On December 23, Accueil Bonneau announced that it was “on the brink” and had to restrict the daily food aid offered to more than 400 people who are homeless or in precarious situations. The reason: a critical financial situation. The organization has been running deficits for almost three years, and state funding is unable to meet demand.
It must be said that Accueil Bonneau, like many organizations, is facing the repercussions of inflation combined with a housing crisis, which, obviously, translates into an increased demand for food aid. However, the problem seems different: the organization cannot obtain recurring funding to provide its food service for administrative reasons.
The Support Program for Community Organizations guarantees this type of funding exclusively to organizations that offer emergency accommodation at all times. Not offering this type of service, Accueil Bonneau cannot check the box that would give it access to significant funding to maintain the food supply, even if the service is recognized by the government as “essential “.
Faced with the public announcement of the organization’s financial challenges, the minister responsible for Social Services and the Minister of Health quickly released $50,000 of their “discretionary sums” to ensure that no breakdown in services occurred. will produce, or the cost of one month of food service. A few days later, a “respite until March” was announced, with the granting of “emergency aid”.
This “emergency” assistance offered to Accueil Bonneau will allow, for a few months, the maintenance of services, which, in itself, is excellent news. However, it is difficult to rejoice when we understand that the case of Accueil Bonneau is not an exceptional case, but rather an example case which illustrates the problematic dynamic which tends to be established between the State and community organizations. Organizations “on the brink” are alerting the media to their critical situation. In response, the State demonstrates its proactivity, only in cases corresponding to its priorities, and quickly releases “emergency” sums. Obviously, these sums offered in the short term do not constitute a lasting solution.
If “emergency” programs could be an adequate solution in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we must remain critical of this management by “emergency”, which seems to have become perpetual and define the leitmotif of the payment of funding for community organizations. In recent years, this same pattern has been observed on more than one occasion.
Let’s take the example of “emergency” funding offered to food banks or to organizations that work with refugees. These amounts are necessary, but other solutions exist, including increasing funding for the “mission” of organizations, which not only helps avoid service breakdowns, but also offers stability to organizations so that they can plan these services and activities while limiting the job insecurity of many of their workers.
But is this a feasible solution for the State? What if the financial precariousness of organizations was beneficial to political leaders? It must be said that it is much easier to direct the services of an organization which, for lack of other solutions and “on the brink of the abyss”, comes to bend to the demands of the State, which invites it to reorient its services.
This is also what seems to be happening in the case of Accueil Bonneau. If the organization aspires to recurring state funding, only one path is offered by Minister Carmant: the addition of services based on the needs identified by the State. This is what he indicates in a communication on X: “The development of services open 24/7 […] would open the door to additional financing, [car] it is a fundamental element if we wish to offer the best possible services and help people experiencing homelessness to get off the street. »
However, it seems that Minister Carmant should be reminded that community organizations are not at the service of the State, but of the population they serve. The “autonomous” nature of community organizations is also explicitly recognized in the government policy on community action which governs their financing. However, there seems to be a great temptation to direct the services of these organizations, or even to “subcontract” state responsibilities and benefit from the work of poorly paid (or unpaid) people.
In this context, keeping organizations in a precarious financial situation and “governing through urgency” in line with the public grievances of organizations seems to be the mode of governance recommended by the current government. If, in 2020, Prime Minister Legault affirmed that “there is no question of there being anyone in Quebec who does not have something to eat”, and committed to “ensuring that “there is enough money to buy all the food that is necessary”, four years later, no solution has been proposed to resolve this problem in the longer term.
Organizations must be content, once again, with piecemeal funding, offered in a discretionary manner by elected politicians, and must repeatedly legitimize their financial needs in the public space. However, the solution is simple and has been demanded for more than ten years by the community: an immediate increase in “mission-based” funding. Hoping that the government will come to its senses by the next budget.