La version française de ce billet se trouve ici.

I’m writing an open access e-book on homelessness and have just released Chapter 1 titled “What causes homelessness?” The PDF version of the full chapter is available here.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. Structural causes of homelessness determine whether a community has a little homelessness or a lot of homelessness. The more we understand these, the more we can work collectively to reduce homelessness.

2. The major structural cause of homelessness is a lack of alignment between the availability of low-cost housing and incomes. This is complicated by disagreement over three things: 1) what factors are most to blame for the misalignment; 2) what precise policy levers should be used to rectify it; and 3) how such policy changes should be financed.

3. Even in a community with a great deal of affordable housing, some homelessness is still inevitable. That’s because some individuals are unable to maintain housing for any length of time, even when they’re provided with affordable housing with well-funded professional staff support.[1]

4. Other structural causes include systemic racism, colonialism, homophobia, and transphobia. These important factors will be discussed in more detail in future chapters of this e-book.   Similarly, factors unique to homelessness amongst women, youth and other groups merit their own distinct discussions.

5. Individual-level risk factors make some individuals more vulnerable to homelessness than others. If officials understand these, they can: a) target prevention programs specifically at such individuals; and b) design programs uniquely tailored to assist them after they become homeless.

6. One recent study summarizes major research findings on individual-risk factors in high-income countries. The study, available here, finds the following characteristics to be especially prevalent among persons experiencing homelessness: a history in foster care; having previously attempted suicide; a history of running away; and a history of criminal behaviour.

7. Discussion about individual-level risk factors can be challenging. That’s because there can be intense disagreement over how many limited resources to target to each higher-risk group (or even whether to target at all) and which order of government should finance the needed interventions.

8. Persons with such risk factors should not be blamed for having them. Children do not choose to be in foster care; rather, they are there for reasons beyond their own control. And in many cases, a lack of housing affordability itself is a reason for some of these risk factors. Similarly, poverty may influence mental health, which could in turn bring on a suicide attempt.

9. Systems failures refer to poorly-designed or poorly-implemented publicly-funded systems that exacerbate homelessness. Examples include correctional facilities discharging persons into homelessness with insufficient pre-planning, and child welfare systems that allow youth to ‘age out’ too early or with inadequate supports.

10. Some causal factors are hard to quantify. For example, it’s not easy for researchers to measure ‘systems failures’ in a statistical model. The same can be said for systemic racism, colonialism, homophobia, and transphobia.

In sum. This is a summary of Chapter 1 of a sole-authored, open access interdisciplinary textbook intended to provide an introduction to homelessness for students, service providers, researchers and advocates. All material for this book is available free of charge here. Newly-completed chapters will be uploaded throughout the year.

I wish to thank Sylvia Regnier, Vincent St-Martin and Alex Tétreault for assistance with this blog post.

[1] This was one of the findings of the At Home/Chez Soi Study, the largest randomized controlled study in Canadian history.

An English-language version of this blog post is available here.

J’écris un livre numérique à libre accès portant sur l’itinérance et je viens de lancer le premier chapitre, intitulé « Qu’est-ce qui cause l’itinérance ? » La version PDF du chapitre intégral est disponible ici (en anglais seulement).

En voici 10 faits saillants.

1. Les causes structurelles de l’itinérance déterminent si une communauté a peu ou beaucoup d’itinérance. Le mieux que nous comprenons ces causes, le plus que nous pouvons travailler collectivement afin de réduire l’itinérance.

2. La majeure cause structurelle de l’itinérance est un manque d’alignement entre la disponibilité de logements abordables et le revenu. Ce fait est compliqué par des désaccords sur trois choses : 1) quels facteurs sont davantage responsables pour ce manque d’alignement; 2) sur quels leviers politiques devrait-on appuyer pour le rectifier; et 3) comment devrait-on financer ces changements de politiques.

