A PEDAGOGY OF PRIVILEGE

Some of the people who read my blogs try to allege assumptions about my political views, or my background, or what I am doing or not doing to "help others help themselves", put in a kinder context. Die hard conservatives, or at least people who have convinced themselves that they must support this ideology or be considered a "fringe group", accuse me of being a left-winger. I don't consider myself a left-winger, as many of my friends on the left accuse me of being a conservative of sorts. In the history of blogs here, I have opposed unions, opposed public housing, queried about the accountability of so many government hand-outs, opposed the bailouts of big business, opposed the HST, as well as questioned many facets about the social work and poverty-based industries.

On the other hand, accepting a hard-right ideology to me is no different than accepting a hard-left ideology. I've met and spoke to people who label themselves conservative that cannot engage in an intellectual debate about the topics they claim to oppose my opinions on. One in particular tried to claim climate change was a hoax, but could not claim knowledge or familiarity of a single peer-reviewed study that states this as fact. The person instead insisted that the one individual who brought the issue up was responsible for doing the "homework", not him. To me, this just indicated that this individual actually knows quite little about this topic, but his chosen ideology dictates to him what position he takes.

In turn, they personalize every statement their opponents make, and make assumptions about where they are coming from, as opposed to responding with like arguments that support their own position. I am in the legal profession, and in order to work in this field, I better know how to raise both fact and law to back any argument I make or expect to lose. In other words, to many of these right wing ideologues, anybody that does not agree with them are "socialists" or in the US, "liberals". Those on the left broadly label those on the right as being "greedy". I consider myself a radical centrist, because I believe that politics is the art of compromise, and that public policy should be based on expert review and evaluation, as opposed to political persuasion. Unfortunately, most people base their votes and opinions on stereotypes and when it feels good to put others lesser than themselves down, in order to make themselves feel better.

However, apart from those on the two extremes, there are heuristic reasons why some people tend to make assumptions about others, or blame others for their own misfortunes. In my experience, the very wealthy and even self-made wealthy tend to be more liberal and broad-minded in their vision as a whole, than many in the upper middle class and/or unionized working classes. Individuals who are very wealthy can self-exclude themselves from elements of society they find distasteful or bothersome, and in their own small way, many of them try to make things better for those in difficult circumstances. Foundations bear many of their names, as well as several I know that own companies take specific people under their wing to develop them as persons, increase their skills and eventually hire them. People with this kind of wealth have choices, and for the most part, they realize that.

However, those in the middle and upper-middle classes, have a differential view of how little their personal choices took them to where they are, versus circumstances. Very wealthy people also tend to be well-educated, and growing up, are almost constantly reminded about how "lucky" they are. The kinds of problems that develop in wealthy families tend to come out differently and impact people involved in a different way than the same types of problems for those in middle and upper-middle income families. For the most part, wealth is shared, either through inheritance, through family ties and through cultural connections, such as association with others in the same country clubs, associations, university alumni, etc. The sense of belonging among the wealthier parts of the country does not rely on what one's neighbours think, or what charities they support ... The problems arise in wealthy families are when love is bought with money, and the support does not go with it ...

However, in the middle class and upper middle classes, there is a lot of control, albeit usually as a benevolent dictatorship over the lives of their offspring. Those in the middle and upper middle classes want to emulate the wealthy because they want to be there someday themselves, even though their chances of making it there aren't large. In families, there is programming on the basis of gender, friendships, morality and values, and cultural leanings. While this "benevolent dictatorship" is in effect, offspring in these families also benefit from a large amount of support: cultural, social, emotional and financial. There is a lot said about older kids nowadays not leaving home until they are well into their twenties, and sometimes early thirties ... the offspring witnesses what their parents have been able to take from the world and benefit from, while they themselves fear not being able to do this for themselves. Yet at the same time, there are more parents than there were in the past that have funded or helped fund their child's post-secondary education, helped them purchase their first house, or even paid for a honeymoon when they get married ...

