A vibrant city needs vital information to thrive

Eva Friesen is the President & CEO of The Calgary Foundation. This piece originally appeared in The Calgary Herald on October 29, 2009

Relative to many other cities in the world, Calgary is a dynamic young city that has seen a very high rate of growth, surging to over one million in just over a century. We pride ourselves on our ‘can do’ attitude, high level of education, employment opportunities, increasing cultural diversity, willingness to volunteer, and access to great parks and pathways. Others think of us as an economic powerhouse and globally, we rate very high for safety and livability.

Yet, in a recent survey, Calgarians gave their quality of life a “B” grade. While not a bad grade, the question remains, how can Calgary do better?

Earlier this month the Calgary Foundation released Calgary’s VitalSigns, our 2009 Citizens’ Report Card. Over 1,700 citizens and community partners contributed towards developing a snapshot of quality of life in Calgary. Unlike many report cards, not only does VitalSigns provide up to date statistics covering 12 key areas of quality of life in our city, but citizens are invited to grade these areas so that we can take the pulse of our city based on both the facts and perceptions of Calgarians.

Coming as it did in the middle of the worst economic downturn in 80 years, one might be excused for thinking that Calgarians were feeling less than bullish about their city this year.

Not so. Despite the tough economic times, citizen perception of the way things are did not drop in any of the report’s categories from last year’s scores. While this perhaps speaks to the genuine pride most Calgarians have in their city, as well as an undeniable drive to “tough things out”, it also speaks to the need to have solid information and continued citizen engagement about the results.

After all, while it is good that the grades were no worse this year, it should matter that we have seen sense of community belonging drop sharply, voter turnout continue to decline, charitable donations fall, and emergency room wait times increase.

Similarly, while Calgary’s unemployment rate remains one of the lowest in the country, it has doubled over the past year, resulting in higher food bank usage, more homelessness, a rise in personal bankruptcies and more high-risk calls to Distress Centre Calgary. Of course, the bad news is tempered by many areas that merit applause–assets to build upon as we look for ways to improve our overall performance.

This year these included the curbside recycling program, which will double the volume of material diverted from landfills; water conservation efforts that are on target to meet the city’s sustainable water use target by 2033; a violent crime rate that is much lower than the national average; high library usage; the highest score in the country for lifelong learning; and a 10-year plan to end homelessness that is on track to add 891 units of affordable housing by 2011.

These results speak to a pervasive need to have a different kind of conversation about what is really happening in our city. We need to ensure our actions are informed by the best information available, both factual and perceptual. Systems scientists call this feedback, and it should underpin any conversation about the real pulse of Calgary.

The power of good feedback is remarkable. For example, in a housing development in the Netherlands, electric meters were accidentally installed in the basements of some houses and in the front halls of otherwise identical houses. Electricity use in the houses where the meters were easily visible was 30 per cent more efficient than in the houses where the meters were out of sight. The only difference was the ability to effectively monitor what was going on. So, how can Calgary do better?

As we reflect on the vitality of our city–and the social, cultural, economic and environmental conditions that support or erode resilience– one response is to continue to improve the breadth and sophistication of how we monitor and celebrate our progress and how we work together to change course when necessary. Community engagement is vital to this process.

Two good upcoming examples are Bowness VitalSigns (PDF) and Youth VitalSigns (Spring 2010). These focused reports will seed conversations and increase our city’s capacity to address issues and celebrate success–and hopefully they will be role models for further innovation.

Early in the new year, The Calgary Foundation, in partnership with community partners, will be hosting Vital Conversations (PDF), dynamic community forums inviting citizen engagement around the results of the 2009 report and input toward development of the 2010 report.

Our ability to improve how we monitor our progress and measure what matters also rests on the availability of credible and relevant indicators. This can be a major barrier to telling the full story of quality of life in our city. For this reason, we are calling for opportunities to work collaboratively to identify and develop new and compelling indicators that will enhance our collective capacity to keep a keen eye on our performance.

While getting an “A” for quality of life may remain elusive for a while yet, The Calgary Foundation is committed to continuing to work with community partners to ensure we earn high marks for our combined efforts to monitor and respond to both the good news and challenges affecting quality in life in Calgary.

Our city deserves nothing less; a vital city needs vital information to thrive.

Making Guelph a better place

Jim Reid recently joined the Guelph Community Foundation as a volunteer. This piece was published in the Nov 13, 2009 edition of the Guelph Tribune.

