 |
review
Social Inclusion as Policy
Challenges and Opportunities
Ted Richmond
Laidlaw Foundation
How is the concept of social inclusion evolving in
policy terms? Are we working from a common understanding or “definition”
of the notion? What does social inclusion mean for issues like poverty,
and the growing racialization of poverty? What theories and practices
are most relevant in developing a made-in-Canada version of social inclusion
that is policy relevant? These issues provide both challenges and opportunities
for our Advisory Committee (Inclusive Communities for Children, Youth
and Families) as Laidlaw Foundation further develops its work on social
inclusion.1
The Children’s Agenda Initiative
of the Laidlaw Foundation started
several years ago, with a focus on social inclusion as a tool for developing
and testing social policy. It promoted the development of inclusive communities
in the cities and neighbourhoods where children and their families experience
various forms of exclusion, and was rooted in the Laidlaw commitment to
promoting the well-being of children and families. The long-range goal
was to promote improvements in child and family social policy in Canada.
It has been a few years since the
Laidlaw Board took the courageous step of endorsing funding for what was
basically an idea – social inclusion. Since then, our social inclusion
work has not only developed and expanded, it has received a significant
amount of attention and support. Laidlaw-sponsored activities included seminars
and conferences as well as a series of working papers exploring different
areas and aspects of social inclusion
as theory and applied policy. Funding was also provided for partner organizations
involved in projects, such as the development of inclusive indicators
as well as research and public education on the welfare of Canada’s
children.
In the last year, we have expanded
and renewed the program’s advisory committee, renamed our program,
and begun addressing new challenges.
Issues and Challenges
First and foremost, we must recognize that the “definition”
of social inclusion is in development; it is not fixed as
a concept or theory. A progressive
and policy-relevant version of social inclusion will be rooted in practice,
and it will recognize and respect different interpretations.
The social inclusion work we want
to develop must combine theory
and practice. As well, it must exhibit three essential features: It must
deal with the structural roots of exclusion, be rooted in community (self-)
organization and mobilization, and be
transformative. It must lead to real, applied policy changes transforming
the structures that promote exclusion and limit inclusion.
To deal with these issues, we need to appreciate
fully the social and economic impact of rapid demographic and economic
changes in Canada. Immigrants – those born outside of Canada –
form a growing percentage of the population in our major urban centres,
and are increasingly from non-European countries. There is an increasing
degree of coincidence therefore between “newcomer” and “visible
minority” status, precisely at a time when these newcomers face
systemic barriers to the recognition of internationally acquired education
and skills.2 The alarming process of the
racialization of poverty in Canada is, in fact, a product of these trends.
Poverty is not just an issue for newcomers. There
has been a general deterioration of labour market opportunities for vulnerable
groups, such as newcomers, those with a disability, young families, lone
parents, and urban Aboriginal people. The world of work in Canada is becoming
more precarious; the low-paid segment of the labour force is growing as
a portion of the total employed; and long-term poverty is becoming more
associated with paid employment. From a social inclusion perspective,
we need to ask why certain groups identified more by social or cultural
characteristics rather than economic features are at such risk of long-term
poverty. The answers should lead us away from neo-liberal economic policies,
emphasizing the universal benefits of general economic growth, and into
a deeper understanding of the social supports and policy reforms needed
by specific excluded communities.3
Since poverty is not just an issue for newcomers,
we must realize that diversity issues go well beyond the labour market
or even general economic well-being. Increasing ethno-racial diversity
in our major urban centres poses challenges from a social inclusion perspective,
because both the process and the end result of this inclusion must be
re-negotiated. Ethno-racial communities, as with other excluded groups,
will no longer accept the paternalism of being invited, one by one, to
enter existing institutions. Rather, they are demanding their rightful
voice and role in reshaping these institutions to combat exclusion and
promote a truly inclusive form of Canadian diversity.4
The notion of social capital is also important to
our work on social inclusion. We believe that both “bonding”
and “bridging” networks and linkages are vital for combatting
exclusion with vulnerable groups; and while government cannot create social
capital, government policies can facilitate its development. The role
of non-governmental service and umbrella organizations in public education
and advocacy – increasingly threatened by funding restrictions –
is, in this regard, an issue of great concern.5
In his Laidlaw-sponsored working paper, Anver Saloojee
emphasized that the development of social inclusion is a political process
that depends on locating and transforming specific forms of exclusion.6
In other words, an inclusive society identifies the historical and material
basis of various forms of exclusion and works actively to overcome them.
This leads to a process involving social citizenship, mobilization and
community organizing, and transformation (resource sharing, institutional
changes).
Examples from Our Work
Due to the various factors outlined above, our program is moving toward
a focus on support for pilot projects as a means to further develop the
theory of social inclusion through dialogue with our partners based on
practice. We recognize that the social inclusion application projects
we support will have an experimental nature (new theories lead to new
practices, and further debates on specific issues).
