Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Measurement of need in social assistance : an approach to the definition of adequacy in relation to social… Brown, Beverley Blake 1962

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1962_A5 B7 M3.pdf [ 7.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105745.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105745-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105745-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105745-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105745-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105745-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105745-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105745-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105745.ris

Full Text

MEASUREMENT OF NEED IN SOCIAL ASSISTANCE An Approach to the Definition of Adequacy in Relation to Social Allowance Budgets. by Beverley Blake Brown and John "William Spence Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in the School of Social W o r k Accepted as conforming to the standard required for the degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK School of Social Work 1962 The University of British Columbia In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date {ZtoKKsQ^ T/t / ?C ^/ In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements"for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date jtoO&cAtif $ f , /9 & iv ABSTRACT Poverty continues to be a social problem in North American society, although a network of social allowance programs has now been developed to provide financial assistance to various categories of people in need. A number of definitive studies are now available on food minima and household essentials required for health and welfare maintenance. However, in British Columbia there is no fixed policy to in -corporate the use of standard budgets into the social allowance program. The needs of financially dependent persons vary greatly according to the personal and family circumstances, etc., though some basic components are constant; rehabilitative casework also requires flexibility. The present study reviews a sample group to secure data on (1) the nature of the needs of dependent families; (2) the effects of financial dependency; and (3) the cost of providing maintenance at the level of minimum standard budgets. The study is directed to two kinds of families, (a) those in which the father for any reason is not in the home, and (b) those in which the father is part of the family unit but unable to support his family. Three-member families were chosen for the former sample and six-member families for the latter. For this initial study, a semi-rural area was selected from the Lower Mainland Region of the Provincial Department of Social Welfare. With the important survey on the adequacy of social allowance made by the Vancouver Community Chest and Councils in 1958 as a starting point, standard budgets were calculated for each of the sample families. An analysis of their expenses was completed in relation to this, and patterns of expenditure were then compared to those of the lowest-earning income-group (as determined by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics family income surveys). In addition, experiential aspects of family living were recorded, and an initial framework set up on the dependency characteristics of social assistance families as these affect adjustments to their situations and rehabilitation prospects. The study shows that, in addition to need which varies directly according to the sex and age of the members, other important variables are the type of family accommodation, previous levels of living, management ability, and personal assets or liabilities. Despite these variations, the needs of families were categorized and, to some extent, itemized. This made it possible to calculate.money amounts required by each family for a minimum level of living. It was found that where personal inadequacies exist, they are exacerbated by the deprivation inherent in an inadequate income. When this is the case, the families require supplementary services to enable them to become functionally independent. On the other hand, some social assistance recipients require only an adequate income to render them capable of coping with their problems. V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "We wish to express our appreciation to the Department of Social Welfare administration, and Miss Hilda Joasalu, District Office, Assistant Supervisor and members of her staff for their interest, co-operation and help in undertaking the survey required for the study. We further appreciate the co-operation of the ten families in the study, who gave so many hours of their time and put a great deal of careful thought into providing the required material. Finally, we extend our gratitude to Dr. Leonard Marsh and to Mr. Michael Wheeler of the School of Social Work for their interest, direction and encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. Economic Need in Modern Industrial Society Public relief in history. The depression experience. Changing attitudes to persons in need. Provision for the economically dependent in Canada. The measurement of need. Scope of the study. The community setting. The ten families in the study. 1 Chapter 2. Family Expenditures: Income and "Need" Actual family expenditures compared with estimated minimum requirements. Food. Shelter. Utilities. Household operation costs. Clothing. Other commodities and services. Summary. The extent of need. Income from social assistance 28 Chapter 3. Adequacy of the Assistance Budget from the Recipient's Viewpoint. Food. Housing. Clothing. Household operation. Automobile and t'ransportation. Personal care. Recreation. Education and reading. Textiles and furnishings. Tobacco, alcohol and other expenses. Health services. Debts 71 Chapter 4. Family Experiences: Attitudes and Adjustments Attitudes toward the social assistance program. Problems of adjustment. Perceptions of the program. Conclusions and recommendations. Further studies 98 iii Appendices: Page A. Survey Schedules 119 B. "Need" Estimates according to Community Chest Study (1958 prices) 130 C . Average Monthly Amounts Expended per Family According to Major Items of Expenditure 131 D. Family Expenditures for February, 1962 According to Community Chest Standard Budget Categories 132 E. Estimated Monthly Food Costs by Age Groups 133 F. Estimated Fuel Costs for Homes of Families in Sample 134 G . Yearly Replacement Costs of Clothing by Sex and Age Groups 135 H. Personal Care Costs by Sex and Age Groups 136 I. Consumer Price Index for Vancouver 137 J . The Nature of Dependency and Rehabilitation Prospects of the Ten Families studied 138 K. Bibliography . . . 143 TABLES AND SCHEDULES IN THE TEXT Tables: 1. Cost of Minimum Standard Budgets Compared with Actual Monthly Expenditures of Families in Sample 30 2. Monthly Food Costs of Families in Sample 33 3. Shelter Costs for Families in Sample 35 4. Monthly Utility Costs of Families in Sample 37 5. Monthly Household Operation Costs of Families in Sample . . 41 6. Monthly Clothing Costs of Families in Sample 45 7. Monthly Transportation Costs of Families in Sample 49 8. Monthly Personal Care Costs of Families in Sample 51 9. Monthly Recreation Costs of Families in Sample 52 10. Monthly Education Costs of Families in Sample 54 11. "Other" Monthly Costs of Families in Sample 55 12. Standard Budget Costs Compared with Actual Family Expendi-tures per month According to Major Items of Expenditure . . . 57-58 13. Total Resources and Estimated Need of Families in Sample . . 67 14. Annual Income, Average Monthly Income and Actual Income during February, 1962 of Families in Sample 73 15. Proportion of Income Expended on Different Items of Con-sumption by Families in Sample Compared with Income Allocation of Self-Supporting Families 75-76 Schedules: British Columbia Social Allowance Rates 63 vi MEASUREMENT OF NEED IN SOCIAL ASSISTANCE An Approach to the Definition of Adequacy in Relation to Social Allowance Budgets. CHAPTER 1 ECONOMIC NEED IN MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY In spite of ever-increasing levels of national pros-perity, the economically dependent and the poor persist in our affluent North American society. Increased general prosperity has not proven to be a complete solvent of human miseries and there remains a f a i r l y constant proportion of the population li v i n g at or"below the poverty line as defined by contemporary standards. One authority reporting on the United States scene states that over the last three generations the proportion of a l l families judged to be livin g below the level of decency has remained f a i r l y constant. This she estimates to be one-third. This constancy would suggest that the levels or standards of decency have risen. Thus, in turn, abundance of one generation i s the scarcity of the neict. The satisfaction of at least the basic food requirements on a subsistent level in one generation is considered inadequate in another. 1 Data published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate that one-third of, Canadian wage earners did hot earn enough to pay.income tax in 1961. This means that the single person in this group had less than one thousand dollars income and the married person less than two thousand, with an additional $250 for each de-pendent child after tax exemptions. Bernard, Jessie, Social Problems at Midcentury New York, The Dryden Press Inc., 1957, pp. 23-24. 2 The present study, by focusing on a small group of public assistance families, attempts to throw some light on the nature of dependency, the standards by which i t is relieved and what i t is like to be poor in one part of Canada in the 1960's. Public Relief in History It is important to place a study of contemporary poverty in i t s h i s t o r i c a l perspective since what is done today i s greatly, influenced by habits of thought and practices of a previous era. Helping the distressed is a practice at least as old as c i v i l i z a t i o n . It was general in ancient societies even though not on a formalized basis. 1 In a l l early Christian societies acts of charity and the religious motive were inter-woven with the giver receiving grace from helping the distres-sed. With the rise of industrial capitalism and i t s p o l i t i c a l and economic theories of laissez-faire, the approach to the needy in the 18th and 19th centuries was characterized by the tacit assumption that defects in the individual were the principal cause of dependency. The existence of moral imper-fections and a reluctance of impoverished people to work to sustain themselves confirmed these beliefs. Vestiges of the English Poor Law system are s t i - l l found in public assistance programs in North America today. This i s so despite advances in the social, biological and psychological sciences which have advanced man's understanding of human needs, of human Vassey, Wayne, Government and Social Welfare. New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1958, p. 24. 3 motivations, and of the conditions of l i f e essential for physical, intellectual, emotional and sp i r i t u a l development. Poverty studies carried out in England at the end of the 19th century by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree demon-strated conclusively that the dependent person owed his situation not so much to defects of character as to social and economic conditions quite beyond his control. However, the recognition that dependency may be caused by imperfections in the economy had l i t t l e direct effect upon public r e l i e f policy in North America until the 1930's. There were a number of very powerful forces which prevented this from being so. Notable among these were a strong tendency to draw an analogy between Darwin's biological theories and the fitness of people to survive in human society, the great and expanding "frontier economy" with i t s multitude of opportunities (which-the thrifty, industrious self-made man could take advantage of), and the pervasive influence of the "Protestant Ethic" which implicitly equated poverty with failure, and_ idleness with sin. In the economic conditions of that age, the requirements of large capital ..formation and investment were given f i r s t p r i o r i t y . 1 Helen Lamale suggests that these conditions fos-tered a 'subsistence or break-even' concept of income adequacy. , Wages were only an expense which served to limit the amount of capital formation that would be possible without them. 1Helen Lamale elaborates on the economic and wage theories for the period between 1860 and 1960 in her ar t i c l e "Changes in Concepts of Income Adequacy over the Last Century," The American Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, May 1958, pp. 291-299. 5 Against this background, i t is not surprising that the economically dependent person, whatever the reasons for his dependence might be, was not regarded with favour or sympathy. State aid or interference was strongly opposed-by entrepreneur and p o l i t i c a l philosopher alike. More particularly, state aid to the poor was viciously attacked and the lack of sympathy f e l t for this class by many persons i s forcefully, i f harshly, conveyed in the writings of Herbert Spencer. The whole effort of Nature is to get r i d of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better. . . . He who loses his l i f e because of his stupidity, vice, or idleness i s in the same class as the victim of weak viscera or malformed limbs. Under Nature's laws a l l alike are put on t r i a l . If they are sufficiently com-plete to liv e , they do l i v e , and i t i s well that they would l i v e . If they are not sufficiently complete to l i v e , they die, and i t is best they should d i e . 1 Hofstadter states that unquestionably, at this time, America was a "vast caricature of the Darwinian struggle for existence and survival of the f i t t e s t . i n a nation permeated by a gospel of progress, the incentive of pecuniary success appealed to_a vast majority of the population, even to those whose ethical horizons should have been considerably broader than those of business entrepreneurs. To seek to mitigate misery was to put into abeyance fundamental arrangements by which nature ensured progress. It was easy to warn of the probable dire consequences of anything which, in the name of minimum wage laws, welfare or compassion, might interfere with the free play of the market forces. Ispencer, Herbert, Social Statistics, New York, D.Apple-ton & Co., 1874, pp. 414-415, cited by Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1959, p. 4 l 7 -2Ibid, p. 41. 6 The industrious, temperate, and frugal man of the Protestant ideal was the equivalent of the strong, or the f i t t e s t , in the struggle for existence. Pecuniary success was synonymous with diligence and t h r i f t and these were moral qualities. Arguments to the contrary were met with the re-quests that the dissenter look at the increasing number of amenities which the l i v e l y capitalist society was producing for more and more people each decade. In the eyes of many this was sufficient proof of the fulfilment of the classical ideal of automatically benevolent, free competitive order. Poverty belongs to the struggle for existence and we are a l l born into that str u g g l e — l e t every man be sober, industrious, prudent and wise, and bring up his children to be so likewise, and poverty w i l l be abolished in a few generations. It was the pervasiveness of ideas such as these that served so effectively to narrow the scope for social measures designed to rescue-the individual from privation or protect him from hazards of economic l i f e . The Depression Experience; Changing Attitudes to Persons in Mesd The economic depression of the 1930's brought about not only a radical change in the nature and scope of measures for providing financial assistance, but i t also fostered a new public conception of the nature of poverty and i t s social ramifications. It was no longer possible for the general public to equate poverty with vice or laziness. Men who had been hard working and prudent a l l their lives now found themseltees Spencer, Herbert, The Study of Sociology. New York, D. Appleton & CO., 1874, cited by Richard Hofstadter. Ibid, p. 61 7 without means. Massive unemployment made hundreds of thousands of men completely dependent and destitute. The normal social institutions (private philanthropy, religious charity, and the market) previously believed to be adequate for meeting a l l human needs, were no longer.able to f u l f i l this function. Government alone could provide the needed resources. It became imperative that i t intercede, f i r s t to provide emergency r e l i e f programs to meet the needs of the jobless, and secondly to re-v i t a l i z e those economic institutions needed to provide the necessary work. Government was given a new mandate by the electorate. It became a "proper and legitimate" function of government in a modern, industrial society to create the means by which the citizen could be helped to achieve self-fulfilment. There was a growing awareness that perhaps people should be entitled to financial assistance "without losing thereby the respect for their dignity and worth as human beings." 1 In the U.S.A., the Social Security Act of 1935 unequivocably confirmed the responsibility of government to provide financial assistance to persons who temporarily or permanently lacked the means of livelihood. Assistance rates provided at this time were s t r i c t l y at a subsistence level. Provision was made for the bare essentials: food, shelter,-clothing and, occasionally, medical services. Neither economic resources nor administrative structure per-mitted anything more elaborate. These conditions have not 1Friedlander, Walter A., Introduction to Social Welfare, Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall Inc., 1957, p. 143. 8 been noticeably modified to date. Provision for the Economically Dependent in Canada There are many direct and indirect approaches which government can adopt in providing economic and social secur-it y for i t s people. Direct measures designed to secure and maintain high levels of employment, assurance of s t a b i l i t y in the value of money, minimum wage laws, t a r i f f s on imports, subsidization of industry, support of public use or private insurance, subsidized housing and rent control are a l l examples of this type of governmental action. However, besides these indirect measures there is always a need to provide direct alternative income to persons whose normal private incomes have temporarily or permanently dis-appeared. This i s achieved in Canada through three kinds of programs: (a) a program of public assistance financed by taxation, (b) programs of social insurance financed by contri-butions of the beneficiaries and their employers and which may receive contributions from general revenue, and (c) universal benefit programs. Programs of public assistance are further divided into two general types—categorical aid and general aid or social assistance. Categorical aid i s designed to provide benefits based on average need for large numbers of clearly i d e n t i f i -able groups of dependent people. It is given to special groups or categories of needy persons who can demonstrate need within 9 the terms of the legislation. On the other hand, social or general assistance serves as a residual resource for people in need who are insufficiently cared for through other pro-grams or who s l i p through the meshes of their provisions. 1 Public assistance ia the f i n a l guarantee that no one shall lack the necessities of l i f e . At the present time, the Federal government assumes f u l l financial and administrative responsibility for the universal benefit programs of Family Allowance and Old Age Security as well as for Unemployment Insurance and the National Employment Service. Programs financed j o i n t l y by the Federal government and the provinces but administered by the province are Old Age Assistance, Blind Persons Allow-ance, Disabled Persons Allowance, and Social Assistance. The provincial governments have complete responsibility for Mothers' Allowance, and Workmen's Compensation programs. Three main methods can be identified for determining benefit levels under these various programs: these are (a) benefits based on demonstrated individual need, (b) benefits based on a presumed average need, and (c) benefits related to previous contributions to an insurance fund which, in turn, may or may not be related to previous earnings of the insured person. Where benefits are paid on the basis of demonstrated individual need, the applicant's available income and. resources are f i r s t determined and then applied against the amount •'•Social Security for Canada, Canadian Welfare Council, Ottawa, 1958, p. 9. 10 considered necessary for a certain level of l i v i n g . The amount of assistance granted should, in principle, equal the resulting difference or budget d e f i c i t . When payments are based on assumed average need, a f l a t grant minus method may be u t i l i z e d . This involves the establishment in law of a certain minimum money income, possession of less than which entitles an individual to claim benefits of a specified amount. For each unit of income in excess of this minimum the benefit f a l l s by some defined sum, until a maximum income is reached above which no benefit i s paid. This method is capable of ri g i d application, or alterna-tively, can provide scope for adjustment to individual circum-stances through the investment of powers in the administration. In practice, many variations of these methods are to be found and no two programs in Canada follow exactly the same procedures and regulations. The limitations of this situation are convincingly stated in the following quotation from John Morgan: The present Canadian programmes each -have their own patterns of benefit rates, and i t i s both i l l o g i c a l and inherently unjust to meet human needs at different levels which are set according to the particular cause and occasion of need rather than on the income which i s re-quired to maintain an agreed level of l i v i n g . There i s an urgent need for some careful research, and for decisions on policy, to establish a level of benefit for a l l income maintenance programmes which i s derived from knowledge about need rather than f i s c a l and p o l i t i c a l expediency. Quite clearly, before any sound policy decisions can be Morgan, John S., "Social Welfare Services in Canada," Social Purpose for Canada. Michael Oliver, ed., Toronto,~ University of Toronto Press, 1961, p. 158. 11 made regarding the level of benefit appropriate in any particular case, much greater classification is required of the concepts of "need" and of "adequacy" in quantitative, and measurable terms. The task becomes especially d i f f i c u l t when an attempt is made to give expression to the social as well as the physiological and biological aspects of need. The Measurement of Need Studies of poverty in relation to some defined standard of need go back to the last century. Social philosophy and poor r e l i e f practices in England were changed radically because of the studies conducted around the turn of the century. They showed that the deterrent features of the Poor. Laws were never a solution and that suffering from destitution was often created by insufficient wages, environment, inadequate housing and un-healthy sanitary equipment. In 1899, R. Seebohm Rowntree con-ducted his pioneering study of poverty among the working class of the city of York in England. 1 This was one of the f i r s t studies in which income was established in an empirical manner. It was based on the money necessary to purchase 'minimum essentials for physical efficiency' (food based on calories required, actual house rent, durable clothing standards, and household sundries). Rowntree uti l i z e d s c i e n t i f i c standards along with actual expenditures at minimum levels to gain an understanding of the conditions of the poor and of their distribution among the working class generally. Rowntree, R. Seebohm, Poverty. A Si-udv of Town Life. London, Macmillan & Co., 1901. 12 Research studies such as these provided the inspiration that led to the development of budgets which defined the quantities of goods and services necessary to provide a speci-fied level of l i v i n g . The United States Bureau of Labor in 1909, concerned with minimum wage standards, prepared "quanti-tative budgets describing two standards: a 'minimum standard' which met minimum physical needs and a 'fair standard' which provided for "the development and satisfaction of human attributes." 1 The use of such 'standard budgets' increased in subse-quent years. The methodology was refined and there was growing concensus that this type of budget provided a useful tool for research and administration. Modern standard budgets combine two basic methods. -In the f i r s t , data are procured on the spending practices of representative samples of the group for whom the budget is to be constructed. In the second, appropriate s c i e n t i f i c standards are applied wherever they are available. These might come from recognized nutritional needs and decent housing standards, or from the judgments of professional per-sons, i.e. nutritionists, dieticians, social workers, doctors, home economists, public health nurses, or family budget experts. Two notable examples of standard budget studies are described below for the ligh t which they throw upon the methodo-logy and assumptions common to such studies and because they were specifically designed for recipients of public assistance. Lamale, op. c i t . , p. 294. 