Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Citizenshift : investigating an organization that seeks to empower its membership through the provision… Smith, Brian Wade 2004

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2004-0630.pdf [ 5.96MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091680.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091680-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091680-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091680-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091680-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091680-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091680-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091680-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091680.ris

Full Text

CYIIZENSHIFT: INVESTIGATING A N ORGANIZATION THAT SEEKS TO EMPOWER ITS MEMBERSHIP THROUGH THE PROVISION OF SERVICES by B R I A N W A D E SMITH B.A. Simon Fraser University, 1998 P.B.D Simon Fraser University, 2001 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING) in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A October 2004 © Brian Wade Smith, 2004 FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Library Authorization In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. UL\<1 £/W'H\ Name of Author (please print) ate (dd/mm/yyyy) Title of Thesis: C s \ C \ £r </e-^  '* A&\ JW CAS\ 0 r^o»v\) ^cJ^TT>f\ ^eJ-D e 9 r e e : f t l ^ g r t v - cj- P J ^ ^ / Y M ; Year: l^groLj Department of SfJ-ocvl Cr"\^^ / A/ a^S> \\**A l^&r^ lV-^  The University of British Columbia V ! iv rsity Vancouver, BC Canada Abstract The rationale for pursuing this research and writing this thesis was to explore the possibilities for organizations that provide services to people with disabilities. Moreover, this thesis looks to inform a shift from a 'needs-based' or 'care-taking' model of service provision, to an empowering 'relationship-based' model. Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) is studied as a case of an organization in the process of making this shift. From PLAN'S experience we learn that an empowerment modehrests on, what its leaders might call, a "Syllogism of Citizenship". This syllogism holds that 'If, relationship equals contribution; and, contribution equals citizenship; then, relationship equals citizenship.' PLAN shows us that this simple syllogism has powerful heuristic value when applied to organizational structure and when designing supportive and empowering services for people who are vulnerable to being isolated. The purpose of this research is to investigate, through a case study of one organization, the opportunities and barriers that can confront a co-operative membership-based organization which seeks to empower people toward full citizenship in the process of providing services to people with disabilities, and the strategies and structures that may be effective in response. n Table of Contents Abstract ...ii Table of Contents iii Table of Figures iv Preface v Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 Chapter 2 - Citizenship, Disability and Co-operatives 3 Citizenship Literature . 4 Historical Overview.. . 4 The Modern Concept of Citizenship 7 The Last Fifty Years of Citizenship Discourse 12 The Movement from Disability to Citizenship 16 Different and Separate 17 Equal but Special 19 Different and Equal 22 Coming Together: The Disability Movement and Citizenship 24 Co-operatives.... 27 Co-operative Definitions and History 28 Social Co-operatives as Sites of Citizenship 31 Summary 35 Chapter 3 - Research Methodology 37 The Qualitative versus Quantitative Debate 37 Case Studies: A n Overview of the Method, Its Strengths and Limitations 39 Overview of the Case Study Method 39 History of Case Studies 40 Types of Case Studies 42 Data Collection Methods 42 Data Analysis 43 Case Studies: Issues of Validity and Reliability 43 Possible Steps to Improve Validity and Reliability 44 Strengths and Weaknesses of Case Study 44 The Case Study of P L A N 46 Methods Used To Research This Thesis 46 Summary of the Research Methodology 49 Chapter 4 - PLAN: An Organization for Citizens 50 What P L A N Is..... 52 People 52 Financial 53 Governance Structure 54 Key Philosophy 57 What P L A N Does 59 A Syllogism of Citizenship 63 If, Relationship = Contribution 63 iii And, Contribution = Citizenship 65 Then, Relationship = Citizenship 67 What P L A N Has Learned 67 Panarchy Theory Framework .....68 Chapter 5 - Interview Responses 71 Questions of P L A N ' S Goals and Approach 71 Questions of Citizenship and Membership 76 Summary of Findings 85 Chapter 6 - Implications 90 For Organizations ; I 90 Service Organizations 90 Social Co-operatives 92 For Society 94 Re-conceptualizing Our Citizenship 94 Engagement 94 Relationship and Inclusion 96 Provision of Services 98 For Further Research 99 Table of Figures Table 1: Citizenship in the Greek polis and the modern state 5 Table 2: Thick and Thin Citizenship 10 Figure 1: Panarchy Theory - Adaptive Cycle 69 i v Preface Four years before embarking on the production of this thesis, two leaders of a rather unique and innovative organization participated in a course that I was taking through the Community Economic Development Department at Simon Fraser University (SFU).. I found their insight and experience intriguing, however I failed to make a connection to them or their work at that time. Fortunately, that would not be the last time I would encounter this leadership team. More than two years later I responded to an advertisement in the local newspaper, which called for 'facilitators'. I had been involved in community development for some time and facilitated many meetings and workshops, so I went to apply. I was struck almost immediately by the approach of the organization that was hiring. The organization went by the name of Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network or PLAN, for short. Much of its model stemmed from work by John McKnight, John Krentzman and others around Asset Based Community Development. In January 2001,1 was hired to facilitate a network of friends and family focused on a man with extraordinary characteristics. The man's name was Lyle. He possessed astounding abilities with languages, had a degree in computing science, was worldly and had in place a pretty extensive network of people that knew and cared for him. Unfortunately however, Lyle felt that he was vulnerable - not necessarily vulnerable to physical harm, although he considered that as much as any of us do - rather, he was concerned that he was vulnerable to being without friends, to being isolated even though he lived in the heart of downtown Vancouver. As a result of his trepidation, Lyle went to PLAN. PLAN is an organization that commits to working with families that have members who are, like Lyle, vulnerable to being isolated. Many of the people that PLAN works with have disabilities, mental illnesses, and other characteristics that set them apart in one way or another and in turn intensify their vulnerability. PLAN continues to be led by its two extraordinary leaders, Al Etmanski and Vickie Cammack, who participated in the Community Economic Development course at SFU. v M y intrigue with the organization, its values, approach and principles compelled further involvement. From the early days of my involvement at the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) I knew that P L A N would enrich my time reflecting on and learning about community pUuining. With support from the leaders of P L A N and my research supervisor Peter Boothroyd, I was able to focus on P L A N in this thesis. This focus wil l hopefully contribute to the knowledge of other students of planning or other disciplines where relationships and citizenship reside at the heart of the work. The time I have spent with Lyle, AL Vickie and others at P L A N have brought to light something that I shall carry with me for the rest of my life. I now know that I am a part of the disability movement, that it is my movement. It is with this piece of context that I present this thesis as the final requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts, Planning. vi Chapter 1 - Introduction This thesis exhibits the ways in which discourse on citizenship is informing practical approaches of the disability movement and vice versa. In relation to disability, notions of citizenship assume that to ensure both healthy people and a healthy democratic society the fulfillment of one's citizenship is crucial. However, the filling out of one's citizenship is easier for some than others. Stigmas, attitudes, even legislation can act as barriers for people who have disabilities on their journey toward full citizenship. These barriers to citizenship will continue to come down as more sites of citizenship become increasingly accessible and inclusive. Sites of citizenship can accommodate, overcome and develop people's citizenship through relationships - relationships to others, to shared economic and social capital, to the power that resides in solidarity. In order for people with disabilities to fulfill their citizenship they must have their rights protected, their responsibilities exercised and their participation expected, accommodated and supported. In order for a site of citizenship to meet all of the aforementioned criteria - rights protection, responsibilities exercised and participation - it should embody values of equality, solidarity and social responsibility. Cp-operatives, according to the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), embody these values and more. Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) is a non-profit organization, which embodies these co-operative values and is exploring the use of a citizenship framework to guide its work and their relationships. This thesis studies the opportunities and constraints that confront PLAN as it works to empower people toward full citizenship. The purpose of the case study is to explore what is possible for organizations that, like PLAN, seek to provide services to people with disabilities and, in doing so, empower those people as citizens. The study involves five semi-structured interviews with key informants from within the organization and analysis of documents from and about PLAN. The documents include a social audit, other research conducted with PLAN, monthly newsletters, magazine articles, and books published by and about PLAN. The framework used to analyze 1 information from these sources is developed in the second chapter of this thesis. It involves use of a citizenship 'lens' to investigate what P L A N does, what its opportunities and constraints are, and finally, what strategies it has employed to meet its goals. 2 Chapter 2 - Citizenship, Disability and Co-operatives Much is written on the nature of citizenship. Much is written on the provision of services to people with disabilities. Much is written on the co-operative organizational structure -although less so the social service co-operative model. However, little has been written on how these three fields merge. Very little has been written about how co-operatively owned and controlled organizations can simultaneously empower people toward full citizenship and provide services that meet their needs. This chapter reviews the literature on disability and citizenship and relates it to organizational theory of co-operatives. As long as people with disabilities are seen merely as service consumers or customers, they will not be fully engaged in processes and systems which impact upon their lives-and those of others. As Roberta Ryan puts it, "They will be understood as passive recipients of services, with their activities and views confined to decision making processes which impact upon them through service provision, rather than citizens actively engaged in community life."1 What is more, as long as the organizations 'providing' services to people with disabilities understand such people as merely recipients of services provided by others, people with disabilities potential for citizenship will remain unfulfilled. The movement of disability services from a care-taking model to an empowerment model and the contemporary conception of citizenship are, in many cases, both hindered by organizational structures. Membership-based, democratically owned and controlled organizations, such as co-operatives, intrinsically embrace values of equality, social responsibility and caring for others. Therefore, as the disability and citizenship movements merge, the co-operative organizational model may become an increasingly important structure. 1 R y a n , R o b e r t a . Participatory processes for citizenship for people with intellectual disabilities. N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n In te l l ec tua l D i s a b i l i t y , In terac t ion , v o l . 1 0 , Issue 4 , 1997 . 3 Citizenship Literature Historical Overview Known discourse on citizenship dates back as far as the 5th Century when Athenian democracy was accompanied by the Sophist intellectual revolution. Sophists introduced ethics and politics to philosophical discourse, which before had been limited to physics and metaphysics. Protagoras, regarded as the leading Sophist, stated: "Man is the measure of all things." In opposition to the Sophists, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, in turn each offered alternatives to the Sophist's relativism. David Hargreaves suggests that, "Since Aristotle it [citizenship] has been accepted as an inherently political concept that raises questions about the sort of society we live in, how it has come to take its present form, the strengths and weaknesses of current political structures, and how improvements might be made...Active citizens are as political as they are moral; moral sensibility derives in part from political understanding; political apathy spawns moral apathy."2 The work of Aristotle, it is said by some, represented the first systematic attempt to develop a theory of citizenship. The citizenship of the Greeks was very different in both form and function from the citizenship in modern history. Nevertheless, the modern version is built upon ancient and pre-modern ideas and therefore continuities as well as contrasts can be found in the evolution of citizenship.3 For example, the values of universality and equality, integral to modern citizenship, had their theoretical roots in the works of Greek Stoic philosophers, who asserted the moral equality of all human beings. Additionally, the liberal discourse of natural rights drew inspiration from the universalistic tradition of Roman natural law. Keith Faulks draws distinctions between the ancient Greek polis and the modern state as shown in Table 1, below. 4 2 Hargreaves, David. 1997. The Mosaic of Learning. Demos: London. 3 See Heater, 1990; Riesenberg, 1992; and Held, 1996. 4 Faulks, Keith. 2000. Citizenship. London: Routledge. p. 15. 4 T a b l e 1: C i t i z e n s h i p i n t h e G r e e k p o l i s a n d t h e m o d e r n s ta te Polis Type of community Organic • Scale • Depth of Citizenship • Extent of citizenship Small Thick Exclusive and inequality naturalized • Content of citizenship • Context of citizenship Extensive obligations Slave society, agricultural production Modern State Legal/differentiated association Large Thin Progressively inclusive and theoretically egalitarian, but limited by statist context Rights and limited duties Patriarchal, racialised and capitalist states system, industrial production The dualisms of modern society including that between state and society, between public and private, or between law and morality, did not apply in Athens.5 Citizens ran their own affairs, acting as both legislators and executors, and defended themselves through a highly developed sense of military obligation. The connection between war, citizenship and masculinity was established in Greece and would appear repeatedly in the subsequent history of citizenship. The polis was considered as prior to, and constructive of, the individual. Active citizenship was believed to be a prime moral virtue: no human could be themselves at their best without participating in public life. Aristotle remarked that whoever could live outside the polis - the city, the civic relationship or the community of citizens - was either a beast or a god. Greek citizenship was obligations-based rather than rights-based. Obligations generally did not require legislation; rather, citizens saw them as opportunities to be virtuous and to serve the community. The political institutions 5 M a n v i l l e , P . 1994. " T o w a r d s a N e w P a r a d i g m o f A t h e n i a n C i t i z e n s h i p " , i n B o e g e h e l d , A . a n d S c a f u r o , A . eds. Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. B a l t i m o r e , M D : Johns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P ress , p p . 2 1 - 3 3 . 5 encouraged and facilitated this virtuosity with the adage that citizens should be both ruler and ruled. Citizenship had a fuller meaning than actualized in modern history. Unlike today where, in many societies, politics are viewed with suspicion and obligations seen as at best a necessary evil, at worst an infringement of our freedom, citizens of the polis believed that civic virtue was freedom, and the primary source of honor and respect. Riesenberg sums the relationship between the individual and their civility this way, "Life and identity were offered and defined by the polis almost exclusively: even the family was hardly competitive in the totality of its demands and gifts."6 The status of citizenship in the polis was however, highly exclusive. These citizens were a proud but fortunate few: women were not citizens, there were slaves, and often there were a larger number of subject inhabitants who might have some personal and property rights in law or custom, but had no civic rights to vote or participate in public affairs. This exclusivity undoubtedly increased the value of citizenship as a mark of superiority over non-citizens. Roman conceptions of citizenship, in contrast to Greek exclusivity, became increasingly inclusive in their reach as its empire expanded. However, during Rome's imperial age citizenship gradually lost its association with participation and instead became a tool of social control and pacification.7 Increasingly, this became citizenship in name only. As Derek Heater observes, the "Romans [developed] a form of citizenship which was both pragmatic and extensible in application. Yet that very elasticity was the cause ultimately of the perishing of the ideal in its noble form." After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West the importance of citizenship deteriorated even further. In the middle ages, the pursuit of honour through the exercise 6 R i e s e n b e r g , P . 1992 . Citizenship in the Western Tradition. C h a p e l H i l l , N C : U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a Press , p . 2 5 . 7 F a u l k s , K . 2 0 0 0 . p . 19. 8 Hea te r , D . 1990 . Citizenship. L o n d o n : L o n g m a n , p . 16. 6 of citizenship was replaced by the search for personal salvation. In a defining text of the times, Saint Augustine asserted, in the City of God, that individuals should not concern themselves with the temporal life and should instead turn inwards to self-contemplation and prayer.9 - " The practice of citizenship did carry on during the medieval period in several Italian republics such as Florence and Venice. These city-states found inspiration in the republican models of Greece. Perhaps most importantly they included an element of participation which was virtually absent from other forms of political community during this period. Max Weber suggested these cities played a crucial role in laying the foundations for the eventual emergence of modern citizenship.10 Unlike these few parts of Italy, the rest of western civilization saw civic virtuosity replaced by something that might be called'subjecthood'. Historically there has been a fundamental difference between the concept of a citizen and the concept of a subject. Essentially, a subject obeys laws and a citizen plays a part in making them. To the Greeks and Romans, citizenship was both a legal term and a social status: citizens were those who had the legal right to have a say in the affairs of the city or state, either by speaking in public or by voting, usually both. The Modern Concept of Citizenship The modern concept of citizenship is fairly egalitarian. This has not always been the case. It has only been with the development of the liberal tradition that citizenship has such universality. In its liberal form, citizenship has allowed arguments by minorities who can point to unequal treatment as an infringement of their basic rights, upon which their human dignity rests. 1 1 9 Clark, P. ed. 1994. Citizenship: A Reader. London: Pluto Press, p. 62. 1 0 Weber, M . 1958. The City. New York: Free Press, p. 72. 1 1 Faulks, K. 2000. p. 3. 7 Rights discourse that has transformed how we think about ourselves as citizens has ranged from the anti-slavery movement in Britain in the eighteenth century, to the women's movement demanding the vote in the early twentieth century, to African Americans in the 1960s campaigning for basic civil rights, and gay and lesbian activists in the 1990s, to calls for children's rights, aboriginal rights, and ethnic minority language rights. Turner explains the movement of citizenship, which he suggests "can be conceived as a series of expanding circles which are pushed forward by the momentum of conflict and struggle... The movement of citizenship is from the particular to the universal, since particular definitions of persons for the purpose of exclusion appear increasingly irrational and incongruent with the basis of the modern polity."12 The status of citizen implies inclusion in the wider community. It recognizes the contribution that a particular individual makes to a community, while at the same time granting him or her individual autonomy. This autonomy is reflected in a set of rights which always imply recognition of political agency on the part of the bearer of those rights. Thus a key defining characteristic, and what differentiates citizenship from mere subjecthood, is an ethic of participation. Citizenship is an active rather than a passive status. As a result, citizenship seems to be incompatible with domination, whether the source of the domination is the state, the family, the husband, the church, the ethnic group, or any other force that seeks to deny recognition as an autonomous individual, capable of self-governance. In addition to the benefits it gives to the individual, citizenship is always a reciprocal and therefore, social idea. It can never be purely a set of rights that free the individual from obligations to others. Rights require a framework for their recognition and mechanisms through which they can be fulfilled. Such a social framework, which includes courts, schools, hospitals and parliaments, requires that all citizens play their part to maintain it. This means that citizenship implies duties and obligations, as well as rights. Citizenship then is a powerful idea. It recognizes the dignity of the individual but at the same time reaffirms the social context in which the individual acts. 1 2 T u r n e r , B . 1986 . Citizenship and Capitalism. L o n d o n : A l l e n a n d U n w i n . p . 135. 8 As citizenship is about human relationships it defies a simple, static definition that can be applied to all societies at all times. Instead, the idea of citizenship is inherently contested and contingent, always reflecting the particular set of relationships and types of governance found within any given society. Extent, content, and thickness are three elements of the concept of citizenship that should be considered. Regarding extent, to ask who is to be included is also to ask who is to be excluded from the status. In many ways these questions are answered by a quick look at four motivations for the status.13 Kingwell identifies these four motivations for attaining the status of citizen as: nationality, sovereignty, municipality and civility. All states, however liberal their immigration laws, impose controls that define who can become resident within their territory, and under what conditions they can remain. Thus, citizenship is closely associated with nationality, with the two terms often used interchangeably in international law. Alongside nationality, we see the dismal state of sovereignty in our own particular states. In many cases including Canada, the nation of yesterday is increasingly reduced to the economic colony of today. Much of this is as a result of the closeness (both economically and geographically) to the economic and consumer powerhouse of the United States. However, this tenuous national sovereignty may prove to be an opportunity in the form of a crisis. The looseness of current national identity in countries such as Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands may provide the more open-ended models of citizenship we need for a more complicated and interrelated world. Our day-to-day lives are rarely lived at the national level, and for many of us the municipality speaks more directly to our existence. Hence this is the third kind of motivation in our thinking about what it means to be a citizen: cities. As magnets for artistic talent, intelligence, entrepreneurial drive, wealth and culture, cities are often more powerful than the countries of which they are a part. 1 3 K i n g w e l l , M a r k . 2 0 0 0 . The World We Want. T o r o n t o : P e n g u i n B o o k s , p . 5. 9 Finally, a fourth kind of motivation involves the circumstances that each of us brings to the practice of political activity. There is plenty of evidence that citizens are becoming less and less civically active.14 However, civility enables the condition of a larger debate about the world we want. The contemporary debate concerning the content of citizenship - i.e. rights, duties and obligations - is often seen as a dialogue between the dominant liberal approach and critical perspectives such as Marxism, communitarianism and feminism. While the liberal notion of citizenship has its strengths, it is undermined by the dualistic assumption that an individual's rights are not intimately related to their responsibilities as a citizen. On the other hand, critics of liberalism often make the mistake of simply reversing liberals' emphasis upon rights and argue for dilution of rights and responsibilities. Arguably, the interdependent nature of rights and responsibilities must go together if the practice of citizenship is to be enriched.15 Tilly helps to define the thickness or depth of citizenship as being ".. .thin where it entails few transactions, rights and obligations; thick where it occupies a significant share of all transactions, rights and obligations sustained by state agents and people living under their jurisdiction."16 17 Faulks differentiates between thin and thick citizenship as summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Thick and Thin Citizenship Thin Citizenship Thick Citizenship Rights privileged Rights and responsibilities as mutually supportive 1 4 P u t n a m , R o b e r t . 2 0 0 0 . Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. N e w Y o r k : S i m o n a n d Schus te r . 1 5 F a u l k s , K . 2 0 0 0 . p . 82 . • 1 6 T i l l y , C . 1995 . " T h e E m e r g e n c e o f C i t i z e n s h i p i n F r a n c e and E l s e w h e r e " , International Review of Social History, 4 0 ( 3 ) , p p . 2 2 3 - 3 6 . p . 8 . 1 7 F a u l k s , K . 2 0 0 0 . p . 10. 10 Passive Active Purely public status Independence Freedom through choice Legal State as necessary evil Political community (not necessarily the state) as the foundation of the good life Pervades public and private Interdependence Freedom through civic virtue Moral Globalization is transforming the context of citizenship and subsequently there is a need to reconsider citizenship's content, extent, and depth. Does globalization imply the need to move beyond a concept of citizenship that includes all people regardless of their nationality or place of residence? In addition to the impact that globalization has on the extent of citizenship, it affects the content and depth. Ecologists, for instance, have pointed to the need to balance human rights with greater obligations to nature and to the future generations. This implies the need to include international obligations, as well as human rights, in the notion of citizenship. Keith Faulks suggests that, "Citizenship is a membership status, which contains a package of rights, duties and obligations, and which implies equality, justice and autonomy. Its nature and development at any given time can be understood through the interconnected dimensions of context, extent, content, and depth. A rich sense of citizenship can only be achieved when the contextual barriers to its performance are recognized and removed."18 However, Mark Kingwell, sees citizenship in this way, "Citizenship is a way of meeting one of our deepest needs, the need to belong; it gives voice and structure to the yearning to be part of something larger than ourselves. By the same token, citizenship is a way of making concrete the ethical commitments of care and respect, of realizing in action an obligation to aid fellow travelers - in short, of fostering justice between persons. At its best, a best we have yet to realize, citizenship functions as a complex structure for realizing our deeply social nature, even as it acknowledges and copes with the terrible vulnerability of Faulks, K. 2000. p. 13. 