Is Guelph “the most caring community in Canada”? Last year Maclean’s magazine gave our city this honour because we have more community volunteers per capita than any other city in the country.

I was surprised by this news, and then thankful that I live in a community where volunteers, churches, foundations and unsung heroes work to make Guelph a better place.

Guelph Community Foundation is one of these groups. Since its inception in 2000, the foundation has directed $1.3 million to community organizations that are working to make Guelph a better place to live. The foundation’s current assets are $6.4 million.

The Tribune reported in August that the foundation helped out to the tune of $127,000 in 2009. The Guelph Community Foundation provided these grants to 47 local charitable organizations in our city and Wellington County. The grants ranged from $500 to $40,961. The foundation also awarded an additional $50,000 as part of its Building Vital Communities, and poverty-related grants in September.

The Guelph Community Foundation is one of many community foundations across Canada that disburse hundreds of millions of dollars to worthy causes in the communities they serve.

The advantage of a community foundation is that it centralizes the administration, management, awarding and receipting of multiple grants from multiple donors to multiple recipients. The foundation’s board of directors in each community is drawn from community leaders and volunteers. The grants committee of the Guelph Community Foundation reviews and recommends the awarding of local grants. The grants are primarily awarded in these general categories: Arts and Culture, Children and Youth, Education, Environment, Health, Social Services, and Research and Development.

Guelph Community Foundation grants this year have helped out familiar groups such as Wyndham House and the Guelph Humane Society. They also assisted environmental organizations such as the Guelph Field Naturalists and the Grand River Conservation Foundation. The foundation placed grants from anonymous donors with the charity of their choice.

The Guelph Community Foundation also regularly circulates an online Vital Signs questionnaire to hundreds of Guelph and Wellington residents. The questions concern approximately 11 local issues such as poverty, education, crime and health.

The answers are collated into a report card format to provide a snapshot of the quality of life in Guelph, and the areas for improvement.

In conjunction with other charitable organizations, the foundation works toward making Guelph a better place over the course of the next year.

Late last month, the Canadian government declared Nov. 15 to be National Philanthropy Day. Locally, philanthropy means giving to make Guelph and Wellington a better place.

The Philanthropy Day celebration falls on Sunday this weekend. Wherever you are this Sunday, whether with friends, family or with someone you are helping through a difficult time, it may be a good day to be thankful.

Thankful that we live in Guelph, one of many caring communities in Canada.

Vital Signs determines key priorities in Waterloo Region

CFC’s Vital Signs Canada blog is featuring guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor is Rosemary Smith, CEO of The Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation

 What are the people of Waterloo Region most concerned about?  Where do we need to improve and what are we doing well?  Where should we, as a community, devote time and energy if we want to ensure that our Region is a healthy, vital place to live, work, play, and grow?

These are some of the questions that The Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation (KWCF) in partnership with the Cambridge & North Dumfries Community Foundation attempt to answer with the third Waterloo Region’s Vital Signs report.  Providing us with reliable and valid data, this learning tool has helped us identify key priorities important to the overall health of our Region.

For instance; low literacy and learning findings from the first two reports were behind The KWCF’s decision to make a $100,000 four-year commitment to the Pathways to Education program.  They were also behind this year’s strategic grant of supporting intergenerational family literacy with Project READ’s Get Set Learn 2 program.  In fact, in 2008, the largest grants made by The KWCF’s Community Fund went to support the top four priority areas outlined in the 2007 Vital Signs report: Arts & Culture, Housing, Health & Wellness, and Learning.

As community foundations, it is essential that we have a good understanding of the needs and trends of the communities we serve.  Whether it’s connecting donors to opportunities, making impactful grants, or providing leadership on issues of importance, we need to know what makes our community tick.

With each Vital Signs report we have gained a better understanding of the every day enjoyment and satisfaction experienced by those living in the Region of Waterloo.  In addition, each report has shown us that many of the quality of life issues being faced by our communities are interrelated.  For example: finding affordable housing can impact the number of people being forced to move further away and therefore effects both transportation and the environment by the number of cars on the road.  Having a vibrant arts community entices people to move to a city and directly impacts the health of the local economy.  Helping those less fortunate can lead to a decrease in health concerns and provide a stronger sense of belonging.