I know this through my own observations of ten and a half years floating through the post-secondary education system. During my time, there were students relying largely on OSAP, but over time, these numbers have dropped, as parents were more able to provide this support. New financial instruments made it possible for middle income parents to provide this type of support. Further, parents of older children often have more than one vehicle in the yard, and encourage their children to learn to drive shortly after they are legally able to. Vehicle ownership and use is as much of a cultural inheritance, as is one's cultural assumptions of what a parent owes their children with respect to post-secondary education. There is a perception among the middle and upper-middle income families that vehicle ownership, purchasing a home, and graduating from university, is a way to "make it".

However, with these new cultural norms, develops a new form of cultural privilege. If you grew up in a family like this, it is difficult for you to picture what it is like for somebody that did not. Some families have the means, but refuse to assist their children into adulthood; others simply cannot afford it and those offspring often have to resort to the public system to obtain what they need, and from past experience, I know this to be a crap shoot. Unfortunately, there are more people who are privileged in a middle to upper middle class type of way, than those who are not, which has led to this biased heuristic.

For example, a child from a low income or working class family knows that they are different from the time they enter the school system. The school system is set up to replicate the values and mores of those that appear to comprise the majority of parents in their catchment area. Those that run for the school board, and those that serve in high level staff positions at the school board also have the same cultural background and privilege as most parents. Those parents of minority situations, poverty, disability and other "differences" are only active or heard from when it comes to special needs children, because that is where the run of the mill educational system neglects people in the most overt way.

It is not that teachers and principals haven't heard of poverty, as you can probably ask any of them and they will relate stories to you about the girl that wore summer shoes to school in the winter or the boy that never had a good winter coat. They don't see these cases as being in the majority of their classes, but these people are noticed. Unfortunately, most teachers and principals alike tend to buy into the same ideology that if someone "works hard", they should be able to escape poverty. Maybe, because their parents worked hard and paid for their education, and they were then able to take advantage of their family's backing and purchase a home, keep family in the loop, and enjoy these types of relationships that not everybody has. To many of them, they think they can do good for the impoverished students by buying a pair of boots for the girl or a coat for the boy, and pretending this will make the school experience for these children better. Unfortunately, more often than not, it doesn't improve things ... the new coat or the new boots might be appreciated (or not), but the family these children come from are not given one added opportunity, one route of escape from poverty or one smidgen of hope.

While the middle or upper middle class teacher does not view it this way (that an act of charity can actually hurt the self-esteem of a child or family), they do not understand what happens in the cultural context that the child lives in. Let me give you an example: e. g. this was a situation I personally witnessed. I visited the home of a new employee I hired at a business I managed about fifteen years ago. Her son who was about eight or nine years old at the time, came home from school with a new pair of boots and a gift voucher for a nearby grocery store. He told his mother that his teacher gave these items to him, after they noticed he wasn't wearing any boots that particularly difficult winter. The boy appeared angry and embarrassed, and the mother who was also my new employee, took the boy to another room to talk privately to him (and not in front of me). I learned later that she and her husband have been struggling to pay bills on Ontario Works for a year or so, and did not even want to tell me about that.

I explained to her that she will not need to worry about that anymore because her job will definitely take them off welfare for good, and that I hired her for her skills and abilities, not for some picky criteria that many employers today use. The long and short end of this was that she made the best employee I ever hired, in any of the places I ever managed or operated. For those naysayers that say that those who work hard will avoid poverty, this woman was an example of somebody that worked hard almost everyday of her life, raising two special needs children, and trying to work around their needs, while making only enough to supplement, not get her family off assistance. She later told me that she felt honored to be working in the organization that I hired her for, and that she found it hard to believe that I actually accommodated her with respect to her health conditions she had at the time, as well as issues concerning one of her young children.

