 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site | |
| Home | News Releases | Key Rural Initiatives |
Site Map | Publications |
|
|
Canadian Rural Partnership
BC Rural Dialogue Final Report - RURAL YOUTH DIALOGUE 2000 June 30, 2000 
In Partnership with:
Canadian Rural Partnership
Prepared by,
The Genesis of the Rural Youth Dialogue 2000 The Rural Youth Dialogue 2000 started as an initiative of the Canadian Rural Partnership Program (CRP). Recognizing that the ever-changing and diversified economy makes it difficult for rural youth to keep abreast of new developments, CRP has made an effort to develop a forum for discussing the needs of the province's youth. In June 2000, CRP (itself the result of a dialogue involving 7,000 rural Canadians) and its partners organized and conducted eight Rural Youth Dialogue discussion sessions that involved approximately 250 young rural participants from across British Columbia. The Rural Team and Community Futures Association To assist communities overcome communication challenges, the Canadian Rural Partnership program formed a rural team in each province and territory. The B.C. team is comprised of 12 federal departments, two provincial ministries, the Northern Development Commission, and the Community Futures Development Association of British Columbia (CFDA). One of the most important members of the team is the Community Futures Development Association, which was established by Employment and Immigration Canada (now HRDC) in 1985, and takes an active part in local development in rural Canada. Today, there are 34 Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDC) in British Columbia. Over the years, they demonstrated their capacity to work effectively with other agencies and levels of government in delivering a wide range of programs and services at the community level. As such, they were ideally suited to co-ordinate a dialogue process designed to identify the labour market and social issues facing rural youth in British Columbia. Opportunities for Rural Youth Selecting "opportunities for rural youth" as one of the key priorities, the B.C. Rural Team asked the Community Futures Association to lead the Rural Youth Dialogue 2000. After conducting a literature search to collect background information on previously held dialogue sessions, the Community Futures Association (in partnership with HRDC) organized, co-ordinated and conducted eight Rural Youth Dialogue sessions. Approximately 250 rural youth from around British Columbia were engaged and their opinions solicited. The Community Futures Association and the CFDCs of British Columbia have enjoyed the opportunity and the challenge of acting as catalysts for change for the rural youth of British Columbia and helping to develop a response to the needs of the province's youth. The information in this report will enable the team and the communities to identify a strategy for addressing the needs of rural youth. Thanks to Brandon Hughes of Canadian Rural Partnership, Cynthia Lam and Gary Soo of Human Resources Development Canada (Youth Initiatives), Leslie Lax of the Northern Development Commission and Agnes Lui of Status of Women Canada for helping make Rural Youth Dialogue 2000 a useful guide for rural youth development. To facilitate and formulate new initiatives for rural youth, federal government policy makers and advisers need relevant, clear and up-to-date information. The purpose of this study was to initiate a partnered approach to identifying key challenges and opportunities for the youth population of rural British Columbia. The study has helped to better formulate the individual and co-operative initiatives and to assist youth in addressing labour market and social development issues. The dialogue sessions also provided policy makers with a better understanding of the concerns and priorities of rural youth and suggested ways of addressing them.
Specific steps to address the study issues included: · Conducting a literature search to collect background information on previously held dialogue sessions in order to build on those information sessions; · Organizing and co-ordinating eight Rural Youth Dialogue sessions with local community organizations; · Conducting eight Rural Youth Dialogue sessions in which approximately 250 youth from around rural British Columbia were engaged and suggestions in developing policy for rural youth were solicited.