Waterloo Region’s Vital Signs is both a celebration and an important reality check. It provides us with an opportunity to keep an eye on the future. Using Vital Signs as a tool for learning, each year we highlight a few areas on which we think a closer look must be taken.  These areas help us to focus our grant making and support others in the work that they are doing.  This year’s areas included: a lack of spending from our regional, provincial, national, and private sectors in arts and culture, concerns over the fact that many of our residents do not eat the suggested five to 10 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, a declining elder poverty rate, that we have fewer child care spaces available for our families and that we lag behind the province with our investment in child care overall.

In conclusion, recognizing and understanding all of these connections is vital to everyone living and working in Waterloo Region.  Only by working together do we have the ability to create positive change where it’s needed most.

How is the Community Foundation of Ottawa engaging citizens on the issues raised in Vital Signs?

On Tuesday, October 20, the Community Foundation of Ottawa held Checkup 2009, a public event open to anyone wanting to participate in a community conversation based on the 2009 Ottawa’s Vital Signs report. Taking place in the auditorium of the Ottawa Public Library’s main branch, the two-hour event was moderated by Kathleen Petty (host of CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning), and led by a panel that consisted of Caroline Andrew (University of Ottawa professor and Director of the Centre on Governance), Ken Gray (Ottawa Citizen columnist and Editorial Board member), and Carl Nicholson (Executive Director of the Catholic Immigration Centre of Ottawa).

Attracting a capacity audience of close to 200 people, Checkup 2009 was indeed a lively discussion of Ottawa’s hot topics, as well as a number of issues that were true eye-openers for many people in the room, including the panelists and moderator. In one instance, a woman whose son was incarcerated for a year in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre awaiting trial tearfully described her own treatment as a visitor to the facility and her struggles to help her mentally ill son receive the medical attention he needed. Other passionately-articulated stories included those describing the ongoing difficulties faced by Ottawa’s physically disabled citizens in accessing public buildings, as well as those grappling with a lack of affordable housing and the growing gap between rich and poor in the city.

“This is what the Ottawa’s Vital Signs program is really all about,” says Barbara McInnes, President & CEO of the Community Foundation of Ottawa. “While the report is full of fascinating stats and data on everything from health and wellness to how people make their way around the city each day, it’s really only the beginning of an important discussion that needs to take place amongst the citizens of Ottawa. Checkup 2009 was a great opening to that conversation – the one about what kind of city we want to live in and how we’re going to make that vision a reality.”

Ken Gray – a highly knowledgeable and prolific writer on municipal affairs – was particularly taken with his experience as a Checkup panelist, later writing in his Ottawa Citizen blog: “Because journalists are, of necessity, a mile wide and an inch deep, I felt rather like a tricycle between two Ferraris trying to keep up with the two other panelists who actually know of what they speak. Nicholson discussed Ottawa sleeping through a revolution what with 22 per cent of the population in the city born in other lands. With the best voice since James Earl Jones and quoting Martin Luther King, Nicholson is very learned and impressive. Andrew has a depth of knowledge of political affairs that a city hall plodder like myself can only envy. She is so nice she can say you are full of beans and you thank her for it.” 

“Kathleen and all three panelists deserve a world of thanks for their contributions to this event,” responded Barbara, “and we think Ken’s pretty impressive, himself!”

Checkup 2009 was the first in a series of community conversations planned as part of the Ottawa’s Vital Signs program. Planning for the 2010 report will revolve significantly around ideas and feedback received at Checkup events in the early part of the year, to be followed by a similar reflection on the findings in the resulting report.

“From the beginning, Ottawa’s Vital Signs was designed as a vehicle to engage the entire community on issues of importance, and to stimulate public dialogue on how we can work together to improve the quality of life in our city,” says Barbara. “We expect the Checkup series to bring us even further along the way towards realizing that goal.” 

Ken Gray’s Checkup speech was published as his column the day after the event, and can be read here 

Read Ken’s blog about his experience as a panelist

Toronto: a city of “world class” contradictions

Throughout the month of October the Vital Signs Canada blog will feature guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor is Rahul Bhardwaj, President and CEO of the Toronto Community Foundation

A message to fellow Torontonians: take pride, our city is right up there at the top.

According to the 2008 MasterCard index of 75 leading global centres of commerce, we’re 13th in liveability and 4th in ease of doing business – in the world.

