COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR
SOCIAL RESEARCH
‘Building a Caring Community Together’
MAY 9, 2005
Centennial Auditorium
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Building Healthy Sustainable Communities
Copyright © Community-University Institute for Social Research, 2005
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.
This publication was made possible, in part, by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Please direct inquiries about this publication to:
Community-University Institute for Social Research
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/
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
‘Building a Caring Community Together’
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 2
Welcome and Introduction ............................................................................. 3
Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality .................................................... 5
The Growing Income Inequality: Reflective Questions for Discussion..... 9
Theme 2: Social Inclusion.............................................................................. 10
Social Inclusion: Reflective Questions for Discussion............................... 13
Theme 3: Responsibility for Change.............................................................. 14
The Responsibility for Change: Reflective Questions for Discussion ....... 18
Appendix A Community Action Plan Information System ........................... 20
Appendix B Key Policy Informants ............................................................... 23
Appendix C CUISR Quality of Life Advisory Board.................................... 24
1
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
Acknowledgments
This briefing paper is the result of a cumulative effort.
Especially grateful thanks go to many individuals who responded in one or more of the research
stages: the phone survey, the focus group discussions, and the 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 various community researchers collected, tabulated and
analyzed the survey data. The Quality of Life research group includes: Allison Williams, Bill
Holden, Nazeem Muhajarine, and Lou Hammond Ketilson.
The members of the Quality of Life Advisory Group include some of the above as well as: Sheri
Benson (United Way), Vanessa Charles (Anti-Poverty Coalition), Kathie Cram (Saskatoon
Health Region), Sue Delanoy (Saskatoon Communities for Children), Bill Holden (City of
Saskatoon), Joanne Hritzuk (Saskatchewan Home Based Business Association), Jerome Nicol
(City of Saskatoon), Glen Penner (City Councillor), JoAnn Coleman Pidskalny (Saskatoon
Housing Coalition), and Kate Waygood (Saskatoon Health Region). Their community roles and
addresses are listed in Appendix B.
The key policy informants who were interviewed about the policies of their organizations are
gratefully listed in Appendix C. Your thoughts and experience will contribute to the depth of the
discussions at the conference.
Many people participated in the Quality of Life workshops leading to the meeting in May, 2005.
We thank you for your involvement.
Materialization of the briefing paper would not have happened without the support of Peter
Krebs, Evelyn Flynn, Maria Basualdo and Eleanor Knight in the CUISR office. A special thanks
for the multitasked help of Karen Lynch.
2
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
Welcome and Introduction
Thank you for planning to attend the second CUISR Quality of Life Community Forum on May
9th 2005. This will be an important, inter-sectoral gathering. This conference is for people who
are hungry for a holistic view of social issues in Saskatoon and are looking forward to gathering
data from many sources which will support their priorities for action. It is important that key
public policy makers within governments, and dedicated people from community, business and
labour groups meet to evaluate and celebrate their progress in sustaining a healthy, vibrant
Saskatoon.
The goals of May 9th, 2005 Quality of Life Community Forum are:
•
To bring new information important to all of the sectors involved in achieving and
sustaining a good, healthy quality of life for residents in Saskatoon.
•
To find priorities for collaborative action on improving the quality of life for all.
•
To recognize the efforts of citizens, community groups, business, and the public sector to
improve the quality of life for all.
CUISR’s Quality of Life research includes two comprehensive surveys involving selected
neighbourhoods in Saskatoon, conducted in 2001 and in 2004. Both surveys included telephone
surveys, face-to-face interviews, and focus groups that probed into people’s satisfaction with
their life generally, with their neighbourhood, and with their environment in Saskatoon, as well
as gathered people’s perceptions about empowerment, and areas of government spending and
funding for social programs.
The cumulative research, therefore, is a subjective assessment about the quality of life in
Saskatoon. Data was taken from the same three socioeconomic neighbourhood clusters: high
socio-economic status (SES) neighbourhoods, middle SES neighbourhoods, and low SES
neighbourhoods, as well from special interest focus groups.
After the collected data was analyzed, twenty key policy informants who are engaged in issues
that affect the quality of life in the city were interviewed about their organization’s consideration
of the quality of life themes which arose.
This 2004 Quality of Life (QoL) Briefing Paper: Building A Caring Community Together will,
hopefully, be a catalyst for discussion in the conference.
