Social Innovation – Saint John’s Hidden Strength

By Chris Baker and Gary Stairs

Sometimes you do not know what you are looking for until you find it.

In our case, we were conducting a research project in November 2009 on the resilience of the greater Saint John area following the announcements that several major projects for the area would not be moving forward. To obtain the information for this project, we convened three sessions with community leaders representing the private and non-profit sectors across Saint John. In addition to testing the overall mood, we were keen to understand how these leaders saw their community and its prospect for the future.

Across all these sessions, participants wanted a new emphasis on the future of Saint John rather than dwelling on the past. While there might be some fond nostalgia associated with being the home of the foghorn, the screw propeller or SCUBA gear, none of these past accomplishments had the resonance and power of more recent actions.

When the discussion turned to these recent achievements, it was interesting to note that most participants did not identify a new business, a new product line, or a scientific or academic achievement. Instead, they talked about the way that Saint John residents were collaborating to achieve economic and social progress.

It was the collaborative process, and the organizations that support this process, that was seen as the most promising achievement associated with the Saint John area. They pointed out the extensive consultation process that arrived at the Benefits Blueprint, the community plan to assist the region in coping with rapid economic growth. They talked about the True Growth Initiative, which integrated social and cultural elements with regional economic development. Other collaborative networks, such as PropelICT, or the Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative (BCAPI), were identified as strengths within the community.

It was interesting to note that many of these collaborative organizations cut across sectoral, economic or social lines. Further, these organizations were disposed to working together rather than competing with each other. As the discussion progressed, it became clear that social innovation – new ways of doing things to achieve societal goals – was an area where the Saint John community excels.

Innovation is about ideas, and new ways of doing and approaching problems and challenges. Innovation connotes change, creativity, putting ideas into action and implies a novel twist or new way of doing things.

Although it does not have the same profile as a new wireless device or emerging economic sector, social innovation can deliver similar concrete results. The main differences are that social innovation tends to emerge from a collaborative process and that both the process and the results are widely shared.

If Saint John is a hub for social innovation, and that this unique capacity for social innovation is a hidden strength of the region, it would be good to understand its origins.  

According to the participants, Saint John’s capacity for social innovation had its genesis in the early 1980s. At that time, there was strong concern about the ongoing deterioration of the downtown core. The decline of the heritage buildings in the area was a visible sign of the neglect and despair associated with this part of the region.  

Rather than accepting the deterioration of the urban core as part of a broader trend, the community mobilized to make positive change. In addition to actions taken by the City to strengthen planning and by-law enforcement, other community partners stepped forward to improve both the physical infrastructure and living conditions in this area.

Ultimately, Saint John gained national attention for the preservation of the built heritage in the Trinity Royal neighbourhood. The refurbishment and vitality of the City Market is a source of pride to many residents, as well as being a favoured destination for tourists and locals alike. The popularity of Saint John as a cruise ship destination is due, in large part, to the ongoing revitalization of this neighbourhood.  

Just as the community mobilized to preserve the unique architecture of the downtown core, there was also the need to mobilize around social goals, namely poverty reduction. And this collaborative effort would not be confined to one neighbourhood or to one part of the poverty dilemma.

We were told how a general consensus emerged that comprehensive, community-based action was needed to reduce the portion of Saint John residents who were living in poverty. Just as thought often precedes action, defining the goal of poverty reduction gave a focus and an impetus to members of the business community, the non-profit sector and decision-makers in the municipal and provincial governments.

The ability of the Saint John community to rally behind the poverty reduction goal, and to achieve a significant net reduction in poverty levels, is an excellent example of social innovation in action. There was no magic bullet or miracle program. Instead, there was committed and persistent community-based activity to revitalize neighbourhoods, to address the needs of single parents, youth and children living in poverty, and to strengthen opportunities for training and employment readiness. By working with people with first-hand experience of living in poverty, we were able to help them find their voice.

Although the Saint John region still has a poverty rate higher than the national average, the ability of the region to make progress against this intractable and difficult problem has created confidence that further progress can be made.

