1

Bringing It Together

A Gathering on Aboriginal Homelessness in Edmonton

Final Report

Four Winds & AssociatesApril 12/2005

2

Overview of Workshop

On March 22 and 23/2005 individuals and agencies were invited to a “gathering” at Polish Hall to discuss issues related to Abo-

riginal homelessness in Edmonton. The workshop was hosted by the Edmonton Aboriginal Committee on Housing (EACH) and sponsored by the Edmonton Joint Planning Committee on Housing (EJPCOH). Métis Elder Alvena Strasbourg provided leadership and guidance over the two days.

BUDGET

Budget for rentBudget for powerBudget for phoneBudget for cableBudget for groceriesBudget. Budget. Budget.

Didn’t have to budgetlivin’ in agarbagebin.

Betty NordinPhoenix: Hope from the Ashes (Pg. 10)

CHANGES

Got to change my waysor I’m going to dieon the streets.Getting too old living like this.Getting up in some back ally,on a river bank or a fl ea bag hotel,just doesn’t cut the mustardfor me anymore.Scrounging for food, standingin soup line, going through garbage bins.There has got to be a better way of living.Getting up in the morningto see my parole offi cer or I’ll be in trouble again.Never had to live with a clock before.Now I’m always late.Eating in the morning surefeels good.Especially when the food comes frommy own cupboards.Now I’ve got clean clothes andsheets to sleep on.

Man life is good.

Betty Nordin Phoenix: Hope from the Ashes (Pg. 5)

3

Aboriginal Homelessness Trends

The workshop was organised against the backdrop of several notable trends which reveal the seriousness and complexity of Aboriginal homelessness:

1. By all accounts, the rate of homelessness is increasing in Edmonton. The Oc-tober 2004 homeless count in Edmonton identifi ed 2192 individuals as being homeless. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of the individuals identifi ed were Abo-riginal and sixty-six percent (66%) of the Aboriginal individuals were observed to be living on the street;

2. Aboriginal people are over-represented in the homeless population in Edmon-ton. Aboriginal people only represent about four percent (4%) of the total population of the city, but they comprise about forty percent (40%) of the homeless population;

3. Although Aboriginals comprise only a small percentage of Edmonton’s popula-tion, their numbers are rapidly increasing. Between 1996 and 2001, the Abo-riginal population in Edmonton increased by twenty percent (20%), compared to growth of the general population of thirteen percent (13%). Edmonton has the second highest number of Aboriginal people of major Canadian cities, after Winnipeg;

4. The concentration of Native people in Edmonton is part of a larger migration of Aboriginal people from reserves and rural settings to urban centres. In 2001 about fi fty-seven percent (57%) of the Aboriginal population resided in urban areas. Twenty-four percent (24%) lived on reserve and nineteen percent (19%) lived in rural off-reserve areas; and

5. In spite of the size of the urban Aboriginal population, public policy discus-sions have focused almost exclusively on the rural reserve-based population. Much of this hesitancy is rooted in confl icting views about governmental re-sponsibilities for urban Aboriginal people. Because no one level of government has assumed primary responsibility for urban Aboriginal people, “gaps have developed in the policy landscape.”

Purpose and Format of Workshop

Over the course of the two-day workshop, eighty-eight (88) participants—representing forty-fi ve (45) agencies and three levels of government (Federal, Provincial and Mu-nicipal)—discussed the pressures impacting homeless Aboriginal individuals and the agencies that serve them.

The workshop was structured as a series of small group refl ections which moved the analysis systematically from an exploration of the challenges related to the problem of homelessness to the identifi cation of opportunities for specifi c remedial actions.

4

The format was chosen in recognition of the fact that homelessness is a multifaceted problem that represents a complex interaction of individual and systemic factors. The hope was that the workshop would help break the larger problem of Aboriginal home-lessness into smaller issues—some of which may be actionable.

A deep appreciation of the human dimensions of homelessness was at the heart of the workshop—namely that homelessness can be best understood from the perspective of those experiencing poverty and inadequate housing. To this end, the term “pres-sures” was used throughout the workshop to signify the specifi c and tangible nature of the forces bearing down on individuals and institutions. Pressures have sources. They can be “felt” and “named” precisely. They have human consequences.

Five key questions were explored during the workshop:

1. What are the pressures on homeless Aboriginal individuals?2. What are the pressures on our agencies and how are these pressures impacting

our ability to respond to homeless people?3. What are the upstream sources of these pressures?4. How can we start pushing back on these pressures?5. How can we separate the problem of Aboriginal homelessness into winnable

issues that we can act on—either alone or by co-operating with others?

Participants identifi ed a range of pressures impacting homeless Aboriginal individuals and the agencies that serve them. Discussions led to the frank and forthright exami-nation of the challenges facing agencies in their efforts to cope with homelessness.

Some of these pressures were seen as coming from outside of the agencies (exter-nal pressures), that is, from the larger socio-economic and political system. Other pressures were seen as existing within agencies and between agencies. These internal pressures had impacts on the morale of staff as well as on the spirit of cooperation between agencies. As one participant said: “We’re too busy to meet…we’re not talk-ing.”

A wealth of information was gathered over the course of the two-day workshop. Three main themes emerged as points of concern, as well as, opportunities for future action:

• Funding• Co-operation (Working Together)• Availability, Accessibility and Appropriateness of Services

The following draft report provides a summary of the workshop and of the key fi nd-ings from the break-away and plenary sessions. The agenda and the PowerPoint pres-entations that formed the backbone of the workshop are attached as appendices. In addition, a complete list of fi ndings from the small group refl ections is also provided in table form.

5

Summary of Day One March 22/2005 – 1 PM to 4 PM

Day One of the workshop provided an opportunity for the agencies dealing with Aboriginal homelessness to refl ect on the dimensions of the problem of homelessness, as well as, on the progress achieved since the previous Aborigi-

nal Gathering held in July 2003.A number of service organizations including Amisk Housing, Cunningham Place,

Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society and Ben Calf Robe provided brief presenta-tions of accomplishments achieved over the past year. Presentations were also made by the Edmonton Aboriginal Committee on Housing (EACH), Edmonton Joint Plan-ning Committee on Housing (EJPCOH), the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund (EHTF) and the Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS).

In addition to these presentations, participants were given the opportunity to break into small groups to discuss:

• What they accomplished at the working level;• What they did in concert with other agencies; and • What they would have liked to do but could not.

Key Findings

Workshop participants provided numerous examples of success in: (a) providing services (such skill development and transitional support); (b) creating new hous-ing; and (c) forming cooperative relationships. Despite these indicators of progress, participants also identifi ed several signifi cant gaps in service that they were unable to address (See Appendix 1 for a more comprehensive list). These included:

• A lack of settlement and support services for Aboriginal individuals coming to the City from rural areas;

• Lack of housing (especially transitional and supportive);• Lack of specifi c programs and/or policies at the Provincial level that address

Aboriginal homelessness (Policy vacuum);• Lack of involvement from First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders in addressing

the problem of Aboriginal homelessness;• A lack of continuity in program funding (short-term versus long-term fund-

ing);• A lack of co-operation between agencies because of a competitive environ-

ment for funding; and• A lack of culturally appropriate and accessible services.