The following is a summary of major findings and conclusions that resulted from the dialogue sessions:
Local design and delivery
Community co-ordination reduces delivery problems
Dedicated staff and champions
Team support
Flexibility of the contracts Over the past two years, members of the Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP) program initiated a series of dialogue sessions in rural communities across British Columbia to identify issues relevant to the lives of rural British Columbians. Three dialogue sessions were held in Port Alberni, Creston, and Smithers; community members were invited to attend, and express their views. The participants attending the Rural Dialogue sessions reported that very few young people came to the meetings and complained about the increasing numbers of youth leaving rural areas. They felt that the B.C. Rural Team should hold separate meetings for the B.C. rural youth in order to solicit their opinion and to give them a chance to express their views. The Canadian Rural Partnership, Human Resources Development Canada, the Northern Development Commission, and Status of Women Canada asked the Community Futures Development Association (CFDA) to act as a liaison and host a series of rural youth dialogues across the province. Mark MacDonald, the Community Futures Association Communications Co-ordinator, acted as the provincial co-ordinator for the Rural Youth Dialogue 2000. For the purpose of the Rural Youth Dialogue sessions, the Community Futures Association adopted the federal definition of "youth" as people between the ages of 15 and 26, although anyone willing to contribute relevant information was invited to join the sessions. Also for the purpose of these dialogues, the BC Rural Team selected rural communities with population below 50,000. The Community Futures Program was first established by Employment and Immigration Canada (now Human Resources Development Canada) in 1985. Today, there are 34 Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDC) in British Columbia. The main function of these organizations is to co-ordinate access to information and government resources, assess local economic and labour market conditions, and aid development in rural communities. Over the years, CFDCs demonstrated a capacity to work effectively with other agencies and levels of government in delivering a wide range of programs and services at the community level. The CFDCs are well-established organizations with a wide range of community connections. This, among other factors, made them ideally suited to host the Rural Youth Dialogue sessions. After the initial proposal became known, the five dialogue sessions were expanded to seven and later eight sessions, as additional funding became available. Seven rural communities in British Columbia were chosen for their diversity. A pilot project in Vernon was followed by meetings in Castlegar, Port Hardy/Port McNeill, Quesnel, Houston, Prince Rupert, and Fort St. John and finally Saltspring Island.
The objective of the study was to invite 35-50 youth (aged 15-26) to each session. Youth were drawn from the designated towns and surrounding areas. The meetings were organized and facilitated by the local CFDCs that also provided bus transportation to allow youth from the more distant areas to participate. With the help of schools, the Human Resource Development offices, local youth centres, women's centres, the First Nation's organizations, etc., young people who were both in and out of school were invited to participate in the meetings. Local school counsellors, youth workers, and other stakeholders were also invited to participate provided that the number of adult participants did not exceed the number of young participants. Organizers felt that to create a more comfortable environment no more than eight adults should be present at any one dialogue session. The CFDCs advertised the meetings in many ways including local newspapers, radio stations, television stations, posters, and word of mouth. Based on similar dialogue sessions, the CFDC's developed a dialogue model hoping to approach the dialogue sessions in a systematic manner. However, recognizing that there are many differences among the communities, the organizers agreed that the model was only a general guide. In addition, each meeting had a local facilitator who was familiar with the historical and social background of the community. This knowledge enabled the facilitator to better understand and respond to the young people's needs. The meetings started out with introductions and moved directly into the first brainstorming session. The aim of the brainstorming session was to identify key themes and priorities for discussion - these would later be used as a framework for recommendations. These initial sessions were executed in a large group setting and aided by a facilitator. After a short refreshment break, the organizers divided the participants into small groups and asked them to identify key priorities and recommend actions to address them. The participants then returned to the large group setting where each small group shared their recommendations and received feedback from the rest of the group. Following the feedback, the participants voted on what the top five recommended priorities should be. Lunch was kept to a half-hour in order to maintain the dynamic atmosphere created during the initial group work. After lunch, the large group discussed ways of addressing the five recommended priorities. The discussions were very involved and sparked many thoughts, reflections and arguments. This concluded the dialogue sessions, leaving a little bit of time for the organizers and attending funding parties to discuss the transpired