And when it comes to innovation we stack up even higher reaching second place in North America and among the top 20 cities globally. 

Our quality of life, says Mercer in its 2009 Quality of Living Survey, ranks 15th out of 215 global cities for the fourth year in a row. 

While we’ve not been spared the affects of the global recession, compared to other Canadian cities we’re doing quite well. Toronto is the second wealthiest city in the country after Vancouver, with an average household net worth of $562,000.

The Toronto Community Foundation’s annual Toronto’s Vital Signs® Report tells us all of this. It compiles volumes of independent pieces of research, both qualitative and quantitative, captures them across issue areas and tracks outcomes and trends. 

This year’s Report confirms our current standing.  We’re more prosperous.  We’re more creative.  We’re safer.  We’re greener.  We’re the full package.  We are – without doubt –“world class”.

But when we get beyond the blush of our international stature and we take a closer look, another Toronto emerges.

Our city is rated “seriously unaffordable”, ranking 190th internationally, and 29th in Canada, with median housing prices 4.8 times median household incomes. 

Toronto is approaching the same company as Italy and Japan – countries with the world’s oldest populations – when it comes to our Older Dependency Ratio – a measure of the pressure on a community as the population ages.

We are also in a country that ranks last among 14 western nations in spending on early learning, childcare, and kindergarten programs. 

We know that too many of us are much worse off than others – some having to choose whether to feed the family or pay the rent.

A family of four on social assistance in Toronto would need to spend 33% of its income on food and 72% on rent – yes, that’s more than they have and leaves nothing for other basic needs. More than 30% of children five and under in Toronto are in families that are below the Low Income Cut-off.

Access to affordable housing is increasingly out of reach.  In the mid-1990s there were two low-income families for every one moderate-rent market unit of suitable size.  By 2006, there were seven such families for every one unit.

Toronto has the highest proportion of seniors in the GTA and nearly double the Ontario rate of low income seniors. More seniors are living alone, cut off from family and community.

The youth unemployment rate surpassed 20% in June 2009, up 5% in just one year and 4% higher than the national rate. There are almost twice as many youth gangs as in 2000.

What’s even more startling is the sweeping shift in income levels across our neighbourhoods.  In 1970, 66% of Toronto neighbourhoods were middle income.  In 2005, just 29% were classified as middle income, and by 2025 it is projected to be just 20%, most having slid down the economic ladder.

This is the unvarnished picture of the Toronto of today.  What does it tell us about the city of tomorrow?

Young families will choose other cities where the cost of living is lower and affordable housing is available.

Toronto may not be able to count on much needed immigration to support our declining population and workforce because newcomers won’t have a fair chance to succeed. 

The number of middle income neighbourhoods will have been significantly eroded, and the widening gap between rich and poor will reduce social cohesion increasing the risk of further disengagement and crime. 

We will not be competitive in the knowledge economy because we did not invest in early learning.

Clearly, all this calls for a plan because the fine balance that is Toronto is much better kept than recovered.

At the Toronto Community Foundation we believe in our city.  We believe that the knowledge and creativity that rank us so high internationally give us the tools to ensure a different and better future.

Now is the time to put our much praised innovation to use, to harness all our unique advantages and direct them towards finding new solutions to the challenges faced by our city. We need to create a more efficient city that can withstand the inevitable shifts ahead.  We must invest more in education and youth, in particular.  We must demand our governments lead with policies that go beyond their own narrow electoral horizon.  We must move beyond the here and now and invest in the Torontonians of tomorrow. And above all, we must not forget what makes this city “world class” are its people – all of them

New times, new tools

Throughout the month of October the Vital Signs Canada blog will feature guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor is Faye Wightman, President and CEO of the Vancouver Foundation

 In 2009, Vancouver Foundation took part in the Vital Signs initiative, but we tried something different.

Many of the young people involved in our organization were interested in Vital Signs, but felt it didn’t accurately represent their perceptions, and their experience of life in Vancouver. They wanted something that had more of a youth perspective. So, for the first time, we supported a Vital Signs that was specifically designed for, and by, young people.

Youth Vital Signs (YVS) was a year-long, youth-driven research and public opinion initiative that gave a fresh voice to Vancouver youth aged 15 to 24.

We captured the experiences of Vancouver youth through a public survey and a separate mobile text survey. We also analyzed census data and gathered youth stories.

