Income Research Paper Series
Recent trends in social assistance in Ontario

Social assistance is an important component of the social safety net in Canada, and issues related to social assistance draw a lot of interest from researchers, policy makers and the public. Taking advantage of a recent and rich database—the Ontario Social Assistance Database created by Statistics Canada—this report examines the overall and disaggregated trends in social assistance rate in Ontario for the period from 2003 to 2019.

The study found that the share of the population who received social assistance was higher in the 2010s than in the 2000s, but the two components of the overall rate changed in opposite directions. A rising reliance on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) pushed up the overall rate, while a declining reliance on the Ontario Works (OW) program slowed the upward movement in the overall rate. The study also found that the social assistance rate and its components varied substantially across different groups and different areas in the province. Besides the sizable age and gender gaps, lone people and people living in one-parent families accounted for three-quarters of all social assistance beneficiaries, and a growing share of ODSP beneficiaries were assessed as having various mental disorders. While many factors might be driving these differences, the variations in the overall social assistance rate and its two components were closely correlated with labour market performance and population health.

It is well known that nearly half of Canada’s social assistance recipients live in Ontario, and, therefore, drawing a more complete picture of Ontario social assistance beneficiaries may also provide valuable information to policy makers in the other provinces and territories. 

The Ontario social assistance rate remains elevated despite an improving labour market

For more than a decade, from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, the overall social assistance rate closely followed the movements of the unemployment rate in Ontario. This correlation weakened in the 2000s, and, since the 2008 financial crisis, the co-movement appears to have been disrupted—the overall social assistance rate remained elevated despite a continuously improving labour market in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chart 1 illustrates the co-movements during the past 30 years.^Note  The chart indicates that the unemployment rate in the province doubled from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, rising from 5.6% in January 1989 to 11.3% in January 1993. Over that period, the social assistance rate also doubled, rising from 5.7% to 11.9%. In the next decade, Ontario’s economy recovered from the early 1990s recession. The unemployment rate nearly halved, decreasing from 11.5% in January 1994 to 6.0% in January 2000, and, correspondingly, the social assistance rate decreased from 12.5% to 7.2%.^Note 

Chart 1 start

Data table for Chart 1

Data table for chart 1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 1 Social assistance rate and Unemployment rate (right axis), calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Social assistance rate	Unemployment rate (right axis)
	percent
Sources: Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services and Statistics Canada.
1989
Fourth quarter	5.7	4.4
1990
First quarter	6.2	6.4
Second quarter	6.5	5.2
Third quarter	6.8	6.2
Fourth quarter	7.3	6.7
1991
First quarter	8.2	9.4
Second quarter	9.0	9.6
Third quarter	9.3	10.0
Fourth quarter	9.9	8.9
1992
First quarter	10.8	10.4
Second quarter	11.1	10.6
Third quarter	11.3	11.0
Fourth quarter	11.4	10.4
1993
First quarter	11.9	11.3
Second quarter	12.1	11.2
Third quarter	12.1	11.7
Fourth quarter	12.1	9.7
1994
First quarter	12.5	11.5
Second quarter	12.5	10.4
Third quarter	12.2	9.7
Fourth quarter	11.9	8.2
1995
First quarter	12.2	9.3
Second quarter	12.3	8.9
Third quarter	12.1	9.8
Fourth quarter	11.5	7.9
1996
First quarter	11.1	9.4
Second quarter	11.0	8.9
Third quarter	10.8	9.7
Fourth quarter	10.3	8.4
1997
First quarter	10.3	9.4
Second quarter	10.3	9.0
Third quarter	10.1	8.7
Fourth quarter	9.8	7.4
1998
First quarter	9.7	8.3
Second quarter	9.2	7.3
Third quarter	8.9	7.7
Fourth quarter	8.4	6.4
1999
First quarter	8.2	7.0
Second quarter	8.1	7.3
Third quarter	7.7	6.9
Fourth quarter	7.4	5.4
2000
First quarter	7.2	6.0
Second quarter	7.0	5.7
Third quarter	6.7	5.8
Fourth quarter	6.3	5.4
2001
First quarter	6.3	6.1
Second quarter	6.1	6.0
Third quarter	6.0	6.8
Fourth quarter	5.9	6.1
2002
First quarter	6.0	7.8
Second quarter	5.9	6.9
Third quarter	5.8	7.6
Fourth quarter	5.7	6.6
2003
First quarter	5.7	7.1
Second quarter	5.7	6.8
Third quarter	5.7	7.8
Fourth quarter	5.6	6.4
2004
First quarter	5.6	6.7
Second quarter	5.6	6.7
Third quarter	5.6	7.4
Fourth quarter	5.5	6.1
2005
First quarter	5.6	6.7
Second quarter	5.6	6.7
Third quarter	5.6	7.4
Fourth quarter	5.6	6.0
2006
First quarter	5.7	6.7
Second quarter	5.7	6.3
Third quarter	5.6	7.4
Fourth quarter	5.6	5.9
2007
First quarter	5.7	6.6
Second quarter	5.7	6.6
Third quarter	5.7	7.2
Fourth quarter	5.6	5.6
2008
First quarter	5.7	6.7
Second quarter	5.8	6.3
Third quarter	5.8	7.2
Fourth quarter	5.8	6.0
2009
First quarter	6.0	8.4
Second quarter	6.2	9.0
Third quarter	6.3	10.2
Fourth quarter	6.4	8.3
2010
First quarter	6.5	9.3
Second quarter	6.6	9.0
Third quarter	6.6	9.4
Fourth quarter	6.6	7.7
2011
First quarter	6.7	8.4
Second quarter	6.8	8.2
Third quarter	6.9	8.4
Fourth quarter	6.8	7.5
2012
First quarter	6.9	8.2
Second quarter	6.9	8.0
Third quarter	6.9	8.7
Fourth quarter	6.8	7.7
2013
First quarter	6.9	7.9
Second quarter	6.9	7.6
Third quarter	6.9	8.4
Fourth quarter	6.8	7.1
2014
First quarter	6.8	7.7
Second quarter	6.9	7.5
Third quarter	6.9	8.2
Fourth quarter	6.8	6.3
2015
First quarter	6.8	7.1
Second quarter	6.9	6.9
Third quarter	6.9	7.3
Fourth quarter	6.8	6.3
2016
First quarter	6.9	6.8
Second quarter	6.9	7.1
Third quarter	6.9	6.8
Fourth quarter	6.8	5.9
2017
First quarter	6.9	6.6
Second quarter	6.9	5.9
Third quarter	7.0	6.6
Fourth quarter	6.9	5.5
2018
First quarter	7.0	5.7
Second quarter	7.0	5.4
Third quarter	7.0	6.1
Fourth quarter	6.9	5.3
2019
First quarter	6.9	5.8
Second quarter	6.9	6.0
Third quarter	6.9	6.3
Fourth quarter	6.8	4.9

Chart 1 end

Start of text box

Note to readers

Before 1998, Ontario social assistance came under General Welfare Assistance and the Family Benefits Program, as well as the Foster Care Program and the Handicapped Children’s Benefits program. Since 1998, social assistance in Ontario has been provided to families and adults living alone who needed income supports through Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

OW provides financial and employment supports to Ontarians whose families do not have enough income or disposable assets to cover their living expenses. Ontarian adults who receive OW benefits must work or participate in employment-related activities, such as looking for work or participating in skill training.  

ODSP provides financial supports to Ontarians whose families do not have enough income or disposable assets to cover their living expenses and who meet the definition of having a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. Employment supports are also provided to ODSP recipients to prepare for, obtain or maintain a job on a voluntary basis for people with disabilities. However, adult ODSP beneficiaries without disabilities must work or participate in employment-related activities.

The number of beneficiaries under either OW or ODSP refers to the total number of lone people and family heads who receive employment and financial assistance under the two programs, as well as the spouses and child and adult dependants of the family heads. The social assistance case (caseload or benefit unit) refers to a lone person or a family unit receiving social assistance.

The overall social assistance rate is calculated as the ratio of beneficiaries to the population count. Since the total count of social assistance beneficiaries is the sum of OW and ODSP beneficiaries, the overall social assistance rate is equal to the sum of the OW social assistance rate and the ODSP social assistance rate.

In this article, the social assistance rate is calculated for those who are younger than age 65. Most Canadian residents 65 and older are eligible for the Old Age Security pension, and those among them with low income are also eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Therefore, most of them are no longer eligible to receive social assistance income.

Population counts by family type and type of disability are not available, so it is not possible to calculate the social assistance rate for these groups. In these cases, we examined the distributions of social assistance beneficiaries.

End of text box

The correlation between the overall social assistance rate and labour market performance became much weaker in the 2000s. In the first five-year period since 2000, the provincial unemployment rate fell by around one percentage point. The social assistance rate also fell, but the decrease was much lower in magnitude (less than half a percentage point). During the 2008 financial crisis, the unemployment rate increased strongly from about 7.2% in July 2008 to 10.2% in July 2009. The social assistance rate also rose, but by just half a percentage point, from 5.8% to 6.3%. However, the co-movement appears to have been disrupted in the decade after the 2008 financial crisis. While the provincial unemployment rate kept on declining, from 9.3% in January 2010 to a near-record low of 4.9% in October 2019, the social assistance rate did not fall like in the past. Instead, it inched up and remained higher (around 6.9%) than in the previous decade (around 5.5%).  