events after the meeting. Chapter I introduces the report and provides an overview of the eight dialogue sessions, discussing their purpose and structure. Chapters II through IX discuss and summarize individual dialogue sessions. These summaries and recommendations are general and do not encompass all the information discussed during the sessions. For detailed information about any single dialogue session, please refer to the individual reports. The Summary of Recommended Actions (Section X) has been provided for a quick reference to the main actions, recommendations and solutions that came out of the dialogue sessions. This section has been divided into three categories - actions for the youth, the community, and the government. The Feedback section provides the feedback information from the young people who attended the dialogue sessions. The feedback form can be found in Appendix IV. The Appendices contain a list of the Steering Committee members, a list of the documents reviewed, a sample agenda, the dialogue feedback form, a map of British Columbia and the individual dialogue reports. As a pilot session, the Vernon Youth Dialogue went very well. The young peoples' response to the first Rural Youth Dialogue was overwhelmingly positive. The youth were excited and happy to be asked for their opinion, and it was evident that the large group discussions challenged them. The following are the seven key priorities that emerged from the discussions (listed here in order of importance): 2. More business and job opportunities; 3. More recreational, culture and entertainment activities; 4. More awareness and access to government programs, services and activities; 5. Equitable government funding for rural areas; 6. The need to improve the youth image; 7. The need to increase awareness and pride in the local community and environment. All participants were very concerned about the lack of business and job opportunities - the topic was quite clearly close to their hearts. The participants' third priority was access to recreational, cultural and entertainment activities. They felt that despite a great diversity of recreational activities, few are actually accessible to rural youth. Another area that the participants felt needed improvement was the access to government programs. The Vernon youth were also concerned about more equitable government funding for rural areas. Many young participants complained about the fact that some rural communities have community and recreation centres, while others with the same population do not. The youth of Vernon felt that they needed to improve their image. They felt that some adults in the community were scared to approach them and that their good intentions were often misinterpreted. Finally, the young people wanted to increase awareness and pride in their local community. The young participants wanted better ways to find out about educational opportunities. They felt that the government should improve the marketing of its programs and make it easier to find information. They also felt that co-op placements would help address the lack of job opportunities. Improving the image of youth has to be addressed by youth and adults together. They proposed mural paintings, group garbage clean-up days, and a weekly article in the local newspaper as a few possible solutions. Vernon was a pilot dialogue session so the organizers tried a number of approaches, some of which received a negative response from the group and were later discontinued. One of these unsuccessful approaches was an attempt to create an all-women breakout group in order to address gender-related problems. Another unsuccessful approach involved Aboriginal youth who were asked to but did not want to address their problems separately from the rest of the group. It is important to note, however, that all of those young people did participate once the idea of classifying them into sub-groups was abandoned. Overall, this meeting was very positive. The young participants' responses were well thought out and showed real passion for their community. The youth themselves felt the dialogue session was constructive and stated that they would like to continue this process on an annual basis. Since the session, the Vernon participants have been working toward setting up a local youth council. They have utilized the momentum created by the Rural Youth Dialogue and recognize that they are empowered to positively affect change. The rural youth of the Kootenays established the following five priorities: 2. Lack of post-secondary educational opportunities; 3. Lack awareness (education) on how to make communities stronger; 4. Prejudice; 5. Lack of funding. The discussion around the lack of education and building strong communities generated many ideas. The solutions and responses to this priority were clear and well thought out. All young participants felt that prejudice needs to be stopped. They felt that cliques formed in their towns were leaving many people feeling like outsiders. The final priority the youth of Castlegar discussed was the lack of government funding. The young participants felt that they were under-utilized and needed a chance to prove themselves. They also talked about a less restrictive funding for education and training. At the Castlegar meeting, both the youth and the facilitator were very energetic and had many ideas. Although most of the young participants were from communities with very different needs, (Kasha, Trail, Nelson, and Castlegar) they worked very well together. To address the priority of limited educational opportunities, the participants called for co-op opportunities and better education for young entrepreneurs. They also felt it important to have a