11 humans, the myriad fragilities and risks of our existence on the mortal plane. Citizenship is, in short, one of the profound categories that makes us who we are, one of the crucial ways humans go about creating a life for themselves. Without it we are cut adrift from each other -. from ourselves."19 The Last Fifty Years of Citizenship Discourse For the last four and a half decades we have moved through an era of increasing respect for people of diversity. We have attempted to capture much of this movement in human rights codes and legislation. However, the increased focus on the costs to society of social and health services has highlighted the weaknesses and limitations of our legal structures. Al Etmanski speaks from experience in the social service sector, "Human rights legislation does not prevent cutbacks. It does not prevent arbitrary decisions by institutions or caregivers or governments. People can have their 'rights' and still be ignored."20 Since the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, rights have become the dominant language of the public good around the globe. Michael Ignatieff writes extensively on the "Struggles for rights - by women, aboriginal groups, and minority groups - [that] have shaken societies 0 1 everywhere." Human rights language is now even used for military intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq to name a few. Documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are attempts to secure rights - or at least give us some guide in working to do so. For example, the Declaration begins with "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience, and 22 should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood." What everyone has a right to, according to the Declaration, is: life, security, freedom, property, work, equal pay for 1 9 K i n g w e l l , M . 2 0 0 0 . p . 5. 2 0 E t m a n s k i , A . 2 0 0 0 . A Good Life. B u r n a b y , B C : P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k , p . 2 8 9 . 2 1 Ignat ieff , M i c h a e l . 2 0 0 0 . The Rights Revolution. T o r o n t o : H o u s e o f A n a n s i Press , p . b a c k c o v e r . 2 2 U n i t e d N a t i o n s . Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A d o p t e d and p r o c l a i m e d b y G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y r e s o l u t i o n 2 1 7 A (III) o f 10 D e c e m b e r 1948 . A r t i c l e 1. 12 equal work, leisure, due process, free assembly, suffrage, medical care, intellectual property rights, and education. What no one shall be subject to is, among other evils, slavery, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, slander, seizure of property, and exile. The Declaration also begins to articulate the responsibilities and duties of humans living in society. The second to last article of the Declaration explains, "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."23 Responsibilities have been explored, at least in recent public discourse, with much less fervor than rights. Rights and duties are however inextricably linked. The idea of a human right only makes sense if we acknowledge the duty of all people to respect it. Regardless of any shared societal values or guiding principles, human relations are universally based on the existence of both rights and duties. In March of 1997, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO), headquartered in Paris, held the first meeting of a Committee made up of philosophers representing a wide range of religious, ethnic, ethical and philosophical traditions to produce a Declaration providing a philosophical basis for a global ethic.24 Specifically, they began work on a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities. One such unofficial document with that name has been drafted and endorsed by 26 former heads of state who formed an InterAction Council25. The draft document proposed in September of 1997 includes sections on Fundamental Principles for Humanity, Non-violence and Respect for Life, Justice and Solidarity, Truthfulness and Tolerance, and Mutual Respect and Partnership. A Declaration of Responsibilities has not been officially adopted by the UN or any country, to my knowledge. This group of philosophers felt that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided an ideal starting point from which to consider some of the main obligations which are a necessary complement to those rights. They began with these concepts: 2 3 U n i t e d N a t i o n s . 1948 . A r t i c l e 2 9 . 2 4 F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n see h t t p : / / a s t r o . t e m p l e . e d u / ~ d i a l o g u e / A n t h o / u n e s c o . h t m . A c c e s s e d A u g u s t , 2 0 0 4 . 2 5 F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n see h t t p : / / w w w . i n t e r a c t i o n c o u n c i l . o r g / . A c c e s s e d A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 . 13 • If we have a right to life, then we have the obligation to respect life. • If we have a right to liberty, then we have the obligation to respect other people's liberty. • If we have a right to security, then we have the obligation to create the conditions for every human being to enjoy human security. • If we have a right to partake in our country's political process and elect our leaders, then we have the obligation to participate and ensure that the best leaders are chosen. • If we have a right to work under just and favorable conditions to provide a decent standard of living for ourselves and our families, we also have the obligation to perform to the best of our capacities. • If we have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, we also have the obligation to respect other's thoughts or religious principles. • If we have a right to be educated, then we have the obligation to learn as much as our capabilities allow us and, where possible, share our knowledge and experience with others. • If we have a right to benefit from the earth's bounty, then we have the obligation to respect, care for and restore the earth and its natural resources.26 Throughout their document the authors explicitly declare that the responsibilities apply to 'all people'. However, not all people have the level of freedom that is necessary to act on their responsibilities. Roberta Ryan states that, "Examples are everywhere of people with intellectual disabilities not enjoying the right to attend their local school, to choose when to get out of bed, to decide what they will eat and when, to have families and rear children, to participate in the justice system."27 The reasons that these rights are limited vary, but commonly relate to the ways social services are provided. If a child needs 'special education' that is not available at her local school, she is expected to go elsewhere; if a person does not have the physical capacity to eat by himself then breakfast, lunch and dinner are often set on someone else's schedule. So we are left with a conundrum, how can people's needs be met without sacrificing their freedom? These 'Declarations', inherently have their limitations. The political cultures from which they have come are constrained by intrinsic conflict. Tension arises from the parallel 2 6 A Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, 1997 , taken f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . i n t e r a c t i o n c o u n c i l . o r g / . A c c e s s e d A u g u s t , 2 0 0 4 . 2 7 R y a n , R o b e r t a . P a r t i c i p a t o r y processes fo r c i t i z e n s h i p for p e o p l e w i t h i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s a b i l i t i e s . N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n In te l l ec tua l D i s a b i l i t y , Interaction, v o l . 1 0 , 4 ' 9 7 . 14 concerns with individualism and universalism. Michael Ignatieff describes this dilemma in his book The Rights Revolution: "The idea of rights implies that my rights are equal to yours. If rights aren't'equal they wouldn't be rights, just a set of privileges for separate groups of people... the trouble with equality is that no one actually wants to be treated just like everybody else... We want other people to acknowledge us as individuals and as members of groups, to recognize the status that goes with being somebody special."28 Unfortunately, although necessarily, tension sits at the heart of rights legislation and responsibilities declarations. This tension is pervasive in our western liberal societies and is the very reason why these documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are inherently restricted in their attempt to protect the rights of all people - for example the rights of people with disabilities. This paradox is reflected in the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Descartes suggested that the self is an interior consciousness, that everyone is 'out there', isolated in a way within him or herself.29 This notion of the self is one that many of us either explicitly or implicitly subscribe to. The individualism that arises from this notion of self has given us the unique and powerful discourse of human rights, but it doesn't address our sense of connection with others. Kingwell suggests that "it obscures the shared life-world in which we exist. It obscures the fact that each one of us is only who we are because of others ... we are not isolated consciousnesses, we are collective achievements."30 If this is the case, then the appropriate model of citizenship that ensures both our rights and our individuality must draw on the act of participation. In the West we have seen essentially four models of citizenship. Only the last of the four models can begin to empower individuals and enable the connections between individuals. The four models of citizenship include: 1. Bloodline - clan or family; 2. 2 8 Ignatieff , M i c h a e l . 2 0 0 0 . p . 5 5 . 2 9 Descar tes , R e n e . 1 6 4 1 / 1 9 8 4 . Meditations on First Philosophy. In The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, t r ans l . J o h n C o t t i n g h a m , R o b e r t S too thof f , a n d D u g a l d M u r d o c h , v o l u m e II. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press . 3 0 K i n g w e l l , M a r k . The World We Want: A Community Dialogue on Citizenship, Belonging & Contibution. F r o m the d i a l o g u e that t o o k p l a c e N o v e m b e r 28 th & 29 th , 2 0 0 3 E d m o n t o n , A l b e r t a . 15 Belief - shared religion or ideology; 3 . Law - bestowed on those who follow a legal code; and 4. Participation. The last model rejects the underlying premise of the legal model of citizenship that we are isolated individuals, and instead assumes that we are social beings that exist in relation to one another, and must encounter one another. Encounters with others, for Kingwell, are at the center of political life. In summary, of this discussion on concepts of citizenship, the components of full citizenship include: i. Rights - only with the security of our rights can we live with dignity, vulnerability and without fear; ii. Responsibilities - only with the counterpart of responsibilities can our rights be assured; iii. Participation - only with active participation and encounters with others, can our citizenship be philosophically wide, inclusive, sensitive, and challenging to complacency. The Movement from Disability to Citizenship Different and Separate - Equal but Special - Different and Equal These nine words signify three stages of the way that society has related to people with disabilities. Segregating people who were considered different was long practiced, right up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and is summed by the term Different and Separate. The rights movement ensured that even though people remained separated they were protected and safe from persecution - Equal but Special. Not until very recently have people who are seen as different been included as equals. The Different and Equal stage, when it comes to fruition, could see the appreciation of the full range of diversity in 3 1 For a fuller discussion of these models see K ingwe l l , Mark. 2000. The World We Want. Toronto: Penguin Books. 16 humans and subsequently provide the opportunity for all people to fulfill their citizenship. In the following pages, these stages will be further elaborated. Different and Separate "[the new student is] Average size and weight. No peculiarity in form or size of head. Staring expression. Jerking movement in walking. No bodily deformity. Mouth shut. Washes and dresses herself, except fastening clothes. Understands commands. Not very obedient. Knows a few letters. Cannot read nor count. Knows all the colours. Not fond of music. Power of memory poor. Listens well. Looks steadily. Good imitator. Can use a needle. Can carry wood and fill a kettle. Can throw a ball, but can not catch. Sees and hears well. Right-handed. Excitable but not nervous. Not affectionate and quite noisy. Careless in dress. Active. Obstinate and destructive. Does not mind slapping and scolding. Grandmother somewhat deficient. Grandfather periodical drunkard and mentally deficient. Been to school. No results."32 This is a description of an eight year old girl as she was entered into an institution in New Jersey. Henry Goddard used this girl and her family for "A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness," in 1913. In the final chapter entitled 'What Is To Be Done?' he includes this paragraph, "In considering the question of care, segregation through colonization seems in the present state of our knowledge to be the ideal and perfectly satisfactory method. Sterilization may be accepted as a makeshift, as a help to solve this problem because conditions have become so intolerable."33 The author is referring to the system of care in force at that time and place and not the' concept of care itself. Ivan Illich refers to this as "specific counterproductivity", defined as the possibility that a service technology can produce the specific inverse of its stated 3 2 F r o m the a d m i s s i o n s repor t at the T r a i n i n g S c h o o l fo r B a c k w a r d a n d F e e b l e - m i n d e d C h i l d r e n at V i n e l a n d , N o v e m b e r 1897 . P u b l i s h e d i n G o d d a r d , H e n r y Herber t . 1913 . The Kallikak Family: A Study in the heredity of Feeble-mindedness. T h e M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y : N e w Y o r k . 3 3 G o d d a r d , H e n r y He rbe r t . 1 9 1 3 . 17 purpose.34 John McKnight says that, "Systems can not by their very nature care, orily the people within them are capable of caring." Up until the 1960s, in some places even later, people who exhibited characteristics that set them apart from what was implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, deemed as 'normal' were ironically all assumed to be of the same 'type'. All people labeled with terms such as 'Retarded' or 'Feeble-minded' were believed to be abnormal and no differences among them were ever considered important. Furthermore, abnormality was seen as a threat, exhibited in statements like, 'maybe it will rub off on me,' or 'are they dangerous?' Social attitudes such as these spawned a daunting movement called "Eugenics". Eugenics involves notions of racial purity, racial superiority, and the heritability of intelligence, virtue, or vice. Although Hitler is its most notorious proponent, eugenic thinking has held a prominent place in Western intellectual history since the 1860's, when Darwin's disciple, Francis Galton, began to put out the idea that the governing classes of England should consciously guide the development of the human genetic heritage. Many eugenicists supported the practice of separation and sterilization of people with mental illness, intellectual and physical disabilities.36 Effectively this was a belief in the need to keep the different, separate. Seeing people with disabilities as being abnormal owes its origins in part to feudalistic roots when people were considered to have a fixed status such as a serf or a baron, nobility or subject.37 People were, at that time, judged on moral competence and capacity. If they were considered normal they enjoyed certain rights and were considered to be responsible for acts. If they were abnormal, however, legal and other restraints 3 4 M i c h , Ivan . 1976 . Medical Nemesis. P a n t h e o n : N e w Y o r k . 3 5 M c K n i g h t , J o h n . P u b l i c L e c t u r e : " E c o n o m i c s as i f P e o p l e M a t t e r e d " , June , 2 0 0 3 , V a n c o u v e r . 3 6 F o r a h i s t o r y o f e a r l y E u g e n i c t h i n k i n g see: C h a s e , A l l e n . 1977 . The Legacy ofMalthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism. N e w Y o r k : A l f r e d A . K n o p f . A n d , for an e x c e l l e n t c r i t i que o f the s c i ence b e h i n d the m o v e m e n t see: S t ephen J a y G o u l d . 1981 . The Mismeasure of Man. N e w Y o r k : W . W . N o r t o n a n d C o . 3 7 M i n o w , M a r t h a . 1987 . When Difference has Its Home: Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded, Equal Protection and Legal Treatment of Difference. Pape r d e l i v e r e d at B r a n d i e s un ive r s i t y , A p r i l 1986, p . 121 . 18 applied. Often these restraints were applied in the name of protection, protection from themselves and for and from others. This essentially amounted to a paternalistic denial of liberties.38 The impacts of those standards of judgment were severe throughout western liberal societies in particular following the positivist intellectual revolution in the late 19th and early 20th century. People came to be known as disabled both because they had "natural' disabilities and because they had legal disabilities that remove them from the common legal, economic and political practices. The legal, medical, and social service professions colluded and cooperated to create a restrictive social environment for people with disabilities. Institutionalized segregation ensured a lack of privacy and a lack of individuality often justified by an assumption about the inability of those people to live in community. People were seen as not educable on the matters of what was important to society, so they simply were excluded from any popular or public school system. Moreover, those people were not taught about sexuality, about intimacy or about companionship - often professionals spoke of three genders: male, female and mentally handicapped.39 As a result, people with disabilities were intentionally impoverished of experience, learning, belonging and meaning. All people in similar conditions were effectively treated alike. People with disabilities were seen as one class of people who share more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the community. This resulted in double standards across the board from who should be segregated or sterilized, to who should be educated and have access to employment. Equal but Special The Civil Rights Movement in the USA began in the mid 1950s and saw an explosive decade of struggle for the rights of people of color. Rights until then had been denied for reasons that could no longer be defended. These were important times for all people that E t m a n s k i , A l . U n p u b l i s h e d notes . 2 0 0 3 . 9 E t m a n s k i , A l . 2 0 0 3 . 19 were traditionally marginalized, including people with disabilities. Since the early 1960s, families of people with disabilities have been fighting for the equality of rights for all people regardless of individual differences. Following the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, all citizens of the USA were entitled to certain rights - Canada would follow suit not long after.40 This meant that people with disabilities, like people of colour, were to be considered equal to everyone else. The impact of the equalization trend included: • Deinstitutionalization - In the 1970s, legal challenges sought not only to improve the conditions in public institutions, but also to eliminate the unnecessary institutionalization of people with developmental disabilities who were capable of living in their own communities. The number of people with developmental disabilities in public institutions in the US declined from 149,892 in 1977 to 51,485 in 1999.41 • Right to medical treatment • School integration • Affirmative action in employment • Voting rights • E. (MRS.) v. EVE, 1985 - This Supreme Court of Canada case set a major precedent securing the rights of people with intellectual disabilities against sterilization. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted with The Canada Act in 1982, specifically includes mental and physical disability iri the equality rights section.42 Tim Stainton points out the importance of the Charter to the E. vs. Eve case, "In short, the 4 0 O n e o f the m o s t impor t an t p i e c e s o f c i v i l r igh ts l e g i s l a t i o n i n the U S A ' s h i s t o r y w a s s i g n e d in to l a w b y Pres iden t J o h n s o n o n J u l y 2 , 1964 . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a r o u n d th is m o n u m e n t a l l e g i s l a t i o n see C h a r l e s and B a r b a r a W h a l e n , The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; C a r l M . B r a u e r , John F. Kennedy and the Second Reconstruction ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; a n d D o r i s K e a n s , Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 4 1 R o b e r t P r o u t y a n d K . C h a r l i e L a k i n (eds.) , Residential Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends through 1998 ( M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , R e s e a r c h a n d T r a i n i n g C e n t e r o n C o m m u n i t y L i v i n g , Insti tute o n C o m m u n i t y In tegra t ion , 1999) . 4 2 Canada Act 1982, ( U . K . ) 1982 . 20 recognition of equal citizenship in the Charter negated the association of reason and citizenship, placing her rights as an equal citizen above any paternalistic instincts the courts might have."43 A significant benefit of this movement was that it exposed hostility and thoughtlessness and in response inserted equality and liberty into policies and relationships with people who had disabilities. The rights movement was necessary but it was not sufficient to bring people with disabilities into community and to ensure that they would have the same opportunities as others. The Limitations of Equal but Special A central instability in this era resided with the notion of reparations. Although everyone now enjoyed the same rights, some people argued that special rights may be necessary to remove the effects of past exclusion or deprivation of rights. Recognition and provision of reparations (e.g. monetary compensation) for wrongdoings in the past is still a very contentious issue for many, particularly in the USA. While the issue of who should or should not be entitled to reparations won't be tackled in this thesis, it does draw our attention to some important limitations of the Equal but Special period. Martha Minow, for example, recognized the inherent conflict in a commitment to equality paired with the categorization of different 'types' of people, "Commitments to an egalitarian ideal would be better served by an approach that emphasizes the relationships between people, both in the construction of difference and in the creations of communities where 'difference' can have a home."44 If a certain group of people are legally or ethically entitled to reparations, they are clumped into one group. Professionals responsible for healthcare, social service, etc. then, are seen as justified in making changes or improvements to community services based on the assumption that people in the same situation need the same treatment and people in different situations need different treatments. Professionalism has been identified as a limitation of service 4 3 S t a in ton , T i m . C i t i z e n s h i p , R i g h t s a n d M u t u a l Respec t . Interaction, v o l . 1 0 , 4 ' 9 7 . 4 4 M i n o w , M a r t h a . 1987 . When Difference has Its Home: Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded, Equal Protection and Legal Treatment of Difference. Paper d e l i v e r e d at B r a n d i e s U n i v e r s i t y , A p r i l 1986 . 21 systems45; however it is moreover a limitation of a rights-based paradigm. Arguably, society can not correct all of its ills through legislative acts. People with disabilities can have all their rights, even special rights just for them not unlike Canada's First Nations' peoples, and still lack meaning and belonging as a result of the separateness, abuse and indignations of the past. A second important impact of certain people having special rights is the subtle (and in some cases not so subtle) statement to the community that there is a fundamental difference between the people in those certain groups and everyone else. This statement puts up barriers to full participation in community. Sources and examples of these barriers have been expounded at length by John Mcknight. Some of them include: people being treated as clients rather than citizens, the depersonalization that standardized services inflict on individuals and the emotional neutering that occurs when a person's decisions are determined by other people.46 Different and Equal This third phase in the evolution of the disability movement signifies a new understanding of humanity, and a new understanding of citizenship. This understanding not only accepts, but embraces the basic interconnectedness of people and in the same breath recognizes with humility our differences. There are several roots to this third phase including dissatisfaction with thematerialistic, individualistic culture; suspiciousness of the omnipotence of technology; and the influence of feminism — i.e. moving away from male hierarchical power structures.47 Hierarchical categorization hides the power of those who do the classifying as well as those who are defined as different. Seeing difference in this way suggests we need to acknowledge hegemonic influences and power differentials and then consciously address them, in turn, recognizing that equal treatment does not, in and of itself, imply equality. 4 5 M c k n i g h t , J o h n . 1995 . The Careless Society: Community and Its Counterfeits. B a s i c B o o k s : N e w Y o r k , p p . 3 -15 . 4 6 M c k n i g h t , J o h n . 1995 . 4 7 E t m a n s k i , A l . 2 0 0 3 . 22 There are other concepts that were lacking from the prior two eras that can be considered engaged in this one: • • Spirituality - in the light of the convergence of equality and difference the questions that have been asked for eternity are now acceptable, 'why are we here?', 'what is our purpose?', 'what is our relationships to the other?' • Intimacy/fellowship - basic connectedness among people, no longer assuming autonomy of the individual, but respecting the priority and essential dimension of personhood that is defined by relationships to other people. • Assertion of differences - are actually statements of relationships as long as they don't express or confirm the distributions of power that benefit the powerful and take away from the less powerful. • Humility - it is only acceptable, once power structures based on difference are broken down, to admit, even embrace self-doubt in trying to resolve the actual differences as opposed to perceived ones. • Variety of perspectives - actually persist not only between groups of people in one category from another, but on an individual level i.e. among people with disabilities. Difference coupled with equality takes a step toward recognizing human differences as the elements that contribute diversity and richness in texture to social life. The differences of disability signify the shallow nature of human expectations in modern society. Etmanski exclaims that, "In a world where people are judged primarily by how they look and the extent to which they conform to conventional modes of conduct, disabilities symbolize basic irrelevance of these criteria." 4 8 E t m a n s k i , A l . 2 0 0 3 . 