This briefing paper was made possible, in part, by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), SSHRC grant number 410-2004-0669
For questions, please contact the Community-University Institute for Social Research (CUISR) at:
University of Saskatchewan
432-221 Cumberland Avenue North
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
S7N 1M3
Telephone: (306) 966-2121
Facsimile: (306) 966-2122
E-mail: cuisr.oncampus@usask.ca
Web site: http://www.usask.ca/cuisr/
Copyright © Community-University Institute for Social Research, 2007
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. In the case of photocopying or other forms of reprographic reproduction, please consult CANCOPY, the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, at 1-800-893-5777.

A group of people worked together to create this briefing paper and, hundreds of others have added their input.
Special thanks go to the many individuals who responded in one or more of the research stages in 2001, 2004 and 2007. Participants answered questions in telephone surveys, focus group discussions and face-to-face interviews.
Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan, members of the CUISR Quality of Life Module, the Quality of Life Advisory Group, and other community researchers were instrumental in collecting data and in the data analysis. The Quality of Life research group includes: Allison Williams, Bill Holden, Nazeem Muhajarine, Lou
Hammond Ketilson and Peter Kitchen. A special thanks to Peter Kitchen who not only managed the third iteration of data collection, but who was primarily responsible for drafting this document.
The members of the Quality of Life Advisory Group include some of the above as well as: Louise Clarke
(CUISR), Sheri Benson (United Way), Vanessa Charles (Anti-Poverty Coalition), Carolyn Rogers (Antipoverty
Coalition), Kathie Cram (Saskatoon Health Region), Sue Delanoy (Communities for Children), Bill Holden
(City of Saskatoon), Dwayne Docken (Urban Aboriginal Strategy), Livia Kellett (City of Saskatoon), Heather
Dunning (City of Saskatoon), Joanne Hritzuk (Saskatchewan Home Based Business Association), Kelley Moore
(RIC), and JoAnn Coleman Pidskalny (Saskatoon Housing Coalition). These members’ community roles and addresses are listed in Appendix A.
CUISR is grateful to the local policy makers who were interviewed about their organizations’ policies. We are confident that their input will add to the depth of the discussion at the conference. Please note the list of the interviewed policy informants/makers in Appendix C.
This briefing paper would not have happened without the support of Evelyn Flynn and Maria Basualdo in the
CUISR office. And, thanks to Carmen Dyck and Colleen Krushelinski for their dedicated help in conducting interviews with community members and with community based agency staff.
Finally, thanks go to the StarPhoenix for conducting the 2001 telephone survey and FAST Consulting for administering the 2004 and 2007 telephone surveys.
THIS INITIATIVE WAS FUNDED BY THE SOCIAL SCIENCE AND
HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA & SUPPORTED
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN, UNITED WAY, SASKATOON
DISTRICT HEALTH AND THE CITY OF SASKATOON

T hank you for planning to attend the third Community-University Institute for Social Research (CUISR)
Quality of Life Community Forum 1 .
Since CUISR first began in 1999, it has been involved in an on-going research program to track quality of life in
Saskatoon. ‘Quality of life’ (QoL) can be defined as ‘the overall enjoyment of life’. Many factors influence how much we can enjoy our life overall and these include, good health, family, friends, community conditions, and the opportunities for employment, income, housing and access to public services.
There are two key purposes for CUISR’s quality of life research:
• The first, has been to inform the public, community groups, government agencies and policy-makers about important social issues that affect the well being and health of Saskatoon residents.
• The second purpose, has been to establish priorities for action.
Our research for this briefing paper began in 2001. Research involved a telephone survey with nearly 1,000 residents, as well as, a series of face-to-face interviews, focus groups and discussions with policy makers.
Then in 2004, this consultation and research process was repeated. And it was again, more recently, carried out during the winter/spring of 2007. CUISR now has data collected for the period 2001-2004-2007, and this data helps us look at the development of Saskatoon’s quality of life during six important years.
The overall guiding principal of the research has been to examine the connection between quality of life and the social conditions in three types of Saskatoon neighbourhoods, (i.e., poor, middle income and wealthy neighbourhoods). In this report they are described as “Low”, “Middle” and “High” referring to their socio-economic status (SES).
Our quality of life research identified and focused on three main themes:
1. Income Inequality
2. Social Inclusion
3. The Responsibility for Change
These three themes are also the focus of this briefing paper.
Thank you for taking part in the forum. We welcome your comments.
Bill Holden and Allison Williams, Co-Directors of the Quality of Life Module, CUISR
1 3rd CUISR Quality of Life Community Forum, June 4th, 2007, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
1