3. Même dans une communauté ayant amplement de logements abordables, un certain taux d’itinérance est inévitable. C’est parce que certaines personnes sont incapables de maintenir un logement pour une période, même si on leur fournit un logement abordable avec du personnel de soutien.[1]

4. D’autres causes structurelles sont le racisme systémique, le colonialisme, l’homophobie et la transphobie. Ces facteurs importants seront abordés plus en détail dans d’autres chapitres de ce livre. En ce même sens, les facteurs uniques à l’itinérance parmi les femmes, les jeunes et d’autres groupes méritent leurs propres discussions.

5. Des facteurs de risque individuels font en sorte que certaines personnes sont plus susceptibles à l’itinérance que d’autres. Si les responsables réussissent à les comprendre, iels peuvent : a) cibler les personnes concernées avec des programmes de prévention spécifiques; et b) mettre sur pied des programmes qui sont façonnés spécifiquement pour les appuyer lorsqu’elles se retrouvent en situation d’itinérance.

6. Une étude récente résume des résultats de recherche majeurs sur les facteurs de risque individuels dans des pays à revenu élevé. L’étude, disponible ici (en anglais seulement), démontre que les caractéristiques suivantes sont plus présentes chez les personnes ayant vécu l’itinérance : un historique de placements en famille d’accueil; un historique de tentatives de suicide; un historique de fugues; et un historique de comportements criminels.

7. La discussion entourant les facteurs de risque individuels peut être difficile. C’est parce qu’il peut y avoir des désaccords intenses entourant l’utilisation des ressources limitées afin de cibler chaque groupe à risque élevé (ou même de les cibler du tout) et quel pallier du gouvernement devrait financer les interventions nécessaires.

8. On ne devrait pas mettre en cause les personnes ayant ces facteurs de risque parce qu’elles vivent avec ceux-ci. Les enfants ne choisissent pas d’aller en famille d’accueil; ils s’y retrouvent plutôt par des moyens hors de leur contrôle. Et dans plusieurs cas, une pénurie de logements abordables est elle-même un facteur duquel découlent les autres facteurs de risque. De même, la pauvreté peut avoir une incidence sur la santé mentale, qui pourrait ensuite entraîner une tentative de suicide.

9. Les défaillances des systèmes font référence aux systèmes financés publiquement mal conçus ou mal appliqués qui exacerbent l’itinérance. Quelques exemples sont les établissements correctionnels qui déchargent sans planification suffisante les personnes dans des situations d’itinérance et les systèmes de protection des enfants qui permettent aux jeunes d’atteindre leur majorité trop tôt ou avec des supports inadéquats.

10. Quelques facteurs sont difficiles à quantifier. Par exemple, ce n’est pas facile pour un.e chercheur.se de mesurer une défaillance de système dans un modèle statistique. On peut dire de même pour le racisme systémique, le colonialisme, l’homophobie et la transphobie.

En somme. Ceci est un sommaire du premier chapitre d’un manuel à auteur unique, interdisciplinaire et à libre accès ayant comme but d’offrir une introduction à l’itinérance pour des étudiant.e.s, des fournisseurs.euses de services, des chercheurs.ses et des intervenant.e.s. Toute la matière du manuel est disponible gratuitement ici. Les chapitres seront téléversés au courant de l’année à mesure que je les complète.

Je souhaite remercier Sylvia Regnier, Vincent St-Martin et Alex Tétreault pour leur appui avec ce billet.

[1] C’est une des conclusions de l’étude At Home/Chez Soi Study, la plus grande étude prospective randomisée et contrôlée de l’histoire canadienne.

La version française de ce billet se trouve ici.

I recently contributed an essay to a paper series produced by the University of Toronto’s Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance (the full essay can be downloaded here). The focus of my own essay is the role Canadian municipalities play in addressing homelessness.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. Land-use planning is one way in which municipalities can help address homelessness. Municipal governments decide which areas of their municipality can be zoned for what purposes, how the public is to be engaged in considering projects, how quickly approvals can occur, and which proposals to approve. This is relevant to the creation of emergency shelters, day-time facilities for persons experiencing homelessness, and various types of housing (including supportive housing).