23 Coming Together: The Disability Movement and Citizenship Our collective conception of developmental disabilities is inextricably interwoven with the larger collective world view of our society. Such fields as this one can be said to mirror values and beliefs in the larger culture. The "deinstitutionalization" movement of persons with developmental disabilities, like the antiwar movement, was a movement against a current mode of social and cultural belief and practice. It was a reform movement and it was the bureaucratic institutions that were in greatest need to be changed. Advocates however, saw this as more than a reform movement, it was a revolution. The new social movement involved, purposefully, the creation of thousands of new settings. The creation of settings, as defined by Sarason, is "any instance in which two or more people come together in new relationships over a sustained period of time in order to achieve certain goals." This term encompassed the establishment of marriages, agencies, or even nations.49 These settings were forges of growth and personal transformation for all involved in them. Unfortunately, twenty years later saw the new settings and the new "alternative" community system they collectively formed, riddled with seemingly obstinate problems.50 In the early to mid 1990s, a new light had begun to emerge. The light was a new conception. It was a light, for many, needed to fill the void of disillusionment with the increasing failure to the community system they had built. This conception had to do with rediscovering the importance for all people of being and feeling embedded in a web of personal relationships, an essential element somehow neglected in the enthusiasm to build what was conceived to be caring systems. It had to do with having a "sense of place" in the world, which Seymour Sarason termed "the psychological sense of community." This sense, Sarason pointed out, is the key element without which caring cannot arise from a human service setting.51 4 9 Sa ra son , S . B . 1972. The Creation of Settings and Future Societies. S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . 5 0 S c h w a r t z , D a v i d B . 1992. Crossing the River: Creating a Conceptual Revolution in Community and Disability. B r o o k l i n e B o o k s , p . 3. 5 1 S c h w a r t z , D . 1992 . p . 4 . 24 Tim Stainton, in 1997 - after completing his doctoral dissertation on the rights of people with disabilities with specific regard to individualized funding - identified what he felt was required if a truly equal, participatory citizenship was to be achieved. "A foundation in rights and legal equality, a social policy structure which supports and enhances individual autonomy and participation, and ultimately a change in social attitudes and a politics of mutual respect." One of those very changes in attitudes was called for by Catherine Frazee, former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in October of 1997. Given the controversial debate around the case involving Tracey. Latimer53, Frazee insisted that the non-disabled public needed to stop assuming that living with disabilities meant a diminishment of quality of life. Frazee writes based on her experience as a person with profound disabilities, "The inability to imagine what the disability experience is all about is translated into a kind of collective mythology that a person with disability lives a tragic life, marked by deprivation and suffering."54 This issue spoke loudly to both the rights of people with disabilities as well as their responsibility to 'enlighten' the non-disabled communities of, ".. .the positive powerful features of the disability experience and then to communicate these in every possible way so that people finally get an understanding of it."55 This new conception of disability was the beginning of a movement toward a new conception of citizenship, one that saw participation as integral and relationships as the foundation. Jacques Dufresne provides a very compelling argument for this new conception of citizenship. He identifies three sources of moral commitment. Religion is, as we all know, a long running source of moral commitment. However, Dufresne identifies two more contemporary sources in the philosophical traditions of idealism and materialism. Drawing from Kantian idealism, Dufresne urges, ".. .objects are means to 5 2 S t a in ton , T i m . " C i t i z e n s h i p , R i g h t s a n d M u t u a l Respec t " , Interaction, V o l . 10, 0 4 / 9 7 , p p . 2 4 - 2 6 , 3 3 . 5 3 R . v . L a t i m e r . S a s k a t c h e w a n C o u r t o f A p p e a l D o c k e t s : C A . 7 4 1 3 a n d 7 4 1 6 ; Da te o f D e c i s i o n : N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 1999 . 5 4 F r a z e e , C a t h e r i n e , A W a k e U p C a l l , 1997 , p u b l i s h e d o n the C o u n c i l o f C a n a d i a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s webs i t e at h t t p : / / w w w . c c d o n l i n e . c a / p u b l i c a t i o n s / l a t i m e r - w a t c h / 1 0 9 7 i . h t m 5 5 F r a z e e , C a t h e r i n e . 1997 . 25 ends but humans, all humans, are ends in themselves and as such, are entitled to unconditional respect... Kant rejected all forms of racism, discrimination and exclusion."56 The second source is modern materialism, the philosophy that claims to explain everything by the laws of the material world. This tradition promised that, with the progress of science and technology, want, hunger, sickness and suffering would be eliminated. The humanist theory championed the belief that Reason was the one determining factor that set humans apart from animals - and from many humans that appeared not to fully have the use of reason, as a result of age, sex, status, race or malady. Based on this belief exclusion from active citizenship was acceptable. Idealism, as seen above, undermines this belief. What is more, materialism entirely rejects this emphasis on reason and if anything focused on the similarities between humans and animals. From a materialist perspective, temporary or permanent incapacity to fully use reason does not cut off a person from the rest of humanity - rather it is merely a problem to be fixed or managed through science or "social engineering". Dufresne believes that, "[Tjogether these two traditions create a powerful sense of moral responsibility for inclusion and care."57 Mark Kingwell seems to concur with this statement: "Citizenship is a way of making concrete the ethical commitments of care and respect, of realizing in action an obligation CO to aid fellow travelers." The marrying of people's responsibilities to their citizenship is the balancing of the equation. Without our responsibilities to each other we can not have our rights ensured. People with disabilities have all of these responsibilities too. Long hard fought battles for the rights of people with disabilities are not yet complete. Only recently are people starting to push for the balancing of the equation, the insistence 5 6 D u f r e s n e , Jacques . " T h e P h i l i a P r o p o s a l " adapted f r o m a presen ta t ion d e l i v e r e d i n V a n c o u v e r , M a y 2 0 0 1 . T a k e n f r o m w w w . p h i l i a . c a . " D u f r e s n e , J . 2 0 0 1 . 5 8 K i n g w e l l , M a r k . The World We Want: A Community Dialogue on Citizenship, Belonging & Contribution. F r o m the d i a l o g u e that t o o k p l a c e N o v e m b e r 2 8 t h & 29 th , 2 0 0 3 E d m o n t o n , A l b e r t a . 26 of responsibilities that people with disabilities must carry if they are to be ensured of their rights. People with disabilities must exercise their responsibilities if their rights are to be ensured. However, significant barriers to this kind of exercise exist. Attitudes, expectations, willingness and ability to accommodate the exercises are all significant barriers to the fulfillment of responsibilities on the part of people with disabilities. People with disabilities will not begin to fulfill their obligations to meet their responsibilities head-on until they are expected to do so, and are accommodated and supported in doing so. The disability movement and literature has come to a point where both rights and responsibilities of people with disabilities are expected. However the actualization, the practice, the exercise of those rights and responsibilities require participation which in turn requires active inclusion. Not until there is genuine inclusion of people with disabilities will there be genuine participation and meaningful fulfillment of citizenship. But, inclusion where? Where are people not included that they could be included? Sites of citizenship exist in many different forms, many different models - public and private spaces and places, organizations, institutions, etc. The sites that are focused on in this research are organizations and agencies that provide services to people with disabilities. Co-operatives If we know what citizenship is made of (i.e. rights, responsibilities and active participation) and to whom it ought to apply (i.e. everyone including people with disabilities), then where might it be exercised? Where might it unfold? Sites of citizenship, in the terms laid out above, will include everywhere including the home to the school to the workplace and every place in between. When citizens embrace their responsibilities to act and act on their responsibilities to each other the chance meeting of strangers on the sidewalk is as much an act of citizenship as volunteering with the fire department as voting in the municipal elections. But, where in particular can citizenship be exercised for people who have been, time and time again, marginalized by the systems of society? 27 People with, for example, intellectual disabilities and their families and friends have had to, and continue to, fight hard for their rights. What's more they are fighting for accommodation and accessibility to participation. People who are advocating for the inclusion of people with disabilities are fighting for the opportunity to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens. Coupling those responsibilities with the rights they deserve they can begin to fill out their citizenship. So, to restate the question, where are the sites of citizenship for these people? Co-operatives are, because of their nature, sites of citizenship. Co-operative Definitions and History Co-operatives first emerged as distinct legal institutions in Europe during the nineteenth century. Achieving their first significant successes during the 1840s, co-ops grew within five distinct traditions: 1. the consumer co-operatives, whose beginnings have long been popularly associated with the Rochdale Pioneers; 2. the worker co-operatives, which had their greatest early strength in France; 3. the credit co-operatives, largely began in Germany; 4. the agricultural co-operatives which had their early roots in Denmark and Germany; and, 5. the service co-operatives - such as housing and health-, which emerged in industrial Europe as the 19th century grew to a close. At its Manchester Congress in September 1995, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) adopted a Statement on the Co-operative Identity.59 Since its creation in 1895, the ICA has been the final authority for defining co-operatives and for elaborating the principles upon which co-operatives should be based. The Statement included a definition of co-operatives, a listing of the movement's key values, and a revised set of principles "...intended to guide co-operative organizations at the beginning of the 5 9 I C A , Statement on Co-operative Identity. I C A N e w s , N o . 5/6, 1995 . F o r the fu l l text o n these d o c u m e n t s see h t t p : / / w w w . c o o p . o r g / i c a / i n f o / e n p r i n c i p l e s . h t m l . 28 twenty-first century." Recognizing that each and every co-operative has its own unique characteristics, origins and spirit, for the sake of clarity this thesis will refer to the ICA's definition, values and principles as roughly representative of co-ops the world over.' The International Co-operative Alliance's definition of a co-operative, "A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise."60 ICA's statement of co-operative values, "Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others."61 The ICA has been very thorough in its explanation and clarification of the language used in these statements. They explain some of the words from the first sentence of this statement of values in this way: • Self-help - full individual development can take place only in association with others; • Self-responsibility - members should take responsibility for their co-operatives; • Equality - members have rights of participation, a right to be informed, a right to be heard, and a right to be involved in making decisions. Members should be associated in a way that is as equal as possible; • Equity - members should be treated equitably in their rewards for participation; • Solidarity - Members have the responsibility to ensure that all members are treated as fairly as possible; that the general interest is always kept in mind; that there is a consistent effort to deal fairly with employees as well as with non-members associated with the co-operative. Solidarity also means that the co-operative has a responsibility for the collective interest of its membership. I C A , Background Paper on The Definition of a Co-operative. 6 1 I C A , Background Paper on Values. 29 Cooperatives in that sense are more than an association of individuals; they are affirmations of collective strength and mutual responsibility. Solidarity is emphasized in co-operative discourse as the very cause and consequence of self-help and mutual help. These are two key concepts at the heart of co-operative philosophy.62 One might also use the terms reciprocity or mutuality to characterize the relationship of member to co-operative as well as member to member. The essence of the second sentence in the statement of values is captured by the ICA with, "In short, honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others are values which may be found in all kinds of organizations, but they are particularly cogent and undeniable within co-operative enterprise." In the mid-19th century at the height of the worst abuses of the Industrial Revolution many workers were left impoverished and at the wrong end of an extraordinarily unfair playing field. With a backdrop of employment that was purposefully fragile and excessively exploitive, 28 men, mostly weavers, formed a co-operative society in Rochdale, England in 1844 to sell wholesome food at reasonable prices. This was not the first co-operative, not even the first in Rochdale. However these 'pioneers' established a set of principles that would eventually bring clarity, solidarity and subsequently power to the co-operative movement world wide. Since that time, the worst abuses in unrestricted markets have been tempered by better informed and more effectual consumers, organized labour, progressive social policies, and economic development. Today some 1 billion people are members of co-operatives, including 10 million Canadians.63 Co-ops around the world ensure: • access to adequate and affordable housing; • fairly priced goods for consumers and producers; • high-quality banking services including access to credit; • health, employment and education services that are not met in the market. 6 2 I C A , Background Paper on Values. 1995 . 6 3 W a l l , J o h n , D u g u a y , P a t r i c k and R o h a n , S h a n n o n , N e w S y n e r g i e s : T h e C o - o p e r a t i v e M o v e m e n t , C E D , & the S o c i a l E c o n o m y , i n Making Waves, v o l . 15, n u m b e r 1, p . 32 . 30 Some of the types of co-ops include: healthcare, car-sharing, forestry, water, translation, publication, radio station, food, schooling, energy, environmental, ski hill, construction, home-care, and economic development. Large and small co-operatives, urban and rural, dealing in services or commodities all have a role to play in the social economy. It is said that "at the core of every co-op's history is an unmet need."64 Arguably all types of co-operatives, as defined by these statements, can be sites of citizenship. Co-operatives in Canada, England, and Italy originated out of people coming together to meet their individual interests through collaborative means. This pairing of the individual and the collective leads to the practice of citizenship. Worker co-operatives, agricultural co-ops, marketing co-ops all have the inherent potential to be important sites of citizenship because of their principles, values and organizational structure. For the sake of manageability, this thesis will maintain a focus on one of the aforementioned traditions - the service co-operatives. Service co-operatives, also known as social co-ops, are established to provide resources and services that meet needs of particular segments of the population. The focus here will be with co-ops that seek to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Social Co-operatives as Sites of Citizenship 'Civil society' has been, in recent years, in the spotlight as the rise of corporate ideology has been augmented in most western democracies with withdrawal from public provision of services. There is not a more contentious battle ground than that over public services. Largely the government funding cutbacks in Canada have been in response to deficits of the '80s and '90s supported by the contention that the private sector can do a better job. Similar debates have raged in Italy as well. In northern parts of Italy, where co-6 4 W a l l , J o h n , D u g u a y , P a t r i c k a n d R o h a n , S h a n n o n . N e w S y n e r g i e s : T h e C o - o p e r a t i v e M o v e m e n t , C E D , & the S o c i a l E c o n o m y . Making Waves, v o l . 15, n u m b e r 1, p . 32. 31 operatives and civil society are strongest05, social co-operatives which place civil society at the forefront have emerged as a new model of how social services can be reformed.66 Social co-operatives are described in Italian legislation as having the purpose "to pursue the general community interest in promoting human concerns and the integration of citizens". In this sense, social co-operatives differ slightly from other types of co-ops. Social co-ops have goals that maximize benefits to the community and its citizens, rather than maximizing profits to co-op members. John Restakis defines two types of social co-ops that occur in Italy: • Type A, which provide the delivery of social, health, educational, and recreational services, and • Type B, which provide for the gainful employment of the disadvantaged through training in the agricultural, industrial, business, or service sectors. Both types of social co-ops have great potential, but the focus in this research will be Type A - co-ops that provide services that are based on relationships. Relational services are those services such as care giving, which are services to persons and which are characterized by the exchange of human relations. In relational goods, the quality of personal interaction lies at the core of what is exchanged between provider and the recipient and can be optimally produced only by the provider and recipient together. "In those social co-ops where the service users are also members, the operation of control rights has the capacity to transform the user from being merely a passive recipient of care, to being an active protagonist in the design and delivery of the care. Social care becomes a shared outcome between caregiver and care receiver. This element of personal control is fundamental to the reform of social care systems, particularly for those who are most dependant - people with disabilities, the poor, and the marginalized."67 6 5 F o r s e m i n a l research o n the c i v i c t r ad i t ions o f no r the rn I ta ly see P u t n a m , R o b e r t , 1993 , Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P ress : N e w Jersey . 6 6 R e s t a k i s , J o h n , " T h e E m i l i a n M o d e l - P r o f i l e o f a C o - o p e r a t i v e E c o n o m y " , T h e C a n a d i a n C o - o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n webs i t e : w w w . c c a b c . b c . c a , a cce s sed M a y 2 0 0 2 , p . 5. 6 7 R e s t a k i s , J o h n . 2 0 0 2 . p . 5. 32 In Italy there are some 3000 social co-operatives 60,000 people, many of whom were formerly marginalized from mainstream employment opportunities.68 First organized in the early '70s, social co-operatives were formed by caregivers and families of people who had disabilities. These organizations were formed to fill the insufficient market for much needed services. Currently the economic turnover of social co-operatives in Italy is over $1.75 billion dollars or about 13% of Italian expenditure on social services. In the city of Bologna, approximately 85% of the city's social services are provided through the social co-ops.69 The Italian experience is important as it clearly indicates the significant potential of social co-ops to improve the quality of life for vulnerable populations and their communities. However, with the exception of these impressive examples in Northern Italy, social co-ops in other parts of the world remain marginal as does the study of them. Quantitative research on social co-ops was not found in reviewing the accessible literature - i.e. there may be some Italian literature. In fact, A Co-operative Research 70 Inventory Project: Overview of English Language Literature had this statement to make about research in healthcare: "Despite increasing problems with healthcare in Canada and elsewhere, relatively little research has been conducted on healthcare co-operatives over the past ten years." This project identified four primary themes that run through research on healthcare: 1. the role for co-operatives in government healthcare systems; 2. potential for healthcare co-operatives sector; 3. the need for practical information on the beginnings and operation of healthcare co-ops; and, 4. historical development.71 M R e s t a k i s , J o h n . 2 0 0 2 . p . 5. 6 9 R e s t a k i s , J o h n . 2 0 0 2 . p . 5. 7 0 T h e Co-operative Research Inventory Project w a s a N a t i o n a l Jo in t P ro jec t o f the C o - o p e r a t i v e s Secretar ia t , the C e n t r e for the S t u d y o f C o - o p e r a t i v e s , U . o f S a s k a t c h e w a n , C e n t r e I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a i r e de R e c h e r c h e et d ' l n f o r m a t i o n sur les En te rp r i s e s C o l l e c t i v e s ( C I R I E C ) and C e n t r e de r eche rche sur les i n n o v a t i o n s s o c i a l s ( C R I S E S ) , and the B C Institute F o r C o - o p e r a t i v e S tud ies , U . o f V i c t o r i a . P u b l i s h e d N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 . 7 1 F o r s p e c i f i c references to l i tera ture i n these themes see The Co-operative Research Inventory Project, 2 0 0 3 . p . 15-16 . It i s o n l i n e at h t t p : / / c o o p - s t u d i e s . u s a s k . c a / R e s e a r c h / f i n a l i n v e n t o r y . p d f . A c c e s s e d A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 . 33 The Co-operative Research Inventory Project had these statements to make about home care, home support and personal assistance co-operatives: "Even less work has been done on home support co-operatives than on healthcare co-operatives... A theme of empowerment runs through all of the studies on home support co-operatives, focusing on the people who 73 need support, on the workers, and sometimes both." With respect to social co-ops - referring to social service delivery co-operatives including those with a multi-stakeholder organizational structure - the Inventory's authors state: "These types of co-operatives are not common in English-language literature74 ... Further exploration of these types of co-operatives would be helpful for examples of innovative development for co-operatives and [Community Economic Development]."75 Relevant literature on social co-ops, which has been produced since the aforementioned inventory, was recently published by the Government of Canada's Co-operative Secretariat. The research was done by Kate Sutherland and Tim Beachy. Having sought out examples of social co-ops around the world the authors say, "The local experiments we found provide a rich source of anecdotal material but outside of Italy there is not yet a dynamic that would characterize a movement on a world-wide, national or regional scale."76 2 T h e Co-operative Research Inventory Project. N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 . 7 3 F o r spec i f i c references to l i terature o n h o m e suppor t co -ope ra t ives , p a r t i c u l a r l y a r o u n d the r e l a t i onsh ips b e t w e e n c o - o p s a n d g o v e r n m e n t , see The Co-operative Research Inventory Project, 2 0 0 3 . p . 17-19 . It i s o n l i n e at h t t p : / / c o o p - s t u d i e s . u s a s k . c a / R e s e a r c h / f i n a l i n v e n t o r y . p d f . 7 4 T h r e e p i eces o f C a n a d i a n l i terature o n th i s t o p i c i n c l u d e : Pes toff , V . 1995 . " L o c a l E c o n o m i c D e m o c r a c y a n d M u l t i - s t a k e h o l d e r C o - o p e r a t i v e s . " Journal of Rural Co-operative, 2 3 : 1 5 1 - 1 6 7 . ; T u r n a b u l l , S. 1997 . " S t a k e h o l d e r C o - o p e r a t i v e s . " Journal of Co-operative Studies, 2 9 : 1 8 - 5 2 . ; and , U l l r i c h , G . 2 0 0 0 . " I n n o v a t i v e A p p r o a c h e s to C o - o p e r a t i o n i n H e a l t h C a r e a n d S o c i a l S e r v i c e s . " Journal of Co-operative Studies, 3 3 : 5 3 - 7 1 . A l s o see U n i t e d N a t i o n s . 1995 . Co-operative Enterprise in the Health and Social Care Sectors: A Global Review and Proposals for Policy Coordination. G e n e v a : U n i t e d N a t i o n s . 7 5 The Co-operative Research Inventory Project, 2 0 0 3 . p . 3 2 . 7 6 S u t h e r l a n d , K a t e a n d B e a c h y , T i m . 2 0 0 4 . Innovative Co-ops in the Social Services Sector: A research study to benefit people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. C o - o p e r a t i v e s Secre tar ia t , G o v e r n m e n t o f C a n a d a . 34 Sutherland and Beachy studied 20 social co-ops, some of which had failed to sustain themselves and some of which remain. They further provided detailed case studies of 5 co-ops and 1 non-profit. The framework that was used to investigate these social co-ops centered on the development and sustainability of the co-ops. The authors highlight these learnings: • Social co-ops have a unified bottom-line, achieving social-values and financial-values as one enterprise. The case studies showed that there was no consistent understanding of this reality by policy makers and hinders, and, as of yet, no patterns of adequate in-kind and financial support. This presents a very difficult challenge. • There is a need for people working in and with social co-ops to connect and support one another. As yet there were few, i f any, systems of support, shared learning or loops of feedback. • In the long term there is a requirement to build understanding and acceptance of social co-ops as effective organizational structures to address the social and financial goals of groups of vulnerable and disabled people and those working in their support.77 The Co-operative Research Inventory Project authors, as well as Sutherland and Beachy, state that there is a need for further research into the development, operation and sustainability of social co-ops as well as the policies that might provide incentives, supports and dis-incentives. This thesis likely falls under the topic of operations - how, with the social co-op as sites, can people be empowered toward full citizenship through the provision of relational services? Summary Citizenship of all people is important both for development of the individual and to ensure a healthy democratic society. The citizenship of people with disabilities has been mired by stigmas, attitudes, even legislation. These barriers to citizenship will continue to come down as sites of citizenship become increasingly accessible and inclusive. Sites of citizenship can accommodate, overcome and develop people's citizenship through S u t h e r l a n d a n d B e a c h y . 2 0 0 4 . p . 4 - 5 . 35 relationships. Relationships to others, to shared economic and social capital and to the power that resides in solidarity. How do we classify a site as one of citizenship? Based on the earlier section that laid out the characteristics of citizenship, some possible criteria to evaluate sites might include: • People's rights are ensured at these sites - membership rights as well as human rights; • People's responsibilities are expected at these sites - responsibilities as members of the site/co-op as well as members of society; and, • People have the duty, the opportunity and the support necessary to participate, to activate their rights and their responsibilities. Citizenship, inclusive of rights and responsibilities, grounded in relationships and caring requires both systems of justice to ensure rights and sites to exercise ones responsibilities. Systems of justice are in place and are scrutinized, analyzed and altered as society changes and changes again to ensure that the rights that are protected reflect the shared principles and values of the respective society. Moreover, the sites necessary for activation of a citizen's responsibilities are for a large part of the population readily accessible - e.g. schools, workplaces, recreation centres, etc. However, for people who are systemically marginalized by systems of care sites, vital to the exercise of their citizenship, are not accessible. Organizations that embody co-operative values have the potential to be those sites, to protect people's rights while exercising their obligations. 