The results of YVS were markedly different from the ‘typical’ Vital Signs in some cases, and in others, remarkably similar. One thing that stood out was young people’s enthusiasm at being consulted – 1,700 filled out the on-line survey or a hard copy version, and 3,000 responded to the text survey.

Many of their answers showed that they were far more optimistic about the future than adults in some ways, and in others, far more pessimistic. They brought up different concerns — especially around personal safety and the environment.

For highlights, or more detail, you can see the whole Youth Vital Signs report at   www.youthvitalsigns.ca

We learned many things through this process. We learned that youth have strong opinions, good ideas and a concern for the future of their community. We learned that there are many decision-makers who want to know how youth experience the world, and are willing to provide support and resources to make sure youth are heard.

We also learned that if we want to reach youth, we need to use their tools. Most polling companies don’t include people under 18 in their polls. Even if they did, it might not be effective, as many young people use cell phones rather than land lines. This means that youth are not usually included in the traditional public opinion research that is used to shape policy and investment decisions.

To overcome this, the YVS project contacted a local leader in powering mobile communities and wireless social networking. The company issued a five-question poll by text message to its 15- 24-year-old clients, with dramatic results — 3,000 replies were received in a single day.

While the results of this kind of poll are not statistically valid (because it’s not a random sample) the response rate was huge and fast. It showed that youth are willing to share their opinions and can be reached very quickly, if you use their preferred communication tools.

At Vancouver Foundation, we learned that, if we are serious about our concern for the world we leave our children, we should ask them what kind of world they want.

Youth Vital Signs survey showed us that — whether they are part of an ethnic minority; gay or straight; a new immigrant or someone who has lived here their entire life; whether they live with their parents or in foster care – young people all want a roof over their head, safety on the streets, equal opportunities for education, a green and livable city, and a voice on the future of their community.

(* thanks to Lynne Slotek and her blog entry of October 15 for the paraphrased title).

Spotlight on Income Inequality

Throughout the month of October the Vital Signs Canada blog will feature guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor Lynne Slotek, CEO, Institute of Wellbeing and National Project Director, Canadian Index of Wellbeing.

In Vital Signs most recent report, ‘total income’ is the indicator used to provide a snapshot on ‘The Gap Between Rich and Poor‘. According to Vital Signs, “income inequality in Canada has grown over the past 25 years, through both bad and good economic times… and the current economic challenges run the risk of worsening the trend.”

Recessions are a difficult way to learn a lesson. Still, there’s one thing that the current economic meltdown has taught us, and that is to question the notion that all growth is a sign of progress. The “growth is good” concept is one that has been increasingly reinforced by the dominance of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – a tool that was invented in the Great Depression and has often been misused as a surrogate for quality of life.

New times call for new measures. We need to adopt a new paradigm for the way we measure our wellbeing and think about ourselves and our world. Just as Vital Signs shines a light on the quality of life of communities, the Institute of Wellbeing with its signature product, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW), is designed to do that at the national level.

One of the key goals of the Institute of Wellbeing is to connect the dots between Canadians’ public policy decisions and quality of life (measured by indicators) – to promote a new understanding of wellbeing and the interrelated factors that contribute to it; and to encourage policy makers to make evidence-based decisions that respond to the values and needs of Canadians.

In its First Report, How are Canadians Really doing? the CIW drew attention to the dynamic interactions among income, health and education. People with higher incomes and education tend to live longer, are less likely to have diabetes and other chronic conditions, and are consistently more likely to report excellent or very good health. “The stark reality”, the report says “is that household income continues to be the best predictor of future health status. This is true in all age groups and for both women and men.” For policy shapers and decision makers, it highlights the need to confront disparities in education and health, in addition to income in order to come up with real and sustainable solutions for poverty reduction.

The CIWs First Report‘s message also clearly demonstrated that “the poor stayed poor”. The poverty gap – the amount of money by which the average poor family fell short of the poverty line – was the same in 2007 as it was in 1981. At the same time, “the rich got richer”. The after-tax income of the top 20 percent of households rose 38.7 percent from 1981-2007 while the increases for all other income groups were between 21.4 and 25.8 percent.

