

Walking on Eggshells: Abused Women’s

Experiences of Ontario’s Welfare System

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

April 5, 2004

Research Partners

The research was undertaken by three academics (Prof. Janet Mosher of York University (Principal Investigator), Prof. Patricia Evans of Carleton University and Prof. Margaret Little of Queen's University and two community partners: the Ontario Association of Interval Houses (OAITH; Eileen Morrow); and the Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN; Jo-Anne Boulding and Nancy VanderPlaats).

The research partners were also greatly assisted by an Advisory Committee, especially in the formulation of the key research questions and in the development of the interview guides. We are indebted to the members of the Advisory Committee for all of their assistance: thank you to Jacqueline Bittencourt (Ottawa); Jeannette Couture (Muskoka); Nancy Johnson (Toronto); Halina Kurowska (Peel), and Donalda Simmons (Belleville).

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council funded the research for a three-year period (commencing February 2000, and extended for a one-year period). We are extremely grateful to the Council for making this partnership and the research project possible.

Methodology

The primary research undertaking was 64 in-depth qualitative interviews of 1.5-3 hours in length with women who are, or have ever been, in an abusive adult intimate relationship and are at present, or have been at some point since 1995, in receipt of social assistance benefits through Ontario Works (OW) or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Of these interviews, five were conducted in Tamil, five in Bengali, six in Spanish and three through cultural interpreters in other languages. Of the 64 women interviewed, 38 (60%) had immigrated to Canada and seven identified as aboriginal. The interviews were conducted between November, 2001 and March, 2003. The main geographic regions of the province covered were: Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, London, Muskoka, Peel and Tyendinaga Reserve, Mohawk Territory. The interview guide is attached as Appendix 1.

A questionnaire was mailed to all area administrators of Ontario Works (48). Thirty-five completed questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 73%. The questionnaire is attached as Appendix 2.

A draft of the key findings from our analysis of the interviews and the questionnaires was circulated to a group of approximately 40 women, including women who participated in the interviews, front line shelter workers, women's equality advocates and social justice advocates. We held a full day forum on February 6^th in Toronto. We asked the women present whether our key findings resonated with their experiences and what they were seeing in their front-line work. The answer we heard: a resounding 'yes'.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Overview

The findings from our research project make clear that women who flee abusive relationships and turn to welfare seeking refuge and support frequently find neither. Women's experiences of welfare are often profoundly negative. Women struggle to survive with their children on little income, often going without adequate food, shelter and clothing. They encounter a system that is less than forthcoming about their entitlements, and about the multiple rules with which they must comply. Their hopes of training and employment through workfare participation are almost invariably dashed. They are often subjected to demeaning and humiliating treatment from workers within a system in which suspicion and the devaluation of recipients are structured into its very core. For many the experience of welfare is like another abusive relationship. And virtually every woman with whom we spoke was caught in one or more double binds as she struggled to be a good mother, good worker and good citizen. Disturbingly, the decision to return to an abusive relationship is often the 'best' decision for a woman, in a social context of horrendously constrained options.

Simultaneously and very importantly, the welfare system is also misused by abusive men to enhance their power and control over women. Their power and control is enhanced when women return to, or can't leave, the relationship because they are unable to adequately provide for themselves and their children on welfare. Abusive men's power and control is also shored up when they are able to call anonymously to welfare snitch lines, and when they can readily set women up for fraud prosecutions. And their power and control is further strengthened when they can manipulate systems because of better English language skills.

This picture of abused women's experiences on welfare stands in sharp contrast to the state's promise of zero tolerance of domestic violence so frequently trumpeted in the criminal justice context. The 'deserving' recipients of criminal justice protection (and we hasten to add that this protection does not always materialize in practice) are, as our report details, recast within the welfare regime as undeserving and untrustworthy. In the welfare context abused women are subjected to another zero tolerance policy -- zero tolerance of welfare fraud regime -- a regime abusive men readily exploit.

Genuine respect of women's right to safety, and to live free of violence in their lives means creating the social conditions -- adequate welfare, access to safe housing, access to childcare, access to employment that pays a living wage, etc. -- that would truly make it difficult for men to "get away with it". As is clearly revealed by our interviews, access to meaningful social supports is absolutely essential to women's safety. A responsive, supportive, adequately funded welfare system could play a fundamental role in securing women's safety and women's equality.