youth presence at all levels of government and they wanted to learn how to build strong community networks. Solutions to stop prejudice ranged from education and awareness campaigns developed by the federal government to young people initiating the awareness campaigns themselves. Feedback from this dialogue was positive. The Castlegar youth felt that the forum had met their expectations and they appreciated the opportunity to voice their opinions and suggestions. They also suggested the following improvements: in the future that the dialogue not be held on the first day of spring break; and that more time be spent in large group discussions. The Kooteney group made a good effort to address the priorities in new ways but ran out of time. This was duly noted and kept in mind for the remaining dialogue sessions. Overall, this was a very successful day. The youth participated eagerly and realized that to influence change they have to take ownership and become a part of the solution. The Port Hardy and Port McNeill dialogue sessions were unique. Port Hardy is about a half an hour drive from Port McNeill and people who live in these towns find it very hard to travel back and fourth. The organizers settled this difficulty by having two dialogue sessions. This worked very well and provided the dialogue with a wider range of feedback. The five key issues that concerned the rural youth on North Vancouver Island were: 2. Lack of education and training; 3. Lack of recreational facilities; 4. Social issues; 5. Lack of transportation. The participants at both of the sessions wanted to create more local recreational activities, and expressed a willingness to initiate them. The fourth priority, social issues, related to youth's image of themselves and people having no faith in them. Many young participants felt that the adults from their communities did not recognize their views and ideas as worthwhile. Though listed at the end, transportation was an important priority for the youth of Port Hardy and Port McNeill. They complained that on the North Island public transit is almost non-existent. This is a major problem as some of the participants had to decline employment offers due to the lack of transportation. The proposed solutions to address the first two priorities included improving communication between students, local businesses and successful entrepreneurs; creating wider variety of courses; and forming partnerships with local colleges and universities. To address the next two priorities, the participants proposed creating an action team that would co-ordinate volunteer work, and establishing a youth council that would voice their opinions. To address the issue of prejudice, the young participants proposed launching an awareness campaign. Setting up a shuttle bus system between the two communities would address the transportation problem. The young people of Port Hardy and Port McNeill were excited to have this opportunity to voice their opinions and discuss and debate their thoughts. They showed leadership potential and were very enthusiastic about being involved in this process. Following the meeting, the Port Hardy/Port McNeill youth, with the help of the local CFDC youth co-ordinator Arsen Krekovic, resolved to set up a youth council. The local government was invited to this meeting but could not make it. The Rural Youth Dialogue held in Quesnel, B.C., was a great experience for both the organizers and the participants. The youth saw the dialogue as an opportunity for change, and delved into the meeting agenda very enthusiastically. The youth of Quesnel established four main priorities: 2. Provide more job opportunities; 3. Diversify the local industry in order to stabilize the economy; 4. Organize more social and recreational activities within the community. The third priority - diversify local industry to stabilize the economy - underlined the participants' concern that Quesnel relies almost exclusively on fibre products for its survival. The final priority addressed the need for more recreational opportunities and social activities. The youth wanted improve the arts and theatre and asked the government to provide local support for organized community sports events. Overall, the Quesnel dialogue was very engaging, sparking many lively debates and recommendations. The participants of the Quesnel Rural Youth Dialogue proposed a number of very specific recommendations to address the above priorities. They called for a wider variety of courses at the local college and suggested that the college should take a proactive approach in promoting these courses. They also talked about the need for more co-ops and apprenticeships that could provide paid work experience opportunities. The young participants wanted the City of Quesnel to work with the Ministry of Transportation to address Quesnel's problems related to the lack of a public transit system. This discussion expanded to include government providing tax incentives to people starting out in the small business sector. The third priority area, diversifying the local industry to stabilize the economy, was more focused than the previous recommendations. The young participants wanted to promote the now underdeveloped travel and tourism industry, including local hotels, white-water rafting, sailing and guided tours. They felt that the Cariboo Economic Action Forum, College of New Caledonia, University of Northern BC, Chamber of Commerce, Human Resources Centre, and the City of Quesnel could all be potential partners in this initiative. The participants called for government grants to help develop the existing ski hills, while offering incentives for locals to develop the adventure tourism sector. While discussing the final