2
C
UISR explored the theme of Saskatoon’s growing income inequality by focusing on four categories of information:
1.1 The Income Inequality
1.2 Overall Quality of Life
1.3 Health
1.4 The Overall Direction of Saskatoon as a city
1.5 Insights and Concluding Comments from Key Policy Makers
1.6 Reflective Questions
Summary Points
• An income gap remains an important issue in Saskatoon.
• Overall, perceptions of quality of life have improved over the 2001-2004-2007 period.
• Self-rated health has improved considerably between 2004 and 2007.
• While perceptions of quality of life and health improved in the Middle and High SES neighbourhoods they remained flat in the Low SES neighbourhoods. A widening gap is now evident.
• A growing and large majority of residents feel that things in Saskatoon are headed in the right direction.
1.1: Income Inequality
“Saskatoon’s growing income gap was seen as an important issue in the 2001 and 2004 CUISR Quality of Life
Briefing Papers. In 2006, the income in the wealthiest Saskatoon neighbourhoods was nearly 3 times greater than that of the poorest. And, the average household income in the Low SES neighbourhoods was significantly lower than that in the Middle and High SES neighbourhoods and in Saskatoon as a whole.
Figures 1 and 2 (next page) indicate that the income gap narrowed somewhat between 2001 and 2006 and that there was an improvement in the Low SES neighbourhoods. In fact, this group recorded an 8 percent increase in average median household income between 2001 and 2006. The income of the Middle SES and High SES groups did not increase as much as the Low SES neighbourhoods, increasing by 2.5 per cent and 4.5 percent respectively.

Theme 1: Income Inequality
Median Household Income
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
Saskatoon
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Figure 1: Source: 1986 to 2001 Statistics Canada Census, 2006 Generation 5 (Private company estimation)
Median Household Income
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Low SES $16,645.53 $23,149.13 $22,948.63 $26,673.76 $28,898.49
Middle SES $33,187.50 $37,677.67 $39,353.91 $43,814.55 $44,965.36
High SES $30,770.00 $47,473.83 $67,119.00 $79,493.29 $83,084.36
Saskatoon $28,931.00 $36,219.00 $38,036.00 $41,991.00 $41,613.29
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
Saskatoon
Figure 2: Source: 1986 to 2001 Statistics Canada Census, 2006 Generation 5 (Private company estimation)
3

Theme 1: Income Inequality
1.2: Overall Quality of Life
The 2001, 2004 and 2007 telephone surveys asked respondents to describe their overall quality of life (QoL).
As Figure 3 shows, it is clear that overall, respondents felt better about their QoL in 2007 then they did in either
2001 or 2004. A total of 67 percent rated their QoL as either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’. This represents a significant change from the 2001 to 2004 period when respondents had less enthusiasm about their QoL.
However, it is important to point out that there are differences in perceptions of QoL among the three neighbourhood groups. A gap exists between respondents of High/Middle SES neighbourhoods and those living in
Low SES neighbourhoods.
Overall Quality of Life, 2001, 2004 and 2007
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
2001 2004 2007
Figure 3: Overall Quality of Life 1.2:
Figure 4 shows this division. It shows that there was a significant increase in the proportion of people in the
High and Middle SES neighbourhoods who rated their QoL as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ across the survey years 2001 and 2007. However, there was a slight drop in the percentage of people in the Low SES neighbourhoods who rated their QoL as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ over that same time period. Also, a higher percentage of Low SES respondents rated their QoL as ‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’ in 2007 (17.8) than in 2001 (13.4).
Excellent/Very good quality of life
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 4: Excellent/Very Good Quality of Life by Neighbourhood Group
4

