Review: Here At Home

I've recently been made aware of a really cool project by the National Film Board of Canada (NFB).  Filmmakers decided to follow the At Home project, a four year study funded by the Government of Canada to learn about the effectiveness of a "housing first" approach compared to traditional programs and supports in place to address homelessness.

I have written about some housing first strategies before.  It's a model that I strongly believe in.  The basic premise is that by providing people with an affordable place to live (by subsidizing the rent) and bringing supports to them, individuals are more likely to recover from mental illness and addiction, and be less of a drain on expensive services such as hospitals and homeless shelters.

The Here At Home film project starts as a website that shows you a map of the cities where the study is being conducted and provides stats about homelessness.  When you click on a city, there will be an associated video you can watch.   When one video finishes, it will direct you to the next one.  Videos chronicle  the stories of study participants including tenants, support workers, and people in the traditional stream of homeless services.

These people are extremely familiar to me, but may not be to most Canadians.  I work in a supportive housing program (not one involved in this study) and the stories in the videos show a good reflection of the people and issues I see every day.  The filmmakers have not glossed over anything, and I think they have done a good job of showing the successes and the service gaps, the happy stories and the sad.

The best part is that this project isn't over.  The study will be completed in March 2013.  More videos are being posted in real time as the study continues.  The website also features a blog about the project, a timeline of Housing First in Canada and information about the study.  The site is interactive and engaging.  If you have a chance, I strongly encourage everyone to check it out.  I will be following along for the next year or so, and eagerly await the report when the study is completed.

Canada is the only G8 nation without a National Housing Strategy.

Fiscal, Financial, Federal...there's probably one more "F" word I could add here...

Any one else feeling the end-of-fiscal-year crunch right about now?  I haven't posted much of late as I've had some time spent in all day trainings at I'm also trying to get all my notes, stats, logs and whatnot done in time for the end of fiscal.

Money pressures are everywhere at the moment.  When our final numbers are tallied soon, we'll find out if we (my program at work) made quota in order to maintain our current funding.

My taxes are all prepared, but I have yet to take that depressing step of actually submitting them (we owe this year due to my partners self-employment income).

And the big one of course is that both the Ontario and Federal budgets came down this week.  Like a hammer, each one.  I'm hoping to get a better look at them in the days to come.

Once I've done all this, I'm also going to go roll all my pennies to deposit in the bank before stores won't take them any more.  My old peanut butter jar is going to seem so empty from now on...*


*for those of you out of the loop, one of the federal budget items everyone is talking about is that the Conservative government has announced the end of the 1 cent coin in Canada.  No more "take a penny, leave a penny" in the Great White North.

Things to Come

Meeting with a long time client yesterday, she asked me if I was leaving.  No, what gave you that idea?  She said that just before her last worker left (there was a transition in the agency) she had a dream predicting it.  Apparently she had a dream that I was now going somewhere else too.  Could this be a sign that my never-ending job search may soon produce an opportunity?  Hmm....

I'm also looking forward to seeing what the Mental Health Commision of Canada comes up with for it's mental health strategy.  The MHCC has a new chair whose vision for a Partners for Mental Health Coalition sounds interesting.  Currently, Canada is the only G-8 country without a national mental health strategy.

Why Occupy?

So I’ve been considering heading down to check out the Occupy Toronto demonstration.  So far, it’s been non-violent which is encouraging.  And the police have been getting along with the protesters.  To be honest though, I’ve been skeptical as to the point of the protest – Canada has not had the same economic downturn as the United States, and our banks did not get bailed out by the government.  Are people showing up in solidarity with those struggling south of the border?  Are they just hippies who want to camp out and play djembe’s in the park (not that there’s anything wrong with that, I am part-hippie myself) or folks who simply enjoy causing a ruckus?  But just when I start to give in to my doubts and feel negative about the whole thing, signs like this are encouraging: 

Maybe there is value in reminding Canadians that the income gap has been widening in recent years. In reminding our government that they must continue to work for improvement in our social systems, not rest on their laurels. In reminding the 1% that their gains are someone else’s losses. In encouraging citizens to become engaged.


Maybe some positive forces will come together and organize out of this for real change.  Yeah, I think I’ll go for at least a little bit.

A Lesson in Democracy pt II

"I'm not going to vote for that Michael Ignatieff guy. He looks kind of sinister, or evil or something!"


As the federal election approaches, I've been asking all my clients if they plan to vote, and encouraging them to do so. The responses have been all over the place surprising mixed, to say the least.

A Lesson in Democracy

My kiddo’s school is doing a number of things in April to celebrate Earth Day (April 22). One of these is a fundraiser to “help protect wild animals” with the Earth Rangers. According to kiddo, her teacher presented them with four different animals and let the class vote to choose which one to support.

Kiddo and her deskmate/bff voted for the wolverine* but they were the underdogs, so to speak. The rest of the class supported other animals, and ultimately the Peregrine Falcon was the winner.