Here you will find a summary of the latest CUISR QoL research. The 2004 QoL research
themes are compared and contrasted with the themes of the 2001 survey. These are the issues
that the surveyed residents from three different socio-economic neighbourhood clusters in
Saskatoon identified as affecting their quality of life. There is a summary of what the interviewed
focus groups have said about their quality of life, as well as a summary of how CBO’s and key
policy makers reflected on the QoL themes that emerged. Also included in the briefing paper is a
synopsis of the Community Action Plan Information System (CAPIS), providing further support
3
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
to the notion that decision-makers on Quality of Life issues must be engaged in a meeting such
as the Quality of Life Community Forum.
All of us who have worked in isolation and together with CUISR over the years to improve the
quality of life for residents in Saskatoon ought to benefit from exploring the community’s
priorities in taking collaborative action towards this goal. Together we will be able to link what
has been done within our community with what we want to do in the future.
The QoL Community Forum will be an opportunity to relate with your fellow conference
attendees in a creative way. To this end we ask you to take time think of the questions at the end
of each theme.
To facilitate the round tables discussions, these are suggested guidelines for conducting the
round-table discussions at the Forum (Margaret Wheatley" Principles for Meaningful
Conversations", UTNE Reader, August 2002 pages 57-58):
•
•
•
•
•
We acknowledge one another as equals.
We try to stay curious about one another.
We recognize that we need each others help to become better listeners.
We slow down so we have time to think.
We remember that conversation is the natural way that humans think together.
4
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
A. The Research Results
Summary Statement
In 2001, we said “The disparity between high and low socio-economic neighbourhoods in
Saskatoon has been intensifying since 1980.” Although recently, in 2004, there were slightly
fewer people who are desperately poor, the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow.
The Research Results: The Details
Household Income - Nominal Dollars
Average Median Neighbourhood
The income disparities between the incomes of residents in high SES neighbourhoods on one
hand, and the middle and low SES neighbourhoods on the other hand are clearly evident. While
most neighbourhood types (high, middle, low) are experiencing a slight increase in income over
time, the income disparities continue to grow. City of Saskatoon data show that the median
income of the wealthiest of our study’s neighbourhoods is about 6 times greater than that of the
poorest.
Survey Neighbourhoods
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1986
1991
1996
2001
2004
Low SES
17469
18146
17442
21561
20633
Middle SES
23626
28769
30873
35708
32810
61321
75167
87381
88268
High SES
All Other NGHD
31813
36096
37730
42122
42140
Saskatoon
28931
36219
38036
41991
39830
Census Years*
Figure 1: Changes in Household Income, 1989-2001, Nominal Dollars (City of Saskatoon)
“The income gap affects the whole community as it lowers QoL for everybody. It is
producing more and more demand on police, more and more on remedial education. It is
costing all of us to respond to the products of poverty which our economy and our structures
are creating. Do we care about equality?” Key informant
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
5
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
In the face-to-face interviews, the majority of respondents from all neighbourhoods were
appreciative of many aspects of the quality of life in Saskatoon. However, there were concerns
about the acknowledged income inequality.
“.. if you don’t invest in your community there is no future, ok? So, I think that what would
improve for me the QoL of our community would be to know that governance, community
groups, volunteers associations were all committed to improve the QoL, and in very tangible
ways. They need more income. So, there are fewer kids breaking the law, there has to be
better neighbourhood conditions, there needs to better lighting (unclear) in the inner city.
There needs to services for kids… on the street … So, if anything, I would say to improve
my QoL would be to improve QoL of all residents in the city.” Middle SES respondent
Many people from high SES and middle SES neighbourhoods expressed fear and worry about
the conditions in the low SES neighbourhoods. Many of the respondents from low SES
neighbourhoods, together with the majority of focus group participants, pointed out that growing
economic inequality translates into feelings of frustration, powerlessness, and a loss of a sense of
dignity.
“I think one of the first things I can think of is the continuing reporting that we have the
highest crime rate in Saskatoon as to the cities in the country. I think that’s alarmed the
people and as break ins come closer and closer to home… while I personally haven’t been
burglarized yet because I have a security system and I, I always keep things locked etc, I
think there is a fear and fear always brings down the level of optimism.” High SES
respondent
These data on income inequalities as a background contribute to the interpretation of the quality
of life perceptions gathered in the 2001 and 2004 Quality of Life surveys.
Overall Quality Of Life
In both years, 2001 and 2004, telephone respondents were asked to describe their overall QoL.