The weakened correlation between the overall social assistance rate and the unemployment rate coincided with a series of welfare reforms in the late 1990s. A major reform was the establishment of the Ontario Works (OW) program and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). A key difference between the two programs is that ODSP does not require adult beneficiaries with disabilities to work or to undertake employment-related activities, such as actively looking for a job or participating in skill training, while those activities are mandatory for all adult OW beneficiaries without disabilities. This requirement links labour market activities more closely to social assistance incidence under OW than under ODSP. It is therefore interesting to see how the co-movements between the social assistance rate and the unemployment rate differed under the two programs.

Chart 2 presents the results for the period from January 2003 to December 2019.^Note Note  The social assistance rate under OW still followed the movements of the unemployment rate well. From January 2003 to October 2008, as the provincial unemployment rate went down from 7.1% to 6.0%, the social assistance rate under OW (henceforth the OW assistance rate) decreased from 2.8% to 2.5%. During the 2008 financial crisis, while the unemployment rate rose from 6.0% in October 2008 to 10.4% in July 2009, the OW assistance rate increased from 2.5% to 3.0%. The co-movements between the unemployment rate and OW incidence continued after the financial crisis, but the correlation weakened, with the OW assistance rate becoming less responsive to the continuously declining unemployment rate.  

Chart 2 start

Data table for Chart 2

Data table for chart 2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 2 OW assistance rate, ODSP assistance rate, Overall social assistance rate and Unemployment (right axis), calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	OW assistance rate	ODSP assistance rate	Overall social assistance rate	Unemployment (right axis)
	percent
Note: OW = Ontario Works; ODSP = Ontario Disability Support Program. Sources: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database, population estimates and Labour Force Survey.
2003
January	2.8	2.7	5.6	7.1
February	2.8	2.7	5.6	7.2
March	2.8	2.7	5.6	7.0
April	2.8	2.7	5.6	6.9
May	2.8	2.7	5.6	7.4
June	2.8	2.7	5.5	7.0
July	2.8	2.7	5.5	7.8
August	2.8	2.7	5.5	7.7
September	2.7	2.7	5.5	7.2
October	2.7	2.7	5.4	6.5
November	2.7	2.7	5.4	6.3
December	2.7	2.8	5.4	6.1
2004
January	2.8	2.7	5.5	6.8
February	2.8	2.8	5.5	6.9
March	2.8	2.8	5.6	7.3
April	2.8	2.8	5.5	6.8
May	2.8	2.8	5.5	7.3
June	2.7	2.8	5.5	6.6
July	2.7	2.8	5.5	7.4
August	2.7	2.8	5.4	7.5
September	2.6	2.8	5.4	6.4
October	2.6	2.8	5.4	6.2
November	2.6	2.8	5.4	6.4
December	2.6	2.8	5.4	6.4
2005
January	2.7	2.8	5.5	6.8
February	2.7	2.8	5.5	7.0
March	2.7	2.8	5.6	7.4
April	2.7	2.8	5.6	6.7
May	2.7	2.8	5.5	7.2
June	2.7	2.8	5.5	6.7
July	2.7	2.8	5.5	7.5
August	2.7	2.8	5.5	7.5
September	2.7	2.8	5.5	6.3
October	2.6	2.8	5.5	6.0
November	2.6	2.9	5.5	5.6
December	2.7	2.9	5.5	5.6
2006
January	2.7	2.9	5.6	6.8
February	2.7	2.9	5.6	6.8
March	2.8	2.9	5.6	6.8
April	2.7	2.9	5.6	6.4
May	2.7	2.9	5.6	6.4
June	2.7	2.9	5.6	6.0
July	2.6	2.9	5.5	7.4
August	2.7	2.9	5.6	7.3
September	2.6	2.9	5.6	6.4
October	2.6	2.9	5.5	5.9
November	2.6	3.0	5.6	6.1
December	2.6	3.0	5.6	5.5
2007
January	2.7	3.0	5.7	6.6
February	2.7	3.0	5.7	6.6
March	2.7	3.0	5.7	7.1
April	2.6	3.1	5.7	6.7
May	2.6	3.1	5.7	6.7
June	2.6	3.1	5.7	6.4
July	2.5	3.1	5.6	7.2
August	2.5	3.1	5.7	7.0
September	2.5	3.1	5.6	6.0
October	2.5	3.1	5.6	5.7
November	2.5	3.1	5.6	5.9
December	2.5	3.2	5.6	6.0
2008
January	2.6	3.2	5.7	6.8
February	2.6	3.2	5.7	6.5
March	2.6	3.2	5.7	7.1
April	2.6	3.2	5.8	6.4
May	2.6	3.2	5.8	6.8
June	2.6	3.2	5.8	6.5
July	2.6	3.2	5.8	7.3
August	2.5	3.2	5.8	7.2
September	2.5	3.2	5.8	6.2
October	2.5	3.3	5.8	6.0
November	2.5	3.3	5.8	6.8
December	2.6	3.3	5.9	6.9
2009
January	2.7	3.3	6.0	8.6
February	2.8	3.3	6.1	9.1
March	2.9	3.3	6.2	9.8
April	2.9	3.3	6.3	9.2
May	3.0	3.4	6.3	10.2
June	3.0	3.4	6.4	9.5
July	3.0	3.4	6.4	10.4
August	3.1	3.4	6.5	10.3
September	3.1	3.4	6.5	8.7
October	3.1	3.4	6.5	8.4
November	3.1	3.4	6.5	8.7
December	3.1	3.5	6.6	8.6
2010
January	3.2	3.5	6.7	9.4
February	3.2	3.5	6.7	9.5
March	3.3	3.5	6.8	9.6
April	3.3	3.5	6.8	9.1
May	3.3	3.5	6.8	9.4
June	3.2	3.6	6.8	8.4
July	3.2	3.6	6.8	9.5
August	3.2	3.6	6.8	10.1
September	3.2	3.6	6.8	8.5
October	3.2	3.6	6.8	7.8
November	3.2	3.6	6.8	7.6
December	3.2	3.6	6.8	7.6
2011
January	3.3	3.6	6.9	8.5
February	3.3	3.6	6.9	8.3
March	3.3	3.7	7.0	8.9
April	3.3	3.7	7.0	8.3
May	3.3	3.7	7.0	8.7
June	3.4	3.7	7.1	7.9
July	3.4	3.7	7.1	8.5
August	3.3	3.7	7.1	8.6
September	3.3	3.7	7.1	7.6
October	3.3	3.7	7.0	7.5
November	3.3	3.8	7.0	7.4
December	3.3	3.8	7.1	7.0
2012
January	3.4	3.8	7.1	8.4
February	3.3	3.8	7.1	8.1
March	3.4	3.8	7.2	8.2
April	3.3	3.8	7.2	8.2
May	3.4	3.8	7.2	8.6
June	3.4	3.8	7.2	7.9
July	3.3	3.9	7.2	8.8
August	3.4	3.9	7.2	9.1
September	3.3	3.9	7.2	7.6
October	3.2	3.9	7.1	7.8
November	3.2	3.9	7.1	7.3
December	3.2	3.9	7.1	7.1
2013
January	3.3	3.9	7.2	8.1
February	3.3	3.9	7.2	7.7
March	3.3	4.0	7.2	8.1
April	3.3	4.0	7.2	7.8
May	3.3	4.0	7.3	8.0
June	3.3	4.0	7.2	7.5
July	3.2	4.0	7.2	8.5
August	3.2	4.0	7.2	8.6
September	3.2	4.0	7.2	7.2
October	3.1	4.0	7.1	7.2
November	3.1	4.0	7.1	6.9
December	3.1	4.0	7.2	7.3
2014
January	3.2	4.0	7.2	7.9
February	3.2	4.1	7.2	7.9
March	3.2	4.1	7.3	8.0
April	3.2	4.1	7.3	7.6
May	3.2	4.1	7.3	8.1
June	3.2	4.1	7.3	7.6
July	3.2	4.1	7.3	8.4
August	3.1	4.1	7.3	8.3
September	3.1	4.1	7.2	7.0
October	3.0	4.1	7.2	6.5
November	2.9	4.1	7.0	6.6
December	2.9	4.1	7.1	6.5
2015
January	3.0	4.1	7.1	7.3
February	3.0	4.1	7.1	7.1
March	3.1	4.1	7.2	7.3
April	3.1	4.2	7.3	7.0
May	3.1	4.2	7.3	6.8
June	3.1	4.2	7.3	6.4
July	3.1	4.2	7.3	7.4
August	3.1	4.2	7.3	7.8
September	3.1	4.2	7.3	6.6
October	3.1	4.2	7.3	6.5
November	3.0	4.2	7.2	6.2
December	3.0	4.3	7.3	6.3
2016
January	3.1	4.2	7.3	6.9
February	3.1	4.3	7.4	6.9
March	3.2	4.3	7.4	7.5
April	3.1	4.3	7.4	7.2
May	3.1	4.3	7.4	6.7
June	3.2	4.3	7.5	6.4
July	3.1	4.3	7.4	7.0
August	3.1	4.3	7.4	7.5
September	3.1	4.3	7.4	6.3
October	3.0	4.3	7.3	6.0
November	3.0	4.3	7.3	5.7
December	3.0	4.4	7.4	5.9
2017
January	3.1	4.3	7.4	6.7
February	3.1	4.4	7.4	6.4
March	3.1	4.4	7.5	6.9
April	3.1	4.4	7.5	6.0
May	3.1	4.4	7.5	6.7
June	3.1	4.4	7.5	6.2
July	3.1	4.4	7.5	6.7
August	3.1	4.4	7.5	6.6
September	3.1	4.4	7.5	5.8
October	3.0	4.4	7.4	5.5
November	3.0	4.5	7.5	5.2
December	3.0	4.5	7.5	5.2
2018
January	3.0	4.4	7.5	5.8
February	3.0	4.5	7.5	5.7
March	3.0	4.5	7.5	6.0
April	3.0	4.4	7.5	5.5
May	3.0	4.5	7.5	6.2
June	3.0	4.5	7.5	6.0
July	3.0	4.5	7.5	6.2
August	3.0	4.5	7.5	6.8
September	2.9	4.5	7.4	5.7
October	2.9	4.5	7.4	5.4
November	2.9	4.5	7.4	4.9
December	2.9	4.5	7.4	4.8
2019
January	2.9	4.5	7.4	5.9
February	2.9	4.5	7.4	5.7
March	2.9	4.5	7.4	6.4
April	2.9	4.5	7.4	6.1
May	2.9	4.5	7.5	5.6
June	2.9	4.5	7.4	5.5
July	2.9	4.5	7.4	6.4
August	2.9	4.5	7.4	6.5
September	2.8	4.5	7.3	5.2
October	2.8	4.5	7.3	5.0
November	2.8	4.5	7.3	5.0
December	2.8	4.5	7.3	4.7

