Putting an End to Homelessness

Whether it is the direct impact of living in shelters/on the streets, or the threat of losing their home due to issues of poverty, the issue of homelessness affects many individuals throughout Canada. Homelessness in Canada has been growing and is a major issue which is more often than not related to issues of poverty; Laird cites that lack of income and cost of housing are currently the main causes of poverty leading to homelessness (2007, p. 5). There is no exact number to define how many people in Canada are homeless, however it is estimated that there exists somewhere between 200 000 and 300 000 homeless people living across Canada (Laird, 2007, p. 4). The current policies in place, or lack thereof, are not addressing the core issues of homelessness; I will discuss the reasons behind homelessness, how the government has been addressing the issue, and throughout stating the ways in which social democrats view homelessness and how they would address the issue.

                While the many factors that lead to homelessness are typically created by poverty, homelessness can exacerbate poverty; unemployment, addictions, mental illnesses, conflict with the justice system, family problems, and lack of income security can become intensified (Laird, 2007, p. 5). Homelessness thereby creates further problems within the social system. Laird’s research found that all-in-all homelessness costs Canada upwards of $4.5 billion dollars annually (2007, p.5). The problem with this cost is that the money is being placed towards band-aid measures of dealing with homelessness, instead of directly attacking homelessness at its social roots; money addressing homelessness is being spent on a range of emergency programs and services. This emergency type of response is not reducing poverty but instead is covering up the larger issue, and costing citizens more in the long run.

The social democratic paradigm views homelessness as a product of social conflict; poverty and homelessness are forms of oppression used by those whose interests are reflected in the government (Mullaly, 2007, p. 127). The problem then exists because of the way the state is organized; the state reflects the interests of the rich and must be reorganized to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor (Mullaly, 2007, p.127). Once the state has been reorganized, it may then be able to properly address the issue of homelessness. The reorganization of the state would create the focus on the promotion of the collective good. The state should be the agent concerned with redistributing benefits and resources to those who need it, rather than those who deserve it; the promotion of equality of condition then is a major priority which includes living conditions, meaning that everyone should be entitled to have a safe and habitable roof over their head (Mullaly, 2007, p. 123-126).

Work conducted by Gaetz and Laird, recognize that homelessness is the product of economic structural changes and government policies that have cut social supports (2010; 2007). Their reports call for a reformed system (a social democratic system) in order to effectively eliminate homelessness; this would include a major shift in thinking and a reformation of current structural conditions.  As social workers this is an ideal that we strive towards; by addressing the root causes of poverty and implementing policies that address homelessness, this empowers those who are homeless to have the equality of condition that is needed to take advantage of other opportunities to help them grow.

The creation of a better social welfare focused state needs to include income security, a greater investment in affordable housing and the implementation of supportive policy reforms. I believe that a long-term solution is needed to transform the current state of homelessness across Canada, and a shift towards the social democratic paradigm is exactly what is needed to empower all individuals and form an accountable collective. The humanitarian aspect of the social democratic paradigm reflects the goals of social work, treating all individuals with respect and dignity and promoting social justice for all. Homelessness can be erradicated through the implementation of this paradigm to the social welfare system because it is the paradigm  through which social work is founded since it is able to address social welfare issues like homelessness.

Kirsten

 


References

Gaetz, S. (2010). The struggle to end homelessness in Canada: How we created the crisis, and how we can end it. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 3, 21-26.

Laird, G. (2007). Shelter - Homelessness in a growth economy: Canada's 21st century paradox. Calgary: Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership.

Mullaly, B. (2007). The social democratic paradigm. In The new structural social work (3rd ed., pp. 114-137). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Tough on Crime? Try Tough on Poverty.

Those who live in poverty are overrepresented in many categories of society; this is also true with regards to their representation within the criminal justice system. Although there is no current statistical data that directly demonstrates a correlation between poverty and crime, it is known that poverty is a strong risk factor for explaining criminal activity (Bunge et al., 2005, p.20). The “tough on crime” stance that is associated with the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, fails to take into account the causes of crime but rather seeks to punish those who commit crimes; the Conservative’s increased budget for the expansion of prisons across Canada will be the focus of this post and how it will affect those living in poverty.

The founding principles of the Conservative party strongly promote individuality; it is the individual’s responsibility to provide for themselves, to take the initiative in their own lives. The Conservative party thereby mimics the neoconservative paradigm in the strong promotion of individuality. What’s more, this notion of individuality promotes the notion that individuals choose to pursue their own self-interest, and that those individuals who require social welfare programs are therefore only needing them because they choose to not participate in the economic society. The limited support of welfare programs then, is a measure that prevents individuals from abusing the system (Mullaly, 2007, p. 82); this ideology can and does harm those living in poverty, in many ways. Neoconservatives take the view that social welfare programing is the cause, not the solution, of many social problems that currently plague society, including crime (Mullaly, 2007, p. 73). The neoconservative paradigm does not take into account that those living in poverty are not doing so because it is of their own choosing, but rather because the society in which we live does not promote the equality of access to opportunities as much as it should.

As previously mentioned, the neoconservative paradigm takes a “law and order” approach to crime control, which is intended to produce and maintain a stable society (Mullaly, 2007, p. 81); this law and order approach is similar to the Conservative “tough-on-crime” campaign. The Conservative “tough-on-crime” campaign has produced new legislations, sentencing provisions and policies that are aimed at increasing the scope of the justice system by increasing the length of sentences for criminals. The Conservatives have now vowed to expand prisons across Canada to “help keep dangerous criminals behind bars” (2011); see the CBC article More prisons to be expanded.

