Isolation, Physical Distancing and Next Steps Regarding Homelessness: A Scan of 12 Canadian Cities

by admin | Dec 7, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Calgary, Cities, Corrections, Ending Homelessness, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Indigenous peoples, municipalities, Social Policy, Toronto

Isolation, Physical Distancing and Next Steps Regarding Homelessness: A Scan of 12 Canadian Cities

La version française de ce billet se trouve ici.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, officials in Canada’s major cities have partnered with health officials and others to create more physical distancing for persons experiencing homelessness. In a recent report (available here) I provide an overview of what this has looked like in the following cities: Toronto; Montreal; Vancouver; Calgary; Edmonton; Ottawa; Winnipeg; Quebec City; Hamilton; Regina; Saskatoon; and St. John’s.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. The report was commissioned by the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF).
As the System Planner for Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care, CHF was interested in scanning what homelessness officials in other cities were doing during this unprecedented time. While the report was initially intended for internal use, CHF decided to release it publicly so that homelessness officials, researchers and advocates in other cities could learn more about the national picture.

2. Homelessness officials in Canada’s major cities have created more physical distancing through a variety of measures.
They have created more physical distancing at existing shelters, opened new facilities, and created space for both isolation and quarantine. Toronto and Vancouver are noteworthy in that both cities have secured large numbers of hotel rooms.

3. Officials in most of Canada’s large cities have continued to move persons directly from emergency shelters into permanent housing.
They have also developed innovations. For example, several cities have developed new models of moving people from homelessness into permanent housing. The report discusses these in detail.

4. Networks of cooperation have generally improved during this crisis; this is especially true with health officials.
In several cases, local health officials were perceived to have not been very engaged in homelessness prior to the pandemic, but improved their approach during the pandemic. It is hoped that these improved forms of collaboration will continue.

5. Many homelessness officials have expressed frustration with the lack of cooperation from the corrections sector.
The report finds officials in correctional facilities commonly discharge inmates without housing plans and without reaching out to homelessness officials to coordinate a transition into emergency shelter (however, Quebec City is an important exception here).

6. Across Canada, a surprisingly large number of newly-created spaces for persons experiencing homelessness are staying open (or re-locating).
Put differently, the new physical distancing arrangements put in place during the pandemic appear to be having a remarkable amount of staying power. The state of this ‘new normal’ will vary by city, however. For example, most emergency shelters in Calgary and Edmonton do not expect to be able to comply with a two-metre requirement.

7. Challenges remain in the sector.
While the current situation varies across Canada, the following challenges remain in the sector as a whole: outdoor sleeping; shared bathrooms and other common areas (as well as the additional costs of cleaning associated with these shared spaces); and new homelessness created by the economic downturn.[1]

8. Canada’s federal government has made important new funding announcements since the start of the pandemic.
The Government of Canada announced $157.5 million in one-time funding for Reaching Home in March 2020 (Reaching Home is the federal government’s main funding vehicle for homelessness). Further, in September 2020, the Government of Canada announced an additional $236.7 million for Reaching Home, along with $1 billion for modular housing, the acquisition of land, and the conversion of existing buildings into affordable housing.

9. However, all of these funding enhancements are temporary.
There has been no enhancement to permanent federal homelessness funding announced since the start of the pandemic. An enhancement to permanent funding could: support local officials in maintaining the improved physical distancing; assist in transitioning more people from both emergency shelters and outdoor encampments into permanent housing; and help pay for increased cleaning costs and staffing needs associated with the ‘new normal’ discussed above.

10. The report recommends the enhancement of the Canada Housing Benefit (CHB).
Central to the National Housing Strategy is the recent launch of the CHB, providing financial assistance to help low-income households afford their rent. It is expected that half of this money will come from the federal government, and the other half from provinces and territories. The CHB was supposed to launch nationally on 1 April 2020; however, just five provinces have formally agreed to terms on the new benefit. The federal government could increase the value of this benefit, which could encourage provinces and territories to sign on. For example, the federal government might offer 2/3 or 3/4 cost-sharing.

In sum: Homelessness officials across Canada have worked hard to improve physical distancing during the pandemic. Permanent increases in federal funding would help them both maintain this ‘new normal’ and find more permanent, affordable housing for persons experiencing homelessness.

[1] I have recently written another report about new homelessness created by the downturn. That report, commissioned by Employment and Social Development Canada, will be released in December 2020.

I wish to thank Susan Falvo and Vincent St-Martin for assistance with this blog post.

Lifting singles out of poverty in Canada

by admin | Dec 2, 2020 | Canada, Demographics, Determinants of Homelessness, Employment, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Housing, Income, Income Distribution, Income Inequality, Income Support, Labour Market, Policy, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Social Assistance, Social Policy, Unemployment

Lifting singles out of poverty in Canada

I’ve written a report for the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy making the case for higher social assistance benefit levels for employable single adults without dependants. The link to the report is here.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. In Canada, most employable adult singles without dependants who receive social assistance get less than $10,000/yr. in benefits. This amount of money is ridiculously low (keeping in mind that this figure includes all forms of tax credits received by the recipient). A person with this income must use it to pay for housing, food, transportation and other basic necessities (to see benefit levels in every province and territory, check out Welfare in Canada).

2. In relation to Canada’s official poverty line, social assistance benefit levels for this household group are dismal. ‘Welfare income’—which includes social assistance benefit levels, child benefits and all forms of tax credits—brings couples with two children to between 75% and 95% of the federally-defined poverty line, depending on the province (see figure 1 below). However, welfare income for employable singles without dependants typically comes to about 50% of the poverty line for this particular household type.