Chart 2 end

By contrast, the social assistance rate under ODSP (henceforth the ODSP assistance rate) increased steadily regardless of the ups and downs in the unemployment rate. The ODSP assistance rate also exceeded the OW assistance rate after the mid-2000s. The ODSP assistance rate surpassing the OW assistance rate implies that ODSP beneficiaries outnumbered OW beneficiaries, while the constant upward movement in the ODSP assistance rate revealed that Ontarians’ reliance on ODSP increased over time. These changes were consistent with survey findings that both the prevalence and the severity of disabilities have risen substantially in the province over time.^Note  It seems that the continued increase in the ODSP assistance rate, together with the weakening responsiveness of the OW assistance rate to improvements in the labour market, helped the overall social assistance rate stay elevated in the 2010s.

Lone people and people living in one-parent families account for more than three-quarters of all social assistance beneficiaries

Starting from this section, we present disaggregated trends in social assistance for different groups of Ontarians. We begin by looking at the distribution of social assistance beneficiaries across different types of families.^Note  Our data allow us to classify all social assistance beneficiaries into four living arrangements: lone people (including people living alone or with other unrelated people), people in one-parent families, people in couple families with children and people in couple families without children. The data show that lone people and people living in one-parent families together accounted for more than three-quarters of all social assistance beneficiaries in Ontario.

Chart 3 presents the overall distribution of social assistance beneficiaries by family type in selected years. The chart indicates that lone people accounted for a much higher share of social assistance beneficiaries compared with people under the other three living arrangements. They were also the only group of beneficiaries whose share rose over time. In 2003, they accounted for 37.8% of all beneficiaries, while by 2019, their share increased to 46.7%. Both values were much higher than this group’s population share (which ranged from 16.3% in 2011 to 17.2% in 2021).^Note  People living in one-parent families accounted for the second-highest share of social assistance beneficiaries, but their share decreased over time, from 35.5% in 2003 to 29.9% in 2019. Their share of beneficiaries was also much higher than their population share (which varied between 10.0% and 11.0% from 2011 to 2021). Together, lone people and people living in one-parent families accounted for more than three-quarters (76.6%) of all social assistance beneficiaries in 2019.

Chart 3 start

Data table for Chart 3

Data table for chart 3
Table summary
The information is grouped by Family type (appearing as row headers), 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Family type	2003	2007	2011	2015	2019
	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database.
One-parent family	35.5	34.0	31.7	30.1	29.9
Lone person	37.8	41.7	43.5	46.2	46.7
Couple with children	18.9	16.9	17.7	16.9	17.2
Couple without children	7.8	7.4	7.0	6.8	6.2

Chart 3 end

In contrast, people living in couple families with children and those living in couple families without children accounted for much lower shares of all social assistance beneficiaries relative to lone people and people living in one-parent families. In 2019, people living in couple families with children accounted for 17.2% of social assistance beneficiaries, while people living in couple families without children made up 6.2% of beneficiaries. Thus, these two groups together accounted for less than one-quarter of all beneficiaries in 2019, much lower than their population shares around the same time (49.5% and 22.3%, respectively, in 2021).

However, the distributions of social assistance beneficiaries differed under the two social assistance programs. People living in one-parent families predominated among OW beneficiaries (Chart 4). For example, in 2019, people living in one-parent families accounted for 46.0% of all OW beneficiaries. However, their share of beneficiaries declined from 52.3% in 2003. In contrast, the share of lone people, while lower than that of people living in one-parent families, increased from 24.5% in 2003 to 33.4% in 2019.

Chart 4 start

Data table for Chart 4

Data table for chart 4
Table summary
The information is grouped by Family type (appearing as row headers), 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Family type	2003	2007	2011	2015	2019
	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database.
One-parent family	52.3	51.9	45.9	45.7	46.0
Lone person	24.5	28.1	32.6	34.5	33.4
Couple with children	20.2	17.2	18.4	17.3	18.5
Couple without children	3.0	2.8	3.1	2.6	2.1

Chart 4 end

There was a sharp difference in the share of beneficiaries between people living in couple families with children and those in couple families without children. The share of beneficiaries for the former group was at least six times higher than the share for the latter group. The disproportionately higher share of beneficiaries living in families with children (couple families with children or one-parent families) under the OW program suggests that the presence of children is an important factor in the incidence of social assistance, since the presence of children can be a barrier for some parents looking for a job. It can also make employment costlier for parents who need child care services.

In contrast, under ODSP, the share of lone people receiving social assistance dwarfed the shares of the other three groups (Chart 5). As mentioned before, the population share of lone people in Ontario varied from 16.3% in 2011 to 17.2% in 2021. However, their share of ODSP beneficiaries varied from 55.3% in 2003 to 57.3% in 2019, far exceeding their population share around the same time. The shares of ODSP beneficiaries belonging to the other three groups were similar, although the share of those in one-parent families increased from 13.3% in 2003 to 17.1% in 2019, while the share of those in couple families without children dropped from 14.0% to 9.5%. The share of ODSP beneficiaries living in couple families with children declined from 17.3% in 2003 to 16.1% in 2019.

Chart 5 start

Data table for Chart 5

Data table for chart 5
Table summary
The information is grouped by Family type (appearing as row headers), 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Family type	2003	2007	2011	2015	2019
	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database.
One-parent family	13.3	15.1	15.9	16.0	17.1
Lone person	55.3	56.1	55.7	56.8	57.3
Couple with children	17.3	16.6	17.0	16.7	16.1
Couple without children	14.0	12.3	11.4	10.6	9.5

Chart 5 end

More than half of beneficiaries with disabilities under the Ontario Disability Support Program are assessed as having mental disorders

It was shown earlier that the steady increase in the ODSP assistance rate drove up the overall social assistance rate in the 2010s, and the rising prevalence of disability was the main factor associated with the growing ODSP assistance rate. However, there are many types of disabilities, and it is helpful to see the distribution of ODSP beneficiaries across different types of disabilities.^Note 

The Ontario Social Assistance Database classifies beneficiaries with disabilities based on the underlying diseases, disorders and injuries according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), designed by the World Health Organization. Under the ICD, nearly 20 types of disabilities can be identified. This section focuses on the categories with the highest counts in 2003: mental disorders, musculoskeletal diseases or disorders, nervous and sense system diseases or disorders, congenital diseases or disorders, and circulatory diseases or disorders. The rest of the beneficiaries with disabilities were summed into a single category (other diseases or disorders).