The recession is not helping. In July 2009, the Institute of Wellbeing, released a Special Report, The Economic Crisis through the Lens of Economic Wellbeing. The report comments that the current recession will erase many of the economic and standard of living gains made since the mid-1990s. Unemployment and poverty will likely continue to rise and stay at high levels for years. The report points out that there has been a great loss of income since the onset of the recession and the hardest hit have been the bottom 20 percent of households. Based on previous recessions, the report predicts that unemployment will likely peak at around 10 percent in 2010 and the poverty rate will rise to 13.2 percent in 2010.

There is a wealth of information on income inequality in this country. About 11.4 percent of the total population, or nearly 3.5 million Canadians, including nearly 880,000 children aged 17 years and under, lived in low-income in 2005 (Statistics Canada 2008b). According to the OECD (2008), both inequality and poverty rates in Canada are now higher than the OECD average. The Senate of Canada, Subcommittee on Cities (2008) reported that “labour force participation is no longer enough to keep Canadians out of poverty.” And Food Banks Canada (2008) report that nearly 15 percent of food bank users in Canada get all their income from work and still aren’t able to care for and feed their family. Despite all of this, in June 2009, Canada rejected the UN Human Rights Council recommendation for the development of a national strategy to eliminate poverty.

So, what does this mean for policy application? The Institute’s Living Standards report links changes in the income inequality of Canadians with specific government public policy decisions. Some policy decisions have been harmful to wellbeing, such as changes to Employment Insurance and the significantly lower Welfare Benefits in 2007 than in 1986. On the other hand, the introduction of the Child Tax Credit and the National Child Benefits Supplement in the mid 90s, has provided additional income to poor working families and has lowered the poverty rate for this group somewhat – a good start towards Canadian wellbeing.

We can learn from these examples of policy decisions. The CIW, Community Foundations of Canada, other partners, and concerned Canadians, are engaging in dialogue to discover new possibilities. Sometimes, confronted with the need for significant and immediate change to complex problems, we fall back on band-aid solutions. To do so, means that we will still be looking at the same challenges or worse, come the next recession. Instead, let’s find innovative and sustainable solutions that confront root problems in integrated ways.

Read today’s commentary about the survey results in the Globe and Mail

Today’s Globe & Mail features our two-page Canada’s Vital Signs insert which features Vital Signs stories from across the country and the results of CFC’s new public opinion survey about quality of life in our communities, conducted by Environics Research Group.

Download the PDF version of the insert.

Read today’s commentary about the survey results, featured in the online edition of today’s Globe and Mail, written by Monica Patten, CFC’s President and CEO and Michael Adams of Environics, (below)

Quality of life differs based on community size

Throughout the month of October the Vital Signs Canada blog will feature guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor is Michael Adams, Environics Research, and Monica Patten, President and CEO of Community Foundations of Canada. This piece was also published in the Oct. 14 online edition of The Globe and Mail.

Toronto Mayor David Miller might be the only prominent figure in history to leave a high-powered job claiming he wants to spend more time with his family—and actually mean it. Explaining his decision not to run for a third term as mayor, Miller discussed in detail the moments of his kids’ lives he had missed during his six years at the reins of Canada’s largest city, and said that his first post-mayoral gig will be to serve as assistant coach to his 14-year-old daughter’s soccer team.

The public might have been forgiven for initially assuming, “I need more time with my family,” was code for, “I am tired of trying to run a 21st century city in a 19th century system.” Like many societies around the world, Canada has urbanized at a tremendous rate over the last century. According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of the Canadian population living in urban regions was 80 percent in 2006—a dramatic shift from the start of the 20th century, when just 37 percent of us lived in urban regions. Moreover, the demographics of our cities have changed radically: once dominated by people of European heritage, they are now populated by immigrants and the descendants of immigrants from everywhere on the planet, including increasing numbers of Aboriginal peoples.

Many of our systems—political, economic, infrastructural—have had a hard time keeping pace with this massive demographic shift. Mayor Miller was handling not only the ordinary managerial issues that face any municipal leader (a city workers’ strike over the summer was one recent hurdle) but also the broader systemic challenge of leading a fast-growing city with one of the most diverse populations on earth, while wielding very little power to generate revenue or fund advances in areas like planning, transit, and infrastructure. Citizens watch in dismay as their mayors implore senior governments for a share of their own tax dollars, like children begging for candy, and wonder who is to blame in this perennial charade.

A recent survey of Canadian public attitudes suggests that people living in Canada’s larger cities are less satisfied with local quality of life than people living in smaller towns—a finding that may suggest this country’s urbanites are feeling the lag between what their cities need in order to thrive and what existing systems are able to provide.

