Al Etmanski

A Disturbing Repeat of the Residential School Nightmare

This Wednesday at The Forks in Winnipeg the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission will begin its hearings into Canada's residential school system. That system saw 150,000 First Nation, Métis and Inuit children placed in 130 residential schools across Canada. These hearings are the first of seven planned across Canada. Their goals, to listen, to heal, to understand and to ensure this legacy of the past informs our decision towards First Nations people today.

We will watch these hearings with a strong desire that those who experienced this neglect, abuse, mistreatment will find a measure of peace.  Perhaps some of us we will even expect this to be the beginning of the end of injustice; surely this could never happen again.

Yet dear reader consider what is happening to First Nations children today.  According to the First Nations Caring Society: There are more First Nations children in foster care today than were placed in Residential Schools at their height.

This is shocking, deeply troubling - and bears repeating: More First Nations children are in child welfare care today than at the height of residential schools.

We know from John Milloy's book on residential schools, A National Crime (1999) there were 8900 children in residential schools at the height of their operations in 1949.  Today a conservative estimate sees 27,000 First Nations children in foster care. Different strategy same result - children removed from their natural parents and family breakdown.

Let me add more texture to that statement, again courtesy of The First Nations Caring Society.

• one in ten aboriginal children versus one in two hundred non-aboriginal children are in child welfare
• seven times as many infants die on First Nations reserves than in the rest of the country.  This is the primary reason, Canada's child mortality rates have plunged from sixth to twenty-fourth in the world
• one in six First Nations households don't have clean drinking water.

The causes are well known: poverty, poor housing and substance abuse all of which we can do something about.  Of particular concern is the drastic under-funding of at home supports for children and families.

In 2007 the First Nations Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada alleging that inequitable funding for First Nations children and families on reserve resulted in unequal benefit under child welfare laws.  They have since been joined by Amnesty International.  Our government, the Government of Canada is stonewalling these proceedings essentially using legal loopholes rather than addressing the substance of these concerns.

Here's the irony, deep tragedy and a reminder that the quest for justice is relentless, paradoxical, elusive, contradictory, and complex. 

The Truth and Reconciliation hearings begin June 16th on the second anniversary of our Prime Minister Harper standing in the House of Commons and apologizing on behalf of all Canadians and asked for "forgiveness of the Aboriginal Peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly."

I was proud of our Prime Minister for doing the right thing and making this apology.  In fact I happened to be in a room with BC Premier Gordon Campbell  just after he returned from an event with First Nation leaders celebrating this historic breakthrough. Premier Campbell couldn't speak about it without crying.  As Sean A-in-chut Atleo Chief of the First Nations Assembly stated -  The historic apology to residential school survivors was an important moment in our shared history. The apology was a statement by all of Parliament that colonialist policies and attitudes that undermined First Nations governments and denigrated First Nations families and cultures were wrong, caused great harm and have no place in Canada today.

You can do more than read,listen or view media reports on the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.  Visit The First Nations Caring Society website.  They offer a list of seven things you can easily do in less than two minutes.  I would add an eighth: Contact your MP or our Prime Minister and urge Canada to do the right thing.  To address the chronic underfunding of supports and education to First Nations children and families on reserve, (approximately $125 Million annually).  To follow the well researched solutions proposed by the First Nations Caring Society. 

Let's make sure in 25 years there isn't another Truth and Reconciliation process for the children brought up in the child welfare system.

To hear a recent CBC Sunday Edition interview with Dr. Cindy Blackstock the remarkable leader of the First Nations Caring Society click here.

Roundup

A potpourri of interesting articles, reports and determined leadership to round up the week.

The first is the decision by the Hamilton Spectator to profile the unacceptable rates of poverty in Hamilton and to become part of the solution  Here, courtesy of Tamarack are links to the editor's declaration to make the reduction of poverty in Hamilton a high priority.  Since mainstream media is under criticism these days for sensationalizing the news, it is refreshing for a newspaper to admit a bias, declare enough is enough and lend its weight and credibility to fighting poverty.  For its leadership The Spectator is being criticized by its media colleagues.  The back story to this initiative, and there is always a back story, is the significant leadership over several years, provided by the Hamilton Community Foundation and the convening expertise of Vibrant Communities led by the passion and expertise of Paul Born and Mark Cabaj.

