Joan Roberts Consulting

Soundbites e-Bulletin
Thursday, July 21, 2011

Contents

1. Core Service Review Suggests Eliminating or Reducing Community Grants
2. July 29 SPT Research and Policy Forum
3. SPT Member Forum on Social Assistance Review
4. Worth Repeating: A Poverty Free Ontario
5. News from our Partners
6. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
7. About Social Planning Toronto

1. Core Service Review Suggests Eliminating or Reducing Community Grants

Toronto community organizations and residents have their first opportunity to respond to the proposed elimination or reduction of community grants by making a deputation to City Executive Committee on July 28, 2011. Today, city-hired consultants KPMG have suggested reducing or eliminating the Community Partnership and Investment Program (CPIP). CPIP funding serves Toronto’s most vulnerable communities, including youth, women, seniors, racialized people, homeless & low-income people, disabled people, LGBTQ people and many others.

The community programs funded by CPIP make a real difference in enhancing the lives of Toronto residents. These programs help vulnerable people find familiarity, comfort and a sense of community in Toronto, enhancing mental health, promoting safety, preventing disease, providing healthy food & reducing isolation. Communities served through these programs enhance their sense of belonging and commitment to the city and in turn volunteer their time and energy to build the city of Toronto. In addition, every $1 the city invests in community organizations leverages up to $10 in other funds that flow into communities – funds from other levels of government, donations from individuals, and resources from the private sector.

It’s time for volunteers, program participants, funders, faith leaders, small businesses & all other supporters of these community programs to Speak Up for our City! Here’s what you can do:
1. Register in advance to depute to Executive Committee on July 28, 2011 at 9:30 am at City Hall about the value of programs delivered through CPIP’s community grants. To register, email: exc@toronto.ca or Call: 416-392-6627 by July 27, 2011 at 4 pm.

First time deputing? Follow this step-by-step How-to guide to plan your deputation:

http://commitment2community.org/?p=237.

If you can’t depute in person, you can submit your comments in writing to exc@toronto.ca and copy the City Manager as well at talktocitymanager@toronto.ca.

We’d be grateful if you would send a copy of your deputation to: c2c@socialplanningtoronto.org.

2. Call your City Councillor and express your concerns about the impacts of cutting programs and services in your community. Visit this link for City Councillors’ contact info & to find your Councillor by typing in your address: http://app.toronto.ca/im/council/councillors.jsp

3. Join a C2C Ward Team in your community! C2C is working to support communities across Toronto to get organized in their own ward. This is a great way to share concerns in your neighbourhood, build strength in your community, and ensure that your voice is heard at City Hall. Visit www.commitment2community.org for more information.

4. Talk to your friends, family, and colleagues about what is at stake in Toronto and encourage them to get involved in C2C and speak up for our city. Bring a friend to the next meeting/event & ask them to sign up for our mailing list to get important updates like this one: http://commitment2community.org/?p=44

13,000 Torontonians filled out the City’s Core Service Review survey. The majority of those surveyed said that they were not in favour of cutting Toronto’s services and were willing to pay for programs with increased taxes. However members of the Executive Committee have rejected their own survey results as “not statistically valid”(http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1023213–hume-cuts-loom-as-budget-season-kicks-off?bn=1). None of this bodes well for us as we try to protect vital city services. The Mayor is considering mass layoffs at City Hall (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/layoffs-not-ruled-out-as-city-has-thousands-too-many-employees-mayor-ford-says/article2094746/). He, and the majority of Councillors refused to accept two new public health nurses from the province – despite the fact there is no cost to the city;
(http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1022365–don-t-reject-public-health-nurses). The Mayor’s lack of support for the City’s community grants programs was shown when he was the sole member of Council to vote to cut grants in 2011.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1023558–mayor-ford-votes-against-all-community-grants.

You can access the KPMG Report which identifies the opportunity to cut the CPIP program at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-39626.pdf

2. “What does good civic engagement look like?” – July 29 SPT Research and Policy Forum

On June 22nd the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) passed a motion that could transform the Board’s budget process over the coming years. Trustee Chris Glover (Ward 2) proposed a motion that would see the Board commit to a participatory budget process for the next budget cycle. It passed.

The TDSB has been experiencing a systemic funding shortfall ever since amalgamation in 1998 and is currently covering the cost of $176 million in programs and activities not funded by the Ministry of Education (these programs include: special education, English as a Second Language and learning opportunities for students living in poverty) . The TDSB has long been the most participatory level of government in the Toronto area with students, parents and community members engaged in decision making through school councils, ward councils, parent and student forums, advisory committees, community meetings, as well as the democratic election of two Student Trustees. Public participation in budget process will continue the TDSB’s commitment to citizenship education as the board helps to develop the community’s capacity to take part in democratic decision-making through its community engagement strategies.

On Friday, July 29, 2011 9:30-noon, please join us for Social Planning Toronto’s July Research and Policy Forum: Community at the Centre of Policy-Making: What Does Meaningful Civic Engagement Look Like? The participatory process with the City and the TDSB will be explored as speakers Israt Ahmed, Chris Glover, and Marc Piccinato examine the question: “What does good civic engagement look like?”

Come learn more and bring your ideas!

All are welcome but registration is required as space is limited. Register online (click here to register online) or by contacting Lisa at lnho@socialplanningtoronto.org or call (416) 351-0095 x227

3. Over 100 participate in SPT Member Forum on Social Assistance Review

On Thursday July 14 Social Planning Toronto hosted a session for the Social Assistance Review Commission. Over a hundred people, largely SPT members from all over the city, the community support sector and the community at large came to provide their input for the commission. The input was comprehensive and wide ranging and provide an abundance of information for the commission to consider. The responses were visibly well-received by the two commissioners, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh.

Those present dealt with the five topics selected by the commission’s initial report. The initial report had identified the primary social assistance concerns as issues of: the necessary supports and expectations associated with access to employment; the ease of navigating the system; the appropriateness of benefits provided; the long-term viability of the system; and the integration of the Ontario system with other orders of government. Each issue saw multiple conversations with diverse opinions clearly a reflection of the wealth of experience in the room.Some highlights of the discussion include a focus on centralizing the dignity of social assistance recipients in efforts to reform the system. Concern was also raised with the over-emphasis on return to employment, especially given the continuing effects of the recession.
This forum came in response to a discussion paper released in June as part the Social Assistance review process. More community conversations will continue into September with draft suggestions for the
reform of social assistance to be released by the end of the year. For more information on the Commission and its work, see http://www.socialassistancereview.ca/home.

