London's Anti-Poverty Strategy: Literature Review

London, like Ontario, is embarking on a formal poverty reduction strategy. Poverty levels in Ontario and London, as measured by low-income, are of significant concern: Ontario is known as the “child poverty capital of Canada” with a before-tax low-income rate of 17%. The low-income rate for children in London is higher than Ontario’s at 20%. Children and youth in London are more likely than any other age group to live with low-income. London’s recent immigrants, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, visible minorities, and lone parents have higher low-income rates. Women in London– particularly single senior women and women in other vulnerable groups, are more likely than men to live with low-income. Child and family poverty affects everyone. The harm done to children living in poverty, with insufficient food, shelter, clothing and supports, has lifelong consequences for them with respect to their health and future economic prospects. The research on every front is clear and compelling. Dollars invested in children to provide the conditions for healthy development save us huge social and economic costs later. In order for our children, youth and families who are struggling with poverty, to have a sense of belonging in our community, relationships need to be developed through employment, skill development, volunteer opportunities, recreation, leisure and cultural activities, child care and early learning opportunities. Meeting children’s fundamental needs is not a choice; it is a community responsibility which has tremendous rewards for all concerned. As we begin the community dialogue on an anti-poverty strategy for London, one of the first matters we will have to agree on is how we are going to measure poverty. This decision will establish our strategic framework for the development of an action plan. Traditionally, income measures like the Low Income Cut-Off and market basket measures against income have been most commonly used. While effective as economic measures, actions become limited, and measures like increasing the availability of safe, affordable housing fall outside this measurement system. To accommodate for this shortcoming, England and Ireland have made great progress through the use of “indices of deprivation”. Finally, the social determinants of health have been used as a broad lens for looking at the social and health impacts of poverty and marginalization.

Publication Date: 
2008