Innovation is a pragmatic activity that includes problem‐solving by people, individually and collectively. An individual may be led by their passion to develop an idea or concept but it only truly comes to life when it is embraced by a larger group or community. The ability of the Saint John region to innovate in the social sphere is an unrecognized strength of our community.

With a Social Innovation Forum taking place at the UNBSJ Grand Hall on January 20^th, this may a good opportunity to learn more about how Saint John is leading the country on finding innovative solutions to achieve significant and sustainable poverty reduction.

- 30 -

Originally published in the Telegraph Journal, January 19, 2012

Property Tax Reform and the Myth of Double Taxation

If you are a homeowner in New Brunswick, you need to be concerned about a public campaign to influence politicians and decision-makers in this election. It is a campaign aimed directly at our wallets and it appears to be getting some traction among candidates and parties in this election.

You may have seen the lawn signs in front of various apartment blocks and rental properties around New Brunswick advocating that we “Axe the Double Tenant Tax.” Many New Brunswickers see these signs and are sympathetic. After all, as fair and reasonable people, we naturally bristle at the thought of someone having to pay more than their fair share of taxes, especially those who don’t have the income or resources to own their own homes. But in this case, the landlords and rental property owners behind this campaign are taking direct aim at the Residential Property Tax Rebate that all New Brunswick homeowners receive.

First, we need to set this issue in context. Unlike other provinces, New Brunswick uses property taxes as a source of provincial revenue. This is the result of the municipal reforms under the Equal Opportunity Program, which saw health, education and social assistance move from the municipal level to the provincial level. Naturally, the revenues that supported these programs at the municipal level were also transferred to the Province, with the result that we have both the Province and the municipality receiving property tax revenues.

Property taxation is made even more complex by the fact that one-third of our population and two-thirds of our geography has no municipal government at all. These areas, Local Service Districts and unincorporated areas, are governed directly by the Province and property taxes are used to provide services. 

With this in context, we need to address the obvious problems with how our Property Tax program is run.

The first is that voters and taxpayers do not have a clear understanding of how property tax is calculated or who is responsible for setting rates. This lack of clarity allows officials at both levels of government to “pass the buck” when it comes being accountable and responsible. 

Municipal politicians, who set the tax rates, say it is a provincial problem because the Province, through Service New Brunswick, is responsible for the assessment process. Provincial politicians say that municipal politicians are “free riders” who can boast about holding the line on tax rates while getting increased revenues as property assessments rise.

Regardless of how the politicians may see it, property owners get the bill, see that their taxes are going up, and are furious. With no understanding of the relationship between assessments and tax rates, and no one taking responsibility for the administration of this program, it is easy to see why New Brunswickers are frustrated with this system. It also makes us easy targets for those who want to exploit this frustration to their own ends.

This is where the current campaign by landlords to “Axe the Double Tennant Tax” comes in and why New Brunswick homeowners need to be worried.

Those who own rental properties claim that they are the victims of “double taxation.” They point to the fact that they have to pay property taxes to both the Province and the Municipality as evidence of this “inequitable” situation. If landlords pay more taxes on their properties than do homeowners, it is not because someone decided that rental property owners should pay more. It is because the powers that be decided that homeowners should pay less.

Currently, the Province of New Brunswick provides a Residential Property Tax Rebate to people who own and live in their own homes. This measure benefits every homeowner, including those who own revenue properties, and contributes to the higher than average level of homeownership in this Province (75% compared to 66% nationally). Home ownership is something to be encouraged. It provides stability to our communities and neighbourhoods. It allows people to build equity and create wealth for themselves.

When landlords say they want equitable taxation, what they are really saying is either give us the same tax treatment as residential homeowners or get rid of the Residential Property Tax Rebate. They are trying use the general frustration with the Property Tax system among New Brunswickers to convince politicians to deprive homeowners of a significant financial benefit.