priority, recreational and social activities, the participants addressed the issue of a local youth club. The youth also mandated the school district to offer a wider variety of organized sporting events like, golf, rugby, football, baseball, skating, and water sports. Like Port Hardy/Port McNeill, Houston is a town with many "bedroom" communities. The organizers decided that an approach similar to Port Hardy/Port McNeill should be taken. A number of "feeder" sessions were held in the communities of Burns Lake, Hazelton, and Smithers, and the results were excellent. The information from these dialogue sessions can be found in the individual report for the Houston Dialogue session in the Appendices. The Houston area youth identified the following seven key priorities: 2. Transportation; 3. Police and connecting communities; 4. More activities; 5. Health awareness; 6. Diversity of services; 7. Access to land. Lack of employment was another key issue. The young participants were very concerned with their future employment opportunities and pointed out the lack of awareness about government initiatives. The transition between school and work was also addressed. Transportation is a large concern in the Houston region because of limited air service, high gasoline prices and overall poor public transit. This issue is particularly pressing for the young people who usually have a limited disposable income. Another priority area addressed was the lack of general recreational activities. This often leads to increased substance abuse and a pessimistic attitude toward the community. They suggested that the youth delegates should create a task force and, together with the police and business community, explore ways of dealing with these problems. The organizers were happy to see youth taking the initiative and wanting to make a difference. The young participants were also concerned with the lack of local health care. Houston does not have a hospital and the closest medical facility is in Smithers, B.C. They discussed the shortage of doctors and medical specialists like optometrists. The participants were worried about the elderly - they said that if a serious injury occurred help could not possibly arrive in time. The next priority was the lack of diversification of service providers, particularly the lack of specialized service providers. The young participants were unhappy that they received poor service at the local shops. They felt that this is an age issue. Access to land was a priority for many youth at the Houston dialogue session; some participants even said that they came only to address that problem. In recent years, Houston has switched its land use from predominantly commercial to residential. The participants were concerned with the zoning regulations of this land. They wanted the federal government notified of their concerns and expressed willingness to work together to solve this problem. The Houston participants came up with three general areas for their recommendations. The first area was education and jobs-the two issues were addressed together as they are so often interrelated. To address the apparent "catch 22," (no experience - no work, no work - no experience) the participants suggested the following: create more job shadowing opportunities; offer more apprenticeships and youth internships; provide opportunities for distance education; and create more youth centres that could act as catalysts for rural youth. The second area was "More activities" and "Substance abuse and police relations." The participants thought that these two were also interrelated. The young participants created a short-list of possible solutions to these problems. The proposed solutions included forming a diverse group of delegates and educating the community; having youth delegates meet with the police and business people to inform them about youth issues; and meeting with the municipal government. They also wanted to generate greater awareness about drug and alcohol abuse issues and to arrange workshops run by experienced counsellors. The final recommendation related to "Access to land." The youth wanted to see greater community support for local agriculture, possibly creating co-op garden plots and providing lower priced housing. They felt that the local land resources belong to the community not to the big corporations. The group of young people from the Smithers area was particularly concerned about this issue. The organizers of the Prince Rupert dialogue were able to solicit many young people from the northern coastal group of islands. The day started out with the participants relaying what they considered to be their key life priorities. This helped everyone involved understand the participants' personal life priorities and to see how these related to their community. Family was their main priority. After the initial assessment was completed, the discussions moved toward brainstorming the key priorities that would improve the community of Prince Rupert. Participants came up with the following five priorities: 2. Increasing local job opportunities; 3. Improving recreational and social activities; 4. Addressing the problems of drugs and police brutality; 5. Lowering housing costs. The youth of Prince Rupert complained about drug and alcohol related problems within their community and added that police brutality was a concern. The youth agreed that there is a need for more drug enforcement and suggested that the police need to be more diplomatic with their enforcement. The fifth key priority was the need to lower the costs of housing and rent. The young participants complained that the cost of living and the lack of employment opportunities force many young people to move south.