Theme 1: Income Inequality
1.3: Health
In telephone surveys people were asked to rate their own health.
Figure 5 indicates that there was a large change in how people perceive their own health over the 2001-2004-
2007 period. While there was an overall drop in Saskatonians’ enthusiasm about their health between 2001 and
2004, there was a considerable rebound in perceptions of health between 2004 and 2007. In 2007, a total of 57.8 percent of respondents rated their health as either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’.
Self-rated health
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2001
Figure 5: Self-Rated Health
2004 2007 excellent very good good fair poor
Figure 6 (below) shows changes in how people in three types of Saskatoon neighbourhoods rated their own state of health. This chart reveals that while more respondents reported ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ health between 2004 and 2007, there is also a growing gap in health in Saskatoon according to socio-economic status.
Figure 6 shows about 64 percent of the respondents in the High and Middle SES neighbourhoods indicated that they have ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ health in 2007. However, the gap between these two groups and respondents in the Low SES neighbourhoods had increased to nearly 20 percent. At the same time, there is a widening gap between neighbourhoods with respect to those reporting ‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’ health. In fact in 2007, 23 percent of Low SES respondents rated their health as ‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’ compared to just fewer than 10 percent of High and Middle SES respondents.
Excellent/very good self-rated health
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 6: Excellent/Very Good Self-Rated Health by Neighbourhood Group
5

Theme 1: Income Inequality
1.4: Overall Direction of Saskatoon
The 2004 and 2007 telephone surveys asked respondents a general question about the direction of Saskatoon.
Asking people’s perception about the direction of the city can give insight into how residents feel about their quality of life and the overall opportunities and conditions that exist in their community and in the city.
Figure 7 shows that in 2007 a significantly higher proportion of respondents felt that things in Saskatoon were going in the right direction (76 percent) compared to the 58 percent who felt this way in 2004. This optimism appears to reflect changes in how people assess quality of life and health over the same period and, as Figure
8 illustrates this is shared by residents in each of the neighbourhood groups. The largest increases in optimism were held by High and Low SES neighbourhoods (20 percent each).
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Do you think things in Saskatoon are generally going in the right or wrong direction? right direction wrong direction unsure/don't know
2004 2007
Figure 7: The Direction of Saskatoon
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Things in Saskatoon are going in the 'right direction'
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2004 2007
Figure 8: The Direction of Saskatoon by Neighbourhood Group
6

Theme 1: Income Inequality
1.5 Insights and Concluding Comments from Key Policy Makers
“Now if you are a low-income person, because of the leisure card passes, parents can take their kids to the swimming pool, people during the winter have places to exercise, and if you are able to exercise, it adds to your quality of life and makes you more healthy.” Key Policy Informant
“If it’s a system that suites the whole, it will tend to suit the higher economic status first, and the lower economic status has a different cultural makeup just are not able to tap in. The ability to take advantage of services is different.” Key Policy Informant
“The existing gap (between the rich and poor) is an ongoing concern. It invariably seems that as economic growth happens, products and property and real estate start increasing so that those that don’t have, have even less because they can’t afford to maintain even the standard as you are seeing right now with the huge jump in property values. Anyone that is even on a medium income cannot afford to buy even a starter house.” Key Policy Informant
1.6 Reflective Questions
1. CUISR’s research shows that some progress has been made to reduce the income gap in Saskatoon.
However, a large income gap still remains between the High/Middle SES (Socio Economic Status) neighbourhoods and the Low SES neighbourhoods. What actions need to be taken by, (municipal, provincial and federal), governments to continue to reduce the income gap between Saskatoon residents?
Can citizens have a role in decreasing this gap?
2. The CUISR telephone surveys found that perceptions of quality of life and health have improved in Saskatoon. However, a large gap still exists between the High/Middle SES group and the Low SES group. In particular, there is still a widening gap in how people perceive the status of their health.
What factors do you feel are contributing to this perceived health disparity?
7