36 Chapter 3 - Research Methodology This research used a case study approach to investigate the opportunities and constraints organizations confront when seeking to empower peoples toward full citizenship through the provision of services. Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) is studied using key informant interviews and document analysis. The case study is meant to be illustrative and inform readers what might be possible for similar organizations that are seeking to empower their members' citizenship while providing services to them. Following the exposure of the qualitative-quantitative debate this chapter lays out some of the current discussion on the use of case studies and qualitative research methods, including: an overview, a brief history, the types of case studies possible, the strengths and the weaknesses of this research methodology. The Qualitative versus Quantitative Debate In Miles and Huberman's 1994 book Qualitative Data Analysis, quantitative researcher Fred Kerlinger is quoted as saying, "There's no such thing as qualitative data. Everything is either 1 or 0"78. To this another researcher, D. T. Campbell, replied "all research ultimately has a qualitative grounding" . This kind of back and forth discourse among qualitative and quantitative researchers is "essentially unproductive" according to Miles and Huberman. They, among other researchers, suggest that these two research methods need each other more often than not. However, because qualitative data'typically involves words and quantitative data involves numbers, there are some researchers who feel that one is better (or more scientific) than the other. Some general distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research include: • Qualitative research is commonly inductive and quantitative research is deductive. • Often quantitative research involves the testing of a hypothesis, whereas in qualitative research it is more rare. 7 8 M i l e s , M a t t h e w B . & H u b e r m a n , A . M i c h a e l . 1994 . Qualitative data analysis. T h o u s a n d O a k s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , p . 4 0 . 7 9 M i l e s , M a t t h e w B . & H u b e r m a n , A . M i c h a e l . 1994 . p . 4 0 . 37 • In quantitative research, the researcher generally makes an effort to be an objective observer that neither participates in nor influences what is being studied. In qualitative research, however, it is often thought that the researcher can learn the most about a situation by participating and/or being immersed in it - although this needn't be the case. These basic underlying assumptions of both methodologies guide and sequence the types of data collection methods employed. Although there are clear differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches, some researchers maintain that the choice of approaches actually has less to do with methodologies than it does with positioning oneself within a particular discipline or research tradition. The difficulty of choosing a method is compounded by the fact that research is often affiliated with universities and other institutions. The findings of research projects often guide important decisions about specific practices and policies. The choice of which approach to use may reflect the interests of those conducting or benefiting from the research and the purposes for which the findings will be applied. Decisions about which kind of research method to use may also be based on the researcher's own experience and preference, the population being researched, the 80 proposed audience for findings, time, money, and other resources available . Some researchers believe that qualitative and quantitative methodologies cannot be combined because the assumptions underlying each tradition are so vastly different. Other researchers think they can be used in combination only by alternating between methods: qualitative research is appropriate to answer certain kinds of questions in certain conditions and quantitative is right for others. And some researchers think that both qualitative and quantitative methods can be used simultaneously to answer a research question. To a certain extent each approach has its drawbacks. Quantitative research, for example, often "forces" responses or people into categories that might not "fit" through choice of 8 0 H a t h a w a y , R . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . A s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g quan t i t a t ive a n d qua l i t a t i ve research: I m p l i c a t i o n s fo r in s t i t u t i ona l research . Research in higher education, 36 (5) , 5 3 5 - 5 6 2 . 38 word or lack of options. Qualitative research, on the other hand, sometimes focuses too closely on individual results and fails to make connections to larger situations or possible causes of the results. Rather than discounting either approach for its drawbacks, though, researchers often find the most effective ways to incorporate elements of both to ensure that their studies are as thorough as possible. Case Studies: A n Overview of the Method, Its Strengths and Limitations r Robert Yin defines a case study this way: "Case study is a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon 81 within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence." A form of qualitative descriptive research, the case study looks intensely at an individual case or small participant pool, drawing conclusions only about that participant or group and only in that specific context. Researchers do not focus on the discovery of a universal, generalizable truth, nor do they typically look for cause-effect relationships. Instead, emphasis of a case study is placed on exploration and description. Overview of the Case Study Method Case studies typically examine the interplay of variables in order to provide as complete an understanding of an event, situation or structural scenario as possible. This type of comprehensive understanding is arrived at through a process that might be known as thick description - which involves an in-depth description of the entity being investigated, the circumstances under which it was formed, the characteristics of the people involved in it, and the nature of the community in which it is located. Thick description also involves interpreting the meaning of demographic and descriptive data such as cultural norms, community values, ingrained attitudes, and motives. Unlike quantitative methods of research, such as the survey, which focus on the questions of who, what, where, how much, and how many, and archival analysis, which often situates the participant in some form of historical context, case studies are often the 8 1 R o b e r t Y i n . 1994 . Case Study Research. T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : Sage . 39 preferred strategy when 'how' or 'why' questions are at the core of the research interest. Likewise, they are the preferred method when the researcher has little control over the events, and when there is a contemporary focus within a real life context. In addition, unlike more specifically directed experiments, case studies are better situated to address research problems that seek a holistic understanding of the event(s) or situation(s) in question using inductive logic - reasoning from specific to more general terms. In scholarly circles, case studies are frequently discussed within the context of qualitative research and naturalistic inquiry. Case studies are often referred to synonymously with ethnography, field study, and participant observation. The underlying philosophical assumptions in the case are similar to these types of qualitative research because each takes place in a natural setting (such as a classroom, neighborhood, or private home), and strives for a more holistic interpretation of the event, situation or structure under study. Unlike more statistically-based studies which search for quantifiable data, the goal of a case study is to offer new variables and questions for further research. F.H. Giddings, a sociologist in the early part of the century, compares statistical methods to the case study "on the basis that the former are concerned with the distribution of a particular trait, or a small number of traits, in a population, whereas the case study is concerned with the whole variety of traits to be found in a particular instance".82 History of Case Studies Case studies are not a new form of research. Most likely, naturalistic inquiry was the default research tool until the development of the scientific method. The fields of sociology and anthropology are credited with the primary shaping of the concept as we know it today. However, case study research has drawn from a number of other areas as well: the clinical methods of doctors; the casework technique being developed by social workers; the methods of historians and anthropologists; and, in the case of Robert Park, the techniques of newspaper reporters and novelists. 8 2 H a m m e r s l e y , M a r t y n . ( E d . ) . ( 1993) . Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. N e w b u r y P a r k , C A : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . 40 Park was an ex-newspaper reporter and editor who became very influential in developing sociological case studies at the University of Chicago in the 1920s. As a newspaper professional he coined the term "scientific" or "depth" reporting - the description of local events in a way that pointed to major social trends. Park viewed the sociologist as "merely a more accurate, responsible, and scientific reporter." He stressed the variety and value of human experience. He believed that sociology sought to arrive at natural, but fluid, laws and generalizations in regard to human nature and society. These laws weren't static laws of the kind sought by many positivists and natural law theorists, but rather, they were laws of becoming - with a constant possibility of change. Park encouraged students to get out of the library, to quit looking at papers and books, and to view the constant experiment of human experience. He writes, "Go and sit in the lounges of the luxury hotels and on the doorsteps of the flophouses; sit on the Gold Coast settees and on the slum shakedowns; sit in the Orchestra Hall and in the Star and Garter Burlesque. In short, gentlemen [sic], go get the seats of your pants dirty in real research."83 Over the years however, case studies have had their share of critics. In the 1920s, the debate between pro-qualitative and pro-quantitative was already quite heated. Case studies, when compared to statistics, were considered by many to be unscientific. From the 1930s on, the rise of positivism had a growing influence on quantitative methods in sociology. Many people wanted and continue to prefer static, generalizable laws in science. The sociological positivists were looking for stable laws of social phenomena. They criticized case study research because it failed to provide evidence of inter-subjective agreement. They also criticized it on the basis of having so few cases studied and that the lack of standardization of their descriptions made generalization impossible. By the 1950s, quantitative methods, in the form of survey research, had become the 84 dominant sociological approach and case study had become a minority practice. 8 3 T h i s b r i e f h i s t o r y w a s adapted f r o m the webs i t e m a i n t a i n e d b y the W r i t i n g C e n t e r at C o l o r a d o State U n i v e r s i t y at h t tp : / /wr i t i ng . co los t a t e . edu / r e fe rences / r e sea rch /cases tudy /com2a2 .c fm 8 4 h t tp : / /wr i t ing . co los t a t e . edu / re fe rences / r e sea rch /cases tudy /com2a2 .c fm 41 Types of Case Studies Under the general category of case study resides several sub-categories, each of which is custom selected for use depending upon the goals and/or objectives of the investigator. These types of case study include the following: • Illustrative Case Studies These are primarily descriptive studies. They typically utilize one or two instances of an event to show what a situation is like. Illustrative case studies serve primarily to make the unfamiliar familiar and to give readers a common language about the topic in question. The case study of PLAN in this thesis will be of an illustrative nature. PLAN is unique in its work and structure thus shedding light on what is possible. • Exploratory (or pilot) Case Studies These are condensed case studies performed before implementing a large scale investigation. Their basic function is to help identify questions and select types of measurement prior to the main investigation. A possible pitfall of this type of study is that initial findings may seem convincing enough to be released prematurely as conclusions. • Cumulative Case Studies These serve to aggregate information from several sites collected at different times. The idea behind these studies is the collection of past studies will allow for greater generalization without additional cost or time being expended on new, possibly repetitive studies. • Critical Instance Case Studies These examine one or more sites for either the purpose of examining a situation of unique interest with little to no interest in generalizability, or to call into question or challenges highly generalized or universal assertion. This method is useful for answering cause and effect questions. Data Collection Methods There are generally six types of data collected in case studies: 42 • Documents. • Direct observation. • Archival records. Participant observation. • Interviews. • Artifacts. Case studies are likely to be much more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of information. It can be said then, that cross checking data from multiple sources can help provide a multidimensional understanding of the events, situations or structures - this is often referred to as triangulation. Sharan Merriam suggests "checking, verifying, testing, probing, and confirming collected data as you go, arguing that this process will follow in a funnel-like design resulting in less data gathering in later phases of thestudy along with a congruent increase in analysis checking, verifying, and confirming." 8 5 Data Analysis As the information is collected, researchers strive to make sense of their data. Generally, researchers interpret their data in one of two ways: holistically or through coding. Holistic analysis does not attempt to break the evidence into parts, but rather to draw conclusions based on the information as a whole. This is the situation with the case study of PLAN. The components of this organization's operations, intentions and structures are all very closely tied to each other. Therefore, while some of the specific components will be identified, the analysis of the connections between them will ideally shed more light on the setting, tone, and characters of this organization. Case Studies: Issues of Validity and Reliability If key variables are identified, they will in turn need to be analyzed. Reliability becomes a key issue at this stage, and many case study researchers go to great lengths to ensure that their interpretations of the data will be both reliable and valid. Issues of validity and reliability are an important part of any study in the social sciences, thus it is important to identify some ways of dealing with results. As is the case with other research 8 5 M e r r i a m , S. B . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e C a s e S t u d y i n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : A R e v i e w o f S e l e c t e d L i t e ra tu re . Journal of Educational Thought, 7 9 . 3 , 2 0 4 - 1 7 . 43 methodologies, issues of external validity, construct validity, and reliability need to be carefully considered. Possible Steps to Improve Validity and Reliability 1. Prolong the Processes of Data Gathering on Site - This will help to insure the accuracy of the findings by providing the researcher with more concrete information upon which to formulate interpretations. 2. Employ the Process of "Triangulation" - Use a variety of data sources as opposed to relying solely upon one avenue of observation. 3. Conduct Member Checks - Initiate and maintain an active corroboration on the interpretation of data between the researcher and those who provided the data. 4. Collect Referential Materials - Complement the file of materials from the actual site with additional document support. 5. Engage in Peer Consultation - Prior to composing the final draft of the report, researchers should consult with colleagues in order to establish validity through pooled j udgment.86 Strengths and Weaknesses of Case Study Advocates maintain that case studies produce much more detailed information than what is available through a statistical analysis. Advocates will also hold that while statistical methods might be able to deal with situations where behavior is homogeneous and routine, case studies are needed to deal with creativity, innovation, and context. Critics typically argue that case studies are difficult to generalize because of inherent subjectivity and because they are based on qualitative subjective data, generalizable only to a particular context. Two Particular Strengths of the Case Study • Flexibility 8 6 These suggested steps were taken from the website maintained by the Wri t ing Center at Colorado State University at http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/casestudy/com2a2.cfm . 44 The case study approach is a comparatively flexible method of research. Project designs emphasize exploration rather than prescription or prediction, therefore researchers are likely to be freer to discover and address issues as they arise in their studies. What's more, the flexible format of case studies liberates researchers to begin with broad questions and narrow their focus as their investigation progresses rather than attempt to , predict every possible outcome before the study is conducted. • Emphasis on Context By seeking to understand as much as possible about a single subject or small group of subjects, case studies specialize in "deep data," or "thick description" - i.e. information that is necessarily based on particular contexts. This emphasis can help bridge the gap between abstract research and concrete practice by allowing researchers to compare their firsthand observations with the quantitative results obtained through other methods of research. Two Particular Weaknesses of the Case Study • Subjectivity . "The case study has long been stereotyped as the weak sibling among social science methods," and is often criticized as being too subjective and even pseudo-scientific. Likewise, "investigators who do case studies are often regarded as having deviated from their academic disciplines, and their investigations as having insufficient precision (that is, quantification), objectivity and rigor".87 Opponents cite opportunities for subjectivity in the implementation, presentation, and evaluation of case study research. The approach relies on personal interpretation of data and inferences. Results may not be generalizable, are difficult to test for validity, and rarely offer a problem-solving prescription. Simply put, relying on one or a few subjects as a basis for general understanding runs the risk of inferring or assuming too much. • Investment on the Part of the Researcher Case studies can involve learning more about the subjects than most researchers would care to know - research might involve learning their educational background, emotional background, perceptions of themselves and-their surroundings, their likes, dislikes, and so 8 7 Y i n , R . K . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Case Study Research: Design and Methods. L o n d o n : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s Inc. 4 5 on. The emphasis on deep investigation causes the case study to be inappropriate for large-scale research projects which look at a subject pool in the tens of thousands, for example. The Case Study of P L A N This research uses a qualitative research methodology in answering the research questions. The research questions revolve around the purpose of this project which is to investigate, through a case study of one organization, the opportunities and barriers that can confront a co-operative membership-based organization that seeks to empower peoples toward full citizenship in the process of providing services to people with disabilities, and the strategies and structures that may be effective in response. Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) is a registered non-profit charity created by and for families who have a relative with a disability. This organization has two main functions: to assist families to plan a good life for their relative with a disability both now and in the future; and, to ensure a safe and secure future by fulfilling the wishes of parents, after they die, or are otherwise unable to. They do this by supporting, monitoring and advocating for their son/daughter for the rest of their lives. This organization is at the forefront of the disability movement and subsequently is a rich resource as the case study subject. Methods Used To Research This Thesis Semi-structured interviews were conducted with directors, staff, management, and the membership of PLAN. The focus of these interviews was on the opportunities and constraints that these people perceive PLAN confronting in fulfilling peoples' citizenship through PLAN'S work. Additionally, strategies, structures and/or processes employed to mitigate or overcome constraints were also investigated. The interviewees were chosen because they are seen by the organization as 'key informants' of what PLAN is, how it operates and in particular its philosophy around citizenship, disability and the co-operative organizational structure. The key-informant interviewees were: • Al Etmanski - Executive Director; 46 • Jacinta Eni - Director of Membership Services; • Ted Kuntz - Board of Directors (President), Lifetime member; • Nancy Ford - Facilitator Mentor, Program Coordinator; • Jack Styan-Director of External Relations. Each of these interviews was conducted independently, as opposed to a group interview. Furthermore, each of the interviewees gave consent for their names and direct quotations to be used in this thesis. This research methodology was reviewed by the Behavioural Ethics Research Board at the University of British Columbia and accepted as appropriate in May 2004. In order to investigate PLAN, fourteen questions were developed in collaboration with the principal investigator and tested with a small group of colleagues for lucidity. The questions that were asked of all of the interviewees were: 1. What is PLAN trying to achieve for its membership and their family members who have disabilities? In other words, what do you see as PLAN'S fundamental goals? 2. What approaches (i.e. strategies, programs, processes, etc.) does PLAN use in working toward those goal(s)? 3. What approaches have you found to be successful in achieving PLAN'S goals? And, why? 4. What approaches have you found to be unsuccessful in achieving PLAN's goals? In other words what hasn't worked? And, why? 5. What has happened, if anything, as a result of PLAN's activities beyond the benefits to members and their families, that weren't expected? 6. What has happened within the organization of PLAN that wasn't expected? 7. What are the ways that members of PLAN (families of or people with disabilities) can participate: a. in how PLAN operates and works (i.e. internal relations/operations), b. in PLAN's role in society (i.e. external relations)? c. What are the barriers to members'participation? d. What strategies does PLAN employ to overcome those barriers? 47 8. What rights come with being a member (i.e. family and/or PWD) of PLAN? 9. What strategies or approaches are employed to ensure that members' rights are protected? 10. What are expected of members of PLAN? In other words what are the responsibilities that come with being members (i.e. family and/or PWD)? 11. What are the barriers to members exercising those responsibilities? What are the strategies PLAN employs to overcome those barriers? 12. What have you and PLAN learned in trying to achieve the goal(s) you mention from Question #1? 13. What do you think other organizations can learn from PLAN 'S experience? 14. Do you think that it is the services themselves that empower citizenship or is it the relationship to PLAN (i.e. member-owner) that empowers citizenship? Or, both? The analysis of documents, in addition to the interviews, were done to shed additional light on what opportunities and constraints exist for PLAN. This indirect, unobtrusive, and subsequently non-reactive method was used to analyze the contents of these documents: • PLAN's 2002 Accountability Report (social audit) - In addition to opportunities and constraints, this document gave some idea as to the reason for and value in the monitoring and evaluation of PLAN. • Survey data collected for the Accountability Report - These were particularly useful in identifying success and failures on the part of PLAN, as well as from where these might have stemmed. • PLAN Facts - This is a monthly newsletter to all members of PLAN with contributions from directors, staff, and members. These helped to identify some of PLAN's successes and failures. • Other Research - At least one other researcher had focused on PLAN as the subject of a case study. The framework for analysis was very different than the framework for this thesis, however that case study provided interesting insight. 48 Summary of the Research Methodology The investigation of the opportunities and constraints that confront organizations, such as social co-ops working with people who have disabilities, in the empowerment of people toward full citizenship through the services that it provides was conducted using a case study. It was felt that the case study approach would allow for the appropriate amount of flexibility in the exploration of this organization. The case studied was PLAN, an organization that is at the forefront of addressing citizenship through values and structures that resemble the co-operative organizational model. The case study involved semi-structured interviews with key informants of the organization and document analysis which included looking at the social audit, other research done on PLAN, monthly newsletters, and other documented information about the organization. The framework used to analyze these sources of information is laid out in more detail in the literature review section of this paper, but generally involves the use of a citizenship "lens" to investigate: what the subject does; what the opportunities and constraints are in meeting their goals; and finally, what strategies are employed by the organization to overcome barriers that confront them. 49 Chapter 4 - PLAN: An Organization for Citizens Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) emerged from a group of parents, who came together to prepare for the futures of their children with disabilities. The group of parents became an organization governed by parents. Many of the disability and community living organizations throughout Canada and elsewhere started in this same way: parents coming together to ensure the needs and supports for their children were adequately met. PLAN however, has moved past the goals of meeting immediate needs and ensuring supports. This organization governed by parents has become a movement led by parents. The movement is now reaching much further than people with disabilities and their families. The movement is going in many different directions, touching countless people, affecting change in many places and in many ways. By PLAN's account, it merely 'does', 'shares', 'changes' and 'inspires'. However, on the ground, the work of PLAN includes social support network development, financial and support planning, advocacy, legislative and governance reform, philosophic and academic contribution. For more than fifteen years PLAN has insisted on the good life for its members and their family members with disabilities, both now and in the future. The good life is not easily defined, yet PLAN argues, it includes relationships, participation, rights and responsibilities. This chapter builds on the responses to interview questions, incorporates other research conducted with PLAN as the subject, and draws on documentation including: PLAN Facts - a monthly newsletter; Abilities - a national magazine that regularly publishes articles on PLAN, The Plan Institute and the Philia Dialogue; PLAN's 2002 Accountability Report; and, the raw research data that was collected in the process of PLAN's social audit. Portrayed in this chapter are the organization's beginnings, its workings and its core philosophical grounding that show how this organization has evolved beyond merely meeting people's needs. 