A Comparative Analysis

Strengthening Ties – Strengthening Communities

An Aboriginal Strategy on HIV/AIDS in Canada for First Nations, Inuit and Métis People – CAAN July 2003 and Leading Together, Canada Takes Action on HIV/AIDS 2005-2010

and

Leading Together
Canada Takes Action on HIV/AIDS 2005-2010

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

4.0 Conclusions

1. Because the purpose of this document is to examine the degree to which the Federal Initiative on HIV/AIDS and the blueprint for action, Leading Together are aligned with Strengthening Ties – Strengthening Communities, the ASHAC, one can conclude from an analysis of the Strategies that the documents are closely aligned in all respects. While there are differences in the way strategies and objectives are defined, the ASHAC closely mirrors the objectives of both federal documents.

2. It is important to note that the ASHAC was not intended to be prescriptive in terms of the Aboriginal community but rather a guide to strategic thinking and planning for decision makers and service providers. As a result the language may not be as strong as the language used in Leading Together. In addition, no specific target dates or milestones are articulated in the ASHAC and this is largely due to the diversity within the Aboriginal population and the fact that most Aboriginal communities started to address HIV/AIDS later than others. Leading Together envisions seeing an end in sight to the epidemic by 2010 but this may be unrealistic for the Aboriginal community who continue to play “catch up” in terms of sustained funding, access to sensitive and skilled human resources and the lack of comprehensive and accurate data to track the epidemic.

3. Another important difference between the federal response to HIV/AIDS and that of the ASHAC are the socio-economic disparities felt by the Aboriginal community compared to the rest of Canada. Leading Together acknowledges the need to address the social determinants of health under Strategy #9, Shared Responsibility but when the “Aboriginal reality” is considered the work needed is considerable and will take policy and legislative change to address the jurisdictional issues that continue to place barriers between Aboriginal people and well-being. The 2010 Vision becomes more unrealistic when these issues are considered.

4. Another difference between the Aboriginal response and that of Leading Together and the FI is the “family-centered” approach which is the basis for the ASHAC. In other words, the importance placed on the individual living with HIV/AIDS is equal to that placed on those who are affected by HIV/AIDS. The whole family (broadly defined) is impacted by the disease and needs healing just as the whole family suffered from residential school abuses experienced by one or two family members. This continues over generations. The loss of one results in weakening of the family and thus, the community.

5. Strengthening Ties – Strengthening Communities identifies a strategy to address Aboriginal groups with special needs. The document also provides narrative on Diverse Groups, Many Needs, however given the fact that it is now known that there are “mini-epidemics” within the Aboriginal community this section of ASHAC deserves to be revisited. In 2003 when the ASHAC was released, HIV/AIDS crises within certain segments of the Aboriginal population were suspected but not well documented. It is well known now that heterosexual Aboriginal women and especially those who inject drugs are most at risk of becoming infected. Leading Together opens the door for a more focused approach to Aboriginal populations at risk.

6. The FI speaks to Global Engagement as one of the Areas of Action. The ASHAC does not address global engagement even though more and more the world indigenous community is looking to Aboriginal AIDS Service Organizations (AASOs) and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) to assist them with planning and implementing HIV/AIDS related programs and services in their countries. Sharing indigenous knowledge around the world should be more clearly and strategically thought out in the ASHAC and articulated in a renewed ASHAC. (CAAN formed an International Indigenous HIV/AIDS Secretariat after the hugely successful Indigenous Satellite at IAC 2006. This is an example of how current efforts are naturally filling areas not prominently stated in the ASHAC and is also involved in a 5-year research collaboration with Australia and New Zealand).

7. One of the critical areas that all Strategic Plans agree on is the need for long- term sustained responses to HIV/AIDS. The piece-meal and time limited approach to funding HIV/AIDS has not facilitated the comprehensive planning and implementation of needed programs and services in the Aboriginal community. The ASHAC should be renewed with long-term, sustained funding in mind. Answers to the Question: ‘What could be achieved if Aboriginal ASOs were not always looking for funding to keep their doors open?’ should be articulated in a strategic and realistic manner. Perhaps then, targets and milestones could be set.

8. Another area where the Federal Initiative and the ASHAC agree is the need to integrate the efforts of all of the key stakeholders. HIV/AIDS cannot be isolated from contributing factors such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment and mental health issues. To address these issues, which plague the Aboriginal community, a long term vision is required along with the establishment and maintenance of meaningful partnerships. This will not happen over night and therefore, the Aboriginal population will not realistically meet the 2010 target. Concern has been expressed by Aboriginal groups including CAAN that policy and decision makers may penalize the Aboriginal AIDS movement for failing to meet the targets set for the mainstream Canadian population. A renewed ASHAC ought to be developed that attempts to set out realistic measures and targets for the Aboriginal population and what is needed to meet. A renewed ASHAC should also provide an analysis of how funding opportunities under the new Federal Initiative may or may not support the unique and substantial issues within the Aboriginal population.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next