C
UISR explored the theme of Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions in Saskatoon by focusing on five categories of information:
2.1 Social Cohesion
2.2 Neighbourhood Conditions
2.3 Neighbourhood Safety
2.4 School and Recreation
2.5 Volunteerism
2.6 Insights and Concluding Comments from Key Policy Makers
2.7 Reflective Questions
Summary Points
• Perceptions of social cohesion have fallen in the Low SES neighbourhoods.
• There is concern among Low SES respondents about neighbourhood physical conditions, particularly roads, housing and parks.
• While overall perceptions of neighbourhood safety have improved in Saskatoon, there remains deep concern among Low SES respondents over safety from violent and property crime.
• Perceptions of schools and recreation programs and services have improved.
• Rates of volunteerism have fallen in Saskatoon, particularly in the High SES neighbourhoods.
2.1: Social Cohesion
The concept of social inclusion, or the sense of belonging people have to the place in which they live, can influence how people perceive their overall QoL. Social inclusion was identified in the 2001 and 2004 Briefing Papers as a key element of quality of life in Saskatoon. To determine how connected people feel to the place they live, the four questions (below) were asked in telephone surveys in 2001, 2004 and 2007:
1. How much do you feel a part of your neighbourhood?
2. If there was a neighbourhood project organized, such as a block party or yard sale, how comfort able would you feel taking part?
3. Do you feel comfortable calling your neighbours for help during a crisis?
4. Have you volunteered in the last 3 years?
8

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
Figure 9 shows changes in the average score of social inclusion in the three neighbourhood groups over the
2001-2004-2007 period. It shows that there was a fairly even perception of social inclusion in the High and
Middle SES neighbourhoods. At the same time, the perception of social inclusion was slightly lower in the Low
SES neighbourhoods between 2004 and 2007.
Comparison of composite social cohesion variable by cluster type and year
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
2001 2004
Figure 9: Social Inclusion Composite Index
2007
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2.2: Neighbourhood Conditions
Neighbourhood physical conditions were analyzed from telephone survey questions, as these conditions influence feelings of social inclusion. Respondents were asked to comment on:
• The condition of roads and sidewalks in their neighbourhood
• The condition of housing in their neighbourhood
• The condition of parks in their neighbourhood
• The condition of other green space (such as boulevards or medians).
Respondents’ evaluation of their neighbourhood physical conditions were compiled. Figure 10 (on next page) displays the average score of these four questions ranging from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor). Figure 10 reveals that in 2001, perceptions of neighbourhood conditions were about the same among the three neighbourhood groups.
However, as the graph indicates, these perceptions improved in the Middle and High SES groups in 2004 and
2007 but worsened in the Low SES group between 2001 and 2004.
A gap now clearly exists among the three groups with respect to neighbourhood physical conditions. In 2007, respondents in the Low SES neighbourhoods were far more likely to rate the condition of housing, parks and other green space as ‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’. Furthermore, they were far more likely to express concern over the degree of neighbourhood neatness.
9

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
Composite score on selected neighbourhood conditions
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004
1 = excellent, 5 = poor
2007
Figure 10: Neighbourhood Conditions Composite Index
2.3: Neighbourhood Safety
Concern over crime and safety has been an identified as an important issue in Saskatoon. For many years, the city has recorded one of the highest crime rates among urban areas in Canada. The telephone survey asked respondents questions about their personal safety and that of their property. Figures 11 and 12 show perceptions of crime in 2001, 2004 and 2007.
Figure 11 indicates that, overall respondents are more positive about their safety from violent crime in 2007.
In 2007, 48 percent of respondents reported that their safety from violent crime was either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very
Good’ compared to 40 percent in 2004 and 38 percent in 2001.
Safety from violent crime in neighbourhood
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
2001 2004 2007
Figure 11: Safety from Violent Crime
10