6

Summary of Day Two March 23/2005 – 9 AM to 4 PM

Day Two of the workshop focused the collective energies of the participants on the human dimensions of homelessness. The aim was to look “beyond the numbers” to the specifi c and tangible pressures bearing down on homeless

individuals and on the agencies that serve them. The clear identifi cation of these forces was essential because “you can’t solve what you can’t name.”

To this end, the tone of the day was set by the opening remarks of Métis Elder Alvena Strasbourg who challenged representatives from both the Aboriginal and the larger community to identify clearly the upstream sources of the homelessness problem and to acknowledge their collective responsibility for addressing the situa-tion. Her words were mirrored by Mr. Allen Benson (Chief Executive Offi cer, Native Counselling Services of Alberta) who made a brief presentation which pointed out that a lack of funding is not solely responsible for the homelessness crisis. Instead, the problem is rooted in the competition for funding by organisations and by the absence of effective partnerships between organisations. As Mr. Benson said: “It is our prob-lem…not a government one.”

A presentation of powerful black-and-white photographs (by Pieter de Vos, Jr.) depicting individuals living in poverty added to the sense of urgency. The poetry of Betty Nordin—a Métis woman who was previously homeless—provided a poignant counterpoint to the images.

Key Findings

The themes that emerged in Day One were expanded upon in Day Two of the work-shop as participants refl ected on the pressures related to Aboriginal homelessness in a step-by-step and targeted fashion.

In small refl ection groups, participants engaged in a systematic four-stage analy-sis of Aboriginal homelessness that included an examination of:

1. The pressures on homeless Aboriginal people;2. The pressures on agencies;3. The upstream sources of the pressures on homeless individuals and the agen-

cies that serve them; and4. The opportunities to push back on these pressures—either alone or in coopera-

tion with others.

7

STAGE 1: Pressures on Homeless Individuals

Workshop participants identifi ed several pressures im-pacting homeless individuals (See Appendix 2 for a compre-hensive list of pressures). These included:

• Culture shock/migration pressures• Stigma and discrimination• Isolation and marginalisation• Threats to personal safety• Lack of resources to meet basic needs (food, shelter

and clothing)• Health concerns including addictions and mental

health issues• Barriers to the access of services• Poverty and unemployment• Lack of skills/education• Cultural barriers including language barriers

I think that is oneof the reasons people are so afraid to do something…to make a change for themselves. Because once you’ve had something good and you lose it,it’s the most horrible, horriblefeeling to end up with nothing…after you’ve had everything.

Homeless Individual

8

STAGE 2: Pressures on Agencies

Participants engaged in a candid discussion of the forces bearing down on their agencies—and thereby affecting their ability to provide responsive services to homeless people. These pressures fell into two broad interrelated categories—pressures external to agencies and pressures internal to agencies (See Appendix 3 for a comprehensive list of pressures).

External pressures included:

• Lack of funding and increased competition for limited resources

• Government policies• Project-based funding creates a lack of continuity

in services• Rigid funding criteria and reporting requirements• Legislative barriers and bureaucratic complexity

(red tape)• Lack of community support• Lack of housing and essential services—the level of

need exceeds the available resources• Lack of effective partnerships• Lack of coordination and cooperation between

agencies

You’re always waiting. Like today I can’t stand line-ups…you’re waiting for the sandwich…you’re waiting, you’re waiting, you’re waiting. Waiting for what? And when you get to the front, it’s all gone. There is nothing left for you.

Homeless Individual

9

Participants revealed several pressures that were internal to their organisations and which, in turn, were diminishing the capacity of their organisations to provide re-sponsive services:

• A shortage of “time” and a corresponding culture of “busyness” within organi-sations—”Because we are so busy chasing money, we don’t have time to do strategic thinking.”

• Staff burn-out—”There is too much to do.”• Lack of staff appreciation, low morale and high staff turn-over• Low staff salaries and a lack of staff incentives• Internal politics and communication problems within agencies

STAGE 3: Upstream Sources of Pressures

In analysing the vast range of pressures that were identifi ed by workshop participants, three broad categories emerged. These are as follows:

1. Pressures related to funding (manner of, amount of)2. Pressures related to spirit and nature of co-operation between agencies (Work-

ing together)3. Pressures related to the availability, accessibility and appropriateness of

services

In refl ecting on the upstream sources of the pressures on homeless individuals and on the helping agencies, participants identifi ed various causal factors that contributed to the three broad categories of pressures (See Appendix 4 for a comprehensive list of sources of pressures). These included:

Inadequacy/Inappropriateness of Funding (Upstream sources)

• Government priorities—”We’re not part of the decision-making!”• Too many agencies chasing too few dollars—”We’re not organised!”• Jurisdictional disputes— First Nations, Métis, non-Status, Federal-Provincial-

Municipal• Government and community attitudes towards social programs• Funding formulas and lack of continuity of funding

Lack of Cooperation between Agencies (Upstream sources)

• Turfi sm—”People aren’t sharing information because of competition”• Disconnect between First Nations and Métis leadership and the grassroots• Tunnel vision—”We’re too busy to meet with each other.”• Lack of communication between agencies• Funding encourages competition between agencies.• Politics and history• Cumbersome bureaucratic structures discourage collaboration

10

Availability, accessibility and appropriateness of services (Upstream sources)

• Barriers to accessibility, including language and cultural barriers• Lack of a centralised source of information on available services• Lack of culturally-sensitive staff• Complexity of the system—”Too many hoops!”• Policy-makers are out of touch with the real needs• Exclusion of Aboriginal people from decision-making

STAGE 4: Pushing Back on the Pressures

Effective actions are aimed at something we can do something about. They require us to break a larger problem into smaller winnable issues. A problem is not something that can be isolated and tackled on its own. It is made up of multiple issues—some of which may be actionable.

As previously indicated, many of the pressures identifi ed by participants were in-ternal to their organizations (E.g. Low staff morale). Others came from outside their organizations (external). Some of the identifi ed pressures (such as improving staff re-tention) could conceivably be addressed by individual agencies while others (such as changing a specifi c policy) would require the collaboration of two or more agencies.

In analysing the various pressures brought forward by participants over the two days, it became apparent that many of the pressures identifi ed were outside the reach of a single organisation and would require the concerted effort of more than one agency to address. Therefore, the challenge of fi nding ways to improve cooperation and collaboration between agencies became of paramount importance.

Conclusion & a Beginning

Workshop participants identifi ed “grassroots action” and “working together” as being prerequisites to dealing with the issues related to Aboriginal homelessness. To this end, participants resolved to continue exploring op-

portunities for collective action. The most visible expression of this commitment was that the participants arranged to meet on the sixth of April 2005 at the Canadian Native Friendship Centre to further the conversation.