Secondly, a revised and highly relevant quarterly journal has hit the 'e' ways, The Canadian Philanthropist.  The journal is free and presents the challenges faced by the civil sector in the early years of the 21st century, in an engaging and accessible manner. Two articles in the current issue stand out for me.  One on Funder Collaboratives by Hillary Pearson, the savvy President of the Philanthropic Foundation of Canada. Hillary looks at the collaboration among foundation funders to pool grant dollars, share information, discuss common strategy and work together on specific policy challenges.  I have participated in several of these foundation collaborations and they are powerful forces.  At a time when the non profit sector is encouraged to collaborate by funders, it is encouraging to see Canadian Foundations do the same and perhaps most important recognize it will not happen without learning the skills of collaboration.                                        The second article is by Liz Mulholland entitled, New Ways to Keep Up Our End of the Policy Conversation.  Liz worked for the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) under former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien and saw first hand our sector's lobby strengths and weaknesses.  I will always be grateful for the strategic advice she gave me at a critical moment in PLAN's campaign to secure the RDSP (Registered Disability Savings Plan). One of her recommendations is to make Government '101' a core competency of Board members and staff.  To that end PLAN will host 3 days of advocacy training this September with the eminent Sean Moore as our presenter and strategist.  Stay tuned for more details.

Thirdly this week's issue of Village Vibes from Charity Village profiles Imagine Canada's   Sector Monitor report on the financial health of Canada's volunteer sector in light of the world's recession. Among its findings:

• one quarter reduced services and programs
• one half increased reliance on volunteers
• one quarter expressed the belief their existence is at risk.

Never a better time to think and act differently.

And finally, Ted Kuntz, my dear friend and author of Peace Begins With Me has made it to the second round of voting for the Next Top Spiritual Author competition. Here is the link to a short overview of Ted's book and an opportunity to support him through to the final round.  See also a deeply personal review of Ted's book by the noted Quebec writer and editorialist, Hélene Laberge.  I had the great pleasure of spending two days with Hélene and her husband Jacques Dufresne this week in North Hatley, one of the most beautiful regions of Quebec. The impact of those inspiring conversations will appear in subsequent blogs.

Roundup

To roundup the week, here are updates on two items I recently wrote about: the new UK Government's Big Society agenda; and natural care.

Big Society Update

It hasn't taken long for the new Coalition Government in the UK to begin implementing its Big Society agenda.  From previous posts you will recall the 'learning laboratory' now on display in the UK as the result the Cameron/Clegg coalition. All jurisdictions are or will be facing similar challenges: mounting financial pressures; less government resources; weakened civil society as a result of relying for too long on bug government and the financial market.  Watching how the UK deals with theses pressures will provide insight on what to do and what not to do.
This week, they announced the creation of a Big Society Bank which will provide financing to neighbourhood groups, social enterprises and other non governmental organizations.   The capital for this bank will come from all the unclaimed assets in dormant bank accounts.
Ironically this initiative began under former PM Gordon Brown who established a Task Force a few years ago that recommended what Cameron/Clegg have now done.
Fortunately, the civil, non profit and social enterprise sector has done its work and made sure a variation of the Bank was embedded in the election platforms of each of the three parties.  In that regard, implementation was more or less assured whoever was elected. Covering your partisan political bases - a key lesson for our sector here in Canada and elsewhere.
The new policy document is called: Building The Big Society ( Download Ukbuildingbigsocietymay2010 ).  It sets out five priorities: (1) Give communities more power; (2) encourage people to take an active role in their communities; (3) transfer power form central to local governments; (4) support coops, charities and social enterprise; and (5) publish government data.  Open Government advocates take note of that last point.  One of my favorite bloggers David Eaves will likely have a cogent analysis soon.
Some of the intriguing policy proposals include:

• a new National Citizen Service to support 16-year olds in public service initiatives;
• train a new generation of community organizers and support the creation of neighbourhood groups, especially in ‘most deprived’ areas.
• launch a national ‘Big Society Day’ to encourage volunteering and involvement in social action.
• ‘a range of measures’ to encourage charitable giving and philanthropy.
• support for the creation and expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises – and support for those groups to have a much greater involvement in the running of public services.
• public sector workers will get a new right to form employee-owned co-operatives that can bid to take over public services.
• create a new ‘right to public data’.