4. Worth Repeating: Poverty Free Ontario – An Option in the Provincial Election

“Poverty Free Ontario,” an initiative of the Social Planning Network of Ontario, is producing a series of bulletins in the lead-up to the October 6 Provincial election. Here is an excerpt from Bulletin #4…

Fiscal Options for a Poverty Free Ontario

In 2010, when questioned by supporters of the Put Food in the Budget (PFIB) campaign about where the $100 a month Healthy Food Supplement (HFS) was in the Ontario Government’s agenda, Finance Minister Duncan offered “everything is on the radar but we have to know how to pay for it”.

PFIB supporters and leaders on the Poverty Free Ontario initiative in communities across the
province need to be prepared with some arguments about the inevitable questions on how to
finance the kinds of proposals for which we are advocating, even though we realize that the
basic issue remains the inequitable sharing of the great wealth that exists in this province and
country. On March 10, Anglican Bishop Linda Nichols reminded us of that. Speaking at a PFIB
public event at Queen’s Park after a meeting with Finance Minister Duncan, Bishop Nichols said: “We don’t accept the argument that Ontario can’t afford to help the poor. That’s a morally bankrupt position. We live in a wealthy society.”

Poverty Elimination is “Self?financing” Over Time

We know that allowing people to live in poverty costs our healthcare system in Ontario about
$2.9 billion annually (OAFB Cost of Poverty Report, 2008), which is about 18% of the 2011 Ontario deficit.

Research at the University of Toronto by Ernie Lightman, Andrew Mitchell and Beth Wilson tells us that a $1,000 increase in annual income to the poorest fifth of households in Ontario will
result in 10,000 fewer chronic conditions an 6,600 fewer disability days lost at work every two weeks (Poverty Is Making Us Sick, 2008). Notably, PFIB’s proposed Healthy Food Supplement
(HFS) would provide $1200 in increased annual income to social assistance recipients, which would produce the scale of savings to the healthcare system noted above by the U of T study.

Since health is one of the Ontario Government’s priorities, the personal as well as the economic benefits should put the HFS on the government’s radar. Since there are almost600,000 adults currently on social assistance, this would cost about $700 million. This is a very high caseload because of the recent recession and would be expected to come down as the economic recovery helps more recipients leave the system.

For the complete text, go to http://www.povertyfreeontario.ca/2011/07/14/pfo-bulletin-4-fiscal-options-for-a-poverty-free-ontario/.
News From Our Partners

Wellbeing Toronto Launched

Wellbeing Toronto is a new web-based measurement and visualization tool that helps evaluate community wellbeing across the city’s 140 neighbourhoods. Using geographic information software, Wellbeing Toronto allows users to select, combine and weight the significance of a number of indicators that monitor neighbourhood wellness. The results appear instantly on easy to read maps, tables and graphs. This free tool supports decision making and seeks to engage citizens and businesses in understanding the challenges and opportunities of creating and maintaining healthy neighbourhoods.

Wellbeing Toronto is located on the City’s website at www.toronto.ca/wellbeing. The available data has been collected from a variety of internal and external sources, including several City Divisions, Statistics Canada, Agencies, Boards and Commissions and other NGOs. Users will have access to City operational metrics data such as fire, crime, voter participation, local employment, recreation program registrants, health and social services; socio-demographics information including age, sex, income and education; and infrastructure service data such as the locations of recreation centres, police stations, parks, libraries and schools.
“Working Rough, Living Poor – Employment & Income Insecurities Faced by Racialized Groups & their Impacts on Health”
This report by the Income Security, Race and Health research working group established by Access Alliance Multicultural Health and Community Services reveals how racialized people are being pushed into protracted conditions of precarious and ‘temp’ jobs, and how existing employment training services and job search supports often prove ineffective. The study also clearly illustrates the everyday pathways through which these employment and income insecurity challenges damage health within these groups. “Working Rough, Living Poor” is the result of research conducted in Toronto’s Black Creek community in collaboration with local residents trained to be community-based researchers by Access Alliance. The report’s new insights into the disturbing racialization of precarious employment and poverty in Canadian communities and the far-reaching health impact that these trends have on individuals and families, fills a key gap in data on the experiences of racialized groups in Canada. Below, you will also find 4 links to stand-alone research bulletins that complement the key themes of the Working Rough, Living Poor report. Click here for the Working Rough Living Poor report.
Click here for the set of related Research Bulletins -
Research Bulletin 1: Labour Market Challenges and Discrimination faced by Racialized Groups in the Black Creek Area
Research Bulletin 2: Health Impacts of Employment and Income Insecurity faced by Racialized Groups
Research Bulletin 3: Neighbourhood, Discrimination and Health: Critical Perspectives of Racialized Residents from the Black Creek Area
Research Bulletin 4: Strategies for Employment, Income and Health Security: Critical Examination of Policies and Services

Toronto Teachers Launch Initiative for Better Schools

Inspired by the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) Building Better Schools Agenda (www.etfo.ca), the Elementary Teachers of Toronto (ETT) has developed the Community Education Action Plan (CEAP) to engage parents and communities in an open-ended discussion about what Toronto’s schools need to be the best they can be. In different venues, including outdoor barbecues and public forums teachers, parents and community members will exchange views on resource needs, promoting educational opportunity and inclusion, parent involvement and the role of community schools.