Follow-up Meeting

On April 6/2005, participants from the previous workshop gathered to discuss fu-ture collaboration. The session was hosted by the Canadian Native Friendship Cen-tre and focused on identifying action items. Seven key areas were highlighted (See Appendix 5 for a comprehensive list of action items):

11

1. One-Stop Shop: Participants identifi ed the need to coordinate the serv-ices provided to homeless Aboriginal people in Edmonton. This includ-ed having information readily available to help homeless people access programs and navigate the maze of available services.

2. Involving Aboriginal Leaders: Participants explored strategies for in-creasing the involvement of First Nations, Métis and Inuit leaders in ad-dressing the problem of Aboriginal homelessness in Edmonton.

3. Research: Participants identifi ed the importance of developing a cen-tralized and easily accessible clearinghouse of information and research on homelessness including best practices and models of successful serv-ice delivery from other cities in Canada (e.g., Winnipeg).

4. Outreach Workers: Participants suggested that the agencies providing services to homeless Aboriginal individuals should develop a network of outreach workers that can link the agencies together, as well as provide street-level services.

5. Identify Strengths of Agencies: Participants suggested that an environ-mental scan be conducted to identify the strengths, assets and capacities of the agencies providing services to homeless individuals in Edmon-ton.

6. Focus on Personal Development: Participants suggested that agencies work together to enhance the skills and personal development of home-less Aboriginal people so that they can escape the cycle of poverty.

7. Construction: Participants identifi ed the importance of Aboriginal agencies, government and the private sector partnering to produce af-fordable housing for Aboriginal people. The example of an Aboriginal “Habitat for Humanity” was provided.

The follow-up meeting to Bringing It Together illustrated the dedication of par-ticipants to fi nding creative ways of working together to address the issues related to homelessness among Aboriginal people in Edmonton. A demonstra-tion of this was provided by the fact that the participants established action groups with team leaders to undertake work in the seven areas listed above. This bodes well for a coordinated and coherent response to addressing Abo-riginal homelessness in Edmonton. However, the success of subsequent efforts to move forward a strong agenda for collective action will depend largely on the availability of resources to support partnership-building. It is important that the momentum established over the workshop and the follow-up session be maintained into the future.

App

endi

x 1:

Day

One

(M

arch

22/

2005

)

The

“V

iew

fro

m t

he T

renc

hes”

– S

ervi

ce G

aps

Gro

up 1

G

roup

2

Gro

up 3

G

roup

4

Gro

up 5

Fu

nding

criteria

need to

be revisited

EH

TF sho

uld b

uild

houses a

nd h

ave

agencie

s prop

ose to o

perate

them

Process ne

eds to b

e dic

tated

by

comm

unity

Mo

re p

eople

transition

ing to

major

centres wh

ile the

focus rem

ains on

the reserve

s an

d settlem

ents

KISS process needs to b

e establi

shed

Evalu

ation

needs to

be b

ased o

n servi

ces that fi

t our n

eeds—

not

impo

sed

stand

ards

There is

a gap

in tra

nsition

al supp

ort

for you

th

No spe

cific

prog

rams

/poli

cies at

the

Provinc

ial le

vel t

hat d

eal s

pecifica

lly

with A

borig

inal h

omele

ssness (Poli

cy

gap)

Lack o

f availa

ble shelte

r space for

wo

man

fleein

g ab

usive

situ

ation

s There is

a need fo

r tra

nsition

al supp

ort

for you

th to

independence

Lack o

f involv

ement of

the Ab

origi

nal

(FNMI) lea

dersh

ip.

“Our p

eople

com

e fro

m a

home

. Whe

re are o

ur le

aders?”

Urba

n Ab

origi

nal I

ssue

More fa

milies are getting

involve

d in

othe

r syste

ms (e.g

. Chil

d Welf

are)

because of

what is

esse

ntial

ly a

“hou

sing” is

sue.

Partn

erships

cost m

oney. W

here

is this

fundin

g?

Partn

erships

have to in

clude the

priva

te secto

r (e.

g. Suncor)

Socia

l sup

port

syste

m ne

eded

Too

much red tap

e. Th

ere is

no A

borig

inal S

helte

r in

the

City

Loss

of fun

ding

for sup

portive servic

es

Increase in

servi

ce u

se b

ut adm

in.

costs

are sam

e Short-t

erm

fundin

g, no

t mu

lti-ye

ar.

Repo

rting

process

is on

going

and

tim

e consum

ing

Agen

cies ha

ving

to cha

nge their

focus

due to cha

nges o

r cutbacks in

fund

ing

Lack o

f lan

d in

a central a

rea o

f Ed

monton

for he

lping

serv

ices

No

t en

ough

com

munic

ation

or inf

o. Too

many refe

rrals

(mult

iple)

Interpe

rsona

l diffe

rences a

ffecti

ng serv

ices

Self-servi

ng a

gend

as

Not en

ough

fund

ing to

go aroun

d—agen

cies get protectiv

e Too

many

agencies

doin

g same

thin

g (dup

licati

on o

f servic

es)—

clien

ts do

n’t

know

where to

turn.

Peop

le comi

ng to

the Cit

y bring

their

prob

lems with the

m. (Prob

lems mi

grate

here)

Provinc

ial econo

mic bo

om b

ringin

g peop

le to the

City

but the

re is

no h

ousin

g an

d a

time lag

for ser

vices.

“Ho

meles

s for

3

months u

ntil

assis

tance kic

ks in

” Na

tives g

et sent to

inner-ci

ty Fami

lies sca

ttered

by G

ov’t

Syste

ms

Servi

ces are de

signed

for n

on-Abo

rigina

ls Ne

ed m

ore inf

o. for

Abo

rigina

ls to a

ccess

Ab

origi

nals

shou

ld be in

decision

-mak

ing

position

s No

help

with

dam

age de

posits

Volun

teers

doing

agency job

s Offer

non

-threaten

ing sup

port

Not do

ing eno

ugh

inter-agency wo

rk

Lack o

f hou

sing

(all

levels

of s

uppo

rt) fo

r pe

rsons w

ith

disab

ilities

– p

hysic

al &

mental

Lack o

f sup

port

for w

omen com

ing o

ut o

f pris

ons

Co

nnectin

g with fa

milies

Re

integratio

n/life

skil

ls

Housing

with

sup

port

Gap

in cultu

rally app

ropriat

e servi

ces

Need

urban

Abo

rigina

l Poli

tical

Advocacy G

roup

Home

care (non

-grump

y) Mo

ney for

hom

e ad

aptatio

n (doo

r ha

ndles

/flat fl

oors/

etc.