While there are many individual and environmental factors that may have an impact on crime rates within cities,the research conducted by Kitchen found that there does in fact exist a correlation between higher rates of crime and a higher incidence of socio-economic disadvantage (2006, p. 85).  Since there does exist a link between those who are socio-economically disadvantaged and crime rates, it may be assumed that the large portion of individuals convicted of crimes have been affected by poverty. To take this one step further, Bunge et al. found that “cities or communities populated by disadvantaged minority groups tend to have low levels of social cohesion and informal social control among residents which can help avert or prevent crime” (2005, p.44); this in turn can be applied to poverty in that, poverty disassociates individuals from feeling as though they are part of a larger collective that works together to support one another. When the individual does not feel bonded to the larger society, they may turn against the accepted forms of behaviour out of need or frustration.

The problem with this newest tough-on-crime approach is that it fails to recognize that these “dangerous criminals” are few and far between. Evidence from the 2007 Juristat noted that violent crime accounts for only 13% of crimes and that this percentage has reached its lowest rate in 20 years (Dauvergne, 2007, p. 4). Furthermore, the Juristat also found that police reported crime overall had reached its lowest level since 1977 (Dauvergne, 2007, p. 2). Going by these statistics, crime then has been decreasing over years, which brings into question the Conservative government’s push to increase the amount of prison beds.

While I agree that any amount of crime is too much crime, I believe that the Conservative means of solving this problem is merely covering up the underlying root of crime; poverty. The statistics and research that has been presented bring into question the need for the expansion of prisons; rather than spending more money on prisons, government should be spending the money on decreasing poverty, by attacking its root causes. Results from Kitchen’s study found that if all levels of government work together, then “the goal should be to improve the standard of living of Aboriginal [peoples] and Non-Aboriginal [peoples] living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and over time to reduce levels of violence and contact with the justice system” (2006, p.69). If the Conservative government intends on getting tough-on-crime, perhaps they should look at the statistics and research that’s been done in this area rather than base their policies purely on political (neoconservative) ideologies. The best way to fight crime should be to fight the poverty that causes it.

Kirsten

Bibliography

Bunge, V. P., Johnson, H., & Balde, T. A. (2005). Crime and Justice Research Paper Series: Exploring crime patterns in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

CBC News. (2011, January 10). More Prisons to be Expanded. CBC News. Canada.

Dauvergne, M. (2007). Juristat. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

Kitchen, P. (2006). Exploring the Link between Crime and Socio-Economic Status in Ottawa and Saskatoon: a small-area geographical analysis. Department of Justice Canada: Research and Statistics Division.

Mullaly, B. (2007). The Neo-Conservative Paradigm. In The New Structural Social Work (3rd ed., pp. 70-90). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Homeless Left in the Cold

Neo-conservatives have a very strong view about poverty and people with social problems. They believe that everyone should provide for their own needs through working, saving money and finding housing. However, if people do not carry out these tasks they are considered to be lazy, inferior and are at high risk to encounter problems. They believe that people’s problems are of their own making and when they are in trouble or ill it is up to the family to provide help. People do not deserve help from the government or other hard working citizens. Neo-conservatives believe helping those who cannot help themselves reinforces a poor work ethic, dependence on government and discourages people from helping themselves. Social problems are personal problems and are attributed to individual weakness, deviance, genetics and the person’s dysfunctional family. The focus is on the individual and the family as the source of the problem. This view does not consider the impact of the larger social environment on personal problems. Neo-conservatives are hostile towards social welfare. They believe the services provided by the state weaken familiar sources such as the family and churches. Therefore, providing welfare weakens people’s ability to provide for themselves over the long term (Mullaly, 2007).

An article entitled Cutbacks leave homeless in the cold discusses how the amount of help to the homeless has been reduced by the government decreasing the amount of shelter beds in Vancouver. This article is about how the government of British Columbia has decided to cut support for temporary homeless shelters in the city. Although they have opened new low rental housing units there are four shelters the province has chosen not to support. Social advocates explain that the need for temporary shelters is still there. Their concern is based on a prediction of a cold winter for Vancouver and there is the fear that some homeless people will be on the streets trying to survive this winter. The government is not listening to the people who are advocating keeping the shelters open. Their argument is the number of homeless people on the streets has decreased (Mickleburgh, 2011). This article represents neo-conservatism because the government is cutting some of their help towards the homeless people and not helping to provide for their needs. It follows the idea that social problems are individual problems.

From a social work perspective the government cutting back support on homeless shelters is putting vulnerable people at risk. The profession of social work believes in humanitarianism, community and equality of all people. Social workers would be critical of the government removing support because they support government intervention in society. They advocate for social justice and believe that social priorities should dominate economic decisions (Mullaly, 2007). The government’s solution of providing low rental housing might not provide for the same demographic group as those using the shelters. The people going into low rental housing generally have more resources than many of those using homeless shelters. Social workers would support these people’s transitions. However, they would see that the homeless need places to sleep and they cannot provide for themselves. Social workers support humanitarianism which means improving the lives of other people. They would not agree with the government cutting back their support because some people may be left outside without beds and shelter. This action is not building a sense of community but rather division. The government should see the poor as a priority and not remove their support of the shelters. The field of social work values all people should be treated with respect and dignity. The government should participate to help those people who are unable to help themselves. I believe that the government should not cut back their support for shelters because as a result some people will not have places to stay for the night out of the cold during the winter. In this article the government is not listening to the needs of the people. They are making changes that are not improving some people’s lives but instead are creating obstacles. The most vulnerable people’s health may be in danger. This action is not looking out for their wellbeing and best interest.

References

Mickleburgh, R. (2011, October 11). Cutbacks leave homeless in the cold. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/cutbacks-leave-homeless-in-the-cold/article2198067/

Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Lori