2. Another role relates to bylaw creation and enforcement. Municipal governments enact and enforce bylaws that are relevant to panhandling and outdoor sleeping. The nature of these laws depends on enabling legislation passed by provincial/territorial governments. Bylaws also have important implications for outdoor sleeping, including encampment management.

3. Municipalities can play important roles with respect to the coordination of local homelessness responses. Homelessness takes on unique forms in different municipalities. Factors that vary across municipalities include: the amount of revenue collected through taxes and other revenue sources; availability of low-cost housing; labour market conditions; migration; weather; and the composition of each municipality’s Indigenous population. Staff working for municipalities have a ‘municipal wide’ perspective, with capacity to understand those factors that are unique to their own municipality.

4. Municipal officials can play an important convening role. Many municipal officials have longstanding relationships with leaders in the local homeless-serving sector. This helps municipal officials bring together service providers to discuss matters of common concern. Municipalities can also use their political clout to bring together federal, provincial and territorial officials, as well as the corporate sector.

5. One example of a municipal government playing a convening role is apparent with the City of Ottawa. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Ottawa Housing Services convened a multi-departmental Unsheltered Task Force to develop a coordinated response to a rise in outdoor sleeping. This group included representation from various city departments, Ottawa Police, local outreach service providers, the National Capital Commission, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, VIA Rail Police Service, the Coalition of Business Improvement Areas and Crime Prevention Ottawa (you can read more about this here).

6. Most municipalities own a large number of facilities (e.g., community centres and arenas). Such facilities typically include washrooms, large floor space and sometimes shower facilities. Municipal officials therefore have the option of designating the use of such buildings for persons experiencing homelessness. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary use of such facilities for persons experiencing homelessness was prominent in several Canadian municipalities (you can read more about that here).

7. Most municipalities own land that can be used to address homelessness. Such land can be used for emergency facilities or supportive housing. It can also be sold to non-profit entities at a discount. Several Canadian municipalities have provided land at a steep discount to non-profits developing housing under the Rapid Housing Initiative, a federal funding initiative that began in 2020. Unlike the temporary provision of facilities (discussed above), the sale or donation of land can create long-term space for persons experiencing homelessness.

8. Municipal governments (and their related service boards) often exercise considerable oversight of public services. This includes oversight over local police forces, fire departments, libraries, public transit, and parks. Municipalities often fund such services either entirely or in part. In addition, they typically have membership on each service’s governing council (e.g., Toronto Police Services Board). Many such services have direct relevance to the local homelessness sector.

9. Municipal governments can leverage their large staffing pools for homelessness. Some of these personnel focus on homelessness in their day to day (e.g., outreach staff employed directly by the City of Toronto) while others practise in the human services sector. Many such staff can be redeployed in the event of a homelessness crisis.

10. Some mayors and city councillors choose to be homelessness champions. During the 1980s and 1990s, such leadership came from Jack Layton (who was a Toronto City Councillor before making the move to federal politics in 2003). More recently, homelessness has benefitted from advocacy from Gregor Robertson (Mayor of Vancouver from 2008 until 2018) and Don Iveson (Mayor of Edmonton from 2013 until 2021).

In sum. Municipalities have many levers at their disposal to address homelessness. They can partner with other orders of government, non-profit agencies, persons with lived experience, and the private sector. Some municipalities have chosen to be more active than others.

I wish to thank Sylvia Regnier, Vincent St-Martin and Alex Tétreault for assistance with this blog post.

An English-language version of this blog post is available here.

J’ai récemment fourni un essai à une série produite par la Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance de l’Université de Toronto (l’essai en son entier peut être téléchargé ici). L’accent de mon propre texte est sur le rôle des municipalités canadiennes en matière d’itinérance.

En voici 10 faits saillants.

