Charity Cannot Fix Canada's Affordable Housing crisis
Our esteemed host on the Burd Report today asked why Habitat for Humanity has become such a popular organization, crammed with A-list volunteers and boosters, along with government at all levels.
The answer becomes apparent when we think about how charitable groups operate and how they are different from government mandated social programs that are applied with standard eligibility criteria across the board.
All charities, particularly Habitat, continually promote their dedication to helping "deserving families". The ugly term "deserving children" is even heard, as if any child could be undeserving of basic needs. But the charity gets to decide what deserving means and exactly who meets that criteria. Contrast that with social programs which start from the premise that everyone who meets the well known financial criteria qualifies for the program.
The key difference is our social programs are based on our beliefs in equality and justice. If a need has been established and it is the government's mandate to meet that need, impartial standards are set to ensure fairness in the program's application. That doesn't solve the problem of sometimes lengthy waiting lists, but does guarantee everybody is treated the same.
But the charity has too much power that often goes unchallenged. Those rejected as "undeserving" are often not told why, and certainly don't have the appeal rights a rejected applicant to a government program enjoys. The charity calls all the shots.
That's a major reason charities are loved by right wing groups like the Fraser Institute. They point out in one of their books by Chris Sarlo that the beauty of charity is that one can withdraw support if one decides they don't like what the charity is doing. Like maybe helping someone the donor deems to be undeserving. United Way worries about that and encourages their agencies to keep donor happiness at the top of the pinnacle, even having a role in what kind of services the agencies can provide.
Our friends at the Fraser Insititute actually advocate that government get out of providing social programs altogether, and let charities take over completely. That way they can weed out the undeserving and ensure all help provided is based on undefined standards set by the privileged donor set.
This battle between the principles of charity and justice has been raging since government in civilised countries began making provisions for the disadvantaged, reducing the role of the church parrish in doling out bread and shelter. We need to make sure that justice wins, and that people understand the difference.
13 comments:
Every person Habitat for Humanity helps get a home is one more person who has one.
It is the polarization, the either/or, that doesn't sit well.
The Fraser Inst advocates less government involvement whereas Deb O advocates more government involvement in our daily lives. (Let us recall that Deb O advocated more state involvement in the Human Rights Commission legal industry)
Deb O does illuminate the advantage of government involvement in satisfying our social needs: stability, equity, etc. All delivered with the backing of coercive force -- the government does have a monopoly on violence.
Charity groups are more nimble than governments -- they can satisfy various niche needs that are not being served by the government.
I prefer a society of diversity, where charities are free to seek out their own areas of interest and to deliver where government does not. AND yes, I prefer a society where government serves some needs under the conditions that Deb O delineates. The best of both worlds sorta thing.
I spent 27 years of residential life in a housing co-operative. Alexandra Park Housing Co-operative was/is a successful blend of a group of citizens incorporating theselves to build and maintain their own low-cost housing and negotiating long term mortgage rates and land lease with various levels of government. The Co-op was self-administering.
Deb, in the case of government provided housing versus the Habitat for Humanity model, there are some fundamental differences.
First and foremost is the difference of renting versus ownership. Subsidized rent through government housing does meet the needs of a segment of the population that is in need of such service. The Habitat model however is based on home ownership for individuals and families who otherwise could not afford to achieve home ownership due to their financial realities.
One of the key elements in breaking the cycle of poverty, particularly from a generational perspective is through home ownership. This is a key component of what Habitat provides. Their modo of a "hand up not a hand out" is key, in that the families are part of the process of building the house, and take pride of ownership in their home from start to finish. Can that same pride of ownership be demonstrated in the majority of government owned residential units where people are renting? I think a simple drive through some of these neighborhoods is indicative of a lack of pride in ownership, probably because there is little incentive, after all, these are simply rental units, rather than an asset that the family owns.
In my view, Habitat is participating in the breaking of the cycle of poverty through home ownership, I do not think the same can be said for government subsidized housing units. Where we see the enormous budgets of government, Habitat moves forward on much smaller revenue streams, plugging it back into the community and providing opportunities for those that they have the means to help.