“It’s so not fair” she says, as “now those other animals will not get our help. It’s so not fair that some of us wanted to pick other animals, but they don’t count because some more people wanted the falcon.”

As a perennial left-wing voter in this current Canadian election campaign, I can totally feel her pain.

It really sucks to feel like your voice is not being heard. I’m sure Elizabeth May knows how the kiddo feels right about now.

The English language debate happens tonight.



*according to her, because it is “such an unusual animal, but maybe we wouldn’t think it was so unusual if it was not endangered and there were more of them.” Her friend picked the wolverine because of XMEN.

Conned?

Well, in case you hadn’t heard yet it’s election time in Canada. Inevitably, election talk comes up with clients. I’m consistently surprised by the number of my clients who profess to support the Conservative party. Everything I’ve ever learned tells me that the Tory’s do the least for the issues that I think of as relevant to my clients, ie., failing to create the promised National Housing Strategy, cancelling Universal Child Care, “tough on crime” policies.

Still, I’m glad when anyone is engaged enough to vote. Hey, maybe I’ve been too brainwashed by the socialist, left-wing nuts (I’ve been a bleeding heart all my life) who seem to abound in social services to ever see what the appeal might be.

Of course, I put on my best non-partisan face during these discussions. Despite how much strain that may put on my face (it hurts!) Maybe I should just ask...what they like about the party, that is...just out of curiosity's sake. Yeah, I think I might be able to get away with that.

I can’t stop thinking about this since one woman told me today that she is considering volunteering for the Harper campaign. Even though she has declared this a “Seinfeld election”.

Go figure.

Mental Health in the News

The Ontario Medical Association is set to present a new ad campaign, and have already released a list of “key health priorities” in advance of the provincial election later this year.

The summary of the list contains a couple of mentions to mental health care specifically. The OMA points out that people with mental illness tend to have complex health needs, and require health services more often, however only 1 out of 3 gets the care they need. They also highlight service gaps for young people and the negative effects this has on families. The ad campaign is said to focus heavily on mental health issues.

After having posted the other day about the Toronto mayor’s anti-homeless attitude, I heard statements on the radio that afternoon from Ontario’s Minister of Health Deb Matthews, commenting on the need for more community and supportive housing to address homelessness and mental health issues in the province. At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what I heard. I’ve searched and searched, and can’t find any links or articles about this. She has discussed these issues in the past however, and has a good track record of linking poverty and health issues.

Speculation continues as to the mental health status of Richard Kachkar, the man accused of killing police officer Ryan Russel by running him down with a stolen snowplow. While this story and ones such as the Arizona shooting seem to have led to some discussions about preventative mental health care and assessing risk of violence, I fear they are sometimes drowned out by the fascination of spectacle and political rhetoric. It’s especially disappointing in both cases to hear such frequent use of terms like “psycho” “crazy” “nutbar” etc. as though those offensive labels somehow explain why a person would commit these types of crimes.

The CBC radio program The Current has been running a great series on mental health. It is available to listen to online, or as a podcast.

The Whole Story

Ontario is having municipal elections this year. I read this article this morning about one of the leading candidates in Toronto, Rob Ford. While I’m not sure who I’m going cast my vote for yet, I can’t say I’m a big fan of Ford. His general platform seems to be of the ‘cut taxes, cut services’ variety, and to be frank, he seems like a real blowhard. Not exactly my style.

I bring this up because I think the article does a good job highlighting some of the challenges that come up time and again when trying to fund social programs. We know (or most people in social services know anyway) that things like poverty, addiction and homelessness are difficult issues to address. Positive change will only come from systemic changes in supports, programs, and people’s attitudes.

It may be very easy for Ford to rail against thousands of dollars being spent on cigarettes and “to give free wine to homeless people” but it is short sighted, and it definitely doesn’t tell the whole story. He gives a line similar to what we hear from those who oppose things like harm reduction, safe injection sites and the special diet allowance (an issue which Ford has also had his say on, and really made a mess)

I’m reminded of many stories, but one in particular of a woman I helped support when I was working on a homeless outreach program. She had been chronically homeless, had schizophrenia, diabetes, and crack addiction. Naturally, she had a long back story that I won’t go into here. After she stabilized somewhat during a lengthy shelter stay, we were able to find her suitable housing. The trick was making sure she got her injection of medication every two weeks so she stayed well enough to maintain that housing. The only way our nurse could guarantee to see her every two weeks was to bring her a coffee and a pack of cigarettes. Now surely this was cheaper than paying for her to be in a shelter, hospital, or detox clinic all the time? Surely this helped her to live a better quality of life!

I really wish some people would take the time to look at the whole picture.

G-20

So, needless to say, even though I’ve been looking for a job closer to downtown for the past two years, I’m glad to be nowhere near the inner city this week.
I haven’t seen the fence, but I hear it’s big.

As I was discussing with some friends the other day, I don’t really know how to feel about the whole thing.