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
Figure 12 reveals a similar improvement of perceptions of property crime during the study period. This chart also shows that safety from this type of crime is a greater concern in Saskatoon than is safety from violent crime. The chart shows that in 2007, 38 percent reported that their safety from property crime was either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ compared to 28 percent in 2004 and 2001. Figure 11 also indicates that in 2007, significantly fewer respondents (28 percent) said that their safety from property crime was either ‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’ compared to 37 percent in 2004 and 36 percent in 2001.
Safety from property crime in neighbourhood
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2001 2004
Figure 12: Safety from Property Crime
2007
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
It is important to emphasize, however, that like other dimensions of quality of life, a large gap exists in Saskatoon in the perceptions of crime and safety between residents of Middle/High SES neighbourhoods and those residing in Low SES neighbourhoods.
Figures 13 and 14 (on next page) clearly demonstrate that concern over crime is far more common in the Low
SES group and that there is a large and widening gap in the city. Figure 13 shows that in 2007, nearly 50 percent of respondents in the Low SES neighbourhoods reported that their safety from violent crime was either
‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’. Only 10 percent of the people in the Middle and High SES groups ranked their safety from violent crime as ‘fair’ or poor’.
A similar pattern is evident with respect to property crime (please see Figure 14 ) although concern for this type of crime is higher than it is for violent crime in the Middle and High SES groups (20 and 15 percent respectively in 2007).
11

60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
Fair/Poor safety from violent crime
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 13: Fair/Poor Safety from Violent Crime by Neighbourhood Group
Fair/Poor safety from property crime
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 14: Fair/Poor Safety from Property Crime by Neighbourhood Group
2.4: Schools and Recreation
Two more neighbourhood conditions that are key to the quality of life of a community are schools and recreation programs and services.
Figure 15 shows an improvement in respondents’ perception of the condition of schools in their neighbourhood, particularly between 2004 and 2007. In 2007, 43 percent of respondents rated the condition of schools as either
‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ which was up from 34 percent in 2004.
12

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
The condition of schools in neighbourhood
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
2001 2004 2007
Figure 15: The Condition of Schools
As Figure 16 indicates this optimism was reflected in the three neighbourhood groups, including the Low SES neighbourhoods where the proportion of respondents rating the quality of their schools as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very
Good’ increased from about 28 percent in both 2001 and 2004 to 34 percent in 2007.
Excellent/Very good condition of schools
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 16: Excellent/Very Good Condition of Schools by Neighbourhood Group
A similar improvement occurred in the perception of the condition of recreation programs and services in the neighbourhood.
13

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
Figure 17 reveals that there was a significant rise in the proportion of respondents who said that conditions were either ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ between 2004 (28 percent) and 2007 (43 percent). Figure 18 illustrates that all three neighbourhood types more positively evaluate the condition of recreation programs in 2007, when compared to 2004.
However, Figure 17 also displays that there is a widening gap in the views of residents according to socio-economic status. In 2007, 54 percent of High SES and 46 percent of Middle SES respondents stated that the condition of recreation programs and services in their neighbourhood was ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’ compared to just 28 percent of Low SES respondents.
The condition of recreation programs and services
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
45
40
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
2001 2004 2007
Figure 17: The Condition of Recreation Programs and Services
Exellent/Very good condition of recreation programs and services
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 18: Excellent/Very Good Condition of Recreation Programs and Services by
Neighbourhood Group
14

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
2.5: Volunteerism
Like many communities in Canada, volunteerism plays an important part in the quality of life in Saskatoon. The telephone surveys asked residents many questions about volunteerism.
Figure 19 shows the proportion of respondents who indicated that they had volunteered during the last three years. This chart reveals an overall drop from 65 percent in 2001 to 54 percent in 2007. Interestingly, the decline was largest in the High SES neighbourhoods, from 69 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2007. The Middle and
Low SES neighbourhoods recorded an increase. In 2007, volunteerism was strongest in the Low SES group.
Volunteered in the last three years
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Total
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
2001 2004 2007
Figure 19: Volunteered in the Last Three Years, Total and by Neighbourhood Group
The telephone survey asked questions about the type of volunteer activities people had done, the total number of hours of volunteer work per month and, the name of the organization or group where the volunteering activity took place. In 2007, the top four volunteer activities cited by respondents were:
1. canvassing, campaigning, fundraising;
2. organizing/supervising events;
3. teaching/ coaching; and
4. sitting as a board member.
The question about the amount of time spent volunteering was only asked in the 2007 telephone survey. The answer to this question revealed that, on average, respondents spent 13 hours per month volunteering. There were no significant differences among the three neighbourhood groups.
15

