A number of recommendations have been made in a report on the two individuals given one-way bus tickets from North Battleford to British Columbia in March.
The case made headlines across the country when two individuals, Charles Neil-Curly and Jeremy Roy, requested and were granted one-way tickets on a bus from North Battleford to British Columbia early in March.
Their arrival in Vancouver was a major media story there and immediate questions were raised about whether the correct procedures were followed by Social Services. It was also an issue during the provincial election campaign in Saskatchewan. Social Services Minister Donna Harpauer ordered the review.
The report released on Thursday indicated the correct Social Services policy was followed with respect to both individuals.
The benefits had been issued through the Saskatchewan Assistance Program. According to the report, “the decision to close Client A’s TEA (transitional employment allowance) file and issue transient aid transportation benefits through SAP to relocate back to B.C. was within policy. As required, supervisory approval was provided.”
As for the second individual, the “policy used to provide Client B with transportation benefits for moving out of province is found in SAP Policy 10.6.5 or 10.6.6 in SAID Policy. This is the correct policy, given his circumstances, for an out-of-province move. As required, supervisory approval was provided. While the travel benefits were issued using the correct policy, the relative strength of a plan is a qualitative judgment by the worker.”
According to the report, the decision to issue benefits for a bus ticket was compliant with ministry policy, that communication occurred “effectively and efficiently” between the TEA program call centre and the service centre, and that the policy used was the correct policy.
But the report noted that, while travel benefits were issued using the correct policy, “SAP policy identifies the need to make contact with the destination province for existing clients. Transient Aid policy does not note this same requirement. Contact was made with the Development and Social Innovation local office in Vancouver by the Income Assistance Supervisor, advising of the pending arrival of the two individuals in B.C. This contact was, however, shortly after departure, rather than in advance.”
There were also a number of potential areas of improvement identified. It was noted the planning could have been stronger and more extensive, and the contact with the destination province could have been made earlier and involved more information for the clients regarding options upon arrival.
Talking with each client individually instead of at the same time might have helped as well to ensure communication was tailored to the individual and options and planning were considered from an individual perspective.
Ten systemic recommendations came out of the report. They include such things as drafting an out-of-province move procedure to accompany policy, review and clarification of the travel benefits policy to include more specific decision-making criteria for the approval of “Transient Aid” and “Outside of Province” benefits, detailed and thorough case planning, providing additional training to all supervisors and front-line workers on application of out-of-province move and transient aid and add an out-of-province or transient aid scenario/exercise to the existing core training package for income assistance workers, among others.
It was also noted Alberta and Manitoba have provisions similar to Saskatchewan’s.