Figure 2 illustrates the combined data across all three neighbourhood types. Overall,
respondents are feeling less enthusiastic about their QoL in 2004 then in 2001. In 2004, fewer
respondents rated their quality of life as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’, and more choosing the
‘Good’, ‘Fair’ and ‘Poor’ categories.
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
6
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
Overall Quality of Life, 2001 and 2004
45.0%
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
40.0%
35.0%
Percentage
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Overall 2001
Overall 2004
Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life (CUISR Quality of Life Survey, 2001 and 2004)
Health
The phone survey respondents were also asked to describe their health. Figure 3 illustrates the
combined data, across all three neighbourhood types. There is a drop in respondents’ enthusiasm
about their health in 2004 when compared to 2001, with less choosing the ‘Excellent’ and ‘Very
Good’ categories, and more choosing the ‘Fair’ and ‘Poor’ categories.
Self-rated Health, 2001 and 2004
45.0%
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
40.0%
35.0%
Percentage
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Overall 2001
Overall 2004
Figure 3: Self Rated Health (CUISR Quality of Life Survey, 2001 and 2004)
As in the 2001 survey, the 2004 concerns of the face-to-face interview respondents in the low
SES neighbourhoods were personal and immediate. When asked what would enhance their
personal quality of life, respondents said that they would like to see improved economic stability
and employment opportunities; enhanced access to social programs (especially for children),
increased affordable housing; decreased crime and drug use; and cleaner neighbourhoods. Many
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
7
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
respondents were frustrated with the discrepancy between income assistance and minimum
wage, and the cost of living. Similar to respondents in 2001, people in 2004 discussed the
difficulty of finding secure, affordable housing; the difference in 2004 is that many celebrated
the work done by organizations like QUINT, the Federation of Saskatoon Indian Nations (FSIN)
and Central Urban Métis Association (CUMFI).
In 2001, the low and middle SES neighbourhoods were concerned with the level of crime and
violence as detractors to the quality of life in the City; in 2004, all three neighbourhood types
recognized crime and violence as clear concerns. The respondents in the low SES
neighbourhoods were directly affected by crime, drug users, prostitutes and gangs.
B. Sampling the Interviews with Key Policy Informants
As in 2001, key informants focused on income, employment and inequalities in relation to the
issue of the growing income gap. The organizations that deal with the consequences of the little
change in the size of social transfers and minimum wage were disheartened at the lack of
progress. Many informants, however, were hopeful of change because of the current focus on
collaborative partnerships within the five levels of government, CBO’s and the community.
Saskatoon Health Region pointed out that the division between the poorest and the richest is a
problem and a lot has to be done, particularly more research on the “interesting and disturbing
trends”.
“Education, employment and income are major contributors to socio-economic status, with
income and socio-economic status being key determinants of population health. How wealth is
distributed throughout society has a strong influence on the overall health of all citizens, with
greater income inequality associated with poorer health outcomes.” Dr. Johnmark Opondo,
Deputy Medical Health Officer, Saskatoon Health Region, Star Phoenix April 28
Many key informants mentioned the negative affect of the media when discussing results of
income inequalities. It was noted that individuals in society were experiencing frustration of not
being able to fulfill media created expectations. Many informants linked the high incidence of:
school drop out, gang activity and crime with the perception of hopelessness, alienation and lack
of choices that comes with the inability to succeed in an abundant society, as described on TV
and movies.
When asked how they saw the QoL change in the last four years, several key informants said it
has become worse because of concerns for youth and children. Several informants noted that an
indicator of the QoL of a society is that our youth and children have all the opportunities that
they need to flourish. Unfortunately, Saskatoon has a very high rate of children living in poverty
and despite focused work by agencies like Kids not in School
…“There are anywhere between one and two thousand kids not in school and that
affects the whole of Saskatoon.” Key informant
This will only propagate a growth in economic inequalities in the future.
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
8
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
The Growing Income Inequality: Reflective Questions for Discussion
1. In 2001, QoL Survey results showed that Quality of Life was affected by income
inequalities. How has your department/sector/community based organization (CBO)
been engaged in issues of income inequality since that time?
2. What are the current actions within your department/sector/CBO that address the issue
of income inequalities?
With whom do you collaborate on this issue? How important is this collaboration to
your department/sector/CBO?
3. What are 3 priorities for actions that would have the greatest impact on our efforts to
address income inequalities?
