Thank you.
Like you, I also have many questions on the investment in indigenous women in our correctional institutions, and actually poverty as a whole.
Historically with government, there's no problem investing in highways, infrastructure, health care, or social services, but no one really wants to talk about investing in our most vulnerable population. We are sinking billions of dollars into trying to eliminate an issue such as homelessness, but no one wants to talk about the issue of how we treat young people and prepare them for independence.
A recent study has shown that 60% of homeless people had child and family services involvement, but they make up only 3% of the population. It often reminds me of the story of the two people pulling dead bodies from a river. They stood strong, pulling bodies day after day, until an elder happened to walk by and asked them what they were doing. They explained what they were doing and how hard they were working. The elder looked at them and asked, “Has anyone gone upstream to find out why all these bodies are coming down in the first place?” When we're looking at indigenous women issues, we still continually look downstream.
I've been working with this population for the past 25 years. When I started, we had children as young as seven working in the sex trade. No one tried to assist the families until it would hit the newspaper. Then the Ministry of Social Services would swoop in, remove the child, and put the child in an institution until they turned 16. It is now 2018, and some things have changed, but how government does business and how they treat this population has not.
In our society we have come through and continue to come through some very dark times for indigenous people. There were the residential schools and the sixties scoop, and now they are continuing to place our children in protective services institutions, taking away their liberties, punishing them for being victims of circumstances beyond their control. In Saskatchewan they have resurrected orphanages by putting babies and infants in 14-bed group homes. We are raising yet another generation of children with abandonment issues who will grow up with no ability to form relationships and who will not know how to bond.
These current practices are expensive and damaging to children and their families. These practices create the conduit to a life of dysfunction into further poverty and institution-based care, such as our correctional facilities. The sad truth to this is that assisting them to become contributing citizens is cheaper and has more of a positive impact on the long-term cycle being broken.
I have a couple of theories to share and ask that you come to your own opinions.
Indigenous and poor people are a huge industry. Jobs in helping and correction professions create a large middle-class labour market that is supposed to serve and protect this population. In my 25 years' experience, I have met many dedicated individuals in government who want to create a better life for those less fortunate, but I often shake my head. Looking at it from an indigenous perspective, they see the government doing the same thing over and over even though it isn't working. This often leaves a further sense of mistrust and hopelessness.
Individuals who experience the current system feel if they were to work on solutions to eradicate the issue, the problem would be gone, and so might their jobs. Can it help you to understand how those less fortunate believe nothing is being done or being put into changing cycles for poor people?
When serving this population, community-based organizations and their clients are expected to achieve desired outcomes in a set period of time. Often trauma, previous abuse issues, addictions, and mental health prolong this person's inability to achieve the desired outcome.
For a moment I would like to turn the tables and ask these bureaucrats why they are not sharing their outcomes and possible ramifications if they are not being met. How did the meaning of what is public service become less important than trying not to embarrass the government of the day?
As politicians, are you guys asking the right questions of individuals tasked with making recommendations and bringing them forward to government? May I suggest a few questions?
What are the communities saying? What are the families saying? What are the outcomes you are trying to achieve? Are these outcomes realistic and achievable? How can we support initiatives as government?
I'm here today to speak about our experience as the first organization in Canada to do a social impact bond. This bond was investing in keeping mothers and children together and out of the child welfare system.
The bond was simple, the math was straightforward, the outcomes were achievable, and it provided an opportunity for us to show that with support and guidance, mothers with children can change and desire a better life for themselves and their children.
The idea for this project with the social impact bond didn't come from government. It began a year earlier with Carolyn Schur, who was doing a study on sleep disorders in high school. After completing her studies, she came to the result that young persons didn't have sleep disorder: they just had nowhere to sleep. This lady began with putting $50,000 of her own money into a solution. We started a small group to work together to look for solutions. What began as a community response blossomed into what we have today.
Our first investors became interested not to make money but because they could see the difference an investment can make and they could see where their money was being spent.
The then Minister of Social Services, June Draude, proposed the bond as a way to invest in our vulnerable population. We've worked hard to create deliverables that in the end benefit those we serve. We provide an extended continuum of care that enables mothers and their families to stay together. We support young mothers to become educated and successfully employed. We foster independence and self-reliance in young women and their children.
The bond strengthened integrated partnerships within the community, as well as with Connexus Credit Union, the Mahs, private and corporate donors, the Government of Saskatchewan, and the Government of Canada.
The expectation of the bond was that in five years, we were going to have 22 children leaving the program and remaining out of care for a minimum of a six-month period. If these outcomes could be achieved, the bond would pay for itself.
Since June 1, 2013, Sweet Dreams has supported 39 high-risk mothers and 54 children; 33 of these mothers maintain custody of their children to date.
Five mothers and nine children currently reside at Sweet Dreams, and two of the mothers are currently attending the University of Saskatchewan.
I know I'm not going to have time to go into some of the stories of the kids who come into the program and their successes, so I did make a couple of copies if anybody is interested.
In addition to this, we've created an additional four bedrooms and an 18-space child care centre attached to Sweet Dreams. The Mahs, one of the initial investors, are donating back their half a million dollars plus interest so that we can do more for the mothers and the children in need.
In closing, I'd like to say a couple of things.
Investment in indigenous women creates hope for the future and will go a long way in helping keep women out of our institutions. We need to begin to create prevention programs that start at birth and work hard to keep family units together.
Child and family programs need to reflect an industry based on people's futures and a life after being in care. We need to ask these women what they need and how government and the communities they live in can make the difference.
The task seems daunting, but so does doing the same thing over and over again, because it isn't working. Let's start by going upstream to tackle the issue.
Thank you.
