LICO's  or low income cutoffs developed by Stats Canada ? Stats Canada emphatically states that these arenít poverty lines (LICO's are quite different from measures of poverty & this agency does not endorse their use as such "they reflect a consistent and well defined methodology that identifies those who are substantially worse-off than the average")
-but everyone else calls them poverty lines, and the National Council of Welfare publishes them under the title of ìpoverty linesî.
They are determined by looking at what the Canada average family expenditure on food, shelter & clothing is, expressed as a % of pre-tax income.  The cut offs are set where families spend 20% more of their income than the Canadian average on food, shelter and clothing.  They are adjusted for size of family and area of residence.

LIM (Low income measure) used by Stats Canada, but this approach is also used by the European Union:
These are based on 1/2 of median (midpoint) of the range of individual/family gross incomes across Canada, adjusted for family size but also # of kids and adults in the family. They are not adjusted for size of community
 

Market Basket Measures (MBM) It involves developing a basket of necessities, and then pricing the basket according to location in Canada. The main issues are what goes into the basket, and how often one needs to change what goes into it to reflect community interest/standards in terms of necessities.
-there are many differences in approaches to the MBM measure.  for example:
Fraser Institute/C. Sarlo measure: what goes into the basket is assumed to be what is necessary to ensure physical survival.  For example, coffee & tea are excluded from the food part of the basket.  Using this measure (and only the Fraser Institute does) reduces poverty in Canada by 75% over the LICO's measures.

Toronto Social Planning Council Budget Guidelines: what they consider essential to the basket is based on what is required for social inclusion, not just physical survival.Öit seeks to identify a selection of goods & services whose cost represents the minimum expenditure necessary for social?rather than mere physical survival.   Includes things like a daily newspaper, transportation, recreation at a local YM/YWCA, and a week's holiday at a lakeside cottage.
 

SOCIAL EXCLUSION

-CCSD takes an social exclusion/inclusion approach to its definition of relative poverty when they say that:
any definition of (relative) poverty must take into account social and psychological as well as physical well-being.  The relative approach is based on social inclusion & equity, that is, on some notion of the extent to which society should tolerate inequality in the distribution of income.  It argues that someone who has so little that he or she stands out in relation to the surrounding community will feel marginalized.  Marginalized peopleÖaffect the social cohesion of a community because they no longer feel part of what they see as an indifferent or hostile society.

It has been claimed that social exclusion is different to poverty. Room (1995) for example has claimed that social exclusion
ï is a broader concept than poverty;
ï is more dynamic;
ï moves from the individual, through the family and the household to the neighbourhood;
ï is a relational issue ? about participation, power and integration rather than merely finance;
ï is a catastrophic condition rather than merely a point on a distribution.

Research by  Bradshaw et al. came up with four dimensions of social exclusion: impoverishment or exclusion from adequate income or resources (traditional views of poverty); labour market exclusion; service exclusion; and exclusion from social relations.

Exclusion from the labour market

Attachment to the labour market is held to be important for individuals not just because it is seen as a route to an adequate income but because it is an important arena for social contact, self-esteem and social interaction.

Service excluded

One aspect of social exclusion is lack of access to basic services, whether in the home (such as power and water supplies) or outside it (such as transport, shopping facilities and financial services). Bradshawís research suggested that those lacking three or more services fit this category of being service excluded.

Exclusion from social relations

Non-participation in common social activities such as from the following list:

Visiting friends or family in hospital or other institutions
Two meals a day
Visits to friends or family
Celebrations on special occasions such as Christmas
Visits to school e.g. sports day, parents evening
Attending weddings, funerals and other such occasions
A hobby or leisure activity
Collect children from school
Telephone
Friends or family round for a meal, snack or drink
A holiday away from home for one week a year
Attending place of worship
A evening out once a fortnight
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly
Going to the pub once a fortnight
Holidays abroad once a year