50 Where PLAN Came From In the late 1980s, a small group of people began meeting together in Vancouver, British Columbia to think about the futures of their sons or daughters who had disabilities. They took into consideration the things that gave their children pleasure and the things that made them uncomfortable. They thought about their children's safety, livelihood as well as their hopes and dreams. This group of parents had fought the political and personal battles to ensure that their children receive the support they needed: schooling; housing; medical and psychological care; and financial support. They knew the "care" system well, and were adept at negotiating its ins and outs, its "do's" and "don'ts". However, they were getting tired of continually having to battle. Moreover, they were concerned about a relatively new problem. They had to address the fact that, because of advances in medical science, their children with disabilities were likely to outlive them. Of course, a long life is not itself a problem. But for these people, life without their parents would mean life without their primary advocates, without their chief negotiators with the myriad of institutions, public and private agencies that in and of themselves could not care nor protect their well-being. This group of parents faced their greatest fear - the personal and O Q systemic loneliness of their children. In addition to these concerns, they sensed that the current model of providing services to people with disabilities, the familiar twentieth century mix of institutional service and systems, provided few, if any, answers to their sons' and daughters' most meaningful questions and yearnings. What's more, they knew that the nonprofits that worked within the disability communities were deeply rooted in the care-taking model, both culturally (i.e. same language, same mentality, etc.) and financially, since they received most of their funding from government agencies. In fact, several of the parents had been involved in many of these nonprofits, founding them, working for them, sitting on their boards. They had a wealth of experience and knowledge around governance, policy, legal and financial issues. But they all felt that the structures they had participated in and helped create were missing a vital element. 8 8 N i l s o n , W . O . V o i c e a n d G r o u n d : S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n at the P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k ( P L A N ) . A W o r k i n g P a p e r fo r the M c G i l l - D u p o n t S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n In i t i a t ive , 2 0 0 3 . 51 Jack Collins was one of those parents, "We all spent years building these nonprofit organizations that were supposed to be providing services to pur children, but they did not really look at the needs of the person . . . [Our local association] didn't offer anything but programs which suited the needs of the association." He talks about his daughter Pam: "Whenever we asked for something, they put her in a training program. They 89 trained her to bake muffins once." Collins says that what the members of this small group shared, in addition to a particular family experience with disability, was "complete dissatisfaction with this system." They wanted to create something entirely different, an organization, a movement, a way of understanding the world that would secure the futures of their children and others like them by acknowledging and responding to their deepest human needs, not simply their superficial predicaments. Without a clear conception of how that organization or that movement might take shape the group opened, without mercy, their own assumptions and wounds. They visited other programs and service organizations. Funded by research and planning grants, they spent three years in deep inquiry, immersed in what they considered profoundly honest, occasionally contentious, dialogue with each other and with the world around them. Eventually, a unique way of understanding disability and the organizations meant to serve people with those characteristics, as well as their families, began to emerge. A new model of meeting basic human needs took shape. The shape wouldn't become obvious for some time, but in 1989 the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, PLAN, was created. What P L A N Is People PLAN was founded by Jack Collins, Vickie Cammack and Al Etmanski in 1989. Cammack and Etmanski remain with the organization serving as Executive Directors of the Plan Institute and PLAN, respectively. Collins remained as an integral part of the 8 9 N i l s o n , W . O . 2 0 0 3 . 52 Board until recently. These three people have embodied the backbone of the organization since inception. They did much of the early research and conceptual development, have provided both the day-to-day and long-term guidance of the organization and have played important roles in the disability movement across Canada. Their leadership is, at least in part, responsible for the success of PLAN. That said, PLAN is also comprised of a board, staff and membership that share and continue to develop the vision and, in turn, work hard to see that vision fulfilled on the ground in activities each and every day. Two of the respondents remarked, during interviews for this thesis, how extraordinary it has been to see so many people (i.e. staff, facilitators and board members) excited by PLAN's vision and committed to seeing it to fruition.90 Financial Right from the beginning, the founders of PLAN resolved to accept no government funding of any type. They set out to establish a funding base from member contributions and make up the difference through private and corporate donations. Each family that decided to enter into a lifetime relationship with PLAN would contribute $ 1,000 as an initial membership fee and then $350 annually. Additionally, families would help underwrite many of the direct services that they used. PLAN has for more than ten years employed a strategy that has only recently come into the fore of other non-profit organizations' economic sustainability strategies - Social Enterprise. PLAN has instituted enterprising approaches that include: charging user fees for certain services, publishing and selling resource materials, corporate sponsorships and partnerships with financial bodies such as VanCity Credit Union. The writing and self-publishing of two books entitled The Good Life and Safe and Secure has generated significant revenue for PLAN. Etmanski believes that a major reason for PLAN's current economic health is its entrepreneurial attitude toward fundraising. This approach to 9 0 A l E t m a n s k i a n d J a c i n t a E n i i n d e p e n d e n t l y r e m a r k e d d u r i n g i n t e r v i e w s i n June 2 0 0 4 o n the m i g r a t i o n to P L A N o f p e o p l e w h o share the co re va lues and v i s i o n . 53 economic sustainability was not always easy, particularly in the early years. However, according to the most recent financial statements the organization is thriving economically91 and according to the research done for the Accountability Report in 2002, 90% of the family members have confidence in PLAN's financial sustainability. Some of the financial notes reported in the 2002 Accountability Report that indicate PLAN's economic sustainability strategy are: • 53% of the operating revenue comes from families and supporters (total of 22% donations, 21% network fees, 10% seminars, publications and consulting); • 25% of the operating revenue from public fund-raising events; • 16% of the operating revenue from corporations and foundations; • 6% of the operating revenue from investment income; • The total operating revenue is $453,100 (This total does not include additional $494,000 special project funding from foundations and corporations). PLAN and VanCity Credit Union have had a long on-going relationship, almost since the founding of PLAN - a relationship built on shared values, trust, and mutual respect. Their relationship with VanCity is one example of PLAN's economic sustainability strategy. Early in 2004, PLAN embarked on a new 5 year exclusive PLAN-VanCity agreement. The basis of the agreement is that PLAN will receive revenue from VanCity based on the total amount of money under deposit with VanCity by members and friends of PLAN. Money under deposit includes savings and checking accounts, mortgages, RRSP's and RRIF's and loans with VanCity. PLAN's commitment to an enterprising approach to sustainability is further bolstered through a dedicated permanent staff position, Director of Social Enterprise Development and Corporate Relations, currently filled by Rita Morin.93 Governance Structure 9 1 E t m a n s k i s a i d th is d u r i n g the thesis i n t e r v i e w , June 2 0 0 4 . 9 2 P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k . 2 0 0 2 . A c c o u n t a b i l i t y R e p o r t . B u r n a b y , B C : P l a n Inst i tute. 9 3 A d a p t e d f r o m P L A N / a c t e , P L A N ' s qua r t e r ly newsle t te r , S p r i n g 2 0 0 4 e d i t i o n . 54 In addition to establishing an independent financial position, PLAN has insisted on safeguarding its integrity by requiring that a majority of the board of directors always.be comprised of representatives from member families. The two organizational principles, self-sufficiency and family leadership, form the foundation of PLAN's ability to remain an independent and authentic organization. The PLAN Institute for Citizenship and Disability was founded in 1999 to further PLAN's work beyond the borders of British Columbia. Specifically, the Institute adopted five major objectives: 1. to promote the well-being, safety and security of people with disabilities by assisting families form self-sufficient organizations, 2. to provide families with the necessary training to make self-sufficient organizations possible, 3. to co-operate with other organizations, sectors and institutions, 4. to disseminate the model of personal support pioneered by PLAN, and, 5. to further PLAN's capacity for research and evaluation.94 PLAN adopted the following as key elements for the structure of the PLAN Institute for Citizenship and Disability: • national incorporation under the Letters Patent Act of Canada, • it is non-profit, • it has Revenue Canada charitable status, • the voting membership of the Institute is PLAN's Board of Directors, • all members are therefore appointed by PLAN's Board of Directors or they are Directors of PLAN as well, and, • a non-voting membership category would be developed. The Institute assumes the role of supporting the mandate of PLAN's "Expansion Committee", working with families across North America to establish organizations with similar structure and purpose to PLAN. In British Columbia, one of the first projects taken on by the Institute was the exploration of Social Audits as a means of ensuring 9 4 B o t h o f these ' m a j o r o b j e c t i v e s ' a n d the f o l l o w i n g ' k e y e l e m e n t s ' are d o c u m e n t e d o n the P l a n Ins t i tu te ' s webs i t e . See h t t p : / /w ww .p l an . ca / t he_p l an_na t i ona l_ in s t i t u t e / . A c c e s s e d A u g u s t , 2 0 0 4 . 55 accountability in non-profit service and advocacy organizations. The first social audit was published in 2002. Co-operative or Non-profit Legally and similar to the Plan Institute, PLAN is incorporated as a non-profit organization not a co-operative. However, in several key ways PLAN is more like a co-operative than a typical non-profit. Some of the characteristics of PLAN that have it feeling and acting more like a co-op than a traditional non-profit are: • Accountability - Co-ops are strictly accountable to their membership. The membership is comprised of people who purchase a membership share and agree to the terms of membership. The membership of traditional non-profits are in many cases more broadly conceived - e.g. the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) has a membership that spans geography, ethnicity, socio-economic class, etc. PLAN knows specifically who its membership is and insists on being accountable to them. Hence the commitment to the social auditing process in 2002. . • Values and principles - The ICA has established the Statement of Co-operative Values and Principles to encourage all co-ops in a direction that upholds their historical foundations and shared purposes. There is no over-arching body that guides the operations and governance of non-profits in the same way that the International Co-operative Alliance does for co-ops. The values and principles that guide PLAN are very much aligned with those established by the ICA, such as self-reliance, self-responsibility, equality and solidarity.95 • Terms of Membership - Members of a co-operative are the owners. Along with ownership come certain responsibilities that are not necessarily included in the terms of membership of non-profit organizations. Economic sustainability is one of those responsibilities that owners have but members of, for example, CNIB do not explicitly have. PLAN expects and supports its members' participation both socially and economically. Lifetime members pay an initial membership fee, an annual fee and monthly fees based on the amount of hours their facilitator works. 9 5 P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k . 2 0 0 2 . 56 Additionally, members are encouraged to make other financial and in-kind contributions.96 PLAN has put a sincere amount of thought and resources into the investigation of which of the legal-structural options best fit with its goals and core values. The dialogue on structure continues internally, especially in light of the demands on PLAN to increase its membership numbers. For the time being, PLAN is comfortable with its status as a non-profit organization and feels that it can still embody the qualities of co-operatives it appreciates.97 Key Philosophy PLAN arrived at a guiding definition of a "Good Life" that allowed the organization to remain open and vital, believing that it was working according to universal principles and responding to universal human needs. A good life for people with disabilities and their families is a commonly understood, fundamental goal of PLAN. When current board president Ted Kuntz first came into contact with PLAN several years after its founding, he was drawn to the energy created by this appreciative and imaginative focus. "One of the things that I have [always] appreciated about PLAN is that it's proactive. It's creative. It is consistently looking for ways to solve things . . . So whereas other organizations tend to rally against something, PLAN has consistently put its focus and its energy on: "What can we do about this? How can we improve it? How can we make it better?" . . . And so I've been drawn more by the inspiration, by the passion, by the vision. It 98 excites me. It resonates with me. It feels like truth to me." PLAN's early definition of a good life had four elements: • Financial security; • A home that is a sanctuary; • The support of family and friends; T h e s e expec ta t ions a n d strategies to encourage m e m b e r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th i s w a y w a s shared b y T e d K u n t z , P re s iden t o f P L A N , d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w for this thes is i n June , 2 0 0 4 . 9 7 D u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w for th is thes is i n June , 2 0 0 4 , A l E t m a n s k i t a l k e d about the in t e rna l d i s c u s s i o n at P L A N o n whe the r to r e - incorpora te as a c o - o p . 9 8 N i l s o n , W . O . 2 0 0 3 . 57 • The ability to have one's wishes and choices respected. As PLAN members reflected upon each element, they realized that all of them - homes, family and friends, choice, even financial security - involved, in one way or another, the cultivation of meaningful, personal relationships. And thus, what is perhaps PLAN's most powerful founding principle came into focus: 'Relationships are at the heart of everything we do.' PLAN's Accountability Report (Social Audit) completed in 2002, identified nine key elements as being integral to the essence or spirit of PLAN. These nine key elements represent the foundation of PLAN'S accountability framework and they inform the organization's direction. They were: 1. Relationships are at the heart of everything we do; 2. Peace of mind for families; 3. Commitment to family direction, leadership and accountability; 4. Leadership and advocacy; 5. A focus on contribution and citizenship; 6. Self-sufficiency with an entrepreneurial spirit; 7. Dedicated and passionate people; 8. Comfort with ambiguity and risk; 9. A contagious vision and a commitment to sharing our stories. In identifying and building the report on these elements, PLAN recognized the importance of safeguarding that which is the foundation of its accountability. PLAN further (re)declared its four core values in that report: 1. Relationships are the key to safety, security and a good life; 2. Contribution equals citizenship - PLAN works to ensure the people it serves are seen for their unique contributions; 3. Self-sufficiency - diversity of revenue sources and independence from government funding enable PLAN to advocate on behalf of individuals and families without fear of consequence; 4. Family direction - PLAN is structured to ensure it will always be directed by and accountable to families. 58 The statement of these values in the Accountability Report, to all intents and purposes, institutionalized them once again. This is an organization that insists on sticking to its roots. The belief in, and focus on, relationships endows the 'space' that allows PLAN to grapple with ideas for as long as it takes, to understand them and then to act on those ideas with confidence once they are understood. It is in this space that comfort with risk and ambiguity may reside as well. Like family leadership and financial self-sufficiency, the principle of relationship remains to this day one of the core articulated values that inform PLAN's organizational identity. But the focus on relationships also drives PLAN's operational dynamic; it defines much of what PLAN offers its families and the "people at the center." To understand this clearly, one has to look at the operational heart of PLAN'S work. What P L A N Does PLAN helps to facilitate networks with people who are vulnerable to being isolated. People who are supported in this way by PLAN may have an intellectual, physical or developmental disability; they might have conditions or illnesses that exacerbate their vulnerability. PLAN does not exclude anyone based on their label or classification of disability. Each of these networks is unique, different from each other and often very different from other networks that we may be a part of. These networks of support are not built upon utility such as those through which one might find their next client, the "What can you do for me?" model. Rather, they are not built upon service, more of a "What can I do for you?" approach. They are built upon information and distribution and exchange value. But more importantly, they are built upon being together, upon knowing one another, upon delighting in one another's strange differences, one another's unique gifts. As the founders of PLAN sought to define the components of a good life, they came to understand that relationships were not instrumental - the way a good estate plan or a 59 comfortable shelter was. Relationships did not lead to quality of life. They were quality of life. As this understanding grew and became subtler, members also recognized that the safety they sought for their sons and daughters could not be separated from this quality of life. Kuntz cites a recent study to illustrate this point. "A few years ago, research was conducted to determine what keeps people with disabilities safe. The results of the research demonstrated that the safety of people with a disability is not dependent upon the number of social workers, law enforcement officers, bylaws, or other methods of enforcement. Rather, their safety was dependent upon the number of relationships the person had. The more relationships, the greater their safety. The fewer relationships, the greater their vulnerability."99 The relationship referred to here is clearly, and necessarily, not a professional relationship.100 It is like the relationship between a parent and a child, between good friends. It is a caring relationship, a relationship of attention and attendance, a relationship that is integrated into the full life of each person and ultimately built upon mutual giving and mutual being. People such as Judith Snow, Jack Pearpoint, Marsha Forest and John O'Brien have for many years been working, researching and writing on bringing the importance of relationships to the fore of the disability and community living movement.101 Understanding this principle intuitively at first (and later quite explicitly), PLAN has set about to develop a framework for helping people with disabilities cultivate these relationships in such a way that they would last a lifetime, well beyond the death of the parents: Under Vickie Cammack's leadership, members have experimented with ways to build meaningful, authentic networks of relationships for each PLAN member with a disability. These networks continue to be the crux of PLAN's current work. 9 9 T h i s quote w a s t a k e n f r o m N i l s o n , W . O . 2 0 0 3 . M u c h m o r e e v i d e n c e for th is a rgument , has been c o m p i l e d i n an A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y p r e p a r e d i n S m i t h , B . 2 0 0 4 . Social Networks: An Annotated Bibliography. B u r n a b y , B C : P l a n Insti tute F o r C i t i z e n s h i p a n d D i s a b i l i t y . 1 0 0 F o r suppor t o f the a rgument agains t m e r e l y p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i onsh ip s see M c k n i g h t , J o h n . 1995 . The Careless Society: Community and Its Counterfeits. B a s i c B o o k s : N e w Y o r k . 1 0 1 F o r m o r e o n i n c l u s i o n i n c o m m u n i t y l i v i n g t h r o u g h r e l a t i onsh ips see: O ' B r i e n , J . , & O ' B r i e n , C . L . , eds. 1992 . Remembering the soul of our work. M a d i s o n , W I : O p t i o n s i n C o m m u n i t y L i v i n g a n d Pea rpo in t , J a c k a n d S n o w , J u d i t h . 1998 . " F r o m B e h i n d the P i a n o - T h e B u i l d i n g o f J u d i t h S n o w ' s U n i q u e C i r c l e o f F r i e n d s , " a n d " W h a t ' s R e a l l y W o r t h D o i n g a n d H o w T o D o It," i n Now In One Book. T o r o n t o : I n c l u s i o n Press . 60 PLAN's networks are developed by a facilitator102 whose job it is to get to know the "person at the center," to recognize and foster existing relationships and to create new relationships wherever possible. The facilitator is more like an explorer than an engineer. Each of the more than one hundred networks103 is unique, composed of an unpredictable array of immediate family members, distant relatives, old friends, new volunteers, co-workers, and neighbors. Where there is an existing relationship, the facilitator and other network members work to enrich it, to help it move from the accidental and occasional to the purposeful and rhythmic. When the relationship is newly emerging, the facilitator is faced with the trickier task of introducing two people into each other's worlds. In all cases, as things progress, the facilitator's role diminishes into the background (though his or her primary relationship with the person at the center does not diminish), resolving itself to nothing more than an occasional check-in or get-together. The networks take time to build. Often it is a few years before they are deep enough and robust enough to be sustainable. Some families have struggled and have found themselves at a loss to understand why, after a year or more of effort, they see only limited results - i.e. few if any members of their child's network. Some networks are more challenging than others, but because PLAN can point to many vibrant, long-term networks, family members are often willing to wait out the early years. According to the Accountability Report in 2002, 83% of families believe that with a personal network in place the quality of their relative's life has improved104. Once a network becomes sustainable, support and advocacy seem to flow from it naturally, and issues of isolation and alienation seem to fade away, at least as much as they ever truly fade for any of us. "People at the center" often talk about their networks as extended families and all of them who participated in the Accountability Report said that their network made them feel good about themselves.105 Network members who did not know each other previously 1 0 2 G e n e r a l l y fac i l i t a to r s , w h o are not m e m b e r s o f P L A N , w o r k 2-4 hour s pe r m o n t h o n any g i v e n n e t w o r k a n d are p a i d , as a consu l t an t an h o u r l y rate o f $ 2 5 . 1 0 3 A s o f S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 there w e r e 104 n e t w o r k s . P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k . 2 0 0 2 . Accountability Report. B u r n a b y , B C : P l a n Institute. 1 0 4 P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k . 2 0 0 2 . 1 0 5 P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k . 2 0 0 2 . 61 become intimate friends, drawn together by their love for, commitment to and celebration of the person with a disability at the center. Families rely on the networks in many ways, even assigning decision-making rights to key network members when the families are out of town or unreachable.106 PLAN's work involves at least three layers in addition to that described above. Etmanski has expressed PLAN's work in the shape of a four leaf clover. The first leaf he labels 'Doing'. The doing work is described above as developing networks with people who are vulnerable to being isolated. The second leaf would be labeled 'Sharing'. The philosophy that is rooted in and the model PLAN employs has had significant benefits for people with disabilities and their families. As a result of that success, communities from around the world have deliberately sought out advice and mentorship in the development of their own locally-based affiliate "PLAN". While flattering and exciting, the additional attention and pressure implied the need for dedicated resources to go into sharing the philosophy and learnings around the model. The Plan Institute for Citizenship and Disability was formed in 1999 to effectively fill this call for sharing. The third leaf might be termed "Changing". PLAN has identified significant structural and legislative changes that are necessary to move this movement beyond the relatively small membership it carries. PLAN is committed to social policy development and legislative reform in the name of advocacy for families and people with disabilities. For example, PLAN is working on developing and lobbying the federal government to implement a Disability Savings Plan (DSP) that would provide a flexible, tax-deferred savings vehicle that permits families to make financial contributions during their lifetimes, without penalty by provincial programs.107 The fourth leaf, Etmanski has dubbed "Inspiring". This stream of activities is directed to the need for a cultural shift -shifting away from needs and problems toward gifts and the genuine appreciation of diversity. PLAN's commitment to the doing, the sharing, the changing and the inspiring 1 0 6 Representation Agreement legislation is seen by many members and staff of P L A N as important provincial legislation. For more information see www.rarc.ca . 1 0 7 Information on the Disability Savings Plan was accessed September 2004 from the website http://www.plan.ca/articles/DSP/getinvolved.htm . 62 allows for what Jacinta Eni - Director of Membership Services - called "an equal balance between the day to day work and the inspiration...the higher-level, philosophical thought". In many ways PLAN's work is very complex. Financial and estate planning, policy development, advocacy and intervention - these are not fields for the inexperienced. But at its core, P L A N does simple work based on a simple philosophy: people who love and are loved are safe; people who love and are loved are capable of crafting a good life no matter how distressing their personal and familial circumstances may become. A Syllogism of Citizenship108 If, Relationship = Contribution And, Contribution = Citizenship Then, Relationship = Citizenship Put simply, what P L A N does is exercise people's citizenship through a focus on their contributions that emerge, and then reside, in their relationships. If, Relationship = Contribution Both A l Etmanski and Vickie Cammack have told the story of Emily and A n n . 