Chart 6 illustrates the distribution of ODSP beneficiaries with disabilities and how the distribution changed over the last decades. The key observation is that a growing share of ODSP beneficiaries with disabilities were assessed as having mental disorders, including psychotic conditions, neurotic or personality disorders and other nonpsychotic conditions. In 2003, slightly above half (51.6%, or about 92,000) of ODSP beneficiaries with disabilities had at least one type of mental disorder. The proportion increased virtually every year over the next 16 years and reached a record high of 59.4% (about 209,000) by 2019. In contrast, all other top disability types saw declines in their shares over time. For example, ODSP beneficiaries with musculoskeletal diseases or disorders were the second most prevalent, but their share declined from 14.7% in 2003 to 11.8% in 2019. Similarly, the third most prevalent group of beneficiaries with disabilities, those with diseases or disorders of the nervous and sense systems, saw its share decrease from 10.7% to 9.0% during the same period.

Chart 6 start

Data table for Chart 6

Data table for chart 6
Table summary
The information is grouped by Type of disability (appearing as row headers), 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Type of disability	2003	2007	2011	2015	2019
	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database.
Mental disorders	51.6	52.2	53.8	57.0	59.4
Musculoskeletal diseases or disorders	14.7	14.0	13.6	12.5	11.8
Nervous and sense system diseases or disorders	10.7	9.9	9.4	9.2	9.0
Congenital diseases and disorders	3.7	3.6	3.5	3.3	3.1
Circulatory diseases and disorders	4.5	4.2	3.8	3.2	2.9
Other disorders	14.7	16.1	15.9	14.8	13.8

Chart 6 end

The increase in the share of beneficiaries with a mental disorder corresponded well to a rapid increase in the prevalence of mental health-related disabilities. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, the share of people 15 years and older with one or more disabilities rose from 22% in 2017 to 27% in 2022, and the largest increase was for mental health-related disabilities, from 33% to 39%.

The Ontario Disability Support Program assistance rate rises for both men and women, while the Ontario Works assistance rate declines for young women

In the previous two sections, we looked at changes in the distribution of social assistance beneficiaries by family type and disability type since population estimates were not available for these groups. For other groups of beneficiaries, social assistance data together with annual population counts from Statistics Canada allow us to generate time series of the social assistance rate according to their individual characteristics, such as age, gender, immigrant status and place of residence.

We begin by looking at how the social assistance rate varied over time by age, gender and program. The time series estimates suggest that the increase in the overall social assistance rate in the 2010s occurred at nearly all ages for both men and women. Chart 7 illustrates the overall social assistance rate for men and women at each single year of age in 2003 and 2019.^Note  The chart shows that the increase in the social assistance rate was generally stronger among men than among women. For example, at age 25, it rose from 4.4% in 2003 to 6.9% in 2019 for men, while for women, it increased from 6.6% to 7.3%. However, for women in their early 20s and young boys and girls, the changes were small (Chart 9 shows that this is mainly associated with a reduction in OW beneficiaries).

Chart 7 start

Data table for Chart 7

Data table for chart 7
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age (appearing as row headers), Male , Female, 2003, 2019, 2003 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age	Male		Female
	2003	2019	2003	2019
	percent
Source: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database.
0	8.6	7.4	8.7	7.5
1	9.0	9.2	9.0	9.6
2	9.5	9.3	8.7	9.5
3	8.8	9.3	7.8	9.3
4	8.8	9.2	7.6	9.5
5	8.6	9.3	7.3	9.2
6	8.1	9.2	6.8	8.8
7	7.9	9.2	6.7	9.1
8	7.7	9.1	6.5	9.1
9	7.4	8.8	6.5	8.9
10	7.1	8.7	6.2	8.9
11	6.8	8.7	6.1	8.5
12	6.4	8.3	6.0	8.2
13	6.4	7.9	5.8	8.0
14	6.2	7.7	5.5	7.6
15	6.1	7.4	5.7	7.4
16	6.0	7.2	5.6	7.3
17	5.6	6.9	5.9	7.2
18	6.2	7.8	7.0	7.7
19	5.6	6.9	7.0	7.1
20	5.0	6.5	6.9	6.7
21	4.7	6.5	6.7	6.9
22	4.3	6.4	6.6	6.9
23	4.4	6.4	6.7	7.2
24	4.3	6.6	6.6	7.2
25	4.4	6.9	6.6	7.3
26	4.4	6.7	6.4	7.6
27	4.2	6.9	6.3	7.6
28	4.1	6.8	6.1	7.6
29	4.2	7.0	6.0	7.8
30	4.3	6.8	6.1	7.6
31	4.2	6.8	6.0	7.7
32	4.4	7.0	5.8	7.9
33	4.5	6.8	6.1	7.8
34	4.5	6.8	5.8	7.8
35	4.6	6.9	6.1	7.8
36	4.8	7.0	5.9	7.9
37	4.9	7.0	5.9	7.5
38	5.0	6.9	5.9	7.5
39	5.1	7.0	5.9	7.5
40	5.1	7.2	5.9	7.5
41	5.2	7.1	5.8	7.3
42	5.2	7.0	5.6	7.3
43	5.3	6.9	5.8	7.2
44	5.3	7.0	5.7	7.1
45	5.4	6.6	5.5	7.0
46	5.4	7.0	5.4	7.2
47	5.5	6.8	5.4	7.1
48	5.3	7.1	5.3	7.1
49	5.4	7.2	5.5	7.4
50	5.3	7.3	5.4	7.1
51	5.3	7.7	5.3	7.4
52	5.0	7.6	5.3	7.5
53	4.9	7.7	5.2	7.6
54	4.9	7.9	5.5	7.7
55	4.8	8.0	5.4	7.7
56	4.8	8.1	5.5	7.8
57	5.1	8.1	6.1	7.8
58	4.9	8.3	6.1	7.7
59	5.1	8.3	6.1	8.0
60	4.9	8.2	6.1	7.6
61	5.0	8.0	6.1	7.3
62	5.4	8.0	5.9	7.0
63	5.5	7.8	6.2	6.9
64	5.4	7.5	5.8	6.6
65 and over	1.0	0.7	0.9	0.6

Chart 7 end

Chart 8 start

Data table for Chart 8

Data table for chart 8
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age (appearing as row headers), Male, Female, 2003, 2019, 2003 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age	Male		Female
	2003	2019	2003	2019
	percent
Sources: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database and quarterly population estimates.
0	0.7	1.5	0.6	1.6
1	0.8	1.9	0.7	2.0
2	0.9	2.0	0.7	2.1
3	1.0	2.2	0.7	2.2
4	1.1	2.2	0.7	2.4
5	1.3	2.4	0.8	2.3
6	1.3	2.5	0.8	2.4
7	1.5	2.6	1.0	2.6
8	1.6	2.8	1.0	2.7
9	1.6	2.9	1.2	2.8
10	1.7	3.0	1.4	3.0
11	1.7	3.1	1.4	3.1
12	1.8	3.2	1.6	3.1
13	1.9	3.2	1.6	3.3
14	2.0	3.3	1.7	3.3
15	2.1	3.3	1.8	3.3
16	2.0	3.4	1.7	3.4
17	1.9	3.3	1.6	3.2
18	2.4	4.4	1.8	3.7
19	2.1	4.2	1.7	3.4
20	2.0	4.0	1.6	3.2
21	1.9	4.0	1.4	3.2
22	1.7	3.9	1.4	3.2
23	1.7	3.8	1.4	3.2
24	1.8	3.9	1.4	3.1
25	1.7	4.0	1.4	3.1
26	1.8	3.9	1.5	3.1
27	1.7	4.0	1.5	3.0
28	1.8	3.8	1.6	3.2
29	1.8	3.9	1.6	3.2
30	1.8	3.7	1.8	3.1
31	1.9	3.6	1.7	3.2
32	2.0	3.8	1.8	3.2
33	2.1	3.7	1.9	3.3
34	2.1	3.7	1.9	3.3
35	2.2	3.8	2.1	3.4
36	2.4	3.8	2.2	3.6
37	2.5	3.9	2.2	3.6
38	2.6	3.8	2.4	3.7
39	2.8	3.9	2.5	3.8
40	2.8	4.1	2.7	3.8
41	2.9	4.3	2.8	3.9
42	3.0	4.2	2.8	4.0
43	3.1	4.3	3.0	4.1
44	3.1	4.3	3.1	4.3
45	3.2	4.2	3.1	4.3
46	3.2	4.5	3.2	4.5
47	3.4	4.4	3.3	4.6
48	3.3	4.8	3.4	4.8
49	3.5	4.9	3.6	5.0
50	3.5	5.0	3.6	5.0
51	3.6	5.4	3.7	5.3
52	3.4	5.5	3.7	5.6
53	3.4	5.7	3.8	5.8
54	3.5	5.9	4.1	6.0
55	3.5	6.2	4.1	6.0
56	3.5	6.2	4.3	6.2
57	3.8	6.4	4.7	6.3
58	3.7	6.6	4.8	6.3
59	4.0	6.6	4.8	6.6
60	3.8	6.6	5.0	6.3
61	4.0	6.6	5.0	6.1
62	4.3	6.7	4.9	6.0
63	4.4	6.6	5.1	5.8
64	4.4	6.2	4.9	5.6
65 and over	0.9	0.7	0.8	0.5

Chart 8 end

When the changes were examined separately for OW and ODSP, the steady increase in the ODSP assistance rate occurred for both men and women at all ages. Chart 8 illustrates the change from 2003 to 2019. It suggests that the increases were particularly strong for those in their 20s, for whom the ODSP assistance rate often more than doubled from 2003 to 2019. For example, at age 25, the ODSP assistance rate for men rose from 1.7% in 2003 to 4.0% in 2019, while for women, it increased from 1.4% to 3.1%. By contrast, the contribution of the OW assistance rate to the overall social assistance rate differed significantly from that of the ODSP assistance rate. Chart 9 presents the OW assistance rate in 2003 and 2019 by age and gender. Compared with Chart 8, the change in the OW assistance rate was moderate. For example, unlike for the ODSP, at no age was there a doubling in the OW assistance rate for both men and women. Instead, the OW assistance rate declined for young children and adults in their 20s of both genders from the early 2000s to the late 2010s, a period in which income from child benefits more than doubled for one-parent families and couple families with children.^Note  These declines in the OW assistance rate for young adults in their 20s, particularly for young women, helped offset the increase in their ODSP assistance rate, resulting in the moderate changes in the overall assistance rate around these ages observed earlier (Chart 7). 