13 T h e s e a r e A P o l i c y S t a t e m e n t on S t a n d a r d s o f P u b l i c A s s i s t a n c e p u b l i s h e d i n F e b r u a r y 1957 b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c A s s i s t -a nce f o r t h e S t a t e o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , and A R e p o r t on The  A d e q u a c y o f S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e A l l o w a n c e s i n t h e C i t v o f  V a n c o u v e r p u b l i s h e d b y t h e Community C h e s t and C o u n c i l s o f G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r i n M a r c h 1958. I n i t i a l l y , b o t h c o m m i t t e e s a d d r e s s e d t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h made p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e payment o f a s s i s t a n c e t o e c o n o m i c a l l y d e p e n d e n t p e r s o n s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r s t u d y w o u l d be r e l e v a n t t o t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s f o r m e e t i n g s u c h n e e d . I t was f o u n d i n b o t h i n s t a n c e s t h a t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n was made t o g r a n t f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e a d e q u a t e t o m a i n t a i n a l e v e l o f ' h e a l t h and d e c e n c y . ' What was not- s t a t e d , however, was how a c t u a l a s s i s t a n c e amounts as o u t l i n e d i n t h e p o l i c y manual were a r r i v e d a t , n o r was t h e r e any a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e t h e c o n t e n t o f l i v i n g i m p l i e d b y a l e v e l o f ' h e a l t h and d e c e n c y . ' I n p l a c e o f t h i s c o n c e p t u a l vacuum, t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S t u d y r e -commended t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s : 1. The s t a n d a r d s h o u l d m a i n t a i n t h e p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l h e a l t h o f t h e r e c i p i e n t o f a s s i s t a n c e w i t h o u t i m p a i r -ment due t o i n a d e q u a c y o f t h e b a s i c e s s e n t i a l s o f f o o d , c l o t h i n g , s h e l t e r , p e r s o n a l c a r e , m e d i c a l c a r e and o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s t o meet r e c o g n i z e d n e e d s o f t n e i n d i v i d u a l ; 2. The s t a n d a r d s h o u l d r e c o g n i z e t h e n e e d o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n o u r s o c i e t y f o r s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n h i s community on a s c a l e c o m p a r a b l e t o t h a t o f h i s f e l l o w s ; 14 3. The standard should be geared to maintaining and, i f necessary, developing and restoring the a b i l i t y of the re c i p i e n t to exercise h i s normal functions as a c i t i z e n and respected member of h i s community during whatever period assistance may be required; 4. The standard should be geared to long-term goals rather than short-term needs of recipi e n t s ; 5. At the same time, the standard should be based upon a low-cost budgetary provision for health and decency, as presently established by competent a u t h o r i t i e s . I t should at no time be so high as to discourage em-ployment and economic independence, where desirable, nor so low as to force employment upon the aged, the i l l , the disabled, the mothers of young children, or children attending school. The p a r t i c u l a r content of the standard budget was determined by reference to t y p i c a l expenditure patterns of the c i t y workers' families as reported i n a study by the 2 United States Department of Agriculture. The Vancouver Study used the expenditure patterns of the lowest income group for which o f f i c i a l data had been prepared and published 3 by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . The v a l i d i t y of t h i s approach i s jeopardized by the next step i n the process when certain of these goods and services are determined to be inappropriate for a family on public assistance and ei t h e r reduced i n amount or excluded altogether from the standard XA P o l i c y Statement on Standards of Public Assistance. A Report Prepared by the Advisory Committee on Assistance Standards, Pennsylvania,Department of Public Assistance, 1957, p. 7. 2Bradley, Dorothy S. and Kellogg, Lester S., "The Ci t y Worker's Family Budget," Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 66, No. 2 February, 1948, pp. 133rl70. 3Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , C i t v Family Expenditure  1957. Ottawa, Queen's Printer, January, 1961. 15 budget. In making these arbitrary decisions, humanitarian impulses inevitably come into conflict with the fear of mak-ing the situation of the dependent person more attractive than that of the lowest paid employed person. For example, the Vancouver Committee stipulated that any inadequacy or gap be-tween needs and resources 'might.' be f i l l e d by "supplementary benefits, such as gifts from friends and relatives or assistance in the form of subsidized housing." 1 Once the items to be included in the budget have beBn agreed upon, the next step is to a f f i x money amounts in accordance with the. prevailing costs for such items in the respective communities. From this i t i s possible to compile an overall monetary require-ment for families of varying composition, (age, sex, and size). These amounts can then be compared with the social assistance allowances available to families of various compositions. The gap between 'needs' as established in the budgetary process and the resources available to each family indicate empirically the degree of adequacy or inadequacy of assistance allowances. Scope of the Study The present study i s exploratory and descriptive and builds upon an earlier thesis of a similar nature undertaken 2 by M.E. Evans in 1953. Its purpose is to c l a r i f y further the concepts of need and adequacy in relation to social 1The Adequacy of Social Assistance Allowances in the Citv of Vancouver. A Report Prepared by the.Adequacy of Social Allowance Committee, Community Chest and Councils of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1958, p. i . 2 Evans, Maureen, Living on a Marginal Budget. Master of Social Work Thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1953. 16 assistance allowances by examining the impact of this pro-gram on ten selectedTfamilies. The budget standards developed in the Vancouver Community Chest Study 1 are used as bench marks by which to assess the adequacy of the incomes of these families while on assistance to meet minimum subsistence needs, both in the aggregate and separately for the different areas of expenditure such as housing, food, personal care, etc. Besides this measure of what is necessary for a minimum standard of adequacy, the present study attempts to evaluate the social adequacy of the allowances from the poan t of view of the families who are obliged to live on them. This evaluation is based on a number of sources: (a) a comparison of the patterns of expenditure of the families on social assistance with typical expenditure patterns of self-supporting families, (b) an analysis of the areas of consumption in which the families have had to practice most economy since coming on social assistance, and (c) the reactions of the ten families to the experience of livi n g on social assistance as revealed in interviews with the authors. It was also hoped that as a by-product, the study would throw some light on the appropriate-ness of the standards and assumptions adopted in the Community Chest Study. The cooperation of the Provincial Department of Social Welfare was sought in obtaining a sample of families on social assistance from the caseload of one of the d i s t r i c t offices. The sample chosen for the study was selected to represent two kinds of families—families with two parents 1The Adequacy of Social Assistance Allowances in the city of Vancouver, op. c i t . , hereafter referred to as the Community Chest Study. 17 in the home and fatherless families—and to correspond in size and composition with the types of families used for the construction of standard budgets in the Community Chest Study referred to earlier. Families consisting of a mother and two children were selected as one grouping in an attempt to gain some insight into the l i f e of the "fatherless family" on social assistance. The other family grouping selected consisted of two adults and four children, thus keeping the selection within the range of the family groupings with which we wished to make a com-parative analysis and s t i l l be able to assess the relation-ship between increased family size and the differential i n -crease in social allowances. Of a total caseload of 204 social assistance families, this reduced the number of possible participant families to 16. The sample was further divided into short-term and long-term recipients. For purposes of the study, families were considered 'short-term' i f they had been continuously in receipt of assistance for up to six months, or sporadically in receipt of assistance during the past two years. Families were regarded as 'long-term* i f they had been in receipt of assistance continuously for more than two years, or i f the periods off assistance were minimal. This differentiation in the sample was intended to c l a r i f y the nature of the re-lationship between length of time on assistance and variations in adjustment to livi n g on a restricted budget and the recipient's conception of need. 18 Letters were written to the sixteen families seeking their cooperation in the research project. Subsequently, a v i s i t was made to the homes by the authors at which time the nature of the participation expected of the family was ex-plained to them. For various reasons (changes in family com-position, procurement of employment, etc.) three of the families proved ineligible for the study. The remaining 13 agreed to participate. Two more families dropped out when they failed to indicate any desire to involve themselves in maintaining the daily record of expenditures which was required of them. Of the 11 families who remained as active participants in the project,~four consisted of one adult and two children. Three of these families qualified as short-term families and one as long-term. The remaining seven families were composed of two adults and four children. Five of these families qualified as short-term 1 and two as long-term. Each family was provided with a Daily Expenditure Survey Schedule with instructions to record details of daily expenditures beginning on the day the assistance payment was 2 received. This method was adopted to minimize the possi-b i l i t i e s of error in recalling items of expenditures. The schedule provided was adapted from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publication "City Family Expenditure Patterns 1957." """One of the short-term families cooperated to the extent of completing the i n i t i a l schedule, but did not participate throughout the entire study, leaving ten families & r purposes of this study. 2 See Appendix A, Part 1. 19 This inventory of items was classified under the following broad headings: food, expenses for running a home, personal care, tobacco, travel and transportation, recreation, reading and education, and rent or mortgage. Weekly v i s i t s were made to each home during the f i r s t month to assist the family in resolving d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered in completing the schedule. Subsequent v i s i t s served a similar purpose as well as being used to obtain, on a recall basis, details of family expenditures during the preceding twelve-month period. The third and fi n a l portion of the survey consisted of interviews designed to obtain information on the families' experience of liv i n g on a limited budget and of being recipients of social assistance. The schedules were completed in an average period of contact of 10 hours with each family. The Community Setting The provisions of the British Columbia Social Assistance Act apply to a l l parte of the Province, but, obviously, there are many differences from one area of the Province to another in such matters as the cost of living, employment opportunities and l i v i n g conditions, a l l of which have v i t a l bearing upon the incidence of need and the capacity of a uniform rate of allowances to provide adequately for i t . Accordingly, i t i s important to identify certain features of the community in which this project was carried out which w i l l account for some variations when comparing the project families' 20 expenditures with a minimum standard budget designed particularly for the city of Vancouver or with patterns of family expenditures established in urban areas. The municipality in which the present study is located has experienced rapid growth in the post-war years and i s changing from a predominantly rural area to becoming part of the urban 'fringe' at the outskirts of metropolitan Vancouver. Since i t is thirty miles from downtown Vancouver, hundreds of residents commute daily to their work in New Westminster and Vancouver; cost of food, clothing and household com-modities are comparable with Vancouver; shelter costs alone are notably lower. The entire municipality covers approximately ten square miles and has one major urban centre surrounded by farms and more thinly populated settlements. There i s a wide variation in range of incomes in the area which encompasses wealthy dairy farms, prosperous businesses, a large number of upper middle class homes and, at the bottom of the economic scale, 204 social assistance families. Many of the social assistance families gravitate to older homes in outlying areas. Here the homes, although inadequate in many respects, are frequently larger than any that would be available in the urban centre at the same price. Some also have plots of land which can be cultivated and provide the families with substantial produce. The employment situation in the immediate area i s not good despite the fact that there are numerous small service 21 industries and large sawmills along the river. Unemployed persons must travel 25 miles for employment services provided by the National Employment Office. This is a factor of con-siderable concern to many social assistance recipients, as "employable unemployed" men are required by social assistance regulations to register at their employment office every two weeks. The expense involved for this purpose is considerable. The Ten Families in the Study Families in receipt of social assistance, like a l l other families, d i f f e r vastly in their l i f e experiences, expectations, capacities for social functioning and income-management, a l l of which profoundly affect the use of any assistance that is received as well as the particular meaning which the experience has for the family. Accordingly, brief profiles are presented below o f the ten families included in the study as necessary background material to the proper interpretation of the data discussed in succeeding chapters. Family 1 consists of a 22 year old. mother with two daughters, 5 and 3 years of age. They were formerly Treaty Indians and moved off the reservation in March, 1961, as they were unable to obtain suitable housing or to subsist on the =$39 per month received from the Indian Affairs Branch. At the time of leaving the reservation, the mother and two children were suffering from malnutrition. The mother has never received any help or training in simple housekeeping 22 and budgeting s k i l l s . She has only Grade VI education and no employment s k i l l s or experience. Family 2 also consists of a young mother and two pre-school children, and has been receiving social assistance since the father deserted in October, 1959. The mother married before completing her schooling, having reached only Grade VIII, and has no employment s k i l l s or experience. Family 3 consists of a mother aged 30, a daughter aged 8 and a son 5 years of age. Since separation from-her husband four years ago, the mother has received a maintenance order of $80 per month. She remained self-supporting until last summer when she became i l l , at which time she applied for social assistance. Now she is no longer under medical care and i s looking forward to being self-supporting once again. While on social assistance, she has had sponsorship by the Department of Social Welfare for a night school shorthand and typing course which she w i l l complete by A p r i l . Family 4, a 40 year old woman, her daughter, 19 years of age, and son, 16 years of age, has been receiving some social assistance for the past 6 years when the mother separated from her husband, and the f u l l grant since May, 1960 at which time he l e f t the v i c i n i t y and ceased to pay the maintenance order. She has a Grade XI education, but no vocational train-ing or experience. Each year, however, she manages to earn some money by babysitting. The teenage daughter has also completed Grade XI. She i s apathetic and l i s t l e s s , and 23 expresses no desire to work or to be self-supporting. The years of marginal livi n g appear to have caused the family members to become defeated and depressed. Family 5 has both parents in the home—father, aged 55 and mother, 40. They have four children ranging from 8 to 16 years of age, a l l of whom are attending school. Nine years ago, while working as a planer in a cedar m i l l , the father developed cedar poisoning and was seriously i l l for more than two years. The family lived on unemployment insurance bener; f i t s u n t i l he was f i t to work again, but then the father was restricted to light employment and opportunities in this type of work were limited. Income from temporary jobs and unem-ployment insurance benefits sufficed until August, 1959, when while the father was away looking for work, the family remain-ing at home became completely destitute and applied for social assistance. He continues to seek employment, but his lack of education and vocational s k i l l s , the limited types of labour he can handle and his age are a l l l i a b i l i t i e s now. He is bitter and hostile, but has not accepted the probability that he w i l l continue to be unemployed. The parents in family 6 are both 31 years of age; the four children are 7, 5, 4 and 3 years of age. The father has completed Grade XII, i s a journey-man electrician, and in the past 5 years his income has dropped from-$5,100 annually to $1,730 in 1961. The parents are intelligent and capable adults, 24 well adjusted personally and socially and there i s no reason to look further for the cause of their plight than to tiie lack of employment. They have adjusted remarkably well to the present situation, limiting their needs to the bare necessities and making every effort to follow up employment p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Since becoming unemployed in October, 1961, this family has been receiving supplementary assistance above the unemployment insurance benefits and the father, while at home-, is completing his Grade XIII by correspondence. Family 7 consists of a father, 38 years of age, mother 35 years of age, three g i r l s , 12, 9 and 3 years of age and a boy, 7 years of age. This family has been receiving social assistance since October, 1959 at which time i t was used to supplement the mother's earnings, but since August, 1960 the only income has been the social assistance allowance. The father was a self-employed painter who suffered large financial losses five years ago. He eventually lost both his savings and equipment, and both he and his wife sought employment. He obtained temporary labouring jobs and she worked steadily as _a telephone operator unti l the birth of their youngest child. When she attempted to return to work, she had lost her seniority and could neither earn enough to support the family, nor could she find full-time employment. The tre-mendous responsibilities and hardships brought on a nervous collapse and she was advised by her doctor to remain at home. Definite personality problems are manifest in this family now. 25. particularly in the father who has developed psychosomatic illnesses. It seems probable that similar personality i n -adequacies prompted the i n i t i a l breakdown in economic function-ing and most certainly serve to perpetuate i t . The family has not been able to adjust to the level of li v i n g social assistance allows and, while the parents try and hope desperately to again become self-supporting, nevertheless problems are becoming more complex and mitigate against the poss i b i l i t y . In family 8 the father i s 31, mother 27 and the four children 9, 8, 4 years and 18 months of age. The father has a Grade VIII education and usually works at unskiTLed labouring jobs. Employment has always been seasonal and earnings marginal. When employed, he has been unable to save and since 1958 has claimed unemployment insurance benefits during temporary lay-offs. Since May, 1960 he has required supplementary social assistance and from the beginning of January 1962, he has been forced to claim f u l l allowance as unemployment insurance bene-f i t s expired. The family has tided over the months of unemploy-ment in earlier years with small monthly incomes derived from two property mortgages. Family 9 consists of a father, 43 and mother, 36 years of age; the four children at home at 14, 13, 10 and 3 years of age. A mentally defective child who is now 7 years of age has been in an institution for the past year. The father i s a fisherman and thus subject to seasonal unemployment. Until 1960, he was able to obtain m i l l work during the winter months 26 and provide for the family adequately. This work was not available during the past winter and, since unemployment insurance benefits did not become effective unt i l January, 1962, the family was forced to apply for social assistance in November, 1961. Since January, only supplementary assist-ance above unemployment insurance benefits has been received. The father is extremely concerned about the employment hazards involved in fishing and i s seeking permanent employment in other lines, but as an unskilled labourer with only a Grade VII education, l>is prospects, at best, are not promising. Family 10 is composed of a father, 54 years of age and mother, 35 years of age. The four children are 17, 15, 14 and 13. Until July 1961, the father was steadily employed and earned $4,800 per year. Reactivation of a war injury rendered him medically unfit to continue working at that time. He receives medical attention through the Department of Veterans Affairs at the present time and may be unable to return to heavy work at a later date. During the month of the survey, application for War Veterans Allowance was approved and he became ineligible for social assistance. However, social assistance i s granted at the beginning of the month and War Veterans Allowance later in the month so payments were received from both sources. After spending a good deal of both these cheques, he was advised of his i n e l i g i b i l i t y and a refund of the earlier allowance was requested. This threw the family into a temporary dilemma during the project as $65, 27 which was the over-payment, does not go very far when meeting basic needs, but is an extraordinarily large amount when i t becomes a debt to be paid out of a marginal income. In summary, families 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are long-term cases or those who have been li v i n g on a marginal income from public funds for more than two years. The remaining families, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are receiving assistance apparently for a temporary period. Families 6, 8 and 9 reflect no complexity of problems other than being victims of the current employment situation. For families 3, 5, and 10, illness i s a complicating factor and in some cases actually precipitated the need for assistance. Problems of maladjustment exist in families 4 and 7 particularly. Many of the points observed in the following chapter regarding income-management and adjustments that particular families make to their situation are related to the characteristics outlined above. CHAPTER 2 FAMILY EXPENDITURES: INCOME AND "NEED" How much do families on social assistance spend on various items of consumption and how do these amounts compare with what is considered necessary for a minimum standard budget? This section of the study attempts to answer these questions for the ten families in the sample by comparing their actual expenditures with the minimum budgetary costs established in the Community Chest Study for families of comparable size and composition. For the Community Chest Study, well-informed and expert persons in a variety of fields were asked to describe the basic but minimal requirements of l i v i n g . On the basis of these broad descriptions and i t s own value judgments, the committee res-ponsible for the study attempted to translate the requirements into dollar values. The needs agreed upon were as follows: a) Food of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain health and physical wellbeing of the family; b) Shelter or housing which i s conducive to healthful li v i n g , reasonable comfort and a surrounding environ-ment that encourages or tends to foster the develop-ment of constructive citizenship; c) Clothing sufficient to protect from the elements and provide a sense of self-respect and personal worth; d) Certain basic personal and household incidentals which are essential requirements of liv i n g ; 29 e) Other items of sp e c i a l need. Beyond the basic and universal requirements of l i f e Mentioned above, c e r t a i n items of sp e c i a l consequence to individuals should be provided for i n allowance. Such items as sp e c i a l d i e -tary allowances for medical conditions, pregnancy, etc., minimum transportation costs i n c i d e n t a l to medical care or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , as well as repair and replacement of e s s e n t i a l household equipment or u t e n s i l s , are within the range of minimum basic needs and should be provided for; f) E s s e n t i a l medical and ho s p i t a l care to preserve health, to r e h a b i l i t a t e and r e - e s t a b l i s h the r e c i p i e n t as a financially independent c i t i z e n . In using the budgetary costs calculated for the Community Chest Study as the standard of comparison, i t i s important to note that these costs were based on 1958 p r i c e s . Between A p r i l , 1958 and February, 1962 the Consumer Price Index for Vancouver registered an average increase of 5.5 per cent f o r a l l items i n the index with the steepest increase occurring i n the "House-hold Operations" and "Other Commodities and Services" components 2 of the index. Accordingly, the amounts necessary for a mini-mum standard budget at 1961-62 prices are l i k e l y to be somewhat higher than those quoted i n the present study. Actual Family Expenditures Compared with Estimated Minimum Requirements In table 1, which follows, the costs of a minimum standard budget for the d i f f e r e n t families i n the sample are summarized and compared with t h e i r actual monthly expenditures averaged over the period covered by the study, March 1, 1961 to February -28, 1962. 3 , ' Community Chest Study, p. 31. ^ ^See Appendix I for d e t a i l s of the Consumer Price Index. •a See Appendices B and C for d e t a i l s of minimum budget costs and sample families* expenditures, respectively. 