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
9
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
QoL Survey Theme 2: Social Inclusion
A. The Research Results
Summary Statement
Social inclusion is a key component to our quality of life. There are many ways in which a
resident can feel a lack of inclusion. A number of people in Saskatoon feel it as a consequence of
living at the lower end of the economic gap. The survey respondents in 2001 noted that there was
a lack of equality of access to services in the lower income neighbourhoods. The respondents in
2004 from these neighbourhoods continued to feel this because of a lack of economic resources.
The Research Details
The social inclusion variable is a composite variable, combining the telephone survey
respondents’ evaluation of:
•
•
•
•
how much they feel a part of their neighbourhood,
how comfortable they are participating in neighbourhood projects,
how comfortable they are calling on neighbours in a crisis, and
whether or not they volunteer in any organizations.
These factors measure the sense of belonging to a place that can affect the perception of overall
QoL. Figure 4 shows that there was an even, though not dramatic, drop in perceived social
inclusion in all neighbourhoods.
Comparison of composite social cohesion variable by
cluster type and year
12.00
Mean score
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2004
2.00
2001
0.00
High SES
Middle SES
Low SES
Cluster type
Figure 4: Social Inclusion Composite Index (CUISR Quality of Life Survey, 2001 and 2004)
In comparison to the interview respondents in the middle SES and high SES neighbourhoods,
those in the low SES neighbourhoods were more likely to highlight: a lack of friendliness, safety
QoL Survey Theme 1: The Growing Income Inequality
10
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
from violent and property crime, and a lack of access to services, such as social programs and
grocery stores.
Residents of low SES neighbourhoods also mentioned excessive amounts of litter and debris
found on streets, increase in illicit activities, the reduction in civic services such as transit routes
(and limited frequency of buses) and the lack of upkeep of neighbourhood lights and roadways.
Also mentioned was the controversy surrounding the conduct of members of the Saskatoon
Police Force, and disappointment with the broken promises on behalf of current and recent civic
administration.
“That entrance into the city, 22nd St is just awful. It doesn’t look inviting at all. And they
just leave this whole area of the city just like.. We have it in every city in the world.. like
L.A., Chicago the bad area of town, and that is what it is and they are just leaving it.”
Low SES resident
“We have weekly community neighbourhood walks that started last year. And those are
going actually quite well. It is hard to get the people out. We have a few. It’s my second
year. We go around and talk to the children and we give them a little of a positive
attitude and pick garbage up, lots of garbage, and kind of mix and mingle with the people
of our community when we go for these walks.” Low SES resident
Residents from middle SES and high SES neighbourhoods talked about the increase in crime
rates in general. In contrast, those living in Low SES neighbourhoods listed specific activities
(prostitution, presence of gangs, drug trafficking, break and enters) as reducing the QoL within
their neighbourhoods.
B. Sampling the Interviews with Key Policy Informants
Policy measures must include social cohesion in a community as an ongoing process of
developing shared values, shared challenges, and an equal opportunity for democratic security,
because..
“…divided and unequal societies are not only unjust, they also cannot guarantee long term
stability.” Public Health Agency Canada < www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/phdd/collab/index.html>
The key informants agree that in order to address crime in the city, a holistic approach must be
taken. Good quality housing, education and health care are needed to improve QoL.
“When people feel left out, unstable, they don’t take advantage of recreation facilities. We are
all paying for infrastructure and services that are not reaching those most in need so people
getting sicker, unemployed for longer, not getting stable housing and all those services are not
getting services. The disenfranchised group is growing and that affects our own youth. They
need safety and peace and security. That lack leads to crime. It affects everyone at large
because it increases fear, that insecurity, perception that the tax money is not there for you.”
Key Informant
QoL Survey Theme 2: Social Inclusion
11
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
The informants involved with youth felt that there is a lack of an addictions strategy focusing on
detoxification, addictions programs, transitional housing, and prevention. Housing policy needs
to link other supports and services. There has been a small provision of affordable housing
options for families and single people through QUINT and there has been work to diminish the
many slum landlords that was a concern in 2001. Shelters and emergency support structures
work well, but the demand is still larger than the capacity. Prevention is needed.
“Once people have secure housing more people will stay in school longer, they will have
daycare around school, will find good employment because they have quality daycare and
safe secure housing and because housing is safe, crime and public safety will be improved.
The goal is not to reduce the gap directly but to sustainably improve the Quality of Life for
the people with the biggest issues within the communities. Bring jobs, housing, education,
knowledge of how to do it themselves and how to be a home owner.” Key Informant
Education is a concern across all sectors. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children
and several key informants noted that for the younger families in the low SES neighbourhoods,
access to education matters more than health issues for themselves and their children.
