The online dialogue “ON Poverty Reduction – Strategy at Work” was launched in May 2014 and is expected to continue during the fall. By bringing together academics, practitioners and representatives from the non-profit sector, the dialogue aims to identify concrete and feasible opportunities that help assess if and how Ontario is making progress towards reaching its poverty reduction goals. In this blog post I take stock of the ideas that the participants put forward in their blogs.[i] More information on this initiative is available in the Interim Report.[ii]
Overall, the dialogue’s participants are positive about Ontario’s first Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). This view is shared by contributors who are actively involved in the PRS as stakeholders but also by those who initially had no or very little prior knowledge about Ontario’s poverty reduction efforts. The strategy’s goals are clear, the indicators used to monitor progress generally make sense and the proposed actions are comprehensive in the sense that they are aimed at influencing a broad range of factors associated with poverty and that they involve policy efforts affecting poverty reduction right now and in the future.
Achieving a feasible mix of short and long term poverty reduction effects is challenging. The blog posts of Sherri Torjman and Nick Pearce illustrate an important dilemma where, one the one hand, direct spending on income transfers and subsidies will give an “immediate punch” (Torjman) while, on the other hand, a tight(er) fiscal space constrains the future scope for such spending (Pearce). Greg Richards‘ blog post reminds us that in making such trade-offs both effectiveness (impact) and efficiency (costs) considerations play a role. Perhaps because of this challenge, it is not surprising that the off-line brainstorms I had with the participants regularly touched upon the possibility / need / scope for having an independent / arm’s length advisory assessment of the strategy (i.e. one that also includes an assessment of the (planned) policy actions).
While the dialogue is still ongoing, the bloggers identified five opportunities for an enhanced monitoring and communication of progress on poverty reduction:
- Connecting actions to progress indicators
- Monitoring effects on vulnerable groups and local communities
- Summarizing investments in a poverty reduction budget
- Independent verifying and reviewing of public reporting
- Re-imagining online outreach
Opportunity 1: Connecting actions to progress indicators
More (public) information is needed on whether and how the government’s PRS actions are contributing to changes in the progress indicators. Knowing how many dollars are invested and how many Ontarian’s or Ontarian communities are touched by a specific action is simply not enough. Geranda Notten’s blog post observes that the annual progress reports provide very little information on the pathway(s) between government’s actions and the poverty reduction indicators. Such information is crucial to find out whether the actions are having any effect and why (not) and, it is relevant knowledge both for policy makers and the public. Greg Richards‘ blog post mirrors this view and explains how to identify pieces of information to complement the progress indicators. “Outcome measurements are important, but the use of ongoing measurements of the relative impact of different program activities can help program managers better understand the chain of events that lead to the desired outcome. In so doing, they can not only allocate resources more efficiently, but also define more clearly the specific outcomes for which they should hold themselves accountable.” Greg deGroot-Maggetti’s (forthcoming) blog therefore pleads for more indicators and targets on policy efforts to supplement the outcome indicators.
Opportunity 2: Monitoring effects on vulnerable groups and local communities
Currently we know how Ontarians and their children are doing on average but it is not clear how this plays out for specific vulnerable groups and local communities. This key point is addressed in the blog posts of Mary Pat Mackinnon and Greg deGroot-Maggetti (forthcoming). Doing well (or not) is different from the chances of winning the lottery. In a fair lottery every ticket has an equal chance of winning but in life some Ontarians are more likely to be affected by poverty than others. The risk of poverty varies with observable characteristics such as the community in which you live, your gender, race, age, ethnicity, immigration background, health, and so on. Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Act therefore recognizes that the government has a special responsibility towards vulnerable groups. With the current information, however, one can only guess whether such groups fared worse / better / equally in comparison to the average Ontarian. By disaggregating the progress indicators for different population groups such questions can be answered. Moreover, and in line with opportunity 1, disaggregating indicators that inform about the effects of policy actions helps assess whether vulnerable groups also benefit from those actions.
Opportunity 3: Summarizing investments in a poverty reduction budget
How much is spent under the umbrella of the PRS? Fleecing the annual progress updates and budget statements is time consuming and yields a very partial and blurry snapshot. Reducing poverty is not only challenging in itself but it also requires coordination across government units (horizontally and vertically). The PRS helps with this coordination challenge, but it also comes on top of an existing responsibility and reporting structure. As illustrated by the three policy actions discussed in Geranda Notten’s blog post, the annual progress reports provide some information on how much is spent on poverty reduction but the information is scattered and not consistently reported across reports. A budget accompanying the annual reports would provide a quick and annual overview of investments. Such a statement would at least hold one line per program / action (i.e. Ontario Child Benefit, Second Career etc.) and it would report the costs of having a PRS (i.e. salary and other spending on administering a PRS). It would also be helpful to know which Ministry is responsible for the spending item and whether spending is ongoing (i.e. program) or incidental (i.e. costs associated with rolling out full day kindergarten), old or new (i.e. increased Ontario Child Benefit). Doing this is not as easy as it sounds, but doing this for the, say, the 10 most important actions under the PRS umbrella seems feasible enough. (These need not be the most expensive actions but those that are expected to be most (cost-) effective.)
Opportunity 4: Independent verifying and reviewing of public reporting
Can the public believe what is reported? The annual progress updates provide a wealth of information but it is very difficult, if not impossible to verify the credibility of the report’s claims. The blog posts of Geranda Notten and Mary Pat Mackinnon discuss the lack of references to places holding more information on the used methodology and data to obtain the presented ‘facts’ and, more generally, what sources where used to inform policy choices. Unless one is an insider and / or puts in considerable effort to contact civil servants for more information, even a subject expert cannot say much about the credibility of the report’s claims. Providing (references to) information about sources, data and methodology is one way. When information cannot be made public because of privacy reasons for instance, inviting a third party to review and comment on the reporting could further reduce uncertainty around credibility.
Opportunity 5: Re-imagining online outreach
Ontario’s PRS website could “be a catalyst to action rather than a static repository of dry documents”. The blog post of Mary Pat Mackinnon zooms in on what is communicated and how on the PRS website. The point of departure is that the Government of Ontario wants civil society and citizens to be aware of and involved in poverty reduction. To get this involvement “thoughtful and creative approaches to both what is shared publicly and how it is shared are hugely important to building public trust and engaging Ontario civil society and citizens as partners in such an ambitious society building public project.” A key insight here is that there exist not just one but many publics, each having different interests and knowledge. A website’s design should thus take this diversity information needs and wants into account. Furthermore, “the public can be an ally in sustaining the poverty reduction strategy but only if they have easy and attractive access to impactful and clear information that prompts deeper thinking.” The micro site See.Know.Share from the Canadian Institute of Health Information’s (CIHI) could be a source of inspiration in this respect. This microsite is interactive and visually attractive and focuses on the question “How well is our healthcare system working?”.
Geranda Notten is professor in Comparative Public Policy at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa
[i] Unless I directly quote from a published blog post, the views expressed in this blog post are mine only.
[ii] Notten, G. (28 August 2014)), ON Poverty Reduction – Strategy at Work, Interim Report.
The post Taking stock: Opportunities for enhanced monitoring on poverty reduction in Ontario appeared first on On Poverty Reduction.