It is too soon to tell how all this will play out. I subscribe to the UK's Institute for Public Policy Research for their policy analysis.  They have set four key priorities for the new Government and will be one of the many groups holding that Government to account.  Note: They also have an excellent paper on a new electoral system.

Natural Care Update

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announced on May 17th that a government led by him  "will do more to help families care for loved ones at home."  Here are excerpts from Ignatieff's speech:

We can't have a productive and competitive society when families are out of the labour market, caring for loved ones at home.  I speak with a certain amount of authority and passion here. I lost my mother to Alzheimer's. Millions of families in this country go through the same anguish that my brother and I did.

We're a better country than that. We know that a country can be compassionate and competitive at the same time. In fact, you can't be competitive, unless you are compassionate.

Click here to read the full speech.

This is the result of careful, thoughtful strategic advocacy work by the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, Cancer, Alzheimer's and ALS Societies, assisted by luminaries like Sherri Torjman whose speech at the Canada 150 conference I profiled on March 30th. 
You might be interested to know Ignatieff wrote what many consider a thinly veiled fictionalized account of a son's struggles with his mother's diminishing intellectual ability.  The novel, Scar Tissue, was nominated for a Booker Prize and contains the most poetic descriptions of personhood, despite fraility and varying degrees of intellectual capacity, I have ever read.  He gets to the soul of what it means to be deeply human.

Unlike the UK, there is not yet all party agreement on this agenda in Canada.  So let's join with the Canadian Caregiver Coalition and others to persuade the Conservative Government, New Democrats, Bloc Quebecois and Green Parties to develop their own comprehensive plan to support natural care in Canada.

Love the One You're With - Tips for Solution Based Advocacy (12)

I am encountering more and more people who are frustrated with our current elected political leadership (either federal or provincial) and are considering 'downing tools' and abandoning any effort to make contact with those Governments including contacts with Cabinet Ministers.  One reason they cite is the elimination of funding to advocacy groups who speak out against government.  The other is their perception of the political agenda of the parties in power.  Further, some are suggesting the priority for the non profit sector is to take a public stand against this political agenda. 

I don't agree with these sentiments.  Ignoring our elected governments does not make sense if we are interested in developing solutions to our tough social and environmental challenges.  I consider it a form of abandonment. Here are four reasons:

1. We abandon the interests of our constituencies and membership, potentially for years (depending on the remaining term of office)  when we stop petitioning, informing, representing our membership and holding our elected representatives to account.
2. Social and environmental issues transcend partisan allegiances. We risk abandoning and alienating potential allies who may share our concerns on particular issues but support the government.  We also risk undermining the broad, non partisan consensus necessary to take action on the tough complex challenges we face.
3. Elected Governments are composed of competing political interests, and factions.  Although it may not seem so from the outside, there are allies (yes, even at the Cabinet table) who are sympathetic to our concerns and solutions. We abandon them and don't provide them with any leverage to do their behind the scenes work, when we ignore elected governments and become openly partisan.
4. The public service still operates during all political environments.   Perhaps at a slower speed, perhaps at a snail's pace.  This is not of their choosing. We shouldn't abandon them either.  This is a great opportunity to cultivate relations, foster trust, inform and educate, and pursue issues in preparation for the time when there is a political go ahead. In fact public servants may have more time on their hands when they don't have the green light to move issues within their systems.  You have a greater chance of getting their attention.

There are some other reasons we should not go down that road:

• What we don't like in our political leaders is often a reflection of ourselves.  Why feed the negative in us or them?
• Politicizing the non profit sector will have repercussions for decades.  Our job is to raise the issues, advocate for change, encourage consensus, inform, educate, provide remedies, innovate.  There are other vehicles to become active in a partisan, political way.
• Ignoring our elected governments is anti - democratic suggesting to the electorate that if we don't like their decision, we will take matters into our own hands.
• Using our non profit vehicles to defeat the government and replace them with the opposition is no guarantee the opposition will act much differently when they are in power.
• Pure advocacy groups (I don't mean service provider organizations) are more effective when they don't rely on funding from government.  This gives them the independence to praise or criticize without fear of consequence.  Loss of government funding could be the opportunity to establish a stronger relationship with your constituency, earn their financial support and your financial self sufficiency.

