Document Preview:
Name/ALKUAIBI, YOUSEF MANSOOR Instructor Name/ Laura Wyper Course Name/ Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development November 11, 2013 Women’s Economic Development and Social Capital Accomplishments in a Winnepeg Community Development Program After a youth program lost funding, several members of the community in Winnepeg, Manitoba joined together to form a family service center.Click here for more on this paper.......
Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper done for you by one of our writers within the set deadline at a discounted.. Staffed by community members, as well as a large group of volunteers from the community, the Andrews Street Family Service Centre provides several programs, including women’s support groups. More than 10 years after the center opened, a survey of 700 residents found that all of the residents could provide a strength that the center encouraged them in. The center has a grassroots background, with the board of directors and executive director all members of the community, and the center has strong ties with other community groups.Click here for more on this paper.......
Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper done for you by one of our writers within the set deadline at a discounted.. The center provides culturally competent, holistic programs for all ages, from children to youth to families to elders, with 80 percent of its members being Aboriginal. The Andrews Street Family Service Centre case study is set in the framework of three theories: Community Development Theory, Empowerment Theory and the Social Capital Theory. First, Community Development Theory provides a practical framework for understanding individuals and the communities and societies in which they live. It focuses on the centrality of oppressed people in the process of overcoming externally imposed social problems. Cook (1994) writes that Community Development Theory emphasizes “paid professionals/workers; initiation by groups, agencies or institutions external to the community unit; emphasizes public participation; participate for the purpose of self-help; [an] increase[d] dependence on participatory democracy as the mode for community (public) decision-making;” and “uses a holistic approach.” In community development, people are empowered to grow,...
Attachments:
Name/ALKUAIBI,
YOUSEF MANSOOR
Instructor Name/Laura Wyper
Course Name/Introduction to Community
Economic and Social Development
November 11, 2013
Women’s Economic Development and Social Capital Accomplishments in a Winnepeg
Community Development Program
After a youth program lost funding, several
members of the community in Winnepeg, Manitoba joined together to form a family
service center. Staffed by community members, as well as a large group of volunteers
from the community, the Andrews Street Family Service Centre provides several
programs, including women’s support groups. More than 10 years after the center
opened, a survey of 700 residents found that all of the residents could provide
a strength that the center encouraged them in. Click here for more on this paper.......
Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper done for you by one of our writers within the set deadline at a discounted..The center has a grassroots
background, with the board of directors and executive director all members of
the community, and the center has strong ties with other community groups. The
center provides culturally competent, holistic programs for all ages, from
children to youth to families to elders, with 80 percent of its members being
Aboriginal.
The Andrews Street Family Service Centre
case study is set in the framework of three theories: Community
Development Theory, Empowerment Theory and the Social Capital Theory. First, Community Development Theory
provides a practical framework for understanding individuals and the
communities and societies in which they live. It focuses on the centrality of
oppressed people in the process of overcoming externally imposed social problems.
Cook (1994) writes that Community Development Theory emphasizes “paid
professionals/workers; initiation by groups, agencies or institutions external
to the community unit; emphasizes public participation; participate for the
purpose of self-help; [an] increase[d] dependence on participatory democracy as
the mode for community (public) decision-making;” and “uses a holistic
approach.”
In community
development, people are empowered to grow, all in an effort to build and
strengthen the community. Empowerment Theory “refers to the experience of
personal growth and an improvement in self-definition that occurs as a result
of the development of capabilities and proficiencies. Another definition
suggests that empowerment is a combination of personal strengths, initiative,
and natural helping systems to bring about change. This theory can be applied
to community development by empowering the people within the community to
develop their own community” (Woolcock and Naravan 2000).
Social capital
theory provides a framework in which to discuss how women’s work, whether
professional or domestic, contributes to community and economic development.
According to Woolcock and Naravan (2000), “Social capital is often seen as the
missing link in development; as social networks facilitate access to resources
and protect the commons, whilst co-operation makes markets work more
efficiently. Social capital has been thought of as women's capital as whereas
there are gendered barriers to accessing economic capital, women's role in
family, and community ensures that they have strong networks. In the 1990s the
concept of social capital—defined here as the norms and networks that enable
people to act collectively” (225). DeFilippis (2000) suggests, “People who are
concerned with economic development in low-income areas emphasizing the importance
of social connections and networks as a way of moving low-income people and
communities out of poverty” (782).Click here for more on this paper.......
In this case study, Andrews Street Family
Service Centre offers empowerment programs for women, and the case study
highlights two specific success stories. Young women in the women’s support
groups have gone from focusing on bearing children in order to receive public
assistance and leave home to focusing on post-secondary education. In addition,
one mother was able to get off public assistance once she started working at
the Centre, thereby setting a good example for her three children who followed
in her steps by working on their own.
Farha and Goba (2002) found that “in 1997 women
accounted for 56% of all Canadians with low incomes and almost 20% of the total
female population in Canada (2.8 million women) were poor. In 1996, there were
close to one million (945,000) female-headed lone-parent families in Canada who
are by far the poorest of all family types. Fifty-six percent of these
families, or over half a million single mothers, were living in poverty. These
statistics are worse when viewed in light of intersecting disadvantage. For
example: In 1996, a startling 73% of Aboriginal single mothers lived in
poverty. (Farha and Goba 2002:18). In 2010, Hill (2010) found that “Poverty
rates among Aboriginal women overall are at 35 percent, an alarming rate. Farha
and Goba write, “Women experience insecure tenure and homelessness in a variety
of ways, including living with the constant threat of violence so as to avoid
the loss of “shelter”; living in unsafe or unhealthy accommodation; living in
overcrowded situations with family or friends and living without necessities
such as food, clothing and medical needs so as to be able to pay rent” (18).