30 Table 1 COSTS OF MINIMUM STANDARD BUDGET COMPARED WITH ACTUAL MONTHLY EXPENDITURES OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE Family Code No. Families i n Sample " (A) (B) (C) Minimum Average Standard Monthly Difference Budget Expenditures (1958 prices) 1961-62  1 Mother, 2 children (Children, 3 & 5 years) 2 Mother, 2 children (Children, 2 & 3 years) 3 Mother, 2 children (Children, 5 & 8 years) 4 Mother, 2 children (Children, 16 & 19 years) 127.53 142.86 160.67 183.94 $ 158.28 136.62 166.92 158.65 30.75 - 6.24 6.25 -25.29 5 Both parents, 4 children (Children, 5 - 1 5 years) 6 Both parents, 4 children (Children, 3 - 7 years) 7 Both parents, 4 children (Children, 3 - 1 2 years) 8 Both parents, 4 children (Children, 1,« 5 - 9 years) 9 Both parents, 4 children (Children, 3 - 1 4 years) 10 Both parents, 4 children (Children, 13 - 17 years) 215.05 239.25 257.59 267.74 278.71 287.33 230.44 239.46 210.47 223.77 324.10 361.18 15.39 0.21 -47.12 -43.97 45.39 73.85 Minimum budget requirements are those recommended i n the Community Chest Study for families of comparable sizes and compositions. In the case of families 1, 3, 5, 9 and 10, expendi-tures exceed the amount considered necessary for a minimum 31 standard of l i v i n g . The extra incomes of families 3, 9, and 10 before becoming social assistance recipients account for this, while families 1 and 5 receive income only from public funds. It is noteworthy that in only one case, family 6, do total expenditures coincide with those of the minimum budget. This father was employed for seven months, collected unemploy-ment insurance for two months and received social assistance supplementation for three months. In the remaining families, 2, 4, 7 and 8, expenditures have ranged from $6 to §47 below the amounts considered necessary for a budget of minimum ade-quacy. Families 2, 4 and 7 are long-standing social assistance recipients and family 8 was self-supporting for four months, collected unemployment insurance for six months and social assistance for two months. The following sections detail the separate items of the standard budget, comparing the component parts of family expenditures with the Community Chest Study estimates of need. Food Food i s the most important item of expenditure in main-taining health and efficiency and accounts for a proportion-a l l y large share of the incomes of low-income families. Therefore, i t is important to provide a standard of assistance which w i l l allow recipients to maintain an adequate nutritional standard without foregoing decent accommodation, heat, clothing -and other basic essentials. Derivation of food needs is most 32 amenable to expert computation regarding both nutritional requirements and cost. The Community Chest Study adopted the minimum nutritional standard established in the "B.C. Low Cost Weekly Food Requirements For Various Age Groups" prepared by the B.C. Nutrition Coordinating Committee in 1951.^ These estimates are subject to many qualifications among which the size of the family group, the established food habits of the family, the character and quality of cooking and storage f a c i l i t i e s , and the length of time the family i s on a limited income, are the most important. The standard budget food costs quoted in the present study have been calculated by a simple addition of the requirements of individual family 2 members according to age and sex. The totals for each family make no allowance for spoilage or uneconomical methods of food purchasing, although i t i s customary to add 10% to the budget costs to provide for this factor in the case of small families of three persons or less. In the following table the estimated cost of a minimum standard food budget at 1958 prices i s compared with actual expenditures of each family in the sample for one month while on social assistance. •^Community Chest Study, pp. 27 and 33. 2See Appendix £ for standard budget calculation of food costs. 33 Table 2 MONTHLY FOOD COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE • (A) (B) (c) Family Standard Average — Code l*x Budget Monthly Difference (1958 prices) Expenditures 1 40.97 77.55 36.58 2 38.78 47.40 8.62 3 45.70 55.05 9.35 4 63.59 62.85 - 0.74 5 103.01 145.05 42.04 6 90.15 69.60 -20.55 7 97.42 89.85 - 7.57 8 97.07 65.40 -31.67 9 108.09 94.50 -13.59 10 124.18 129.30 5.12 Changing levels of food costs are an everyday experience and have shown a long-run tendency to rise at an average . annual rate of around 3% a year. 1 However , the standard budget figure appears to be in line with February, 1962 food costs as the Consumer Price Index for Vancouver stood at 124.2 and 124.1 for the two periods April, 1958 and February, 1962, respectively. Food costs for family 1 are considerably higher than the standard" minimum and this is largely related to food habits and to the character and quality of cooking and lack of storage f a c i l i t i e s . Some expert assistance for this family with budget-ing would seem to be indicated. Families 2 and 3 who spend approximately $10 more than the minimum budget figure experience no deprivation in respect to adequacy; thus this may be repre-sentative of the amount required to meet the costs of shopping Community Chest Study, p. 31. 34 for smaller quantities and allowing for some personal pre-ferences . Pood costs of family 4 correspond to the budget figures; however, the mother considers the inadequacy of both quality and quantity of food to be a basic cause of concern. The suggested minimum budget costs appear to make more adequate provision for large families composed of six persons. Family 10 is perhaps managing a slightly higher standard be-cause of a supplementary food supply, while families 6 and 8 are probably maintaining a minimum standard, even though their costs are $20 and $30 lower since they also have storage f a c i l i -ties and additional food supplies. These families, along with family 9, are short-term recipients. A minimum nutritional standard is not such a hardship for a brief period on assist-ance as for families 5 and 7 who have been recipients for over two years. The different manner in which the two families have reacted to this situation is of some significance: Family 5 tends to buy more food than i s actually necessary for adequate nutrition, while family 7 economizes on this item and spends less than is necessary for minimum nutritional needs. Under the present allowance schedule, both receive $55 per month for shelter expenses and, while family 7 puts the same amount out for rent, family 5 owns i t s own home and uses a sizeable portion of the rental allowance for food. 35 Shelter For the purpose of this study, the rent component of the standard budget has been set according to actual rents paid by the survey families. The amount allowed for home-owners includes the cost of mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and other assessments. Table 3 SHELTER COSTS FOR FAMILIES IN SAMPLE Family Payments made in Code No. Monthly Costs February 1962 1 30.00 30.00 2 40.00 40.00 3 * 50.83 50.00 4 50.00 50.00 5 * 6.39 -6 50.00 50.00 7 55.00 55.00 8 * 68.83 30.00 g * 58.38 15.00 10 * 42.91 37.25 Asterisks denote families who own or are purchasing their present homes. Families 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 meet rental costs each month. These vary from $30 for family 1 to $55 monthly for family 7. Mortgage payments vary from $42.91 for family 10 to $68.38 for family 8. The shelter costs do not include any amount for up-keep and repairs to the home, although on the evidence of this study this would appear to be an urgent need. Family 5 who owns i t s home has no insurance on the home and has allowed i t to f a l l into a state of disrepair and, in fact, each year has d i f f i c u l t y meeting tax payments when due. Families 8 and 9 are 36 unable to meet their mortgage costs while on assistance, economizing here to meet more pressing needs in other areas. Since taxes, insurance and assessments are due once yearly," the question arises as to whether the minimum budget is suf-ficient in other areas to enable the family to put aside a specified amount each month to meet these expenses. Without sufficient monthly resources, this is not possible. It also illustrates the need to allow and encourage recipients to save a portion of the allowance each month.''" U t i l i t i e s The standard budget figure in the present study com-bines the monthly costs for heating the home; costs of elec-t r i c i t y and power for small appliances; the cost of gas used for cooking and water heating; and monthly water costs. A l l of these are calculated from the respective Community Chest 2 tables with the exception of water rates. One family actually uses gas while a l l others use o i l or sawdust. How-ever, the figures for gas are closer to actual costs than those calculated for e l e c t r i c i t y . While the actual difference between costs for o i l and gas is minimal, o i l costs are slightly lower. The Community Chest committee established "hwater rates and winter fuel costs further exemplify the need for an adequate budget to allow for annual budgeting. 2 See the Community Chest report, pages 55, 50 and 51. Calculations of heating costs for the families surveyed are shown in detail in Appendix F. 37 the minimum monthly water rates and observed that allowance should be made for this item, but failed to do so in their typical family budget. In the present study we have there-fore increased the standard budget figure to allow for this expense. Table 4 MONTHLY UTILITY COSTS OP FAMILIES IN SAMPLE (A) (B) (c) (D) Family Standard Average Actual Difference Code No. Budget Monthly Expenditure between (1958 prices) Expenses (Feb. 1962) (B) and (A) 1 14.48 16.00 10.82 1.52 2 21.40 15.00 28.75 - 6.40 3 * 21.23 21.25 15.81 0.02 4 19.32 19.00 25.23 - 0.32 5 * 22.18 20.75 9.50 - 1.43 6 * 24.18 27.75 33.79 3.57 7 * 22.18 30.75 24.72 8.57 8 * 24.18 15.75 14.94 - 8.43 9 * 28.77 25.75 7.66 - 3.02 10 * 29.68 29.75 38.31 0.07 * Figures include allocations for water costs. From this table one can observe that the standard budget figure corresponds with the average monthly u t i l i t y costs for i families 3, 4, 5 and 10. Families 1 and 2 have moved to their present dwellings during the past year and since the standard budget figure is based on yearly costs for the present dwellings i t i s inappropriate to make comparisons here. Family 8 economizes by using only a minimum amount of ele c t r i c i t y , the minimum heat 38 possible during the day and no heat at night. This family i s not providing a minimum standard for adequacy, and suffers accordingly; Families 6, 7 and 9 spend s l i g h t l y more than the minimum estimate. For families 6 and 9 t h i s may be due to being able to maintain a higher l e v e l of l i v i n g while they were self-supporting. Family 7 incurs more than the minimum costs as i t uses more e l e c t r i c a l appliances than are allowed for on a minimum budget. This appears to be an area of budgeting i n which need can be, and has been assessed accurately. Actual expenditures f o r February should l o g i c a l l y be higher than average monthly costs since i t i s one of the coldest months. For families 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 t h i s i s not so. The costs of family 1, i n February, were lower as the present home i s not as expensive to heat as former homes, and the mother did not receive an e l e c t r i c a l b i l l during February. Family 3 did not pay the f u l l f u e l or e l e c t r i c i t y costs. Families 5 and 9 paid e l e c t r i c i t y costs only, the former having no f u e l expenses during the survey month, and the l a t t e r having made arrangements to allow the fu e l costs to accumulate during the season when the father i s not employed. Costs for family 7 are lower than the average monthly expenditures as the family refused to pay one of i t s February f u e l b i l l s because the f i r s t load of saw-dust received during that month was not suitable f o r burning. Thus, although t h i s i s an area where the majority of families cannot economize, families 3, 7 and 9 incur debts as they are not able to meet these expenses. The February expenses of 39 families 2, 4, 6 and 10 are above average, as expected. Family 2 has very high monthly fuel expenses as i t is livin g in a summer cottage and even though $28.75 was paid for u t i l i t y costs during February, a fuel debt of $45 accumulated over the winter season. Economy i s practised regarding use of el e c t r i c a l appli-ances except in families 7 and 10, both of whom have a large number of appliances. In summary, i t may be noted that the standard budget appears to be adequate for minimum needs. Although the majority of families cannot economize by spending less than the standard, many are not able to meet costs from their incomes while on social allowance. In two cases, high expenses may be due in part to use of more appliances than is advisable while on a minimum budget. Household Operation Costs Household operation costs generally include such items as purchase of paper supplies, postage, stationery, laundry soap and detergents, and other household cleaning products, garden expenses, moving expenses, and costs of telephone, dry clean-ing, laundry, household help, acquisition of furniture, e l e c t r i c a l equipment, household utensils, china and textiles. From the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Survey of Citv Family  Expenditures. 1955, the Community Chest committee found that, on an average, 9% of a family's income is spent on household 40 equipment. However, i t was decided that telephones and pur-chase of household equipment could not be considered a l e g i t i -mate part of the budget of families on social assistance. As these expenses accounted for one-half of the average family expenditure, the minimum standard was set at 5% of the total budget. The standard budget figures in the following tables are those of the Community Chest budget for typical family groups 3 and 6 as these correspond in number to family sizes 1 of three and six persons used in the present sample. The average monthly expenditure has been derived by adjusting February expenses, exclusive of furniture payments which are constant each month, by 15/14 to make a representative monthly figure. Community Chest Study, p. 74. 41 Table 5 MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD OPERATION COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE Family Code No. (A) Standard Budget (1958 prices) (B) -Average Monthly Expenditure (c) Difference 1 5.23 7.65 2.42 2 * 5.23 17.10 11.87 3 * 5.23 10.05 4.82 4 5.23 3.75 - 1.48 5 * 7.13 10.35 3.22 6 * 7.13 25.15 18.02 7 * 7.13 5.85 - 1.28 8 * 7.13 15.55 8.42 9 * 7.13 27.30 20.17 10 * 7.13 23.02 15.89 * Indicates those families who have telephones. Average monthly expenditures for short-term recipient families 6, 8, 9 and 10 include expenses for household equip raent and textiles purchased and paid for prior to receiving social assistance. The Consumer Price Index for Vancouver has risen from 128.0 for April, 1958 to 135.4 for February, 1962; thus cost for the same items included in the 1958 budget may be higher now. Families 4 and 7 are the only_ones with costs below the minimum budget. Both are long-term recipient families who, from their monthly resources, are unable to provide for even the basic essentials of household operation costs. This is particularly true of family 7, where most of the monthly ex-pense is for telephone. On the remaining amount only limited household cleaning products and a small supply of stationery for necessary correspondence can be purchased. Family 5, 42 although over-spending by $3.22 monthly, complains bi t t e r l y about being unable to afford, cleaning products to scrub down the walls or wax -the floors. Now that several years have elapsed since either have been done, a complete redecorating job i s more in order than a mere scrubbing. Eight of the ten families surveyed pay telephone costs, indicating that this i s one of the basic needs of modern families. Three families, 2, 6 and 9, make furnishing pay-ments each month, a l l of which are for essential items. It could be argued that short-term recipients should be en-abled to keep-up their payments on necessary furnishings such as these. Family 9 is- paying for beds for the children, and family 6 for dishes. Family 2, a long-term recipient, i s making payments on a second-hand washing machine, which is also a r e a l i s t i c need for a mother of two pre-school children. Laundry costs are incurred by families 1, 5 and 9. Family 1 has no washer. Family 5 incurs laundry costs occasionally as the family members have only one change of clothes. School clothes must be washed on Sunday, and i f i t is raining these w i l l not be ready for wear the following day. Family 9 incurs laundry costs occasionally because the washing machine is badly in need of repair. Although the father continually attempts to repair i t himself, he is not always successful. -In the long-term view, the idea of paying monthly for a washer appears more economical than using public f a c i l i t i e s . 43 This would be an in t e r e s t i n g area i n which to observe the difference between average monthly expenditures and actual February, 1962 costs of the short-term families, i n order to determine i f they economize on these expenses while on a s s i s t -ance. However, such a comparison i s not possible from t h i s table, since only those products purchased monthly were recorded for February i n the survey. Household t e x t i l e s and furnishings were r e c a l l e d on a yearly basis, however, and although t h i s made no difference i n the average monthly expenses of the long-term r e c i p i e n t s , the same expenses for short-term recipients were increased i n four cases. Thus, there i s some in d i c a t i o n that .economy i s practised here while on assistance. The implications of t h i s table are that household operation costs are an e s s e n t i a l expenditure i n any budget, and economy cannot be practised to the extent that members of the committee responsible for the Community Chest Study would appear to think desirable or f e a s i b l e . Clothing Since a l l a r t i c l e s of clothing do not have to be pur-chased each year, the Community Chest Study developed two budgets: one to cover the costs of a new wardrobe and the other r e s t r i c t e d to yearly replacement costs. Contents of the l a t t e r are described i n Appendix G. The committee e s t i -mated a clothing allowance for each of t h e i r t y p i c a l families somewhat lower than yearly replacement costs by adjusting the t o t a l s to the same proportion of the t o t a l budget as that 44 established by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' Survey of  Citv Family Expenditures 1955. for families of comparable sizes. They f e l t this to be somewhat lower than need, and probably low for maintenance of a standard of adequacy, and relied upon the following methods of good management to bridge the gap. 1. The passing on of hand-me-downs and other articles of clothing which have been outgrown or are no longer use-ful to relatives, friends and neighbours; 2. The purchase of second-hand clothing, either in r e t a i l stores or at rummage sales; 3. The a b i l i t y of the mother to make clothes from new fabric or to patch up, rework and otherwise modify used clothing; 4. Taking greater care of the limited stock of clothing on hand. The standard budget costs quoted here have been cal -culated by a simple addition of the yearly replacement require-ments for individual family members according to age and sex. These totals also c a l l for good management, since "need" i s possibly somewhere between the cost of a new wardrobe and yearly replacement costs. The latter do not include any items which have a l i f e expectancy of twelve months or more, and these items must be purchased at some time, particularly by long-term recipient.families. In the following table the estimated costs of minimum clothing- needs at 1958 prices are compared with average monthly expenditures on -clothing of the ten families over a one-year period. Community Chest Study, p. 60. 45 Table 6 MONTHLY CLOTHING COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE Family (A) (B) (c) Code No. Standard Average Budget Monthly , Difference (1958 oricesi Expenditures 1 16.10 15.82 - 0.28 2 16.70 9.00 - 7.70 3 16.93 3.00 -13.93 4 21.-95 6.00 -15.95 5 37.88 25.00 -12.88 6 32.43 20.00 -12.43 7 38.58 16.50 -22.08 8 35.17 12.25 -22.92 9 37.88 40.96 3.08 10 41.87 28.70 -13.17 The Consumer Price Index stood at 113.4 and 115.2 for the two periods April, 1958 and February, 1962 respectively; thus the standard budget figure appears to be in line with February, 1962 costs. No data, specific for Vancouver, are available for price variations on a yearly basis. Inherent in the figures of the foregoing tables are many complex problems, a l l of them extremely upsetting for the persons concerned. The father in family 5 has one pair of socks, bought more than a year ago for 49$, and when they are washed he has none to wear under his heavy work boots. Family 8 receives a l l . i t s clothing from relatives, and consequently i s ashamed to mix with them socially. The standard budget figures are matched in expenditure by families 1 and 9 only. Family 1 had to begin purchasing a 46 complete wardrobe when becoming social assistance recipients in March, 1961. Even now, the wardrobe is inadequate, partly for this reason, but also because the mother has l i t t l e know-ledge of how to care for clothing properly, and no f a c i l i t i e s to do so. Family 9 takes great care to see that the children and the mother have clothing of a comparable standard to that of their associates and, even while on social assistance, attempts to meet clothing needs f i r s t . Families 2, 3, 7 and 8 receive much of their clothing from relatives. The three former are more appreciative of i this, and families 2 and 3 incur only minimal costs beyond these g i f t s . The clothes which family 7 receive are for the parents, and are both stylish and of superior quality. This one factor has helped them maintain the social "face" they are so intent on preserving. However, they have con-siderable d i f f i c u l t y in providing shoes and personal articles for themselves and adequate clothing for the children. None of the families 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 has adequate supplies of clothing. The mother of family 1 i s the only one who expresses l i t t l e concern about this, as she has had even less earlier. It is a problem of utmost concern for family 4, as the mother goes out to babysit and her two teen-aged children have become socially isolated. Family 5 attempts to provide each of the children with clothing from the monthly Family Allowance cheque, but inevitably there are other small expenses that must be paid f i r s t . The father and mother 47 purchase no clothing whatever for themselves. Family 6 had purchased clothing while the father was employed, and i t i s only as the supply i s being depleted that t h i s family i s be-coming concerned. In t h i s case clothing needs are considered minimal by the parents since they l i v e i n a r u r a l area and three of the children are of pre-school age. The remaining families, 2 and 10, although having an adequate supply of clothing at the present time, are concerned about the coming season. The standard budget a l l o c a t i o n appears to be both appropriate and necessary, but most families are unable to purchase adequate clothing out of t h e i r s o c i a l assistance allowance. A l l families studied are concerned about t h i s . I t i s an area where families can and must economize while on a minimum budget. In general, most families' f i r s t e f f o r t s are to clothe the school children properly and then t r y to meet s-ome of the s t y l i s h demands of the teen-age children. Other Commodities and Services Along with food, shelter, clothing and household opera-t i o n costs, there are other commodities and services j u s t as e s s e n t i a l to everyday l i v i n g . Transportation, personal care, education and recreation costs are among these. So are medi-ca l expenses, cigarettes, church contributions, union dues and l i f e insurance. These expenses account for one quarter of the average family income, and upwards of 20% of the income of families with less than $2500 per year. In the c a l c u l a t i o n 48 of the Community Chest standard budget, 10% of the total family income was allowed for these "other goods and ser-vices.""^ In the following tables, table 7 to table 11, the standard budget figure i s that quoted in the Community Chest Study for families having the same number of persons. The Consumer Price Index has risen from 128.5 to 137.1, or 6.5% from April, 1958 to February, 1962, indicating that costs in this area have risen substantially since com-pilation of the Community Chest standard budget. Transportation. Two per cent of the total standard budget was established as "need" for transportation costs of social assistance recipients and the amount, at 1958 prices, is quoted in the following table. This was expected to allow for legitimate costs of recipients, including use of public transportation by children attending school and by older people who are i l l or who li v e some distance from stores, and emergency situations when a person might require a taxi. A l l of the short-terra recipients own cars and operate them while they are receiving social assistance. Family 3 has l i t t l e occasion to use the car; families 6, 8, 9 and 10 operate them when shopping for large supplies of groceries, travelling to New Westminster to the National Employment Office and when seeking employment other than in the local d i s t r i c t ; family 10 also makes regular trips to a hospital in Vancouver for medical treatment. Community Chest Study, p. 75. 49 Table 7 MONTHLY TRANSPORTATION COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE (A) (B) (C) Family Standard Average Code No. Budget Monthly, Difference (1958 prices) Expenditures - ( 1 3.27 < ' 5.20 1.93 2 3.27 0.40 - 2.87 3 * 3.27 9.00 5.73 4 3.27 0.30 - 2.97 5 * 5.19 17.00 11.81 6 * 5.19 21.75 16.56 7 5.19 0.50 - 4.69 8 * 5.19 19.00 13.81 9 * 5.19 24.00 18.81 10 * 5.19 31.00 25.81 * Denotes car owners. Family 5 i s the only long-term recipient to operate a car, and reasons for operation are similar. Of those families, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 li v e in rural areas at a considerable dis-tance from the business section of the community. A l l cars are from 1948 to 1952 models and the men do their own repair work. In every case, expenditures exceed the standard budget figure, yet this is an expense the families consider essential out of their limited monthly resources. Of those families not operating cars, families 2, 6 and 7 practice economy in this area. Family 2 lives a consider-able distance from the shopping centre and the mother hitch-hikes or walks two miles with the two children when she shops and remains in town until she finds someone she knows to drive 50 her home with the groceries. Other families face s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s . Of the ten families, family 1 i s the only one to spend money quite f r e e l y i n t h i s area. The mother v i s i t s her parents once or twice a month, and there i s no public transportation between her home and the reservation some 5 or 6 miles d i s t a n t . Although economy i n transportation costs i s practised by a l l families i n the study, the expenditures i n thi s area are s t i l l markedly i n excess of those considered necessary by the Community Chest committee. Personal Care Costs. Although e s s e n t i a l to the main-tenance of health and self-respect, personal care costs are those often s a c r i f i c e d most when l i v i n g on a marginal budget. The Community Chest committee allowed 2% of the t o t a l budget for t h i s item, compared with 3% of income allocated on an average to t h i s item by self-supporting f a m i l i e s . A compre-hensive inventory of personal care expenses was calculated, and the standard budget figure quoted i n table 8 represents the simple addition of the requirements of i n d i v i d u a l family members In the following table the estimated costs of the mini-mum standard of personal care at 1958 prices are compared with actual family expenditures for one month while on s o c i a l assistance. See Appendix H. 51 Table 8 MONTHLY PERSONAL CARE COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE (A) (B) (c) Family Standard Average Code No. Budget Monthly Difference (1958 prices*) Expenditures 1 7.68 3.30 - 4.38 2 7.68 2.70 - 4.98 3 7.68 3.15 - 4.53 4 10.78 4.80 - 6.72 5 17.72 3.90 - 13.82 6 14.62 " 7.65 - 5.97 7 16.54 1.20 -15.34 8 14.62 4.35 - 9.27 9 17.72 3.75 - 13.97 10 20.82 13.05 - 7.77 This i s an area in which families can and do economize while dependent on social assistance. Families 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are not concerned about good grooming, and buy only the basic essentials, while families 3, 7 and 9 are quite conscious of the expenses entailed in personal care and their lack of same as they mix socially more often. Family 10, a short-term recipient, has not economized with these costs to any great extent yet. Recreation. The Community Chest committee decided that 2% of the family budget should be available for recreation, and the standard budget figures quoted in table 9 are the cor-responding amounts for three-person and six-person families. The monthly expenses of the families in the sample have been calculated from their expenses over the 12-month period pre-ceding the survey. 