To gain the support of their tenants (the owners call it a “Tenant Tax” after all), these property owners claim that they would use any tax reduction to reduce rents. Given that most landlords and rental property owners fail to comply with provincial regulations on the use of security deposits, this promise is nothing more than a cruel and manipulative joke.

Moving ahead, it is clear that New Brunswick homeowners do not want their politicians to abandon the Residential Property Tax Rebate. But this situation points to a larger question - how do we move ahead on property tax reform?

Most of the political parties, including the two frontrunners, have committed to a process on Property Tax reform. We need to set out some basic principles regarding property tax to ensure that this reform results in taxation that is equitable, encourages home ownership, and supports responsible fiscal management by the municipalities and the Provincial Government.

1.       Retaining market value as the basic element of the assessment system

As anyone who has looked into this process knows, any way of assessing the value of a property has its flaws. It is just that market value is the least flawed of these various approaches. Market value does tend to fluctuate but it is at least determined by objective measures rather than subjective or arbitrary ones.

For example, houses were once taxed on the number of windows they had. This was based on the assumption that wealthier people would have more windows than less wealthy people. This just led to gloomier houses.

There is the same problem using the square footage of the house or the overall size of the property. Market value is the best tool we currently have at hand.

2.       Make tax rates, not assessments, the prime driver of property tax changes

As a home owner, I am happy to hear that my house, my main investment, is increasing in value. However, just because it increases in value doesn’t mean that the municipality should automatically get additional revenue. In principle, an automatic process like this, which grants revenue without a vote or debate, is inherently undemocratic. We should be very clear on this point - if municipalities want to get additional revenue on an unimproved property beyond the rate of inflation, they should be required to include it in their municipal budgets and vote on it. This same principal would apply to the provincial government.

3.       Bring clarity to the relationship between assessments and tax rates

As noted above, the lack of clarity is used by politicians at both levels to pass the buck. Informed voters force politicians and decision-makers to make better decisions. Municipalities and Service New Brunswick should work together to end this self-serving confusion.

4.       Reduce the disparity in taxation levels between incorporated and unincorporated areas

Property taxes need to reflect the services that are provided to the community.  However, the inequity between unincorporated areas and incorporated areas encourages urban sprawl, ribbon development and poor land use policy. There is an urgent need to reform local governance in our Province that includes the inequities in our dysfunctional property tax system.

5.       Keep property tax breaks limited and specific

Encouraging home ownership is a valid goal for our society. Providing a tax break to homeowners, as opposed to other kinds of property, is a broadly-based, sustainable tax benefit that enjoys clear support. But we need to be cautious about other property tax breaks, especially those based on arbitrary measures rather than objective ones.

For example, a property tax benefit based on age is arbitrary while a benefit based on income is objective. Therefore, a property tax benefit for people within an age group makes less sense than one based on income – which is why there is a property tax break for low-income New Brunswickers.

By keeping the property tax system broadly-based, we can more equitably share the collective tax burden. If we start granting property tax breaks without thinking of the overall consequences – including shifting the burden onto the remaining payers – we will not make progress.

As homeowners, and even as tenants, we need to better understand the property tax options that are before us. We should reject the myth of “double taxation” that some are trying to promote.

Based on the five principles outlined above, we can achieve a property tax system that will work for New Brunswick.

- 30 -

Originally published in The Telegraph Journal

What September 11th teaches us about Canada

While there is no doubt that September 11th has seized the attention of the Canadian public and raised concerns about security, terrorism and border controls, research on our collective reactions to the tragedy and its fallout over the past year reveal some important findings about who we are as a nation.

Environics was fortunate in having long-term tracking data on a number of key areas, ranging from attitudes to multiculturalism and immigration to defence spending and feelings of personal security. By examining the data collected before and after 9/11, we have arrived at a number of important conclusions about Canada.

Many of the predictions that Canada would become a less tolerant or less open society appear to be unfounded. But it's clear as well that the 9/11 attacks have tested the mettle of our society in a way that none of us could have expected on that fateful morning.