) Em

ergency Ho

me (im

media

te access)

for wo

man

& fam

ilies

leavin

g ab

use

Preventio

n Prog

rams

for fam

ily viol

ence

Ed

ucation

/life

skills

/emp

loyme

nt traini

ng

Supp

ort for

Abu

ser

Outre

ach

& Supp

ort f

or P

eople

livin

g in

the riv

er vall

ey

Aborigi

nal Y

outh Shelte

r (in

NE

Edmo

nton

) Mo

ney for

chil

dren and

you

th to

have rec. a

ctivit

ies

Comm

unity

kitc

hen

and

crafts fo

r everyone

Raise

AISH

and

SFI

rates

Supp

orts

for accessib

le ed

ucation

for Mé

tis in

dividu

als

App

endi

x 2:

Day

Tw

o (M

arch

23/

2005

)

Pre

ssur

es o

n H

om

eles

s A

bori

gina

l Ind

ivid

uals

G

roup

1

Gro

up 2

G

roup

3

Gro

up 4

G

roup

5

Lack o

f ide

ntific

ation

Discr

imina

tion

Bu

dget

Red

tape

Pe

er P

ressu

re

Abuse

Mental

Healt

h Iss

ues

Addic

tions

Tran

sportatio

n ba

rriers

Isolat

ion

Absence of

Belon

ging

Healt

h iss

ues

Lack o

f persona

l safe

ty Ap

artheid

Lack o

f Kno

wled

ge, R

E: Re

sources

Co-Dep

ende

ncy,

IE- con

necti

ons

Lang

uage/Cult

ural

barri

ers

Lack o

f persona

l, fin

ancia

l and

social

resources

Sense of

fragm

entatio

n he

lplessness

Governme

nt Lab

elling

-Firs

t Na

tion

Intergene

ratio

nal p

atterns o

f Traum

a Cu

lture sho

ck –

from

rese

rve to

city

Lack o

f motiva

tion

Targete

d un

necessa

rily by

autho

rities

Tatte

red

socia

l safe

ty ne

t. Re

siden

tial s

choo

l exp

erien

ces

Profi

ling –

Crim

inal,

Racia

l Create

crisis

motiva

tes the

resou

rces

Silen

t cry

Econ

omy—

Displac

es p

eople

tha

t are

not em

ploym

ent-r

eady

Copy

cat

pressure

Gaps in

servic

es

Servi

ce P

rovid

ers Ru

les

Oppressio

n Lack o

f kno

wled

ge

Isolat

ion

Lack o

f belo

nging

ness

Margina

lizati

on

High

Ren

tal rates

Priva

tization

of P

ublic Serv

ices

Land

lord

discri

mina

tion

Lack o

f Ide

ntific

ation

Go

vernme

nt a

ttitudes

Lack o

f persona

l safe

ty Ca

n’t g

et ba

nk accou

nt

Low

self

estee

m No

t en

ough

skil

ls Youth

have u

nique n

eeds

Healt

h iss

ues

Mental

Healt

h Ad

dictio

ns

Preju

dice

Stigm

a Cu

lture Sho

ck

Violen

ce

Sub-sta

ndard

housing

Ov

ercro

wding

Welf

are am

ounts Ins

ufficien

t

No ren

t control

High

utility

costs

Tran

sportat

ion costs

Lack o

f job

security

Low

vacancy rates

Co

st of

living

Fir

e safet

y Pu

blic He

alth

issues

Lack o

f tim

e Tw

o job

s Low

minim

um w

age

Addic

tions

Barri

ers to li

teracy

Lack o

f ade

quate clo

thing

Sta

ble h

ousin

g Safet

y Lack o

f edu

catio

n Kn

owled

ge o

f system

(Ho

w it

works?)

Fami

ly vio

lence

Lack o

f motiva

tion

Feeling

of n

ot b

eing

wanted

Lack o

f doctors

Discr

imina

tion

Lack o

f resou

rces for

asse

ssmen

t An

ger ma

nageme

nt

Physica

l Health

issues

Threat o

f loss of

child

ren

Racis

m Ba

rriers to transpo

rtatio

n Lack o

f peer supp

ort

Lack o

f awa

rene

ss of

comm

unity

resources

Crim

inal r

ecord

Disabil

ities

Lack o

f Basic

Hygie

ne

Preju

dice

Lack o

f Edu

catio

n He

alth

issue

s Pe

ople

live in

past

Fewe

r Ga

rbag

e Bin

s Un

emplo

ymen

t Me

ntal

Healt

h Ad

dictio

ns

Diffe

rent W

orld

Isolat

ion

Ignoran

ce o

f system

Lack o

f con

trol o

ver slu

mlords

Preju

dice for

lack o

f kno

wing

Ag

encie

s no

t carin

g Cred

it Ch

ecks

Lack o

f option

s Too

Many

criteri

a Ca

n’t a

fford a p

hone

Safe

Storage

Paperw

ork

Requ

ireme

nts

Lack o

f Guid

ance

Cycle

of C

rap

Not enou

gh p

eople

to h

elp the u

nkno

wing

Ch

urches n

ot h

elping

any

more

Low

Supp

ort Levels

– Welf

are (SF

I) Lack o

f Awa

rene

ss The “arro

gance” o

f the System

On

e Pa

rty system

s in

Alberta

– Lead

s to

Dicta

torsh

ip an

d ha

s a trickle

affect of

PROV

emp

loyees

Lack o

f Edu

catio

n Ho

meles

s pe

ople

& Pu

blic

Stats

not Accurate

Barri

ers to Travel

Lack o

f Com

munic

ation

No

t enou

gh in

tervention

sup

port

Lack o

f resou

rces to m

eet ba

sic n

eeds

Lack o

f add

ress

Lack o

f pho

ne

Age ba

rriers–

too

you

ng/to

o old

Lack o

f fam

ily sup

port

Lack o

f edu

catio

n (opp

ortunit

ies)

Unem

ploym

ent

Mental

Illness (und

iagno

sed/un

treate

d)

Lone

liness

Finan

cial p

ressu

res

No ID

stigm

a/contem

pt fr

om societ

y racis

m Tran

sportat

ion

Pride

Ba

rriers to a

ccess

ing system

sup

ports

Scared to

ask

for in

fo.

Abuse/tra

uma

Stereotyp

ing/ra

cism

based

on surna

me

Deficit-ba

sed

criter

ia for

servic

es

All ene

rgy is

going

to surviv

al Ethn

o-str

ess (M

étis vs.