1 0 9 Emily was a young woman with multiple disabilities as a result of a head injury received in a car accident. The accident had occurred when Emily was two years old, and since that time she had lived in a hospital. She was unable to walk or to talk or to feed herself and had had no contact with her family for many years. Feeding her was a time consuming task, and when P L A N first came into her life, the hospital was about to have all of her teeth removed to make it easier and quicker for the nurses to give her food. P L A N began to develop a network of friends around Emily, and they were able to prevent the tooth removal. As her relationships deepened, the friendship and human contact seem to bring 1 0 8 Ted Kuntz - President of the Board of Directors of P L A N - referred to this syllogism as "The Math of Life" and has used it to describe the movement of which P L A N is a major part. 1 0 9 Cammack, Vickie. The Gift of Time: Allowing Our Resilience to Resurface. Abilities Magazine, Issue 48,Fall '01,p.42. 63 her back to life, and after a short time, Emily was able to leave the hospital and move to a group home. One of the later members of Emily's network was Ann. Ann was an extremely active and busy grandmother, always working on one community project or another, serving on multiple committees, and contributing to the world in a variety of ways. When Ann became part of Emily's network, she got into the habit of preparing an elegant dinner for Emily once a week, packing it up with her best plates and silverware, and spending two or three hours sitting with Emily and feeding her. When Ann was asked what she felt Emily got out of their weekly meetings, she said that it was easy to see. Emily loved the company and loved the food, and even though she couldn't say anything, her delight and involvement were written on her face. When Ann was then asked what value she herself received from her time with Emily, she smiled and said that it was the only part of her week in which she wasn't rushing around. Emily's gift to Ann was 'time', the time Ann spent with Emily allowed Ann to slow down and to connect to another human being in a meaningful and profoundly peaceful way. The relationship between Emily and Ann meant each was receiving a contribution from the other - relationship equals contribution. Members, staff, facilitators and volunteers of PLAN all make contributions to the organization. However, more to the point they make contributions to each other by being in relationship, thus the organization merely serves as a facilitator. Relationships, in this sense, are based on the expectation of the other person's contribution, the other person's responsibilities to contribute. This is a unique perspective for an organization that works with people who have, in some cases, profound disabilities. In fact, many people are prevented from making contributions through institutionalization, for example. There are a number of reasons why people with disabilities are unable to make their contributions: • There is no belief they have something to contribute; • There is no expectation to contribute; 64 There are physical barriers which prevent our contribution; Contribution is seen exclusively as an action, as doing something. To expect the contributions from people who may not be able to move or communicate is only responsible when we consider the full gamut of contributions possible. If contribution can be as simple yet profound as giving time, then there is another distinction to be made. PLAN recognizes that there are contributions in doing, but there are also contributions in being. "Contribution can take two main forms. Contributions we make through our actions. And contributions we make by our very presence. The first, perhaps pre-eminent gift is the gift of our presence. Simply by being present meaningful interaction, communion and fellowship is created. The exchange may be a helping hand, a spark of love, a moment of insight, the comfort of silence, a pleasurable experience, an inspiring interchange or a thrilling encounter. It would not have happened without your presence. A second fundamental gift is the gift of our diversity, our difference. Difference creates meaning. If everyone were the same there would be no excitement, no mystery, no allure, no curiosity, no anticipation, and likely no desire, wonder, amazement, fascination, enchantment and inspiration."110 Recognizing contributions of being, in addition to those of doing, has allowed PLAN to have expectations of its full membership. Participation in family events such as the annual picnic, serving on the board of directors or multitude of committees, and the mentorship of new family members by more experienced members are a few of the multitude of possible ways that all members of PLAN are expected to contribute. Contribution through relationship is, in PLAN's eyes, necessary for the fulfillment of not only ones membership in the organization but for fulfillment of one's citizenship. And, Contribution = Citizenship T h i s quote is t aken f r o m the P h i l i a W e b s i t e h t t p : / / w w w . p h i l i a . c a / t h e m e s / b e i n g - v s - d o i n g . h t m 65 Over time, PLAN and its members have come to realize that people are not fully engaged in our lives simply by having and receiving. Additionally, we can only be truly engaged, can only be living a truly good life, if we are giving, as well. PLAN came to see contribution as another crucial pillar in support of the complete human experience. And, as Etmanski and Cammack explain it, Emily and Ann's story allows PLAN to illustrate the idea that contribution is not simply about doing, it is about being. Like Emily, we can contribute to another person's life not only by doing something for them but by being with them. Like all great truths, the idea of universal contribution sounds obvious once it has been articulated. However, one should be careful not to underestimate this notion of contribution. To state that individuals with disabilities, particularly those with developmental disabilities, need to and should be expected to contribute to the world, might be received with trepidation, not only by the engines of institutional service 1 (organizations, policies, programs, careers, that have all been built upon seeing the disabled individual as deeply and solely needy) but also to the parents and loved ones who know the disabled person best. When one has spent an enormous portion of one's life energy seeking to care for a person who clearly needs certain kinds of unusual help, it takes a deeply contradictory impulse indeed to lead one to consider what that person could and should do for society. As the notion of contribution has become clearer for PLAN, a certain expansive energy began to flow within the organization. What they were talking about, how they were talking about it, and with whom they were talking about it, grew. Levels of previously unsuspected meaning began to unfold from their conversations, and the world started to listen with fresh ears. PLAN recognized that their work around contribution was not about disability, it was about citizenship: What is citizenship based on? What does it mean? The reach of these questions extended not just to people with disabilities but to ^ anyone who was marginalized in some way - the homeless, people with addictions, minorities - the list quickly grows. PLAN found itself speaking to themes that went well beyond the contexts and administrative approaches with which it was familiar. 66 Implications of P L A N ' s unique approach began to show themselves, not the least of which was the re-conceptualizing of citizenship to include contribution as a fundamental pillar - contribution equals citizenship. Then, Relationship = Citizenship PLAN's best articulations, the ideas and words that have sold books, built relationships across sectors, changed policies, given hope to families, and fostered new organizations, have always responded to something fuller and more universal than the immediate problem at hand. P L A N ' S vision of a good life is not simply a good life for a person with a disability, it speaks to all people. PLAN's thought-provoking and action-initiating guidance on freedom and independence and contribution and citizenship are not confined to a particular category of human being. And as each of these ideas has become clearer and simpler and more profound, it has extended PLAN's conversational reach. P L A N began by speaking to a specific community and now it speaks to the world. It has an array of philosopher friends - Jean Vanier, Mark Kingwell, John Raulston Saul and John McKnight - all of whom are interested in ideas of citizenship and community in the largest ways. The McConnell Family Foundation has sponsored a new institute, Philia, which is driven by P L A N members and is dedicated to exploring and promoting new concepts of citizenship. Relationships facilitated by PLAN's being and doing, manifest dialogues on, and re-conceptualization of, citizenship - relationship equals citizenship. What P L A N Has Learned These are some of the lessons that P L A N has learned about what it does (as documented by W.O.Ni lson) 1 1 1 : • P L A N enables choice and freedom for the people at the center. What is more, the steadfast commitment to financial self-sufficiency maintains choice and freedom for P L A N . • P L A N builds member security, and in turn empowers their citizenship, through relationships. Additionally, its own external organizational security is driven by relationships - with funders, corporate supporters, ' . " N i l s o n , W . O . 2 0 0 3 . 67 lawyers, business leaders. PLAN has not developed significant funding through traditional grants in response to generic requests for proposals. All of PLAN's funding and technical support have come about through long-term, cultivated relationships, most of which continue to thrive. Essentially, PLAN has facilitated its own network of supporters. PLAN's internal organizational structure is relationship-based, as well. Very little of PLAN's operational work is defined explicitly by formal policy. Staff members frequently comment on the open and non-hierarchical nature of the relationships they have with each other. • PLAN emphasizes the importance of the family in creating support networks for the people at the center. The family (and the family includes the person at the center) is seen as the decision-making unit. Similarly, PLAN itself is constitutionally bound to keep family representatives as a majority of its own board. • PLAN cultivates citizenship and democracy through contribution. Ted Kuntz points out that PLAN makes a lifetime commitment to members and members make a lifetime commitment to sustain PLAN. The organization is, and has always been, shaped by a vital democratic dialogue in which the members come together to dialogue, debate, and muse upon the most important and difficult issues of which they share. Just as in a democracy, change is for the most part deliberate and slow; it only happens when a new paradigm has engaged the collectivity. However, arguably it takes healthy democracies, like PLAN, that are open enough, focused enough on the unpredictable future, to change in meaningful ways. Panarchy Theory Framework Recently, a theoretical framework has emerged out of ecological sciences which some of PLAN's leadership see, in many ways, fitting well with PLAN's philosophical underpinnings. The framework is referred to as Panarchy Theory: "Panarchy... is an odd name, but one that is meant to capture the way living systems both persist and yet innovate. It shows how fast and slow, small and big events and processes can transform ecosystems and. organisms through evolution, or can transform humans and their societies through learning, or the chance for learning. The central question is what 112 allows rare transformation, not simply change." 1 1 2 Adapted from a transcription of a presentation delivered by CS. Holling entitled From Complex Regions to Complex Worlds. University of Florida. June 2003. 68 At a rudimentary level the theory is represented by a loop resembling the commonly used sign for infinity - see Figure 1. The loop is referred to by the authors as an adaptive cycle, which exists hierarchically at different scales, from the micro-organism to individuals to organizations and societies. The adaptive cycles that exist at different scales do so in intimate relation to one another, always being affected by and affecting other cycles. The loop consists of four stages and respective flows of events that occur within those stages - reorganization, exploitation, conservation, and release (also referred to as creative destruction). 113 conriBCtedrieee Figure 1: Panarchy Theory - Adaptive Cycle "It seemed to become clear why and how persistence and extinction, growth and constancy, evolution and collapse entwined to form a panarchy of adaptive cycles across scales. Hierarchy and adaptive cycles can combine to make healthy systems over scales from the individual to the planet. Over days to centuries."114 " 3 Gunderson, L . H and Hol l ing, C S (eds). 2 0 0 2 . Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press: Washington and London. 1 1 4 Ho l l ing , C S . 2 0 0 3 . 69 Without delving more deeply into the theory and extrapolating out the application it holds for service organizations and other social phenomena we can not go any further with its use as an investigative framework.115 However, several of the leaders of PLAN referred to this theory as enlightening both what they have been doing for the past 15 years as well as the potential for innovation into the future. In particular, the leaders of PLAN appreciate what authors of the Panarchy Theory call the back loop. The back loop emerges when the conservation phase reaches a point when the capital inputs are large and the number of connections among elements of the system are few, resulting in a relatively low level of resilience of the system as a whole. At this point, signified by the Greek letter Kappa in Figure 1, a "crisis" occurs. Crisis will take different forms within the context of different systems - e.g. a crisis in a family might be a death; a crisis in an organization might be a leader leaving. Crisis, in this use, should not be assumed to always be a negative. CS. Holling uses the fall of the Berlin Wall as an example of a crisis that occurred at the societal scale. The system at the time of crisis releases capital, energy, resources and frees up the elements of the system that were formerly dedicated through relationship to one another. That which is released might be regarded as creative material, resources that can now be placed into a process of exploration and innovation. This back loop represents an exciting time for those who accept change as inevitable and necessary, for those who insist on comfort with risk and ambiguity, for people like Ted Kuntz, Al Etmanski and Vickie Cammack and for organizations like PLAN. 1 1 5 T h e r e are cu r r en t ly some a c a d e m i c s at the M c G i l l C e n t e r fo r S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n d o i n g s o m e o f th i s " d e l v i n g a n d e x t r a p o l a t i n g " , h o w e v e r the i r f i n d i n g s are yet u n p u b l i s h e d . 70 Chapter 5 - Interview Responses The interviews conducted with key informants of PLAN were semi-structured in nature. All of the interviewees were asked the same fourteen questions but 'threads' or lines of thought were followed when appropriate. Generally, answers from each of the respondents were quite different. However, thematic undertones and philosophical roots ran through many of the responses. Below is a selection of those responses, not included here as a transcription in its entirety, but rather a selection of particularly informative segments. As well, key commonalities and/or differences in responses are highlighted. Questions of PLAN's Goals and Approach 1. What is PLAN trying to achieve for its membership and their family members who have disabilities? In other words, what do you see as PLAN's fundamental goals? Etmanski, the Executive Director, lays out PLAN's four primary goals of 'doing', 'sharing', 'changing' and 'inspiring', while the other respondents speak to elements of a shared vision they have for the organization. That vision pictures communities as inclusive and families supported in the search for a good life for their family members with disabilities. Al Etmanski, one of PLAN's co-founders and Executive Director, said that, "PLAN has a number of fundamental goals. The first goal is to actually do something that makes a difference in the day-to-day lives of individuals and families, who are concerned about the question 'what will happen to my son or daughter when I die?'... There is a goal of doing. Doing something that is practical, helpful, that's hands-on, that's tangible... whether it's as lifetime members or because they get better information about a will or a trust, an alternative to guardianship... Another goal is to share our learning about how to provide the support to individuals and families with other groups of families in Canada and other parts of the world. A third goal is to create structural change that will make it easier for individuals and families to have a good life. So, all of the insight that we gain.. .will be absolutely meaningless unless they become part of the structure... And the fourth is what I would call a cultural shift.. .The fourth goal is to take the insights to a larger scale and play a role in changing the culture of our society... specifically around the capabilities and contributions of people with disabilities - so, we want to make a better 71 world out if it. We often call those the doing goal, the sharing goal, the changing goal and the inspiring goal." Ted Kuntz, President of PLAN's Board of Directors, suggests that, ".. .the ultimate goal is to enable people to be in relationship in community." Jacinta Eni who is the Director of Member Services says simply, ".. .to help families be comfortable leaving this world knowing that their family members will be, not just safe, but have a good quality of life." Nancy Ford, Program Director for the Plan Institute For Citizenship and Disability puts it this way, "To provide piece of mind for families. To support and empower them in securing a good life. And, to advocate for families. And, to support a family in building a network of support." Jack Styan, who recently joined the PLAN staff after serving as Executive Director of the Burnaby Association For Community Inclusion, focuses on social policy change in his role at PLAN. He suggests that the fundamental goal is, "To assist family members to secure a good life - the vision of the good life that they and their family member have - in the present and in the future. That's what we do for our members. In an indirect way we do other things that would affect them, and those would be in the areas of social policy... and also the other major initiative, Philia which is really there to advance a vision of society where persons with disabilities really have an opportunity to participate." 2. What approaches (i.e. this might include strategies, programs, processes, etc.) does PLAN use in working toward those goal(s)? Each of the interviewees responded with a list of approaches that PLAN uses. All of them agreed that the building of social support circles or 'networks' is a key to reaching PLAN's goals. Other common approaches listed were: advocacy, commitment to core values and various types of social and political action. Approaches that were identified included: 72 • Family leadership; • Independence from government; • Social auditing; • Commitment to values and relationships within the organization; • Future planning with families; • Advocacy; • Monitoring of guardianship and/or roles that the family might have formerly played; • Providing information to families; • Social enterprise; • Social actions such as: Social policy and law reform, lobbying, educating and informing politicians and bureaucrats, forming coalitions and alliances, and calling families to action. Kuntz explains the core of the work of PLAN as, "A key one.. .is building the networks of support. We see that as absolutely critical to build relationships in peoples' lives... The most important tool we have is building relationships. Critical to PLAN's success though, is the core value that we have is family leadership and independence from government.. .it's about families working with families." 3. What approaches have you found to be successful in achieving PLAN's goals? And, why? There were at least thirteen approaches identified by respondents as being particularly productive. These approaches range from the building of relationships and coalitions, to the education of and by families, to dialogue, to attitudes of abundance and dedication when it comes to the practical day-to-day work of the organization. Each respondents answer to the question differed which in itself spoke to the high number of approaches that PLAN believes in. Kuntz: "One thing that we learned is that those positions [facilitators] are not full-time positions." Etmanski: "...the approaches that are successful for us are those based on abundance, that are positive that are constructive, that are proposing a constructive alternative to what exists. As opposed to simply criticizing... We don't come from a scarcity point of view... .it's a positive constructive approach.. .that's what works. Strategies rise and fall.. .those will vary.. .another way of saying it is that it's value based." 73 Eni: ".. .building coalitions of like-minded groups and individuals across the country....Concentrated, dedicated [strategic] effort to making this a priority as opposed to 'side-of-the-desk'...' Certainly the dialogues.. .engagement of the corporate world.. .the willingness to be involved with other disability groups not to the exclusion of. On the individual level.. .the availability of information and advice to families, the support from professionals. Ford: "Through family direction, through freedom from government structure and from relationships we began to see the contribution people with disabilities had to make and realized that had to be a goal. I think the family consultation really sets a focus for families. Family mentoring is critical as well." Styan: "I think the knowledge that we have about how to do future planning and develop networks is definitely successful." 4. What approaches have you found to be unsuccessful in achieving PLAN's goals? In other words what hasn't worked? And, why? The responses to this question were most surprising. All respondents struggled in thinking of unsuccessful approaches and most of them preferred the notion of learning from their experiences or saw them as building blocks, as opposed to failures or unsuccessful approaches. Etmanski plainly said, "I come from the Panarchy way of thinking now.. .so, unsuccessful approaches simply provide learning, that's the raw material. I don't think we've had too many absolute failures. No long term projects that at the end of the day, nothing has changed." 5. What has happened, if anything, as a result of PLAN's activities beyond the benefits to members and their families, that wasn't expected? Threading relationship to contribution then to citizenship, was one unexpected positive outcome identified by all of the respondents, who felt qualified to answer the question.116 Kuntz reflected this way, 1 1 6 J a c k S t y a n h a d n ' t been w i t h P L A N for v e r y l o n g w h e n a s k e d these ques t ions so felt u n q u a l i f i e d to a n s w e r th is a n d the next ques t i on . 74 "The first thought that came to mind was we didn't understand the importance of contribution. That is a relatively new awareness.. .five years ago we didn't use that language... We started to notice that they were doing things and as they did things they felt better about themselves • and community seems to embrace them more. That's where we came to recognize the significance of contribution and how contribution really is the key to citizenship...That was unexpected. Etmanski concurred, ".. .the insight of the connection between relationships and contribution and then how that links into citizen framing, all that was new." 6. What has happened within the organization of PLAN that wasn't expected? Two of the respondents recognized the unexpected significance that both the organization's growth and the migration of people to PLAN who have common values have played. The four who were comfortable answering the question had this to say: Kuntz: "We were pleasantly surprised with how eager other communities were developing with the similar paradigm. We were at a crossroads with our affiliates about a year ago.. .they all have become incredibly invigorated. Every one of them were challenged.. .initially we thought they would say 'no!', but every single one of them.. .stepped up to the plate.. .and have become more solid and successful as an organization." Etmanski: ".. .growth in the number of people PLAN has been the able to attract.. .1 guess are already infected, have the same values. I think that has been a big pleasant surprise is how many people are out there who want to do the same things, who want to work from a positive point of view, want to be constructive and work in other environments where they aren't able to. Our relative financial success... [for example] the deal with VanCity [Credit Union], the whole social enterprise piece are very pleasant surprises. How fast things can spiral upward.. .how quickly you can spiral up." Eni: "Transitioning from the idea to the implementation of it... PLAN's ability to attract people who would not normally have come to work for another organization. That's unusual. Leaders from other organizations coming here to work in a collegial approach, that's a very unusual thing in an organization." Both Etmanski and Eni identified the migration of people to this organization because of a sense of shared values as an unexpected yet pleasant surprise. 75 Ford: "It's gained such notoriety. That the dissemination was needed, was requested. That networks would happen for younger people... We also started the organization for developmental disability but it is now cross disability and more. We see the difficulty creating networks for people who have mental health issues that was an unknown." PLAN's notoriety, the appreciation of the model as well as the vision by people outside of PLAN was unexpected. The implications of that support led to growth in the organization, migration of like-minded staff and members, and additional support from like-minded organizations such as VanCity Credit Union. Etmanski used the term "spiral up" others might call it the snowball effect. With growth and popularity came new challenges and new opportunities, each were also unexpected. Questions of Citizenship and Membership 7. What are the ways that members of PLAN (families of or people with disabilities) can participate: a. in how PLAN operates and works (i.e. internal relations/operations), The opportunities for participation listed by respondents were: mentor families; • participate in events voting; (Christmas Party, board of directors service; AGM, Annual committee service; Member's Luncheon); co-facilitation of workshops • participate in the in community; social audit; financial contribution to the • acting as organization; spokespeople. volunteering at many levels; special projects; b. in PLAN's role in society (i.e. external relations)? Outside of the organization's core work, members have several opportunities to participate. Here are the responses outlining some of the ways they see participation can unfold: 76 Kuntz: "We're changing the way people with disabilities are perceived by community. [For example] I know a worker in the community living field who would consistently say to her boss 'I am going to go out into community with some people we're supporting, I want to go under-staffed, because I want the community to help me.. .people will notice that my hands are full, they'll open a door for me...' She is creating opportunities for the community to be involved." Etmanski: ".. .the BC Watershed Society are re-framing.. .the aboriginal communities.. .people are taking that stuff, moving that stuff. I don't think there is any limits... If you have an abundant approach, nobody has to ask permission... I think of our stuff more like the Linux software as opposed to Bill Gates' software, it's available to everybody." Ford: "Public speaking, part of our video, stories, presentations, panel discussions." Styan: "Being a part of public dialogues and other seminars. When we do the leadership training, dissemination - members are also invited to participate. With the social policy, if people are interested in playing a role, then we'll find a role for them to play." In large part, the respondents saw the opportunities revolving around participation in public dialogue and discourse - taking the message of what PLAN does out to other communities, sharing what PLAN has learned, changing the way people in other communities think and inspiring other communities to act. c. What are the barriers to members' participation? Etmanski and Styan both identified PLAN's success as a barrier, suggesting that members then have expectations and make assumptions of what they will get out of their association with the organization. Others recognized barriers as being either logistical or cultural. Cultural barriers identified included: how language is used, attitudes of people in community and limitations of relationships. Kuntz: ".. .the biggest challenge is we need to transcend the us and them paradigm. We need to lose that word disability. That language is a significant barrier. Words reflect our values we need to change the words." 