52 Table 9 MONTHLY RECREATION COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE -(A) (B) (C) Family Standard Average Code No. Budget Monthly , Difference (1958 prices) Expenditures 1 3.27 1.76 - 1.51 2 3.27 4.60 1.33 3 3.27 0.25 - 3.02 4 3.27 6.20 2.93 5 5.19 2.00 - 3.19 6 5.19 5.60 0.41 7 5.19 7.00 1.81 8 5.19 - 6.25 1.06 9 5.19 5.42 0.23 10 5.19 11.78 6.59 Family 3 i s the only one able to c u r t a i l costs for re-creation almost completely. A l l families of the survey f e l t that the monotony of l i f e on such a r e s t r i c t e d budget was one of the most depressing aspects of t h e i r l i v e s . This was true even of those who spent more than the standard budget figures on recreation. For example, family 2 spent more than the mini-mum while having only two outings i n the past year, as both c a l l e d for babysitting costs; families 4 and 10 have teen-age children who require money for entertainment occasionally, and i t i s important that they see one or two movies a year. Family 7 i s the only one to have regular weekly expenditures on recreation, and almost a l l of these are incurred by bowling. Family 9 i s the only one to f e e l that the children are not being deprived, as they are involved i n organized a t h l e t i c 53 groups i n the community, and the parents f e e l that t h i s i s the most healthy and s a t i s f a c t o r y recreation for the children. Other expenses included l i v e pets, repairs to the t e l e v i s i o n and children's games and toys. A l l incurred some costs for the l a t t e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y at Christmas. The majority of families have some pet a n i m a l — b i r d , cat or dog, and, except for the birds, pets are a problem to feed. Accordingly, i t appears that the budget standard adopted by the Community Chest com-mittee has been set somewhat below the minimum necessary for adequacy, judged by the experiences of the families included i n the present study. Education Costs. Education costs, including purchase of newspaper and other reading materials, supplies for school children, s p e c i a l lessons and the cost of adult courses, were also recognized as e s s e n t i a l by the Community Chest committee, and 2% of the budget was allocated for t h i s . In the following table the standard budget figures for three-member and s i x -member families are compared with average monthly expenditures of the sample families over the past year. This i s an area i n which economy i s practised while on s o c i a l assistance. The majority of the expenses incurred are for newspapers. Only family 10 continues buying the newspaper regularly while family 5 never purchases a paper. Newspapers, p a r t i c u l a r l y , appear to be an e s s e n t i a l expense, but one the majority of families are unable to meet. 54 Table 10 MONTHLY EDUCATION COSTS OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE (A) (B) (c) Family Standard Average Code No. Budget Monthly Difference - (1958 prices) Expenditures 1 3.27 0.60 - 2.67 2 3.27 0.42 - 2.85 3 3.27 3.09 - 0.18 4 3.27 2.00 - 1.27 5 5.19 - - 5.19 6 5.19 0.85 - 4.34 7 5.19 1.54 - 3.65 8 5.19 2.84 - 2.35 9 5.19 2.25 " - 2.94 10 5.19 13.33 8.14 Other. Two per cent of the social assistance recipients 1 income was also allocated to other small expenses, such as church collections, small insurance payments, union dues and gifts to friends, a l l of which the Community Chest committee f e l t were j u s t i f i a b l e . The amounts allocated for families of three and six persons are quoted as the standard budget figures in table 11. During the survey the families had other expenses not included in the Community Chest Study, such as cigarettes, medical expenses, and children's allowances, which they con-sidered essential costs even while on a minimum budget. The February costs for such items have been included in the families' expenses in table 11 because there is no other place for them when comparing monthly expenses with the Community Chest Study. 55 Table 11 "OTHER" MONTHLY COSTS OF SAMPLE FAMILIES (A) (B) (c) Family Standard Average Code No. Budget Monthly Difference • (1958 prices'! Expenditures 1 3.26 0.40 - 2.86 2 3.26 - - 3.26 3 3.26 11.25 7.99 4 3.26 3.75 0.49 5 5.17 - - 5.17 6 5.17 11.11 5.94 7 5.17 2.28 - 2.89 8 5.17 13.55 8.38 9 5.17 41.79 36.62 10 5.17 38.34 33.17 - - -Expenses of short-term recipient families are notice-ably higher than those of long-term recipients, due in large part to medical costs. Meeting medical expenses, including those for dentists and drugs, has become a problem of utmost concern since coming on social assistance. Economy is practised in this area by reducing smoking costs and children's allowances. Smokers have not been able to quit completely, although many f e l t they should; only families 8, 9 and 10 have continued to provide the children with an allowance, in a l l cases at reduced rates. Families 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 either attend church or the children attend Sunday school, but they did not record this expense, feeling that i t was only minor and did not deserve to be mentioned! 56 Long-term recipient families do not spend up to the amount allocated for these items in the standard budget, and i t appears that this i s he cause the income of the families is applied to more pressing needs. There i s reason to think that the Community Chest committee's interpretation of minimum need in this area i s quite restrictive, judged by what the families in this study find i t necessary to spend. Summary In table 12 actual expenditures are compared with standard budget costs for the ten families according to the major items of expenditure. This comprehensive table permits an overall analysis of family spending patterns, revealing the areas in which families practise economy where income i s marginal or insufficient for minimum requirements. A comparison of the standard budget allocations de-rived from the Community Chest Study with the actual expendi-tures of the ten families in this study reveals that the standard budget figures are adequate for some items but not for others. On the one hand, the standard budget allocation for food appears adequate in the case of six-person families, as does the standard budget figure for u t i l i t i e s , the latter being an area of expenditure most amenable to accurate assess-ment. The clothing allowance based on annual costs of replac-ing items, the method followed in the present study, appears adequate for needs. Education costs and personal care costs as established by the Community Chest committee are also adequate. TABLE 12 STANDARD BUDGET COSTS COMPARED WITH ACTUAL FAMILY EXPENDITURES PER MONTH, ACCORDING TO MAJOR ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE Items Family 1 $ Family 2 $ Family 3 $ Family 4 $ Family 5 Food Actual exp. Stand.budget 77-55 1+0.97 1+7.40 38.78 55.05 45.70 62.85 63.59 145.05 103.01 Shelter Actual exp. Stand.budget 30.00 30.00 4o.oo 40.00 50.83 50.83 50.00 50.00 6.39 6.39 Utilities Actual exp. Stand.budget 16.00 14.48 15.00 21.40 21.25 21.23 19.00 19.32 20.75 22.18 Household Operation-Actual exp. Stand.budget 7.65 5.23 17.10 5.23 10.05 5.23 3-75 5.23 10.35 7.13 Clothing Actual exp. Stand.budget 15.82 16.10 9.00 16.70 3.00 16.93 6.00 21.95 25.00 37.88 Transportation Actual exp. Stand.budget 5.20 3.27 .40 3.27 9.00 3-27 .30 3.27 17.00 5.19 Personal Care Actual exp. Stand.budget 3.30 7.68 2.70 7.68 3.15 7.68 4.80 10.78 3.90 17.72 Education & Recreation Actual exp. Stand.budget 2.36 6.54 5.02 6.54 3.34 6.54 8.20 6.54 2.00 IO.38 Other Actual exp. Stand.budget .40 3.26 3.26 11.25 3.26 3.75 3.26 5.17 Total Actual exp. Stand.budget 158.28 127.53 136.62 142.86 166.92 160.67 158.65 183.94 230.44 215.05 TABLE 12 (continued) Items Family & $ Family ^ $ Family 6" $ Family 9 $ Family 10 $ Food Actual exp. Stand, "budget 69.6O 90.15 89.85 97 .42 65 AO 97.07 9^-50 108.09 129.30 124.18 Shelter Actual exp. Stand.budget 50.00 50.00 55.OO 55.00 68.83 68.83 58.38 58.38 42.91 42.91 Utilities Actual exp. Stand.budget 27.75 24.18 30.75 22.18 15.75 .24.18 25.75 28.77 29.75 29.68 Household Operations Actual exp. Stand.budget 25.15 7-13 5.85 7.13 15.55 7.13 27.30 7.13 23.02 7.13 Clothing Actual exp. Stand.budget 20.00 32.43 16.50 38.58 12.25 35.17 40.96 37-88 28.70 41.87 Transportation Actual exp. Stand.feudget 21.75 5.19 .50 5.19 19.00 5.19 24.00 5.19 31.00 5.19 Personal Care Actual exp. Stand.budget 7.65 14.62 1.20 16.54 ^•35 Ik. 62 3.75 17.72 13.05 20.82 Education & Recreation Actual exp. Stand.budget 6.45 IO.38 8.5U IO.38 9.09 IO.38 7.67 IO.38 2 5 . l l IO.38 Other Actual exp. Stand.budget l l . l l 5.17 2.28 5.17 13.55 5.17 41.79 5.17 38.34 5.17 Total Actual exp. Stand.budget 239. 46 239.25 210.47 257.59 223.77 267.7^ 324.10 278.71 36I.I8 287.33 59 On the other hand, the standard budget amounts do not appear to be r e a l i s t i c in the case of food costs for families of three persons, f a l l i n g short of what is necessary for minimum adequacy by 10% or more. The budget standard for both household operation and transportation costs would appear to have been established without proper consideration of the basic social and psychological needs of families in present-day North American society. The same i s true of the standard budget allowance for recreation costs where, although there is recognition for the need of some social outings, the figure suggested f a i l s to take account of the wide variety of expenses that can be easily incurred for recreation. The majority of the families studied practised economy in the areas of clothing, personal care purchases, education and recreation. Of these, they were able to reduce expenses below the minimum budget standard with the exception of re-creation. Inadequacy of clothing and recreation was of par-ticular concern. "Other" expenses allowed for in the Community Chest budget were dispensed with, and in turn money was al l o -cated for expenses not included. Shelter costs were reduced by home owners in order to meet more pressing needs. Finally, economy was practised with transportation costs, but those with cars f e l t a minimal cost for operation was essential. Families were unable to economize on u t i l i t i e s , household operation costs, or shelter costs, where homes were rented, without going into debt. Recreation and transportation could not be reduced to the extent envisaged in the Community Chest Stud} 60 Families 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 had no problems that could be attributed to management of income. Management problems for family 1, particularly with regard to food and clothing expenses, are attributed to the mother's cultural background and lack of knowledge. Family 5 overspends on food, with resultant lack and deprivation in household operation expenses, clothing, personal care items and recreation. Family 9 is not providing for basic nutritional needs, and is accumulat-ing debts while receiving social assistance, in an attempt to maintain the former social status. Family 10 also may be having management problems, since this family continues to allocate the limited income as when the father was employed. The position of family 7 cannot be attributed to poor management, since the income i s not sufficient to meet the minimum requirements in any area. This family overspends on u t i l i t i e s as i t uses more ele c t r i c a l appliances than the budget allows, but the eight dollars difference would not be enough to make up the inadequacies in other areas. The Extent of Need in the Families Studied The preceding sections have examined the families' expenditures in relation to estimated costs of maintaining a minimum standard of l i v i n g . From this, i t is evident that six of the ten families have been spending in an average month amounts ranging from .21<? to $73.85 in excess .of the sum considered necessary for minimum subsistence at 1958 prices. In four of these cases the relatively "lavish" scale 61 of expenditure reflects the higher income from employment of the families prior to coming on social assistance within the base, year selected for calculating average monthly expendi-tures. In a further two families, the explanation is to be found in the fact that both have monthly incomes from social assistance higher than standard budget requirements for mini-mum needs. In the remaining four families, average monthly expenditures f e l l below minimum budget costs by amounts ranging from $6.24 to $43.97. In almost a l l of these cases the d e f i c i t is the amount by which the income received f a l l s below the minimum requirements. Three of these families have been on social assistance for long periods of time, and the fourth family was employed for four months, and did not apply for social assistance until unemployment insurance benefits ceased. It should be clear from what has been said that the expenditures of families on social assistance, just like the expenditures of other families, are influenced by a number of factors besides the actual amount of money available at the time. These include: 1. Expectations derived from the customary standard of living , a b i l i t y to manage finances, the existence of non-deferable claims upon income, such as repayment of loans, credit payments, and mortgage payments; 2. The" sudden occurrence of unusual expenditures, such as major repairs; 3. The specific desires and wants of the families. There i s a notable difference in this regard, however, between the situation of the family on social assistance and 62 the family with regular earnings from employment. The income of the s o c i a l assistance family i s almost always less than what i s needed for a minimum standard of health and decency, and accordingly t h e i r budget has far less e l a s t i c i t y . I t re-mains, therefore, to consider the actual incomes of the ten families while on assistance i n r e l a t i o n to estimated minimum requirements and average patterns of expenditure. From th i s i t should be possible to specify the extent to which present allowances are inadequate and to indicate the nature of the impact upon family budgets of existence on a marginal income. This l a t t e r aspect w i l l be discussed more f u l l y i n the follow-ing chapter. Income from S o c i a l Assistance According to the terms of the B r i t i s h Columbia S o c i a l Assistance Act, s o c i a l assistance i s intended to provide the "necessities e s s e n t i a l to maintain or a s s i s t i n maintaining a reasonable and normal healthy existence" for those individuals and families unable to obtain the necessities out of t h e i r own 1 resources or other s o c i a l security measures. The t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s purpose into f i n a n c i a l assistance requires the estab-lishment of benefit l e v e l s related i n some way to the cost of maintaining a minimum staidard of l i v i n g . Unfortunately, i t i s not possible to deduce the basis on which allowances payable under the B.C. s o c i a l assistance program have been established. Certainly the method followed i n determining the amount of the allowance can i n no sense of the term be described as based on •"-Revised Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1948, Chapter 310, Section 3. 63 the "budget-deficit" p r i n c i p l e . According to t h i s system, the p a r t i c u l a r family's actual needs are calculated and set against t h e i r resources with the difference being the amount of assistance payable. The present s o c i a l assistance schedule (see below) does not allow f o r c a l c u l a t i o n of grants on t h i s b asis. I t i s divided into three component pa r t s : food, shelter and miscellaneous expenses—and amounts are granted according to how many persons there are i n the family. The d i v i s i o n of the allowance into these component parts i s i n -tended merely as a guide to the administration for a l l o c a t i o n of grants, and not as a basis for budgeting. SCHEDULE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIAL ALLOWANCE RATES Unit Food Shelter Misc. Totals Allowable - Earnings 1 34.00 25.00 7.00 66.00 9.00 2 58,00 35.00 10.80 103.80 16.20 3 70.00 40.00 15.40 125.40 14.60 4 82.00 45.00 20.00 147.00 13.00 5 94.00 50.00 24.60 168.60 11.40 6 106.00 55.00 29.20 190.20 9.80 7 118.00 60.00 33.80 211.80 10.20 8 130.00 65.00 38.40 233.40 Source: Adapted from the S o c i a l Allowance Schedule, Po l i c y  Manual. Department of S o c i a l Welfare, Revised A p r i l , 1960, p. 317. . -According to t h i s schedule, food rates are increased by $12.00 a person, shelter rates by $5.00 a person, and miscellaneous rates by $4.60 a person beyond two-member 64 families. Thus there is an increase in the total allowance of §21.60 a person. From two-person families to six-person families, the total amount to which the family can earn also increases by $20.00, which means that the amount of earnings the family can have without reduction of their allowance re-duces from $16.20 for two-member families to $9.80 for six-member families. (a) Allowance for Food. The present allowance for food for a three-person family on social assistance is $70.00. The Community Chest Study estimates the cost of food for the same size family at $37.88 to $63.59, depending on the age and sex of the family members. Actual expenditures on food by the three-person families included in the present study range from $47.40 to $77.55, or from $22.60 below the social assistance allowance to $7.55 more than the grant. Review of food costs on page 33 indicates that a minimum budget estimate of need requires more than a 10% increase for families of three persons in order to provide minimal adequacy and satisfaction. For six-person families, the estimated need ranges from $90.15 to $124.18. The present social assistance allowance is $106.00 for food for this group, being from $15.85 more than required to $18.18 less than the minimum requirements. The sample families' actual expenditures range from $65.40 to $145.05,. or from $40.60 less to $39.95 more than the grant. The standard budget figure for this group appears to be a more accurate assessment of need; however, since i t only allows 65 for minimum n u t r i t i o n a l requirements, i t creates a consider-able handicap for families in receipt of s o c i a l assistance for a r e l a t i v e l y long period of time. This suggests that i n estab-l i s h i n g the standard budget figure, r e a l i s t i c consideration should be given to food habits of families as well as the cost of providing basic n u t r i t i o n a l needs. Both standard budget figures and actual food costs vary according to sex and age of family members, demonstrating that a f l a t rate for a l l families having the same number of persons bears no rela t i o n s h i p whatever to need. None of the families studied was able to use t h i s amount as^a budget guide. A budget system i s required by which the cost of food for ind i v i d u a l family members can be calculated, and the food allowance set accordingly. (b) Shelter Allowance. Rents paid by the families i n the present study range from $30.00 to $55.00 per month. Five of the families own or are purchasing t h e i r homes on a mort-gage, and monthly costs range from $6.39 to $68.90. Present s o c i a l assistance rates a l l o t three-person families $40.00 per month for rent and six-person families $55.00 monthly. The grant i s greater than re n t a l expense of family 1, and greater than the expenses of three of the six-person f a m i l i e s . One of these families rents for less than the allowance grant, and i n the case of the other two, family 5 owns i t s home and has expenses for taxes only, while family 10 has low monthly mortgage payments. Both families renting homes paid t h e i r 66 rent costs in f u l l , and the family with monthly mortgage pay-ments met this expense. Neither of the families with mort-gages was able to put money aside for accumulated taxes and insurance payments, and the father of family 5 was, in fact, unaware that he was receiving shelter allowance, and used this grant for other purposes. At the same time, he was con-cerned about meeting his limited shelter expenses and providing needed repairs to the home. In two of the families studied, the social assistance grant corresponds to the monthly shelter costs; both families rent their homes, and both meet this expense regularly. Family 7, however, was unaware of the amount allocated in the monthly grant for shelter, and i s concerned about the high level of rent in relation to income because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered in meeting other very pressing needs. Family 2, on the other hand, was aware of the monthly allocation for rent, and in attempting to budget the allowance appropriately, the mother accepted what was available in housing at this price, but was unable to obtain a home of good quality. The remaining four families have shelter costs in excess of the social assistance grant. Family 4 pays $10.00 for rent, each month drawing from resources needed for other necessities. The other three families pay mortgage costs; one is paying monthly amounts of $50.00 compared with the allowance of $40.00, and the others are f a i l i n g to meet their shelter costs on a regular basis. 67 I n t h e a b s e n c e o f an a d e q u a t e s u p p l y o f good l o w -r e n t a l h o u s i n g , t h e r e w o u l d a p p e a r t o be no s e n s i b l e a l t e r n a -t i v e b u t t o i n c l u d e i n t h e s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e b u d g e t an amount e q u a l t o t h e a c t u a l s h e l t e r c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y f a m i l i e s . (c) Total Resources. A summary p i c t u r e c a n be p r e -s e n t e d b y c o m p a r i n g t h e t o t a l r e s o u r c e s o f t h e t e n f a m i l i e s w i t h t h e minimum s t a n d a r d b u d g e t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r e a c h f a m i l y and w i t h t h e i r a c t u a l m o n t h l y e x p e n d i t u r e s . ( T a b l e 1 3 ) . T a b l e 13 TOTAL RESOURCES AND ESTIMATED NEED OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE - T o t a l A c t u a l Income Minimum B u d g e t P e r c e n t - A v e r a g e F a m i l y on S o c i a l S t a n d a r d D e f i c i t age I n - E x p e n d i -Code No. A s s i s t a n c e B u d g e t (-) o r a d e q u a c y t u r e s p e r (Feb.1962) (1958 p r i c e s ) S u r p l u s (+) Month (1961-62) $ $ $ $ 1 137.40 127.53 * 9.87 none 158.28 2 137.40 142.86 - 5.46 3.7 136.62 3 137.40 160.67 -23.27 14.5 166.92 4 140.00 183.94 -43.94 23.9 158.65 5 218.20 215.05 + 3.15 none 230.44 6 224.00 239.25 -15.25 6.4 239.46 7 216.20 257.59 -41.39 16.0 210.47 8 224.00 267.74 -43.74 16.3 223.77 9 220.00 278.71 -58.71 21. Ov. 324.10 10 226.00 287.33 -61.33 21.3 361.18 The s t a n d a r d b u d g e t e s t i m a t e s o f n e e d r a n g e from $127.53 t o $183.94 f o r t h r e e - p e r s o n f a m i l i e s , and f r o m $215.05 t o $287.33 f o r s i x - p e r s o n f a m i l i e s . T h e r e a r e s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e i n c o m e s o f t h e t e n f a m i l i e s b e c a u s e a l l b u t f a m i l y 4 68 receive family allowance cheques, and i n three instances families had some earnings. The t o t a l income i s greater than the standard budget a l l o c a t i o n for family 1 and family 5. Both are long-term recipients, and actual monthly expenditures exceed both the minimum standard and the t o t a l income from s o c i a l assistance. This i s true for family 1, since the mother does not budget consistently each month.. Because the family had low u t i l i t y costs, and made no clothing purchases 1 during the survey, more money was spent on food. Family 5 exceeds the minimum standard budget figures e s p e c i a l l y for food and transportation. The average monthly expenditure appears to exceed the actual income. This apparent discrepancy i s due to the fact that i n the survey month, t h i s family spent less than the allowed amount for clothing, d i v e r t i n g the difference to food expenses. I t was noted e a r l i e r that poor management of income was evident i n both s i t u a t i o n s . The food costs were i n excess of minimum requirements, i n one case due to lack of knowledge about budget management, and in the other to over-compensation for the monotony of l i f e on such a li m i t e d income. This points out c l e a r l y the importance of providing within the s o c i a l assistance program s k i l l e d help to families with budget-ing problems. Total income on s o c i a l assistance of the remaining eight families i s les s than the minimum standard budget, the extent See Appendix D for d e t a i l s of actual expenditures during the month of the survey. 