The young people of Prince Rupert appreciated the opportunity for change that the Rural Youth Dialogue 2000 offered, and their recommendations reflect that. They proposed the following recommendations to address their first priority-improving post-secondary education: offer mentorships and internships through the local colleges; upgrade apprenticeship opportunities within the community; offer rotational programs in order to expand their course portfolio; increase funding for education and make student loans easier to access; and add courses concerning life skills and family values to school curriculum. To address their second priority-increasing local job opportunities-the young participants asked the community to take a more proactive approach. For example, they complained that many local positions are filled with people from outside the community even though there are many competent people within the community. They also suggested lobbying the government to provide better incentives to doctors, who are in great demand in Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert participants proposed to address their third priority-improving recreational and social activities-by themselves. They decided to organize more community-bonding activities such as dances, band concerts and outdoor activities. The participants recommended that the problems related to drugs and police brutality have to be addressed through awareness campaigns. The young participants wanted to cultivate a positive relationship with the enforcement officers in the community and felt that awareness campaigns would help with that. They also called for longer and enhanced drug rehabilitation programs. To address the problem of lowering housing costs, the Prince Rupert participants proposed that the government should provide a 25% rental discount for students. They also mentioned tax breaks for local businesses. After the meeting, the organizers recorded a very positive feedback in questionnaires. The participants felt that this dialogue was a step in "the right direction" and wanted to see more such dialogues take place. The young participants from Fort St. John established the following six key priorities that needed to be addressed: 2. Keeping resources local; 3. Lack of local leadership; 4. Education; 5. Workers Compensation Board Regulations; 6. Year-round, career-based employment through Youth Options. The first priority was "Poor community attitude and morale." The young participants felt that attitude is the most important factor in how people view their community. The seemingly predominant view-"our towns are dirty and ugly"-is not only false, but creates an atmosphere of apathy and resignation. The participants felt that the community must focus on the positive aspects. The second priority that the Fort St. John participants brought forward was "Keeping resources local." They complained about selling resources to other countries, only to buy the products made out of them later and at a higher price. They also wanted the profits from exploiting the resources to stay in the community. The third priority was the lack of local leadership. The participants complained about the lack of good family values and local moral support for home, school and community. Local leaders can make a difference because they have a better understanding of local problems. Related to the third priority was the fourth one-education. The young participants suggested that local colleges do very little to promote their programs and complained about the fact that college credits are not transferable to university. The fifth priority concerned Workers Compensation Board Regulations. The participants complained that the stringent regulations are pushing many businesses out of British Columbia to Alberta where the regulations are not as strict. The acronym B.C., the youth joked, means Bring Cash, and that is what is making businesses shy away from British Columbia. Finally, the youth wanted to see a year-round, "career based" employment through Youth Options. The youth complained about the structure of the program, they said that the paperwork is too much trouble for employers and that it needs to be more streamlined. The participants added that the employment opportunities are not "career based" but focused on minimum wage employment. This priority generated a lot of momentum. The Fort St. John participants' recommendations were very well thought out and concrete. The participants decided to create an action committee as soon as possible to help address the poor attitude of their community. They planned to work together with the local Chamber of Commerce and City Council to promote and foster greater pride within their community. The participants felt that a decrease in taxes at the federal and provincial level would help increase cross border trading. They wanted the government to reassess the possibility of setting up infrastructure locally to create value-added products before shipping the resources. The fourth priority area-education-generated many debates. Many participants felt that the Ministry of Education should make it mandatory for local colleges to show up at career fairs, because the only institutions at these fairs are the large universities. The participants also wanted the colleges to make it very clear what college courses are transferable to university. Recommendations regarding the Workers Compensation Board Regulations revolved around reviewing the regulations in a fair and democratic manner and making sure that British Columbia is not behind other provinces. The young participants also felt that outreach centres and counselling are not readily available. They also felt that the municipal government must promote community involvement, especially targeting youth. The final priority area, "Year-round, career-based employment through Youth Options," also generated some great recommendations. The participants suggested workshops that would help youth to focus on their career paths. They also suggested that increased federal funding in the area of wage subsidies would help rural youth break into the high-paying jobs. The youth enjoyed the day thoroughly, and appreciated the opportunity to voice their opinions. They expressed the need for continued workshops of this type on a twice per year basis. After the unsuccessful attempt to address the concerns of young rural women in Vernon, the organizers decided that, given a comfortable setting, they would try once again. They did at the Saltspring Rural Youth Dialogue. The five key priorities for the participants on Saltspring Island were: 2. Public transportation; 3. Safe and healthy recreation; 4. Employment and training opportunities; 