Adam Gopnik, recently quoted in the Globe and Mail, on New York City neighbourhoods:
“I like the collision of types. The problem with our neighbourhood is that you walk out your door and you see people largely like yourself.”
December 16, 2008
The Underestimated Role of Community Based Agencies
Community-based agencies have gotten short shrift in recent Ontario government reports. Community agencies are almost invisible in the Roots of Violence and Poverty Reduction Strategy reports. Yet, they should be central to any policy solution.
Provincial (and national) governments need to make the same adjustment that has been made on international stage over the past decades. Development aid used to be flowed between governments; but from the 1970s onwards, non-government organizations were recognized as being a more capable, effective and responsive means to respond to human need. When given the resources, NGOs are more nimble and able to provide what is needed on the ground. This truism has not been recognized at the local level.
If, as one academic defined it, social disorganization is “the inability of a neighborhood to solve its problems together,” community agencies act as a counterforce to social disorder. In sum, community-based agencies sit at the centre of what creates “good” neighbourhoods and therefore healthier populations. That is they provide
o Common physical space (third place),
o Community services, to meet need, and
o Social networking, and therefore civic engagement, opportunities.
The first element is about the value of community-based organizations in the provision of community space, the evolution of the idea of “third place,” spaces outside private homes and workplaces, where community connections can develop. Community agencies provide this – with no or little fees. All the Social Determinants of Health debates discuss the importance of social belonging and community connections, fostered through interactions with those around us.
Community agencies are defined, most commonly, through the second element, that is community programs. It also is the source of almost all funding.
However, I want to flag another research vein which has emerged around the third element they contribute.
Some recent research from Harvard Professor Robert Sampson (who co-developed the idea of collective efficacy) is finding:
“that dense social ties, group memberships, and neighborly exchange do not predict a greater propensity for collective action at the community level in the city of Chicago. The density of community nonprofit organizations matters instead [emphasis added], suggesting that declines in many forms of traditional social capital may not be as consequential for civic capacity as commonly thought.”
Community-based organizations are qualitatively different, he argues, in part, because they are tied to the public good more than to private interests (such as those found in resident associations, faith groups or bowling leagues).
See Sampson’s groundbreaking study for more details. Because of the breadth of the analysis and the innovative theory development, this is, if I can be “un-academic” for a minute, such a good study
In 2005, the Strong Neighbourhoods Taskforce grappled with the idea of a “neighbourhood effect” when it identified priority neighbourhoods which had low levels of community infrastructures. This gap analysis made sense at that point, as a counterbalance, because so much of the focus had been on social need. However, Sampson’s research underscores a different understanding of how neighbourhoods work: neighbourhoods with low levels of community infrastructure are the poorer precisely because they lack social service structures. If a lack of community structures results in more isolation and deprivation, any remedy has to involve creating and supporting these same structures.
Support for community-based agencies must be explicit in any policy solution. So, why isn’t it explicit?
Community agencies are being left out because they are seen as a means rather than an end.
That’s a serious underestimation.
December 8, 2008
A school in every neighbourhood
Parents know instinctively that neighbourhood schools are worth protecting.
And there is a lot of research to support what they know. A few of the obvious things local schools do are:
- strengthen social cohesion,
- improve children’s health through walking,
- increase house values,
- reduce residential mobility
In Toronto, schools sit at the hub of every neighbourhood . When the Strong Neighbourhoods Taskforce analyzed the accessibility of community resources across Toronto neighbourhoods, schools were the most commonly available resource across the city’s 140 defined neighbourhoods. They are a rich and under-utilized community resource.
So, this week, there was good news and bad for the idea of a neighbourhood school:
- The good news was the recognition in the province’s newly announced Poverty Reduction Strategy that, in the effort to reduce child poverty, schools need to be community hubs. Provincial funding is being increased for the community use of schools.
- The bad news came from the chair of the Toronto District School Board that he will use his second term to work to close schools identified as “under capacity” so that these resources can be put to build new schools.
November 13, 2008
Researcher Needed for Bed Bug Project
(This is too fun not to post. Who wouldn’t want to do research with a real impact?)
[If you landed here, looking for info on bed bugs, look at WoodGreen’s helpful manual on the subject.]
Project Overview:
WoodGreen, in partnership with Habitat Services, seeks a researcher to work with us to document and assess the efficacy of our Bedbug Inspection, Response and Tenant Education Project, and to help us answer some remaining questions in this field. The Project aims to prevent and reduce the spread of bedbugs in 45 boarding and rooming houses in Toronto. There has been very little research conducted to document the impact of bedbugs on low-income, vulnerable groups in Toronto, North America, or even elsewhere. We are looking for a creative and innovative researcher who wants to make a significant contribution towards community research on this issue.