One example of a project we currently support (along with the Ontario
Trillium Foundation) is Closing the Distance for Children in Sudbury.
The Social Planning Council of Sudbury has been engaged,
in the last 18 months, in a project designed to create more inclusive
school and recreation environments from the perspective of Greater Sudbury’s
children. The project is being extended to neighbourhood schools and community
recreation programs over the next two years to introduce the voices of
children into how learning and recreation occurs in these two important
social environments. The initiative addresses all children, but will also
pay particular attention to the inclusion and participation of children
at higher risk of being left out or unheard (e.g., children dealing with
linguistic and cultural barriers in Sudbury, such as Francophone and Aboriginal
children). We think this is a good example of a project with grass-roots
mobilization that deals with the non-economic forms of exclusion for vulnerable
communities. We believe, as well, that the emphasis on listening to the
voices of children provides a good demonstration of inclusion in practice.7
Part of our work involves supporting the activities
of partner organizations, whether financially or through publicity and
networking. Campaign 2000, which receives financial support from Laidlaw,
has been working very actively across Canada on public education and mobilization,
which links child poverty to broader issues including housing and labour
market problems, child care and early childhood education. Another example
is St. Christopher House, which is developing a truly grass-roots
policy initiative with its project Income Security for Working-age Adults
in Ontario.8
The development of inclusive indicators is another
aspect of our work, essential to bridging social inclusion theory with
social inclusion practice. We provided funding (along with Health Canada)
to the inclusive indicators project carried out by the Ontario Prevention
Clearinghouse, and we played an advisory role in the Health Canada funded
Alternative Social Audit carried out by the Social Planning Council of
Toronto and the Alternative Planning Group.9
We are working to structure a useful dialogue among the various groups
involved in developing alternative social indicators.
We also consider it vital to work with both community
organizations and various concerned funders to halt the destructive trends
in financing of the non-governmental organization sector. The transition
to narrowly defined service contract funding as the dominant form of government
support to the community sector cannot be allowed to destroy the social
capital represented by these organizations.10
We also work to build community capacity (or social capital) by promoting
healthy research partnerships between the community and the
academic sector. Currently, we are partners in a Ryerson University
proposal to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Community-University Research Alliances, on the situation of newcomers
with less than full status. We are also hosting networking meetings of
researchers concerned with immigrant women’s issues, and participating
in a Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded research project, Racialized
Communities and Health Status, led by the Access Alliance Community Multicultural
Health Centre.
Finally, we continue to contribute to the conceptual work in exploring,
debating, and refining the meaning of social inclusion in Canada. We are
preparing an edited publication of some of the best of the working papers
commissioned by Laidlaw and are working with various partners to develop
seminars and forums that will link the issues of inclusion to current
public policy options.
All this leads to lots of experimentation and public discussion. We don’t
expect our work to go smoothly; the issues are too complex, and the challenges
are too great! But we do expect that with the help of our many partners,
supporters, and friends, we can make small but real progress in advancing
the inclusion agenda in Canada over the next few years.
Notes
- I want to acknowledge the contributions of Uzma Shakir to this update
on our social inclusion work at Laidlaw. Uzma is Executive Director
of the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA), and President
of the Board at the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI).
Uzma is also a member of our program Advisory Committee.
- For a discussion of these issues as well as extensive references,
see the Laidlaw Working Paper Immigrant
Settlement and Social Inclusion in Canada (Ratna Omidvar and
Ted Richmond, 2003), <http://www.laidlawfdn.org/page_1069.cfm>.
- For recent reflections on these issues, see Cynthia Williams, “Policy
Responses for Groups at Risk of Long-Term Poverty” <http://www.queensu.ca/sps/queens_international_institute...>.
- See, for example, the paper “Social Inclusion and the City”
by the Alternative Planning Group <http://www.laidlawfdn.org/page_1213.cfm>.
- See, for example, Ted Richmond’s paper presented to the Metropolis
immigration research conference in Montréal in March 2004 “Promoting
Newcomer Civic Engagement: The Role of Umbrella Organizations in Social Citizenship.”
<http://www.laidlawfdn.org/page_1213.cfm>.
- “Social Inclusion, Anti-Racism and Democratic Citizenship”
(2003), <http://www.laidlawfdn.org/page_1069.cfm>.
- More information about this project, and others funded by our pilot
program, can be found on the Laidlaw web site.
- More information is available on the organizations’ respective
web sites.
- For further information, see the web sites of the respective organizations.
- See, for example, Ted Richmond and John Shields, Third
Sector Restructuring and the New Contracting Regime: The Case of Immigrant
Serving Agencies in Ontario, in the CERIS series, Policy Matters.
<http://www.laidlawfdn.org/page_1222.cfm>.
Ted Richmond is the Program Co-ordinator of the
Inclusive Communities for Children, Youth and Families Pilot Program
at the Laidlaw Foundation.
|