What is needed most urgently and most profoundly is a fundamental paradigm shift; a shift from viewing poverty as the failing of individuals, and those who are poor as lazy, unmotivated and deceptive. To the extent that the welfare system in Ontario continues to operate from such a paradigm, there is really little hope that it will offer meaningful support to facilitate women's safe exit from abusive relationships. Women will continue to be subjected to demeaning, humiliating treatment; will be constantly regarded with suspicion; and will be subject to the control and discipline of the state. Women will continue to return to abusive relationships, women will not be safe, and women will not be equal citizens.

1.) Inadequacy of benefits

Virtually all of the women interviewed reported that the amount of money that they had to live on while receiving social assistance was inadequate to meet their basic needs and those of their children. Many women had to spend all, or nearly all, of their monthly allowance to cover their shelter costs. Many reported regularly going without meals, having inadequate shelter (unable to heat their dwellings, units in very bad disrepair, overcrowding, etc.), inadequate clothing (especially during winter months); and lack of access to transportation. Several women reported medical problems as a result of inadequate nutrition. Many women were without phones, a gravely dangerous situation for abused women.

In the complex decision-making process of whether to stay in or return to an abusive relationship it is clear that the adequacy of welfare rates plays a significant role: nine of the women we interviewed remained in abusive relationships because they knew how much they would receive on welfare and felt that they couldn't provide adequately for themselves and their children on the rates; seven women reported returning to the abusive relationship in situations where their struggle to survive on welfare was the reason, or one of the main reasons, for returning; and six women were contemplating returning to the abusive relationship at the time of the interview or had contemplated returning because of the difficulties they were experiencing on welfare.

In our survey of area administrators, 17 of 35 responded affirmatively when asked, "Are you aware of any cases where a woman has left welfare and returned to an abusive relationship because she found that she was unable to adequately support herself and her children on welfare?".

2.) The Intersections of Abuse, Paid Work and Workfare

The voices of the women reflected in this report speak forcefully to the many ways that OW workfare policy is not working. The requirements are being applied in ways that almost always ignore the abuse they have experienced, discount the needs their children have for care, and their own health problems. Women are not receiving information about deferrals from workfare requirements, and the provisions in place to respect restrictions on childcare are very often disregarded. Women also found that their OW workers paid little attention to their own career goals. The experience of workfare is rarely viewed as positive; most often, women are unable to access the supports they need, whether it is modest costs associated with training, or programs such as ESL. It is ‘not busy in the right places’. Women are not receiving a ‘hand up’ -- on the contrary, they tell us that it is more like an obstacle course.

Women spoke powerfully about their need for real opportunities and good jobs. They do not believe that the shortest route to employment is the best route or that any job is a good job. They have been, or are, in precarious employment and they know that they need to find decent jobs to be able to provide adequately for themselves and any children they may have. The workfare requirement does not further their opportunities for decent employment. What it does do, however, is to further stigmatize women on welfare as individuals who, in the absence of a requirement to participate in work or work-related activities, would prefer ‘scrounging’ to working. Such a policy is profoundly dissonant with the aspirations and realities of the lives and experiences of women in this study.

3.) Spousal and Child Support

"It's crazy to have women track men down (for support), you're running from him for God's sake."

This quote from one of the woman interviewed for our study captures vividly the problems that arise when women are required to pursue abusive spouses for support as a pre-condition to welfare eligibility. In addition to well-grounded fears of violence, many women are reluctant to pursue support because they want to move on with their lives and have no contact with their abusive partners, or because they worry that a claim for support will launch a counter-claim for custody or access that would be harmful for both them and their children.

Although a temporary waiver may be granted in cases of domestic violence, several problems were identified with this regime: almost no women were told of the waiver; no definition of domestic violence is provided and no guidelines exist as to when further extensions are warranted; standards for verification are vague; and many women (often those who are most marginalized) do not have access to the forms of verification requested. These difficulties with the waiver regime are compounded by the reality -- described so vividly by the women in this study -- that many women do not disclose the abuse to their welfare workers.