In August, 2009, Community Foundations of Canada commissioned Environics to survey Canadians about the quality of life they experience in their communities across the country. The survey found that Canadians are generally very pleased with the quality of life they enjoy locally. Nearly nine in ten describe quality of life where they live as at least good, and over a third (36%) describe it as excellent. But there is a notable variation by community size in the quality of life Canadians report. Among those in communities of fewer than 5,000 residents, 43 percent rate local quality of life as excellent, as compared to 32 percent of those in cities of 100,000 people or more.

Life in smaller towns isn’t perfect: Canadians in smaller centres report a greater sense of urgency about revitalizing their local economies and obtaining better health care close to home. But overall, residents of smaller towns are not only more satisfied today, they also have more confidence that their local leaders are capable of making the changes necessary to improve life in their communities over time.

When Canadians are asked about their confidence in various forms of leadership, they say they have the greatest faith in the leaders of charities and community organizations to make a positive difference in their communities. Three quarters of Canadians (77%) have at least some confidence in those in the charitable sector, while business leaders (70%), and elected municipal leaders (63%) inspire less—but still majority—confidence. One in two Canadians (50%) sees local religious leaders as likely to improve local quality of life. But here again we find notable differences between big-city residents and people in smaller towns: Canadians in communities of 5,000 people or fewer express higher levels of confidence in every type of local leadership.

Do small-town leaders inspire greater trust because, rooted in smaller communities, they are more likely to know their voters, customers, donors, and spiritual adherents personally? Probably. But it’s also likely that small-town leaders really are more equal to the challenges of their local communities because the challenges of small towns have not changed as rapidly as those of big cities, which are more likely to be sites of immigrant integration challenges, transportation conundrums, pandemic threats, organized crime, large-scale waste and energy issues, and other pressing contemporary worries.

Recognizing that the challenges our cities face are immense and urgent, leaders from a range of backgrounds and sectors have begun to tackle urban issues with new seriousness. These leaders recognize that urbanization has caused a seismic change in the way Canadians relate to each other and engage with the state—and that cities can’t wait for provincial or federal powers to make the necessary changes.

The Maytree Foundation, for instance, has called for more power and autonomy for Canadian cities, and launched the C5 initiative, which brings together the mayors and civil society leaders of Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal to share information and ideas. Community foundations in Canada are active partners with Maytree, along with a  host of other community-based organizations.  As well,  local community foundations are currently working to advance a range of important projects with other partners, from a city-wide poverty-reduction project in Hamilton to targeted education programs in some of Winnipeg’s poorest neighbourhoods. Some urban solutions are coming from government, but many—as ordinary Canadians seem to have already whiffed—are coming from business and civil-society organizations that are less constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and systemic inertia.

As Canada’s big cities continue to grow, and a dwindling oil supply suggests that density may be the only way forward, we will need all the help we can get in finding ways to make our urban centres wonderful places to live, work and participate—for mayors, kids, assistant soccer coaches, and everyone else.

The Importance of Aboriginal Education

Throughout the month of October the Vital Signs Canada blog will feature guest bloggers who are experts on various aspects of community vitality. Today’s contributor is Dr. Andrew Sharpe, Executive Director of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards.

Canada’s Aboriginal population is in crisis. In 2007, the National Council of Welfare concluded that, “To date, no governmental response has made major inroads into the issues” faced by Aboriginal people. Improving the social and economic well-being of the Aboriginal population is not only a moral imperative; it is a sound investment which will pay substantial dividends in the coming decades. Aboriginal education must be a key component in any such effort.

In recognition of the educational challenges facing Canada’s aboriginal population, the Vital Signs initiative led by Community Foundations of Canada this year selected the aboriginal high school completion rate as one of the 10 core indicators to be used in the Vital Signs reports released by 16 community foundations across the county. The objective of this article is to highlight some of this key facts and issues related to aboriginal education, building on research that the Centre for the Study of Living Standards has conducted for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Sharpe et al, 2007 and Sharpe et al, 2009).