Key responsibilities include:
• finalize research plan and budget with Project partners
• work with the Project staff to summarize and describe the project implementation process, and to highlight its strengths and challenges
• develop an interview tool, then train and work with peer evaluators to document 10 stories of tenants who have been effected by bedbugs
• work with Project staff to answer remaining questions about best practices for bedbug response, including one or more of the following (to be finalized by Project staff and researcher):
o How are/will be organizations outside of the social services and housing sectors affected by bedbugs?
o What is the true, total cost of eliminating bedbugs from a housing setting?
o To what extent are bedbug problems correlated with poverty?
o What is the tenant experience of having bedbugs, including emotional and psychological impacts?
o What are the financial and other benefits of public response to bedbug problems in advance of a more widespread epidemic?
o What is the environmental impact of dealing with bedbugs, in terms of energy used, waste created and pesticides released?
• interview at least 8 key informants representing a variety of Project stakeholders
• develop and implement a way to measure the amount of accurate information about bedbugs that tenants as well as landlords learned from being involved in the Project
• meet with partners to review data collected from the Project to identify and document project trends and learnings
• assist Project staff to create educational materials suitable for tenants in Habitat Services’ client profile
• work with the Project partners to write a final report, intended as a resource to the boarding and rooming house sector, private and non-profit landlords, tenants, and support services providers
• carry out the research in a non-judgemental, respective, and non-intrusive way which respects the privacy of those involved, and upholds the mission and mandates of WoodGreen and Habitat Services
Qualifications:
• a graduate degree and experience working with community groups and agencies to develop and implement research projects
• knowledge of the issues facing low income, vulnerable tenants, with mental health issues, and histories of street-involvement, homelessness, and/or substance use
Our initial deadline for applications is Sunday, November 30th, 2008. We anticipate budgets between $20,000 and $30,000.
The deadline for completing all work and reporting is March 31, 2009. Work is expected to begin in December 2008.
Please apply by sending a resume, cover letter, and draft research work plan including expected compensation to:
Elaine Magil, Manager of Tenant Outreach and Education
WoodGreen Community Services
835 Queen St. E., Toronto, ON M4M 1H9
emagil at woodgreen.org
About WoodGreen:
WoodGreen Community Services takes an integrated approach to building a better Toronto. We offer innovative, long-term solutions to the most critical social issues facing our city today. WoodGreen provides the essentials of life to 37,000 individuals and families from across the GTA annually. With
20 locations across east Toronto, we deliver services that promote wellness and self-sufficiency, reduce poverty and inequality, and build sustainable communities. This Project is one of a number of innovative responses WoodGreen has implemented to tackle the issue of bed bugs in Toronto.
About Habitat Services:
Habitat Services provides boarding home accommodation for 860 people in 46 locations across the City of Toronto. Habitat was developed in response to identified problems with the physical conditions and personal care standards provided in private sector boarding and lodging homes, where many people with a history of serious mental illness were housed. In 1987, the Ministries of Health and Long Term Care, Housing, Community and Social Services, and the City of Toronto were involved in the establishment of Habitat Services. The mandate of Habitat Services, in conjunction with the funding partners, was to improve the quality of housing for people with a history of serious mental illness by monitoring standards of care in private sector, for-profit boarding homes, and to make the housing environment as supportive as possible. Central to Habitat’s success as an organization trying to improve standards in for profit boarding homes is the use of a commercial contract. The contract and enhanced per diem is used by Habitat to enforce minimum standards and to offer an incentive to
boarding home owner/operators to provide housing to people with serious mental illness. In 2007/2008, Habitat received 748 referrals from over 83 designated referral sources in the city. 41% of our referrals have legal involvement, 26% of referrals came from hospitals and 13 % of current
tenants were referred to Habitat by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Habitat also provides site support services for tenants as part of its program. Services include accompanying tenants to health and social services, housing appointments and advocacy. In March of 2006 we received notice from the City of Toronto, Shelter, Support and Housing Administration division that the Province had allowed the City to flow surplus per diem funding to Habitat to address health and safety concerns in the portfolio. Building audits were completed for each house and expert recommendations made to improve cooling. The project allowed us to implement custom cooling solutions in 39 homes, and to require a cooling room at every site. Now, in 2008-2009, we have again used surplus per diem funding to address the spreading of bed bugs in boarding home accommodation and provide information and financial assistance to the owners dealing with this issue.
November 9, 2008
Class Warfare, they say….
broke out in Leslieville last week. Some of you may have seen the news reports.
Signs, looking much like the “No Big Box” posters which sprouted in front windows around the neighbourhood all summer long, were plastered to telephone poles and mail boxes, saying “No Yuppies in Leslieville.” Official reaction was swift. The signs were scraped off wherever they were found because, although they reflected tension in the neighbourhood, they also, unfortunately, crossed the line of free speech with an incitement to violence, in the small print, invited readers to smash windows.
Almost all who saw the posters had a strong reaction to them – either positive or, in politer company, more negative. It was after all all evocative act, one which had also sprung up in graffitti on condo bill boards or in murmurs on street corners.
The neighbourhood is in flux. According to the the South Riverdale demographic profile on the City of Toronto website, from 1996 to 2001, median household incomes grew by nearly $11,000 and the number of people who fall below the low income cut-off fell by 29%. See The 2006 numbers are still being crunched but will no doubt show the trend continues.