Abo

rigina

l etc)

Low

self-estee

m –

set up

for fai

lure

Barri

ers to o

rgan

izatio

ns syst

ems

Very strict

criter

ia Lang

uage b

arrie

rs

Lack o

f com

munit

y (phy

sical/

geog

raph

y) Lack o

f hum

an resp

onse/con

tact (e.

g. Au

toma

ted p

hone

) Cu

ltural s

hock

Bad

relat

ionships

Th

reats to p

erson

al safet

y

App

endi

x 3:

Day

Tw

o (M

arch

23/

2005

)

Pre

ssur

es o

n A

genc

ies—

that

ser

ve h

om

eles

s A

bori

gina

l ind

ivid

uals

G

roup

1

Gro

up 2

G

roup

3

Gro

up 4

G

roup

5

Time (Not eno

ugh)

Abuse of

Servi

ces/s

ystem

s—revolving

do

or

Fund

ing fo

r Bu

ilding

s No

Fun

ds fo

r servi

ces,

maint

enan

ce

Lack o

f one-st

op sho

p concept

Accoun

tabil

ity (no

stan

dardize

d repo

rting

from

fund

ers)

Huma

n Re

source P

oor

Volun

teers

Burnt Ou

t Lack o

f ope

ratio

nal f

undin

g Inc

reased H

omele

ssness

Decre

ased

resou

rces

Fund

ing availa

bility

(lack

of kn

owled

ge) (Propo

sal W

riting

) Ag

ency M

anda

tes

Fund

ing Criteria

(Poli

cy vs.

Reali

ty)

–Catch 2

2 cycle

s Sta

ff is

tired

No

-way to

reple

nish

batte

ries

“Hearin

g the same

storie

s over and

over-re

ally aff

ects

staff.”

No

process

for staf

f tim

e sta

ggeri

ng

Staff

Safet

y Un

derpaid

Lack o

f staff

appreciat

ion

Meeti

ng the

emo

tiona

l req

uirem

ents

Not alw

ays mo

ney

Lack o

f incen

tives

Shortage o

f staff

Interna

l and

exte

rnal

politics

Po

wer str

uggle

– “Cli

ents

lost i

n the

shuff

le”

Time (busy)

Crisis Me

ntali

ty—“P

uttin

g ou

t fires”

Sand

wiched B

etween

proje

ct dema

nds

& up

per ma

nageme

nt

Too

little

fund

ing

Legis

lative

barrie

rs Locatio

n of

Agency

Comp

etitio

n for

fund

ing

Staff

turn-over

Proje

ct-ba

sed

fundin

g cre

ates a la

ck o

f continu

ity

Lack o

f Com

munic

ation

betw

een

Board

and

staff

“Becau

se w

e are chasing

mon

ey,

there’s

no

time to d

o str

ategic

think

ing”

Burn-out

“Too

man

y respon

sibilit

ies –

not

enou

gh a

utho

rity”

Stove-pipi

ng

Not en

ough

staf

f recog

nition

No

t en

ough

is d

one to k

eep

up m

orale

Lack o

f traini

ng

Some

people

are a

dept a

t netw

orkin

g—“B

ig Bo

ys g

et mo

st of

the Mo

ney”

Incom

e press

ures

on staff

The im

pact

of his

toric

al inj

ustic

e –

resulting

in in

tergeneratio

nal t

raum

a on

Firs

t Nation

and

Méti

s ind

ividu

al,

family, c

ommu

nity an

d Na

tion.

Abuse of

Presc

riptio

n drug

s Lack o

f spa

ce (ina

dequ

ate fac

ilities

) No

t en

ough

focus on

cap

acity

-buil

ding

Lack o

f und

ersta

nding

on

the pa

rt of

clien

ts that agency po

licies

are set

by

governme

nt

Lack o

f com

munit

y supp

ort

NIMB

Y –

Not i

n my

back

yard

Lack o

f corpo

rate

supp

ort

High

needs o

f clients (Num

ber of

issue

s) Re

porting

req

uirem

ents—

always

havin

g to ju

stify

position

Fu

nd-ra

ising

is ti

me con

sumi

ng

Red

Tape

High

dem

and

Lack o

f fun

ding

Clien

t de

pend

ence o

n agen

cies

Long

wait

ing li

sts fo

r servi

ces

Politics

(Int

erna

l/Exte

rnal)

No

tim

e to le

arn

abou

t avail

able

resources

Staff

burn o

ut

Lack o

f tim

e for

follo

w up

Space

No a

pprecia

tion

of wo

rkers &

agen

cies

Staff

safet

y Ov

er-re

liance on

volu

nteers

Lack o

f stable

hou

sing

Lack o

f ade

quate clo

thing

Po

or b

asic

hygie

ne (n

ecessary)

Mental

issue

s (m

ultipl

e) Lack o

f edu

catio

n Disabil

ities

(perma

nent)

Lack o

f Kno

wled

ge o

f help

ing servic

es

(How

it w

orks?)

Fami

ly vio

lence

Lack o

f nutrition

Feeling

of n

ot b

eing

wanted

Lack o

f doctors

Sta

ff bu

rnou

t No

t en

ough

reso

urces:

staff,

etc.

Prob

lem is

not a

lways relat

ed to

fundin

g No

t enou

gh A

borig

inal S

taff

Time (not eno

ugh)

Repeat clientele

Go

vernme

nt p

olicie

s No

t en

ough

profes

siona

l staf

f Em

ployee reten

tion

Budg

et cuts

No extr

a mo

ney for

sup

port

Not enou

gh staf

f with

kno

wledge

Need

tim

e to train

Lack o

f partnerships

Total P

icture shou

ld be

availa

ble

Get together &

organ

ize com

munit

y Inf

orma

tion

not r

eadil

y avail

able

Shou

ld ha

ve cen

tral i

nform

ation

outlet

(all

levels

) Co

ntracti

ng o

f servic

es

Furth

er lo

ss of

links

Profi

t-motive

affe

cting

serv

ice

Not allow

ed to

make m

oney

Money no

t getting

to the g

roun

d lev

el Preju

dice

Racis

m No

n expo

sure fr

om to

p Lack o

f traini

ng—

need

inne

r cit

y tra

ining

centre (Alt

erna

tive sentencin

g)

Arroga

nce

Chain

of c

omma

nd stifles

acti

on

“Tak

e aw

ay the

ir excuses”

Not en

ough

cult

ural

presen

ce

No true op

position

party

Advocacy com

munit

y Lack o

f und

ersta

nding

Re

serve

Racism

Soft

bigotry o

f low

exp

ectatio

ns

Diversi

ty of

Aborigi

nal N

ation

s/poli

tics

Not en

ough

fund

s Facilities a

re in

adequa

te Too

many

rest

rictio

ns –

fund

ing, o

rgan

izatio

nal p

olicie

s Lack o

f staff

Lump

ing o

f Abo

rigina

l people

Lack o

f cult

urall

y tra

ined

staff

Staff

not cultu

rally representative

Sta

tistic

s/accou

ntab

ility requ

ireme

nts

Proje

ct/capit

al fun

ding—

no lo

ng term

fundin

g Wait

ing li

sts

Lack o

f respect/

trash b

etween

agencie

s an

d the peop

le they serve

Lack o

f mon

ey fo

r gas mi

leage li

mits

peop

le serve

d Lack o

f flex

ibility-

e.g. S

ched

uled

visits

Lack o

f recog

nition

that a

dup

lication

of s

ervic

es is

some

times

necessa

ry Servi

ces too

spread

out

Overwh

elmed w

ith w

ork—

peop

le fal

ling throug

h cra

cks

(e.g.

youth)

Access

Barri

ers to reso

urces

Lack o

f exp

erien

ce w

ith fu

ndraising

Lack o

f coo

rdina

tion

betw

een

agen

cies

Not ab

le to a

dapt servic

es

High

turno

ver

Staff

Burn-out—

“too

much to

do!”

