Addiction, Homeless

Asking in order to evaluate or creat recovery based programs

Leave a comment

When I was looking to find a new mechanic I asked 4 or 5 people for their recommendations. It turned out there was one garage they all recommended and that was where I went. It has proved a very good choice and when asked about where I go to have my auto cared for I do not hesitate to recommend them myself.

When I wanted to know about mechanics I asked those who used them; for who better to make judgments about the capability of the mechanics? An intelligent approach that is applicable to evaluate effectiveness in a variety of applications and circumstances.

Why is then, that the government does not ask for the input of those who use the programs and services?

This question came to mind recently as I offered to write (and wrote) a letter to those involved in making the decision about continuing funding to a mental health program. I wrote in the context of someone who had been a client of the program and knew how important the program was in my continuing journey of recovery.

This is an important point because it is my experience that a substantial barrier to recovery is that often those making the funding decisions and judging the programs do not seek the opinions or input of the people in the best position to judge program efficacy – those using the programs in their personal recovery.

This is of particular importance with programs such as this one where the most important, and to often overlooked or not appreciated, benefits to the clients are not easily or at all quantifiable. This is an employment oriented program but my experience, and that of other clients (users) of the program, was that the support offered to people by the program was far more important and useful in recovery than the “job” side was.

It is easy to come up with numbers for the “job” side of the program, but how do you quantify the support provided by the program? And yet … my personal experience and observation is that without support recovery is not possible and that lack of support leads to relapse. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that had I not been fortunate enough to find the program I would not have made the progress I have.

The program provided support at a time when I was most vulnerable and in need of support. I wrote in support of the program to ensure that those in need of support would be able to find the support to find their path to recovery.

Yet it is only by asking those such as me that someone evaluating the program would be aware of this aspect of the program and how important it is.

Asking also needs to apply in awarding contracts to provide services. I have seen and experienced, on several different occasions, the fallout of the current process the government uses for awarding contracts. And while in some cases the contract needed to be awarded elsewhere, in others it turned a useful resource/program into something that was of benefit only to those awarded the contract.

Auditors general have a term of reference involving “value for money”, as in are we getting our monies worth? That is the question that should be poised when making contract awards. And you make that judgment by asking the people who use the programs and services. I mean ask directly. I have been involved with programs where client feedback was part of the program, through the contractor. Fox guarding the henhouse.

This concept of asking clients or users what they think is also needed in establishing new programs. It is through experience that one learns what the real needs are, which are often different from what would appear to be or theoretically be the needs.

It is easy to “sell” the concept of an employment program, much harder to convince someone that a program offering support is truly needed if those needing this support are to every have an opportunity to be employed. Yet support is a fundament or key concept in recovery.

It is a major frustration that so many politicians, experts and others “know” what needs to be done for a variety of problems that require some form of recovery, without ever asking the people who need and or are seeking recovery. This “knowledge” leads to programs that are pointless, that fail to provide what is truly needed for recovery, that fail to provide what is their stated purpose to provide and waste millions of taxpayer $$$.

Yes we need ideas from as wide a source as possible, for having lots of ideas is the best way to ensure having good ideas. But to evaluate what is a good idea, what is needed, what programs are effective or which providers do an excellent job we need to ask and listen to those who need and /or use the programs.

If our goal is to provide the programs and services needed for people to move into and follow the path to recovery we need to be sure that we ask those whose life experience has provided them with understanding and insight into recovery and what is needed for recovery for their input. Then listen and pay attention to what those in recovery or in need of recovery say, and be willing to act on their input.

Homelessness, mental illness, addiction, poverty are all issues we face, but can address if we so choose. Part of that choice is choosing to ask for input and listen to the answers – even if they are answers we did not expect or want to hear.

Consider

Grant’s Law – legislating human stupidity.

Leave a comment

“Grant’s Law” is inconvenient but what else would government do if it was not filling our lives with inconvenience? Surely one would not expect them to address such issues as poverty, affordable housing, homelessness, addiction or mental illness? No, that would require thought, hard work and leadership. It is so much easier to pander to the public with “Grant’s Law”, than to tackle pressing social issues.

The Liberal government pays lip service to capitalism and letting the markets decide – until it is politically convenient for legislation or to avoid enforcing the laws protecting workers. All the government had to do was use the existing labour standards to prevent employers from deducting the cost of stolen gas from employees or from firing them because they were intelligent enough to do the smart thing – nothing.

But enforcing labour standards in this instance would have set a precedent and the government could have found itself under pressure to enforce all the labour standards, areas such as farm workers. Or even worse, find their selves under pressure to deal with issues such as keeping employees as “part time” to avoid the rights and benefits that accrue to full time employees.

My sympathies may go out to Grant’s parents, but this law still exasperates me. Not because I resent being treated like a criminal and inconvenienced every time I purchase gasoline, but because at its core it is a law legislating about human stupidity.

With apologies to Mr. De Patie, rushing out to confront a criminal armed with a high powered weapon weighing hundreds of kilograms is not an intelligent action. And a car, despite the way the laws deal with drivers who kill people (drunk or sober drivers), is a lethal weapon. A criminal or an idiot armed with a car is as deadly lethal as if armed with an AK-47 and confronting them, whether armed with a car or AK-47, is less than intelligent behaviour that is likely to prove fatal.

What this law is about, besides inconveniencing and treating as criminals the pubic, is preventing people from behaving stupidly.

If government is going down that path, it better get right on legislation governing the use of ladders; since in North America nearly a person a day dies and there are 100,000 injures from falling from ladders. Legislation is obviously needed, even though research shows that 100% of ladder accidents might be eliminated with proper attention to the application of equipment.

If we are going to legislate about human stupidity where do we stop? After all, as Albert Einstein noted “Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Municipal

Educating Abbotsford City Hall

Leave a comment

Annual: 1. of, for, or pertaining to a year; yearly: annual salary; 2. occurring or returning once a year; 3. Recurring, done, or performed every year; yearly.

I make available the above definition of annual for the education of Abbotsford City Hall which has, on several occasions, demonstrated their lack of knowledge as to what the term annual means.

When you have an annual fee increase you raise your fees ONCE a year and no other fee increases take place until a year has passed. It does not mean you have an annual fee increase in September 2007 following a fee increase in July 2007and then another fee increase at the beginning of January 2008 – which at a 100% was definitely the steepest of the increases.

Abbotsford Recreation Centre patrons have now (I say now as I have no knowledge of how many, if any, more annual increases will occur within the year) had three fee increases in this annum (noun (Latin) year; “per annum”). Annum: year; annual: yearly. So for the education of City staff and politicians I repeat the definition of annual.

Annual: 1. of, for, or pertaining to a year; yearly: annual salary; 2. occurring or returning once a year; 3. Recurring, done, or performed every year; yearly.

While on the topic of definition or naming of City programs etc.: Should not a swim where the price doubled be renamed from a loonie swim to a twoonie swim. It just seems somewhat loony to be paying a twoonie for a loonie swim. I do not imagine taxpayers/patrons find it at all amusing to go to a loonie swim and be charged $2. To stand in front of that flat, big screen TV mockingly labelling the swim costing you $2 a loonie swim.

As a final point on paying attention to the details: With Parks and Rec having taken over the public bulletin board for the stated purpose of promoting Parks and Rec programs; why did they then have to spend all those taxpayers dollars on two big flat screen TVs to hang at the front desk? Simply because, as is the case with their multiple “annual” fee increases, they can?