1. L’aménagement du territoire est une des façons que les municipalités peuvent aider à combattre l’itinérance. Les gouvernements municipaux décident du zonage des différentes régions de la municipalité en fonction de certaines fins, de comment le public est impliqué lorsqu’on considère des projets, de la rapidité avec laquelle on approuve certains projets et de quels projets sont approuvés. Ceci est pertinent lorsque vient le temps de créer des refuges d’urgence, des centres de jour pour des personnes vivant en situation d’itinérance et différents types de logement (y compris le logement supervisé).

2. Un autre rôle touche à la création et à l’exécution de règlements municipaux. Les gouvernements municipaux adoptent et exécutent des règlements sur la mendicité et le sommeil en plein air. La nature de ces règlements découle de lois habilitantes adoptées par les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux. Les règlements municipaux ont également des implications importantes pour le sommeil en extérieur, y compris pour la gestion des campements.

3. Les municipalités peuvent jouer un rôle important dans la coordination des initiatives locales en matière d’itinérance. L’itinérance prend des formes uniques dans différentes municipalités. Parmi les facteurs qui varient d’une municipalité à une autre, on compte : le montant de revenu généré par les impôts et d’autres sources de revenus ; la disponibilité du logement abordable ; les conditions du marché du travail ; la migration ; la température ; et la composition de la population Autochtone de chaque municipalité. Les fonctionnaires travaillant au sein de ces municipalités ont une perspective sur l’ensemble des réalités de leur ville et peuvent comprendre les facteurs qui lui sont uniques.

4. Les fonctionnaires municipaux.ales peuvent jouer un rôle important de rassembleur. Plusieurs parmi eux.elles ont des relations de longue durée avec les leaders du secteur local de service à la population itinérante. Ceci les aide à rassembler différents fournisseurs de service pour discuter d’enjeux communs. Les municipalités peuvent également utiliser leur poids politique afin de réunir des acteurs des secteurs fédéral, provincial et territorial, en plus de ceux du milieu des affaires.

5. La Ville d’Ottawa est un exemple d’une municipalité jouant un rôle rassembleur. Durant la pandémie de la COVID-19, les services de logement d’Ottawa a convoqué un groupe de travail sur l’itinérance réunissant plusieurs de ses départements afin de coordonner sa réponse à une augmentation du taux de sommeil en extérieur. Ce groupe comptait des représentant.e.s de nombreux départements municipaux, le Service de police d’Ottawa, les fournisseurs de services communautaires locaux, la Commission de la capitale nationale, le ministère des Transports de l’Ontario, le Service de police de VIA Rail Canada, la Coalition des Zones d’amélioration commerciale d’Ottawa et Prévention du crime Ottawa (vous pouvez en apprendre davantage ici).

6. La majorité des municipalités possèdent un grand nombre d’installations (p. ex. des centres communautaires et des arènes). Ces installations contiennent habituellement des salles de toilette, une grande superficie et parfois des douches. Les fonctionnaires .ales ont donc l’option de désigner ces espaces pour utilisation par des personnes vivant en situation d’itinérance. Pendant la pandémie de la COVID-19, l’utilisation temporaire désignée de telles installations par des personnes vivant en situation d’itinérance se faisait dans plusieurs municipalités canadiennes (vous pouvez en apprendre davantage ici).

7. La majorité des municipalités appartiennent des terrains qui pourraient être utilisés pour répondre à l’itinérance. De telles terres pourraient servir à des installations d’urgence ou du logement supervisé. Elles pourraient aussi être vendues au rabais à des organismes sans but lucratif. Quelques municipalités canadiennes ont vendu des terrains au rabais considérables à des OSBL développant du logement abordable sous l’Initiative pour la création rapide de logements, une initiative de financement fédérale qui a commencé en 2020. En contraste à l’utilisation temporaire des installations (discuté ci-haut), la vente ou l’octroi de terrain peut créer des solutions à long terme pour héberger des personnes vivant en situation d’itinérance.