This is something I felt I had to do as an employer, not for her or for anybody in particular, but in order to keep that office running, and have good people working there. I had an obligation as an employer to do this. I was never one to go out to buy a pair of boots for a kid, or give them my daughter's old winter coat, as an act of charity. I was always more interested in what I can do to address the issue to begin with, and do it with dignity. But then again, I was not somebody that was raised in a stable, two-parent, loving household either ... While I am sure both of my parents loved me in their own way, their own mistakes, personal lives and other issues, took precedence over their concern over my welfare as a child. On my own since my teens, I realize what a value a stable household gives to individuals and ensures almost a poverty-proof life for that child, esp when emotional, social, cultural and financial support are all combined.

I was always somebody who would make sure that anybody working for me would include their costs, mileage, parking and other expenses, so they knew they were supported in the work they were doing for my office. I did this for others, despite others never doing this for me. In another office I managed, I sought funding specifically addressing the skills of two individuals in the office I knew were the lowest paid, so I can increase their hours and total pay, without as much as asking for increase in my own salary. These things all took place in the 1990's, during a time of so-called retrenchment in social programming. It is sad, however, when the administration was taken over by somebody else, with a completely different philosophy as to what constituted qualifications, work ethics and results. This individual was really no different than many of the employers I find around here, believing there are no human variables, just a right to exclusionary practices.

Many people find it hard to believe over thirty percent of Niagara residents do not have a driver's license, or lost it for whatever reason. I bump into these people all the time, those who were unable to get around to get their licenses, those who lost them due to a medical problem, or were never able to get it. Virtually none of them are working for much, if at all. Those that have grown up with the kind of supports I describe above, actually believe that the men that don't drive must have got there for a reason, e.g. drug abuse, not paying child support. For the women, it is assumed they have a husband or some other sugar daddy that makes the big bucks, so all they are looking for is minimum wage work. These same people, after saying something like that, are embarrassed after I tell them why I don't drive ... not feeling bad for what they said, but being caught with their words. I am sure I might have educated a few of them over time, but this does not push people out of their comfort zone.

There are middle class folks worrying about losing their jobs, marriages falling apart and people getting into serious accident and illnesses, making them worry about their future all the time. There are folks that conduct a lot of research for example to reassure this sector of the middle class to convince them that they will never become homeless, because they want to make it look like those that DO become homeless are mentally ill, substance abusers or ex-inmates of psychiatric facilities - make these people in worse circumstances appear to be authors of their misfortune in some way, or at least so much "out there" that the same thing will not happen to them. Well, if one has never been involved with any of those things, they're safe, right? At least, that is what the political agenda of this type of research is about ... when in fact, none of these people are safe. I am a witness of this, watching a man who worked for a factory for twenty-eight years end up on the street, another man lose his home after a messy marriage break-up and he lived in his car, and so on ... these stories are not that uncommon, and none of them have mental illness or alcoholism to push them there.

These same middle class folks get reassured that if they "work hard", they will make it. At the same time, other privileged folks, perhaps secure (for now) in their jobs, tell the public under an assumed name of course, how people on welfare don't want to work, and how there are plenty of Tim Horton's jobs available, and everything. If I took this one woman that I referred to earlier that I hired in a fairly well-paid position to a Tim Horton's, she would never be hired - she had two university degrees, a special needs child, and a propensity for migraine headaches, which would throw any normal employer off base ... but she delivered fine for me, because unlike others she apparently worked for, I accommodated her. And even if Timmy's weren't so picky, there will have to be at least 800,000 new openings in places like this in order to get everybody off welfare ... but one can dream, right?

The same people who argue these points claim themselves as charitable and how they would help a deserving person, which is nice to hear, but neither he, nor I, nor even 100,000 people like he or I will be able to help everybody who needs help on an individual self-selective basis like this. In fact, the most needy will be left out, which is why the state took these functions over. Remember the story of Dorothea Dix, who fought to take the ill, the poor, the dying from run-down poor houses into state-run facilities, where they would receive the care and help they needed. And when these institutions became overcrowded and inhumane, people like Claire Hinks, and others fought for their right to live in the community.