This is not an argument against speaking up, expressing outrage, or holding government to account.  However, as solution oriented advocates we should not confuse our personal political passions with our responsibilities to obtain solutions.
 There is lots of work to do even during tough political times.  Solution based advocacy is unyielding, and must pursue solutions in all types of environments. But keep it non partisan, seek to heal rifts, reduce polarization and shine a different light on the issues.  
In politics, unlike life, if you can't be with the ones you love, love the one you're with.  Or at least stay connected to the ones we elect.

Regrets - I Have a Few - Tips for Solution Based Advocacy (9)

While campaigning for the closure of institutions in British Columbia in the 1980's we created a team that was effective in getting media attention as a means to put pressure on our provincial government.  Through trial and error we arrived at a winning formula.  Time our press releases  for Saturday; release them to news outlets outside the urban Vancouver area (we chose Kamloops).  Further, we found that placing a Cabinet Minister's name in the headline got the media's attention.  This was in the days before e-mails and faxes were just starting to be used.

Here's one headline I regret: Minister 'X' Responsible for Deaths of Hundreds.

The response was immediate - the Minister's Assistant phoned Sunday evening. What did I mean - was I accusing the Minister personally?  They were preparing for media inquiries, Question Period the next day and the inevitable scrum in the Legislature.  I immediately retracted and did my best to send an apology to the Minister

To this day I don't know whether she ever accepted my apology.

What I do know is that shortly after, a Memo was sent to all Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers and ADM's warning them that I was not to be trusted.  The impact of that Memo lingered for years through successive governments and long after this particular Minister moved to another portfolio.

And a year later when our President and I did get a meeting with that same Minister it was clear she had not forgotten. The meeting lasted about an hour - most spent listening to a tongue lashing directed at me.  Clearly, I had hurt her deeply.  And, there went the chance to speak about the well being of the folks living in institutions that we were there to meet about.  They were the real losers in this situation. 

It took a long time for me to be seen as part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem.  If you need to get attention and raise awareness, try to do it in a way that elevates your issue and the potential for solutions.  A winning formula is still just technique unless linked to ethical behavior and ethical objectives.

NOTE:  Little did I know. This particular Minister had been responsible for securing major funding for a Vancouver disability organization long before she went into politics.  And when she retired from politics she founded another disability organization for a group of people whose concerns had been ignored.  She was and still is a force for good.

This is the 9th in a series entitled Tips for Solution Based Advocacy.  If you click on the Advocacy Category on the right hand side you can read them all.  Please share with others and encourage them to become regular subscribers.

Hybrids - a new revenue vehicle for the Community Sector

A major challenge facing community sector organizations is access to money - i.e. to financial capital.  Capital to invest in staff, in new technologies, in infrastructure and perhaps most critical, to invest in creative solutions to stubborn social and environmental challenges.  The sector has laboured and stumbled over the past few decades as government funding for operations has been reduced or eliminated.  It has become more reliant on year to year grant funding - which is just enough to get by on; but not enough to get out in front of, let alone to deal with the root causes. 

This doesn't enable anyone - even someone with the best idea in the world, to work out the kinks, to prototype their idea and to subsequently scale it up.  At the same time as traditional non profit funding is being reduced in Canada, there are not yet the enabling legal structures to permit community and social enterprises to easily attract other sources of capital (debt and equity).

Other countries have put in place legal structures  to enable entrepreneurial, social innovators to access investment capital.  The UK has Community Interest Companies (CIC's).  The US has Low Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3C's).  While far from perfect they offer a new type of governance structure that makes it possible to take on investors/share holders - something non profit charities in Canada cannot do. L3C's also make it easier for Foundations to invest their capital assets not just their income to achieve social objectives. These emerging governance structures are often called hybrids, combining aspects of business financing with the achievement of social and environmental objectives.  To put it another way they enable the community sector to alternate or lever grant financing as well as debt and equity financing.  Just like a hybrid car alternates between fossil fuel and battery power.

I like the psychological signal these emerging hybrid governance structures send to non profit Boards of Directors and Executive Directors as much as their potential to attract new sources of capital.  They send a message, it is no longer 'business as usual'.  That the restrictions are off.  That we can be innovative in how we finance our social mission.  That we can turn our attention back to the causes of the social and environmental challenges we are addressing. 

A number of groups and organizations are leading the development of a 'social finance' infrastructure in Canada.  Vancity Credit Union is at the front (as always); Social Venture Partners, Social Capital Partners, Enterprising Non Profits; Social Innovation Generation (SiG), Causeway and the BC Centre for Social Enterprise are others. 