8. Les gouvernements municipaux (et leurs commissions de service connexes) exercent souvent une surveillance considérable sur les services publics. Ceci inclut la surveillance des services de police locaux, les services d’incendie, les bibliothèques, le transport en commun et les parcs. Les municipalités souvent financent ces services soit au complet ou en partie. De plus, le gouvernement est souvent représenté au sein du conseil d’administration de chaque service (p. ex. la Commission de services policiers de Toronto). Plusieurs de ces services sont pertinents pour le secteur local des services aux personnes vivant en situation d’itinérance.

9. Les gouvernements municipaux peuvent mettre à profit leurs grands bassins de dotation collective pour l’itinérance. Le travail quotidien de plusieurs est consacré à l’itinérance (p. ex. le personnel de première ligne employé directement par la Ville de Toronto) tandis que d’autres travaillent dans le secteur des services sociaux. Plusieurs de ces personnes peuvent être redéployées dans le cas d’une crise liée à l’itinérance.

10. Certain.e.s maire.sse.s et conseiller.ères minucipaux.ales font de l’itinérance leur cause. Pendant les 1980s et 1990s, du tel leadership venait de Jack Layton (qui était un conseiller municipal torontois avant son saut en politique fédérale en 2003). Plus récemment, l’itinérance a pu bénéficier des plaidoyers de Gregor Robertson (maire de Vancouver de 2008 à 2018) et de Don Iveson (maire d’Edmonton de 2013 à 2021).

En somme. Les municipalités ont plusieurs leviers à leur disposition pour adresser l’itinérance. Elles peuvent établir des partenariats avec d’autres niveaux de gouvernement, des agences sans but lucratif, des personnes ayant vécu en situation d’itinérance et le secteur privé. Certaines municipalités ont choisi d’être plus actives que d’autres.

Je souhaite remercier Sylvia Regnier, Vincent St-Martin et Alex Tétreault pour leur appui avec ce billet.

La version française de ce éditorial se trouve ici.

Canada is viewed as one of the world’s most prosperous countries. It is a member of the G7 and consistently ranked near the top of the Human Development Index. But Canada’s experience with homelessness demonstrates that a rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats.

One reason for homelessness in Canada is that, relative to other wealthy countries, the so-called Great White North has a tight-fisted social welfare system. In fact, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, Canada’s level of public social spending is the lowest among all G7 countries.¹

Likewise, the degree to which Canadian governments invest in housing for low-income persons is modest in relation to other wealthy countries. Just 3.5% of Canada’s total housing stock is non-market social housing, less than half the average for member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.²

It does not help that for every new affordable rental unit added to Canada’s housing stock, 15 are lost through ‘erosion of stock.’³There are three main reasons for this: 1) existing private sector rental housing at the low end of the market is not being preserved by public or non-profit entities (in many cases, such units are scooped up by real estate investment trusts with the objective of raising rents); 2) very few non-market or deeply-subsidized market rental units are being created; and 3) the private sector is not building as many new rental units as it once did.

With respect to homelessness, the funding picture is dire. One would hope that Canada’s federal government would lead on this matter and encourage provincial, territorial and municipal governments to follow. However, for every $13 invested by other sources (mostly provincial and municipal governments), only $1 is invested on homelessness by Canada’s federal government.⁴

Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples (i.e., First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples) has been horrific, and has caused Indigenous peoples to suffer from homelessness at disproportionately high rates. Across Canada, Indigenous men are 10 times more likely to use an emergency shelter than non-Indigenous men, while Indigenous women are 15 times more likely to use an emergency shelter than non-Indigenous women.⁵ Many factors account for this, including: assimilation policies; the adoption out of many Indigenous children aimed at the destruction of Indigenous culture and language; intergenerational trauma produced by Canada’s residential school system; ongoing racism; and the underfunding of Indigenous social welfare both in First Nation communities and in urban settings.

Making matters worse, during the COVID-19 pandemic, drug-related deaths have increased considerably in Canada, especially among persons experiencing homelessness.⁶ Despite these challenges, not everything has been bleak regarding homelessness in Canada.