Today I am doing something like this. I am continuing to fight for people's right to not only live in the community, among us, but to contribute what they can ... and be given respect and opportunities to do the same. I don't have a background of privilege, whether that be cultural, social, financial or familial ... but I do in fact believe in people, and because people of privilege exist ... I don't feel I need to assist them, as they have this support already. Why do they need me to push and advocate on their behalf, when they already have the resources they need? I am there to provide this to those that truly need the help, ask for it, and provide this assistance in a dignified manner ... so these folks will for once, or once again, feel that they belong - something that no charity, now matter how well intended, can ever do for them.

Your thoughts?

RATIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES?

The Federal Government proudly announced that it was the 84th nation to ratify the International Covenant on Human Rights for Persons with Disabilities. In the same breath, they pat themselves on the back to announce how much of a leader Canada is in implementing equality provisions as cited in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and administratively through our Human Rights Codes. While political commentators, including this one, are pleased this was done, the plight of persons with disabilities is far from improved. In fact, many uninformed bigots continue to try to attack what few rights we have, as cited in a recent letter of mine in the local newspaper. Carol Goar acknowledges that we still have a very long way to go before people with disabilities have equal citizenship rights.

What is telling in particular are the comments that readers are allowed to contribute to any article, editorial or news items of interest to my local paper. In this paper, probably like most online newspapers, the same few seem to contribute. An individual identifying himself as "seekthetruth" and another individual that are both white males, espousing a Christian view and somehow feel that Christians are somehow under attack by human rights commissions. This is far from the truth as I am aware of Christian issues being raised in workplaces, and the rulings favouring the worker that was discriminated against due to their beliefs (such as a Jehovah's Witness' right to refuse to participate in decorating a store with Christmas decorations, and in another case, an employee denied the Holy Day off from his job to partake in his worship). As another poster stated, it is people like "seekthetruth" and people like him why we need human rights commissions. Both individuals were well-employed and never personally experienced discrimination, and at least one is enjoying a healthy retirement income. The myth that people are hired on the basis of merit has been quashed awhile back, while all the intolerant were asleep.

People with disabilities are drummed out of the workplace in many ways, which white males who are secure in their jobs, do not see or understand. Injured workers get refused a modified work position. Some are ultimately put out of a job because the worker is deemed unable to perform the essential duties of their job, so instead of trying to find alternative work for them, the person is "separated" from their job instead. They end up on welfare or if they are really lucky, Ontario Disability Support benefits, and denied even the basic tenets of the dignity of a decent job. It is not all white males that are like this, as I have represented many white males before the Human Rights Tribunal for various reasons, e.g. disability discrimination, age, sexual harassment by a female boss.

Connection to a full-time decent paying job is too often the only key to social and community participation for people. Once separated from the job, the person's self-esteem and their overall health is impacted. People with disabilities do not want to be on social assistance any more than anybody else does. Many are over-educated and well-qualified to take on work that seems to be available only to "relatives" of the boss, or to able-bodied persons that are screened in through seemingly innocuous criteria, such as a valid driver's license and a vehicle, and other potential criteria that persons with different types of disabilities cannot manage. These screening mechanisms serve to keep people out of jobs, not put them in. Then, folks question why more than half of persons with disabilities are "out of the paid labour force", or unemployed. Regardless of education level, a person with a disability does not enjoy equality to their non-disabled peers. The Canadian Association of Professional with Disabilities has formed for the purpose of promoting their members into getting into jobs they are qualified for instead of being steered by employment counselors to low-wage call centre and retail jobs.

I know many well-educated persons with disabilities who are stuck on ODSP: social workers, lawyers, former civil servants, a librarian, a forensic accountant, among many others, that employers claim they need, but refuse to look beyond their nose to seek people who may speak, move or communicate differently to join their staff and offer their many varied talents. Last summer, I sat in a circle around a food stand downtown, where I regularly met with people with disabilities: one in a wheelchair who taught martial arts as well as is a licensed social worker, another attending school for forensic psychology, and another one who was an engineer in his day ... all of whom on welfare or ODSP. Somebody needs to look at these things and take responsibility for this great loss to society.

