Financial assistance limits to be imposed
Time limits are set to be imposed on clients of the Island’s burgeoning financial assistance programme.
Able-bodied recipients will be able to claim up to a maximum of five years, with payments reducing annually after the first year.
The amendments, which will come into effect on July 1, were announced yesterday by Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, the Minister of Community and Cultural Affairs.
Single parents and those claiming medical benefits may also be required to provide extra documentation.
Financial assistance “remains unsustainable”, Ms Gordon-Pamplin told the House of Assembly, and the relief is “not an entitlement but a privilege”.
Progressive Labour Party MP Rolfe Commissiong replied that the Opposition understood fiscal realities — but warned the requirements were likely to come with unintended consequences.
Ms Gordon-Pamplin told MPs: “These amendments do not impact the level of care or service to our most vulnerable population, but rather are encouraging our younger able-bodied population to be more self-sufficient and reliant.” She said that the budget for financial assistance swelled by 300 per cent over the past decade, while the number of clients quadrupled.
Last year, the department had a roster of people receiving financial assistance that ranged from 2,462 a month to 2,727.
Expenditure over the past two to three years increased from $9.7 million per quarter in the first quarter of 2012-13 to more than $12 million in quarter four of this last fiscal year.
Seven people a day sought help from the Department of Financial Assistance over the last fiscal year — 1,678 people.
While the highest payouts go to seniors or disabled people, the minister said that the categories of able-bodied unemployed and people with low earnings had more than doubled over the past two to four years.
“This equates to a payout of $1.2 million to $1.5 million monthly,” Ms Gordon-Pamplin said. “In some cases in these categories, especially those able-bodied and unemployed, [people] have been on assistance for many years.”
The time limits will be the first of their kind imposed, holding able-bodied recipients to a maximum of five years of continuous payment, or “a period made up of two or more awards”.
Such recipients will get the full amount for a maximum of one year only, she said, followed by ten per cent off the full amount each year thereafter — which would end at 60 per cent off the full eligible amount by the final year.
Second medical opinions may be required, to verify medical claims for people receiving payments past three months, and single parents may be required to secure court-ordered child support payments before being approved.
Where the applicant is single, separated or divorced with one or more dependent children, they must show what steps have been taken with the courts, Ms Gordon-Pamplin explained.
Reacting, Mr Commissiong told The Royal Gazette: “We have to have some concern about these amendments.
“Many people will say they are fair and just, and we are not ignoring financial reality, but we don’t have to have people not getting the assistance they need in light of our severe economic conditions.”
The sliding scale and five-year cap could bring unintended consequences, he said.
“We are really concerned with requiring single parents to apply through the courts for child support orders on the part of the other parent.
“We think this is somewhat short-sighted — it could lead to a Hobson’s Choice on the part of too many clients with young children. In some cases the father is hostile or the father is one who has been willing in the past to give support but because of financial challenges is not able to provide.”
Mr Commissiong said a government and country must be judged by how it treated “the lowest among them”, and that the One Bermuda Alliance “continues to make the wrong choices, especially in light of the significant financial contribution made for the America’s Cup”.
The requirements are the latest in a series for the Department of Financial Assistance, which in recent years brought in mandatory life skills classes, with persons with substance abuse problems to be formally assessed if recommended.
Martha Dismont, executive director of Family Centre, was “not surprised by these policy changes” but was concerned about those in need of help not receiving it.
She said: “I, with a couple of my colleagues, recently met with staff at [the Department of] Financial Assistance to understand policies and procedures in order to properly advise our clients, and to explore possible solutions to some of the issues that we knew they were facing.
“We heard of misunderstanding by consumers of what the system is in place to achieve, and we heard of abuses of the system by consumers.
“The Department mentioned its concern that the rate of financial need is unsustainable. Having heard all this, I am not surprised at these policy changes.
“With regard to striking the right balance, these policies appear to be important due diligence steps. I would hope that it does not complicate the application process for the consumer.
“We already have a number of low, and no-income members of the community who struggle with complicated and bureaucratic systems. When at-risk individuals find the system more complicated than useful, they will often turn to desperate and undesirable means to survive.
“It will be completely unfair for those who truly need the assistance to be faced with possible unfair barriers. Single parents have not had great success in securing court-ordered child support.
“The health minister is looking to reduce costs, and healthcare costs are rising. We must be careful about asking for additional medical opinions, unless this is simple to do, and does not incur greater costs.
“I completely understand the rationale for the new policies, and in principle agree that applicants must be scrutinised and weaned off the system eventually, we clearly have to make sure that other systems in place will support the new requirements.”
After the announcement that financial assistance will be capped at five years, Royal Gazette reporter Rajan Simons hit the streets of Hamilton to ask: Is this fair?
• Kenneth Dill, 51, education manager: “I think that if financial assistance was capped at a maximum of five years every case should be reviewed initially. We can’t leave people out in the wind if they cannot recover due to not enough jobs being available. There might be one position available but 20 applicants, so it depends on the amount of jobs we have.”
• Kaywell Outerbridge, 58, personal assistant: “Five years is more than enough time for people to get back on their feet with the help of financial assistance and start making their own money but I don’t think that it should be given a time limit being that everyone’s needs are different. If you are going to be on financial assistance it shouldn’t be abused and it should come with restrictions; if you apply it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are going to get it.”
• Una Lewis, 62, retired: “Bermudians should be entitled to financial assistance because this is our country and if you cannot do for yourself, your country should be able to do for you, but I don’t think that it should be taken advantage of. I know of several scenarios where people have applied for assistance but then they have the best cell phones; if you’re going to be on financial assistance then you need to have the bare minimum of what you actually need. Why have these high-end things when you can’t pay your rent?”
• Bev Koehler, 61, medical assistant: “Everybody has a rough time at a certain point in life and may need a little extra to get back on their feet. Five years should be a decent amount of time for someone to be on financial assistance unless they have other things getting in the way like medical problems or being unable to hold a job.”
• Joanna Little, 29, executive assistant: “Five years makes sense: in five years a lot can change and after that time some may come to not need it any more. Once you get a good job you could even be able to become financially stable in two years. If you’re unemployed, you’re going to try and get as many benefits as you can and some Bermudians love to feel entitled. You have to be able to need the assistance.”
• Charlie Souza, 36, bartender: Financial assistance should be given on a case-by-case basis and if each case is judged individually then there should be no reason for a time limit. If there is a single mom with three kids and she has part-time work over five years and is doing her very best trying to prove that she is trying to work, then why should the kids suffer because of an arbitrary time-limit? But I do think Bermuda is in a tough spot and we need to watch our money like everybody else in the world.”
• Chris Simons, 28, painter: “Five years should be enough time for the average person to get back on their feet but I know people that have been looking for work for over two years, so what if you still can’t find work after five? I see the point why she wants to apply this because after five years it seems as though some people are being lazy and just abusing the assistance. I know a few people on financial assistance and it is definitely a good thing, especially for single parents.”
• Christine Jones, 28, shop partner: “It’s a hand-up and not a hand-out and people get confused between the two, they don’t use it to benefit themselves. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of people that use it for what it’s there for and then you have others who are using it due to medical reasons and can’t work. There should be a sub-clause in whatever amendment is made that states who gets financial assistance for an extended or maybe a lifetime period. It’s a double-bladed sword but I don’t disagree that five years is enough time for people to start supporting themselves entirely.”