Chart 9 start

Data table for Chart 9

Data table for chart 9
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age (appearing as row headers), Male, Female, 2003, 2019, 2003 and 2019, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age	Male		Female
	2003	2019	2003	2019
	percent
Sources: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database and quarterly population estimates.
0	7.9	5.9	8.1	6.0
1	8.3	7.3	8.2	7.6
2	8.6	7.2	8.0	7.4
3	7.8	7.1	7.1	7.2
4	7.7	7.0	6.9	7.1
5	7.3	6.9	6.5	6.9
6	6.8	6.7	6.0	6.5
7	6.4	6.6	5.7	6.5
8	6.1	6.3	5.5	6.4
9	5.8	5.9	5.3	6.1
10	5.5	5.7	4.9	5.9
11	5.0	5.6	4.7	5.4
12	4.6	5.1	4.4	5.1
13	4.5	4.7	4.1	4.7
14	4.2	4.4	3.8	4.3
15	4.0	4.2	3.9	4.1
16	4.0	3.8	3.9	4.0
17	3.7	3.6	4.3	4.0
18	3.8	3.3	5.1	4.0
19	3.5	2.7	5.3	3.7
20	3.0	2.6	5.4	3.5
21	2.8	2.5	5.3	3.7
22	2.6	2.5	5.2	3.7
23	2.6	2.6	5.3	4.0
24	2.5	2.7	5.2	4.0
25	2.6	2.9	5.2	4.3
26	2.6	2.9	4.9	4.5
27	2.4	2.9	4.8	4.5
28	2.3	3.0	4.6	4.5
29	2.3	3.2	4.4	4.6
30	2.4	3.1	4.4	4.5
31	2.3	3.2	4.3	4.6
32	2.4	3.2	4.0	4.7
33	2.4	3.1	4.2	4.5
34	2.4	3.1	3.9	4.5
35	2.5	3.2	4.0	4.4
36	2.4	3.1	3.7	4.3
37	2.4	3.1	3.6	4.0
38	2.4	3.1	3.5	3.9
39	2.3	3.1	3.3	3.7
40	2.3	3.1	3.2	3.7
41	2.3	2.9	3.0	3.4
42	2.2	2.8	2.8	3.3
43	2.2	2.6	2.8	3.1
44	2.2	2.6	2.6	2.9
45	2.2	2.4	2.4	2.7
46	2.2	2.4	2.2	2.6
47	2.1	2.3	2.1	2.5
48	1.9	2.3	1.9	2.3
49	1.9	2.3	1.9	2.4
50	1.8	2.3	1.8	2.1
51	1.7	2.3	1.6	2.2
52	1.6	2.1	1.6	1.9
53	1.5	2.0	1.4	1.9
54	1.4	2.0	1.4	1.7
55	1.3	1.9	1.3	1.6
56	1.2	1.9	1.3	1.6
57	1.2	1.7	1.3	1.5
58	1.3	1.7	1.3	1.4
59	1.2	1.7	1.3	1.5
60	1.1	1.6	1.2	1.3
61	1.0	1.5	1.1	1.2
62	1.1	1.3	1.1	1.1
63	1.1	1.2	1.1	1.0
64	1.0	1.2	0.9	1.0
65 and over	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1

Chart 9 end

Age and gender affect the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works assistance rates in opposite directions

In the previous section, we focused on changes in the social assistance rate over time by age, gender and program. Underneath these changes, there were also stable relationships between age, gender and the social assistance rate. Chart 10 illustrates these by showing the average social assistance rate, averaged across 17 years.

Chart 10 start

Data table for Chart 10

Data table for chart 10
Table summary
The information is grouped by Age (appearing as row headers), OW, ODSP, Male, Female, Male and Female, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Age	OW		ODSP
	Male	Female	Male	Female
	percent
Note: OW = Ontario Works; ODSP = Ontario Disability Support Program. Sources: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database and quarterly population estimates.
0	7.5	7.2	1.2	1.2
1	8.3	8.1	1.4	1.3
2	8.0	7.8	1.4	1.4
3	7.6	7.4	1.5	1.5
4	7.3	7.1	1.6	1.5
5	6.9	6.7	1.7	1.6
6	6.6	6.3	1.8	1.7
7	6.3	6.0	1.9	1.8
8	5.9	5.7	2.0	1.8
9	5.6	5.4	2.1	1.9
10	5.3	5.1	2.2	2.0
11	5.0	4.8	2.3	2.1
12	4.7	4.5	2.4	2.2
13	4.4	4.2	2.5	2.3
14	4.1	4.0	2.6	2.4
15	3.8	3.8	2.7	2.5
16	3.7	3.8	2.8	2.5
17	3.7	4.2	2.7	2.5
18	3.8	5.0	3.6	2.9
19	3.6	5.1	3.5	2.8
20	3.4	5.1	3.3	2.6
21	3.4	5.3	3.2	2.5
22	3.4	5.3	3.1	2.4
23	3.4	5.3	3.0	2.4
24	3.4	5.2	2.9	2.3
25	3.4	5.2	2.9	2.3
26	3.4	5.1	2.9	2.3
27	3.3	5.0	2.9	2.3
28	3.3	4.8	2.9	2.3
29	3.2	4.7	2.8	2.4
30	3.1	4.6	2.8	2.4
31	3.1	4.5	2.8	2.4
32	3.0	4.3	2.9	2.5
33	2.9	4.2	2.9	2.6
34	2.9	4.1	2.9	2.6
35	2.9	4.0	2.9	2.7
36	2.8	3.8	3.0	2.8
37	2.8	3.7	3.1	2.9
38	2.8	3.6	3.1	3.0
39	2.7	3.4	3.2	3.1
40	2.7	3.3	3.3	3.2
41	2.6	3.2	3.4	3.3
42	2.6	3.0	3.5	3.4
43	2.5	2.9	3.6	3.5
44	2.5	2.7	3.7	3.7
45	2.5	2.6	3.8	3.8
46	2.4	2.5	4.0	3.9
47	2.4	2.3	4.1	4.1
48	2.3	2.2	4.2	4.2
49	2.3	2.1	4.4	4.4
50	2.2	2.0	4.5	4.5
51	2.2	1.9	4.6	4.6
52	2.1	1.8	4.7	4.8
53	2.0	1.7	4.8	4.9
54	1.9	1.6	4.9	5.0
55	1.8	1.5	5.0	5.1
56	1.7	1.5	5.1	5.2
57	1.7	1.4	5.1	5.3
58	1.6	1.4	5.2	5.4
59	1.6	1.3	5.2	5.5
60	1.4	1.2	5.2	5.3
61	1.3	1.1	5.2	5.2
62	1.2	1.0	5.1	5.1
63	1.1	1.0	5.1	5.0
64	1.1	0.9	5.0	4.8
65 and over	0.1	0.0	0.6	0.6

Chart 10 end

The chart suggests that, firstly, the OW assistance rate decreased with age, while the ODSP assistance rate increased. The OW assistance rate was highest for children younger than 5 years of age, reflecting the relatively high shares of social assistance beneficiaries living in families with children. As mentioned earlier, the presence of young children can be an employment barrier for parents, particularly for mothers, who usually take on more child-rearing responsibilities than fathers. But, as children approach school age and child care costs—a major cost of employment—become lower, the OW assistance rate declines.

Among individuals of core working age, declines in the OW assistance rate with age were likely driven by the fact that older workers have a much lower unemployment rate than younger workers. For example, from 2003 to 2019, the average monthly unemployment rate for Ontario workers aged 15 to 24 was 14.1%, while it was 6.2% for those aged 25 to 44 and 5.3% for those aged 45 to 64.^Note  In addition, it is well known that older people tend to have higher wealth than younger people, and, under Ontario legislation, higher wealth can disqualify an applicant for social assistance.^Note  As people approach the age of 65, they become eligible for retirement pensions, and therefore the OW assistance rate would drop to zero.