The project is also animated by the conviction that teachers and students will benefit from greater involvement of parents and communities in shaping the role of community schools. In a climate of fiscal restraint, teachers are increasingly looking to parents and the public to actively support the public school system. “I think there is a growing feeling that parent and community involvement is the key to building better schools .” said teacher and project coordinator Anna Jessup. Whether it’s lobbying and voting for the resources we need to do our jobs as teachers or re-imagining our schools as community hubs, it all depends on active and informed parent and community involvement.” The next CEAP event is a Barbecue and Education Forum, Scarborough Civic Centre (Scarborough Town Centre) Sunday, July 24, 12-3pm. For more information, contact Nigel Barriffe at (416) 427-1192 nigelbarriffe@yahoo.ca or James Wardlaw at (416) 461-9233
Wellesley Institute: Multicultural Youth Voices: Neighbourhood, Health and Well-Being
In the summer of 2009 and 2010, 21 multi-cultural youth from St. James Town completed a Photovoice project and disseminated their findings in a community forum that attracted the attention of news media. The goal of the arts-based project was to investigate the impact of neighbourhood on youth health and well-being. Using photography and storytelling, the youth delivered a striking account of their personal experiences and beliefs regarding various neighbourhood and community issues that impact their lives. Some very interesting themes emerged, such as the importance of green and public spaces in their largely concrete neighbourhood, and the youth’s keen interest in collective community efforts for creating change.
St. James Town Initiative: Multicultural Youth Voices project has yielded three new publications and and a video.
A detailed background on neighbourhood effects on immigrant youth health and an analysis of the major themes to emerge from the Youth Photovoice research project is now available in the Multicultural Youth Voice report. The report features photographs taken by the youth and quotes from their stories about their neighbourhood.
A summary policy brief identifying potential policy actions arising from the Youth Photovoice research findings is also available. This policy brief is the first in a series and provides a glimpse into key policy directions that will be detailed in several issue-focused policy briefs to follow.
The Urban and Open Spaces fact sheet provides a quick description of the key channels through which urban neighbourhoods impact the health and well-being of multicultural youth. The Introduction to St. James Town video is an extension of the Multicultural Youth Voices project . Filmed by three youths from St. James Town and featuring commentary by some of the research participants, this video reflects the opinions and experiences of newcomer youth in St. James Town. Download our new report here.

5. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
Your membership and support enables us to be a more effective resource and voice for the non-profit community sector in Toronto.
2011 is an important year for the community sector in Toronto. Your organizational or individual membership in Social Planning Toronto strengthens our voice.
As a member you are entitled to:
• Voting privileges at the SPT Annual General Meeting.
• Agency listing and linking on SPT’s website.
• Participation in SPT Member Forums.
Your support helps us to:
• Strengthen the voice of local communities across the city.
• Increase our capacity to engage in social policy research, analysis and advocacy for communities and the organizations that serve them.
• Maintain our role as an independent voice for positive change in Toronto.
For more information on membership, please visit www.socialplanningtoronto.org/get-involved/
To enquire about membership, please call Mary at (416) 351-0095 ex 251 or email mmicallef@socialplanningtoronto.org

7. About Social Planning Toronto
For more than fifty years, SPT and its predecessor organizations have served as a vital voice for the non-profit community sector in Toronto – conducting research and supporting community mobilization that has made a real difference for our organizations, our communities, and the most vulnerable residents in our city.
OUR MISSION
Social Planning Toronto is committed to building a civic society: one in which diversity, equity, social and economic justice, interdependence and active civic participation are central to all aspects of our lives – in our families, neighbourhoods, voluntary and recreational activities, at work and in politics.
OUR ROLE
• Convenor of social research, often in collaboration with other non-profit organizations and academic institutions.
• Mobilizer of community resources to improve equity, inclusivity, and the quality of life in the City of Toronto.
• Advocate with policy makers for improved social and economic conditions.
• Resource for action-oriented research, policy analysis, and community planning, in support of community priorities.

Social Planning Toronto funders include:
________________________________________