“Education is the key answer to reduction of poverty therefore we need to have the
resources in place for Community schools, literacy projects, research.” Key Informant
“Everyone is going to say that education is one of the key factors in having a much more
tolerant Saskatchewan when it comes to race issues which, of course, comes to a QoL matter
and secondarily having Aboriginal people participate in the main stream economy or
knowledge economy is going to support a much more vibrant Aboriginal community in
Saskatchewan”. Key Informant
“The stereotype is there for people who are from the “Hood” that they are more likely to be
an Indian, have mental health issues, are junkies, lazy. People on low income can’t afford a
place on the east side and the amenities are disappearing… like grocery stores.” Key
Informant
Many people have poor knowledge of where to go to access services. The complex set of
programs and supports available in the community require that users first familiarize themselves
with the system to gain access. Some informants commended the Community Service Village as
a model of a new way of providing services. It is a hub of services for people who access service
in many sectors, giving seamless access where the client is the centre.
Some informants suggested that more money should go towards alternative justice programs that
already exist. They encouraged the introduction of mediation training in all public schools as part
of the core curriculum for grades 7 and 8, for both children and teachers. They spoke of the
need to work collaboratively to combat racism. People need to talk about racism and give hope
to young people, particularly those residing in low SES neighbourhoods.
QoL Survey Theme 2: Social Inclusion
12
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
Social Inclusion: Reflective Questions for Discussion
1. In 2001, QoL Survey results showed that Quality of Life was affected by issues related to
social cohesion. How has your department/sector/community based organization (CBO)
been engaged in social inclusion issues since that time?
2. What are the current actions within your department/sector/CBO that address the issue of
social inclusion?
With whom do you collaborate on this issue? How important is this collaboration to your
department/sector/CBO?
3. What are 3 priorities for actions that would have the greatest impact on our efforts to
affect social inclusion?
QoL Survey Theme 2: Social Inclusion
13
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
QoL Survey Theme 3: The Responsibility for Change
A. The Research Results
Summary Statement
Many of the 2004 respondents said that we are all, to some degree, responsible for the quality of
life of our neighbourhood and city. Similar to 2001, there is a general consensus in 2004 that
government money should be allocated to improve the quality of life of the economically
disadvantaged.
The Research Results: The Details
Figure 5 summarizes and contrasts survey respondents’ responses to priorities for government
action in both 2001 and 2004. Health is the top priority in both years, with a dramatic increase in
2004. Schools are the second priority in 2004, followed by roads, which may be a proxy for
infrastructure issues. Protection services and social programs continue to be of interest, but less
so in 2004 when compared to 2001.
Percentage of government funding priorities, 2001 and 2004
60.0%
2001
2004
50.0%
Percentage
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
health services
protection
services
social programs
recreation
programs
schools
roads
Type of government funding priority
Figure 5: Suggested Government Funding Priorities, 2001-2004 (CUISR Quality of Life Survey, 2001 and 2004)
QoL Survey Theme 3: Responsibility for Change
14
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
Similarly, interview respondents agreed that spending on health care was the top funding priority
2004. Within health care, participants listed: reducing wait times, increasing the number of
doctors and health specialists, and the number of MRI machines. In 2004 residents in both
middle and high SES neighbourhoods suggested preventive health measures -- such as clean
water, a healthy environment and safe communities, employment and education -- in lieu of
more spending on health care services.
Respondents in low SES neighbourhoods suggested governments spend on housing programs,
safety, education, cleaning up the city, improving the downtown core, and implementing afterschool programs for children.
When asked what groups should receive priority, respondents in high SES neighbourhoods listed
children (and childcare programs), and low-income groups, especially single-parents as most in
need. Respondents living in middle SES neighbourhoods favoured spending on economically
disadvantage groups, especially children and seniors. Respondents living in low SES
neighbourhoods stated that focus should be placed on improving the lives of low-income groups,
especially children and adolescents, in the hopes of breaking the poverty cycle and decreasing
levels of crime.
In the 2004 face-to-face interviews, many residents across all three neighbourhood types
questioned and critiqued government spending in terms of government employee salary levels,
the mismanagement of money, and inefficient, top heavy government. They said that
governments need to be more accountable for their spending and need to reduce administration.
Respondents suggested that funds saved through decreasing government employee salaries and
bureaucratic overlap could be used to fund social programs.