Your comments indicate that it is somehow unfair that all people are not treated equally by charities such as Habitat for Humanity, but the reality is that there are straightforward requirements for qualification in a Habitat home just as there are straightforward requirements for social housing. Not everyone qualifies for social housing, and not every would be able to qualify for a Habitat home - help me understand the difference between not qualifying for the charity versus government home? Both are based on qualifications and availability, why slam the charity in this case?
why should every "charity" organization be required to be all things to all people in need of their particular aid? While government programs should be so required, charities often spring up to serve much narrower problems and usually don't muster the resources to cover a complete range of assistance. Donors are usually aware of the objective and can choose where they wish their help to be given, much like putting money in the Sally-ann kettles during their Christmas campaigns. That money can't hope to be the answer to all the needs they would like to meet so they too must make decisions that are ultimately selective. How do you reconcile your theory with such examples?
Armchair QB makes excellent points. We can also add that home ownership brings with it a need for sustainability to maintain such a significant asset while subsidized housing tenants are unlikely to have sufficient opportunity to support that level of maintenance on their own. While the opportunity to qualify for either needs to be equal, qualification is needed to ensure long term viability. Painting that reality with the "elitism" brush indicates diminished sensibility.
That's why the latest designs in public housing will only, quite rightly tolerate mixed use. Social housing units in mixed residantial areas. Large ghettos of low income people just don't work. But you know it's not just ghettos that look bad there is always a couple of houses in every neighbourhood that look llike shit and P off the neighbours, but because they own their houses they can get away without criticism!
And BTW non-traditional forms of financing can allow low income people to own, but these arrangements are rare because the banks can't make money off them.
what is the upper limit of social responsibility to provide housing for those who would otherwise have none, and what level of responsibility can be enforced upon those that refuse to accept any in keeping ensuring the long term viability of that assistance? Surely there is a reasonableness element in these scenarios, in if so, how is it set?
Alot of view points are coming up that would take a great deal of time to discuss properly.
Certainly those of us who believe Canadians have the right under the Charter to have basic needs like housing, food, health care and education provided, would tend to support the creation of rent geared to income housing provided with government funding and operated through local non profit organizations and co-ops rather than government itself.
That approach combines the best of both worlds, applying standard criteria to applications and compassion for individual circumstances.
Habitat for Humanity and other charitable programs are just fine as adjuncts to publicly funded housing for those who need it.
But the mantra of home ownership is out of reach for thousands of Canadians, and is less and less prevalent in cities all over the world. Owning a home doesn't confer sainthood on us anyway.
To get personal for a moment, I remember with much relief being notified that my two kids and I were going to be housed after 4 long years on the waiting list. We lived over one of the banks downtown and the Park was the kids' play yard. Hitting adolescence, I sure didn't want them turning to the streets out of boredom.
Our Ontario Housing unit was in a duplex with bedrooms for all of us, a full basement and a front and back yard. Glorious!
We planted flowers in the front garden and created a vegetable patch out back. We BBQd and the kids had friends over now that we had room. My son shot baskets over at the school yard and both kids progressed through high school without any problems.
When it was time to move on, my geared to income rent was 5 times the original rent amount because I was working, and I was glad to pay the higher amount knowing it went directly to operations and maintenace.
The point is just that having that housing made a huge difference to my family, and continues to have that kind of impact for many, if not most, of the current tenants of our various projects in Canada. If we give people something to care about, they will in most cases.
We must remember that low income people are just like the rest of us only without the opportunities. If we give them a chance they will amaze us with their potential.
Am I correct in my assumption that you refer to Non-profit organizations as being different than Charities? If so, there needs to be a delineation between their functions and origin of support.
Very creative and self serving interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Deb O said "We must remember that low income people are just like the rest of us only without the opportunities. If we give them a chance they will amaze us with their potential."
That calls for some explanation of how and why these good folks are "without the opportunities". It seems to me that the opportunities are there for all to pursue. If that is indeed the case, it would make the real basis of their particular circumstance something other and casts some doubt upon your assertions.
Employment opportunities are not always available for individuals who happen to have a particular skin colour.
How can they overcome this 'disability'?
Post a Comment