Agen

cies are no

t “p

eople

-frien

dly.”

Sta

ff no

t accoun

table

to p

eople

they serve

Low

wages

Placeme

nt o

f agencies

not b

ased

on

accessi

bility

—

based

on availa

bility

High

caselo

ads

Burden

of p

lannin

g, ba

lancin

g an

d co-ordina

ting

dif

feren

t prog

rams

Sti

gma associa

ted w

ith a

gency na

me

App

endi

x 4:

Day

Tw

o (M

arch

23/

2005

)

Ups

trea

m S

our

ces

of P

ress

ures

on

Indi

vidu

als

and

Age

ncie

s G

roup

1

Gro

up 2

G

roup

3

Gro

up 4

G

roup

5

Fund

ing:

Too

many agencies

cha

sing

too

few

dolla

rs

Lack o

f awa

rene

ss of

fundin

g sources

Lack o

f Fun

ding

Bureau

cratic

system

is self

-servi

ng

Uncerta

inty of

fundin

g Short-t

erm

comm

itments

for lo

ng-te

rm

prob

lems

Fund

ing n

eeds to

be targeted

—do

n’t

move the target

Lack o

f clea

r me

asures o

f success—

fundin

g ou

tcome

s need

s to m

atch

peop

les success

Comm

unity

needs cha

nge

Crite

ria d

on’t

fit p

eople

s ne

eds

Wor

king

Tog

ethe

r:

Lack o

f co-op

eration

betw

een

agen

cies

Lack o

f inn

ovative

app

roache

s Lack o

f a C

ontin

uum

of respon

sibilit

y Av

aila

bilit

y, A

ppro

pria

tene

ss,

Acce

ssib

ility

of Se

rvic

es:

Barri

ers to a

ccess

ibility

Lack o

f cen

tralized

sou

rce o

f inf

orma

tion

on a

vaila

ble serv

ices an

d supp

orts.

Lack o

f access

to

life/persona

l skil

ls Lack o

f skil

ls for

urban

livin

g Lack o

f app

ropriat

e servi

ces

Short-t

erm

versu

s lon

g-ter

m servi

ces

Explo

re the

need

befor

e exten

ding

the

wron

g kin

d of

help

Fund

ing:

Co

rporate ag

enda

&

Governme

nt p

riorities

“W

e’re no

t pa

rt of

the de

cision

-mak

ing!”

Lack o

f app

ropriat

e consult

ation

Prob

lems with fu

nding

“N

o Fit

”—Rig

id fun

ding

criter

ia Lack o

f cap

acity

to

draft

propo

sals

Diseng

agem

ent by G

overnm

ent

Only

so m

uch

mone

y in

the po

t &

“We’r

e no

t orga

nized!”

Wor

king

Tog

ethe

r:

Turfism

(peop

le aren’t

sharing

inf

orma

tion

because of

comp

etitio

n for

fun

ding)

Lack o

f kno

wledge o

n ho

w to access

money or w

hat the real

needs are

Disco

nnect betw

een

FNMI/decision

-mak

ers

& grassro

ots

Local k

nowled

ge (loc

al expe

rtise) no

t be

ing h

onou

red

Lack o

f buy-in

to

work tog

ether

Lack o

f resou

rces:

time,

mone

y &

staff

Tunn

el vis

ion: “

We’r

e too

busy to

meet

with each

othe

r, we

’re n

ot talk

ing!”

Avai

labi

lity,

App

ropr

iate

ness

, Ac

cess

ibili

ty o

f Se

rvic

es:

Lack o

f sen

sitive

staf

f Lang

uage is

sues

Lack o

f Cult

ural

sensitivit

y

Co

ncen

tratin

g servi

ces in

inner

city is

prob

lematic

for p

eople

who

wan

t to get

out of

this

envir

onme

nt.

Not consult

ing w

ith p

eople

who

need

servi

ces

Comp

lexity

of s

ystem

– Too

many

guide

lines, t

oo m

uch

paperw

ork

“H

OOPS”

Lack o

f info

rmati

on –

too

much

time

need

ed to

navig

ate syste

m.

Fund

ing:

Avail

abilit

y (not eno

ugh)

Governme

nt a

nd com

munit

y attitud

es

towa

rds socia

l program

s or servic

es

Politics

Juris

dictio

nal d

isputes

RE: F

irst N

ation

s, Mé

tis, N

on-St

atus

Decre

asing

fund

ing—

Governme

nt

structure li

mits

new

fundin

g

Lack o

f buy

-in fr

om p

olitic

al lea

ders

i.e.

Métis, F

irst N

ation

s

Wor

king

Tog

ethe

r:

Governme

nt sets

stru

cture in

stead

of

agen

cies

Decis

ions are be

ing m

ade by a

sma

ll grou

p (Dire

ctors)

tha

t are no

t fro

nt li

ne

workers

Apathy

Cumb

ersom

e bu

reaucracie

s Pa

ssing

the

buck

Comp

etitio

n be

tween

agen

cies

Lack o

f com

munic

ation

Lack o

f accou

ntab

ility for

qua

lity of

servi

ces

Avai

labi

lity,

App

ropr

iate

ness

, Ac

cess

ibili

ty o

f Se

rvic

es:

Paper pu

shing

(wo

rk)

Lack o

f com

munic

ation

Po

licy ma

kers

are ou

t of

touch

No a

dvocacy for

agencies

Fund

ing:

Inc

omple

te prop

osals

Lack o

f skil

ls No

resou

rces (m

anpo

wer,

research)

Have to

speak

the lin

go

Too

comp

licated

Have to

prove mo

ney we

ll-spent

Fund

ing b

ased o

n fau

lty stats

Syste

mic Mistr

ust (Diffe

rent le

vels)

Admi

nistra

tion

sucks up

most of

the mo

ney

Agen

cies are “m

aking

a li

ving off

us”

Histo

ry &

Oppress

ion

Agen

cies wa

nt to

help

but sca

red

W

orki

ng T

oget

her:

Lack o

f com

munic

ation

Lack o

f caring

– A

borig

inal leade

rs Av

aila

bilit

y, A

ppro

pria

tene

ss,

Acce

ssib

ility

of Se

rvic

es:

Fund

ing com

petition

No

t enou

gh M

oney

80% in

Adm

in Wrong

measures

Decis

ion-m

akers ha

ve n

o ide

a “W

ho you

kno

w, n

ot w

hat.”