Back in 2002 when the G7 met in Kananaskis, Alberta, and 2001 when the Summit of the Americas was held in Quebec City, I was involved in a lot of activism and many people I knew attended protests at those events (or as near as the “designated protest zone” was allowed). We were anti-globalization and opposed fair-trade. The issues seemed clear, and we wanted specific alternatives to what the summit members were proposing.

Now, I don’t really know what summit leaders will be talking about. The more I read the news, the more confused I get. If, as Harper says “the discussion should be less about new agreements than accountability for existing ones” couldn’t this have been done on the phone?

Initially, I was frustrated that the news media seemed to be focusing on logistics and risk of violence when talking about protestors and seemingly not paying any attention to the reason the protestors are actually there. But I wonder now if it’s because there is no one good reason the protestors are there.

I’m sure many are well intentioned. I’m sure their issues are important. But when everyone is there yelling hundreds of different and unrelated slogans, I fear the message will get lost.

Am I disillusioned and out of touch? I do still think that public protest and peaceful civil disobedience has its place and can be an effective tool for change. I just don’t see it happening this time.

Given all this, there are only two things I am sure of: 1) $1.2 billion is waaaay too much and so not worth it and 2) this weekend, I will be anywhere but downtown.

The World Cares About Homelessness

As with most major events of its kind, when Canada hosted the Olympics in Vancouver a few months ago, there was much skepticism about the benefits of the event to the city. The population was divided between those excited to be on the world stage, and those who felt strongly that resources would be better put towards dealing with the highest HIV rate in North America, a growing homeless population, and other social issues in the city.

While I for one really do like to believe that these events can offer a chance for a positive legacy in a city, I was appalled but not totally shocked when I read this article about the “affordable housing units” that are now up for rent in Vancouver. They were constructed as part of the Olympic Village development plan, and were promised to be turned into badly needed “social housing” for the city.

Please tell me how teachers, paramedics, police, and public sector workers are being discriminated against by landlords, or facing chronic rates of homelessness? Why on earth would these professionals be the target population for any “social housing” project? And can even they afford the $1600 rent (for only 640 sq. ft.)!!!!!!!

Canada has been "working on" a national housing strategy to end homelessness for 17 years now. Is this as far as we've come?

In related news, street children in South Africa are being forcibly moved to remote areas prior to the World Cup tournament.

Soapbox pt. 2

So I figured if I could blog about it, I could also do something more productive. Write a letter. This is what I have written to the premier:*

April 23, 2010

Dear Premier,

I was very encouraged when I heard the recent announcement of the changes being introduced to Ontario’s curriculum regarding sex education. I understand that this is a sensitive and therefore particularly challenging subject matter, and I felt that your plan did a good job reflecting the diverse experiences of children and families in Ontario. It was disappointing then when you decided to place these changes on hold.

I am the parent of a six year old who attends public school. As a mother, I have a great responsibility to impart my knowledge and values to my child, but I also recognize that she is constantly being influenced by other sources. Between sexist and homophobic messages in popular culture, hyper-sexualized images in the media, and often misguided information from her peers, I would like to trust that the education system is a place where she and other children can receive sound knowledge and resources. It is not helpful to her or the other students to continue using language in the classroom that is vague or non-inclusive.

I sincerely hope that the government of Ontario will proceed with the proposed changes to the elementary curriculum. Cultural attitudes and information available about sex and relationships are always changing, and the curriculum needs to keep pace. Our schools provide a safe environment for children to hear these messages.

Sincerely,

(Nectarine)

Also, I tried to find some groups or articles supporting the change, but have come up short so far. I did find this informative comparison.

*feel free to copy/paste/share/plagirize!

Is that a soapbox? Let me at it!

So this is what I get for procrastinating on posting.

I kept meaning to blog something about how pleased I was with the government of Ontario’s new changes to the sex ed curriculum. It involved a new focus on teaching younger students the correct terms for their body parts including genitals, and using more inclusive language throughout the curriculum to recognize families and relationships outside the heterosexual norm. This would include not using terms like “mother and father” or “husband and wife” exclusively when talking about relationships and sex. It would also weave this information throughout the school curriculum to normalize it, instead of confining it to the giggling sessions of health class.

Apparently, this new curriculum has been posted on the government’s website for months, although I can’t find the link. It was formally announced this week, and drew the expected criticisms from social conservative and religious groups. At first, the premier defended the changes, but now he has backed down and “shelved” the curriculum until “further consultation with parents”.

Now, I have a lot to say about this but I’ll focus on one thing for now. It really irks me that social conservatives seem to have a strangle hold on the word “family”. The opposition to this plan is continually referred to in the media as “family values focused”, “pro-family” etc. as though there is only one definition of “family values” and anything else is amoral.

Look, just because we don’t all have a mommy and a daddy who got married in a church and then planned and had some babies and will stay together forever, doesn’t mean we don’t care for and love one another and comprise a FAMILY. And because of this, it means kids need to have a safe and well-informed environment to learn about sex and relationships.

Bear with me, I may have more on this later.