B. Sampling the Interviews with Key Policy Informants
Summary Statement
Similar to 2001, the key informants interviewed in 2004 said that everyone, ranging from
individuals through to corporate citizens, should pay fair taxes. Key informants were positive
about our community’s intersectoral partnerships. In 2004, the key informants were concerned
about the downward trend in volunteerism within the community. A significant number
commented on the need to encourage people, especially youth, to become involved in the
political process (i.e. vote).
Discussion on Social Policy: Responsibility for Change
The key informants often framed the discussion of their work with the concern for the
desperately poor in our community. Many believed that sustaining and improving QoL is not
merely an option but rather a requirement for governments, as it is the foundation of all human
services.
QoL Survey Theme 3: Responsibility for Change
15
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
“It is about good housing, about opportunities, about living wages, and rebuilding the safety
net. Hunger exists because we chose it to exist, because some countries chose for it not to
exist. So that not only is there no food banks but there is no charges for health care, no
charges to post secondary education.” Key Informant
“If you continue to expect to have people live on $190.00 a month, there are huge
ramifications the system will have to deal with.” Key Informant
Reallocation of money was suggested. For example, preventative measures for delinquent
youths were highlighted:
“Close the 200 secure custody youth beds and take that money and reinvest that money in the
community so that we can stop those kids from having to have to use those youth beds.” Key
Informant
The majority of informants spoke of the importance of planning in successful, cooperative
partnerships between CBO’s, the private sector, and different levels of government (including
Aboriginal government). The Regional Intersectoral Committee on Human Services (RIC) was
recognized as a leading catalyst in moving such partnerships forward. Informants suggested that
all levels of government suffer from being “horizontally challenged”; this significant issue needs
to be addressed if a holistic approach to tackling social issues is to move forward.
Some informants mentioned that municipal governments are not yet well equipped to deal with
many social issues. Yet, in contrast, the Local Area Planning Process was recognized by others
as a courageous and participative planning process that is inclusive of social needs.
“Few people are saying ‘that is not my mandate’ because with QoL everything is related. I
used to be able to say ‘I can’t deal with that. That is... education.’ We don’t apply that rhetoric
quite so much because we understand that housing, safety security, policing, access, education
all end up at our doorstep” Key Informant
Some key policy informants felt there is a growing interest in social issues in general,
particularly within the Aboriginal community. Although most informants expressed concerns
about youth and crime, many acknowledged improvements in housing, a louder voice for
children and youth, and a growing corporate citizenship. Finding sustainable solutions for the
problems such as poverty, unemployment, crime, and racism is only possible through
coordinated policy and program efforts.
A trend of decreasing volunteer participation was noted. Many key informants are concerned
about the need to strengthen support to the volunteer sector. They say participants that do get
involved are pushed into every meeting and workshop and are soon burned out. Some informants
explained that more funding is needed to support volunteer organizations in order to improve
their ability to recruit engaged citizens.
QoL Survey Theme 3: Responsibility for Change
16
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
“There are genuine opportunities to be involved at the school level, at the community level
and through the ward system and election on the board. We need to look at the participation
of the young adults in civic life as a school division and as a community.” Key Informant
Several informants were concerned about the difficulty of achieving social change through
advocacy. The restrictions imposed by the Federal Government require that charitable
organizations dedicate ten percent or less of their time in advocacy work, so that they do not risk
losing their charitable status. This means that several community organizations do not qualify
for charitable status because advocacy is their main purpose. This is countered in part with the
partnerships formed with different sectors.
Funding was an enthusiastic topic for all the key informants. Many had suggestions about
making it easier to obtain and more equitable, but the main concern was that it was adequate and
sustainable. There was a strong sense that core funding is needed for CBO’s, especially those
that are delivering mandated services that used to belong to various levels of government.
Many of the informants advocated that there should be a resource centre that would provide
information on how individuals can access services, and also on how CBO’s can access funding
sources. In addition, such a resource centre could provide sessions on successful proposal
writing.
QoL Survey Theme 3: Responsibility for Change
17
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
The Responsibility for Change: Reflective Questions for Discussion
1. (How) does the reflection on responsibilities for change affect the actions of my own
department/sector/ community based organization (CBO) in addressing Quality of Life
issues?
2. What is our understanding of how responsibilities for change in QoL are presently
assumed and coordinated?
What is the role of collaboration in this context?
3. Which 3 priorities for actions would demonstrate our commitment for assuming
responsibilities in bringing about change in the Quality of Life of Saskatoon residents?