It is, as the local city councillor Paula Fletcher, says, a mixed neighbourhood. But it is, more accurately a neighbourhood, in transition. And that is a time when tensions, rightly or wrongly will surface.
The Toronto Sun, former bastion of the working class, rose quickly to the defense of “Yuppies” and those who like “venti pumpkin-spiced lattes.” Ignored were the complaints of rising rents and new, too-expensive stores.
The Toronto Star obfuscated, explaining that because the process wasn’t complete, because the neighbourhood still had rough edges, this wasn’t gentrification – and so, presumably, no one should be up in arms about the neighbourhood newcomers who were driving up housing prices (and therefore realty taxes). People are arriving, we are told, because they like the grittiness of the neighbourhood; no worries about what happened similarly on Queen St. West.
Even Garth Turner, (yes former Conservative M.P.), describes a process of gentrification in Leslieville (or South Riverdale if you have lived there longer) where “Greedy developers are trying to turn it into a yuppie park, which will displace those who have lived there affordably.” Turner says that the neighbourhood will never switch to upper class enclave, though, like nearby Riverdale or the Beach. He explains, in his blog advising a woman to sell and move away, that Leslieville is “iffy” and “a dump” hemmed in by highways and hosting a “smelly” waste treatment plant.
Still, whether Leslieville/South Riverdale becomes so trendy that it reaches some magic gentrification tipping point, some people are feeling angry about the changes in their neighbourhood.
At a minimum, a space for community dialogue is needed.
October 21, 2008
Racial divisions tracking income polarization
Three recent learnings from the Ontario Nonprofit Housing Association conference scared me about the future of our city:
I was sitting through a presentation I had seen a few times, about the growing concentrations of poverty across the city and the high income enclaves that were also emerging, when I was struck to hear how substantially these aligned with the emerging racial division in the city. Just as income has polarized even over the past five years, so have the racial divisions. Neighbourhoods which were mainly white at the 2001 census are now likely to be even more white, according to research being led by Professor David Hulchanski at the University of Toronto.
So, the next morning, as I sat through an anti-racism workshop at the same conference, we were asked if we saw evidence of racism in our communities. Hulchanski’s work shows that, as the city’s foreign-born population now hits 50% of residents and people of colour will soon be a majority of the population, many white people, especially those living in high income areas, are less and less likely to have contact in their day-to-day lives with those from another racial background.
Finally, in another session, we talked about the dynamics of what happens when mixed neighbourhoods disappear. Like the idea of supermajorites, as described by political scientists, when populations become more homogenous and ideas and social mores are not challenged, they tend to become more extreme in their positions.
All this means that urban residents, living within increasingly racially and economically segregated neighbourhoods, will become increasingly isolated and separate in their world views and experience.
As I said, scary.
David Hulchanski’s work can be found at maps of city neighbourhoods with very high concentrations of white and visible minority populations and a recent presentation.
October 9, 2008
City of Toronto Community Services Strategy
The City of Toronto is developing a Community Services Strategy and, on October 7, over 200 representatives from the city’s community agencies were invited to help shape it. Hunkered around tables just north of Flemingdon Park, participants spent the day brainstorming together. City staff gathered the input as it was generated and fed it back at the start of the next rounds of discussion.
Building on the work of the Strong Neighbourhoods Taskforce (City of Toronto: Strong Neighbourhoods Task Force) and, less acknowledged, the United Way’s Neighbourhood Vitality Index (A Neighbourhood Vitality Index: An Approach to Measuring …), the strategy will look at the services and supports which should be available across Toronto’s neighbourhoods. If a set of benchmarks can be developed that identify missing services and local supports, presumably, the City and others can target resources more effectively. It will also help to answer some City Councillors questions of “when is enough, enough?” Through this exercise, the answer of “enough” will be more quantifiable – and justifiable.
Research and policy staff have a lot of ground to cover before they bring the initial report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee on November 14. But they have made a good start.
September 21, 2008
The importance of front porches
I live in a neighbourhood where houses are either 12.5 feet wide, or the bigger ones are 16 feet wide. It means we sit on top of each other. Literally. Taking your recycling out or having a drink on the porch means invariably being drawn into a conversation with someone else who has had a similar idea.
Because of this level of street activity, some folks spend entire seasons on their front porch. And those are the people whom we all get to know, the people that pull us out of our self-absorbed musings to remind us that the first of the month has arrived and so cars must be moved for parking authorities or that recyclables, rather than garbage, will be collected the next day. They become the glue to our community, exchanging tidbits about our lives to others so that by the time we meet, we already know something of each other.
The porch sitters serve the same function that small children or dogs do. They give us a reason to talk to each other, to build bridges between us, to visit for a moment or two.
These casual interactions are shaped by the architecture of the places where we live and how we move through our communities. It speaks to a number of design issues: the scale of our homes, the use of “third place” (not home, not work), the development of weak social bonds, the trust we have in each other (collective efficacy). The social networks which exist in our neighbourhoods are entwined with the structures of our neighbourhoods.
This blog will explore all these dynamics and how we can build places where we belong, one and all.
Belonging Community 