I read an article today about older drivers. Competing interests include safety and the right to live independently. I reviewed the article in depth, and it does not say how many younger people are subject to the same removal provisions for their driver's license. It is not only a senior's issue. To me, it is fine to take somebody off the road, but you need to provide alternative transportation so the person can continue to live out their lives with relative independence. As a non-driver in Niagara, apart from work related travel, which is hugely expensive, I am house-bound. I would love to travel to my in-laws, to the beach, to Fort George, to Niagara Falls, and just hop in a car and go ... but these things taken for granted by people who drive, is another area where ignorance also plays a major role in keeping people with disabilities down.

On a group that I help run called odspfireside, I have heard from persons living on ODSP who are forcibly single because if they as much enter into a relationship with somebody else, that other person is forcibly included on ODSP, without choice. The "spouse" ends up having to work enough to support both of them, even if it means they have to work two or three jobs to keep things afloat, until the benefit unit ends up with two disabled persons, instead of just one. ODSP recipients are put under scrutiny, and treated as non-citizens through various fraud prevention initiatives, which has only led to fear and loss of integrity on the part of those entangled with what was called the "800 rules". While the focus of the report is Ontario Works, ODSP is just as much part of the suspicious trap people are placed in.

In recent days we had a positive decision concerning special diets by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, stating that the 2005 amendments to it were unfair and discriminatory in many cases. In the legislature, Minister Madeleine Meilleur, who has among her different portfolios, social assistance, persons with disabilities and AODA, had mused about how expensive the program is, and has not quelled any of the rumour that the government is about to scrap it so it can cut the deficit.

Because the case came through the Human Rights Code, it is likely that many of us may attempt to press the reprisal provisions of the Code if the government considers this tactic, but these things are barely scraping the surface of all the discrimination persons with disabilities encounter, simply because they have the same desires and interests everybody else has. I found myself, if I chose to sit at home and do nothing, I am left alone, but when I wanted something, whether that be an education, a job beyond Mickey D's, transportation, the right to participate fully in the community, etc., then it was like asking for a constitutional amendment just to get what others don't even have to beg for.

I also encounter persons with disabilities that actually believe they should just play the game, accept the 800 rules of abuse, and just let things go. They would rather not fight, as they fear losing what little they have. Unfortunately, this is they attitude that they want us to have. It is easier for those doing the discriminating to continue to do so without as much of a whimper from most of the people they are attacking. It only makes it easier to push for even more cuts, perhaps even a change in the definition of disability and cuts to other benefits, as those not fighting back are allowing this to happen.

How did the gays and lesbians do it? How did the blacks do it? How did the women do it when they wanted to have the right to vote? They organized and made it bloody hard for politicians and others to continue to do business as they always have, and they cannot not notice what people with disabilities are doing ... we have to move away from the charity model to the entitlement and rights-based model, where persons with disabilities have entitlements and rights, and are equal with respect to their right to citizenship ... hell, many of us don't even vote! I fail to see how that is helpful. It is time we wake up with a more definitive and radical strategy to build out rights to the point of not only recognition, but obligation on the part of others ... the same way others and the media will not print negative things about gays, Jews, blacks, and so forth ... we need to have this discussion. We need to move ahead.

Your thoughts?

THE ETHICS OF CHARITY

I don't give to many charities, except those that have demonstrated an empowerment philosophy or preserve the lives of innocent animals.

Unfortunately, in order to legally become a charity, empowerment of others cannot be the mainstay of your organization's objectives. Further, using your organization's voice as a tool for advocacy is also severely restricted, which only results in further covering up the real problems your organization may be trying to address. In particular, if you want to become a charity that assists low-income people, you can't predicate your mission on reducing and/or eradicating the root causes of poverty. You can only propose to provide band-aids. You can become a food bank, a second hand clothing distributor or one of those organizations where you can "sponsor" a child in a Third World country. Most of these charities have existed in this country for a very long time, yet the rate of poverty among people - including those who have jobs - has increased by leaps and bounds.