Housing Action Now
c/o 489 College Street, Suite 205, Toronto, Ontario M6R 2A3
Contact: Beth Wilson, 416-351-0095 x257, beth@socialplanningtoronto.org
Deputation to the Community Development and Recreation Committee on the Core Service
Review – Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Beth Wilson. I am the
senior researcher from Social Planning Toronto, a nonprofit community organization that works
to advance social and economic justice issues through research, community development and
promotion of civic engagement. I am also the co-chair of Housing Action Now, a city-wide
network of residents and community groups working to advance the right to safe, decent and
affordable housing in Toronto. I am here today to speak on behalf of Housing Action Now.
HAN conducts public education and policy work to inform and engage community members
and policy-makers around vital housing issues affecting our neighbourhoods and communities.
Our network includes 40 individuals and organizations, including agencies such as Kensington
Bellwoods Community Legal Services, Social Planning Toronto, Children’s Aid Society of
Toronto, Tenants for Social Housing, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, and Federation of Metro
Tenants’ Associations.
I would like to convey our network’s deep concerns about the direction of the core service
review, and in particular with regard to the city’s shelter system. First I must comment on the
general direction of the core service review. Our members are struck by report after report
from KPMG that offers “opportunities” to dismantle our city – recommendations that are
completely counter to the results of the public consultations that overwhelmingly called for the
preservation of city services and indicated a willingness to pay for those services. The gravy
that was promised has not materialized – instead the options are about making deep cuts to
cherished city services. Cutting subsidized child care spaces, selling off long-term care homes,
reversing environmental progress, shutting down shelter beds and trading in good jobs for bad
ones – this is not what Toronto residents signed on for. We want to say that the Mayor and
City Council have no mandate to dismantle our city, and that is what is at the heart of these
reports.
2
Throughout the core service review, the $774 million figure has been repeated many times as the gap in the city budget – a daunting figure to be sure. But now we understand that that figure is considerably less when other revenue sources are factored in. If City Council had passed a modest tax increase in the 2011 budget and had not cut the $60 vehicle registration fee, the city would have some work to do to balance the 2012 budget, but there would be no rationale for deep and broad-based cuts. This is a crisis that has been manufactured.
The consultant reports do not appear to address the need to advocate for funding from senior levels of government. In February, the Mayor wrote a letter to the provincial government asking for $150 million to cover some of the province’s fair share of the city’s costs. Why isn’t that on the table any longer? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has identified that up to 10% of municipal policing costs fall under federal jurisdiction and should be paid for by the federal government. For the City of Toronto, this amounts to over $84 million. Why is this avenue of revenue raising not being pursued? In the public consultation survey, the vast majority of participants supported property tax increases to preserve services. On average, people were willing to pay a 5.15% increase in property taxes. Why is the entire discussion on the service cutting side of the equation? It would seem the only revenue generating discussion is about making low income people pay more for city services.
In the consultant reports, deep cuts are offered up haphazardly in all kinds of program areas without any background documentation or in-depth analysis. As one councillor has put it, it is policy-making in the dark, and it is unacceptable. The core service review pits one service against another, and one community against another. We reject this. We see city and community services as deeply interconnected, affecting the quality of life of all Toronto residents across the city. We cannot pretend that cuts in one area will have no impact on other areas. Housing is a case in point.
Today, the committee is considering recommendations about reducing the number of shelters or shelter beds in the city. But reports on the Affordable Housing Office, Toronto Community Housing Corporation and the city’s community grants programs are not available. All of these areas are closely linked.
To its credit, KPMG has recognized that to lessen the need for shelter beds, we must make investments in permanent affordable housing, in supports, as well as, in supportive housing. Naturally, we strongly support the expansion of affordable housing, including supportive housing and the full range of supports people require. However to lessen the need for emergency shelters, substantial and ongoing investments are needed– something that no level of government has taken action on to date. KPMG provides no good reason to believe that these investments will be made and the need for emergency shelter beds will lessen as a result.
3
We are deeply concerned that only the message of cost cutting will filter through in Council’s final decisions, exacerbating the crisis of homelessness even further.
At present, the Ontario and federal governments are negotiating a 5-year extended housing agreement that would continue to provide municipalities with funding for affordable housing. The first hurdle is for senior levels of government to sign the deal that will facilitate the flow of funding to municipalities. Our great concern is that Toronto City Council may take a pass on these housing funds when they become available, as it recently did with regard to 100% provincial funding for two public health nurses to work with low income and newcomer communities. While these public health funds would have come at no cost to the city, Council rejected the funds, denying these supports to marginalized communities. We worry that a similar lack of logic will prevail on decisions regarding housing funding.
Further no level of government has articulated a plan for addressing the end of social housing operating agreements. Without continued funding, tens of thousands of residents who have rent-geared-to-income affordable housing now, will be out on the street in the years to come. If this situation comes to pass, we will have a great need to expand our current emergency shelter system.
KPMG suggests that homeless people could be given a higher priority on the waiting list for accessing social housing as a way of lessening the need for shelter beds. The consultants also state that the waiting list for social housing is already very long and this approach would extend the time for others to get housing, possibly encouraging them to become homeless to get quicker access to housing. This, of course, would have the perverse effect of increasing the need for emergency shelters.
KPMG’s recommendation would mean that other priority groups such as women fleeing domestic violence would be given a lower priority on the waiting list. This is clearly an unacceptable option. As of June 30, 68,253 households were on the waiting list for social housing in Toronto. Rearranging the order of acceptance will do nothing to address the fundamental housing problem or lessen rates of homelessness.
We urge the committee to reject any cost cutting measures that would reduce emergency shelters or shelter beds for homeless people. Certainly long-term substantial investments in permanent housing, supports and supportive housing could reduce and even eliminate the need for emergency shelters in the long run. However there is no plan on the horizon, and certainly not within the timeframe the consultants propose (2012-2014), by any level of government to make these investments. As it stands, these recommendations, if adopted, would greatly harm one of the most marginalized groups in the city.
Thank you for the opportunity to depute.

This issue:

1. Register for the Social Assistance Review SPT Member Forum on July 14th
2. Register for SPT’s July Research & Policy Forum, “Community at the Centre of Policy-Making”
3. New Report shows that Toronto’s youth face barriers in accessing the space they need to work, gather and play
4. North Etobicoke’s LIP
5. Beyond The Long Form Census
6. Partner News & Events (this is now featured in the right column)
7. Worth Repeating: Making space for youth
8. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
9. About Social Planning Toronto

This issue:

1. Register for the Social Assistance Review SPT Member Forum on July 14th
2. Register for SPT’s July Research & Policy Forum, “Community at the Centre of Policy-Making”
3. New Report shows that Toronto’s youth face barriers in accessing the space they need to work, gather and play
4. North Etobicoke’s LIP
5. Beyond The Long Form Census
6. Partner News & Events (this is now featured in the right column)
7. Worth Repeating: Making space for youth
8. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
9. About Social Planning Toronto

 

When: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:30-Noon Where:Social Planning Toronto, 2 Carlton Street, Suite 1001 Speakers:

• Israt Ahmed, Planner, Social Planning Toronto
• Chris Glover, Trustee, Toronto District School Board
• Marc Piccinato, Co-Chair, Toronto Open Budget Initiative

All are welcome but registration is required as space is limited. Register by online (click continue reading to register online) or by contacting Lisa at lnho@socialplanningtoronto.org or call (416) 351-0095 x227

As you know, the Social Assistance Review Commission recently released a discussion paper for community feedback, as part of its on-going task of reviewing the province’s social assistance system, with an eye to recommendations in its final report due early in 2012. To facilitate this dialogue with the community, Social Planning Toronto has made arrangements to hold a member’s forum, which the commissioners have been invited to attend. The forum will be held as follows: When: Thursday, July 14, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Where: Holiday Inn Toronto Downtown Centre (Wellesley Room), 30 Carlton Street (one block west of College/Yonge)

Social Planning Toronto and the SPACE Coalition have released a report entitled Another Winter, Another Spring: Toronto Youth Speaking Out about Space, highlighting the lack of accessible, affordable and appropriate space in Toronto for the City’s youth

A report released on July 5, 2011 by Social Planning Toronto and the SPACE Coalition (Saving Public Access to Community Space Everywhere) entitled Another Winter, Another Spring: Toronto Youth Speak Out about Space reveals the importance of youth having access to public space and identifies continuing barriers that youth face when they attempt to access space.

Click here to read the full report.

“The importance of belonging is a fundamental need for all of us,” says Irwin Elman, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, “We know that safe spaces are crucial in meeting that need for young people. I am troubled by the lack of access to these spaces in Toronto and across the Province.”

Youth use space in a number of ways. Space is critical to the development of youth-led enterprises and to run extracurricular activities. It is where young people can spend time with friends, develop skills or access services. It is used to nurture artistic creativity and innovation.

