• The circumstances and needs of rural communities are different in many ways from those of urban centers.

• Communities whose economies are resource-based – of which there are many in BC – are in transition. The traditional supply of low-skilled employment opportunities is shifting as these industries are either in decline or becoming more technologically sophisticated and in need of higher-skilled workers. However, communities are in various stages of evolution with respect to denial, ownership, and action regarding the need to “reinvent themselves”.

• Every community is unique. The array of agencies and providers – and the relationships among them – is different in every community. No one approach to intervention can meet the needs of all.

• Despite this diversity, literacy is consistently seen to be bundled up with numerous other issues – and learning is consistently seen to be a fulcrum for effecting change and movement. This is true on an individual and a community level.

• Life gets breathed into the notion of “learning communities” through individual leadership, tenacity, and inclusive trustful relationships.

Program Funding: Responsibility, Sustainability, and Accountability…

• As an issue, literacy is significantly under-resourced. While numerous programs and strategies to foster literacy and learning are in place throughout the province, they are far out-stripped by need.

• Given the interrelationship between literacy and other social and economic issues – including health, corrections, income assistance, welfare, First Nations, children and families, etc. – responsibility for funding is unclear. There is a greater need for strategic, inter-agency collaboration among government departments.

• Adjustments to funding priorities and eligibility criteria are time-consuming and administratively burdensome on service providers. So also is the inconsistency with which criteria may be interpreted at different regional government offices.

• Tuition freezes, FTE limits, and other forms of cutbacks in both the former Ministries of Education and of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (now the Ministry of Advanced Education) have placed an undue burden on the traditional educational institutional providers of literacy services. Moreover, age- and grade-level distinctions in the funding of these two Ministries make a “cradle to grave” approach to literacy and lifelong learning challenging.

• Limited, short-term, and project-based funding is a challenge for many service providers. Sustainable, long-term funding for actual delivery is what is needed.

• Issues of accountability and outcomes need to be explored– on the part of both funders and providers – so as to make them rigorous, flexible, and meaningful.