Theme 2: Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Conditions Inequality
2.6 Insights and Concluding Comments from Key Policy Makers
“To give credit to a lot of the people in the core neighbourhoods, they are out there cleaning up their own parks and streets. People care about their neighbourhoods and pick up sharps or garbage or do whatever needs to be done.” Key Policy Informant
“We need more libraries and facilities that the entire city can have access to. It would mean that poor families can get free movies and books and music, not another Walmart and overpasses. It just seems to me that the priorities are all out of whack.” Key Policy Informant
“In core neighbourhoods, there is more need for infrastructure dollars even though externally there is a need for new schools and roads, but the areas that seem to not get attention is maintenance of parks and greenspace and roads and those general things that make you safe, don’t get a lot of attention when the infrastructure funding comes out. The priorities, by the nature of the location and the makeup of the population, there is a lot of young people in the core neighbourhoods, they may not be attached to schools.” Key Policy Informant
2.7 Reflective Questions
1. With respect to neighbourhood conditions, residents of the Low SES group have concerns over the condition of roads, housing and parks in their communities. What are some policies that could contribute to improving these conditions? Which sectors of our society are responsible for bringing about these changes?
2. Overall, perceptions of neighbourhood safety have improved considerably in Saskatoon in recent years. However, a large gap exists in the city with Low SES residents expressing far more concern over safety from violent and property crime. A number of important initiatives have been developed in Saskatoon to deal with issues of crime and safety. Please comment on the effectiveness of these strategies for crime prevention. What other programs can improve safety from violent and property crime?
3. The CUISR telephone surveys revealed that rates of volunteerism have dropped in Saskatoon- especially in the High SES neighbourhoods. How important is volunteerism to your department/sector/
CBO? What strategies can be developed to promote greater participation?
16

C
UISR explored the theme of the responsibility for change by focusing on two categories of information:
3.1 Spending Priorities
3.2 Funding Options
3.3 Insights and Concluding Comments from Key Policy Makers
3.4 Reflective Questions
Summary Points
• The top two government spending priorities listed by respondents in 2007 are roads and housing.
• Respondents consistently feel that poor families with children should be given priority for funding to improve their quality of life.
• In 2007, the most preferred funding options for spending on quality of life in 2007 are increases in user fees and corporate taxes, as well as, taking money from other government programs. Support for increasing personal taxes has fallen sharply.
3.1: Spending Priorities
The 2001 and 2004 Quality of Life Briefing Papers indicated that there was a consensus among respondents that government money should be spent on improving the quality of life of the economically disadvantaged. This continues to be the case in 2007.
Table 1, (on page 19), lists the top 10 government spending priorities telephone respondents felt would improve the quality of life of people in Saskatoon. This chart reveals some shifting priorities over the three survey years.
For example, while health services were identified as the top priority in 2001 and 2004, they were not among the top 10 priorities in 2007.
It is clear that infrastructure issues are important for residents in 2007: roads and housing were identified as the top two spending priorities. (Roads and housing were also listed as the top priorities among respondents in each of the three neighbourhood groups – Low SES, Middle SES and High SES). Caregiver services were ranked as the third priority in 2007 and are particularly important to respondents in the Low SES group.
Several additional spending priorities appear across each of the survey years including protection services, schools, and safety from violent and property crime. Safety from crime was especially important to respondents in the High SES group.
Many new priority areas appeared in 2007, including neighbourhood organizations (cited frequently by Low
SES respondents), religious and spiritual activities and shops and services.
17