69 of the deficiency ranging from $5.46 to $43.94 for three-person families and from $15.25 to $61.33 for six-person families. Actual expenditures of three of these families are in line with their incomes, two being long-term recipients, and family 8, as noted several times previously, having a consistent history of marginal livi n g and corresponding deprivation. Clearly, the present resources are not meeting the needs of these families. Families 3, 6, 9 and 10 have actual expenditures above both their present monthly income and the standard budget. However, since previous earnings are largely responsible for this picture, i t is evident that a l l suffer deprivation during the months they are on assistance. Management problems were apparent in families 9 and 10, indi-cating that a standard budget system with a clear explanation of how this budget i s divided could be used as a guide for their monthly expenditures while on social assistance. Spend-ing patterns of families 3 and 6 indicate that they would be able to manage on the minimum budget without personal assistance. Finally, family 4 spends in excess- of i t s monthly income, yet $25.00 less than the budgeted costs of the mini-mum standard of l i v i n g . Since resources are not adequate to meet expenditures, debts are accumulated constantly, and deprivation in a l l areas is acute. In short, present social assistance rates bear l i t t l e relationship to actual need. In turn, the minimum budget 70 standards developed in the Community Chest Study appear to reflect f a i r l y accurately the cost of maintenance in those areas amenable to "expert" computation, but seem to be un-realifctically low where value judgments are involved about the level of l i v i n g appropriate to families on social 1 assistance. Many times over throughout this chapter, i t has been clearly demonstrated that the basic needs of families having the same number of persons require, varying amounts to meet these needs. According to the present system of issuing grants, one family may have i t s needs met quite adequately, while another, with the same number of members, may suffer extreme deprivation. Referring to table 13, Under the present system the range is from 7.7% more than is required to 23.9% inadequacy for three-person families, and from 1.5% more than required to 21.3% inadequacy for six-person families. A true budget d e f i c i t system is the only method of assuring each family an accurate amount to meet a minimum standard of health and decency, and at the same time assure appropriate use of public funds. See pp. 56 and 59. CHAPTER 3 ADEQUACY OF THE ASSISTANCE BUDGET FROM THE RECIPIENTS' VIEWPOINT Concepts of income adequacy are subject to considerable v a r i a t i o n , and t h i s has ah important e f f e c t on r e s u l t i n g estimates of "need" and i t s budgetary costs. It i s no surprise, therefore, to f i n d that one of the major d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the construction of standard budgets i s deciding upon the l e v e l of l i v i n g which the budget i s intended to support. The pre-ceding chapter has brought to l i g h t some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s r e s u l t i n g from the a r b i t r a r y decisions which the Community Chest committee was obliged to make regarding items and l e v e l s of consumption appropriate for families on s o c i a l assistance. The problem would be r e l a t i v e l y simple i f i t were possible to define a minimum standard of l i v i n g exclusively i n terms of the physical necessities of l i f e , but too much i s known nowa-days about the s o c i a l and conventional aspects of need to exclude these from a concept of minimum adequacy. The importance of t h i s r e l a t i v e nature of need i s recognized i n the following quotation from "The C i t y Worker's Family Budget." When i t i s said that the budget recommended i s intended to cover the necessary minimum, 'necessary' i s to be given the common interpretation as includ-ing what w i l l meet the conventional and s o c i a l as well as b i o l o g i c a l needs. I t represents what men commonly expect to enjoy, f e e l that they have l o s t status and are experiencing p r i v a t i o n i f they cannot enjoy, and what they i n s i s t upon having. Such a budget i s not an absolute and unchanging thing. The p r e v a i l i n g judgment of the necessary w i l l vary with the changing values of the 72 community, with the advance of s c i e n t i f i c know-ledge of human needs, with the productive power of the community and therefore what people commonly enjoy and see others enjoy. The present chapter attempts to elucidate the meaning of the necessary minimum i n r e l a t i o n to the s o c i a l and con-ventional needs of families l i v i n g on s o c i a l assistance. The question i s approached i n two ways: a) By comparison of the expenditure patterns of families on s o c i a l assistance with those of self-supporting families, i n order to determine where major economies are practised by people l i v i n g on a marginal budget; b) By analysis of the information supplied by families i n the interviews regarding t h e i r subjective experience of deprivation r e l a t i v e to t h e i r former standard of l i v i n g and the standards enjoyed i n the community generally. The net annual income from a l l sources (earnings, family allowances, s o c i a l assistance, unemployment insurance, pensions, alimony, veterans' pensions, etc.) i s recorded for the ten families included i n the study i n table 14. An average monthly income for the twelve-month period preceding the date of the survey has been arrived at by d i v i d i n g the annual income by twelve. The f i n a l column d e t a i l s the actual income from a l l sources for the month of the survey, February, 1962. Kellogg, L.S., and Bradley, Dorothy S., "The City Worker's Family Budget," Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 66, No. 2 Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor S t a t i s t i c s , February, 1948. 73 T a b l e 14 ANNUAL INCOME, AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOME AND ACTUAL INCOME DURING FEBRUARY, 1962 OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE F a m i l y Code No. . N e t A n n u a l Income 1961-1962 A v e r a g e M o n t h l y Income 1961-1962 A c t u a l F e b r u a r y Income -1962 . 1 $1648.80 $137.40" $137.40 2 $1648.80 $137.40 $137.40 3 $2068.68 $172.39 $137.40 4 $1766.50 $147.21 $140.00 5 $2618.40 $218.20 $218.20 6 $2996.50 $249.70 $224.00 7 $2594.40 $216.20 $216.20 8 $2749.68 $229.14 $224.00 9 $3851.00 $320.92 $220.00 10 $3942.00 $328.50 $226.00 A v e r a g e o f 10 f a m i l i e s $2588.47 $215.70 $188.06" The a v e r a g e m o n t h l y income o f t h e t e n f a m i l i e s d u r i n g t h e y e a r p r e c e d i n g t h e s u r v e y was $215.70, and w h i l e on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g F e b r u a r y , 1962, $188.06. The g r o u p o f s e l f -s u p p o r t i n g f a m i l i e s s e l e c t e d f o r p u r p o s e s o f c o m p a r i n g c o n -s u m p t i o n and e x p e n d i t u r e p a t t e r n s i s t h e l o w e s t income g r o u p i n c l u d e d i n t h e D o m i n i o n B u r e a u o f S t a t i s t i c s sample s u r v e y 1 o f c i t y f a m i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s , 1957. The a n n u a l incomes o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p r a n g e f r o m $2500 t o $3499, w h i c h most c l o s e l y a p p r o x i m a t e s t h e income l e v e l o f t h e t e n f a m i l i e s on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . D o m i n i o n B u r e a u o f S t a t i s t i c s , C i t y F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e  1957, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , J a n u a r y , 1961. 74 Table 15 compares the proportion of income expended on the various major items of consumption by the ten fami-l i e s i n the sample with the t y p i c a l expenditure patterns of self-supporting families whose incomes range from $2500 to $3499. It should be noted that the data for families 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 r e f l e c t patterns of expenditure which have been established over a period of two years or more, while l i v i n g on a marginal income (the long-term r e c i p i e n t s ) , while the data for the short-term families, 3, 6, 8,-9 and 10 r e f l e c t a combination of patterns while on assistance and while self-supporting. The figures recorded are the estimates made by the families themselves. Moreover, some proportional adjust-ments have been made since February was a short month. As a re s u l t , the items do not t o t a l one hundred. 75 T a b l e 15 PROPORTION OF INCOME EXPENDED ON DIFFERENT ITEMS OF CONSUMPTION BY TEN FAMILIES IN SAMPLE COMPARED WITH INCOME ALLOCATION OF SELF-SUPPORTING FAMILIES C a t e g o r i e s F a m i l y Code No. D.B. S t a t i s t i c s A v e r a a e * 1 2 3 4 5 F o o d 57.0 34.3 40.1 42.9 66.5 30.7 H o u s i n g 33.6 40.1 52.6 46.9 12.4 20.0 H o u s e h o l d O p e r a t i o n 5.8 5.6 7.3 2.7 4.7 4.2 C l o t h i n g 11.7 6.5 1.7 4.1 11.5 8.8 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 3.6 0.3 5.2 - 7.8 7.1 P e r s o n a l C a r e 2.2 1.9 2.2 3.4 1.8 2.0 R e c r e a t i o n 1.5 3.7 - 4.2 0.1 3.4 E d u c a t i o n and R e a d i n g 0.1 - 1.7 1.4 - 1.5 T e x t i l e s and F u r n i s h i n g s - 6.7 - - - 5.3 M e d i c a l - - 5.1 - - 4.7 T o b a c c o and A l c o h o l - - 1.8 2.6 - 4.0 S e c u r i t y I n s u r a n c e - - - - - 3.2 O t h e r - - - - - 0.9 T o t a l 115.5 99.1 117.7 108.2 104.8 95.8 *The p e r c e n t a g e s q u o t e d i n t h i s column r e p r e s e n t t h e com-b i n e d a v e r a g e e x p e n d i t u r e s o f s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g f a m i l i e s w i t h a n n u a l i ncomes between (a) $2500 t o $2999 and (b) $3,000 t o $3499 as r e p o r t e d i n t h e D o m i n i o n B u r e a u o f S t a t i s t i c s , C i t y F a m i l y  E x p e n d i t u r e 1957. P; 33. Some i t e m s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s t u d y were n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s o f t h e f a m i l i e s i n t h e sample, t h u s h a v e b e e n d e l e t e d i n t h i s c o l u m n . 76 TABLE 15 (continued) Categories Family Code No. D.B.S. 6 2 8 9 10 Average Food 30.8 41.7 29.0 42.7 40.1 30.7 Housing 34.2 39.8 31.7 38.2 24.5 20.0 Household Operation 7.9 2.7 6.7 6.8 6.0 4.2 Clothing 8.0 7.4 5.2 12.8 8.9 8.8 Transportation 8.8 - 8.0 7.5 9.4 7.1 Personal Care 3.5 0.5 1.7 1.6 4.3 2.0 Recreation 2.4 3.3 2.6 1.6 3.7 3.4 Education and Reading 0.1 0.9 1.3 0.6 4.0 1.5 Texti l e s and Furnishings 2.8 - 0.4 3.7 1.8 5.3 Medical 2.4 - 7.4 6.8 3.7 4.7 Tobacco and Alcohol 2.7 1.0 0.9 4.1 3.7 4.0 Security Insurance - - 2.5 - - 3.2 Other - - - 3.2 5.0 0.9 Total 103.6 97.3 97.4 129.6 115.1 95.8 77 Food Eight out of the ten families in the sample expended between 29% and 43% of their incomes on food. This compares with an average of 30.7% for self-supporting families with incomes between $2500 and $3499 in 1957. Family 1, with a different cultural background and value system, gives high priority to food by allocating 57% of i t s income to that category. Family 5, under quite different circumstances, allocated 66.5% of i t s income to food. This family states quite emphatically that satisfaction must derive from some place, and has found that this i s the most practical area where i t can be had. Minimal shelter costs have made i t possible for this family where i t might not be for others. Apart from these two families, who are reasonably satisfied with their diets, there is general dissatisfaction in the group with the food which the restricted income pro-vides. The dissatisfaction; derives in every instance from comparison with former standards of food consumption and observation of what appears to be enjoyed in the community at large. Three of the short-term families had established re-serve supplies of food previous to coming on assistance. Two of these families, 6 and 8, by supplementing the portion of their allowance allocated to food with these supplies, are able to keep the percentage of income allocated to this item very close to, or even below the Canadian average, i.e. 30.8% 78 and 29.0% respectively. In neither case, however, did the families f e e l that t h e i r food habits were near t h e i r custom-ary standard of l i v i n g , but they did f e e l that they were quite adequate for basic n u t r i t i o n . Family 10 also had large re-serve supplies, and allocated 40.1% of i t s income to food. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that t h i s family was experiencing consider-able d i f f i c u l t y i n adjusting to i t s changed economic status. Apparently, i t s members were seeking to maintain previous food habits. There was the added d i f f i c u l t y of providing food for a family of teen-agers. The remaining families allocated more money to food than did the average Canadian family. They found t h i s absolutely necessary i f they were to meet even t h e i r minimum food requirements. Family 2 allocated only 34.3% since the demands for food i n a family with very young children are much l e s s than i n a family with older children. Families 4 and 7, both long-term families, found they could not approach t h e i r former standard of l i v i n g i n t h i s area, and complained b i t t e r l y of deprivation. Information obtained i n the interviews with the^fami-l i e s confirmed the important psychological implications which food has for people, but i t i s noteworthy that only one family complained of being unable to s a t i s f y the children's basic n u t r i t i o n a l needs. Housing The proportion of income allocated to housing by the ten families, with one notable exception, ranged between 79 24.5% and 52.6%. This compares with the 20.0% allocated by the average Canadian family. The one exception was family 5, which spent only 2.4% for housing. This was possible because this family owns i t s home, pays very low taxes, and makes no repairs or improvements whatever. This survey supports the findings of other studies to the e f f e c t that s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with housing i s mainly the product of what has been experienced i n the past, coupled with a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of aspiration i n the present. Family 1, with a one-room home, was quite s a t i s f i e d . The accommodation i t had i n the past had not been as good. Family 2, while l i v i n g i n a home that f a l l s f ar short of what the mother would l i k e , accepts t h i s s i t u a t i o n as un-avoidable i n the present economic condition. Family 6 finds i t s e l f i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n as far as accommodation i s con-cerned. I t can, however, look to a better future, since there i s a wage earner i n t h i s family, f o r whom employment prospects are r e l a t i v e l y good. Families 4 and 7 are a l i k e i n many respects. They are both long-term families with modern, comfortable homes, which they f e e l are adequate i n a l l respects. Both have enjoyed a r e l a t i v e l y good standard of l i v i n g i n the past, and the psychological importance to them of maintaining t h i s standard i s obvious. To them the home i s the p r i n c i p a l source of s e l f -respect and s o c i a l status, r e a l or imagined. At the same time, they complain of the costs of maintaining t h e i r homes and the 80 debts which are accumulating. Family 4 acknowledges that a move to cheaper accommodation w i l l be necessary to be able to l i v e within the l i m i t e d budget, but family 7 plans to re-tai n i t s present home. Families 9 and 5 are purchasing t h e i r homes, and both have allowed t h e i r houses to deteriorate to the point where the members are extremely ,ashamed of t h e i r condition, r e l a t i v e to community standards and t h e i r own standards. Without a substantial increase in income, i t w i l l be impossible for them to carry out the necessary repairs and maintenance. Families 3, 8 and 10 are a l l short-term families, and they each hold t h e i r home on a mortgage. Compared with pre-vious accommodation, these families describe t h e i r present homes as equal or better. The mother of family 3 has high standards deriving from a middle-class family background. To maintain her own self-respect and provide a home which she feels i s "adequate" for her children, she borrowed f i v e hundred d o l l a r s from her parents to purchase her present home. Her education, age, "and vocational q u a l i f i c a t i o n s make i t seem un l i k e l y that she w i l l be economically dependent for very long, so that the maintenance of the home should not prove an insurmountable burden. Family 6 has very r e a l i s t i c a l l y adjusted i t s standard of l i v i n g to the l e v e l of l i v i n g d i c t a -ted by i t s prolonged existence on a marginal income. I t counts i t s e l f fortunate to be able to ret a i n i t s home i n these c i r -cumstances. Family 10, which has recently been reduced from 81 a comparatively high standard of l i v i n g to dependency due to i l l n e s s , has an a t t r a c t i v e home, with adequate bedroom space to accommodate i t s teen-age family. I t i s exceedingly d i f f i c u l t for t h i s family to conceive that i t w i l l ever be i n a p o s i t i o n where ~ i t i s unable to preserve the home i n the present good condition. A very low mortgage payment ($37.25), made possible through purchase under a Department of Veterans A f f a i r s program, makes t h i s a reasonable expectation. With the exception of family 10, a l l families noted a lack of bedroom space. Three-person families who have only two bedrooms are most concerned. This need becomes most acute when there are teen-agers i n the family. Family 9 has a shack, without heat,, i n i t s backyard, which provides bedroom space for the teen-age children. The geographical lo c a t i o n i n every instance has added a p o s i t i v e element to the feelings of the families about t h e i r present homes. They l i k e the community and the neighbourhood in which they l i v e . Even those with unemployed wage earners i n the family state that were they employed i n the Vancouver or New Westminster area, they would re t a i n t h e i r present home and commute d a i l y . Eight families l i v e at distances of from two to nine miles from .the shopping centre of the municipality. The absence of_markedly superior houses i n the neighbourhood saves the families on s o c i a l assistance from the d i s t r e s s of invidious comparison. 82 Although the amounts ac t u a l l y spent on " u t i l i t i e s " by families i n the sample show a close correspondence with mini-mum budget estimates, there i s considerable evidence that t h i s i s achieved only by dint of major economies. Three fami-l i e s close portions of t h e i r homes during the winter season, to economize on heat. Famifiry 6 maintains room temperature at an "uncomfortable" l e v e l during the daytime, and turns the heat o f f completely at night. A stove heated by sawdust, o i l or wood serves a threefold function i n most homes. I t i s not a convenient appliance, but i t does serve a p r a c t i c a l and economical purpose. With the exception of family 1, a l l the families sur-veyed occupy single family dwellings. This i s a goal to which many Canadian families aspire, but many f a i l to achieve. I t seems safe to assume that the average c i t y family l i v i n g on an assistance allowance would not be able to enjoy t h i s amenity. Many of the homes have gardens, and t h i s i s an added resource for food. The freedom provided the children, the absence of t r a f f i c hazards, are other advantages available to the fami-l i e s i n the sample, but denied to most urban families l i v i n g on s o c i a l assistance. Clothing No area of l i v i n g i s so conducive to giving a true perspective of what i t means to l i v e on a r e s t r i c t e d budget as t h i s one. Those persons who had enjoyed a r e l a t i v e l y high standard of l i v i n g , and whose standard of l i v i n g had not 83 deteriorated significantly, found the need to economize and do without in this area a source of deep concern. Theresa MeMahon, writing in 1925> stated that: "one cannot depart widely from habits of consumption of a community by embracing lower standards of living with-out encouraging social ostracism. . . . The kind of clothing people wear is generally accepted as a kind of social valuation."1 This observation is confirmed by the findings of the present study. One mother tells of her daughter's painful experience in discovering that a dress purchased at a rummage sale had previously belonged to a g i r l in her class at school, a circumstance which the previous owner publicly announced. One couple are concerned about being shunned by relatives because they lack clothing suitable for certain social occasions. The families in the sample allocate from 1-7$ to 12.8$ of their incomes to clothing, while the average Canadian family allocates 8.8$. To purchase an equivalent quantity of clothing, the assistance family would have to assign approximately 10$ of its income to this purpose. If this cannot be arranged, then in a society which places a high value on clothing, one might assume that social pressures of some nature will emerge. Whether or not they will be significant to the person concerned will depend entirely on his conception of the situation. Various factors intervene to make the situation some-what different for each family. Families 3 and 8 receive the "TYIcMahon, Theresa, Social and Economic Standards of living, New York, D.C. Heath and Co., 1925, p. 75. 84 majority of t h e i r clothing from r e l a t i v e s . Family 1 has had to purchase a complete new wardrobe since none of the family members had adequate clothing when they came on assistance one year ago. Family 5, with minimal shelter costs, has been able to use part of i t s income for clothing,, and hence averages 11.5% i n t h i s area. Families 6, 8, 9 and 10, a l l short-term families, purchased clothing supplies while they were s e l f -supporting, and t h e i r wardrobes are adequate for mostof t h e i r present needs. There was not one family which considered i t s present clothing supply adequate for the standard considered d e s i r -able before coming on assistance. These circumstances have changed, however. Economic dependency has been accompanied by diminishing opportunities for s o c i a l intercourse. Short-term families f e e l that the clothing purchased previous to becoming economically dependent i s reasonably adequate for those situations i n which they do f i n d themselves. Long-term families do not f e e l t h i s way. The father i n one family has grown resigned, has l o s t any self-respect that he might have had, and consequently appears i n d i f f e r e n t to s o c i a l standards. A l l parents exhibit a need to uphold community c l o t h -ing standards for t h e i r school-age children who receive f i r s t p r i o r i t y i n every family. However, t h i s becomes a problem of major i n t e n s i t y i n homes where there are teen-agers. Their standards are high and demanding. The mother of family 4 i s 85 concerned about the effect on her teen-age son of deprivation in this area. His friends are able to maintain standards which he i s unable to attain. Family 10, in which a l l the children are teen-agers, anticipates serious d i f f i c u l t i e s . This family has always enjoyed a relatively high standard of living, which is now directly threatened by i t s dependent status. Present clothing supplies are deteriorating very rapidly, and the limited budget is l i k e l y to have an adverse effect on children's sense of worth and their social status with the peer group. In turn, this may well undermine present harmonious family relationships and social functioning. One must observe again the geographic location in which these families reside as a factor of significance. While the teen-age group is sufficiently exposed to Vancouver clothing standards to want to maintain them, adults are in many respects absolved from this necessity. For the eight families who live away from the municipal centre there exists a general atmos-phere which is rural and casual. As a result, there is l i t t l e need for younger children and adults to maintain r i g i d cloth-ing standards. Household Operations Project families spent amounts varying.from 2.7% to 7.9% of their income on this item of the budget. With the exception of the two families who both allocated 2.7%, a l l the families in the sample spent more-than the 4.2% spent by the average Canadian family. One of these two families did 86 n o t h a v e a phone, a l t h o u g h t h e y f e l t t h e y n e e ded one, w h i l e t h e o t h e r f a m i l y s i m p l y d i d n o t have any money l e f t o v e r f o r t h i s i t e m o f e x p e n d i t u r e . F a m i l i e s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t t h e i t e m s i n c l u d e d "under ' h o u s e h o l d o p e r a t i o n s ' ( t e l e p h o n e , s t a t i o n e r y , p o s t a g e , l a u n d r y , s o a p s , b l e a c h e s , s t a r c h , s c o u r i n g powder and p a d s , p o l i s h e s , f l o o r wax, p a p e r s u p p l i e s , e t c . ( ) were i m p o r t a n t t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f any h o u s e h o l d and c o u l d n o t be d i s p e n s e d w i t h , no m a t t e r how s m a l l t h e s p e n d i n g b u d g e t . A u t o m o b i l e and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Among t h e f a m i l i e s s t u d i e d , i n e v e r y i n s t a n c e e x c e p t one, p o s s e s s i o n o f an a u t o m o b i l e r a i s e d t h e amount o f income a l l o c a t e d f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n above t h e a v e r a g e f o r s e l f -s u p p o r t i n g f a m i l i e s . T h i s d e m o n s t r a t e s c l e a r l y t h a t f o r b o t h l o n g - t e r m and s h o r t - t e r m r e c i p i e n t s t h e a u t o m o b i l e r e t a i n s h i g h p r i o r i t y i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f a r e s t r i c t e d i n c o m e . The e x c e p t i o n t o t h e p a t t e r n a p p e a r s i n f a m i l y 3, t h e o n l y o ne-p a r e n t f a m i l y w h i c h owns and o p e r a t e s an a u t o m o b i l e . S i n c e t h i s f a m i l y l i v e s i n town, t h e c a r i s n o t r e q u i r e d f o r s h o p -p i n g , b u t s e r v e s t o k e e p t h e f a m i l y i n t o u c h w i t h f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s who a r e n o t w i t h i n w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e . The c a r i s a s m a l l f o r e i g n model w h i c h i s e c o n o m i c a l t o o p e r a t e . The a u t o m o b i l e a p p e a r s i m p o r t a n t t o t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f a l l t h e s e f a m i l i e s . E m p l o y a b l e f a t h e r s s e a r c h f o r work, r e -p o r t p e r i o d i c a l l y t o t h e employment o f f i c e (a f i f t y - m i l e r o u n d t r i p ) a s r e q u i r e d b y s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e r e g u l a t i o n s , and make 87 regular trips to the shopping d i s t r i c t to procure various goods and services. The father of family 10, who is unem-ployable for health reasons, makes one or two round trips to Vancouver (eighty miles) each week for medical treatment pro£ vided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The expenses thus incurred are significant for people on restricted in-comes . In a society which is increasingly impersonal, super-f i c i a l and mobile, the automobile has gained increasing psycho-logical significance. It can convey a sense of status and, perhaps more important, a sense of independence. These fami-l i e s , who feel uncomfortable and unworthy because of economic dependency, find that their automobiles are a source of psychological support. The fatherless families presently without automobiles, had a l l anjoyed this amenity while the fathers were home. They find now that the isolation result-ing from their i n a b i l i t y to see friends and relatives as they did before is both demoralizing and depressing. It exacer-bates their feelings of inadequacy and lack of worth. This experience is shared to some extent by those families which own cars but, because of the limited income, can use them only for essential purposes. Personal Care Families of the study allocate a relatively constant portion of their income to this area. It ranged from 0.5% to 4.3%, as compared with the Canadian average of 2.0% for 88 minimum