Cla

ss syste

m Ed

ucation

al ba

rriers

Hirin

g cri

teria

controlled

by n

on-Abo

rigina

l peop

le Histo

ry/Colo

nialism

Foreign

plac

e for

abo

rigina

ls Inc

lusion

/Exclus

ion o

f Abo

rigina

ls FE

D/Prov. A

dmin

respo

nsibi

lity

Treaty,

Méti

s, Off-R

eserve

& O

n-Re

serve

Lack o

f Abo

rigina

l inp

ut in

to p

olicie

s

Fund

ing:

Prob

lematic

Fund

ing fo

rmula

Fed.

& Prov. G

overnm

ents

Politician

s- tax

payer accoun

tabil

ity

Econ

omic

and

politica

l cha

nges

Juris

dictio

n—Fed.

Prov. M

unicipa

lities

Do

wnloa

ding

of respon

sibilit

ies

Fund

ing goin

g to the reserves bu

t people

are

in the

cities

—mo

ney bo

und

to reserve b

udget (not

enou

gh m

oney fo

r reserve

s) My

th o

f mon

ey fo

r all

Aborigi

nal p

eople

Lack o

f fun

ding

continu

ity

Wor

king

tog

ethe

r:

Fund

ing encou

rages comp

etitio

n (Gov’t

desig

ned)

Juris

dictio

n—pig

eon-ho

ling

Build

ing p

rogram

s to m

eet f

undin

g requ

ireme

nts no

t ne

eds of

clien

t Lim

its o

f tim

e—20

% client-re

lated

/80%

pap

erwork

Politics

in A

lberta

Frien

dship

s with p

olitic

al pe

ople

shap

ing fu

nding

Po

litica

l persons in

timida

te grou

ps to

meet

their

int

erests

“Pun

ish the

poo

r att

itude

of s

ociet

y”

Capit

alist

syste

m No

stabil

ity w

ithin

politica

l leade

rship

Acce

ssib

ility

& A

vaila

bilit

y &

Appr

opriat

enes

s of

Ser

vice

s:

Some

agencies

have bo

unda

ry li

mitatio

ns

Dupli

catio

n of

servi

ces (fu

nding

) Term

inolog

y—Fu

nders

and

the

Con

stitutio

n Th

ree sepa

rate

Abo

rigina

l Group

s Ph

ysica

l Accessib

ility—

you

get wh

at you

’re give

n: (no

input in

to p

rogram

design

) Evalu

ation

used

to ju

stify

cuts

to fu

nding

Crite

ria n

ot cult

urally-a

ppropriat

e. Liv

e &

die b

y sta

tistic

s bu

t sta

tistic

s are wr

ong

Gov’t

has app

ropriat

ed successf

ully run

Aborigi

nal

agen

cies

App

endi

x 5:

Fol

low

-up

Sess

ion

(Apr

il 06

/200

5)

Fo

llow

-up

Ses

sio

n (A

pril

06/2

005)

Po

tent

ial A

ctio

n It

ems

Gro

up 1

G

roup

2

Gro

up 3

One-S

top

Shop

Vis

ion Statem

ent:

All in

digenou

s peop

le ha

ve a

one-st

op fa

cility

tha

t provid

es com

fort,

safet

y &

supp

ort

throug

h the provision

of w

ell coo

rdina

ted servic

es that

will he

lp prep

are the

found

ation

for a

susta

inable

, valu

ed u

rban

life.

Ste

p On

e: Call

for a m

eetin

g to esta

blish a stee

ring

comm

ittee:

Identify

thin

gs w

e can

do?

Netw

orkin

g &

Comm

unica

ting

More coll

aborati

on

How

many

group

s me

eting

? Ho

w to con

nect

tem

Bette

r wa

y to o

rgan

ize

Ideas/sh

aring

/share ris

k/be

nefits

Two

grou

ps –

coll

aboration

s Co

mmun

ity m

appin

g –

housing

/ h

ousin

g ser

vices

Joint

Holistic

Hu

b –

One-s

top

shop

– cen

tralized

Histo

ry –

Aborigi

nal p

illar –

one sto

p shop

ping

Urba

n Ab

origi

nal S

trateg

y / Trust F

und

Fund

ing o

ne stop

shop

Winn

ipeg mo

del –

train

stat

ion –

thu

nderbir

d ho

use

Good

lead

ership

comm

unity

Po

litics

/ cha

nges

Busin

ess pla

n –

1 sto

p shop

Talk

to p

eople

– b

ring

peop

le Ab

origi

nal U

niversity stu

dents to ta

lk to the h

omele

ss ab

out t

he their

needs

Tran

sition

al ho

using

– roo

m / pic

ture

wall

One pe

rson

can

help

make cha

nge

Stand

/ q

uality of

life

Bring

it to

the grou

ps o

f the p

lan and

get

comm

itment

One Sto

p Ste

ering

Com

mitte

e Re

search/Acti

on team

Partn

ers for

Kids

& You

th –

have a

multi-disc

iplina

ry typ

e of

workers to d

o the

work.

Team

app

roach

to d

ealin

g with h

omele

ssness

Prior

itize

Steering

Com

mitte

e –

start

right awa

y (vo

luntee

rs –

key sta

keho

lders)

Or

ganiz

ation

to

supp

ort

Prop

osal

– On

e Sto

p Shop

Poten

tial A

ction

Item

s: Fo

rget

differ

ences/t

urfism

Lack o

f com

munic

ation

Sharing

infor

matio

n fro

m resea

rch etc.

(studie

s) Talk

to a

gencies

Ou

treach

worker (I p

er a

gency)

Housing

Re

lation

ship

build

ing

Refer

rals

Help

with h

omele

ss coun

t, etc

. Ha

ving a me

eting

1 p

er m

onth to

share inf

orma

tion

Know

ledge o

f servic

es a

vaila

ble

Frien

dship

Cen

tre –

Cen

tre o

f refe

rrals

Havin

g op

en com

munic

ation

s with / in

agencies

Cana

dian

Nativ

e Frien

dship

Centre

look

ing to

put a

d in

exam

iner

Research is

not accurate –

based

on

visibi

lity (lo

ok A

borig

inal)

One-S

top

Shop

(Our N

ew E

dmon

ton

Servi

ces To

People

) Frien

dship

Cen

tre –

refe

rral

Research C

entre

Ea

ch a

rea N

W, W

– servic

es avail

able

in their

area

Satel

lite off

ices &

one ma

jor d

owntow

n Ma

pping

projec

t Inv

olving

Abo

rigina

l Leade

rs Accoun

table

for their

own

peop

le Eld

ers inv

olvem

ent

Research &

Outreach

Meeti

ng o

f agency - Ap

ril 2

7th at N

ative Sen

iors or Frie

ndship

Centre

Sharing

infor

matio

n Do

ing refe

rrals

Putting

a call o

ut –

hou

sing

/ ho

meles

s, coun

sello

rs, refe

rral w

orkers

Stren

gths o

f Agency &

Perso

nal D

evelo

pmen

t Co

mmun

icatio

ns b

uildin

g &

Recogn

ition

to a

gencies

Co

nstru

ction

: Ab

origi

nal H

abita

t for

Hum

anity

; Co-op

Hou

sing;