77 Etmanski: "... probably our human limitations. We're already a bit bigger than I care for us to be. I think limitations of human being's ability to have relationships is a major barrier." Eni: "The biggest barrier is the limits of our ability to inspire. It's easy to get mired in the day-to-day and not the inspiration, for some and not for others. The other barrier is the ability of people to absorb the layers. Because there are so many different levels on which one can participate, it can be very overwhelming." Styan: "Distance poses a bit of a barrier. Time always poses a barrier. A number of our members are aging.. .location, parking isn't great those _ kinds of things." Styan added later that: "Another barrier is that a number of core members don't have families involved with them. So, that's a bit of a barrier. If we look at family participation, that comes into play because some people don't have families involved." Finally, corroborating something Etmanski also said Styan realized, "One other barrier is the perception of success. The fact that we use story-telling to inspire people to give families hope and to do any number of things. So, the perception when you come to PLAN is that success is eminent, in terms of achieving what you want to achieve. Yet, we've had frustrations with developing networks.. .and the disconnect for the family members who aren't feeling that we've been successful with the projected image of success, has been a barrier." d. What strategies does PLAN employ to overcome those barriers? Etmanski identified some recent strategies PLAN has employed to address barriers to participation, "Over the last year we've created an initiative that forced people to re-consider whether they wanted to continue as lifetime members of PLAN. We've had two board retreats; we've had lifetime members' meetings all around how to be more involved with PLAN, the whole ownership of PLAN question. [Now] when people become lifetime members of PLAN they are given a whole list of things saying 'we're going to need you to do these things for us to stay vibrant,' and we're instituting a conversation in the organization about a constitutional shift to a co-op... [T]he whole purpose of that is to question whether the non-profit structure actually makes it easier for people to simply hand off their participation to you because it's taken care of by the structure... we're thinking the co-op structure might be a way of structuring the relationship we have with our constituency. That conversation isn't over." 78 Ford spoke of the lengths that PLAN will go to surmount barriers to inclusion, "We work very hard to overcome barriers, we provide transportation, we're cognizant of our location.. .our newsletter is an opportunity for anyone to write in. I don't know that we have many barriers." Styan recognized some of the organization's culture and structures that democratize problem-solving: "People are involved in the solutions... a lot of the solutions have come from the members committee or from the board. We've changed the structure of the board from one board retreat and ten board meetings to four board retreats and six board meetings... to allow for more dialogue. We continue to be closely tied to people and our members and seek solutions in concert with them... The fact that directors have direct and regular contact with the members is also important." 8. What rights come with being a member (i.e. family and/or people with disabilities) of PLAN? The concept of rights as being something that one possesses and as something distinct from other elements of membership was, in hindsight, inappropriate for an investigation of this organization. PLAN believes fully in the notion of reciprocity and that rights, responsibilities and participation are more like parts of a body than members of a family. Ford, Etmanski and Eni openly expressed dislike for the idea of separating out rights from the other parts of membership in PLAN. Kuntz and Styan similarly were hesitant to list rights of membership, but had these additional statements on the subject: Kuntz: "Rights of ownership.. .voting and the right to have your voice heard, the right to criticize." Styan: "the right to play a role in deciding who runs the organization:. .there's certainly rights in terms of expectations around services. Right to participate in setting the direction. Members who are families drive the organization." 79 9. What strategies or approaches are employed to ensure that members' rights are protected? Following from the discomfort with the prior question, most of the responses addressed mechanisms and strategies of accountability more than specifically rights of membership. Etmanski: "We have a mentor family program.. .we have a lifetime members' committee, we have a social audit, we have the work-plans.. .all are pressure points to keep us accountable.... [these accountability mechanisms] really reflect our value of family direction." Eni: "A conscious strategy to ensure our values are forefront and a willingness to examine how well we're living our values." Styan: "There's quite a bit in our structure.. .the fact that the board is open to communicate with members, the fact the staff are open to communicate with members.. .the commitment to listen to our members... We don't have those formal structures [of conflict.resolution]. Because we are relatively small and we're a very personal organization, I actually think it is better. Because I have seen those very formal structures bound by rules and regulations... Our approach would be much more relational approach." PLAN is very aware to whom they are responsible and has several mechanisms, as outlined by Etmanski in place to ensure accountability. 10. What are expected of members of PLAN? In other words what are the responsibilities that come with being members (i.e. family and/or people with disabilities)? All of the respondents included the expectation of 'member's participation' in their answer. Other expectations listed included: • "We expect them to hold us accountable." Nancy Ford. • ".. .to act like owners..." Ted Kuntz. • ".. .we're expecting a financial contribution beyond just paying the fees..." Al Etmanski. • "We need people to do presentations for us...we need people to volunteer.. .we have a long list of contributions we expect from our 80 members... I would say the longest conversation is around 'how do we create reciprocity here?'" Al Etmanski. • "Being a part of PLAN is support for the organization to keep exploring, to push the envelope, to change how people think about people with disabilities. That be not just allowed, but encouraged and expected." JacintaEni. 11. What are the barriers to members exercising those responsibilities? What are the strategies PLAN employs to overcome those barriers? These four responses identify perceived barriers including member's expectations, attitudes and lack of knowledge. Each respondent also explained different, yet closely related, approaches that PLAN employs to address those barriers. Jacinta Eni: "We are at the point where we are trying to develop a strategy. I think the major barrier is, where they are in their own evolution. If they are stuck in a place of pain and preoccupation with the current crisis, we are not going to get them anywhere else. We are not going to get them to think about higher order. If they are coming because.. .this is a movement they want to be a part of, then the barriers are different. I think the barriers would be around the education piece, making ways for people to be engaged and providing opportunities for people to be engaged. Another barrier is getting mired in the details,, keeping above the details. One of the challenges has always been ... being perceived as gate-keeping certain information.. .the stats, the number, how many are successful, focusing on the positive, on the capacity side. The challenge has to be to explain why that is and that it's not about keeping the negative quiet because there is some conspiracy, but because it takes you to a negative place." Ford: "I think an unfamiliarity...families have not been engaged in other areas. Families have not been supported to ask for and expect quality. Education. Educating families, and institutions too... The PLAN Institute we set up to address those barriers." Etmanski: ".. .drift because of the success and the competence... Some of the other barriers are, we do make mistakes, that stuff happens here as much as anywhere else, so we need to respond to those... the organization has a flat administrative structure, that is an attempt to make it more accessible." Jack Styan: "Making their participation meaningful... Creating an open and personal culture, would be part of it." 81 Meaningful participation of membership is a challenge for many non-profit organizations and co-operatives. Knowledge, access, time and capacity of individuals to participate are some of the barriers that PLAN faces. These responses reflect PLAN's commitment to overcoming those barriers with education, openness, long-term commitment and the encouragement and support of people with particular physical and mental characteristics that would typically limit their ability to participate. 12. What have you and PLAN learned in trying to achieve the goal(s) you mention from Question #1? Four of the respondents recognized the profound bearing of the paradigm framed in contribution coming from relationship and leading to citizenship. Each person also spoke to the importance of relationships. Etmanski: ".. .in some ways you can think of PLAN as a learning organization.. .one thing led to another, led to another.. .realizing that isolation is the biggest handicap....realizing that when you are in a genuine relationship, reciprocity occurs, start making contributions in all sorts of different ways and their life has meaning.. .all of our culture is struggling with belonging... So, there is a logic there that may not sound brilliant but it wasn't there in the beginning." How to publish a book, help other people publish a book, and the relationship with VanCity Credit Union are a few other valuable things that Etmanski felt they'd learned over the years. Jack Styan, former Executive Director of the Burnaby Association for the Mentally Handicapped disclosed: "My biggest learning personally, having worked in the services for 20 years, is that services aren't the end. Services might contribute to a good life, but services can't deliver a good life. There's something beyond paid services. In terms of PLAN specifically, there is a multitude of learning, but one of them is the importance of relationships.. .when PLAN was created they didn't know that a good life was dependant on relationships. They probably had some sense of that, but the degree to which we can say that we know that now, is really attributable to PLAN... [other learning included] the importance of dialogue, the importance of storytelling, the importance of relationships in an organization." 82 Ford: ".. .that we're on the right track, that we have a model that works, that our core values are fundamental, that hospitality and contribution and citizenship are all key ingredients." Kuntz shared a story about a meeting of service organization representatives, at which they were asked to list what they would do if they were not fettered by financial or any other constraints, to improve services to people with disabilities. The group proceeded to develop a large list. However, when two individuals present who had disabilities were asked what they do, their replies were "a parade" to which all their friends would be invited and "a party". These responses were apparently dismissed as cute but trivial. What Kuntz took away from that was, "... what they [the people with disabilities] were saying was 'I want to have friends, to have relationships'. That's the most important thing. If you ask the person with a disability what they want, they will never say 'a three-bed group home' or a 'life-skills worker'." Earlier in the interview Kuntz also made this statement on a discovery that PLAN has made, "What we've discovered about the importance of contribution, if you're not making a contribution you don't have a sense of connection." 13. What do you think other organizations can learn from PLAN's experience? Ted Kuntz: "A relationship paradigm is more powerful, more sustainable than a service or care-taking paradigm. As Vickie [Cammack] says, 'no disability precludes relationship'... if they [other disability service organizations] aren't creating opportunities for contribution, the impact of their services will be always be marginal at best or superficial at best... The universal principles that we're discovering ... [are] skills to honor people that are different, valuing them for their contribution, expecting that they'll be included. I think other organizations can [meet] their goals as long as they make relationship building the biggest priority." Etmanski, Styan and Eni all spoke to the sustainability of the work as learning that other organizations can take away from PLAN. Etmanski feels that only when social innovations, such as the social support networks that PLAN develops, are built into structures, are effectively institutionalized, they won't be sustainable. So, the statutory and legislative reform, the advocacy, the bureaucratic change that has resulted from PLAN's work provides a model of how to sustain social innovations. He said, "I think they can learn how to sustain social innovation. I think that's our greatest gift to the sector." Styan said that he sees the sustainability of the model being questioned and re-questioned, lived and re-lived constantly as key to PLAN'S resilience. In Styan's twenty years in the sector, he said he hadn't seen the kind of adaptive learning cycles that PLAN employs to stay responsive, accountable and sustainable. He said this about what he sees as PLAN's approach to self-reflection and subsequent growth: "What PLAN has done...is to spend a lot more time questioning and exploring to find answers rather than time spent trying to convince others we have the answers.. .other organizations may not perceive PLAN this way, but PLAN is constantly looking to better itself.. .constantly having the discussion, looking for better answers." Eni spoke to sustainability in a different sense, "How to maintain the energy, to keep exploring, the back loop stuff.117 How to maintain the balance between the day-to-day work.. .and the inspiration, the higher level thought, the philosophical piece." 14. Do you think that it is the services themselves that empower citizenship or is it the relationship to PLAN (i.e. member-owner) that empowers citizenship? Or, both? " 7 "the back loop stuff is a reference to a portion o f the Panarchy Framework's Adaptive Cyc le Theory. In the back loop, resources and capital are re-oriented or re-configured through exploration and innovation to form new systems, new initiatives. These new systems are then, in the front loop, further developed, exploited and built out. 84 Four of the five people interviewed, responded with answers that might be put in this way, 'both are necessary but not sufficient.'118 In other words, if the work of any organization is not based on fostering reciprocal relationships in the name of contribution, they will not be in a position to empower people toward full citizenship. Both Kuntz and Styan emphasized this point with statements like this from Styan: "The question it raises is, what do we do to foster not just contact with our members but meaningful relationships? .. .are those structures conducive to actually forming meaningful relationships?" Likewise, if the organization is not structured in a way that allows it to serve as a site of citizenship (i.e. with opportunities for rights, responsibilities and participation) then it will not be in a position to empower people. Etmanski suggests that, ".. .structures do impact on how people perform.. .it is a worry trying to find the right structure...and to avoid over-bureaucratization. In these respondent's minds, the organization needn't be a co-operative per se and it needn't provide a particular type of service. But it must operate (e.g. provide services) with a commitment to the notion of reciprocity (because this is where relationship turns into citizenship) AND it must provide and support opportunities for membership participation. Jacinta Eni summed it up this way: "Both.. .1 don't think it is about structure, it's about culture, a very different thing. I would say both, but more." Summary of Findings Like many service organizations, PLAN rose from parents who were very aware of the needs of their children with disabilities. Their children had needs such as specialized education programs, physical therapy, advocacy, long-term planning and material things such as wheel chairs were the obvious ones, and to some extent were already being met, albeit inadequately in many cases. However, it was the deeper, fundamental human " 8 The fifth interviewee had to leave early and so didn't respond to this question. 85 needs that this group of parents was really interested in, the need to be in relationship, to be needed, the need to get, to have and to give away. When asked what the fundamental goals of PLAN were, Jack Styan simply replied, ".. .to assist family members to secure a good life.. .in the present and in the future." PLAN, with commitments to financial self-sufficiency and family leadership has for some 15 years maintained, and moreover matured, the integrity that those founding parents brought with them from around the social service sector. However, perhaps more importantly, the relationship-based organization has ensured that there be room for movement, for the tying together of ideas and actions based on reflection and dialogue. Comfort with risk and ambiguity, trust in each person's contributions and the facilitation of relationships at every turn has enshrined the concept of citizenship in the membership of PLAN. PLAN is a site for people to exercise the responsibilities, which come with citizenship, through a focus on their contributions that emerge, and then reside, in their relationships to one another. Only in relationship can contributions be made and only through contribution and participation can people be empowered toward full citizenship. Equating relationship to citizenship is perhaps over simplifying the complexity of both relationships and citizenship. Nevertheless, the profundity of that syllogism is something that few other service organizations neither discover nor bring to work with them everyday. Finally, in conducting the primary research for this thesis several people who are intimately involved with PLAN were asked, 'What approaches have you found to be unsuccessful in achieving PLAN's goals?' Everyone of the interviewees stumbled on this question, long moments of silence, many hums and haws, the answer to this question, did not come easily to anyone. One had to wonder if there were too many to list? Were they too embarrassed to identify them? Was there pressure from somewhere preventing their honesty? No, the difficulty in answering the question stemmed from the unanimous 86 sentiment that there simply was nothing seen as unsuccessful. Issues and barriers were identified such as user fees that started out too high and the challenges around maintaining facilitators. But, when it came down to each of them reflecting on things that hadn't gone as planned or expected, each in turn recalled a benefit that had emerged unexpectedly. Recognizing the contributions that people make, the gifts that people give and are, the abundance of social wealth that resides in relationships is part of the culture at PLAN. As far as they were concerned there was nothing unsuccessful, only that which became creative material. Taking the glass-is-half-full analogy a few steps further, PLAN revels in the 'crises' as opportunities for exploration and innovation. In summary, the opportunities that PLAN faces in their hope to empower their membership toward full citizenship while providing services to them, include: • A cohort of like-minded people and organizations that have expressed support and commitment to the goal at hand. This commitment has manifested in migration of people to the organization to play roles as staff, volunteers, board members and family members. Similarly, organizations like VanCity Credit Union, the National Film Board119 and the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion have taken significant steps to embrace the philosophy, values and principles embodied in PLAN as well as show support through project-based, financial and in-kind partnerships. • A diversified economic sustainability strategy which improves member confidence, allows for different people and organizations to contribute to PLAN in different ways and allows for greater flexibility as the respective sources of money wax and wane. In other words, diversifying the fundraising approaches spreads the risk by decreasing the dependence on any one stream of revenue. • An organizational model that is flexible enough to handle the unexpected, and turn the 'crises' into creative material while maintaining enough structure and continuity to ensure longevity. 1 1 9 T h e N F B p r o d u c e d a d o c u m e n t a r y , internet site a n d c o m m u n i t y engagemen t p ro jec t a r o u n d one o f P L A N ' s a f f i l i a t ed f a m i l i e s . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n see h t tp : / /www.nfb . ca / t i e s tha tb ind / . A c c e s s e d S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 . 87 • For too long there has been too large of a gap between people with disabilities and people without. On one side of the gap, people with disabilities need to be making contributions with the support and celebration they deserve - this is beginning to happen in organizations like PLAN. The other side should see everyone, including people with disabilities, getting better at 1) expecting contribution; 2) looking for and recognizing contributions; and, 3) revealing and celebrating contributions. The recognition of this gap is also the recognition of an opportunity - an opportunity , that PLAN is seizing. • Arguably all people have the need to belong and have meaning in their lives. These needs can not, by their very nature, be met in isolation, either physical or emotional. PLAN is building on the opportunity to bring people together, to be together and to act together, therein co-creating belonging and meaning in each other's lives. • PLAN has come to know that for people with disabilities, like all people, being in relationship leads to contribution and that contribution leads, in turn, to citizenship. This relatively new learning resonates with many Other groups of people who have been systemically marginalized and for that matter all people. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine why PLAN has garnered notoriety and why the wisdom is informing other people, organizations and levels of government. The constraints that PLAN faces as they work toward this goal of full citizenship for their members include: • PLAN, like most non-profit and many co-operative organizations, faces economic constraints associated with the costs of operating an organization and providing services. Families with low to middle incomes do not have the disposable income to afford extra costs and therefore may be excluded, community and private foundation's grants increase, decrease and change in mandate from time to time. Financial support from outside the organization is dependant on many external factors that may or may not lead to grants, partnerships, in-kind or other types of support. • As Etmanski pointed out, there is a limitation to people's capacity for relationships. Because PLAN's core work is bound in the frame of relationships its ability to meet 88 the demand for services in a responsible manner is constrained by people's ability to know each other, to be with each other and to work with each other. There is a limit to how many people PLAN can include before members become clients and the model reverts to a traditional case worker type scenario. • Leadership is a key ingredient for all successful non-profits. PLAN's leadership has been very important for the organization's movements. However, they are also human, have their limitations and have already begun to slowly move away from a leadership role in the organization. How the organization carries on, evolves and meets the "crisis" of succession will be crucial to its longevity. • There are cultural barriers that are very persistent and in many ways act as constraints for PLAN. The use of language is one element of culture that reflects those constraints. Words like 'feeble-minded' and 'retarded' are rarely, if ever, used anymore in professional diagnoses. However, in public discourse these and other words such as 'disability' continue to draw clear lines of distinction between people who have different characteristics. In many ways it is still important that people with disabilities are recognized as different. In order to ensure adequate human and financial supports and resources, appropriate policy and legislation and more generally to guarantee the safety, security and well-being of people who require specific home and health care services. Moreover, because the disability movement is not yet far enough away from atrocities of the past (e.g. abuse, segregation, institutionalization) the movement must maintain a firm grip on the language of disability, in order to move it forward. On the other hand, in order to move forward the language must change. The change of language is an important and necessary component of the cultural shift; however it is not sufficient in and of itself. 89 Chapter 6 - Implications PLAN is one organization. It has a unique set of goals, unique approach to its work and unique people working for it. It is not surprising that PLAN should be unique as part of its underlying philosophy is the respect, appreciation and celebration of diverse individuals with unique characteristics. Much can be gleaned from PLAN's expertise and its experience. However, one must be wary of making broad generalizations based on the example that PLAN sets. There are implications possible in knowing what PLAN does and how it does it. There may be implications for other organizations that seek to provide services to people with disabilities. There may be implications for organizations, including social co-operatives, which seek to provide services that are otherwise relational in nature. There are implications for, what might be termed, the disability movement and may, in turn, be implications for society in general. Finally, as with most research, the investigation of PLAN has opened the possibility of further research. These implications are laid out in this chapter. For Organizations Service Organizations Organizations that seek to meet the needs of people with disabilities are challenged in the current political economic climate. In just the last year, many of them faced turmoil in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, uncertainty with the Interim Authority for Community Living BC 1 2 0 , significant funding cuts to services, a saturated fund raising climate, and uncertainty with collective bargaining of public employees. The Executive Directors of the Burnaby Association For Community Inclusion (BACI) ask, "How do you achieve service excellence when facing decisions that not only may not create, but 1 2 0 T h e In t e r im A u t h o r i t y fo r C o m m u n i t y L i v i n g B C i s a t e m p o r a r y s tructure i n p l a c e w h i l e the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r the d e l i v e r y o f s e rv i ces to p e o p l e w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i s a b i l i t i e s i n B C transfers f r o m the M i n i s t r y o f C h i l d r e n and F a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t to a n e w , yet u n n a m e d , p r o v i n c i a l au thor i ty . I n f o r m a t i o n o n this b o d y w a s acces sed i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 at h t t p : / / w w w . i n t e r i m a u t h o r i t y c l b c . c a / . 