“It all begins with space – you can’t run programs, start businesses or spend time with friends without an accessible, welcoming and affordable space. The provincial government’s commitment to community access to schools has made great improvements in allowing community groups to use space in schools,” says Susan Fletcher, Chair of the SPACE Coalition. “However, youth in our communities continue to experience particular challenges in accessing space in schools, recreation centres and other community facilities.”

Policies, procedures and attitudes directed toward young people and access to space directly impact how “welcome” or “safe” youth feel, as well as what they are capable of creating. The SPACE Coalition report includes a number of recommendations aimed at improving these access issues facing so many young people.  Solving this problem will require leadership at the provincial and municipal levels and will also require listening and engaging with youth advisors to ensure that community space is opened up to enhance their opportunities for growth and development.

“While the many benefits that result from community use of public spaces are well documented, youth organizations struggle to access affordable space to create environments where they feel included,” says John Campey, Executive Director of Social Planning Toronto. “Yet when you do invest in young people and space the possibilities of what they can create are extraordinary.”

For more information please contact:

Susan Fletcher, SPACE Coalition & Executive Director, Applegrove Community Complex

416-461-8143 or susan@applegrovecc.ca

Javid, Program Coordinator, LOFT Youth Centre for Social Enterprise & Innovation

416-534-8941 x 28 or javid@conc.ca

John Campey, Executive Director, Social Planning Toronto,

416-351-0095-260 or jcampey@socialplanningtoronto.org

Keddone Dias, Youth Program Supervisor, Rathburn Area Youth,

416-626-6068 or keddoned@lampchc.org

Irwin Elman, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth,

416-325-5669 or irwin.elman@provincialadvocate.on.ca

 

Social Planning Toronto’s senior researcher Beth Wilson addressed six hundred public health practitioners at the 2011 Canadian Public Health Association’s conference in Montreal this June. As an invited speaker, Beth joined with public health research chairs Dr. Pat Martens and Dr. Gilles Paradis to discuss the fight for the long form census and the future of public health research following the federal government’s damaging decision. Beth’s presentation focused on the Save the Census campaign, implications for public health from the loss of the long form, and the current Right to be Counted charter challenge waged by twelve nonprofit community organizations including SPT.

• Read about the plenary session
• Review Beth’s slide presentation ‘Taking leave of our Census’

The following write-up is from the CPHA “eDaily” newsletter:

Ex-Chief Statistician Dr. Munir Sheikh received a round of applause in absentia when Beth Wilson, Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst with Social Planning Toronto, recalled his “unprecedented and very courageous move” following the cancellation of the Long-Form Census.

Sheikh resigned after then-Industry Minister Tony Clement implied that Statistics Canada endorsed the Cabinet’s decision, thereby becoming “the unlikely hero of an unlikely protest movement,” Wilson said. The cancellation produced a wave of reaction, with 488 organizations joining a coalition to reverse the decision. Wilson cited one comment from Armine Yalnizian, Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

Without a foundation of reliable, consistent information, evidence-based public policy is impossible. It is troubling to think that our elected leaders think decision-based evidence-making is preferable.

Wilson said medical officers of health and other public health professionals across the country “really led the charge in calling for the reinstatement of the Long-Form Census,“ with simultaneous regional media conferences explaining how the decision would be harmful to health. “Public health lent legitimacy to the cause that many others were talking about, and that made it safe for other organizations that may have been a bit shy to come forward.”

She showed a photo of epidemiologists and statisticians rallying against the cancellation, qualifying them as “probably the best-dressed protesters we’ve ever seen on Parliament Hill.” But none of that activity affected the government’s decision, and Wilson enumerated some of the health and equity research that is threatened as a result.

A Charter challenge led by the Canadian Council on Social Development, arguing that provisions on discrimination and equality entitle different groups to be counted in the census, will be heard in the next two months and should be decided by the end of the year. “It really speaks to the importance of the census in reflecting back to us who we are as a country and who belongs,” Wilson said. “It asserts that the exclusion of these groups constitutes discrimination.”

For the last eight months Social Planning Toronto as a member of the Inner City Advisory Committee Fees and Fundraising Subcommittee has been investigating the impact of non-public funds on our education system.  On June 7, 2011 the Inner City Schools Advisory Committee (ICAC) invited representatives from the Ministry of Education’s finance department to attend a public consultation on the impact of ‘school-generated funds’ (fees and fundraising) on our public education system and the Ministry’s Draft Guidelines on Fundraising. About 50 parents, students and community members made it to Fairmeadow School on a Tuesday morning to share their thoughts, concerns, observations or comments about fundraising in publicly funded schools.

This is a brief overview of what we have learned over the past eight months:

School fees and fundraising activities create inequities between students, among schools and make the public school system less inclusive and accessible. Marginalized students suffer. The amount of money entering schools through grants meant to assist vulnerable students, such as the Learning Opportunities Grant, are often used to balance budget shortfalls across the system. Meanwhile private money entering schools through fees and fundraising is kept in the schools that raise the money.

This map shows the richest and poorest third of schools in Toronto and their ability to bring money into their schools through fees and fundraising. Schools located in richer parts of the city bring in more money, supplementing an education funding shortfall.

As one parent told us: “With a fundraising element, the public school system becomes multi-tiered.  In affluent neighbourhoods, the school can offer an enriched learning experience with better classroom equipment, better fitness facilities, and more field trips.  In poorer neighbourhoods those opportunities would not be unavailable.  In a public school system, is it acceptable to offer the children in Forest Hill a better education than those of Jane and Finch?”

As we have learned our education system is generally underfunded and while fees and fundraising do lead to richer opportunities and outcomes for Toronto’s wealthier students all schools are dependent on these non-public funds help subsidize the costs of educating students and keeping the buildings running.

A parent and School Council Chair at a TDSB school told us: “Without the fundraising that we do, our school would be without many things that would, by normal standards, be considered “School Board responsibility”. Requests from teachers and the Principal for classroom technology, books, markers, kleenex, fixed-up facilities (broken tables etc.), sports equipment, workshops for kids, resources for the library are outstanding. Without the funds raised by parents, our school would go without.”