The BC Centre's contribution has included a series of papers on governance structures.  The most recent, More Reflections on Legal Structures for Community Enterprises has just been published. 

Written once again by Richard Bridge it explores in detail the UK Community Interest Community (CIC) structure; as well as governance options that already exist in Canada.  Richard is one of the finest legal resources, non profits, charities and social enterprises in Canada have.  He has a brilliant legal mind; a passionate heart; a solid understanding of the community sector; and is one of the clearest writers I know.  If you are interested in how some of our leading thinkers are exploring new structures to respond to existing and new challenges, have a look at the whole series. Click here.

NOTE: Related to this topic the Social Enterprise Council of Canada is conducting a series of webinars entitled: Nonprofits Making Profits: Social Enterprise and Legal Issues in Canada.  The first is May 10th conducted by lawyers Margaret Mason (Vancouver) and Susan Manwaring (Toronto).  Register by May 7th at: http://seccwebinar1.eventbrite.com

If you enjoy these columns please share them and encourage others to subscribe.

Nellie McClung, Sterilization and the return of Eugenics

Saturday April 24th's Globe and Mail references a controversy brewing in Winnipeg around Nellie McClung.  There is opposition to erecting a statue honouring her role in securing the vote for women because of her prominent support of the sterilization of people with disabilities.  Sterilization was one aspect of the eugenics movement.  So was "selective breeding", abortion, incarceration in institutions, exclusion from society, withholding medical care, and euthanasia.

The Winnipeg controversy comes at the same time as the House of Commons voted unanimously on April 21st, 2010 against a Bill proposed by MP Francine Lalonde to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

It is worth looking at the roots of the eugenics movement and social Darwinism during the early 20th century.   The eugenics movement was and is a scientific attempt to justify the exclusion and control of people deemed to be morally and intellectually unfit. It starts with people determined to be intellectually limited but progresses to include other groups whose race or actions are judged to be morally inferior. 

From the beginning it was a collusion among the medical, scientific and social science establishments.  One of the most prominent social scientists was Dr. Henry Goddard  His landmark 1912 study on the Kallikak family provided the scientific justification for a view that people with intellectual disabilities (feeble mindedness as he called it) are responsible for immorality and society's ills.  This link between intelligence and morality is the basis of eugenics.  And the tool used to determine whether you are fit or unfit is the  I.Q. score.  This despite the fact intelligence is a mathematical abstraction and even today science is unable to completely quantify intelligence.

Before I go any further I should note that Goddard was found to be a fraud and eventually admitted his crimes.  He doctored his research, invented the facts and even distorted the photos of the mentally handicapped Kallikak family so they would look particularly menacing!  All aspects of this scoundrel and his scandal was comprehensively documented in the Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J. Gould.  You can even see the before and after doctored photos.

But the damage was done.  Here are a few choice phrases from his study: feeble mindedness is responsible for social sores; at best, sterilization is not likely to be a final solution of this problem. If that last phrase sounds familiar - it is.  It was adopted by the Nazis who studied the eugenics movement in North America and based the holocaust on its principles. Before they began exterminating Jews, they began with other groups they considered undesirable i.e. people with disabilities and gypsies.

Those of us, who are parents of sons and daughters with developmental disabilities fear the return of eugenics thinking.  Sterilization laws were on the books in Alberta and BC until the 1970's and institutions still exist in many Canadian provinces.  We fear, I certainly do, that such thinking has not really gone away and that it surfaces during periods of financial constraint.

The issue in Winnipeg is likely to split disability advocates.  Those who are tolerant of McClung argue her deeds and positions should be taken in the context of her times.  A representative of the Canadian Council of Disabilities is quoted in the Globe article: ...historical figures should not be judged by modern standards.  Others argue that the great Tommy Douglas wrote his Masters thesis supporting the sterilization of people with mental or intellectual handicaps.  Douglas at least recanted his earlier views after a 1936 trip to Hitler's Germany. To my knowledge McClung did not. 

That is one more reason why I support Order of Canada Human Rights lawyer David Matas, who dismisses talk of forgiving historical figures as products of their times. To do so would undermine one of the arguments used to secure restitution for historical abuses for example to aboriginal children in residential schools or in institutions for people with disabilities or the internment of Japanese Canadians.