QoL Survey Theme 3: Responsibility for Change
18
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
Appendix A: CAPIS Summary
Since its inception, CUISR has been involved in a participatory process aimed at understanding
the quality of life in the community of Saskatoon. The fundamental results of CUISR’s first
QoL survey, conducted in 2001, was that the income gap and social inclusion impact people’s
assessment of their quality of life. These findings became the focus of a 2001 CUISR Quality of
Life Policy Forum in which the community envisioned specific ideas for addressing these QOL
issues. The table below speaks to the breadth and depth of these action priorities:
QoL Priorities identified at the 2001 QoL Policy Forum (thematically grouped):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
QoL Communications
Co-operative Model
QoL Databases
Develop and/or apply QoL models
Education Commitment to children / young
adults
Education for individuals and CBOs
Education/Information sharing to change
attitudes
Eliminate barriers to Employment
Employment
Government
Housing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social Inclusion
Networks/Inter-sectoral/interdepartmental
QoL Enhancement Process
QoL Services
QoL Sustainability
QoL Research
Research and accountability
Self-Determination
Tax incentives
Volunteerism
Presented with a list of over 100 priorities arising from the Policy Forum, CUISR was compelled
to develop a comprehensive action plan summary to give voice to the ideas the community
expressed in response to the quality of life research. This provided the starting point for the
development of a QoL Community Action Plan Information System. (CAPIS).
The following key observations stimulated the exploration of the feasibility of the Quality of
Life CAPIS:
•
There appears to be consensus that many QoL needs in Saskatoon are still not being
addressed adequately.
Many inquiries into quality of life, conducted by many CBOs as well as CUISR, appear to
support the notion that not all is well with respect to quality of life for Saskatoon’s residents.
Many QoL deficiencies still exist, and affect residents to varying degrees. Several QoL
studies in Saskatoon corroborate these findings.
19
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
•
Saskatoon’s QoL community organizations are continually engaged in taking actions
that enhance the QoL of Saskatoon’s residents.
Over many years, a large number of diverse organizations, community-based or
governmental, have undertaken initiatives to enhance the QoL for Saskatoon’s residents.
In spite of all the efforts, the demand for QoL enhancement activities and services outweighs
the supply of relevant services. For example, the need for affordable housing is still real, in
spite of the progress made in affordable housing initiatives. Similarly, child development,
education, and safety concerns are still driving the activities of many of the CBOs focusing
on children and youth.
•
There are many competing, and also complementary, initiatives undertaken by the QoL
community to meet current and future QoL challenges.
The number and diversity of QoL related initiatives creates challenges in coming to a
comprehensive understanding of what is being done, and what is being said should be done,
to enhance QoL for Saskatoon’s residents.
A mechanism to track QoL initiatives, whether they are being implemented or merely
envisioned (recommended) by the community, would be useful in the mapping of the QoL
“landscape”.
The CAPIS prototype showed that the QoL enhancement initiatives of CBOs and governmental
organizations are diverse, plentiful, and interrelated. In an effort to better understand QoL
initiatives, the CAPIS identifies and analyzes these initiatives, and attempts to capture the
patterns (themes, trends) in QoL enhancement, and the connections between these patterns.
CAPIS can also facilitate that the many diverse organizations working to enhance quality of life
are captured in a comprehensive directory that provides up-to-date information about the QoL
actors in the City.
Similarly, CAPIS can capture how QoL organizations describe and inform about their QoL
enhancement initiatives through strategic plans, annual reports, conference proceedings,
brochures, or websites.
Qol Enhancement Targets Diverse Levels Of QoL Needs
The QoL statements analyzed in the CAPIS were found to address a variety of QoL needs of the
target groups. While many initiatives focus on a range of the very essential, and thus basic, QoL
needs people have, other initiatives target the higher level QoL needs, interpreted as the need for
enhancing attitudes or behaviours that also affect a person’s QoL.
QoL Initiatives Focus On Removing Barriers In QoL Enhancement
A considerable group of the sample QoL statements contained in the CAPIS address a variety
of barriers to achieving an enhanced QoL.