Even with millions of dollars entering the system on June 22nd the TDSB is facing this budget shortfall of $55 million with a structural deficit of $170 million due to unfunded costs in staffing, in programs such as special education, in textbooks, in upgrading classroom technology for the 21st century, etc. The school board is also facing a $3 billion building renewal backlog (the average school in the system is 60 years old and is in need of retrofitting).

Please see our brief on Fees and Fundraising and our presentation to the Ministry for more information and watch for our extended report release in late August.  Stay tuned for our fall consultation on Corporate Partnerships.

This issue:

1. Social Planning Toronto receives Vital Ideas Award
2. Recap on SPT’s June Research & Policy Form: Justice & Equity on the Job
3. Fees and Fundraising Update
4. Partner News & Events (this is now featured in the right column)
5. Worth Repeating: Sell-off of 900 TCHC homes: Facts and options
6. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
7. About Social Planning Toronto

 

John Campey, Executive Director of SPT (pictured on right) receives a “Vital Ideas” Award on behalf of Social Planning Toronto at the Toronto Community Foundation’s Award Ceremony on June 22, 2011. Other recipients included SEDI, Toronto Acorn, TO Fund for Student Success, and Working Skills Centre.

Social Planning Toronto’s (SPT) mandate is to create a liveable, affordable city by addressing four priority areas through community engagement, policy analysis, and research: labour markets and income security; education and human development; housing and community infrastructure; and public finance and resource allocation.

SPT has researched the impact of homelessness on children’s education in Toronto, and have found that 58% of children in shelters had attended three or more schools. They have identified problems homeless children face related to residential instability and family and school disruptions, and provide recommendations to educators and shelter staff to improve their situation.

The Vital Ideas grant supports translating the research into action by creating a resource that captures the impact of homelessness on children’s school success and shares best practices to improve their educational experience. The resource will help shelters and schools to address this complex issue, and to share strategies for removing barriers that vulnerable children and youth face.

Vital Ideas – High-Impact Initiatives in Toronto: Replication, Documentation and Promotion

A Vital Idea is a high-impact program, project, or organization that has been piloted or is currently in operation that helps make Toronto a better place to live, work, learn and grow. Our goal is to help connect these Vital Ideas with others in our community who can learn from them, benefit from them and support them to increase their impact. Our aim is to ensure that Vital Ideas secure the attention and support they deserve so that they can sustain and grow their contribution to improving Torontonians’ quality of life.

Funding
The Vital Ideas grant stream is unique in that it provides grants of up to $30,000 for strategic activities beyond direct programming. Vital Ideas grants enable proven, effective organizations to expand their reach, share their experience and better sustain their impact. The investment in these strategic activities is meant to be a one-time investment in building the capacity of not-for-profits.

The Toronto Community Foundation supports strategic activities that help make the impact of a Vital Idea more sustainable. In other words, the Vital Idea grant is not program funding but is a capacity-building grant (for use to increase the effectiveness of a program or organization). The Community Foundation provides grants of up to $30,000 over one year.

On June 15th, Social Planning Toronto hosted its June Research & Policy forum entitled, “Justice & Equity on the Job: Challenging wage theft and employment barriers for racialized workers”. Invited speakers included Sheila Block, Director- Economic Analysis at the Wellesley Institute and Deena Ladd, coordinator of the Workers’ Action Centre.

Sheila Block presented findings from her recent report (co-authored with Grace-Edward Galabuzi) titled, Canada’s Colour Coded Labour Market: The Gap for Racialized Workers. Her presentation, “Toronto’s Post Recession Labour Market: More Precarious and Colour Coded”, focused on the growth of precarious work in Toronto’s labour market as it emerges from the current recession and analyzes the labour market outcomes for Toronto’s racialized workers. Between 2008 and 2009, Toronto’s (CMA) unemployment rate jumped from 6.9% to 9.4%, with nearly 50,000 full-time jobs disappearing and 64,700 permanent employees losing jobs. In 2010, we find that the number of part-time and temporary employment has far outpaced the creation of full-time work- with substantial growth in the services-producing sector. Census figures also indicate that both unemployment rates and incidences of low-income are disproportionately higher for racialized workers compared to non-racialized workers. For instance, the unemployment rate for racialized women in 2006 was 9.6%, compared to 5.8% for non-racialized women. In regards to wages, racialized Canadians earned only 81.4 cents for every dollar paid to non-racialized Canadians. These workers are also most likely to be working in precarious forms of employment.

Sheila also introduced a new resource and campaign that has been developed to help better engage voters and bring important labour market policy issues to the forefront during the upcoming Ontario election campaign. Talking about Jobs (www.talkingaboutjobs.ca) includes a series of six labour policy positions papers and representatives will be holding community forums throughout the province in the upcoming months to bring people together and discuss how we can strengthen our labour market, better protect workers and create healthier and equitable workplaces for all Ontarians.

Deena Ladd presented on the Workers’ Action Centre’s latest report entitled, Unpaid Wages, Unprotected Workers: A Survey of Employment Standards Violations and discussed the Centre’s current Stop Wage Theft campaign. The report presents findings from a survey conducted with 520 workers in low-wage precarious work in order to document incidences of employment standards violations and unpaid wages for workers. The survey found that many precarious workers are being denied the most basic of labour protections set out in the Ontario Employment Standards Act. Some of the report’s key findings include:

• Twenty-two percent of workers reported being paid less than $10.25 (minimum wage) in their current job.
• Thirty-three percent of workers reported being owed wages from their employer. Of these, 77 percent reported that they were not successful in obtaining the wages owing to them.
• Sixty percent of respondents reported working more than 44 hours in a week during the past five years. Yet 39 percent of those workers reported never receiving overtime pay.

Many workers also reported mental health problems and stress due to employment standards violations, unpaid wages and lack of workplace benefits. With lack of proper government enforcement of the Employment Standards Act (the Ministry of Labour inspects less than one percent of Ontario’s 370,000 workplaces) many employers feel little pressure to comply with existing labour legislation and continue exploiting workers.

Deena also discussed the current Stop Wage Theft Campaign and shared a couple of videos the Workers’ Action Centre has developed to create public awareness on this issue and pressure the Ontario Ministry of Labour to act accordingly. The videos document workers’ stories of thousands of dollars of wages being owed by their employers, workers being forced to pay fees and treated as self-employed independent contractors.