In contrast, age has a positive effect on the ODSP assistance rate mainly because older people are more likely to experience health issues than younger people, and the health problems of older people tend to be more severe. In 2017, for example, 13.6% of Ontarians aged 15 to 24 had disabilities, while the disability rate for Ontarians aged 45 to 64 was nearly twice as high (26.7%). Among younger Ontarians with disabilities, 13.2% reported having severe disabilities, while among the 45- to 64-year-olds with disabilities, twice as many (27.4%) reported having severe disabilities.^Note  Therefore, population aging and the associated increases in the prevalence and severity of disability in Ontario would have played a role in the steadily rising ODSP assistance rate discussed earlier (Chart 2).^Note 

While the age effects on the social assistance rate held up to age 65 under the two programs, the gender gaps existed only for adults younger than 40, and, for them, gender affected the social assistance rate in opposite directions under the two programs. Under the OW program, the social assistance rate was much higher for women than for men. The gap was particularly wide between men and women in their early 20s, when the OW assistance rate averaged around 5.3% for women compared with 3.4% for men. In contrast, under ODSP, the gender gap was inverted—the ODSP assistance rate for men exceeded that for women. Although the magnitude of the inverted gender gap was relatively small (generally less than one percentage point), it was consistent and could be related to young men facing a higher probability of work-related disabilities.^Note 

The social assistance rate is lower for immigrants than for Canadian-born Ontarians

In past studies, researchers have had difficulties gauging the trend in the social assistance rate for immigrants in Canada (Smith-Carrier and Mitchell, 2015) because of a lack of data. Combining the Ontario Social Assistance Database with population estimates of immigrants from the Labour Force Survey, we were able to estimate the monthly social assistance rate for immigrants living in Ontario.^Note  Our estimates suggest that the social assistance rate for Ontario immigrants has been lower than that for Canadian-born Ontarians since at least the mid-2000s. While the social assistance rate for Canadian-born Ontarians remained elevated during the last five years (from 2015 to 2019), the rate for Ontario immigrants has slowly declined nearly every year since the early 2010s.^Note 

Chart 11 indicates that from 2006 to 2009, the social assistance rate varied from 4.2% to 4.8% for Ontario immigrants aged 15 and older, while the rate for Canadian-born Ontarians varied from 5.1% to 5.9%. This resulted in a gap as high as 1.1 percentage points between Canadian-born Ontarians and Ontario immigrants. After the 2008 financial crisis, the social assistance rate rose for both Canadian-born Ontarians (from 6.0% to 6.4%) and immigrants (from about 4.9% to 5.4%) at roughly the same pace until 2013, and the gap in the social assistance rate between immigrants and Canadian-born Ontarians remained largely unchanged. However, the difference between the social assistance rate of Canadian-born Ontarians and immigrants widened from mid-2013 to the end of 2019. Over this period, the social assistance rate of Canadian-born Ontarians varied from 6.4% to 6.8%, while the rate for immigrants declined nearly one percentage point, from around 5.4% to 4.5%. The gap thus widened to as much as two percentage points by the late 2010s. 

Chart 11 start

Data table for Chart 11

Data table for chart 11
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 11 Immigrants, Canadian-born people, OW, ODSP, Immigrants, Canadian-born people, Immigrants and Canadian-born people, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	Immigrants	Canadian-born people	OW		ODSP
			Immigrants	Canadian-born people	Immigrants	Canadian-born people
	percent
Note: OW = Ontario Works; ODSP = Ontario Disability Support Program. Sources: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database and Labour Force Survey.
2006
March	4.4	5.1	2.6	2.1	1.8	3.0
April	4.4	5.0	2.6	2.0	1.8	3.0
May	4.4	5.1	2.6	2.0	1.8	3.0
June	4.4	5.1	2.5	2.0	1.8	3.0
July	4.3	5.1	2.5	2.0	1.8	3.1
August	4.2	5.1	2.4	2.0	1.8	3.1
September	4.2	5.1	2.4	2.0	1.8	3.1
October	4.2	5.1	2.4	2.0	1.8	3.1
November	4.2	5.1	2.3	2.0	1.9	3.1
December	4.2	5.1	2.3	2.0	1.9	3.1
2007
January	4.3	5.2	2.4	2.1	1.9	3.1
February	4.3	5.2	2.4	2.1	1.9	3.1
March	4.3	5.2	2.4	2.1	1.9	3.2
April	4.3	5.2	2.3	2.1	1.9	3.2
May	4.3	5.3	2.3	2.1	2.0	3.2
June	4.3	5.2	2.3	2.0	2.0	3.2
July	4.2	5.2	2.3	2.0	2.0	3.2
August	4.2	5.2	2.2	2.0	2.0	3.2
September	4.2	5.2	2.2	2.0	2.0	3.2
October	4.2	5.1	2.2	1.9	2.0	3.2
November	4.3	5.1	2.2	1.9	2.1	3.2
December	4.3	5.1	2.2	1.9	2.1	3.2
2008
January	4.3	5.2	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.2
February	4.3	5.2	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.2
March	4.3	5.2	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.2
April	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.3
May	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.3
June	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.3
July	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.3
August	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.3
September	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.1	3.3
October	4.3	5.3	2.2	2.0	2.2	3.3
November	4.3	5.3	2.1	2.0	2.2	3.3
December	4.3	5.4	2.2	2.0	2.2	3.3
2009
January	4.4	5.5	2.2	2.2	2.2	3.3
February	4.5	5.5	2.3	2.2	2.2	3.3
March	4.6	5.6	2.3	2.3	2.2	3.3
April	4.6	5.6	2.4	2.3	2.3	3.3
May	4.7	5.7	2.4	2.3	2.3	3.3
June	4.7	5.7	2.4	2.3	2.3	3.4
July	4.7	5.7	2.4	2.3	2.3	3.4
August	4.8	5.8	2.6	2.4	2.3	3.4
September	4.8	5.8	2.5	2.4	2.3	3.4
October	4.8	5.8	2.5	2.4	2.3	3.5
November	4.8	5.9	2.5	2.4	2.3	3.5
December	4.8	5.9	2.5	2.4	2.3	3.5
2010
January	4.9	6.0	2.6	2.5	2.3	3.5
February	4.9	6.0	2.6	2.5	2.3	3.5
March	4.9	6.1	2.6	2.6	2.3	3.5
April	5.0	6.1	2.6	2.6	2.4	3.5
May	5.0	6.1	2.6	2.5	2.4	3.5
June	5.1	6.1	2.7	2.5	2.4	3.5
July	5.1	6.0	2.7	2.5	2.4	3.5
August	5.1	6.0	2.7	2.5	2.4	3.5
September	5.1	6.0	2.7	2.5	2.4	3.5
October	5.1	6.0	2.7	2.4	2.5	3.6
November	5.1	6.0	2.7	2.4	2.5	3.6
December	5.1	6.1	2.7	2.5	2.5	3.6
2011
January	5.1	6.1	2.7	2.5	2.5	3.6
February	5.1	6.2	2.6	2.5	2.4	3.6
March	5.1	6.2	2.7	2.6	2.4	3.6
April	5.1	6.2	2.7	2.6	2.4	3.7
May	5.1	6.3	2.7	2.6	2.4	3.7
June	5.2	6.3	2.7	2.6	2.4	3.7
July	5.2	6.4	2.8	2.7	2.5	3.7
August	5.2	6.3	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.7
September	5.2	6.3	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.7
October	5.2	6.2	2.7	2.5	2.5	3.7
November	5.2	6.3	2.7	2.5	2.5	3.7
December	5.2	6.3	2.7	2.5	2.5	3.8
2012
January	5.2	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
February	5.2	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
March	5.2	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
April	5.2	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
May	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
June	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
July	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.6	2.5	3.8
August	5.3	6.4	2.8	2.6	2.6	3.8
September	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.8
October	5.3	6.3	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.8
November	5.3	6.3	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.8
December	5.3	6.3	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.8
2013
January	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.8
February	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.9
March	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.9
April	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.9
May	5.4	6.5	2.7	2.6	2.6	3.9
June	5.4	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.6	3.9
July	5.4	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.7	3.9
August	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.7	3.9
September	5.3	6.4	2.7	2.5	2.7	3.9
October	5.3	6.4	2.6	2.4	2.6	4.0
November	5.2	6.4	2.6	2.4	2.6	4.0
December	5.2	6.4	2.6	2.4	2.6	4.0
2014
January	5.2	6.5	2.6	2.5	2.6	4.0
February	5.2	6.5	2.6	2.5	2.6	4.0
March	5.1	6.6	2.5	2.5	2.6	4.0
April	5.1	6.6	2.5	2.6	2.6	4.0
May	5.2	6.6	2.6	2.6	2.6	4.1
June	5.1	6.6	2.6	2.6	2.6	4.1
July	5.1	6.6	2.5	2.5	2.6	4.1
August	5.1	6.6	2.5	2.5	2.6	4.1
September	5.2	6.5	2.5	2.5	2.6	4.1
October	5.2	6.4	2.5	2.4	2.7	4.0
November	5.1	6.4	2.4	2.3	2.7	4.1
December	5.2	6.4	2.4	2.3	2.8	4.1
2015
January	5.2	6.5	2.5	2.4	2.8	4.1
February	5.2	6.5	2.4	2.4	2.8	4.1
March	5.2	6.6	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.1
April	5.2	6.6	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.1
May	5.2	6.6	2.5	2.5	2.7	4.1
June	5.2	6.7	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.1
July	5.2	6.7	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.2
August	5.1	6.7	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.1
September	5.1	6.6	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.2
October	5.1	6.6	2.4	2.4	2.7	4.2
November	5.1	6.6	2.4	2.4	2.7	4.2
December	5.1	6.6	2.3	2.4	2.7	4.2
2016
January	5.1	6.7	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.2
February	5.0	6.7	2.3	2.5	2.7	4.2
March	5.0	6.8	2.3	2.6	2.7	4.2
April	5.0	6.8	2.3	2.6	2.7	4.2
May	5.0	6.8	2.3	2.6	2.7	4.2
June	5.0	6.8	2.3	2.6	2.7	4.3
July	4.9	6.8	2.3	2.6	2.6	4.3
August	4.9	6.8	2.3	2.5	2.6	4.3
September	4.9	6.9	2.3	2.5	2.6	4.3
October	4.8	6.8	2.2	2.5	2.6	4.3
November	4.8	6.8	2.2	2.5	2.6	4.4
December	4.8	6.9	2.2	2.5	2.6	4.4
2017
January	4.8	6.8	2.2	2.5	2.6	4.3
February	4.9	6.9	2.2	2.5	2.7	4.4
March	5.0	6.9	2.3	2.5	2.7	4.4
April	5.0	6.8	2.3	2.5	2.7	4.3
May	5.1	6.8	2.3	2.5	2.8	4.3
June	5.2	6.8	2.4	2.4	2.8	4.3
July	5.1	6.7	2.3	2.4	2.8	4.3
August	5.2	6.7	2.4	2.4	2.8	4.3
September	5.1	6.7	2.3	2.4	2.8	4.3
October	5.1	6.7	2.3	2.3	2.8	4.3
November	5.1	6.7	2.3	2.3	2.8	4.4
December	5.0	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
2018
January	5.0	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
February	4.9	6.8	2.2	2.4	2.8	4.4
March	4.9	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
April	4.9	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.7	4.4
May	4.9	6.8	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
June	5.0	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
July	4.9	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
August	4.9	6.7	2.2	2.3	2.8	4.4
September	4.9	6.6	2.1	2.2	2.8	4.4
October	4.8	6.6	2.1	2.2	2.8	4.4
November	4.8	6.7	2.0	2.2	2.8	4.5
December	4.8	6.6	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.4
2019
January	4.8	6.7	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
February	4.7	6.7	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
March	4.7	6.7	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
April	4.7	6.7	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
May	4.7	6.7	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
June	4.7	6.6	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.4
July	4.7	6.6	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
August	4.7	6.6	2.0	2.2	2.7	4.5
September	4.6	6.6	1.9	2.1	2.7	4.4
October	4.6	6.6	1.9	2.1	2.7	4.5
November	4.5	6.6	1.9	2.1	2.7	4.5
December	4.5	6.6	1.8	2.1	2.7	4.5