There are some people who actually believe that if we eliminate government support services to people living in poverty, they will no longer be poor because either the "market" will fix their situation or "families" or "charity" will step in. Let me repeat that point I made in the above paragraph. The number of charities geared to serving the poor have more than quintupled since 1980, yet our rate of people living in poverty has almost doubled since. The rate of poverty has particularly increased after cuts to social programs began. Contrary to what some people say who believe that social programs lead to poverty, their reduction has actually caused a spike in poverty and an increase in the number of homeless people over the past twenty-five years. After Mike Harris cut welfare rates by 21.6% in 1995, a large number of people "disappeared" from the social services statistics. When they were contacted (or an attempt was made), many had their phones disconnected or have been evicted from their housing. Yes, a few people found other housing, but it is offices like the legal clinics, advocacy paralegals like myself, and others, who have only seen the spike in the number of slumlords and unsafe, Third-World conditions many of these people were living in. As I stated before in these posts, more than half of my OW to ODSP clients are homeless or have had spells of homelessness while living on OW, prior to getting onto ODSP. Some others went into shared housing situations, only to find the shared arrangements were destructive: their "roommate" moves out suddenly leaving them holding the bag only to get evicted for non-payment; the person buys food and others in the household eat it; items are stolen from the person by "roommates" and sold to pawn shops and to others on the "street"; and so forth. If middle class dictates make you feel these kinds of conditions would not be good for you, why are they good enough for others?

At Christmas time and Thanksgiving, there is often an explosion of media coverage about the need to give to food banks, women's shelters and so forth. People do tend to give more at these times. However, I am a bit of a skeptic in some ways, particularly when it comes to some of the businesses in the region that give large amounts to these charities at Christmas time. My questions to these businesses are obvious: (a) Do you employ low-income people and pay them decent wages that get them out of poverty? (b) Do you pay your existing workers decently enough so they will never have to rely on the services of charities to which you are donating?; and (c) Does your business have a social conscience, whereby you do not continue to push for more and more tax cuts, which you know will only translate into a reduction of services to low-income people? Don't believe that? Well, even when Mike Harris cut personal taxes by 30%, grants and pay-offs to big business did not stop; however, services in health care, education and social services significantly deteriorated. To me, if I were a business, my "charity" would begin at home first ... hire and pay my employees well, offer some benefits and a certain level of job security and where possible, growth within the company. To further exemplify this point, did you know that stores like Wal-Mart donate to a lot of charities, including poverty band-aid programs, while they continue to pay their own employees so little that they often have to use these very charities for basic survival? To me, this is not acceptable.

This ethic is charity by example. I would show respect for people by offering wages that a person can survive on, as after all - it is these very employees that are making ME money. Therefore, these employees deserve a decent pay package. Some businesses argue against minimum wage increases, saying that less jobs get created as a result of legislated pay hikes. There are plenty of arguments that have proven this wrong. If this was the case, wages would have remained at the same rate of pay as it did in the 1920's ... a few pennies a day, perhaps. As the cost of living increased, so did minimum wage. Some people would argue why should they hire relatively low-skilled workers for more money? It doesn't matter ... if the job needs to be done and you can't get chimpanzees to do these jobs for free, then you need to hire human beings. If a person doesn't work out, you can fire them. No big deal. Also, if you were literate in business as I am, you can get hold of numerous publicly traded company reports and learn that many of these companies that earn substantial profit are those that pay its workers minimum wages or close to them. Yes, some of these profits have to go to the executives and shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that (but I do question multi-million dollar pay packages), but a large portion of these profits go to GROWTH strategy. They keep wages low, shaving themselves more and more money, so they can put it towards more and more stores .... call centres are developing this strategy as well. Why else do you think they are sprouting like weeds in communities all over Canada, especially in economically depressed regions?