To learn more about the campaign, watch the videos or download the report, please visit the Workers’ Action Centre website at:www.workersactioncentre.org

Videos of the presentations will be soon available on our website:www.socialplanningtoronto.org

 

This issue:

1. Social Planning Toronto and the Toronto Working Group on Poverty Present: Thinking Locally, Acting Provincially
2. The Commitment to Community Campaign Presents: An Action-Oriented Organizing Meeting
3. Registration is Now Open for Social Planning Toronto’s June Research & Policy Forum
4. Roma Students in the TDSB: Challenges and Opportunities
5. Community Engagement in the 2011 Federal Election
6. Tracing Root Causes of Poverty
7. Partner News & Events (this is now featured in the right column)
8. Worth Repeating: Toronto's Budget Survey Deeply Flawed
9. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
10. About Social Planning Toronto

 

Registration is Now Open for Social Planning Toronto’s June Research & Policy Forum: Justice & Equity on the Job: Challenging wage theft and employment barriers for racialized workers

Join us for a discussion on issues facing racialized workers in the Canadian labour market and the campaign to improve Ontario’s employment standards.

Time: June 15, 2011, 1:00pm-3:30pm
Location: Social Planning Toronto, 2 Carlton Street, Suite 1001  (Corner of Carlton & Yonge)
Our office is wheelchair accessible. Light refreshments will be served.

Speakers:

• Sheila Block, The Wellesley Institute, Canada’s Colour Coded Labour Market: The Gap for Racialized Workers
• Deena Ladd, The Workers’ Action Centre, Unpaid Wages, Unprotected Workers: A Survey of Employment Standards Violations

Space is limited so register early. You can register online at: http://spt-june-forum.eventbrite.com or call Mary Micallef at (416) 351-0095 x 251

This issue:

1. Registration is Now Open for Social Planning Toronto’s June Research & Policy Forum
2. Proceedings from SPT’s 2011 Research & Policy Roundtable Forum, “Who’s in Charge?” Now Available
3. Share your thoughts about School Fundraising with the Ministry of Education
4. "Tenant Voice, Tenant Homes" - SPT's Deputation to the Executive Committee, May 24, 2011
5. Partner News & Events
6. Worth Repeating: Stupid Rules
7. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
8. About Social Planning Toronto

 

Toronto Community Housing’s one-man interim board, Mr. Case Ootes, has recommended that 22 TCHC homes be sold off. Seven residents and groups, including SPT, deputed to the City’s Executive Committee on Tuesday, May 24 calling for the committee to return the issue to the new TCHC board once its full complement with tenant representation had been established. Despite these calls, the Executive Committee voted in favour of selling off the homes. The decision now goes to City Council for a final vote on June 14/15. As well, provincial Ministerial approval is required before 10 of the 22 homes can be sold. Read the SPT deputation here:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

Social Planning Toronto is a non-profit community organization engaged in research and policy analysis as well as community development and the promotion of civic engagement. SPT works to improve the quality of life of all Toronto residents. Our work includes a strong focus on advancing the human right to safe, decent and affordable housing.

We are here today to recommend that the committee refer the question of selling off 22 Toronto Community Housing single family homes back to the TCHC board once a proper board with TCHC tenant representation has been put in place. We have several concerns about the recommendations of Mr. Case Ootes.

First is the issue of democratic process. This one-man appointed board with no tenant representation does not have the legitimacy to make major decisions affecting TCHC tenants. Mr. Ootes’ decisions should be restricted to the necessary routine day-to-day running of TCHC with all other matters left to a properly constituted board with full tenant representation. A decision to sell off these homes would displace 15 tenant families. Tenant representatives must be at the table with a full say in matters affecting tenants.

City Council has required that a new board be in place by Council’s June 14/15 Council meeting. Tenants begin voting on their representatives today. Clearly a proper board will be in place within the month. There is no justification to make this decision today.

Secondly, if the new board considers any asset sales, particularly the sale of tenant homes, the board should consult thoroughly with TCHC tenants to establish a policy that thoughtfully informs the question of asset sales, including a clear and transparent rationale and criteria for making these decisions. The social goal of preserving and expanding Toronto’s social housing stock should be central to this policy. For any property under consideration for sale, at least three options should be publicly presented: 1) TCHC keeps the property, addressing maintenance issues where applicable, 2) TCHC sells the property to a nonprofit housing provider at below market rates, and 3) TCHC sells the property on the open market. The description of each option should include a detailed breakdown of the short- and long-term social and economic benefits and costs of each. Where property sales are recommended, sales to nonprofit housing providers should be prioritized in keeping with the social goal of preserving and expanding Toronto’s social housing stock.

Thoughtful examination of all options needs to be considered rather than a rush to action. Maintenance issues have been cited as a reason for the sale of these 22 homes, but little detail is provided about the housing conditions. What would be required to address the maintenance issues in the 15 units where tenants are living? What are the conditions of these units? What are the conditions of the vacant units? Are they uninhabitable and if so, what would it take to bring them up to an appropriate standard? Past reports have documented that TCHC has many vacant, uninhabitable units. Why is Mr. Ootes suggesting that these be sold in particular? In the current proposal, it appears that 22 single family homes have simply been cherry picked on the basis of the affluence of the neighbourhood where they are located. A properly constituted board with full tenant representation needs to engage TCHC tenants in these important questions before making any recommendations.

Finally, we want to speak to the value of TCHC’s single family homes. The value of these homes is not simply measured by going rates on the open market. The value is also in the communities we create. In his Three Cities research, University of Toronto’s Dr. David Hulchanski has documented deeply concerning trends in the increased concentration of poverty in Toronto’s inner suburbs over the past 30 years – a poverty that is both gendered and racialized. These poor, underserviced communities are home to many residents living in TCHC’s high-rise housing stock. In contrast, TCHC’s single family housing stock located in more affluent communities contributes to more mixed income neighbourhoods. The sale of these homes on the open market takes us further from the goal of healthy, mixed income communities.

We urge you to ensure a proper process by returning this decision to the new TCHC board for careful examination and tenant engagement. Thank you for considering this submission.