5. Improved access to education. The second key issue, public transportation, also evoked a long series of discussions. The participants discussed the difficulties related to travelling around Saltspring Island, complaining about the lack of a public transit system. Young women in particular felt that hitchhiking was not safe for them. "Safe and healthy recreation" was the third priority area. The young participants complained about the fact that businesses close quite early and there are no other safe locations to "hang out" at. The young participants of the Saltspring Island dialogue session felt left behind in terms of technology and training and listed "More employment and training opportunities" as their fourth priority area. The participants agreed that there are few employment opportunities for youth and very limited training opportunities. They were also worried that there are no long-term employment or career opportunities. The participants listed "Improved access to education" as their fifth and final priority. The young women pointed to the need for a wider variety of courses and better preparation for youth entering university. The young women also pointed out the lack of leadership, training and mentoring programs for young women, and suggested that mentoring programs could be a solution to many problems. The feedback from the group suggested that the day was really successful in providing a safe, comfortable environment, particularly for young women. This group showed awareness of the issues affecting them and took an active part in creating tangible and clear solutions. The first priority area, personal safety, generated involved and in-depth discussion. The young women decided that self-defence courses and personal assertiveness training would help solve their personal safety fears. They also called for a community-operated safe ride program, wherein designated drivers would be available on a rotating basis. To address the issue of Island transportation, the young participants suggested that the government should fund a public transit system. The young participants third priority-safe and healthy recreation-resulted in many good recommendations. For example, the participants thought that attracting more local youth to the youth centre would greatly contribute to bringing the youth community closer together. They also suggested that fun sports games and regular social gatherings would be a great addition to the centre. In their next priority-employment and training opportunities-the participants suggested creating a greater variety of local course portfolios. The young participants wanted to see courses that offer mentoring in middle school, stress management workshops and health and nutrition courses. The last priority-improved access to education-was a difficult subject for the participants. They suggested that the topic needs the attention of the Ministry of Advanced Education Technologies and Training (MAETT) and did not feel competent in addressing it themselves. They did, however, suggest that inviting university students to come and speak at the local high schools would help to prepare students for university. The Saltspring Island group thought that the dialogue was very successful and that this type of information session should be continued in the future. This section summarizes the recommendations for action that the young participants presented at the Rural Youth Dialogue 2000 sessions. Due to the sheer volume of the responses many recommendations could not be catalogued. This report, however, is a useful reference tool for youth, community members, and policy makers. This section is divided into three subsections. Each subsection focuses on actions or changes that can be implemented by youth, local community and the government. The order of the actions reflects its importance to the young participants. For instance, if only one group voted for an action, that action received one vote, if two groups, two votes and so on. The number of votes each action received is included in parenthesis. Other interesting actions are included at the bottom. Please refer to the Appendices for a full summary of each dialogue and all actions suggested. 2. Form a diverse group of youth delegates/council to represent the young members of the community (4) 3. Become mentors to younger school aged children (2) 4. Be more imaginative in searching for employment (1) 5. Lobby government by writing to your local Member of Parliament about youth programs (1) ACTIONS FOR COMMUNITY
ACTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT
P
The feedback forms, which the organizers received at the end of each dialogue session, were overall very positive. Virtually all participants thought the dialogue was a success and declared that it has met their expectations. The young B.C. men and women were excited to have the opportunity to voice their opinion and responded well to the dialogue activities (brainstorming, discussions). They also enjoyed the social aspect of the dialogue. The participants had a few suggestions for improving future meetings. The suggestions included a longer time period for the dialogue session, better control of conversations, and not holding a dialogue on the first day of spring break (this unfortunately happened in Castlegar, although there was still a good turnout). The B.C. participants wanted more such discussions in the future and expressed interest in seeing concrete results of this dialogue.
The B.C. Rural Team, in partnership with the Community Futures Development Corporations, made an excellent effort in communicating with the B.C. rural youth. This report outlines the priorities and provides possible actions that B.C. youth, communities and government can take to address rural youth's problems. Local stakeholders, government, and the media have to work together in order to facilitate the growth of province's rural youth. Young people are the future of communities and must be recognized and treated as prospective rural community leaders. Their input is relevant and valuable to the process of building strong rural communities. Past research and the results of this project indicate that the key to the successful delivery of programs in rural areas is the involvement, empowerment, and co-ordination that the local grassroots organizations provide. Strong partnerships and excellent communication are the key building blocks of progress in developing strategies for rural youth, and lie within the reach of each community, region, and province. Establishing teams, such as the B.C. Rural Team, and utilizing the existing infrastructure, provided by CFDCs, will facilitate rural youth's development in the future.
|