Most important is that we appear to have great confidence in the strength of our society and our openness to other peoples and cultures. In the weeks following September 11th, many commentators speculated that Canadians would demand reduced levels of immigration and would be less tolerant of multiculturalism, especially with regard to those of Middle Eastern origin or followers of Islam.

Instead, we found that attitudes toward the number of immigrants that Canada accepts remained stable throughout this period of crisis. Since 1998, about one-half of Canadians have said that the country accepts "about the right number" of immigrants (as opposed to too many or too few). Immediately after September 11th, that number dropped to 47 per cent; hardly a sign that Canadians wanted to slam the door on immigration. By October, responses to this question were restored to their previous levels.

Across the board, Canadians maintain positive and stable attitudes toward related matters, such as the perceived impact of immigration on our communities, culture and schools, and the contribution that immigrants make to our society. The same can be said about multiculturalism, which has gone from a government buzzword in the early 1970s to being an accepted part of the Canadian identity today.

This is not to say that our society has achieved perfection. Canadians are well aware that we struggle with racism and intolerance. In the focus groups we conducted after September 11, many Canadians reported incidents in their community directed at those presumed to be of Middle Eastern origin or of Islamic faith. Canadians with these backgrounds themselves reported that they had experienced verbal abuse, vandalism and, in limited cases, violence in response to the attacks. In some cases, racist incidents affected people of different skin colour, manners or dress who were not Muslims or from the Middle East at all.

As disturbing as these incidents are, the focus groups found that there were many instances in which Canadians took this opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with those of other backgrounds, whether it was a friendly smile on the bus, an understanding ear or attending one of the many rallies supporting the inclusiveness of our society. Canadians accept many things, but racism is not one of them.

The aftermath of September 11 also proved that we hold our rights and freedoms, as outlined in the Charter, very dear to us. Although some polls immediately after the 9/11 attacks indicated an apparent readiness to accept some curtailment of these rights, a deeper investigation found that Canadians retain a strong faith in due process and staunchly reject any compromise on freedom of expression and conscience.

Even if we were ready to accept concepts of preventative arrest, support for these efforts were highly conditional and based on due process. And Canadians have made it clear that any curtailment of Charter rights would need to be justified on the basis of reality, not fear. Our history has taught us that when we compromise the rights and freedoms of our citizens at times of crisis, we live to regret it later. Canadians want governments to think before they act.

Although the nature of the relationship between Canada and the United States has evolved dramatically over the last 20 years, the events of September 11 shed new light on the current state of this relationship.

We found that Canadians are willing to accept higher levels of co-operation with the United States on mutual security issues and border control, and they do not feel this would erode Canadian sovereignty. Granted, Canadians are used to working within multilateral and bilateral frameworks. However, Canadians see this issue as one of mutual responsibility, not one of the powerless succumbing to the powerful. We share the objective of efficient borders and domestic security; it is not surprising that we would share the responsibility.

This attitude reflects the increased confidence that Canadians have about who we are and the values that are most important to us. Our research in Canada and the United States shows that, contrary to some opinions, our social values are diverging from, rather than merging with, those found in the U.S. We have noted a strong increase in feelings of nationalism and entrepreneurship among Canadians, which some observers may be confusing with "becoming Americans."

Our research finds that Americans are more deferential to authority and are more trusting in traditional power structures -- whether it is in the family or in society at large -- than are Canadians. While Americans felt it was necessary to close ranks in the weeks following September 11 -- even to the point of stifling any criticism or satire within that country -- Canadians still felt that they had the right, if not the obligation, to hold governments, politicians and others up to critical scrutiny.

We have acquired our own identity beyond that of "Americans with socialized health care." We are no longer as anxious about Canadian nationalism as we used to be. We understand that co-operation does not necessarily mean co-option. Although we chafe at the negligence of the U.S. in not recognizing the valuable role that we play as friends and allies, we see ourselves as equal partners, not as clients or supplicants.

Of the many lessons learned since September 11, at least this is positive: we can have greater confidence in the strength of our society and the willingness of Canadians to live together in harmony.

