I don't Live In A PRIORITY Neighborhood So......

Does Harlem have a lesson for Toronto neighbourhoods?
Despite its successes Harlem Children's Zone also suffers weakness of volunteer approach
March 15, 2009
Simon BlackResearcher at York University's City Institute and visiting Fulbright fellow at the City University of New York
Twenty or so years ago, it would be unthinkable that Canadian policy-makers and urban politicians might have something to learn from Harlem in the area of social policy.
This historic neighbourhood just north of Central Park was in the midst of a crack epidemic that ravaged poor communities across urban America throughout much of the 1980s and '90s.
The population of Harlem, like other ghettoes in the U.S., was mainly black and nearly all poor. Crack destroyed families, led to soaring rates of incarceration of black men, and widespread social alienation. It was the culmination of years of urban neglect, as federal and state governments largely abandoned the American inner-city in the wake of the urban crisis of the late 1960s and '70s.
Along a range of socio-economic indicators – from homelessness to health – 20 years ago Toronto compared favourably to New York. But times have changed. That's why the findings of a survey of Toronto's public elementary schools, reported recently in the Star, are disturbing but not surprising.
The report found that poverty and "race" have an impact on levels of student achievement. Most sociologists could tell you as much, but the report's conclusions were particularly bleak: Children who live in poverty or come from certain racial backgrounds are falling behind in school as early as Grade 3.
The school board is trying to address the achievement gap through programs like Model Schools for Inner Cities, which puts more resources into schools in "high-needs" areas. But it's fighting a losing battle with social trends that show racialized poverty intensifying in Toronto.
Enter Harlem and the ideas of Geoffrey Canada. While Harlem has changed since the days of crack, it remains disproportionately poor, black, and affected by a myriad of social problems. And like Toronto, the achievement gap between students from low-income and racialized groups and others is wide. For instance, the black-white achievement gap in New York City means that by the third grade, black students – who are disproportionately poor – are nine to 10 months behind compared to their white counterparts.
Canada is the founder and director of the Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ), a project committed to ending intergenerational poverty in Harlem. The New York Times Magazine called the HCZ, "one of the most ambitious social-policy experiments of our time," saying no effort to break the cycle of poverty in America has been "so closely watched."
The project has been profiled on 60 Minutes and Oprah, and Canada has held court with Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. Following on research in the social sciences and neurology that show the skills gap between rich and poor kids opens up very early in life, Canada sought to build a program that would combine educational, social and medical services, following children from birth to college. For Canada, the idea was to create "a safety net woven so tightly that children in the neighbourhood just can't slip through."
Initially, the HCZ was restricted to a few blocks; it now envelops a large section of Harlem covering close to 100 blocks and serving 7,400 children and more than 4,100 adults. It combines early childhood education, programs for parents, a preschool and grade school.
As a result of this intense programming, children at the HCZ are performing at or beyond statewide grade levels despite the continued pressures they face outside the school environment. Obama is considering setting up similar children's zones in other U.S. cities as a cornerstone of his anti-poverty agenda.
Should Toronto replicate the HCZ in what the United Way calls our "priority" neighbourhoods, places like Jamestown, Jane-Finch or Malvern?
While targeting resources at particular neighbourhoods has become a popular anti-poverty strategy for governments trying to do more with less, building universally accessible and well-funded social programs should be our priority. Expanding Ontario's Early Years Centres to make them accessible to working parents, increasing the minimum wage, and finally making good on the promise of a universal, affordable and public child-care system would go a long way to addressing pressing social needs.
Targeted initiatives should complement this more comprehensive approach, with programs like the TDSB's Model Schools for Inner Cities and the phenomenal Pathways to Education worthy of increased and stable funding. Such funding should constitute any part of a serious stimulus package and be seen as an investment that will pay dividends in years to come.
For despite its success, HCZ also demonstrates the drawbacks of a small-government approach to combating poverty. The HCZ is a non-profit, community-based organization heavily reliant on private-sector donations and foundation money to survive.
One would think that given its success, New York City would be looking to expand its programming and take it public across the five boroughs. But, alas, in keeping with the small-government approach to big social problems, the city has not done so. And with the financial crisis hitting Wall St., the HCZ has lost millions of dollars in funding and is laying off staff and putting expansion plans on hold, imperiling the future of some of New York's most vulnerable children.
This brings us to the difference between charity and social justice: social programs and benefits provided by the state as a matter of social right and citizenship or services provided by non-state actors through acts of corporate and individual benevolence.
Twenty years ago, many thought this distinction separated the American and Canadian approach to solving social problems and ensuring a decent standard of living for all. Despite a convergence with socio-economic trends in the U.S., in Canada we still like to think we do things a little differently.
Whether we do or not could be the difference between an anti-poverty agenda that is central to rebuilding our embattled welfare state in these rough economic times or leaving our future generation of at-risk youth reliant on the good deeds – and fortunes – of others.