Theme 3: The Responsibility for Change
2001
1. Health services
2. Protection services
3. Social programs
4. Recreation programs
5. Schools
6. Care-giver services
7. Safety from property crime
8. Roads
9. Safety from violent crime
10. Environment
Government Spending Priorities
2004
1. Health services
2. Schools
3. Roads
4. Protection services
5. Social programs
6. Housing
7. Safety from property crime
8. Recreation programs
9. Safety from violent crime
10. Environment
2007
1. Roads
2. Housing
3. Caregiver services
4. Neighbourhood organizations
5. Protection services
6. Safety from violent crime
7. Religious and spiritual activities
8. Schools
9. Safety from property crime
10. Shops and services
Table 1: Government Spending Priorities to Improve the Quality of Life of People in Saskatoon
The telephone survey also asked respondents to identify groups of people that should be given priority for funding programs to improve quality of life.
Table 2 lists the first five groups identified as priorities in each of the survey years - 2001, 2004 and 2007. By a wide margin, poor families with children were identified as the top priority group for funding in each survey year. Furthermore in 2007, about 80 percent of respondents in each of the neighbourhood groups (Low SES,
Middle SES and High SES) said that priority should be given to poor families with children.
Table 2 also shows other groups that respondents, (from each survey year), felt should be a priority for funding.
Other groups that were noted across all survey years and neighbourhood types were: the elderly, persons with disabilities, single parents, and poor families with children. (All 3 types of neighbourhoods equally identified these groups.)
2001
1. Poor families with children
2. The elderly
3. Single parents
4. Persons with disabilities
5. Aboriginal people
Priority Groups
2004
1. Poor families with children
2. Poor individuals
3. The elderly
4. Persons with disabilities
5. Single parents
Table 2: Priority Groups for Funding Programs to Improve Quality of Life
2007
1. Poor families with children
2. Persons with disabilities
3. The elderly
4. Single parents
5. Poor individuals
18

Theme 3: The Responsibility for Change
3.2: Funding Options
Over the past six years, there has been a significant shift in attitude with respect to the options for funding new programs to improve quality of life.
As Figure 20 shows, in 2001 a majority of respondents to the telephone survey (60 percent) said that they favoured an increase in personal taxes to support programs to improve QoL. (The highest support for increasing personal taxes came from Low SES respondents at 67 percent.) However, a further 34 percent felt that increasing user fees was the best option.
In 2007, support for increasing personal taxes fell sharply, to just 30 percent. This lack of enthusiasm in 2007 is shared among respondents in the three neighbourhoods groups, including the Low SES (only 25 percent in favour) and the high SES (only 24 percent in favour).
Funding options for new program spending to improve quality of life
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Increase user fees
Increase personal taxes
Increase corporate taxes
Increase sales taxes
Money from other areas of govt.
spending
2001
2004
2007
Figure 20: Funding Options to Improve Quality of Life
Between 2004 and 2007, there was a large drop in support for increasing sales taxes with just 20 percent in favour in 2007. On the other hand, there has been a significant jump in support for increasing user fees, (most favoured by High SES respondents), and corporate taxes. Also, there has been growing support for taking money from other areas of government spending. This idea was the most preferred option in 2004 and 2007 and equally supported across the three neighbourhood groups.
19

Theme 3: The Responsibility for Change
3.3 Insights and Concluding Comments from Key Policy Makers
“User fees are a tax on the poor. They tax the people who need these services the most in an indirect manner.”
“If you are paying property taxes, you are getting the benefit of those taxes through services in the city, if it is spread out evenly, you will get good quality services.”
“The majority of the tax burden is placed on middle-income earners, and I think that inequity needs to be addressed somehow.” Key Policy Informant
“The reason for the drop off (of volunteers) could be just plain capacity; there is only so much taxed resources that people are asked to volunteer for everything, so if your kids are in daycare, you are probably a volunteer… People may be cautious about volunteering because it could be the next step to more and more increased expectations. Step one may not be taken because of the fear of step two and three.” Key Policy Informant
3.4 Reflective Questions
1. Research respondents consistently felt that priority should be given to poor families with children, single parents, the elderly and the disabled when it comes to funding programs that improve quality of life. What are some of the policies in your department/sector/CBO that effect how services are funded- especially services for vulnerable segments of the population?
2. From the perspective of your department/sector/CBO what do you feel is the best method for funding programs to improve quality of life?
20