4.) Spouse in the House

The definition of 'spouse' and of 'same sex partner' create great difficulties for many low-income women and unfairly discriminates against women. Our report shows, not surprisingly, that the present definition lead some women to be very wary of forming relationships at all, preclude some living arrangements which could help reduce costs, and subject women to a great deal of scrutiny of their intimate lives. The definition is so complex and ambiguous that it is virtually impossible for women to know when a spousal relationship will be found. Our report also shows some abusive partners threaten, and act on the threat, to call the welfare fraud line to falsely accuse women of living in 'common-law' relationships. Women described how such threats further the abuser's power and control, leaving them feeling trapped with no where to turn.

5.) Constantly Living Under Suspicion; Welfare Surveillance

Many threads weave together the web of suspicion and surveillance in which women find themselves: from 'enhanced verification' procedures and eligibility reviews; to scrutiny of their intimate relationships; to home visits; to compliance with workfare; to detailed, intricate rules that are hard to ascertain yet where failure to comply can have disastrous consequences. Many of the women we spoke with described what it is like to be caught up in this web of suspicion and surveillance. Many said that in their interactions with the welfare system they constantly felt they were being treated as suspected criminals. The extensive documentation demands, the need to verify and prove everything, the insistent calls to report to the office, and some of their personal interactions with workers contributed to this sense.

Lack of access to full and comprehensible information creates many problems, one of the most significant of which is the constant fear that one might be in violation of a rule that one doesn't even know exists. The difficulty of ascertaining the rules -- which are complex, often discretionary, and frequently counter-intuitive (loans count as income, e.g.) -- combines with the fear of extreme and negative consequences if one breaks a rule (being cut-off and/or charged with fraud), to lead many women to the conclusion that it is simply not safe to talk to their workers, including about the abuse in their lives.

Many abusive men threaten to report and/or do report their current or past partners to welfare, alleging fraud. As noted above, the alleged fraud often is based on a claim that the woman is living with her 'boyfriend', or 'common law partner'. Sometimes the man calling claims to be the person living with her, sometimes he points to another man. In most of the instances of this in our interviews, the allegations were baseless. Nevertheless, more often than not, benefits were immediately terminated. One woman had her benefits terminated four times; each time it was her former abusive partner who called, and the welfare office was aware of the history of abuse. Threats or actual calls to welfare by abusive partners occurred for roughly 20% of the women interviewed.

We note too that in the survey completed by area administrators of welfare, 20 of the 35 respondents that answered this question answered affirmatively when asked, "Are you aware of any cases where an abusive partner has reported to the welfare fraud hotline or elsewhere that his former partner is living with another man?"

6.) Difficulties in Accessing Information

Women told us of the extraordinary difficulties that they have had in accessing accurate and timely information that might be of benefit to them. General prohibitions and obligations seem to have been rather well communicated to women, such as the obligation to report income and to pursue child support. However, very few women knew about the availability of special benefits and the possibility of deferrals or waivers of some OW requirements.

Importantly as well, many of the rules are so complex -- e.g. the definition of spouse -- that is extraordinarily difficult for anyone (even with full access to the relevant policies) to confidently discern what is/not permissible. Women during our February 6^th forum also noted that the sheer terror of going into the office and the gravity of the many issues women face when they leave the abusive relationship make it exceedingly difficult to take in information.

Trying to access information was incredibly frustrating and it took women many attempts to contact their workers. And, when contact was made, they often discovered that the information they had received was inaccurate. Women also found it very difficult to get a timely response from workers when they needed immediate help or information (cheque not arrived, emergency travel, e.g.).

Some women did identify helpful workers, but they were far more likely to receive information and support in navigating the welfare system from workers in shelters and other community organizations. Agencies providing culturally-based services proved to be a vital source of information for women recently arrived in Canada as immigrants and refugees. The need to provide basic information and advocacy about OW adds to the already stretched budgets of community-based agencies; their work is made much more difficult because of the considerable inconsistency in the application of policies from worker to worker, and office- to-office.

7.) Parallels Drawn Between Welfare & Abusive Relationships

Many women drew explicit parallels between their experiences on welfare, and their experiences of abuse. And in several other instances, although the women did not draw the explicit parallel, there were many similarities in their descriptions of their abusive relationships and of their experiences of welfare.

Four predominant parallels emerged in the interviews:

April 5, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.) Constantly Living Under Suspicion; Welfare Surveillance

6.) Difficulties in Accessing Information