Many disability rights advocates let their support of individual rights cloud their advocacy on behalf of all people with disabilities. Whether they appreciate it or not, they are asserting that eugenics is bad when imposed by a totalitarian state.  But it becomes good when it corresponds to individual choice. 

We can be thankful our political representatives in the House of Commons understand that difference as witnessed by last Wednesday's vote.  They rejected the Bill in a free vote fearing it would take Canada down a slippery slope where people with disabilities and people who are dying would be euthanized without their consent.

NOTE: For further reflections on this topic which never goes away see:

1. Jacques Dufresne's article on the Appartenance/Belonging website .  Jacques is a good friend and wise philosopher who sees the deeper patterns of logic and contradictions amidst our popular beliefs and positions.  This particular article examines the limitations of a society based exclusively on individual choice.
2. Gregor Wolbring's Bioethics and Disability website.  Calgary based Wolbring has thalidomide himself and has devoted his life to researching and writing about a range of ethical issues from bio-ethics, geo-engineering, immortality research, genetics, and the quest for perfection.

ANOTHER NOTE: If you like these blogs please share them and invite others to receive them on a regular basis.

Leave opposition to the Opposition - tips for solution based advocacy (7)

Judging by their actions, many advocates seem to take opposition critics as their role model for advocacy.  Wrong.  Opposition political parties oppose everything that is advanced or proposed by the Government.   Every idea/issue/announcement invites an opportunity for the Opposition to raise questions about the Government's fitness to stay in power; about the need for a Minister to resign; about how they have misread the electorate etc. They can take statements out of context or choose an insignificant issue to expose the Government's vulnerability.  The criticism can get heated and theatrical.

Opposing is the central function of the Opposition's job description. They are expected to be fiercely partisan.  They are not required to come up with solutions or alternatives until the next election campaign.

And dare I remind us, often when they attain power these same politicians discover the reasonableness on some of the very issues they spent months and years criticizing.

Opposition critics should not be our role models for solution based advocacy. I get concerned when I watch advocacy groups with important issues seemingly adopt the stance of Opposition critic. I cringe when I watch them sling away with impunity not just on the issues they are concerned with, but the moral fitness of the Government to stay in power.   I am not naive. Governments make bad decisions and do need to be criticized. And in some cases we may have to be very creative ( protests, campaigns) to get government's attention - the first step (but only the first step) in solution based advocacy. But we should leave the opposition to the Opposition.  Mother Theresa would never march against war.  She would however march for peace.

Here are some effective ways to undo bad decisions; help government make make better decisions and ensure you and your constituency are part of the solution:

• Acknowledge what they have done right,or that they are moving in the right direction.  Most of us cannot hear or receive an idea or suggestion no matter how reasonable and constructive if we have just been criticized. Politicians and public servants are no different.
• Acknowledge the nature of the problem, government is confronting.  Research the nature of the challenge from their point of view.  Ignoring their realities does not establish your credibility as a problem solver.
• Let them know you are willing to roll up your sleeves and help solve the problem.  Propose a solution to the situation. Or a process to work together on solutions.  Governments find it hard to back down on the original decision.  So re-frame the issue and make them an alternate proposal. A task force to stabilize arts funding could be an attractive alternative to protesting cutbacks in arts spending. And it could lead to a different relationship between you, your membership and government.  Be creative and constructive not predictable with your solutions. 

All governments today are experiencing financial challenges.  Reminding them of their previous bad spending decisions, or not accepting their current financial reality, means your ideas or concerns stand a good chance of being ignored. Proposing alternate financing solutions like many social entrepreneurs do, will get their attention.  Leveraging government funding to attract new money; or identifying new funding partners will signal your intention to be constructive.

Unlike the strait jacketed role of Opposition critic, solution based advocacy gives your creativity an opportunity to flourish.

NOTE: This is one of a series of posts I am writing on solutions based advocacy.  Click on the Advocacy category on the right side of your screen and you can read them all.

England Discards the The Old Math

It doesn't take too long in London before noticing the emergence of a new math.  Social Innovators in England are busy creating new equations to address tough, hard to solve social and environmental challenges.  To start they exposed the fallacies of the 'old' math.

Here is one equation that is no longer useful and which prevents the civil sector from fulfilling one of its key functions: preventing social problems.

Costly crisis intervention reduces the resources available to address the root causes resulting in more crises which equals another round of costly crisis interventions.