essentials such as toothpaste, t o i l e t and shaving soap, home hair preparations, razor blades, sanitary supplies, and paper tissues. Economy was practised through the minimal use of "cosmetics and by discontinuing beauty parlor care for women and barber shop care for the men. Giving up these luxuries is not considered a hardship by social assistance families because social activities requiring such standards are restricted. Teen-age g i r l s and boys are generally per-mitted beauty parlor and barber shop care of a restricted nature. For example, family 10 which spent 4.3% of i t s in-come in this area, allocates the greater proportion to such care for i t s three teen-agers. Recreation A review of expenditures in this area immediately suggests that this i s an insignificant area of living for project families. They allocated from 0.0% to 4.2% of their income to recreation as compared with 3.4% by the average Canadian family. Interviews revealed that the restriction i s due to lack of funds. In other words, recreation is low on j. the pr i o r i t y l i s t in comparison to other areas of l i v i n g . Television sets, children's toys and pets are the major items in this category for which project families consider expendi-tures necessary. The older children in some cases are also permitted to attend movies occasionally. Most parents are not concerned that their own recrea-tional a c t i v i t i e s have been curtailed. The principal concern 89 is that the children have equal opportunities with other children of the community. They are not satisfied that they have achieved this goal and the children are sensitive to their lowered social status. The restricted use of the auto-mobile as a medium of family pleasure was often cited as a source of privation in relation to previous habits and pre-sent community standards. Education and Reading, Textiles and Furnishings. Tobacco and  Alcohol, and Other While these are a l l major categories to which Canadian families allocate their income, none are significantly important in social assistance budgets. Of those families who allocated money to textiles and furnishings, a l l but one were short-term recipients and these expenditures were incurred before they came on assistance. The exception was family 2 who is purchasing a_ second-hand washing machine. The $9.00 monthly payments for this machine mean that the mother allocates a greater proportion of her income (6.7%) to this category than does the average Canadian family (5.3%). Long-term recipients and families who had a marginal existence before coming on assistance are very conscious of textile and furnishing needs, but are unable to improve the situation. As the children are receiving free education and equal opportunities with other children in schools, the parents are not concerned about schooling. Some families would like the children to have special lessons in music or dancing, but only 90 as their economic circumstances w i l l permit. These are desires which derive from community standards rather than needs emanating from previous standards of l i v i n g . Although nearly a l l families stated they would like a daily newspaper, none is able to afford one continuously. Radios and television sets are common and considered suitable alternatives. However, a l l families, with the exception of two, required repairs to one or both of these items. Eight of the ten families purchase tobacco. None spends any of their income on alcohol. Generally, they have restricted the amount of smoking and no one complains about the need to economize in this area. Four families stated that prior to coming on social assistance they had enjoyed having alcohol on certain occasions. Again, none complained about giving up alcohol per se, but many spoke of the loss of social relation-ships involved. Most families with older children consider personal allowances to the children to be an important expense and do not like to curtail the allowance while receiving social assistance. Family 10, seeking to function at previous levels in most respects, continues to pay regular allowances to the children; other fiunilies continue allowances but on a restricted basis. While the average Canadian family allocates 3.2% of i t s income to a security category which includes personal insurance and annuities, only one project family allowa money for this 91 purpose. Family 8 continues to maintain a personal insurance p o l i c y , but has reduced the amount of insurance by almost one-_ h a l f . None of the other families expressed concern about not having insurance coverage. I t did not constitute an expendi-ture category under pre-assistance l e v e l s of l i v i n g , so there i s no discrepancy between the former standard and the present l e v e l of l i v i n g created by t h e i r dependency status. - Health Services Seven of the project families have complete medical coverage i n conjunction with the s o c i a l assistance program including drugs, medical, dental and hospital services. They are unanimously gr a t e f u l for t h i s very adequate cover-age. The knowledge that t h e i r medical needs would be uncon-d i t i o n a l l y attended to was a v e r i t a b l e blessing i n a l i f e of inse c u r i t y and deprivation. For those families who have be-come economically dependent because of i l l health, the medi-cal coverage i s considered a major r e h a b i l i t a t i v e feature of the s o c i a l assistance program. These families appeared to use t h e i r medical coverage appropriately without requesting services beyond a reason-able l e v e l . The mother of family 4 had serious dental pro-blems but was not aware that coverage includes dental services. For some of the families, the comprehensive health program was a new experience. Family 1 had l i t t l e medical attention while l i v i n g on the Indian reservation. The children suffered from malnutrition and the mother had developed serious 92 dental problems. Now these problems are receiving medical attention. Family 5, whose wage-earner became seriously i l l while employed, l i v e d on unemployment insurance benefits supplemented by periodic earnings from 1953 to 1959. As a r e s u l t of the i l l n e s s , substantial medical expenses accumulated and remain outstanding to t h i s day, and the family i s quite concerned about t h i s since court action i s pending. Since coming on s o c i a l assistance in 1959, the entire family's health has improved markedly as a r e s u l t of the excellent health services. Were i t not for his age and the obsolescence of his s k i l l s , t h i s man's improved health would probably i n -crease h i s employment p o s s i b i l i t i e s considerably. Family 10 i s r e l i e v e d to know that medical expenses need not be a source of concern while f i n a n c i a l l y dependent. In the past, t h i s family has always paid medical expenses at the time these were incurred. The father has now become unemployed due to the re a c t i v a t i o n of a war i n j u r y . While he i s e l i g i b l e ( f o r com-prehensive medical coverage from the Department of Veterans A f f a i r s , h i s family i s not covered under the same program. The l e v e l of service has remained the same, but the family i s relieve d of worry about future i l l n e s s of the mother and children. The remaining families are those without a father i n the home. In every instance, they state that the medical coverage formerly provided by t h e i r husbands was equal to that now available to them. 93 There i s a sharp contrast apparent i n the medical s i t u a t i o n for the remaining three families who are not pro-vided with medical coverage by the s o c i a l assistance program. Two of these families have no medical coverage whatever. The t h i r d c a r r i e s private medical insurance; however, i t i s by no means a complete coverage. A l l three families are de-p r i v i n g themselves of needed medical care. They f e e l that they must postpone medical attention u n t i l such time as they are once again s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and f i n a n c i a l l y capable of paying. Family 6 always carried private insurance coverage while f i n a n c i a l l y independent. This i s a young family who has experienced r e l a t i v e l y few medical problems. The father i s highly optimistic that employment w i l l soon Be found and, on the basis of past income l e v e l s , feels he would then have no d i f f i c u l t y paying o f f any medical expenses incurred while on assistance. The entire family has serious dental problems which are being ignored u n t i l employment i s found. Family 8 has private insurance coverage for accident, surgery and i l l -ness requiring h o s p i t a l confinement. In the past year, the family has incurred $150 i n debts for health services not covered by the plan and present health problems are of deep concern. For two years, the mother has had an ear i n f e c t i o n with accompanying serious head pains; the eighteen-month old daughter has a misshapen foot which should have immediate orthopaedic attention; the father has v i s u a l d i f f i c u l t i e s and the entire family has major dental problems. Both parents 94 f e e l that health problems must be ignored and treatment post-poned u n t i l they are once again s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . Family 9 has not had medical coverage of any nature for f i v e years. At the present time, outstanding debts for drugs, medical and dental services amount to $265.00. The parents state that they simply cannot permit anyone i n t h e i r family to become i l l u n t i l they are once again economically independent. The average Canadian family within the income range from $2500 to $3500 allocates 4.7% of the income to health services. This i s an average of $12.58 each month which i s more than enough to purchase comprehensive medical coverage under most private prepayment plans. Medical care i s ob-vio u s l y an important and necessary expenditure for Canadians. In those situations where medical coverage i s provided through the Department of S o c i a l Welfare, e s s e n t i a l needs are met and coverage i s a constructive support to the f a m i l i e s . It serves not to increase dependency but to enhance family strengths. Those families who are deprived of medical coverage are threatened, insecure and anxious. Debts This study has revealed that i n those cases where the families maintain a standard of l i v i n g superior to what the assistance budget a c t u a l l y permits, debts were accumulated. Nine out of ten families have accumulated debts of s i g n i f i c a n t amounts. While i t i s not unusual i n our society to f i n d 95 families with an excess of expenditures over income, i t i s customary to fin d that these debts are incurred for commodi-t i e s such as furniture, automobile, appliances, or a home. This was not found to be generally true of the ten families i n the sample. With the exception of families 1. and 7, debts ranged from $108 to $990. Family 1 has incurred no debts since com-ing on assistance because the allowance has been adequate to provide a l e v e l of l i v i n g equal to, i f not better than the former standard. Family 7 was reluctant to talk about i t s debts, although at one point the father did mention an out-standing court order for $1900.00. The remaining families, while incurring debts for a variety of reasons, did so p r i -marily i n basic areas of l i v i n g : clothing, fuel o i l , dental care, milk, rent, e l e c t r i c i t y , taxes, x-rays, water, medical care, drugs, repairs to automobile and so on. Short-term as well as long-term families have incurred debts since coming on assistance. Some had debts p r i o r to becoming economically dependent, so small payments are now made whenever i t i s possible to avoid or delay foreclosure. Two families are i n -volved i n court cases for non-payment of accounts incurred p r i o r to coming on assistance. One other family reported that l e g a l action i s being threatened at the present time. Although a l l these families stated e x p l i c i t l y that they want to avoid incurring new debts, they have found themselves unable to do so i n many instances. The a r t i c l e s l i s t e d above 96 for which they have incurred debts are e s s e n t i a l to t h e i r very existence. Yet, although these are e s s e n t i a l , the families have not been able to pay for them. Summary — C e r t a i n categories of expenditure are found to have f i r s t p r i o r i t y for nearly a l l the families included i n the study, while the remaining categories become much more a matter of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n values, standards and available resources. Physiological needs which are g r a t i -f i e d by adequate n u t r i t i o n , housing, and clothing tend to be given p r i o r i t y since s u r v i v a l i s the primary concern of any human being. Transportation also emerges as an important category, not only because of i t s u t i l i t y but also because i t has important psychological implications. The balance of family income i s allocated to the same areas of l i v i n g which are important to the average Canadian - family, but i n a much less consistent manner—recreation, r e a d i n g t o b a c c o , education, t e x t i l e s , furniture, children's allowances and s e c u r i t y . Compared with a Canadian average of 2 3 % of income for these combined categories, the families i n the study alloc a t e from 0.1% to 17.2% of t h e i r income. Actually, only two families (9 and 10) spend more than 1 0 % on these items and i t i s noteworthy that much of the expendi-ture occurred during that portion of the base year during which they were self-supporting. With the possible exception of tobacco and recreation, the goods and services covered by 97 these categories are those eliminated when income is restricted. In a rural setting such as that in which this project was conducted, privation in these areas can be con-veniently concealed. The missing items become socially and conventionally insignificant. They can be dispensed with without e l i c i t i n g fear of social ostracism or psychological duress. Where there are special circumstances such as low mortgage payments, reserve food supplies, or extensive gifts of clothing, the amounts which would normally be allocated to that particular area have been applied elsewhere to bring another area closer to a desired standard of l i v i n g . Quantity and quality, which the more adequate income of the avecage Canadian family provides, are generally not available to families l i v i n g on an assistance budget. Most of the families in the study had enjoyed a more generous standard of livi n g when they were employed, when the parents were s t i l l l i v i n g together, or when they were healthy. They now see the majority of others who liv e in their community enjoying such a standard. They would like i t again for themselves, but for reasons beyond their control they cannot have i t . The feelings which the families have about l i f e on an assistance budget are discussed in the following chapter. CHAPTER 4 FAMILY EXPERIENCES, ATTITUDES AND ADJUSTMENT The conditions and exigencies which made i t necessary for the families i n the sample to request s o c i a l assistance have been described i n Chapter 1. None chose to be econo-mically dependent. Unemployment, absence of the father from the home, and i l l n e s s were the major p r e c i p i t a t i n g causes. Other associated conditions contributing to dependency are evident i n the group; among these are personal inadequacies, problems of maladjustment, age and lack of education and employment s k i l l s . Whatever the immediate causes of economic dependency, i t i s clear that the response of each family to t h i s experience w i l l be influenced by a combination of per-sonal and environmental factors, the complexity of which defies adequate consideration within the scope of the present study. Without attempting a comprehensive psychosocial .diagnosis for each family i n the sample, the present chapter explores the attitudes of the family to applying for assistance, the nature of t h e i r experience while i n receipt of i t , and the impressions they f e e l others have of the program and, i n turn, of themselves as r e c i p i e n t s . The purpose of t h i s exploration i s to i d e n t i f y those factors associated with the program which manifestly f a c i l i t a t e or frustrate the eventual r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the families to 99 self-support, with special reference to the e f f e c t of budget 1 inadequacies on t h i s outcome. Attitude Towards the S o c i a l Assistance Program The application for f i n a n c i a l assistance was accom-panied by a sense of shame, on the part of the s i x families with fathers i n the home as well as for three of the families without fathers. The feelings were not the r e s u l t of any invidious treatment received from o f f i c i a l s at the So c i a l Welfare Office but sprang from a pervasive sense that to be economically dependent was "bad" or "wrong". The i n t e n s i t y of the feelings varied from deep humilia-ti o n to reluctance.. The Indian mother alone experienced a sense of happy r e l i e f , although at the same time she was bewildered and unable to understand properly. Before t h i s , she had t r i e d to place her children for adoption when she rea l i z e d that she was unable to care for them adequately. She had been t o l d of the s o c i a l assistance program and was encouraged to leave the reservation i n order to esta b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t y . Most families were completely destitute before making applica t i o n . Those with resources were unable to provide for t h e i r basic needs and applied for s o c i a l a s s i s t -ance to supplement l i m i t e d incomes. •'•An attempt i s made i n Appendix J to present some tentative assessment, based on the interviewers' impressions of the families, of the nature of the personal factors associated with dependency and the implications for re-h a b i l i t a t i o n . 100 Some families knew of the program from e a r l i e r re-quests for help with problems of maladjustment—i.e. marriage problems, placement of children, etc. Others were advsied to apply by friends, doctors, lawyers and members of the clergy. Attitudes of the families changed somewhat a f t e r be-coming dependent upon s o c i a l assistance. Three of the father-less families became more secure and were able to cope with t h e i r s i t u a t i o n s . Families whose grants were grossly insuf-f i c i e n t to meet t h e i r needs became depressed and b i t t e r . The short-term recipients appeared to have modified t h e i r prejudices about families who remained dependent for any length of time. They were more i n c l i n e d to consider the r e a l i s t i c needs of recipients rather than emphasize the personal shortcomings responsible for the dependency. The majority of the families expressed bitterness toward malingerers and families who misused the allowance, but none had any first-hand knowledge of such s i t u a t i o n s . This appeared to be the public image of s o c i a l assistance recipients which the families interviewed applied i n turn to "other" s o c i a l assistance r e c i p i e n t s . Problems of Adjustment There are many problems which the families attribute s p e c i f i c a l l y to l i f e on s o c i a l assistance Anxieties and uncertainties i m p l i c i t i n t h e i r circumstances have created feelings of f r u s t r a t i o n and i r r i t a b i l i t y which disrupt 101 .personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . On the other hand, i n one case adversity seems to have strengthened the family's capacity for resourceful planning. Family 8 derives extensive s a t i s -faction from simple pleasures l i k e hiking, gardening and family games and i s attempting to improve i t s economic po s i t i o n by acquiring and improving old homes to r e - s e l l . Among the short term recipients, those who have had noticeably higher l e v e l s of l i v i n g i n the past are extremely sensitive to considerations of s o c i a l status. Thus, they attempt to allocate t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d resources to areas of l i v i n g which are s o c i a l l y important i n addition to providing the basic physiological e s s e n t i a l s . This became a very f r u s t r a t i n g experience. Some of the families who have been i n receipt of s o c i a l assistance for a long period of time are aware of a loss of incentive and i n i t i a t i v e compared with what they had at one time. This derives from lack of needed supplementary services as well as the l i v i n g conditions of a r e s t r i c t e d budget. Family 4 exemplifies t h i s s i t u a t i o n dramatically - i The mother has never been able to accept the fact that the separation from her husband inevitably necessitates adapta-tion to new patterns of l i v i n g . With casework services, her adjustment might have improved. These have never been pro-vided and the f r u s t r a t i o n , h o s t i l i t y , resentment and economic pr i v a t i o n which has characterized t h i s family's pattern of functioning for the past six years i s r e f l e c t e d in the 102 personality and functioning of the two children. The nineteen-year old daughter declares adamantly that she does not wish to work. She has reconciled h e r s e l f to a l i f e of parasitism. She has neither self-respect nor respect for others. Her closest friends are. presently incarcerated i n correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s . The sixteen-year old son i s desperately s t r i v i n g to maintain a l e v e l of l i v i n g such as h i s friends are able to have and he i s b i t t e r l y frustrated in h i s e f f o r t s to do so. He plans to leave school t h i s year and become self-supporting. He w i l l enter untrained into a complex i n d u s t r i a l world which requires specialized s k i l l s and may become, in turn, dependent at some future date. The teen-age children face special problems. The s o c i a l standard set by'their peer groups cannot be maintained on the s o c i a l assistance grant. They are f e a r f u l of being rejected because of t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to maintain clothing standards or p a r t i c i p a t e i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . The parents are making every possible e f f o r t to c u r t a i l expenses i n other areas of l i v i n g i n order to provide for some of the s o c i a l needs of these children. Although the demands of younger children are not as taxing, every family with a school-aged c h i l d expressed concern l e s t he be treated i n any way as a 'welfare c h i l d ' . In turn, they are careful to clothe and groom the children respectably and i n general were s a t i s f i e d with the children's adjustments i n school and peer r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 103 Parents with young children do not seem to have u n r e a l i s t i c demands for s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Only those parents who had enjoyed s o c i a l and recreational a c t i v i t i e s while s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t f e e l the pr i v a t i o n i n t h i s area. Six families reported that the relationships with friends, neighbours and r e l a t i v e s had been disrupted since becoming dependent. Their low income was deemed responsible for t h i s , not any overt stigma attached to t h e i r s o c i a l status. They do not have appropriate clothing or the f i n a n c i a l resources to p a r t i c i p a t e i n community or s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Conse-quently, they are l e f t without the r e s u l t i n g associations. Even s o c i a l v i s i t s are c u r t a i l e d since common interests have diminished. They experience the s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and mono-tony of l i v i n g on a r e s t r i c t e d income. Generally, the recipients were ashamed of being de-pendent and attempted to hide the fac t from persons who they f e l t would misjudge them. Often r e l a t i v e s , close friends and professional contacts were exceptions and the families reported s a t i s f y i n g experiences with such people. Families receiving unemployment insurance as well as s o c i a l assistance tend to i d e n t i f y with the former program as i t does not carry the same s o c i a l stigma. This type of decep-tio n i s not easy to maintain. I t dissipates a considerable amount of emotional energy and creates a general sense of uneasiness and insecurity, which can lead to disequilibrium i n i n t e r f a m i l i a l and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 104 The reference groups with which families compare themselves illuminate some of the reasons for low morale and feelings of disparagement. Most families compared t h e i r circumstances eit h e r with past experiences when they enjoyed a much higher l i v e l of l i v i n g , or with t h e i r s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t friends, r e l a t i v e s , neighbours and/or the working population. None compared themselves with other s o c i a l assistance r e c i p i e n t s . Thus, t h e i r s i t u a t i o n appears to be even more fr u s t r a t i n g and hopeless. Although there was no bitterness evident i n t h e i r comparisons, they are deeply concerned about the famili e s ' physical well-being and resent the s o c i a l assistance program because of t h e i r helplessness to improve t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . The resentment derives d i r e c t l y from deprivation caused by i n s u f f i c i e n t income, f r u s t r a t i o n of attempting to manage on t h i s income, and insecurity which i s very much a part of a l i f e of dependency. Perceptions of the Program Many of the families had never considered the re-h a b i l i t a t i v e aspects of the s o c i a l assistance program, perhaps because t h i s aspect i s , indeed, often given only perfunctory attention. A program can only become r e h a b i l i -t a t i v e as i t adequately provides for both the physiological and emotional needs of the r e c i p i e n t s . Families without fathers tend to look upon s o c i a l assistance as providing e s s e n t i a l l y a subsistence income and nothing e l s e . The mother of family 3 appreciated the 105 r e h a b i l i t a t i v e purpose of the program, but f e l t that she had obtained f i n a n c i a l help for further vocational t r a i n i n g only a f t e r "demanding her r i g h t s . " The families with unemployed fathers had strong f e e l -ings about the purpose of the program; long-term recipients considered i t L a deterrent to becoming self-supporting; short-term recipients considered i t a stop-gap measure; and only the father of family 6, who i s furthering h i s education, commented on the r e h a b i l i t a t i v e features. The central idea expressed was that s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y must derive from the individual's i n i t i a t i v e and opportuni-t i e s rather than from any help from the s o c i a l assistance program. The need for coordination of employment placement  and welfare services was markedly evident as families d i s - cussed the problems thev experience when they attempt to  fi n d work. F i n a l l y , the families were asked to consider both p o s i t i v e and negative aspects of the program. Without ex-ception they were thankful that the program exists for the essentials i t does provide. Families having medical cover-age saw t h i s as the strongest p o s i t i v e feature of the pro-gram. Those whose grant i s s u f f i c i e n t for t h e i r needs and who are dependent, passive persons not affected by the c u l -t u r a l values stressing achievement and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y together with those who are most certain of returning to employment i n the very near future expressed some p o s i t i v e 106 feelings towards the program. Neither of these groups of families expect or demand very much from the program. Those families who lack the inner resources to cope with t h e i r f r u s t r a t i o n s , who have a complexity of problems with which to deal, who have l i t t l e r e a l i s t i c hope but a desire to become permanently self-supporting, f e e l defeated. They are without s u f f i c i e n t income to make more than f u t i l e stabs at finding employment or to gain basic physiological and s o c i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s . They experience only the negative aspects of l i f e on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e — t h e self-defeating purposelessness of l i f e , r e s t r i c t i o n , monotony, insecurity, concern about the,-results of deprivation on the children, poor housing and s o c i a l problems. The present s o c i a l a s s i s t -ance program i s not enhancing t h e i r personality strengths but exaggerating t h e i r dependency problems. Conclusions and Recommendations , The purpose of s o c i a l assistance,- as stated i n the B r i t i s h Columbia S o c i a l Assistance Act, i s to provide -indigent individuals or families with " . . . necessities e s s e n t i a l to maintain or a s s i s t i n maintaining a reasonably normal and healthy existence." 