While the shrewd executives of these stores would argue that they are creating a lot more jobs by building more and more stores, there is a point at which this reaches saturation. That means, there will become a point where Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Hortons and other similar franchises simply cannot serve more people ... and if more of the jobs in their serviced communities are on the lower paid end of things, less people will have large amounts of disposable income to spend at these kinds of places. Further, these franchises will have to fight harder and harder to find and retain workers, particularly if people can't afford to live on what these franchises pay. With an aging population, there are less workers available that are able and willing to work at these wages, particularly if they still have offspring living at home or are still paying off a mortgage. Statistics Canada has found that the average age that a child leaves home has increased substantially over the past twenty years. At one time, we were all ecstatic to leave the nest at the age of seventeen or eighteen, but today - it is quite possible for children to still live at home until they are in their late twenties. This places financial pressure on their often older parents, who cannot afford to earn only minimum wage at Wal-Mart or Starbucks and to compete with their children for the same jobs ... this is a reality created by governments that have a drive-down philosophy. While governments will speak out of one side of the mouth to say they are reducing its expenditures, the only areas that are actually cut are those that impact the most vulnerable people.

To me, there should be no reason for people living in Canada to be relying on food banks, homeless shelters, clothing assistance places and similar programs. If a charity were to be proposed, I would rather see it developed with the goal of eliminating poverty for every person that uses the charity. Recipients of charity do not benefit from the use of charity over the long term. However, those who operate and manage charities often make very good salaries. Because of this, there is no incentive on the part of charities to eliminate their purpose and reason for being. The more "need" there is, the more these charities will crop up. There can be hundreds of these charities in a large urban area, while absolutely none of their charges ever gets out of poverty. The charitable sector sadly admits this, though not directly. A reading of many of Toronto's United Way reports tells you the increased depth of poverty and the minimal impact charities actually have. When a charity tries to be more pro-active in its purposes, they get shut down by by Canada Revenue Agency for failing to promote "charitable objects". See the recent case of ICAN and a former case re the National Association of Minority Women. More on the charitable sector as a whole later ...

During their early development, food bank leaders did not want to become a permanent part of the landscape. They did not ask for government funding and hoped that the need for their programs will diminish over time. Graham Riches wrote an excellent history on the development and growth of food banks and the growth of food insecurity. However, as time went on, United Way and other community-based funding came available to these organizations, and they were able to grow and thus, have less incentive to shut down. This is not an evil conspiracy; this is a reality of the charitable sector. I was executive director at one time of a national charity and had no other goals than to assist the organization in its growth and breadth of services. It is only natural and that is what your Board of Directors wants you to do. However, we had a bit more leeway as a charity as our focus was on public education, as opposed to providing direct services. However, I have sat on boards of other charities, where there was almost a sense of competitiveness in terms of providing more and more services, while not necessarily studying the impact of such services on its recipients.

Because charities are not licensed or regulated outside of their fund raising methods, nobody knows if anything is getting better because any particular charity is at work. At this point in time, there is no rule against hiring somebody to run a charity that has a grade six education and is a convicted felon. While some charities require police checks for their staff and volunteers, these are usually only for those who are working directly with children or the elderly. There is also no rule about how much compensation the charity's executive staff get paid, not that there really should be, but when you consider my earlier posts about the number of well-educated people who are unemployed or under-employed, the education and skill level of the staff and administrators in all charities should be examined. I am aware of several charities operating in my region, which I will not name, who have high school drop-outs at the helm of these organizations, or who are directly involved in dealings with vulnerable persons. Many of them have not undergone police checks. In a private business, for example, I can *choose* to hire somebody who is a high school drop-out, or even a convicted felon, as it is my risk if this person makes a serious mistake in judgment. Only I lose money if this person does not work out. However, charities and publicly funded non-profit organizations are putting the public's money at risk whenever a hiring or spending decision is made, and to some extent - the well-being of vulnerable people served may also be compromised with poorly qualified workers.