90 121 may diminish, quality of service?" These organizations are also challenged with contradictions and dilemmas in the social climate as well. For example, many parents lobby for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to be regarded as a medical condition in order to institutionalize some stability in government funding for therapies. Yet, many people living with Autism say that, 'they don't want or need to be fixed.' Another issue that is troubling is around the use of language, particularly how it is used to categorize people. People with disabilities have for a long time been regarded as 'different' from everyone else. As noted in the second chapter this led, in the past, to measures such as segregation. Society is starting to recognize and come to terms with the fact that every individual is different and therefore it no longer makes sense to put people in categories based on one or a few common characteristics. On the other hand, without this process of categorization, the delineation of 'abled' from 'disabled', how can public agencies and organizations appropriately and efficiently allocate funds to those who need them the most? These and other issues must be met on a day-to-day basis by these organizations. But so to are they met head-on by PLAN. What can disability service organizations learn from PLAN's example? Service organizations ought to be accountable. They should be accountable to the public, people with disabilities, families, as well as staff and volunteers. Perhaps an accountability framework such as the one PLAN used in its social auditing process can serve as a guide to meeting those requirements of accountability. These nine key elements represent the foundation of PLAN's accountability framework. 1. Relationships are at the heart of everything we do; 2. Peace of mind for families; 3. Commitment to family direction, leadership and accountability; 4. Leadership and advocacy; 5. A focus on contribution and citizenship; 6. Self-sufficiency with an entrepreneurial spirit; 7. Dedicated and passionate people; 8. Comfort with ambiguity and risk; 9. A contagious vision and a commitment to sharing our stories.12" 1 2 1 B u r n a b y A s s o c i a t i o n F o r C o m m u n i t y I n c l u s i o n . 2 0 0 4 A n n u a l Repor t . 91 All of the above criteria may not apply to every service organization. Nevertheless, the point is that the implications of what can be learned from PLAN go deeper than policy, deeper than training; they go as deep as organizational culture. Once we start into conceptual realms of culture and citizenship we move away from merely talking about disability services. To restate a definition of relational services, as laid out in the second chapter, are those goods such as care giving, which are services to persons and which are characterized by the exchange of human relations. In relational goods, the quality of personal interaction lies at the core of what is exchanged between provider and the recipient and can be optimally produced only by the provider and recipient together. Seemingly, the cultural change that is alluded to above might also be applicable to other organizations that seek to provide goods of a relational nature. In order for education systems, healthcare, homecare, employment services, addiction services to be successful in their task, they are, arguably, dependant on the quality of relationship between the service provider and the recipient. Everyone who was ever a student can remember their favorite teacher and what that teacher contributed to their lives. People remember the extraordinary nurse or the person who helped them land a good job, or get through a tough night of recovery. It needn't only be the extraordinary relationships that serve as indicators - those are just the easily remembered. Whether memorable or not, one might argue that quality relationships (i.e. for PLAN, relationships based on reciprocity of contribution) produce quality services. Social Co-operatives PLAN is not legally incorporated as a co-operative. Nevertheless, it does embody many of the co-operative values declared by the ICA as defining characteristics of a co-operative. Thus, there are possible implications for co-operatives that provide relational 123 goods and services. As stated in Chapter 2, Restakis defines two types of social co-ops 1 2 2 P l a n n e d L i f e t i m e A d v o c a c y N e t w o r k . 2 0 0 2 . 1 2 3 Res t ak i s , J o h n , " T h e E m i l i a n M o d e l - P r o f i l e o f a C o - o p e r a t i v e E c o n o m y " , T h e C a n a d i a n C o - o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n webs i t e : w w w . c c a b c . b c . c a , ' a c c e s s e d M a y 2 0 0 2 . 92 that occur in Italy: Type A, which provide the delivery of social, health, educational, and recreational services, and Type B, which provide for the gainful employment of the disadvantaged through training in the agricultural, industrial, business, or service sectors. The implications for Type A co-Ops are elaborated in the section headed Service Organizations, above. However there may be additional, more general, implications for other types of co-ops. A few lessons that the co-operative movement might take from the example of PLAN are: • Membership participation has for a long time been a challenge of the co-operative organizational model. With PLAN's approach - i.e. an emphasis on membership responsibilities as much as membership rights, membership based on reciprocity, both taking from the organization and giving back to it, membership equaling citizenship -perhaps improved membership participation can be fostered. • Financial sustainability is for many not-for-profit as well as for-profit co-operatives a challenge in the local and global marketplace. PLAN's entrepreneurial spirit has allowed it complete economic autonomy from government and healthy economic and social bottom lines. While it remains somewhat at the margins, social entrepreneurship is more and more emerging as a real alternative to the two previous options of: 1. public support in the form of grants, subsidies or tax breaks; or 2. the private market-place driven model which is often referred to as 'a race to the bottom'. • Social cohesion through the fostering of relationships. PLAN has found this^  underlying strategy vital to the health of the organization as well as the successful attainment of its goals. Relationships among co-workers, between staff, management and volunteers, and perhaps most importantly the relationships between the membership (people with disabilities and their families) and those who work for the organization. It is important to note here that the notion of relationship should include healthy understanding and appreciation for concepts of trust, reciprocity and contribution. • The Cultural malleability of PLAN allows that organization to change without losing its spirit. Over the 15 years in operation, PLAN has been able to take on new tasks, 93 address new challenges, to turn 'crises' into creative material for growth and improvement. This is an organization grounded firmly with roots that are constantly livened and re-livened. Yet, its branches and leaves are continually changing in accordance with the social, political and economic climates. For Society Re-conceptualizing Our Citizenship The concept of citizenship is as blurry as it has ever been. Yet people are as interested in understanding it as they have ever been. With emphasis being placed evermore on the individual and their freedoms, including mobility, where does citizenship reside? Perhaps, citizens must build character more than intellect if they are to take up the challenging task of political commitment; perhaps they must consciously work to subvert their self-interest and individual preferences in order to exercise and develop their abilities as good citizens. It is not that self-interest or preference are detrimental to justice, but in themselves will not achieve it. Therefore, the good citizen must nurture an attitude of what Kingwell calls "hopeful pragmatism." They must cultivate political virtues such as tolerance and sensitivity, civility and respect, in order to espouse the civic virtues of negotiation and acceptance. He further elaborates with this, ".. .all that remains when contradictory arguments and ideological disputes burn themselves off is a residue of commitment, one person to another. Lacking that commitment, we lack the possibility of justice. Citizenship like friendship is a fragile combination of opportunity, commitment, and constantly renewed regard."124 Engagement PLAN shows us that engagement, or in PLAN language contribution, comes to us, and out of us, only through relationships. There are implications in the syllogism of citizenship for our everyday lives. PLAN's philosophy might be suggesting that we need to become caring citizens as much as good citizens. The people associated with the Philia Dialogue - an initiative of the PLAN Institute - believe that the caring citizen is the glue Kingwel l , M . 2000. p. 90. 94 that holds our society together. Citizenship, in this view, involves three components: rights and responsibilities and access. • Rights of belonging, of access to justice, to due process, of mutual recognition and approval of our distinctiveness, uniqueness and differences both as individuals and groups. • Responsibilities to respect and care for each other, to commit to the well being of the community, to contribute to the health and vitality of our communities, to engage in creating a vital society. • Access to the forums, institutions, associations and public spaces where citizens meet, discuss, share, work, contribute, play and socialize.125 In order to enact our caring citizenship, to live our rights, meet our responsibilities and take advantage of our access we need actions to take. In support of the Philia dictum, Jacques Dufresne suggests that, "Social action in this perspective consists chiefly in removing obstacles to communities' self-healing."126 He further identifies five types of social actions that flow from this model for civic attendance: • Liberating actions - removing obstacles (e.g. legal, financial, psychological and institutional) that prevent people's natural connections to people, communities and place. • Inhibiting actions - stopping or avoiding detrimental behaviors (e.g. stopping the use of the word client or caseload in the social services sector). • Catalytic actions - 'the right dose at the right time'. These actions are capable of triggering breakthrough in how people view themselves and others. • Inspiring actions-These connect people to meaning. They remind us that there is something larger than ourselves. • Nurturing actions - People, communities and the relationships between and among them require daily nurturing to remain at their best. Similarly, Mark Kingwell advises, -1 2 5 T h e s e are extracts f r o m the P h i l i a D i a l o g u e ' s webs i t e at h t t p : / / w w w . p h i l i a . c a / C a r i n g _ c i t i z e n / c a r i n g _ c i t i z e n . h t m , accessed A u g u s t , 2 0 0 4 . 1 2 6 Duf r e sne , J . T h e P h i l i a P r o p o s a l . 2 0 0 3 . 95 "What we need is a new model of citizenship based on the act of participation itself, not on some quality or thought or right enjoyed by its possessor. This participatory citizenship doesn't simply demand action from existing citizens; it makes action at once the condition and task of citizenship.. .Citizenship, if it means anything, means making our desire for justice active. It is not something we can do alone."127 Relationship and Inclusion A theme that runs through this analysis of the evolution of citizenship, and more recently is being recognized as paramount in the disability movement, is the concepts of connectedness, relationship, networks, and associations with other people. Today several thinkers, like the ancients, are writing and speaking about relationships - as shown above Kingwell, Sarason, Schwartz and Dufresne all recognize great value in relationships. Furthermore, people such as Robert Putnam and John McKnight have expressed their belief in the power of relationships. McKnight, speaking of the role of professionals in the disability field, suggests, "it is as if we had two tools for pursuing our work of encouraging caring: the first the professional/bureaucratic one, the second one having to do 128 with the encouragement and recognition of associational life." Robert Putnam's book, Bowling Alone, provides a compelling argument for the 129 ".. .need to reconnect with one another." Catherine Frazee, a long time human rights activist believes that an exclusive focus upon rights and entitlement is not adequate to the challenge of promoting, respecting and protecting lives of dignity and equality for all citizens. Sharing her perspective as former Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, Frazee says "Everywhere around us, if we are K i n g w e l l , M . 2 0 0 0 . p . 12. M c K n i g h t , J . , 1985 , " J o h n D e e r e a n d the B e r e a v e m e n t C o u n s e l o r " , Institutions, Etc., 8 (2) , p . 17-23 . P u t n a m , R . 2 0 0 0 . p . 2 8 . 96 honest and attentive, we can see plainly that the entrenchment of rights has been and continues to be matched by the entrenchment of poverty, abuse and despair."130 As critical as rights are in any movement toward social justice, the protection of rights alone is not sufficient. Dignity and equality comes from the ground of respect that each of us brings to our relationships with those whom we perceive to be different from ourselves in some fundamental way. Frazee shares her experience with access, "Those of us who know every turn in that road understand at the core of our being that access is not simply about making our way into buildings. Access is about making our way into human community. " This deeper level of access invites and engages people within a dynamic of access to respect, access to a sense of oneself as a whole person, access to identity as a valued contributor, a bearer of rights, knowledge and power. Through the lens of disability, social inclusion is therefore about access to human relationship. Frazee conceptualizes a gateway to citizenship. This is a gateway to a just society, that is supported as much by our connections to people and community (i.e. inclusion) as it is by 131 our entitlements (i.e. equality). She goes on to suggest four conditions as vital for policymakers, researchers, theorists and activists to promote and protect opportunities in which inclusive relationships will thrive:132 • Proximity - We have to rub shoulders. Of course inclusion means much more than mere proximity, but it means nothing and leads nowhere without proximity. • Non-interference - Time and again, disabled youth tell researchers that adults need to support by backing off and giving them space. 1 3 0 F r a z e e , C . " E x p e r i e n c e s o f E x c l u s i o n to a V i s i o n o f I n c l u s i o n " , a p resen ta t ion d e l i v e r e d N o v e m b e r 8' , 2001. T a k e n f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . p h i l i a . c a / C a r i n g _ c i t i z e n / c c - n e w - t h i n k i n g . h t m . 1 3 1 F r a z e e , C . 2001. 1 3 2 F r a z e e , C . 2001. 97 • Time - An inclusive Rome definitely won't be built in a day. Whatever programs or policies we design, measures or indicators we elect to monitor, we must remember that people need time to form relationships. • Shared Enterprise - We discover each other by working together. We have to leave some of the work of social inclusion undone. Four simple conditions - neither novel nor extraordinary. Nevertheless, rubbing shoulders, taking time to reflect, expressing, exploring and building together are virtuous as we expand our understanding of where we all fit in and how we fill out our citizenship. Conventional concepts of citizenship were limited to a discourse on an individual's rights and responsibilities as they make their way through life. However, as shown above this understanding of citizenship is hot only limited, but limiting. Perhaps, the definition of citizenship should be something of 'rights, responsibilities and relationships'. Yet, relationships have never been absent from the concept of citizenship, in fact, the very need for this status hinges on human interconnectedness. So, why are we now returning to them as a source of moral commitment or in some ways a salvation? Perhaps, we are not returning, but rather once again recognizing their value, revealing them as a well-spring and embracing their potential to lead us to the good life. Provision of Services Who is responsible for ensuring that appropriate and adequate services are available to those who need them? Should the general public, as a collective, carry some of the responsibility for ensuring that services to people with disabilities are appropriately in place? Or, should families and/or communities be solely responsible for the services their members require? Some commentators suggest a shifting of responsibilities away from the state onto the backs of families. PLAN'S success in both meeting their goals and doing it without any government funding might be construed as supporting this type of political slant. Others however, insist that the most appropriate model has all taxpayer's creating a pool of money from which those in need may draw, therein reducing the direct expense to families with members who have disabilities. 98 The discussion of public, private, family or community-based responsibilities, and subsequent funding sources, deserves greater research and exploration than this thesis can offer. However, the introduction of the subject allows for the exposition of a distinction that is important to convey with respect to how PLAN sees its work. This thesis has used the word 'services' to encapsulate the work that PLAN does. PLAN, on the other hand, recognizes and frequently explains the difference between what it does and what is commonly conceived as 'services'. Nowhere in PLAN literature, reports, audits or news will one find the word service in reference to the work that PLAN does. PLAN builds networks, does advocacy and policy development and it facilitates dialogue on concepts such as citizenship and social entrepreneurship. PLAN does not refer to itself as providing services. The research for this thesis did not delve into PLAN's social, political or economic leanings when it comes to the provision of services to people with disabilities. Yet, when it comes to meaning, belonging and the good life for people with disabilities PLAN believes that those responsibilities lay within the relationships people have to family, friends and neighbours. Hence, the choice of the word Philia as the title for one of PLAN's programs aimed at facilitating dialogue on caring citizenship. Etmanski explains, "Philia is a Greek concept for neighbourly love, or the bonds of friendship that bind us together in community."133 These bonds are not something that occurs through policy implementation or legislation; rather only through relationships can they reveal themselves. For Further Research Organizations providing relational goods and services are changing. It has been shown through this case study research that organizations providing services to people with disabilities are re-thinking everything they do from their operations to their fundamental philosophies. If PLAN is indicative of a movement toward cultural shift, then the potential for further research abounds. E t m a n s k i , A l . A P o w e r f u l I n sp i r a t i on , Abilities, Issue 57 , W i n t e r 2 0 0 3 , p . 4 5 . 99 Some of the questions that have emerged from the use of a citizenship framework in this project include: • How can a citizenship framework be used to evaluate the quality of services provided by disability organizations, education systems, healthcare facilities, addiction centers and other relationship-based services? And, how appropriate would this framework for further research be? • What are the opportunities for other organizations that provide services to ensure and exercise their member's citizenship? What are the opportunities and constraints for service organizations as sites of citizenship? • How could an organization transform its services to ensure and exercise its member's citizenship? How could an organization transform itself into a site of citizenship? Social co-operatives in Canada are as yet only occurring at the margins of the service sector. The lack of research into the development, operation, sustainability, policies in support of and place for social co-ops in Canadian society was exposed in producing the Co-operative Research Inventory which was a National Joint Project of the Co-operatives Secretariat, the Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, at the University of Saskatchewan, Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche et d'Information sur les Enterprises Collectives (CIRIEC) and Centre de recherche sur les innovations socials (CRISES), and the BC Institute For Co-operative Studies, at the University of Victoria, published in 2003. Finally, exposure to the Panarchy Theory Framework raises other intriguing research possibilities. How might the panarchy framework be used to study social or relational services? How might the panarchy theory inform a citizenship framework as it is used to investigate the questions raised earlier in this section? How might a panarchy framework be employed to study co-operatives and other social innovations? The notion that 'there are no unsuccessful strategies only those that we either build on or those that become material for different kinds of creation,'134 is especially interesting in light of the perpetual uncertainties around the political regime of the day, the unpredictability of 1 3 4 J ac in t a E n i ( D i r e c t o r o f M e m b e r s h i p S e r v i c e s , P L A N ) r e s p o n d e d i n th is w a y w h e n a s k e d about unsuccess fu l strategies that P L A N has e m p l o y e d to mee t its goa l s . 100 severe crises, long-term environmental impacts and the booms and busts of global economic markets. From the global scale to the personal to the micro-organism, cycles representing the relationship between capital/resource/contribution, connectedness and resilience are at least interesting, but far more likely to be profoundly informative. 101 Bib l iog raphy Alton, David, ed. 2001. Citizen 21: Citizenship in the New Millennium. London: Harper Collins Publishers. Bader, Veit ed. 1997. Citizenship and Exclusion. Houndmills: Macmillan Press. Bynner, J., Chisholm, L. and Furlong, A., eds. 1997. Youth, Citizenship and Social Change in a European Context. Aldershot: Ashgate. Cammack, Vickie. The Gift of Time: Allowing Our Resilience to Resurface. Abilities Magazine, Issue 48, Fall '01, p.42. Clark, P. ed. 1994. Citizenship: A Reader. London: Pluto Press. Coles, Bob. 1995. Youth and Social Policy: Youth Citizenship and Young Careers. London: UCL Press. Co-operatives Secretariat, the Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, U. of Saskatchewan, Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche et dTnformation sur les Enterprises Collectives (CIRIEC) and Centre de recherche sur les innovations socials (CRISES), and the BC Institute For Co-operative Studies, U. of Victoria. 2003. Co-operative Research Inventory Project. Crick, Bernard. 2000. Essays on Citizenship. London: Continuum. Descartes, Rene. 1641/1984. Meditations on First Philosophy. In The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, transl. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dufresne, Jacques. "The Philia Proposal" adapted from a presentation delivered in Vancouver, May 2001. Taken from www.philia.ca . Etmanski, A. 2000. A Good Life. Burnaby, BC: Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network. Faulks, Keith. 2000. Citizenship. London: Routledge. Frazee, C. "Experiences of Exclusion to a Vision of Inclusion", a presentation delivered November 8th, 2001. Taken from http://www.philia.ca/Caring_citizen/cc-new-thinking.htm . Frazee, Catherine, A Wake Up Call, 1997, published on the Council of Canadians with Disabilities website at http://www.ccdonline.ca/publications/latimer-watch/1097i.htm . 102 Goddard, Henry Herbert. 1913. The Kallikak Family: A Study in the heredity of Feeble-mindedness. The Macmillan Company: New York. Gunderson, L.H and Holling, CS (eds). 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press: Washington and London. Hammersley, Martyn. (Ed.). (1993). Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hargreaves, David. 1997. The Mosaic of Learning. Demos: London. Hathaway, R. (1995). Assumptions underlying quantitative and qualitative research: Implications for institutional research. Research in higher education, 36 (5), 535-562. Heater, D. 1990. Citizenship. London: Longman. Held, D. 1996. Models of Democracy (2nd edition). Cambridge: Polity Press. Helve, H. and Wallace, C. eds. 2001. Youth, Citizenship and Empowerment. Aldershot: Ashgate. Holling, CS. From Complex Regions to Complex Worlds. University of Florida. June 2003. ICA, Statement on Co-operative Identity. ICA News, No. 5/6, 1995. Ignatieff, Michael. 2000. The Rights Revolution. Toronto: Anansi. Illich, Ivan. 1976. Medical Nemesis. Pantheon: New York. Kingwell, Mark. 1998. Better Living: In the Pursuit of Happiness from Plato to Prozac. Toronto: Viking. Kingwell, Mark. 2000. The World We Want. Toronto: Penguin Books. Manville, P. 1994. "Towards a New Paradigm of Athenian Citizenship", in Boegeheld, A. and Scafuro, A. eds. Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 21-33. McKnight, J., 1985, "John Deere and the Bereavement Counselor", Institutions, Etc., 8(2),p.l7-23. McKnight, John. Public Lecture: "Economics as if People Mattered", June, 2003, Vancouver. 103 Merriam, S. B. (1985). The Case Study in Educational Research: A Review of Selected Literature. Journal of Educational Thought, 19.3, 204-17. Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. Michael. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Minow, Martha. 1987. When Difference has Its Home: Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded, Equal Protection and Legal Treatment of Difference. Paper delivered at Brandies university, April 1986. Nilson, W.O. Voice and Ground: Social Innovation at the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN). A Working Paper for the McGill-Dupont Social Innovation Initiative, 2003. O'Brien, J., & O'Brien, C. L., eds. 1992. Remembering the soul of our work. Madison, WI: Options in Community Living. Pearpoint, Jack and Snow, Judith. 1998. "From Behind the Piano - The Building of Judith Snow's Unique Circle of Friends," and "What's Really Worth Doing and How To Do It," in Now In One Book. Toronto: Inclusion Press. Pestoff, V. 1995. "Local Economic Democracy and Multi-stakeholder Co-operatives." Journal of Rural Co-operative, 23:151-167. Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network. 2002. Accountability Report. Burnaby, BC: Plan Institute. Prouty, Robert and K. Charlie Lakin (eds.), Residential Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends through 1998 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration, 1999). Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, Robert, 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press: New Jersey. R. v. Latimer. Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Dockets: CA. 7413 and 7416; Date of Decision: November 23, 1999. 104 Restakis, John. Social co-ops and Social Care: An Emerging role for Civil Society. Included as a background package to the Bologna Summer Program for Co-operative Studies, 2001/02. Restakis, John, "The Emilian Model - Profile of a Co-operative Economy", The Canadian Co-operative Association website: www.ccabc.bc.ca, 2002. Riesenberg, P. 1992. Citizenship in the Western Tradition. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Ryan, Roberta. Participatory processes for citizenship for people with intellectual disabilities. National Council on Intellectual Disability, Interaction, vol.10, 4'97. Sarason, S.B. 1972. The Creation of Settings and Future Societies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, David B. 1992. Crossing the River: Creating a Conceptual Revolution in Community and Disability. Brookline Books. Smith, B. 2004. Social Networks: An Annotated Bibliography. Vancouver: Plan Institute For Citizenship and Disability. Stainton, Tim. "Citizenship, Rights and Mutual Respect", Interaction, Vol. 10, 04/97, pp. 24-26, 33. Sutherland, Kate and Beachy, Tim. 2004. Innovative Co-ops in the Social Services Sector: A research study to benefit people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. Co-operatives Secretariat, Government of Canada. Tilly, C. 1995. "The Emergence of Citizenship in France and Elsewhere", International Review of Social History, 40(3), pp.223-36. Turnabull, S. 1997. "Stakeholder Co-operatives." Journal of Co-operative Studies, 29:18-52. Turner, B. 1986. Citizenship and Capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin. Ullrich, G. 2000. "Innovative Approaches to Co-operation in Health Care and Social Services." Journal of Co-operative Studies, 33:53-71. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. United Nations. 1995. Co-operative Enterprise in the Health and Social Care Sectors: A Global Review and Proposals for Policy Coordination. Geneva: United Nations. 105 Wall, John, Duguay, Patrick and Rohan, Shannon, New Synergies: The Co-operative Movement, CED, & the Social Economy, in Making Waves, vol. 15, number 1, p. 32. Weber, M. 1958. The City. New York: Free Press. Yin, Robert. 1994. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications Inc. 106 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091680/manifest

Comment

Related Items