Chart 11 end

Chart 11 also suggests that the gap in the social assistance rate between Canadian-born Ontarians and immigrants was mainly driven by the higher ODSP assistance rate of Canadian-born Ontarians. The ODSP assistance rate was much lower for immigrants since they were generally healthier and less likely to apply for ODSP.^Note  By contrast, the OW assistance rate for both immigrants and Canadian-born Ontarians followed a downward trend, and the differences between them were small. However, 2015 seems to be a turning point, before which the OW assistance rate of immigrants was slightly higher than that of Canadian-born Ontarians. Thereafter, the reverse was observed, as the Express Entry evaluation system—which places more emphasis on Canadian working experience, language proficiency and a rigorous evaluation of foreign education credentials—was introduced.^Note 

The social assistance rate varies within and across census metropolitan areas

Chart 12 indicates that the social assistance rate also varied within and across different geographic regions.

Chart 12 start

Data table for Chart 12

Data table for chart 12
Table summary
The information is grouped by Census metropolitan areas (appearing as row headers), 2003, 2019, OW, ODSP, OW and ODSP, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Census metropolitan areas	2003		2019
	OW	ODSP	OW	ODSP
	percent
Note: OW = Ontario Works; ODSP = Ontario Disability Support Program. Sources: Statistics Canada, Ontario Social Assistance Database and quarterly population estimates.
Ottawa	4.3	2.4	3.0	3.2
Kingston	3.3	3.3	2.2	5.3
Belleville	4.4	3.3	2.3	8.1
Peterborough	3.2	2.6	3.4	5.2
Oshawa	2.3	1.7	2.6	3.4
Toronto	3.0	1.6	2.5	2.5
Hamilton	3.2	2.6	2.6	4.0
St. Catharines–Niagara	3.1	2.8	3.3	5.0
Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo	2.8	1.6	2.7	2.9
Brantford	2.3	3.3	2.0	5.3
Guelph	1.2	1.6	1.6	2.7
London	3.8	2.5	4.0	4.3
Windsor	3.7	2.2	3.6	5.0
Barrie	1.5	1.6	1.7	3.3
Greater Sudbury	4.2	3.3	3.2	4.8
Thunder Bay	3.2	3.4	3.1	5.3

Chart 12 end

Firstly, the increase in the overall assistance rate in the 2010s (Chart 1) occurred in almost all census metropolitan areas (CMAs), with very different magnitudes. From 2003 to 2019, it rose substantially in Barrie (3.1% to 5.0%), Guelph (2.8% to 4.3%), Oshawa (3.9% to 6.0%) and Peterborough (5.8% to 8.6%), while in Greater Sudbury, Toronto, Kingston and Hamilton, the increases were mild (all less than half a percentage point). In contrast, the overall social assistance rate in the Ottawa CMA decreased from 6.7% to 6.1%.

Secondly, the OW assistance rate rose slightly in the Guelph, Barrie and Oshawa CMAs, while in the other CMAs, it decreased or remained stable from 2003 to 2019. Relatively large declines occurred in the Belleville (4.4% to 2.3%), Kingston (3.3% to 2.2%) and Ottawa (4.3% to 3.0%) CMAs, while residents in Greater Sudbury, Hamilton and Toronto saw moderate decreases. In sharp contrast, the ODSP assistance rate increased in all CMAs. The strongest increases (doubling or more) from 2003 to 2019 occurred in Belleville (3.3% to 8.1%), Windsor (2.2% to 5.0%), Barrie (1.6% to 3.3%), Oshawa (1.7% to 3.4%) and Peterborough (2.6% to 5.2%). The Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo and St. Catharines–Niagara CMAs also saw strong growth from 2003 to 2019, while the smallest increase occurred in the Ottawa CMA (2.4% to 3.2%).

An important driver of the variation in the social assistance rate across CMAs was likely the uneven labour market performance across different regions in the province. As documented by several authors, during the past two decades, nearly all job creation in Ontario occurred in or near the Greater Toronto Area and the Ottawa CMA, while almost all other CMAs incurred significant job losses.^Note  Given the strong performance in the Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton, Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo, Barrie and Ottawa CMAs, it is not surprising to see that these CMAs had lower overall social assistance rates than the others. For example, in Guelph, where the average unemployment rate (5.5%) was the lowest among all Ontario CMAs from 2003 to 2019, the social assistance rate was also the lowest among all Ontario CMAs throughout the 17-year period.^Note 

In contrast, the CMAs with higher social assistance rates in 2019 all had weak labour market performance. Among them, Thunder Bay (8.4%), Windsor (8.6%), Peterborough (8.6%) and St. Catharines–Niagara (8.3%) all had at least one labour market indicator worse than the Guelph and Ottawa CMAs and CMAs in or near the Greater Toronto Area. In particular, the Windsor CMA had the highest average unemployment rate (8.7%) among all CMAs, while the Peterborough CMA saw the highest increase in its unemployment rate from 2003 to 2019. These two CMAs, together with the Thunder Bay and St. Catharines–Niagara CMAs, also had much lower employment and labour force participation rates. For example, the average labour force participation rates in St. Catharines–Niagara (58.0%) and Thunder Bay (59.4%) were much lower than those in Guelph (72.3%), Barrie (71.2%) and Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo (71.0%).