The importance of the Aboriginal population for Canada and the Canadian economy is best exemplified by these key observations:

• In 2006, the Aboriginal identity population made up 4.0 per cent of the Canadian population, with 1,311,200 persons.
• The Aboriginal population is much younger than the average Canadian, with a median age in 2006 of only 26.5 years, compared to 39.5 years for all Canadians.
• Aboriginal Canadians aged 15 and over have a much lower educational attainment than their non-Aboriginal counterparts with 43.7 per cent not holding any certificate, diploma or degree in 2006, compared to 23.1 per cent for other Canadians.
• As a result, the labour market outcomes for Aboriginal Canadians are significantly inferior to the Canadian average. In 2006, Aboriginal Canadians had lower incomes, a higher unemployment rate, a lower participation rate, and a lower employment rate.
• Aboriginal people with a high school diploma or higher had significantly better labour market outcomes, both in absolute terms and relative to non-Aboriginal Canadians than those who did not.
• In 2026, using the medium growth projection for Aboriginal and the General population, the Aboriginal population is projected to make up 4.6 per cent of the Canadian population.

Given these observations, Canada’s Aboriginal population could play a key role in mitigating the looming long term labour shortage caused by Canada’s ageing population and low birth rate. The potential contribution of the Aboriginal population to Canadian labour force and employment growth could be even larger than predicted by simple demographic trends because their participation and employment rates currently lag far behind the Canadian average. Indeed, if Aboriginal participation and employment rates reach 2006 non-Aboriginal levels by 2026, it is projected that the Aboriginal population will account for 19.9 per cent of labour force growth and 22.1 per cent of employment growth over the 2006-2026 period. In other words, if in 2026 Aboriginal people experienced the same labour market outcomes as non-Aboriginal people did in 2006, the Aboriginal share of the Aboriginal population to the Canadian labour force would nearly double by 2026. This equates to nearly 200,000 additional productive Canadian workers.

Given that educational attainment is one of the key driver of participation and employment rates, there are clear incentives for the Canadian government to make Aboriginal education a priority. If in fact Aboriginal education were not prioritized, the drag on Canadian productivity caused by below average Aboriginal education will grow as the Aboriginal population’s share of Canada’s labour force increases over time.

CSLS research has concluded the following.

• Education is by far the most important determinant of labour market outcomes, and also plays a preeminent role improving social outcomes.
• Given the demographic structure of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, Aboriginal people will undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping the economic future of Canada, and in particular that of the Western provinces.
• As a result, if businesses are to thrive in the environment of limited labour supply that is currently developing in Canada, they will need to integrate an increasing number of Aboriginal people into the labour force. If these individuals do not possess the necessary skills, businesses will suffer.
• In addition, the long-term fiscal impact for governments of better education and better social outcomes for the Aboriginal population are massive. If government want to deal with looming fiscal issues, addressing the pressing needs of Aboriginal today may be part of the solution.
• Finally, increased education can have dynamic effect on the leadership capacity of the Aboriginal community and therefore may underestimate the contribution of increased education of Aboriginal Canadians to future output and productivity growth. Better educated Aboriginal Canadians will be more effective leaders and thereby provide better direction for the economic development of Aboriginal communities.

Investing in disadvantaged children is one of the rare public policy with no equity-efficiency tradeoff. Increasing the number of Aboriginal Canadians who complete high school is a low-hanging fruit with far-reaching and considerable economic and social benefits for Canadians.

The key message is clear: investing in Aboriginal education will not only benefit the Aboriginal population itself, but will also benefit Canadian governments and businesses, and, by extension, the entire Canadian population. Increased output will drive up productivity which is the key driver of our standard of living. Furthermore, decreased government cost and increased government revenue will provide Canadian government with the fiscal flexibility needed to cut taxes, increase services or reduce debt.

References

• National Council of Welfare, (2007). “First Nations, Métis and Inuit Children and Youth: Time to Act” available online at http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/ResearchProjects/FirstNationsMétisInuitChildrenAndYouth/2007Report-TimeToAct/ReportENG.pdf
• Sharpe, Andrew, Jean-Francois Arsenault and Simon Lapointe (2007) “The Potential Contribution of Aboriginal Canadians to Labour Force, Employment, Productivity and Output Growth in Canada, 2001-2017,” CSLS Research Report No. 2007-6, November. http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2007-04.PDF
• Sharpe, Andrew, Jean-Francois Arsenault, Simon Lapointe and Fraser Cowan (2009) “The Effect of Increasing Aboriginal Educational Attainment on the Labour Force, Output and the Fiscal Balance, ” CSLS Research Report No. 2009-3, May. http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2009-3.pdf