1 A major instrument for t r a n s l a t i n g t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e intent into practice i s the schedule of s o c i a l assistance rates which sets out the allowances payable to i ndividuals and families of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s . The amounts, pre-sumably, are those deemed necessary to achieve.the prescribed S o c i a l Assistance Act. 1945. B.C.R.S., 1948, Chapter 310, Section 3. * 107 l e v e l of l i v i n g . The Report of the Vancouver Community Chest Committee on the Adequacy of S o c i a l Assistance Allowances, published i n 1958, showed conclusively that the rates p r e v a i l i n g at that time were i n s u f f i c i e n t to provide a minimum standard of health and decency. For the p a r t i c u l a r family compositions studied i n the Report, the extent of inadequacy of the s o c i a l assistance grants ranged from a low of 21% to a high of 55%. The inadequacies of the grants to three-member and six-member families were 36% and 39% respectively. In May 1960, s o c i a l allowance grants were increased to the amounts quoted on page 63. As a res u l t , inadequacies were reduced for the t y p i c a l family compositions used i n the Community Chest Study to a low of 15% and a high of 27%; for the families of three and six persons, the percentage inadequacies now became 23% and 27% respectively. When the minimum budget standards developed i n the Community Chest Report aaejapplied to the family compositions which form the subject, of the present study, the percentage inadequacies of the s o c i a l assistance grants vary from no inadequacy to 23.9% for the three-person families, and from no inadequacy to 21.3% for the six-person fa m i l i e s . I f mini-mum budget costs were based on current, rather than 1958, prices the gap between need and assistance grant would be appreciably greater. The important point to note i s the wide v a r i a t i o n i n the extent of inadequacy which can occur i n families of the same size but d i f f e r e n t composition. 108 A number of factors have been found to influence estimates of need and of the costs of a budget of minimum adequacy. Among these are the size of the family group and the age and sex of each of i t s members, the way of l i f e deemed appropriate to persons dependent on public aid, the l e v e l of aspirations of recipients, the place and location of residence, and the capacity of the family for managing on a marginal income. Obviously, there i s no one system of c a l c u l a t i n g bene-f i t amounts which w i l l s a t i s f y everyone's expectations re-garding the proper weighting to be given to each of these factors, nor i s i t desirable that the determination of the amount of the allowance should become so complex and detailed a process that i t b a f f l e s the understanding of recipients and s o c i a l workers a l i k e . The present system which determines the amount of allowance s o l e l y by reference to the size of the "unit group" errs, on the other hand, on the side of excessive s i m p l i c i t y and i n f l e x i b i l i t y and ignores the i d i o s y n c r a t i c nature of human need. No allowance i s made, for example, i n varying the amount of the grant according to whether or not the children i n the group are e l i g i b l e for family allowances. A budget d e f i c i t system of granting allowances, where-by the p a r t i c u l a r family's actual needs are calculated and set against t h e i r resources, with the difference being the amount of s o c i a l assistance payable, would appear to be the 109 only genuine way of assuring for a l l recipi e n t s the necess-ary minimum for a "reasonably normal and healthy existence." The present study predicates the value of standard budgets as an aid to the objective measurement of need. In the construction of such budgets, i t i s important that con-sideration be given to the demonstrable fact that basic needs have s o c i a l and conventional components i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t e r -meshed with p h y s i o l o g i c a l needs. When these components can-not be s a t i s f i e d because of inadequate allowances, some of the consequences may manifest themselves i n diminished s o c i a l and personal functioning. While conditions of f i n a n c i a l need do not always or necessarily i n t e r f e r e with sound personal development and healthy family relationships, there are many attendant r i s k s . Indications are that i n s u f f i c i e n t funds, l i f e on a r e s t r i c t e d income and prolonged economic i n s e c u r i t y have a d i r e c t re-lat i o n s h i p to the incidence of personality maladjustments and disturbances i n family l i f e . They are seen to undermine the rec i p i e n t s ' inherent strengths of capacity to become s e l f -supporting. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n the case of the long-term recipients included i n the present study. Current s o c i a l assistance rates probably provide enough for subsistence over short periods of time, but they afford l i t t l e margin for needs above the base subsistence l e v e l , e s p e c i a l l y for families who are obliged to remain on a s s i s t -ance for extended periods. 110 The p o s s i b i l i t y of families remaining on assistance over long periods of time raises the question as to whether s u f f i c i e n t care i s taken at the time of application and immediately thereafter to evaluate the family's s i t u a t i o n , the need for appropriate services and the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n - At the present time, extremely large case-loads, inadequately trained s t a f f and, possibly, some i n -difference to t h i s aspect of the program on the part of administration, make i t d i f f i c u l t to provide the. kind of s k i l l e d casework service required by families i n which econo-mic dependency i s associated with problems of disturbed personal and family r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Moreover, the f a i l u r e to make a systematic or comprehensive assessment of the recipients in r e l a t i o n to vocational and educational provisions means that many who need help i n t h i s way are passed by i n a haphazard manner. Another major program deficiency concerns the r e s t r i c -t ion of free medical services to the "unemployables." Medical care for "unemployables" alone cannot be j u s t i f i e d i n the face of evidence that employment i s not available for the majority of 'unemployed employables' who sincerely desire work. The present study has attempted to redefine the con-cept of minimum adequacy i n s o c i a l assistance budgets in terms which take account of s o c i a l and conventional needs as well as the physical necessities of l i f e , i n the hope of I l l creating renewed awareness of administrative and community r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for promoting p o l i c i e s i n public assistance which strengthen family l i f e . This becomes possible only when government and s o c i a l welfare administrations accept t h i s enlarged concept of need. The findings of t h i s study have import f o r : (1) Government which has accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the provision of income maintenance programs and which i s accountable for the adequacy of the programs; (2) S o c i a l welfare administrations with the r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y to interpret and implement l e g i s l a t i v e intent concerning s o c i a l assistance needs, and engaged i n providing d i r e c t services to recipi e n t s ; (3) The s o c i a l work profession i n p a r t i c u l a r , and the community at large, whose members, i n the l a s t analysis, are responsible for the qu a l i t y and effectiveness of th e i r welfare programs. Attention should be given to the development of standard budgets based on expenditure patterns of representa-t i v e low-income groups and these budgets should become the basis for determining minimum needs of families applying for s o c i a l assistance. S p e c i f i c provision should be made i n the budgets f o r : (a) Food needs as required by d i f f e r e n t ages and sexes, calculated by q u a l i f i e d n u t r i t i o n i s t s and home economists and priced i n the area i n which the recipients l i v e ; 112 (b) ' Shelter costs which recipients are obliged to pay i n order to obtain and maintain accommodation conducive to good family l i f e . I t i s well-known that the cost of shelter i s the most d i f f i c u l t item to estimate for standard budgets because of the marked variations which occur from one family to the next. The wisest course, therefore, i s to omit t h i s item from the standard budget and to allow whatever amount i s c l e a r l y necessary to obtain or maintain adequate accom-modation; (c) U t i l i t y costs as calculated by competent authorities in t h i s f i e l d to include f u e l for heating, e l e c t r i c i t y and water; (d) Clothing costs as required by d i f f e r e n t sexes and ages, calculated by q u a l i f i e d home economists. The social-stigma attached to acquiring "hand-me-downs" i s psychologically detrimental-. Adequate monthly provision should be made for the cost of replacing items on a yearly basis. Since many of the more expensive items are not required yearly, but must be purchased at definable i n t e r v a l s — i . e . overcoats, footwear, s u i t s , dresses, e t c . — a n d since, conceivably, some families do not have an adequate supply of clothing at the time of application, provision should be made to allow grants above the monthly clothing budget for exceptional circumstances; (e) Complete medical coverage for a l l recipients of s o c i a l assistance; 113 (f) Household operation costs consist of tangible items of expenditure and, therefore, are amenable to expert com-putation. Consideration should be given for the need of dependent families to have telephone, and to purchase essen-t i a l items of household furnishings and t e x t i l e s . Although, i d e a l l y , provision for the l a t t e r items should be through the regular monthly allowances, i t might be acceptable to administer grants for such items as washing machines, stoves, bedding, etc., on a discretionary basis as required by the recipient-. (g) A r e a l i s t i c appraisal should be made of the more tangible items of expenditure such as transportation and recreation. The most appropriate means of ca l c u l a t i n g such costs would appear to be to follow the standard and pattern of consumption of low«»income families as revealed i n the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s survey of family expenditures. (h) Personal care costs are amenable to computation by experts and should be granted according to t h e i r recommenda-tio n s . (i) Education and small costs for g i f t s , s e c u r i t i e s , and churches are intangible items less accessible to expert com-putation. A review of the material of the present study indicates that 2% of the rec i p i e n t s ' income i s adequate for these needs. (j) There are certain other expenses important to s o c i a l assistance re c i p i e n t s , namely the cost of cigarettes and 114 children's allowances, which require consideration and budgetary a l l o c a t i o n when devising a standard budget. I t i s well to remember at t h i s point that each of the above recommendations applies to a minimum standard of health and decency. No overindulgence^or luxury i s involved. Moreover, the standards recommended take no account of the p o s s i b i l i t y that t h e i r adoption might r e s u l t i n the s o c i a l assistance r e c i p i e n t s ' income exceeding that of a s e l f -supporting family. I f so, the l a t t e r should have hi s income supplemented, rather than the former decreased, since adequate income bears a d e f i n i t e r e l a t i o n s h i p to adequate personal and s o c i a l functioning. An adequate income further corresponds with a. healthy consumer market and hence a more productive economy. I t i s recommended that budgets be reviewed on a yearly basis to determine whether any changes are needed i n t h e i r p r i c i n g . Desirably, payments to recipients should be granted according to a budget deficiency method whereby the actual needs of the i n d i v i d u a l family are estimated i n accordance with minimum standard budgets and the family's resources applied against these needs. If there i s a d e f i c i t , s o c i a l assistance should be granted i n an amount to f i l l the gap. Such a method assures the appropriate d i s t r i b u t i o n of public funds and an adequate income for each family, rather than overpayment or deprivation such as occurs where a l l families having the same number of members are assumed to 115 have s i m i l a r n e e d s . A t t h e same t i m e , when r e c i p i e n t s a r e a s s u r e d o f an a d e q u a t e income f o r h e a l t h and d e c e n c y , t h e y w i l l n o t have t o h i d e meagre e a r n i n g s f r o m t h e a u t h o r i t i e s . A w a r e n e s s t h a t t h e y a r e a b l e t o p r o v i d e something, t h r o u g h t h e i r own e f f o r t s w i l L s e r v e t o enhance s e l f - e s t e e m and r e n d e r them more r e s p o n s i b l e and u s e f u l members o f s o c i e t y . E x i s t i n g s t a f f s h o u l d be d e p l o y e d i n a way w h i c h e n -s u r e s t h e most e f f i c i e n t use o f i n d i v i d u a l w o r k e r ' s s k i l l s and p r o v i d e s t h e optimum l e v e l o f s e r v i c e t o r e c i p i e n t s . A d e q u a t e s e r v i c e i n v o l v e s a c c u r a t e d i a g n o s i s o f t h e c l i e n t ' s n e eds a t t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n . I t f u r t h e r e n t a i l s t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s where management o r b u d g e t i n g p r o b l e m s e x i s t , where employment, r e h a b i l i t a t i v e o r m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s a r e r e q u i r e d , o r where u n d e r l y i n g p e r s o n a l -i t y o r d e p e n d e n c y p r o b l e m s a r e m a n i f e s t . Many f a m i l i e s i n w h i c h unemployment, i l l n e s s , o r t h e l o s s o f t h e wage e a r n e r h a s o c c u r r e d may need o n l y t h e r e s o u r c e o f p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e t o e n a b l e them t o manage t h e i r l i v e s i n a way t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r s a t i s f y i n g p e r s o n a l , s o c i a l and f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I f t h e b u d g e t d e f i c i t s y s t e m i s a d o p t e d f o r t h e d e t e r -m i n a t i o n o f need, t h e s t a f f o f e a c h a g e n c y must be aware t h a t t h e r e i s a p l a c e f o r c a s e w o r k h e l p w i t h s u c h b u d g e t i n g . The s e r v i c e t h e w o r k e r c a n g i v e t o t h e r e c i p i e n t t o h e l p h i m u s e t h e money most a p p r o p r i a t e l y c a n n o t be o v e r e s t i m a t e d . The r e c i p i e n t must u n d e r s t a n d t h e b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s c o m p l e t e l y 116 for the standard budget to be most advantageous. Adequate allowances are not s u f f i c i e n t unless there i s wise planning and s e l e c t i o n i n the purchases made by the r e c i p i e n t . S t a f f should be impressed with the urgent need of l e t t i n g recipients know what a u x i l i a r y services (e.g. mater-n i t y and spe c i a l d i e t allowances, medical and dental services, vocational and educational t r a i n i n g provisions, etc.) are available when the s i t u a t i o n c a l l s for them. The corrupting e f f e c t of unearned revenue on the human s p i r i t has, unquestionably, been over-exaggerated as, indeed, have the character building values of hunger and p r i v a t i o n . To secure to each needy family a minimum standard, as a normal function of the society, would help ensure that the misfortunes of parents, deserved or otherwise, are not v i s i t e d on t h e i r children. I t would help to ensure that poverty i s not self-perpetuating. Professional s o c i a l workers must be ever aware that inadequate f i n a n c i a l and casework services for certain economically dependent families may r e s u l t i n behaviour which occasions greater community concern i n the future. These are the families whose personal problems are capable of becoming e s p e c i a l l y destructive to family l i f e and to the normal growth and development of children. Many such families have suffered from long periods of deprivation, f r u s t r a t i o n and defeat for want of appropriate help at the ri g h t time. There i s c l e a r l y a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y here for 117 vigorous professional leadership i n promoting those ad-ministrative and s t r u c t u r a l arrangements which ensure the most e f f e c t i v e use of e x i s t i n g services. Where needed services are lacking, or where public p o l i c i e s are c l e a r l y i n i m i c a l to human well-being—as i s the case with inade-quate assistance allowances—there i s a need for s o c i a l action which, to be e f f e c t i v e , must be able to r e l y upon a broad base of community support. This, i n turn, requires much greater knowledge on the part of the public about i t s s o c i a l assistance program and, more p a r t i c u l a r l y , about the human and s o c i a l cost of f a i l i n g to r e a l i z e i t s p o t e n t i a l -i t y f o r contributing i n a creative fashion to the well-being of people i n need. Further Studies Additional studies, e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the present one are indicated to extend the sample and to determine the nature and extent of need i n other types of communities, p a r t i c u l a r l y the large urban centres. There i s also much more that can be learned from the e x p e r i e n t i a l aspects of l i f e on s o c i a l assistance. Such studies are required to give greater c l a r i t y to the meaning of dependency, to the understanding of the r e c i p i e n t s ' a b i l i t y to adjust to a minimum budget and to the r e h a b i l i t a t i v e potentials of r e c i p i e n t s . 118 Studies which w i l l i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of certain family types i n receipt of s o c i a l assistance could lead to a f u l l e r understanding and more r e a l i s t i c appraisal of the "work-shy" or "malingering" i n d i v i d u a l for whom many deterrent and punitive features of the s o c i a l assistance program are designed. In t h i s way, p o l i c i e s and programs might come to be based on empirical data rather than on assumptions and t r a d i t i o n a l methods. F i n a l l y , extensive studies of the relat i o n s h i p between employment and welfare services are required to consider coordination of these two ess e n t i a l services. APPENDIX A 1. DAILY EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE 119 1 Section i - Expenditures during the month of February 1962 A . Food survey. Please keep account of all monies spent on food for a one-month period. Do not include such items as cigarettes, toothpaste, soap, etc. Include food purchased and eaten away from home by family members for meals, snacks, soft drinks, school milk, candy, etc. 1. $ _ 2. etc. B. Expenses of running the home: 1. Telephone 2. Postage, Express 3. Stationery 4. Pencils, ink 5. Household Help (include babysitters) 6. Laundry sent out 7. Dry cleaning 8. Laundry soap and detergents 9. Bleaches, disinfectants, starch, etc. 10. Scouring powder and pads 11. Polishes, floor wax and cleaning fluid 12. Paper supplies - towels, serviettes, waxpaper, etc. 13. Other, ef.g. matches, flowers, etc. TOTAL The questionnaire completed with sample families is herewith presented in summary form. C. Expenditure for personal care: 1. Hair cuts (barber shop services) $ 2. Beauty parlor services (permanents, shampoos,sets) 3. Hair preparations (include home permanents) 4. Toilet soap 5. Face and talcum powder 6. Face cream 7. Shaving soap and cream 8. Toothpaste, tooth powder, mouthwash, etc. 9. Perfumes, lotions, deodorants, nail polish, etc. 10. Lipstick and rouge 11. Razor blades 12. Tooth brushes 13. Other brushes, e.g. hair, nail, etc. 14. Sanitary supplies, facial tissue, toilet tissue 15. Other expenses for personal care - list items TOTAL : D. Expenses for travel and transportation: 1. Bus service 2. Taxi fares 3. Operation of own car TOTAL E. Expenses for Recreation, Reading and Educationr 1. Movies $ 2. Admission prices; sports events, community activities, bingo, etc. 3. Dues to social and recreational clubs - lodges, brownies, scouts, veterans' organizations, etc. 4. Others (list items) _____ 5. Newspapers 6. Magazines _ _ _ _ 7. Books, comics (exclude school books) 8. School expenses (list items) TOTAL $ 121 F. Expenses for cigarettes, tobacco: 1. Cigarettes 2. Cigarette tobacco 3. Cigarette papers, tubes 4. Cigars 5. Other tobacco, e.g. pipe tobacco TOTAL $ G . Expenses for shelter: 1. Monthly rent $ 2. Monthly mortgage payment TOTAL $ Section ii - Catering Problems A. Main sources of concern reported by family regarding the food budget: Shopping problems Lack of specific desirable foods Quality of food supply Adequacy of food supply Variety in meal planning Attitudes of family members 2. ANNUAL EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE Section i - Family Information A . Family composition: 1. Name of fami ly 2"{. First Names | Relationship to Head [ Age Sex [ 122 Section ii - Clothing and Textiles A . Clothing: 1. Which family members have an adequate supply of clothing? 2. Which family members had an adequate supply before coming on assistance? 3. Which family members need clothing most urgently? 4. How has the majority of clothing been obtained during the past 12 months? (Purchased new or second hand, gifts from friends or re-latives, obtained from agencies, church, etc., home made, handed down from .other family members.) 5. Appropriateness of clothing for family's activities or desired activities. 6. List major items purchased during past 12 months, with prices. 7. List minor items purchased during past 12 months, with prices. 8. Total cost of clothing purchased during the 12-month period. $ 9. Approximate cost of upkeep and repairs to clothing for the 12-month period. $ B. Textiles: 1. Household textiles obtained from all sources during the past year. -; Item New Used Gift Cost Sheets $ Pillowcases Blankets Comforters Bedspreads Bath and Hand Towels Wash Cloths Dish Towels Table Cloths Draperies, Curtains Yard goods for slip covers, sheets, and other house Other - list | lold textiles 1 TOTAL $ 2. Is your present supply of textiles adequate? inadequate? If 'inadequate, ' explain, listing basic items required. Section iii - Household Furnishings A . Furnishing costs and payments (includes equipment & appliances): 1. Payments made during 1961 on furnishings purchased prior to 1961. ( Item | Payments ~| 2. Have you been obliged to sell any furnishings in the past year? Item I Remarks I 3. Are any appliances not being used at the present time because of the cost of their repair? Item Remarks 4. Itemize major repairs and services for furnishings and equipment incurred in the past year. Item Cost Remarks 5. Reported difficulties in meeting furnishing needs. 6. List any furnishings or appliances which have been purchased in the past year, j Item New or Used | Cost Present Payments TOTAL Section iv - Annual Expenses for Travel and Transportation A. Automobile expenses: 1. Ownership of automobile . Yes No 2. If not, has the respondent discontinued operating automobile since coming on assistance? 124 3. What major repair costs have been incurred in the past year? Item Cost Automobile insurance premiums Automobile licence Driver's licence (s) Other expenses (garage, rent, parking costs, automobile association fees, heaters, seat covers, fines, etc. TOTAL $ B. Other transportation expenses: 1. Train $ 2. Bus $" 3. Plane 4. Purchase of motor-cycles or bicycles 5. Operating costs of motor-cycles and bicycles 6. Other transportation costs (list items) TOTAL $ C. Other trips. Does the respondent recall any occasions during the past year when it seemed important that someone in the family make a trip but was unable to do so for financial or other reasons? Yes No If 'Yes", give details. Section v - Recreation, Reading and Education A. Recreation expenses: 1. Movies $ 2. Admission to plays, concerts, dances, bingo, etc. 3. Admission to sports events, circus, fairs, etc. 4. Sports or recreational activities 5. Tricycles, wagons, kiddie cars, etc. 6. Other children's toys 7. Equipment, fees and licences for games and sports (fishing, golfing, skating, curling, etc. - not club fees) 8. Dues to social and recreational clubs (Scouts, lodges, veteran's organizations, etc.) 125 9. Purchase of musical instruments $ 10. Parts and repairs for: radio, television, phonograph 11. Photographic supplies: (a) films and their development (b) camera, etc. 12. Pets(purchase, food, licence, supplies, etc.) 13. Decorations: birthday and other parties, Christmas, etc. 14. Other recreational expenses. List below. ' TOTAL $ B. Reading expenses: 1. Newspapers 2. Magazines 3. Books, book rentals, bookclubs, library fees TOTAL C. Education expenses: 1. Tuition fees for students and adult education (include kindergarten and special school classes, fees for correspondence courses, etc.) Give details below. $ 2. Books and supplies used in education courses 3. Special lessons, e.g. music, dancing, athletics 4. Other education expenses TOTAL $ D. Experiences: 1. Have the family's recreational, reading or educational activities changed since coming on assistance? Yes No . If "Yes", give details below: Father Mother j Children (under 12) Children (over 12) 2. Have any difficulties been experienced in providing school supplies and equip-ment for the children? Yes- No . If 'Yes", give details. 