However, labour market performance was not the only factor behind the variations in the social assistance rate across the CMAs. As mentioned earlier, only adult beneficiaries without disabilities were required to work or actively participate in employment-related activities. For nearly four out of five ODSP adult beneficiaries, those activities were not required. Hence, health might also have played an important role in the variations in the social assistance rate, particularly in the ODSP assistance rate. For example, according to the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, the Belleville CMA had the highest proportion of adults with disabilities (43.5%) among all CMAs in Ontario. Correspondingly, it also had the highest ODSP assistance rate among all CMAs during the 2010s. Peterborough (disability rate of 32.8%) and Kingston (disability rate of 31.1%), where the ODSP assistance rate was also relatively high, held the remaining spots in the top three adult disability rates in the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability.

Financial assistance rises under the Ontario Disability Support Program but declines under Ontario Works

Social assistance benefits consist of financial support and employment support in Ontario. Financial support includes payments to help cover the costs of food, clothing, shelter, prescribed drugs, medical supplies and devices, vision and dental care, and other personal items. Employment support comprises child care costs and other employment-related expenses, such as job placement fees. However, nearly all social assistance payments were financial assistance for both the OW program (96% to 97%) and ODSP (nearly 100%). Therefore, this section focuses on trends in financial assistance received by families and lone people.

Family composition and size are key factors in determining the amount of financial assistance under the policy directives for social assistance in Ontario. As charts 4 and 5 indicate, beneficiaries in one-parent families accounted for the largest share of Ontarians receiving social assistance under the OW program, while lone beneficiaries predominated among the population receiving social assistance under ODSP. The charts also illustrate that under OW, the share of beneficiaries in one-parent families decreased and the share of lone people went up, while under ODSP, the shares of lone beneficiaries and beneficiaries in one-parent families both rose over time. These diverse trends suggest that the effects of family composition and size differ between OW and ODSP.^Note  It is therefore necessary to examine the trends in social assistance payments by family type, size and program separately.

Table 1 contains the average monthly financial assistance (in 2019 constant dollars) received by lone person and different types of families under OW and ODSP for selected years. The table reveals several important trends in social assistance payments in Ontario.

Firstly, it indicates that financial assistance to families of ODSP beneficiaries was higher than to families of OW beneficiaries for any given family composition and size. For example, in 2019, a one-parent family with one child received on average $870 per month in financial assistance under OW, while under ODSP, the average monthly payment was $1,450 for a family with the same composition and size. Similarly, a one-parent family with an adult dependant received $1,090 per month under OW, while under ODSP, the average payment was $1,630 per month.

Secondly, financial assistance payments seem to reflect the economies of scale in family consumption, such that the needs of a four-person family exceed those of a two-person family but not by twice as much. For instance, in 2019, the monthly payments to a couple without dependants were $1,045 under OW and $1,475 under ODSP, while for a couple with an adult dependant, average monthly payments were $1,240 under OW and $1,685 under ODSP, respectively. However, payments to larger families depended on whether additional members are children or adults. A single parent family with one child received an average of $870 in financial assistance per month in 2019. An otherwise identical family that had an additional person would receive more financial assistance. If the additional person was a child, the average monthly payment would increase 9.8% to $955, but if the additional person was an adult, the average monthly payment would go up by 34.5% to $1,170.

Thirdly, for most family types and sizes, from 2003 to 2019, average financial assistance received under OW declined, while the amount received under ODSP increased. Under OW, people living alone ($655 to $670) and couples with two children ($1,255 to $1,280) saw slight increases, while monthly payments stayed essentially the same for one-parent families with one child and one adult dependant and for couples with one adult dependant. For the nine other types of families, the average monthly OW financial assistance declined, including for one-parent families with one child ($985 to $870, -11.7%) or two children ($1,045 to $955, -8.6%) and for couple families with two adult dependants ($1,490 to $1,360, -8.7%). In contrast, under ODSP, other than families with one or more children, who saw moderate declines (ranging from -0.9% to -6.4%), the eight other types and sizes of families experienced marginal increases in financial assistance, ranging from 1.7% to 5.5% after accounting for inflation.

However, changes in financial assistance from 2003 to 2019 differed and were not uniform in the 17-year period. From 2003 to 2009, average payments rose for nearly all types of families under both OW and ODSP, and the increase was relatively large for families with one or more adult dependants. For example, one-parent families with two adult dependants saw their average monthly OW financial assistance rise 9.7%, from $1,290 in 2003 to $1,415 in 2009, while for couple families with one adult dependant, financial assistance increased 9.1%, from $1,240 to $1,350. The largest increase occurred for couple families with two adult dependants under ODSP, for whom the average monthly payment went up by 14.8%, from $1,850 in 2003 to $2,125 in 2009.  

In contrast, the average financial assistance decreased for all family types and sizes under both OW and ODSP from 2009 to 2019, though the decrease under OW was much stronger than the decrease under ODSP. Under OW, families with two adult dependants saw the largest declines: couple families with two adult dependants saw their financial assistance go down from $1,545 per month in 2009 to $1,360 per month in 2019 (-11.9%), while one-parent families with two adult dependants experienced a decline from $1,415 to $1,270 per month (-10.2%). Under ODSP, the biggest decline occurred for couple families with two adult dependants (-8.6%), from $2,125 per month in 2009 to $1,940 per month in 2019.

Summary

Social assistance is an important part of the social safety net in Canada, and issues related to it draw a lot of research interest. This analysis takes advantage of a recent and rich database—the Ontario Social Assistance Database created by Statistics Canada—to extend previous work and fill knowledge gaps. In addition to looking at social assistance beneficiaries by gender, age and family type, we document trends in social assistance by immigrant status, place of residence across the province and type of disability for beneficiaries with disabilities under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).  

The study found that the overall social assistance rate in Ontario remains elevated despite an improving labour market after the 2008 financial crisis. The elevated social assistance rate was largely the result of a continuously increasing ODSP assistance rate, irrespective of the ups and downs in the unemployment rate and a moderate decrease in the Ontario Works (OW) assistance rate that still followed the fluctuations in the unemployment rate, even though the correlation between the two weakened more recently.

The distribution of the social assistance beneficiaries changed substantially, with more than half of ODSP beneficiaries being assessed as having mental disorders, as the prevalence of disability rose over time. In terms of living arrangements, it was found that lone persons and persons in one-parent families accounted for more than three-quarters of all social assistance beneficiaries, and the share of lone persons among social assistance beneficiaries rose robustly over time.

We found the ODSP assistance rate rose for both men and women at all ages, while the OW assistance rate declined for young women from 2003 to 2019. However, the effects of age and gender on the social assistance rate differed between the two programs. The OW assistance rate declined with age, while the ODSP assistance rate rose with age. Although women around child-rearing ages were more likely than men to receive social assistance under the OW program, young men were more likely than young women to receive social assistance under the ODSP. Regarding immigrant status, the study found that the social assistance rate has been lower among Ontario immigrants than Canadian-born Ontarians since at least the mid-2000s. The social assistance rate for Ontario immigrants also declined over the last decade, while that for Canadian-born Ontarians increased.

The study also found that the social assistance rate varied significantly across different regions in the province. Almost all census metropolitan areas (CMAs) in or near the Greater Toronto Area (Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton, Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo and Barrie) and the Ottawa CMA had lower social assistance rates compared with Belleville, Thunder Bay, Windsor and Peterborough. Labour market conditions and the prevalence of disability were likely the main factors behind the variations.

Finally, even though average monthly financial assistance payments changed little from 2003 to 2019, there were variations in different periods and across the two social assistance programs. From 2003 to around 2009, financial assistance rose moderately for nearly all types and sizes of benefit units, while in the subsequent decade, average financial assistance declined. On average, families receiving ODSP benefits saw increases in financial assistance, while families under the OW program saw declines from 2003 to 2019.

References

Béland, D., and P. M. Daigneault. 2015. Welfare Reform in Canada, Provincial Social Assistance in Comparative Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Berg, N., and T. Gabel. 2017. “Who was affected by new welfare reform strategies? Microdata estimates from Canada,” Applied Economics, 49(14), pp. 1395-1413.  

Breslin, F. C., and P. Smith. 2005. “Age-related differences in work injuries: A multivariate, population-based study,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48(1), pp. 50-56.

Crossman, E., F. Hou and G. Picot. 2021.“Are the gaps in labour market outcomes between immigrants and their Canadian-born counterparts starting to close?”Economic and Social Reports, 1(4): pp. 1-19.

Lafleur, S., and B. Eisen. 2017. “Uneven recovery: Much of Ontario still hasn’t fully recovered from the 2008 recession,” Fraser Institute.

Maroto, M., and D. Pettinicchio. 2020. “Barriers to Economic Security: Disability, Employment, and Asset Disparities in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology, 7(1), pp. 53-79.

Ostrovsky, Y. 2012. “The Dynamics of Immigrant Participation in Entitlement Programs: Evidence from Canada.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 45(1), pp. 107-136.

Smith-Carrier, T., and J. Mitchell. 2015. “Immigrants on Social Assistance in Canada: Who Are They and Why Are There?” in D. Béland and P. M. Daigneault: Welfare Reform in Canada, Provincial Social Assistance in Comparative Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 305-322.