----------
> From: Alana LaPerle <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sherry,
>
> I appreciate your comments, particularly since I know we have very
different
> perspectives. I am not saying that people are on the welfare roles
because
> of low education or self-esteem. In fact, I do not purport to be an
expert
> in this area in any way and only offered those examples to clarify the
word
> "resources." I am simply trying to understand the problem. In fact, I
think
> we are both saying the same thing: that people need structural and
personal
> resources to make healthy choices. My question is, what do poor people
need?
> Governments seem to see prenatal education and support as "primary
> prevention." To me, that doesn't get at the real problem which is, as you
> pointed out in your original message, a "lack of basic economic
resources."

Alana,

Thank you so much for your response, there are days that I can not help but
feel that if "the middle class" got outraged at the welfare rates in this
country that we would see an immediate change.

I think for me when you link things like parenting resources and prenatal
education to addressing the problems of poverty you end up creating a
bigger mess.  You create "a culture of risk" thus services are there for
those people who are identified as "at risk" or who have to self identify.
Thus you limit access to resources that should be universal and bias free.
You also create the perception that poverty and social class are individual
problems that can be fixed by just fixing the people who find themselves in
these situations. And for children you end up having the schools and other
members of our community view them as likely to have the problems because
they live with say a single mom, so they are treated differently and the
people who we rely on to recognize families and children who need help
start to wear blinkers.

If I look at the pre-natal nutrition programs and their targeting and call
on community resources I do not get it.

Lets say in a small community the program calls on $100,000 of community
resources and serves lets say 50 women a year. But there are say 200 women
who would benefit from nutritional and financial resource, it works out to
over 6 months (of their pregnancy): $333. a month for the 50 women served
or $83. for the whole group.  Is this a good use of community resources
when these women do not have adequate shelter or food for themselves and
their children?  In my community it cost $4. a trip to get anywhere on
transit.  And where are the outcome measures for the women who participate
in these programs?  It can't be so hard to find a few.

And again, we have only seen one municipality add a pregnancy benefit to
their welfare rates and none of the prenatal people are lobbying their
municipal council to match the City of Toronto.

I have also recently been distressed to see some Ontario health agencies
sign on as workfare placements.  I can not help but feel like they are
crossing a picket line of sorts.  Sole support mothers who are forced to
work will be put in the position of  having to choose between staying home
with a sick child and losing their benefits and attending their workfare
placements.  They will have to leave their children in inadequate child
care situations.  Many women who are suffering abuse at the hands of a male
partner are choosing to remain in the situation instead of turning to a
system that is going to punish them.

Thanks Alana, for me the main points are that poverty should never be
linked to prenatal or parenting services, welfare rates have to be adequate
to allow a healthy life including participating as a member of the
community and we must all set up a picket line against forced work.

S
Sherrie Tingley
Barrie Action Committee for Women
[log in to unmask]


 >