20
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community Together
QoL Need
Sample of barriers and obstacles in the areas of:
Affordable Housing
Funding for housing: amounts, flexibility
Tax incentives
Bylaws and regulations
Physical Access to buildings
Child tax benefits as a source for feeding children
Access to adequate food supply in each neighbourhood
Social Assistance: amounts, flexibility
Basic Food/Nutrition
Basic Income
Safe/secure Development
Quality Community
Funding for daycare
Education of parents
Land for green spaces, transitional spaces
Several Key QoL Action Priorities Emerged from the initial CAPIS
The table below summarizes the QoL action priorities as they were identified in the sample of
QoL related initiatives analyzed in CAPIS. Also shown are the frequencies and categories of
QoL barrier themes included in the CAPIS:
Affordable Housing
Capacity and Empowerment
Social Inclusion
Safe/Secure (Child) Development
Statements
82
70
54
38
Barrier Theme overall
99
Barrier Theme
Affordable Housing
Capacity and Empowerment
Social Inclusion
Safe/Secure (Child) Development
27
26
18
6
Of 338 statements
24.3%
20.7%
16.0%
11.2%
72.2% of all sample statements
29% of all sample statements
32.9%
37.1%
33.3%
15.8%
In June of 2004, the CAPIS was introduced to the QoL community and was subjected to a
broader examination of its content and methodology. The community response about
CAPISwas generally favourable, while at the same time clearly pointing to certain deficiencies
and inconsistencies that need to be addressed in later versions of CAPIS.
While other initiatives had put the further refinement of CAPIS on hold, CUISR is still
committed to investing time and other resources into the further refinement of CAPIS.
21
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community
Together
Appendix B: Key Policy Informants
Federal Government
Doug Borrowman
Georgina Taylor
Saskatchewan Regional Council
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Provincial Government
Glenda Cooney
Bill Fletcher
Judith Martin
Dr. Cory Neudorf
Robb Watts
Ombudsman's Saskatchewan’s Children’s Advocate
Dept. of Community Resources and Employment
Department of Labour, Work and Family Unit
Saskatoon Health Region - SHIPS
Saskatchewan Housing
City Government
Don Atchison
Owen Fortoski
Mayor, Saskatoon
City Councillor
CBO'S
Jacqui Barclay
Vanessa Charles
Carol Cisecki
Arla Gustafson
Helen Horsman
Jim Jutras
George Lafond
Bob Pringle
Bill Thibodeau
Quint Development Corporation
Anti-Poverty Coalition,
Saskatoon Credit Union
United Way
Saskatoon Catholic School Division
Saskatoon Public School Division
Special Advisor on Aboriginal Initiatives to the President of
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon Food Bank
Egadaz Youth Centre
Business/ Labour
John Lagimodiere
Eagle Feather News and Business
Native Organizations
Kelly Pruden
Central Urban Métis Ass. CUMFI
22
CUISR Quality of Life Survey 2004 Briefing Paper – Building A Caring Community
Together
Appendix C: Quality of Life Advisory Committee
Sheri Benson
Director of Community Services
United Way of Saskatoon
100 – 506 25th Street East
Saskatoon, SK S7K 4A7
Phone306) 975-7705
Email: sbenson@saskatoon.unitedway.ca
Vanessa Charles
Co-Chair, Saskatoon Anti-Poverty Coalition
c/o 808 20th Street West
Saskatoon, SK S7M OY3
Phone: (306) 653-2662
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
Joanne Hritzuk
Program Chair, Saskatoon Chapter
Saskatchewan Home-Based Business Association
Phone: (306) 222-2676 (Cell Phone)
Email: sportex@sasktel.net
Website: www.shbba.sk.ca
Karen Lynch, M.A. Candidate
University of Saskatchewan
Quality of Life Module Scholarship Recipient
Email: karen.lynch@usask.ca
Jerome Nicol
Planner, Local Area Plan Implementation
City Planning Branch, City of Saskatoon
Phone: (306) 975-7642
Email: jerome.nicol@city.saskatoon.sk.ca
Glen Penner
City Councillor (Ward 8)
Phone: (306) 249-4911
Fax: (306) 382-7154
Email: glen.penner@city.saskatoon.sk.ca
Sue Delanoy
Saskatoon Communities for Children
Suite 200 – 335 Packham Avenue
Saskatoon, SK S7N 4K4
Phone: (306) 956-6147
Kate Waygood
Community Co-Director, CUISR and
Community Developer, Saskatoon Health Region
230 Avenue R. South
Saskatoon, SK S7M 1Z1
Phone: (306) 655-6134
Email: kate.waygood@saskatoonhealthregion.ca
Bill Holden, Senior Planner
Planning Research and Information Resource
Center,
Community Services Department
City of Saskatoon
222-3rd Avenue North
Saskatoon, SK S7K OJ5
Phone: (306) 975-2687
Email: bill.holden@city.saskatoon.sk.ca
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
23
University of Saskatchewan
http://www.usask.ca/cuisr