This insidious, vicious circle sucks up all the resources and prevents innovative responses to address the causes.  It doesn't add up.  Our social systems are concentrating on the symptoms with little attention paid to prevention.

If we are to bring creativity and innovation into play we need a new math similar to what is being developed here.  We need equations that free up resources to address the up stream causes thereby preventing the down stream crises. 

One creative British alternative to the old math is the Social Impact Bond which is under development by Social Finance UK.  The concept is elegant. 

A 'promise' is secured from government to reward initiatives which result in better social outcomes, while reducing costs, particularly in the medium to long term.  Government pays only when success is demonstrated.  For example, keeping first time offenders from re-offending.  Imagine the savings if a young person becomes inspired to develop their talents rather than spend a lifetime in and out of prison?

Funds are then raised from non-government investors who provide the working capital to finance the intervention and demonstrate the success. If successful, government pays up, the investors get their money back and additional capital is available to maintain the successful solution.  The size of the payment depends on how successful the outcomes are.  

Social Impact Bonds are a relatively risk free way for governments to finance preventative approaches; they encourage and reward the genuine innovators; and they break the vicious cycle of the old math.

I will write more about Social Impact Bonds in the future since two papers are about to be published by my colleagues at Causeway about adapting Social Impact Bonds to British Columbia and Canada.

In the meantime Vickie and I are off to Oxford to present at Canada Day just prior to the start of the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship.  For extensive reporting from Skoll including a team of 30 bloggers follow Social Edge.

Going Global in Vienna

Thanks to Ashoka, Vickie and I will spend three days at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna receiving advice on how to accelerate the global impact of our latest social innovation - Tyze.   Along with twenty-four other Ashoka fellows, we will meet with international social, financial and media leaders who want to assist us spread our innovations around the world.

The internal competition was launched for 2500 Ashoka fellows from 70 countries last October.  We were selected in December and since then Ashoka has provided support to improve our model and case for support.  Check out the Ashoka Globalizer site and read about all the  fabulous and talented social entrepreneurs we will be spending time with.

Tyze is really the brain child of Vickie Cammack who has led its emergence from an idea to global ready initiative in less than three years.  Tyze uses a web based platform to organize 'face to face' social networks for the elderly, people with chronic illness, disability, or mental illness. Tyze networks convene the individual, their families, friends and care providers to offer friendship, provide support, problem solve and coordinate care.  Vickie created Tyze as a social mission business.  It is owned in part by the PLAN Institute as well as a small group of investors.  Tyze is currently available in Canada, the United States and the UK but after Vienna, who knows!

Ashoka has been defining and developing the practice of social entrepreneurship for over 25 years.  Along the way they have noticed the deeper patterns common among Ashoka Fellows.  Vienna will provide us with an opportunity to collaborate with other fellows working on similar issues.  In addition we will have an opportunity to explore collaboration among initiatives that may not appear on the surface to have much in common.  For example, the two other Canadians selected for Vienna are Johann Koss founder of Right to Play and Dr. Arnold Noyek founder of CISEPO (Canadian International Scientific Exchange Program). 

Johann's work was on full display during the recent Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games. He uses sports to teach life skills, promote health and develop peaceful communities. Arnold has developed an approach to peace building (health to peace) in the Middle East bridging the Arab Israeli divide. Who would have thought providing ear surgery for Jordanian youth would be a prelude to peace but in Arnie's hands it is.

Since Arnold, Johann, Vickie and I were selected, we have begun to discuss the deeper patterns and ethics (health, peace, belonging ) that unite us and how we might share resources and work together.  Once in Vienna we hope to join forces with some of the other Ashoka fellows in attendance.  Ashoka has anticipated this and one legacy of our three days in Vienna is Mindshare

Ashoka has been tremendously supportive of our work for the past eight years.  Led by Bill Drayton, Founding CEO and President, they constantly reflect on lessons from the field and, like Wayne Gretzky with the puck, know where the field is going and get there five to ten years before anyone else.

NOTE: The Vienna Globaliizer takes place between April 17 - 19th.  Right now Vickie and I are in London meeting with social finance and social innovation colleagues.  We travel to Oxford for the Skoll World Forum on Social Enterprise beginning Wednesday, where we present at a special Canada Day forum organized by SiG (Social InnovatIon Generation) the Canadian collaboration I am part of.  Expect future posts based on these experiences.