If the same government that throws multiple units of billion dollar checks to hundreds of thousands of these organizations, decided to regulate people like me who deal directly with vulnerable people, why are these people working in the non-profit sector also not similarly regulated? I think in many ways, taxpayers would feel a little better about how their tax dollars are being spent if they knew that well-qualified, dedicated and motivated staff that adhere to a Code of Conduct are working in these organizations and that the services provided are regularly monitored to ensure that they are producing results. I have seen lots of publicly-funded poor results, and so have many other people, hence the frequent calls for tax cuts. In many western European countries, citizens pay way more taxes than we do in Canada, but rarely complain of their burden. Why? It's likely because they see results from the goods and services funded through their taxes.

Further, the definition of charity needs to be broadened to allow organizations that have as a primary purpose to empower their clients to lift themselves out of poverty, for example, as well as organizations that choose to advocate directly for or against government policies. For example, I should be able to register as a charity an organization that focuses on providing financial and mentoring assistance to persons with disabilities (or other low-income groups) to start and operate a small business, advocates for these same people to all levels of government on how social assistance rates MUST be raised and regulatory claw backs must be removed to aid such persons to reach their goals. OR an organization that invests its money on behalf of its "consumers" to purchase goods and services they may need to escape poverty, e.g. pay for a college course, obtain an up-to-date computer system, help somebody access a driver's license, or provide start-up funding for a small business. The reason I say this is there is a charity that I provided consulting advice and services to from time to time that WANTS to be an empowering agency, but ever since I assisted them in getting their charitable number - their advocacy efforts have waned. I asked them at one time about this and their concern was they did not want to cross the line on this, as they benefit substantially from their fund raising efforts in town here. The same concerns came from other charities I respect in town here.

As a result of this thwarted freedom of speech and in some cases, lack of specific direction towards actual results and empowerment of disadvantaged persons, this same group of people have no voice except their own. Given what gets written in the media about "homeless people" and "low-income" people, it would take a very brave person from this disadvantaged group to speak up and demand respect for themselves and their peers. They are forced to prove they are innocent of typical stereotypes, such as aggressive panhandling, so-called mental illness and/or addictions first (yet when CEOs and respected middle class people suffer from the same issues, they are not viewed as 'incompetent'), as well as have access to resources to empower themselves and get themselves to the next rung on the ever rising ladder out of poverty. I am talking about people who do not drive, therefore, they cannot get a job they can otherwise do. Or people who don't have ID, and can't get a bank account. Or can't get a home outside of a homeless shelter, which has not historically been effective in moving people into their own housing. Or getting their OWN income so they can purchase their OWN housing, their OWN food, their OWN clothing, etc. Charities are forced to continue to do for, as opposed to do "with" - leaving their charges forever dependent on them.

In my own informal studies of people who have used the various band-aid charities, as well as the limited academic research that has been done in the community psychology community, I have found that those who had to use these services more than once tend to have lower self-esteem, and continue to lack resources to empower themselves ... in other words, a charity may feed them for one day, but they are still hungry the next. More work has to be done towards making their services unnecessary. I don't think the charities can do this on their own because they will always lack enough money and volunteers to do what is truly necessary. Government policy must be changed to enable all of us - working or not - to live decently. Some of this can be corrected through a change in business ethics, whereby salaries truly reflect the area's cost of living and worth of an employee to that business, as well as increased income supplements to those that either cannot work or who have trouble securing work due to some type of disadvantage. Workplace barriers need to be identified and removed for those that may be otherwise employed. And finally, an economy CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be predicated upon bringing in more big box stores like Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. as the "answer" to the region's economic woes. Workers come from a variety of skills, education, career aspirations and economic requirements ... when programs are set up to assist folks with these issues, the individual's needs should be the foremost objective in achieving financial goals for them.

So, in conclusion, contrary to the neo-cons that seem to want less and less government spending, to Hell with the consequences, we should instead be demanding better results for our tax dollar and be asking for equal dignity being afforded to all persons in the community, regardless of their economic circumstances. People should not have to beg for their bare necessities of life or receive them from "sympathetic volunteers", whose services may not be a reliable and consistent effort, or delivered in a non-partisan way. Everybody has a right to feel they are contributing to the community, and not always be the recipient.