A ppendix
A: Q uAlity of
l ife
S teering
C ommittee
Sheri Benson
Director of Community Services
United Way of Saskatoon
100 506 25 th Street East
Saskatoon, SK S7K 4A7
Phone: (306) 975-7705
Email:sbenson@unitedwaysaskatoon.ca
Dwayne Docken
Urban Aboriginal Strategy Coordinator
Urban Aboriginal Strategy
315 Avenue F South
Saskatoon, SK S7M 1T3
Phone: (306) 242-6197
Email: ddocken@cumfi.org
Vanessa Charles
Co-Chair, Saskatoon Anti-Poverty Coalition c/o 808 20 th Street West
Saskatoon, SK S7M OY3
Phone: (306) 653-2662
Livia Kellett
Planner, City Planning Branch
Community Services Department
City of Saskatoon
222-3 rd Avenue North
Saskatoon, SK S7K OJ5
Email: livia.kellett@saskatoon.ca
Jo-Ann Coleman Pidskalny
Executive Director
Saskatoon Housing Coalition
Phone: (306) 665-4977
Email: saskatoonhousingcoalition@sasktel.net
Kathie Cram
Community Development Consultant
Public Health Services, Saskatoon Health Region
Email: kathie.cram@saskatoonhealthregion.ca
Heather Dunning
Planner, City Planning Branch
Community Services Department
City of Saskatoon
222-3 rd Avenue North
Saskatoon, SK S7K OJ5
Email: Heather.Dunning@Saskatoon.ca
Sue Delanoy
Saskatoon Communities for Children
Suite 200 335 Packham Avenue
Saskatoon, SK S7N 4K4
Phone: (306) 956-6147
Kelley Moore
Co-ordinator, Regional Intersectoral Committee on Human Services
8th Floor, Sturdy Stone Building, 122 3rd Avenue N
Saskatoon, SK S7K 2H6
Phone: (306) 933-5032
Email: k.moore@sasked.gov.sk.ca
Bill Holden, Senior Planner
Planning Research and Information Resource
Center
Community Services Department
City of Saskatoon
222-3 rd Avenue North
Saskatoon, SK S7K OJ5
Phone: (306) 975-2687
Email: bill.holden@saskatoon.sk.ca
Louise Clarke
Academic Co-Director, CUISR
University of Saskatchewan
432-221 Cumberland Avenue
Phone: (306) 966-8409
Email: clarke@commerce.usask.ca
Joanne Hritzuk, Business Owner
Board Member Community Development
Society of Saskatchewan;
Saskatchewan Home-Based Business Association (Saskatoon
Chapter)
Phone: (306) 222-2676 (Cell Phone)
Email: sportex@sasktel.net
Dr. Allison Williams
McMaster University
School of Geography and Geology
1280 Main St. W.
Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1
Phone: (905) 525-9140 Ext. 24334
Email: awill@mcmaster.ca

Carolyn Rogers
Saskatoon Anti-Poverty Coalition c/o 808 20 th Street West
Saskatoon, SK S7M OY3
Phone: (306) 653-2662

A ppendix
B: Q uAlity of
l ife
S urvey
n eighBourhoodS

A ppendix
C: p oliCy
K ey
i nformAntS
Len Usiskin - Quint Development
Howard Willems - Syndicat Agriculture Union
Georgina Taylor - Service Delivery Manager HRSDC
Nancy George - Saskatoon Housing Coalition
Bill Thibideau - EGADZ
Vanessa Charles - Saskatoon Anti-Poverty Coalition