- 30 -

Originally published in the Winnipeg Free Press, September 11, 2002. The public opinion research discussed in this article was conducted by the Environics Research Group for the Government of Canada (I led this research on behalf of Environics). 

Questions, questions

The famous phrase, “garbage in, garbage out,” originated in the world of computer programming and refers to the need to ensure that the program is properly and carefully coded into the machine. If you make an error in the code, the “garbage in” would result in nothing but garbage coming out when the program is run. In the world of public opinion research, this analogy applies when it comes to the wording used in survey questions. If a question is improperly worded, than the only result is “garbage out.” While it may seem easy to design survey questions, the task can prove to be far more difficult.

One of the criticisms often raised about opinion research is that questions can be designed in such a way as to elicit the result desired by the client (or the pollster). While there are some who believe that these types of questions are effective at supporting a point of view or advocating a cause, the reality is that these types of questions carry very little value when assessing the public mood. The bias is often obvious, which means that a fair and reasonable person will likely dismiss the results, even if they appear in a media story or are the focus of a media event. The money spent to collect the data from these questions is wasted from a research point of view.

It is important that the questions used in any quantitative research project, such as a telephone or Internet survey, would be seen as balanced and fair by an objective and reasonable person. Care needs to be taken not to use “loaded” or otherwise biased terms and to be sure that that the question is clear when administered over the telephone or through a computer screen. This does not mean that you must avoid provocative questions (often called “argument testing”) but it does mean that, if you are presenting an argument on one side of an issue, you should also present an argument of equal weight on the other side. This can be done as one question or as a battery of questions but an objective critic should be able to see that the question designer is presenting a balanced set of arguments.

Another consideration that needs to be taken into account when designing questions falls under a general heading of “measurement error.” This can occur when a designer sets inappropriate response categories in the question. While it would be appropriate to set ranges of “five or less” or “six or more” when inquiring about the number CDs purchased last week, these categories would not provide sensible data on the number of automobiles purchased over the same time period.

Measurement error can also be introduced when you are asking people to recall behaviours over long periods of time. People are better able to accurately recall the number of times, if any, that they used a particular government service or program over the past month than if the time period was the past five years. Again, care needs to be taken to ensure that the time periods used are appropriate to the question.   

Then there are “double-barrelled” questions. These are questions that try to cover more than one topic at a time, such as “Do you agree or disagree that the government should spend more money on military equipment and participate in the US missile defence program?” While there are some people who would agree or disagree with both actions, what about those who may want to reduce military spending while participating the missile defence program? The result of these questions is that a respondent (and the person analysing the data) is not sure which part of the question being answered. The best approach would be to split this into two separate questions and compare the responses. Sure, asking one question can be cheaper than asking two, but a “double-barrelled” question is a false economy.

Sometimes, survey participants are asked to respond to unanswerable questions. A question like “when did you stop supporting armed terror?” certainly falls into this category, but an unanswerable question usually refers to a question that is so detailed or complex that a respondent cannot provide an answer without referring to other information or, more likely, cannot be bothered to answer.

With all these concerns in mind, how does a question designer know if they have created a successful survey questionnaire? Again, the test of the objective critic or the view of the fair and reasonable person can be useful. Further, many public opinion research firms (and most Government of Canada survey research projects) subject their questionnaires to a “pre-test.” This is where the questionnaire is put to a small group of survey participants, usually 30 or so (in both languages if the questionnaire is to be used nationally). As these pre-test interviews are conducted, the survey interviewers make observations about their ability to clearly administer the questions as well as the ability of respondents to answer the questions. Respondents are more than willing to volunteer their views on questions they feel are convoluted or biased. As well, experienced interviewers can often flag questions or phrases that are difficult to administer or for respondents to understand. The comments from the pre-test are very useful to fine-tuning a questionnaire to ensure that better data is collected.

After all, “garbage in, garbage out.”

- 30 -

 

Originally published in the Hill Times