Edmonton Social Planning Council

Author: Web Administrator

  • Leadership

    Through coordination & collaboration the ESPC works in partnership with other community members and organizations to meet community needs, and participates in coalitions of shared interest to address social issues.

    Continue with leadership examples, links to articles, etc. 
     

  • One in ten Alberta children lives in poverty: report

    Slav Kornik
    November 26, 2013

    Edmonton – A new report is calling on the Alberta government to take action on eliminating child poverty in the province.

    According to the report, “From Words to Action: Alberta Can Afford a Real Poverty Reduction Strategy,” one in ten children is living in poverty in Alberta.

    The report suggests, in 2011, there were 84,000 – 29,800 under the age of six – living below the low-income measure.

    “Premier Redford’s 2012 election promise to eliminate child poverty by 2017 will not be achieved unless the words in the government’s soon to be released poverty reduction strategy, will be backed up with real action and investment in programs that prevent, reduce and ultimately eliminate poverty,” said Bill Moore-Kilgannon, executive director of Public Interest Alberta.

    According to the numbers, employment does not guarantee a low-income family in Alberta will climb out of poverty. The report shows an all-time record 59 per cent of children in poverty had at least one parent working full time for the full year.

    “The report shows that inequality is growing rapidly in Alberta so unless the government commits to targeted investments to support those who are not benefiting from our strong economy, their poverty reduction will not succeed,” said John Kolkman, research coordinator with Edmonton Social Planning Council.

    Public Interest Alberta, the Edmonton Social Planning Council and the Alberta College of Social Workers released the report.

    The Edmonton Social Planning Council is making recommendations it believes would reduce poverty among working poor families, including: a provincial child tax benefit and increasing the minimum wage and a living wage policy for contracted services.

    “The report shows that inequality is growing rapidly in Alberta so unless the government commits to targeted investments to support those who are not benefiting from our strong economy, their poverty reduction will not succeed,” argues Kolkman.

    Public Interest Alberta is proposing a $1 billion investment.

    “In a province that collects $10.6 billion less in taxation than the next lowest taxed province, we outline how the government could raise from $1.2 – $2.0 billion by establishing a progressive tax and increase corporate taxes,” said Lori Sigurdson, chairperson of Public Interest Alberta’s Human Services and Poverty Task Force.

    Click on the link to view the newsclip.

     

  • ESPC MEMBERSHIP FORM

    Print out a membership form and mail it to our office with payment (cheque or money order).

    ESPC Documents/MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION/ESPC_Membership renewalFORM 2018.pdf

  • Asking for directions : partnering with youth to build the evidence base for runaway and homeless youth services

    Title: Asking for directions : partnering with youth to build the evidence base for runaway and homeless youth services.
    Collection: Alberta
    Author(s): Schweitzer, Don | Helmer, Chris | Lee, Lorna | Linderman, Matt | Moore, David |Schwiegeraht, Crystal
    Citation:All CAS Faculty Scholarship. Paper 53
    Subject: Housing – temporary, emergency, homelessness | Youth – planning, policy
    Publisher: Pacific University
    Date of Publication: 2013
    Abstract:

    Each year it is estimated that almost 2 million American youth run away from home, are thrown out of their homes, or otherwise end up homeless. As concerning as those numbers are, the risks runaway and homeless youth are exposed to when they find themselves on the street are even more so. Running away from home dramatically increases the risk of victimization, both physically and sexually. Moreover, youth living on the streets exhibit much higher health risks including higher rates of substance abuse, suicide attempts, sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy and death. Because runaway and homeless youth find themselves lacking skills and resources necessary to fully engage in employment, they are left with few legally permissible options for survival.

    The research literature has addressed many aspects of the lives of runaway and homeless youth (RHY): the history, policy, practice and research but has neglected youth perspectives on their needs. The complexities associated with the RHY population such as age, pathways to running away and/or homelessness, mental health, abuse, neglect, etc. make this a challenging field to work in. Yet understanding these complexities and evaluating the interventions used by community social service programs designed to help youth return home, or enter other safe, stable housing, is critical to helping this field develop and improve interventions, programs, and prevention strategies that will be used by this uniquely vulnerable population.

    In 1974, Congress first passed the Runaway Youth Act (RYA) providing funding for community shelter programs called Basic Centers. In subsequent years Transitional Living Programs (1988) and Street Outreach services (1994) were added to the act. Unfortunately, researchers, youth advocates, and many service providers report that the vast majority of runaway and homeless youth reject the services and programs designed to meet their needs and keep them safe. This dynamic exacerbates an already perilous situation for youth who find themselves on the streets.

    Much of the research to date has focused on the pathology of youth and/or their families. This project suggests that if to understand the complexities of these youth and move toward a system with improved utilization rates, we should begin by asking – what are programs doing that work for RHY? Which services or practices do the youth feel are most helpful? Is there a way to synthesize these practices, codify them, and begin to build the evidence base for working effectively with RHY?

    This study began this process by conducting 14 focus groups with 52 youth ages 14 – 21, who were receiving services from a Basic Center (3), a drop-in center (3), a street outreach program (2), or a Transitional Living Program (6), and asking them what is it about this program that works for you? Then the researcher hired RHY to analyze those responses. Findings hold the potential to begin filling the chasm that exists in the literature around effective practice with RHY.[Taken from report]

    Language: English
    Physical Description: 22 p.
    Web Site: http://commons.pacificu….le=1053&context=casfac
    Material Type: Report

    D. HOUSING/Asking for Directions- Partnering with Youth to Build the Evidenc.pdf