Contact: John Campey,
Executive Director, Social Planning Toronto,
2 Carlton Street, Suite 1001, Toronto ON M5B 1J3
Tel (416) 351-0095 x260, Fax (416) 351-0107
jcampey@socialplanningtoronto.org

A detailed proceedings document is now available from our 2011 Research & Policy Roundtable entitled, Who’s in Charge? The impact of agencies, boards and commissions on public accountability and service delivery, held on Feb 24th, 2011 at Metro Hall.

The objective of the forum was to invite key experts, academics, community advocates and policy-makers to engage in a critical discussion on the proliferation of arm’s length government agencies, boards and commissions in Canada, Ontario and Toronto. We discussed the impacts of ABCs on public accountability and service delivery by exploring their roles and responsibilities in specific policy areas of health, transit, public safety and security and urban/municipal planning. Agencies such as Metrolinx, the LHINs, and the Ontario Municipal Board, have considerable authority over public services, however, very little is known about how they function, their mandate or how decisions are made. Our intention was to explore some of the key issues regarding accountability and service delivery that have emerged within these domains.

The day began with introductory remarks made by SPT board, Chair Celia Denov, and Executive Director John Campey. Our second session guest speaker was Colin Talbot, professor from the University of Manchester. Mr. Talbot provided us with a broad overview of the international experience and proliferation of arms-length bodies in public administration, paying special attention to the UK experience and current challenges. His key message was that the use of special purpose bodies have been used in many jurisdictions around the world for years and are unlikely to be reduced despite calls by certain governments for their review, reform or elimination.

Our third panel session, “Perspectives on Agencification: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly”, saw presentations from Hon. Jean Augustine (Ontario Fairness Commissioner), Pamela Bryant (University of Toronto) and David Siegel (Brock University). Hon. Jean Augustine offered a case study example of how agencies are formed, how they operate and some of the key challenges they face, by discussing the regulatory agency she heads, the Ontario Fairness Commission (OFC). Pamela Bryant discussed the different types of agencies operating in Ontario, their functions and why they are used in our public administration. She also highlighted some of the key issues regarding accountability and how governments are working to strengthen good governance mechanisms and practices to enhance transparency and accountability. David Siegel provided participants with a local government perspective, focusing on the Niagara Parks Commission as a case study example. He highlighted the challenges provincially created agencies operating in municipalities’ face, along with the need for better public education and understanding around what role ABCs play to facilitate greater public accountability.

After lunch, participants broke off into smaller groups to have a more focused discussion on the agencies dealing with the policy areas of health, police and public safety, transit and municipal planning. Our health panel, examining issues around the Local Health Integration Networks, included Raymond Applebaum (Peel Senior Link), Natalie Mehra (Ontario Health Coalition), Mark Hundert (Hay Group Health Care Consulting) and Scott Dudgeon (The Change Foundation). The police and public safety group discussed bodies such as the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, and featured Alok Mukherjee (Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board), Cathy Boxer-Byrd (OCPC), Anna Willats (Toronto Police Accountability Coalition) and Mariana Valverde (University of Toronto). Our transit panel on Metrolinx consisted of Steve Munro (transit advocate), Franz Hartmann (Toronto Environmental Alliance), Shelly Gordon (CUPE) and John Howe (Metrolinx). Our final panel focused on municipal planning issues and the Ontario Municipal Board and consisted of Michael Shapcott (The Wellesley Institute), Andrew Sancton (University of Western Ontario) and Michael Gottheil (Ontario Municipal Board).

Our fifth session consisted of brief snapshot presentations of two additional Toronto ABCs. Speakers Peggy Nash from Invest Toronto and John Macintyre from Build Toronto, provided participants with a brief overview of their respective organizations, highlighting some of their main functions and duties. Our final speaker of the day consisted of Shirley Hoy, who provided us with some final reflections on this topic from her perspective as former Toronto City Manager.  Ms. Hoy highlighted the Toronto Public Library system as a success story of effective ABC management due to its citizen members largely controlling decisions instead of City Councillors. Her top four recommendations for successful local ABC management included:

1. Developing a clear Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the agency that outlines the responsibilities of each member of the governing body, including roles, boundaries, and powers.
2. Formal regular reports to Council by the board and board chair should be a requirement.
3. Adopt a ‘no surprise’ policy to manage major changes for both sides (the board and Council).
4. Board members should be well briefed and oriented to the strategic directions of the Mayor and Council.

Social Planning Toronto would like to extend our sincerest thanks to the City of Toronto for their support and contribution, as well as to all the speakers, moderators, organizers and attendees for making the event an overwhelming success.

The Ministry of Education is asking for feedback on its Draft Guidelines on Fundraising and Social Planning Toronto and the TDSB Inner City Advisory Committee want your voice included. Please follow this link to submit your confidential comments about the impact that fundraising (and fees) have had on your experiences with the education system, either as a student, as a parent or as a community member. Your feedback will go directly to a SPT staff person and will only be included into a submission to the Ministry and will help us formulate recommendations for the government on this issue. Also consider attending our public consultation at Fairmeadow School (17 Fairmeadow Ave.) June 7th at 9:30 to have your say in person.
Please contact Lesley Johnston at ljohnston@socialplanningtoronto.org or (416) 351-0095 x216 if you have any questions or for more information.

• Share your story here...

This issue:

1. 2012 Budget Alert! Make Your Voice Heard
2. Human Dignity for All:  Working for a Poverty-Free Ontario (PFO)
3. Have Your Say on Garbage Privatization – Call Your Councillor Before May 17!
4. Child Care Policy and the Middle Childhood Years
5. TDSB Public Budget Consultations – Location Change!
6. Partner News & Events (this is now featured in the right column)
7. Worth Repeating: Many low-wage workers not being paid at all: report
8. Get Involved in Social Planning Toronto
9. About Social Planning Toronto

 

The Board of Directors of Social Planning Toronto invite you to attend the 

2011 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Hart House, University of Toronto
7 Hart House Circle

Registration & Reception: 6:00 p.m.
Business Meeting: 6:30 p.m.

Guest Speaker:   Dr. Munir Sheikh
Commissioner, Ontario Social Assistance Review, and former Chief Statistician, Statistics Canada.
“Evidence Based Decision Making”

To attend please register spt2011agm.eventbrite.com or call Mary Micallef at 416 351-0095 x 251.