126 Section vi - Miscellaneous Expenses A . Expenses not otherwise covered in questionnaire: 1. Payments on loans 2. IForfeit of deposits and money lost or stolen 3. Contributions to charitable, religious organizations, etc. 4. Premiums on life endowment, and annuity policies 5. Payments to retirement or pension funds TOTAL 3. HOUSING AND INCOME SCHEDULE Section i - Housing A. Description: 1. Type of dwelling: House Apartment Rooms 2. Total number of rooms Bedrooms Living conveniences: Yes Nc Yes No Running water from taps Electric lights Cold water only Telephone Flush toilet Bathtub Furnace heating Refrigerator Gas or electric cook stove Home freezer Power washing machine Television set B. Rented living quarters: 1. Monthly rent $ 2. Rent includes: heat light water furnishings 3. Have you incurred any expenses for repairs, decorations, or improvements in the past 12 months? Yes No 4. Did your landlord make any concessions in rent? Yes No . Explain. 5. Total expenses for the year $ 127 C. Owned living quarters: 1. Please state the total cost incurred for the following items during the past 12 months: Property taxes and special assessments $ Premium for insurance on the dwelling Repairs and improvements (itemize below) TOTAL $ 2. Do you have a mortgage on your living quarters? Yes No If "Yes," please complete questions 3 to 5. 3. 1st Mortgage: (a) Finishing date of present mortgage (b) Regular payments on mortgage $ per (c) Charges included in the regular payment: interest principal property insurance mortgage insurance taxes water 4. 2nd Mortgage: (a) Regular payment $ per 5. Total monthly mortgage payment $ 6. Are there any other expenses incurred? Yes No . If "Yes", what kind? D. Utilities: List the estimated average monthly expenditure for the follow-ing items: 1. Water $ 6. Coal $ 2. Gas (include propane) 7. Oi l 3. Electricity 8. Sawdust 4. Wood 9. Other 5. Coke TOTAL $ 10. Note any difficulties encountered in payment of above. E. Changes in housing during the past five years. 1. Number of moves 2. | Dates \ Place Reasons for move 3. How does your present accommodation compare with what you have had before? Better About the same Not as good . F. Housing experiences: 1. Do you have any particular likes or dislikes about your present accommodation? Likes Dislikes 128 2. What do you think of the neighbourhood as a place to live? (i.e. compared with former, desirability, proximity to schools, churches, shopping, playgrounds, entertainment, etc., employment possibilities). Likes Dislikes J Section ii - Employment and Assistance History A . Employment. The form below is to be completed by each family member who has been employed during the past five years. 1. Family member 2. Grade reached at school 3. Year Employment Assistance Kind of work Time worked Amount received Period on Assistance Amount received 1962 $ $ 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 Total Assistance $ Total Earnings B. Income received during the month of the study. 1. Social Assistance 2. Unemployment Insurance 3. Earnings: (a) Father 4. Family Allowance (b) (c) Children 5. Other sources: (DVA, Alimony, Workmen's compensation, etc.) specify: TOTAL $_ C. Assets and Debts: 1. Assets 2. Debts: (Money owed by the family: stores, medical and dental, taxes, rent, instalment debts - furnishings, car, etc., banks, credit uhions, individuals, repairs and services, utilities, etc.) TOTAL $ 4. FAMILY ATTITUDE AND EXPERIENCE SURVEY A. Health and Medical Care: 1. Does the family have medical coverage at the present time? (specify type of plan) 129 2. Nature of coverage provided by plan: 3. How long has family been covered by this plan? 4. Monthly premiums to plan $ 5. Type of medical coverage before coming on assistance (specify type of plan and duration). 6. Expenditures on medical care for all members of family during preceding year. (Do not include expenditures paid by third party of behalf of family). a) Hospital Care b) Surgery $ c) Home and Office calls d) Drugs e) Dental Care f) Insurance premiums TOTAL 7. How would you describe your health now? ~ Good | Fair" Excellent Poor Own health is Spouse's health is Children's health is 8. How does present health status compare with what it was before coming on assistance? Better Worse No difference 1 9. Are you aware of any change in your attitude to health matters since coming on social assistance? 10. Do you feel that being on social assistance has affected in any way the family's use of doctors or dentists? 11. During the past year, have you or other members of the family had any illnesses or conditions but did not bother to see a doctor or dentist about them? If not, why not? 129 a B. Experiences of life on social assistance. We are interested in knowing what being on social assistance has meant for you and your family. 1. On what things have you had to economize most in order to stay within your budget? 2. Can you tell me how you came to apply for social assistance? (Change in circumstances leading up to application; how you found out about program). 3. How did you feel at the time about applying? (respondent's conception of the purpose of the program, of the way other people regard social assistance, as well as his/her own feelings at the time. Note any change in these attitudes and feelings since being on assistance). 4. Have you found that being on social assistance has created any special problems for you? (family relationships ; tchildren's lives at school in neighbourhood ; social and recreational activities of adults and children ; friends and relatives business dealings employment opportunities Y. Describe and indicate rank order of problems mentioned, beginning with the most serious in the respondent's opinion. 5. Comparing your present situation with that of other people you know, how would you describe it? Considerably worse better About as good as can be expected (Note the reference group(s) used in making the comparison). 6. (a) In your experience, would you say that social assistance helps people to get back on their feet again? (b) In what ways, if any, does it make this more difficult? 7. (a) What has been the worst part for you, or for other members of family, of being on social assistance? (b) What has been positive in family's experience on social assistance? APPENDIX B "NEED" ESTIMATES ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY CHEST STUDY (1958 prices expressed i n Dollars per" month) (A Food; B Shelter; C U t i l i t i e s ; D Household Operations; E Clothing; F Transportation; G Personal Care; H Education & Recreation; I Other) Family Code No. B (i) ( i i ) H Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 40.97 38.78 45.70 63.59 103.01 90.15 97.42 97.07 108.09 124.18 30.00 40.00 50.83 50.00 6.39 50.00 55.00 68.83 58.38 42.91 14.48 21.40 21.23 19.32 22.18 24.18 22.18 24.18 28.77 29.68 5.23 5.23 5.23 5.23 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 16.10 16.70 16.93 21.95 37.88 32.43 38.58 35.17 37.88 41.87 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 5.19 5.19 5.19 5.19 5.19 5.19 7.68 7.68 7.68 10.78 17.72 14.62 16.54 14.62 17.72 20.82 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 10.38 10.38 10.38 10.38 10.38 10.38 3 £2 6 3.26 3.26 3.26 5.17 5.17 5.17 5.17 5.17 5.17 127.53 142.86 160.67 183.94 215.05 239.25 257.59 267.74 278.71 287.33 (i) "Shelter" i s actual amounts paid by tenants or homeowners. ( i i ) " U t i l i t i e s " include l i g h t i n g and small e l e c t r i c a l appliances, cooking, water heating and space heating as well as water where applicable, although t h i s was not included i n the Community Chest Budget. APPENDIX C AVERAGE MONTHLY AMOUNTS EXPENDED PER FAMILY ACCORDING TO MAJOR ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE (A Food; B Shelter; C U t i l i t i e s ; D Household Operations; E.Clothing; F Transportation; G Personal Care; H Education & Recreation; I Other) Family Code No A B ( 1 ) C D E F G H _ ( i i ) T otal 1 77.55 30.00 16.00 7.65 15.82 5.20 3.30 2.36 .40 158.28 2 47.40 40.00 15.00 17.10 9.00 .40 2 .70 5.02 - 136.62 3 55.05 50.83 21.25 10.05 3.00 9.00 3.15 3.34 11.25 166.92 4 62.85 50.00 19.00 3.75 6.00 .30 4.80 8.20 3.75 158.65 5 L45.05 6.39 20.75 10.35 25.00 17.00 3.90 2.00 - 230.44 6 69.60 50.00 27.75 25.15 20.00 21.75 7.65 6.45 11.11 239.46 7 89.85 55.00 30.75 5.85 16.50 .50 1.20 8.54 2.28 210.47 "8 65.40 68.83 15.75 15.55 12.25 19.00 4.35 9.09 13.55 223.77 9 94.50 58.38 25.75 27.30 40.96 24.00 3.75 7.67 41.79 324.10 10 L29.30 42.91 29.75 23.02 28.70 31.00 13.05 25.11 38.34 361.18 (i) Shelter costs for homeowners include taxes, insurance and mortgage p r i n c i p a l and interes t payments. ( i i ) "Other" includes such items as medical expenses, cigarettes, children's allowances and l i f e insurance p o l i c i e s . H CO H APPENDIX; p„ ACTUAL FAMILY EXPENDITURES FOR FEBRUARY. 1962  ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY £Tmy_ STANDARD BUDGET CATEGORIES (A Food; B Shelter; C U t i l i t i e s ; D Household Operations; E Clothing; F Transportation; G Personal Care; H Education & Recreation; I Other) Family Code No A B C D E F G H I Total 1 72.39 30.00 10.82 7.18 _ 5.20 3.13 _ 7.40 136.12 2 44.28 40.00 28.75 16.52 5.00 .40 2.45 - - 137.4C 3 51.35 50.00 15.81 9.34 - - 2.89 6.05 - 135.44 4 57.77 50.00 25.23 3.52 - .20 4.49 3.85 3.75 148.81 5 L35.40 - 9.50 9.68 20.50 39.50 3.60 - - 218.1£ 6 64.96 50.00 33.79 21.94 - 27.55 7.07 .78 7.82 213.91 7 83.82 55.00 24.72 12.59 1.77 .50 1.18 18.47 2.95 201.21 8 61.00 30.00 14.94 13.47 11.00 98.00 4.19 2.15 13.55 248.3C 9 88.12 15.00 7.66 26.31 29.87 14.20 3.49 10.68 13.06 208.3S 10 L20.75 37.25 38.31 16.69 - 15.54 12.22 8.80 26.34 275.9C 133 APPENDIX E ESTIMATED MONTHLY FOOD COSTS BY AGE GROUPS Groups Age Monthly Cost Children 1 - 3 $10.10 Children 4 - 6 12.29 Children 7 - 9 14.63 Children 10 - 12 17-02 Boys 13 - 15 22.10 Girls 13 - 15 18.23 Boys 16 - 20 24.98 Girls 16 - 20 20.03 Men 21 and over 22.06 Women 21 and over IB. 58 1See Community Chest Study, p. 28. FOOD CALCULATIONS FOR SAMPLE FAMILIES Family Code No. "T. 18.58 - 10.10 - 12.29 - = 40.97 2. 18.58 - 2 (10.10) = 38.78 3. 18.58 - 14.83 - i2.29 - = 45.70 4. 18.58 - 20.03 - 24.98 - - = 63.59 5. 40.64 - 18.23 - 17.02 - 12.29 - 14.83 = 103.01 6 . 40.64 - 2 (12.29) - 10.10 - 14.83 = 90.15 7. 40.64 - 17.02 - 2 (14.83) - 10.10 = 97-42 8 . 40.64 - 10.10 - 12.29 - 2 (17.02) - = 97.07 9. 18.54 - 22.06 - 10.10 - 17-02 - 18.23 = 108.09 10. 22.06 - I8.58 - 24.98 - 22.10 - 2 (18.23) = 124.18 134 APPENDIX F ESTIMATED FUE L COSTS FOR HOMES OF FAMILIES IN SAMPLE S t a n d a r d B u d g e t Family Code Ko. No. o f Rooms Type o f F u e l I n s u l a t i o n 1 9 5 8 Y e a r l v C o s t s M o n t h l y C o s t 1.* 2 o i l i n s u l a t e d 100 8.33 2. 4 o i l no i n s . 165 13.75 3. 4 o i l i n s u l a t e d 130 10.83 4. 4 gas no i n s . 140 11.67 5. 6 saw d u s t i n s u l a t e d 100 8.33 6. 4 o i l i n s u l a t e d 130 10.83 7. 6 saw d u s t i n s u l a t e d 100 8.33 8. 4 o i l i n s u l a t e d 130 10.83 9. 5 o i l p a r t i a l l y i n s . 185 15.42 10. 7 o i l i n s u l a t e d 190 15.83 *The l o w e s t f i g u r e g i v e n i s $130 f o r 4 rooms. T h i s f i g u r e g oes up $35 f o r 5 rooms, $25 more f o r 6 rooms and none f o r 7. Thus f o r l e s s t h a n f o u r rooms, we have compromised between t h e two f i g u r e s : 2 rooms = APPENDIX G YEARLY REPLACEMENT COSTS OF CLOTHING BY SEX AND AGE GROUPS Infants $86.31 Children 1 & 2 67.11 Boys 3 to 6 52.50 Boys 6 to 11 74.58 Boys 12 to 18 . 66.23 Men 19 to 44 72.58 Men 45 and over 71.70 G i r l s 3 to 6 56.28 G i r l s 6 to 11 70.00 G i r l s 12 to 18 108.76 Women 20 to 44 80.74 Women 45 and over 73.86 Prepared by the Home Economics Department of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia for the Community Chest Committee. 136 APPETOIX H PERSONAL CARE COSTS BY SEX AND AGE GROUPS1 Total per year: Man/Boy $37.18 Woman/Girl $46.11 Child $23.03 Total per month: Man/Boy $ 3.10 Woman/Girl $ 3-84 Child $ 1.92 "See Community Chest Study, p. 79' PERSONAL CARE COSTS FOR SAMPLE FAMILIES Family 1 3-84 - 1.92 - 1.92 - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - - -•- 7.68 Family 2 3-84 - 1.92 - 1.92 - - - - -. _ _ _ - - - 7.68 Family 3 3-84 - 1.92 - 1.92 - - - - • - - - - - - = 7.48 Family 4 3-84 - 3-84 - 3-10 - _ _ _ . - - - - - - = 10.78 Family 5 3-10 - 3-84 - 3-84 - 3-10 - 1.92 - 1.92 z 17.72 Family 6 3-10 - 3.84 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 1.92 = 14.62 Family 7 3.10 - 3-84 - 3-84 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 16.54 Family 8 3.10 - 3-84 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 14.62 Family 9 , 3-10 - 3-84 - 3-84 - 3-10 - 1.92 - 1.92 - 17-72 Family 10 3-10 - 3-84 - 3.10 - 3-84 - 3.10 - 3-84 = 20.82 137 APPENDIX I CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR VANCOUVER (Base Year 1949 = 100) 1957 1961 April758 February/62 (Index 1) (Index 2) A l l Items Food 122.6 129.4 125.8 124.2 129.6 124.1 Clothing 113.4 115.2 Household Operations 128.0 135.4 Other Commodities & Services 128.5 137.1 The formula I7 - I-^ x 100 = the percent increase or decrease between two d i f f e r e n t Consumer Price Indices 138 APPENDIX J THE NATURE OF DEPENDENCY AND REHABILITATION  PROSPECTS OF THE TEN FAMILIES STUDIED Dependency The short-term r e c i p i e n t families did not display underlying problems of dependency,.whereas i n the case of long-term recipients these were evident i n every family. This indicates the need for- s k i l l e d family diagnosis at the time of application to detect any la t e n t dependency problems. With diagnosis, and follow-up treatment where indicated, the preventive and r e h a b i l i t a t i v e aspects of the program can become functional. The present study did not obtain information for f u l l family diagnosis. However, although the dependency of a l l short-term recipi e n t s appears r e a l i s t i c — t h r e e times caused by the employment s i t u a t i o n and twice by incapacitating i l l -n e s s — i n three cases temporary assistance periods may lengthen to f u l l - t i m e dependency. Although family 8 i s struggling v a l i a n t l y to maintain emotional independence, without ade-quate income and assurance of self-worth, the struggle becomes increasingly d i f f i c u l t . Family 9 should be ex-periencing i t s f i r s t and l a s t period of dependency as the father's earnings as a fisherman, b r i e f periods of winter employment and unemployment insurance benefits should suf-f i c e with good management and without a backlog of debts. 139 However, the present grant i s not s u f f i c i e n t for the family's needs. Debts, which must be paid out of future earnings, continue to accumulate. This may contribute d i r e c t l y to further need fo r assistance at some future date. The father of family 10, beset as he i s with problems both of i l l n e s s and dependency, requires a l l h i s emotional strength to cope with the former and to prepare himself for a new employment r o l e . An inadequate assistance grant makes the struggle to survive one of primary importance, and hampers h i s a b i l i t y to cope with and master other problems. In each case, the p o s s i b i l i t y of becoming long-term recipients i s prompted, not by a desire for a comfortable non-productive l i f e , but by the inadequacy of 7present rates which may destroy the family's capacity to master other problems. The mothers of long-term r e c i p i e n t families without husbands display passive and n a r c i s s i s t i c dependency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These must be dealt with i f the families are ever to become s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . Hostile dependency characterizes the long-term fami-l i e s with fathers. From the material gathered, i t i s not possible to determine whether the underlying dependency needs cause t h e i r prolonged period on assistance or r e s u l t from inadequate income. Perhaps two to three years ago these families were in situations s i m i l a r to family 9 and 10. If so, indications are that further deprivation w i l l not 140 c u r e b u t compound t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s . I f t h e p r o b l e m s a r e r e s u l t s o f much e a r l i e r e m o t i o n a l d e p r i v a t i o n , a d e q u a t e f u n d s a r e s t i l l r e q u i r e d . However, r a t e s s e t a t any l e v e l w i l l n o t meet s u c h n e e d s . Casework s e r v i c e s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o e n a b l e t h e f a m i l y t o - a c h i e v e e m o t i o n a l i n d e p e n d e n c e . R e c i p i e n t s who do n o t m a n i f e s t b a s i c d e p e n d e n c y p r o -b l e ms a l s o r e q u i r e an a d e q u a t e a l l o w a n c e . When s u c h p r o b l e m s do e x i s t , t h e y must b e t r e a t e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h an a d e q u a t e g r a n t . O n l y t h e n i s t h e c l i e n t r e n d e r e d c a p a b l e o f d e a l i n g w i t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s . R e h a b i l i t a t i o n P r o s p e c t s f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e r e -c i p i e n t s a r e i n e x t r i c a b l y r e l a t e d t o : (1) t h e o v e r t and l a t e n t d e p e n d e n c y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f a m i l i e s w h i c h i n t u r n a r e p a r t i a l l y d e p e n d e n t on t h e a d e q u a c y o f a l l o w a n c e s ; (2) t h e a d j u s t m e n t t h e y h a v e made t o t h e i r p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n , r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r a b i l i t y o r i n a b i l i t y t o cope w i t h t h e p r e s s u r e s o f a minimum s u b s i s t e n c e income and t h e i n c r e a s e d s o c i a l p r e s s u r e upon them a t t h i s t i m e ; (3) and t h e employment s i t u a t i o n w h i c h i s o f u t m o s t im-p o r t a n c e i n any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s n a t u r e . E a c h o f t h e f a m i l i e s i n t h e s t u d y h a s more p o t e n t i a l t h a n i s b e i n g u t i l i z e d . F a m i l i e s 3 and 6 h a v e made r e l a t i v e -l y h e a l t h y a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h e i r l i m i t e d i n c o m e s . T h e y a l s o h a v e a g ood d e a l o f i n i t i a t i v e and i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y w i l l be s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e . B o t h a r e g a i n i n g f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n . W i t h t h i s , f a m i l y 3 s h o u l d be a b l e t o f i n d p e r m a n e n t employment. The f a t h e r o f f a m i l y 6 a s p i r e s 141 to continuing beyond Grade XIII and h i s e l e c t r i c i a n trade to gradually gain a higher education which w i l l ensure the greater security of a permanent p o s i t i o n . Families 8 and 9 have also made r e l a t i v e l y good adjustments. Both have con-siderable i n i t i a t i v e i n seeking employment, but lack of education and employment s k i l l s render them very vulnerable to the fluctuations of the employment market. Their future i s uncertain and a r e s t r i c t e d income heightens t h e i r insecur-i t y . This may be an added threat to future r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Perhaps prospects for family 10's future are i l l u s t r a t e d by family 5. The father became i l l recently and w i l l be able to reinstate h i s s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t status only as jobs requir-ing l ess physical exertion are a v a i l a b l e . Nine years ago family 5 was i n the same p o s i t i o n . The struggle to remain s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t lasted seven years and since then they have been i n recGipt of s o c i a l assistance continuously. With l i t t l e prospect of again becoming s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , they have been unable to adjust to the standard of l i v i n g possible through s o c i a l assistance. The father i s b i t t e r and frustrated, prepared to go to j a i l for medical b i l l s he cannot meet. His sense of inadequacy i s due to the unproductiveness of hi s l i f e . The inadequacy of s o c i a l assistance grants serves to assure him of h i s worthlessness. His strongest wish i s to work and provide for h i s family, but r e h a b i l i t a t i o n possi-b i l i t i e s are s l i g h t . 142 Family 7 has a young father who has s k i l l s adequate for seasonal employment. He i s both a painter and welder, but he requires both long-term intensive treatment and a productive economy to u t i l i z e these s k i l l s . The present program does not support any of h i s strengths. Family det e r i o r a t i o n i s continuing and future prospects appear gloomy, although the family continues to i n s i s t that the parents w i l l once again become self-supporting. Families 1, 2 and 4 also require supplementary case-work services to deal with t h e i r dependency needs. Vocational t r a i n i n g of some nature at the appropriate point i n t h e i r emotional development and employment opportunities are also important. The three groups into which these families can be categorized when considering r e h a b i l i t a t i v e prospects are: (1) Those with personality strengths to meet and master c r i s i s situations and with s k i l l s of some importance to the productive world. (2) Those who with a more adequate income would be more capable of dealing with t h e i r present situation and rendered able to move to s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y as employ-ment i s a v a i l a b l e . None of the families of t h i s category has s p e c i f i c vocational s k i l l s . (3) Those who require some other service i n conjunction with an adequate income. With adequate income and apprppriate services, a l l are at l e a s t r e h a b i l i t a t i v e prospects. 143 APPENDIX K B I B L I O G R A P H Y Bernard, Jessie. Social Problems at Midcentury. New York: The Dryden Press Inc., 1957. Booth, Charles. Life and Labour of the People of London. London: Macmillan and Co . , 1904. Brady, Dorothy. "The Use of Statistical Procedures in the Derivation of Family Budgets," Social Service Review. Vol. 23, No. 2, June 1949, pp. 141-157. Bradley, Dorothy S. "Family Budgets: A Historical Survey, " Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Department of Labor, Vo l . 66, No. 2, February 1948, pp. 171-175. , and Kellogg, Lester S. "The City Worker's Family Budget, " Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Department of Labor, Vol. 66, No. 2., February 1948, pp. 133-170. Buell, Bradley, and Associates, Community Planning for Human Services. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Burns, Evelyn. Social Security and Public Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co . , 1956. Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics. City Family Expenditure 1957. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, January 1961. Canada Year Book 1960. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1960. Community Chest and Councils of Greater Vancouver, The Adequacy of Social Allowance Committee. Report on the Adequacy of Social Assistance  Allowances in the City of Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C.: The Committee, September 1958. De Schweinitz, Karl. England's Road to Social Security. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1943. Evans, Maureen E. Living on a Marginal Budget. Master of Social Work Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1953. Friedlander, Walter A . Introduction to Social Welfare. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1957. 144 Galbraith, John. The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958. Goals of Public Social Policy. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1961. Hoey, Jane. "The Content of Living as a Basis for a Standard of Assistance and Service, " Social Casework. Vol. 28, No. 1, January 1947, pp. 3-9. • "The Lack of Money: Its Cost in Human Values, " Social Casework. Vol. 38, No. 8, October 1957T pp. 313-318. Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: The Beacon Press, 1959. Jackson, D.L. Public Assistance Policy. Master of Social Work Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1955. Keith-Lucas, Alan. Decisions About People in Need. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1957. Knight, C . Norman. "Standards in Public Assistance," Canadian Welfare. Vol. 37, No. 4, July 1960, pp. 169-172. Lamale, Helen E. "Changes in Concepts of Income Adequacy Over the Last Century," American Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, May 1958, pp. 291-299. Lammer, H.S. and Wiedeman, F.V. Municipal Policy in Social Assistance. Master of Social Work Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1959. Lebeaux, Charles N . and Wilensky, Harold L. Industrial Society and Social  Welfare. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958. Leyendecker, Hilary M. Problems and Policy in Public Assistance . New York: Harper and Bros., 1955. McMahon, Theresa S. Social and Economic Standards of Living. New York: D.C. Heath and Co. , 1925. Morgan, John S. "Social Welfare Services in Canada, " Social Purpose for Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961, pp. 130-170. Policy Statement on Standards of Public Assistance. A Report Prepared by the Advisory Committee on Assistance Standards. Pennsylvania: Department of Public Assistance, 1957. 145 Rowntree, R. Seebohm. Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan and Co . , 1901. , Poverty and Progress. London: Longmans, Green and Co . , 1942. Social Security for Canada. Ottawa: The Canadian Welfare Council, 1958. Smith, Cyr i lS . People in Need. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1957. Townsend, Peter. "Measuring Poverty," British Journal of Sociology. Vol . 5, June 1954, pp. 130-137. Vassey, Wayne. Government and Social Welfare. New York: Henry Holt and Co . , 1958. Watson, E.F. "How Much is Enough?" Canadian Welfare. Vol . 38, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 7-11. Wheeler, Michael. A Report on Needed Research in Welfare in British Columbia. Vancouver: Community Chest and Councils, Social Planning Section, March 1961. Young, Pauline V. Scientific Social Surveys and Research. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1946. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105745/manifest

Comment

Related Items