In 2014, results of the At Home/Chez Soi study were released. The study followed more than 2,000 participants in five Canadian cities. The most ambitious randomized controlled trial in Canadian history, this was funded entirely by the Government of Canada. With participants interviewed every three months over a two-year period, the study confirmed what many people already knew: providing persons experiencing homelessness with affordable housing and professional staff support (i.e., Housing First) can be effective at ending a person’s experience of homelessness. The study also found that Housing First is associated with important cost offsets, especially to the health and justice sectors. Advocates, researchers and practitioners now had solid evidence on the effectiveness of Housing First.

In 2015, Justin Trudeau became Canadian Prime Minister and his government began to signal a new era for federal involvement in both housing and homelessness. This included a National Housing Strategy, unveiled in November 2017, and more recently funding enhancements related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A ‘bright light’ under Trudeau has been the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI). Launched in October 2020, it provides important federal funding for non-profit housing including for the development of modular housing (i.e., units built quickly in a factory), the acquisition of land, and the conversion of existing buildings into low-cost housing. While many RHI-funded projects are waiting for operating funding from their respective provincial governments, the RHI is already viewed as being Canada’s most promising federal housing initiative to target chronic (i.e., long term) homelessness.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created serious challenges due to outbreaks at emergency facilities and an escalation in deaths among those experiencing homelessness. But there have been positive developments as well. For example, public officials have increased physical distancing by reconfiguring existing shelter spaces, acquiring new temporary spaces, and paying for hotel rooms.

The Trudeau government has made substantial new homelessness investments during the pandemic. In addition to RHI, it announced important, time-limited funding enhancements to Reaching Home, Canada’s national funding vehicle for homelessness.

Important partnerships have also emerged between homelessness officials and health officials during the pandemic. For example, Toronto’s emergency facilities are seeing more primary health care services (i.e., family physicians and nurses) provided on site. Also, during the pandemic, some Toronto shelters have seen pharmacists start to keep regular hours on site. Likewise, some of Calgary’s shelters have seen a substantial increase in on-site licensed practical nurses and paramedics.

Important harm reduction innovations have also occurred in Canada during the pandemic. For example, in Ottawa, supervised consumption services and a safe supply of cannabis are both offered at an isolation site for persons experiencing homelessness. Public officials in Yellowknife have distributed alcohol at the city’s isolation centre for persons experiencing homelessness.

Challenges remain in the sector, including: a rise in visible outdoor sleeping during the pandemic (as well as intense debate over how to address this in the short term); the worsening of the overdose crisis; a lack of cooperation from correctional facilities (e.g., which frequently discharge inmates directly into homelessness); and new homelessness caused by economic factors.

In short, inadequate levels of public social investment have helped manufacture homelessness in one of the world’s most affluent countries. But a recent renewed interest in affordable housing and homelessness by the Government of Canada, as well as local pandemic-related innovations, may help Canada pivot onto a better path. Against this backdrop, this Special Edition of the International Journal on Homelessness focuses exclusively on Canada.

Nick Falvo, PhD
Regional-Editor-in-Chief, North America

This guest editorial originally appeared here. It has been re-posted with permission.

¹ OECD. Social spending. Data retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/

² OECD. Public policies towards affordable housing. Data retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/

³ Pomeroy, S. (2020, May). Why Canada needs a non-market rental acquisition strategy. Retrieved from https://www.focus-consult.com/

⁴ Employment and Social Development Canada. (2018). Final report on the Evaluation of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, May 11, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/

⁵ Falvo, N. (2019, October 3). The use of homeless shelters by Indigenous peoples in Canada [blog post]. Retrieved from https://nickfalvo.ca/

⁶ Milaney, K., Passi, J., Zaretsky, L., Liu, T., O’Gorman, C. M., Hill, L., & Dutton, D. (2021). Drug use, homelessness and health: responding to the opioid overdose crisis with housing and harm reduction services. Harm Reduction Journal, 18(1), 1-10.