Heali

ng Cen

tre

Providi

ng skil

l develo

pmen

t / me

ntoring

Bu

ilding

Inv

olvem

ent in

the process

Aborigi

nal a

pprentice

ship

prog

ram

One-S

top

Shop

: De

velop

Cen

tres with it

all

Train

ed / cult

urall

y sensitive

Involv

ing A

borig

inal L

eade

rs:

Educate the lea

ders

on a

ddressi

ng is

sues / create

awa

reness

Find

solut

ions

Wha

t is their

role

on

deali

ng w

ith is

sues

perta

ining

Ca

ll a assemb

ly to add

ress

Research &

Outreach:

Find

out needs

Develop

research

projec

ts / drop

in

Stren

gths o

f Agencies

& P

erson

al De

velop

ment

Gather a

gency inf

orma

tion

Invite

agencies

to

partn

er in

accom

plishing

goa

l (e.g

. life

skil

ls,

housing

, and

emp

loyme

nt, p

hysic

al &

mental

healt

h.)

Deal

with is

sues

that

are dir

ectly

rela

ted to

home

less iss

ues

Servi

ce D

irecto

r –

contact pe

rson

Constru

ction

: Bu

ild the Tee P

ee

Intak

e process

Housing

com

plex / ap

artm

ent

Secure in

come

: SFI

or A

ISH

Perso

nal D

evelo

pment –

life skil

ls, p

hysic

al, m

ental

– spir

itual

well

being

Sta

biliza

tion

Emplo

ymen

t or edu

catio

n preparation

App

endi

x 5:

Fol

low

-up

Sess

ion

(Apr

il 06

/200

5)

Fo

llow

-up

Ses

sio

n (A

pril

06/2

005)

Po

tent

ial A

ctio

n It

ems

Gro

up 4

G

roup

4 (C

ontin

ued)

G

roup

5

One-S

top

Shop

: Ca

nadia

n Na

tive Frien

dship

Cen

tre

Resources &

Outre

ach

Medic

al (den

tal,

docto

rs, p

harm

acy,

coun

sellin

g); F

ood

bank

s / clo

thing

ban

k; Em

ergency shelt

er –

veh

icle to p

ick o

ver flo

w Eld

ers provide

d ( s

piritu

al gu

idance –

coun

sellin

g); D

etox room

Shou

ld be w

reck p

roof

Involv

ing A

borig

inal L

eade

rs:

Need

a spo

kesperson

for U

rban

Abo

rigina

ls grou

ps, a

gencies

, people

Who

are

they? Where a

re the A

borig

inal p

eople

from

? (need

to d

o resea

rch o

n urba

n Ab

origi

nal p

eople

)

Invite

the

lead

ers in

to d

iscuss:

urba

n Ab

origi

nal i

ssues

presen

t pla

n Ho

w do

the

y wa

nt to

be inv

olved

? Feed

the

m an

d they w

ill come

Tim

efram

e –

to m

eet to d

iscuss providi

ng h

ousin

g for

urban

Abo

rigina

l – con

structiv

e ad

vice we

can

work

on

No m

ore po

litica

l rhetoric

Inv

ited

by their

own

peop

le Sharing

Research

: Sharing

- hig

h prior

ity / rein

venting

the w

heel

– low

Int

ernet we

bsite

– o

ne site

Re

quire

ment tha

t wh

en g

iving

fund

ing th

at research

be ma

de a

vaila

ble to

the pu

blic

Link

to u

niversities

and

coll

eges

Aborigi

nal a

nd n

on-Abo

rigina

l research

Ab

origi

nal i

nform

ation

gue

st site

Make it

more accessi

ble in

stead

of r

ewriting

the research

or reinv

entin

g the wh

eel

Do n

ot o

ver am

ount o

n resea

rch

Outre

ach

worker N

etwork

Identify

the h

omele

ss Re

verse

the

dire

ction

of i

nform

ation

↑ in

stead

of ↓

Ea

ch agency shou

ld ha

ve a

n ou

treach

worker –

and

they shou

ld be n

etworkin

g with o

ther o

utreach

workers

They sho

uld b

e loc

ated

whe

re the

hom

eless

are.

Stren

gths o

f Agencies

/ P

erson

al De

velop

ment:

Resource g

uide

Create

an awa

rd fo

r agen

cies that d

o wo

rk in

the cit

y De

velop

an

interne

t site

for all o

rgan

izatio

ns –

ma

intain

ed every year –

(hard

& soft

copy

avail

able)

Re

search o

ther u

rban

cen

tres –

what

are they

doing

successes

sharing

best practic

es share challen

ges &

failur

es

Frien

dship

Cen

tre sho

uld d

o this

Central A

gency

Accre

dited

traini

ng

Education

for agen

cy, l

eaders

/ sta

ff Cit

y wide

recog

nition

to

agen

cy staf

f Co

nstru

ction

: Ro

tating

cha

ir for

meetin

gs –

to

develop

lea

dersh

ip Ge

t the ide

a fro

m TV –

“Ex

treme

Mak

eovers

– Ho

me E

dition

” Pa

rtner

with City

busine

sses to p

rovid

e safe,

aff

orda

ble, a

dequ

ate ho

using

for ho

meles

s pe

ople.

Desig

n of

build

ing con

duciv

e to social

inter

actio

n, redu

ce is

olatio

n Facility

/ reside

nce shou

ld ha

ve servic

es availa

ble

to the

m on

-site

e.g.:

child

care,

recre

ation

, etc

Sense of

city

Large fam

ily u

nits

Stude

nt u

nits

Tran

sition

al un

its

Stude

nts / un

iversi

ties can

do d

esign

of b

uildin

g (4

th year archite

ctural s

tude

nts)

One-S

top

(One Step

): Sin

gle entry in

to the

system

(vir

tual

one sto

p)

All in

forma

tion

at every lo

catio

n (w

eb b

ased

) Inv

olving

Abo

rigina

l Leade

rs:

Get on

their

agenda

(An

nual

Assem

blies)

Strategy on

who

migh

t contrib

ute

Meet

them

on

their

turf

Research &

Outreach

Politica

l research

– fo

cus on

how

-to

Outco

me b

ased –

best practic

es

Clearing

hou

se –

data

in o

ne lo

catio

n Stren

gths o

f Agencies

& P

erson

al De

velop

ment

Stren

gths in

ventory (persona

l) to serve as

resources on

a cross

– agen

cy b

asis

Risk

free tra

nsfer

of c

lients –

not to lo

se fu

nding

Fu

nctio

ning

netw

ork

Constru

ction

: Who

is in

terest

ed

Get together

Locate

skill

develop

ment resou

rces