The Centre’s program focuses, among many
services, community economic development (CED), which, Hill (2010) describes, “is
the process of people working together in their local neighbourhood to improve
their local economy. The goal of CED is to provide meaningful work for all, at
a level of income that provides a secure livelihood, in jobs that are
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. Research has shown that
CED projects based upon the idea of ‘social economy’—an economy that seeks to
enhance social relationships as well as generate revenue—can actually generate
more jobs than projects based upon the traditional idea of a purely financial
economy” (3).
Hill further describes CED as based on “grassroots
and participant-based (the community is deeply involved in decision-making and
designing the program activities); asset-based (the program seeks to identify
and build upon the existing strengths of the community and its residents); respect
for diversity and inclusiveness; [and] transparent and accountable” (3).
Hill found that Canadian government CED programs
often do not meet women’s needs by empowering them or supporting them to build
their social capital. Hill writes, “We discovered that women continue to face
systemic wage discrimination and their unequal domestic responsibilities
continue to limit their employment options. Because governments and employers
have failed to address these realities, women are left economically vulnerable,
forced to make difficult personal and economic choices. The absence of
family-friendly policies leaves women at an incredible economic disadvantage.
In order to meet their domestic responsibilities, many women choose to work in
part-time, temporary, or contract jobs, or choose self-employment. All of these
options pay less and are less secure than full-time work. Even when women do
work full-time—despite being, on average, more educated than men—they earn
less” (i).
However, a woman-centred empowerment program
like that at Andrews Street Family Service Centre provides a range of
empowerment services that, “like most women-centred CED programs typically
combine practical economic support, pre-employment training, personal
development, and other services such as business development and mentoring.
These interventions are specifically designed to help low-income women address
how systemic barriers affect their economic security. Women-centred CED are so
effective because, unlike mainstream CED programs, they provide the kinds of
help that low-income women need the most: practical economic supports combined
with ‘personal development.’ Practitioners know from experience that these
interventions are critical for low-income women to move out of poverty; they
work because they are based upon women’s social and economic realities.
Unfortunately, the federal government is increasingly unwilling to pay for
these services, preferring to fund only generic, ‘gender-neutral’ CED programs
that do not address women’s key needs” (Hill 2010:i).
Women-centred CED is “based not only on local
knowledge, but also on women’s knowledge. Women-centred CED is designed to address the
economic and social realities of women’s lives, which – for most women – are
fundamentally different from that of men’s. In this sense, being a woman can be
considered being part of a shared experience, just as living in a particular
neighbourhood makes you part of that geographic community. The key feature of
women-centred CED programs…is that they are based on participants identifying
themselves not by their geographic location, their income, or some other attribute—but
as women” (Hill 3).
Women-centred CED is necessary because “people
living on a low income must overcome many challenges—such as a lack of
education, training or work experience—before they can compete in the labor
market” (Hill 3). “The main difference between mainstream CED programs and
women-centred CED programs is that the latter offers interventions that address
women’s social and economic reality. Women-centred CED offers interventions
such as: Practical economic supports; a holistic view of women’s economic life;
life skills and/or personal development; [and] interventions based on women’s
values and women’s ways of working” (Hill 6).
Developing life skills is of utmost importance
for women in successful community economic development programs. Women may
struggle with “poor self-esteem, high self-doubt, a lack of confidence, and a
chronic inability to recognize their own strengths and assets” as they
have been “raised to put the needs of
their children, spouse, and extended family first, and to think of their own
needs as less important” (Hill 7). Though an empowerment program like that
provided at the Centre, women gain “emotional support in order to identify
their economic goals, see themselves as capable of achieving them, become
motivated enough to make change, and to deal with the resulting impact on their
families. While this type of developmental work is sometimes considered ‘extra’—or
even as superfluous to CED—for women is essential to the process of personal
and economic change. Many CED programs help their participants to identify
their ‘strengths and weaknesses’ and emphasize taking responsibility for making
personal and economic change” (Hill 7).
Women’s participation in community economic
development is important in “ensuring that women become full citizens in the
cities in which they live. This entails ensuring that they have security of
their homes, personal safety in private and public space, access to services
and employment, full enjoyment of the cultural and social opportunities offered
by urban life and most importantly, a voice and vote in the way their cities
are governed and managed. It involves empowering women to actively take their place
as full citizens so that they can articulate their needs and give their views
on how those needs should be addressed” (Seaforth 2002:3).
The Andrews Street Family Service Centre’s
success lies in supporting and empowering women to become financially
self-sufficient and independent, becoming role models for their children,
leading to generational change to economic freedom and less dependence on
public assistance.
Works Cited
Brown, J.D., & Hannis, D.
(2011). Community Development in Canada.
Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada.
Cook,
J.B. (1994). Community Development Theory. University of Missouri. Web.
Accessed November 9, 2013.
DeFilippis,
J. (2001). The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development. Housing Policy Debate 12 (4): 781–806. Web. Accessed November 9, 2013.Click here for more on this paper.......
Farha, L. & Goba, R. (2002).
Access Denied: Canada’s Housing Crisis. Habitat
Debate. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT 8 (4): 18–19.
Hill, D.E. (2010). The Case for Federally Funded Women-Centred
Community Economic Development. Thorold, Canada: Women’s Economic Council.
Searforth, W. (2002). Towards
Woman-friendly Cities. Habitat Debate.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT 8 (4): 1–4.
Woolcock,
M. & Naravan, D. (2000). Social Capital: Implications for Development
Theory, Research, and Policy. World Bank
Res Obs 15 (2): 225–249.
Web. Accessed November 9, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment