A rchive Date
[ 26-05-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/lehotsky.html
Practicality, not politics, should rule social welfare
By REV. HARRY LEHOTSKY -- Winnipeg Sun
May 25, 2003
Last week I received several calls from media requesting comments on the "poverty-platforms" of parties involved in the upcoming election.
Unfortunately, political approaches to poverty will always frustrate personal and practical solutions.
Most responses to poverty are driven by ideology rather than individual assessments and personal interaction. Most policies and pronouncements originate with people who don't live in neighbourhoods such as mine.
Some folks insist or insinuate that all people on welfare are bums. From their perspective, every poor person should pull themselves up by his or her bootstraps, quit complaining and quit sucking tax dollars. Others insist that all people still receiving welfare are helpless and unemployable. From their perspective, there is no welfare fraud, and every "able-bodied" person is anxious to work.
In my neighbourhood, I work with a different definition of "able-bodied." If a person can trek from the bank to the beer vendor and haul a 24 back to their apartment, I figure he's able-bodied. If he's working the streets, running with gangs and crack dealers or applying graffiti, I figure he's able-bodied and creative as well.
Many of these people, however, would provide more harm than help for workfare volunteer sites. The question is not whether the body is able but whether the attitude is willing.
Deeper problem
At a recent community meeting a representative of an employment program commented on the deeper problem.
"It's not that there aren't jobs out there. It's not even that people don't have skills. The companies I'm talking about will take time to train them. The most serious problem is attitude."
The attitudes manifest themselves in comments like, "I could make more staying at home." Alternately, "I won't work at something that's beneath me." "I don't like people telling me what to do." "I don't see why I can't set my own hours, as long as I do the work." "I don't like some of the people I work with." "I was only late a few times (three times in one week) and I don't know why they're so ticked off with me." "I don't need the grief."
The problem with "one-size-fits all" pronouncements of social policy is that one approach doesn't fit all people. Welfare or workfare pronouncements don't adequately address all situations. Neither has addressed the two examples which follow.
There's a sniff house just north of Ellice Avenue on Sherbrook Street. The many inhabitants (guests and residents) of that house are causing lots of trouble for the majority of good folks on the block. Smashed car windows, aggressive panhandling, intimidating loitering, urinating in public. These folks are a nuisance to themselves and others.
Welfare cheques going into that little house aren't spent at the grocery store. Residents are consistently dumpster-diving for meals at local restaurants and convenience stores. I don't understand how social services can fuel their destructive behaviour and pretend it's not their problem.
I'm not sure how workfare would work but I know that the social welfare cheque isn't promoting social welfare either!
Public assistance
Then there's the little 540-square-foot house on Maryland that just got cleared out this week. The landlord isn't bad, just out of town. A woman was living there and receiving public assistance for her three kids and five dogs. Then came the puppies. The kids, all under 12, were often unattended and ran roughshod in the neighbourhood. The next thing we noticed were the six security cameras mounted around the property, covering every possible means of access to the house. A relative's trailer parked at the rear of the house was drawing power and water from the house. Utility payments were skipped.
As more people complained about the property, they made arrangements to move. They didn't tell the landlord they were moving. They didn't tell the landlord they weren't paying bills. Welfare kept sending cheques without checking whether the money was used as claimed. Cops, Child and Family Services and Animal Control Services were notified of problems. Without notifying the landlord, welfare provided rent for the family to move. They'll continue their trail of destruction -- all the while funded by social services.
Workers sometimes compound the problems. Sometimes they harass compliant clients while neglecting chronic abusers of the system.
Many people are really in need of social assistance and don't abuse the system at all. Shelter allowances are woefully inadequate -- for tenants and for the landlords who are expected to provide well-maintained accommodations for artificially depressed rents. Communication with landlords is horrible. Social welfare of addicts is consistently neglected.
It's high time we got less political and more practical about poverty.
Rev. Harry Lehotsky is a founding member of New Life Ministries on Maryland Street. His column appears Sundays.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@wpgsun.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]]
|