3. In most provinces and territories, $10,000 is less than half of what a minimum wage earner would earn in one year working full-time hours. Historically, policy-makers and economists have often been nervous about setting social assistance benefit levels high enough to make paid work unattractive. However, that shouldn’t be a major concern right now in most parts of Canada, as the differential between welfare incomes and minimum wage rates is currently quite substantial.

4. Increases to social assistance benefit levels could help Canada’s federal government achieve its poverty reduction targets. In Canada, we say a household is in ‘deep income poverty’ if it makes less than 75% of the official poverty line. Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, unveiled in October 2018, seeks to track progress on this indicator. Increases in social assistance benefit levels would be a very easy way for progress to be made in this respect.

5. Doing so could also help provincial and territorial governments achieve their poverty reduction targets. All provinces and territories now have their own poverty reduction strategies; many of these strategies include targets pertaining to reducing the number of people under the poverty line (New Brunswick’s strategy actually seeks to reduce deep income poverty by 50%). Increasing social assistance benefit levels would help all provinces and territories achieve their targets.

6. More than half of people in Canada who are in ‘deep income poverty’ are singles. Not only do singles receive very low social assistance benefit levels relative to other household types, but they also do not realize many of the economies of scale that come with cohabitating (e.g., shared rent, shared utility costs, etc.). This reality makes this household group all the more worthy of policy attention.

7. Higher social assistance benefit levels can result in less homelessness. It’s intuitive for many of us that higher social assistance benefit levels would both reduce the likelihood of a person losing their housing and also increase the likelihood of a person experiencing homelessness to obtain rental housing on the private market. Research by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins confirms this, estimating that a $1,500/yr. increase in social assistance benefits for an employable single without dependants would (in 2011) reduce the use of shelter beds on any given night by nearly 20%.

8. Higher benefit levels can improve food security. A recent study in British Columbia confirms this, finding that overall rates of food security improved among social assistance recipients after a one-time increase in social assistance benefit levels in that province.

9. Less homelessness and improved food security would almost certainly result in public cost savings. The costs of homelessness to the taxpayer are well documented, as are the healthcare costs associated with food insecurity. Put differently, increasing public expenditure on social assistance would likely result in public savings elsewhere.

10. While higher benefit levels would likely lead to more takeup, this increased takeup would be modest. That is precisely the finding of a recent Canadian study that I co-authored with Ali Jadidzadeh. We found that a 10% increase in the real value of social assistance benefit levels for this same household group would likely result in an increase in caseloads of less than 5%.

In sum. When it comes to social assistance across Canada, employable single adults without dependants are a very neglected subgroup. Increasing their benefit levels would likely result in less poverty, improved food security and less homelessness.

I wish to thank Susan Falvo, Lynn McIntyre, Vincent St-Martin and Val Tarasuk for assistance with this blog post.

Social assistance: Do higher benefit levels lead to higher caseloads?

by admin | Oct 10, 2020 | British Columbia, Canada, Data Sharing, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Income, Income Distribution, Income Inequality, Income Support, Labour Market, Policy, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Research and Data, Social Assistance, Social Policy

Social assistance: Do higher benefit levels lead to higher caseloads?

I’ve recently co-authored a journal article [1] with Ali Jadidzadeh that asks the question: Do higher social assistance benefit levels lead to greater take-up? The short answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t increase benefit levels.

Here are 11 things to know about the study.

1. The study looks only at employable adult singles without dependants. Other studies asking the same question have looked at other household groups; but ours focuses on single adults without dependants in part because this group receives very little public policy attention, and in part because they comprise most persons experiencing absolute homelessness in Canada.

2. While the study measures the impact of a variety of independent variables on caseloads, the one we were most interested in was benefit levels. Other independent variables considered in the study are: the official unemployment rate; ‘working poor’ income (e.g., third and fourth decile income); population variation over time; and social assistance rule changes.

3. The study uses three alternative models to estimate the impact of these variables. Essentially, different measurement techniques have their strengths and weaknesses, so it’s common for statistical work like this to use a variety of approaches so that the reader can compare findings.

4. The first model finds an important relationship between benefit levels and caseload growth. Specifically, it finds that a 1% increase in the real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) value of benefit levels results in a 0.372% increase in caseloads. This model uses pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), an approach that doesn’t account for provincial fixed effects (i.e., characteristics of provinces that don’t vary over time). These results should therefore be taken less seriously than the other two models.

5. The second model finds a rather modest relationship between increases in benefit levels and caseload growth. Specifically, it finds that a 1% increase in the real value of benefit levels results in just a 0.157% increase in caseloads. This approach uses fixed effects OLS, meaning it accounts for unobservable provincial characteristics.

6. The third model finds the relationship to be a bit stronger. This approach uses Panel Fully Modified OLS and finds a 1% increase in the real value of benefit levels to result in a 0.457% increase in caseloads. This approach is considered good when researchers want to study long-run relationships between continuous (i.e., quantifiable) variables. It’s a relatively new approach that has gained currency in the past five years.

7. There’s an important takeaway from this. Specifically, a 10% increase in the real value of social assistance benefit levels would likely result in caseload growth for this group of between 1.57% and 4.57%. Many observers would consider this to be modest caseload growth.

8. Rule changes are important, but they are difficult to measure. In the mid-1990s, several large provinces introduced strict eligibility criteria (including the introduction of work-for-welfare provisions). The study finds their impact in reducing caseloads to be statistically significant. However, in general, it is very challenging for statistical analysis to measure the impact of rule changes on caseloads.

9. The unemployment rate has a modest impact on caseloads. In the first model, a one percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate is found to be associated with a 7.3% drop in caseloads (in the second model, it’s associated with a 5.8% drop). One implication from this is that provincial and territorial officials should not expect job creation alone to wipe out social assistance caseloads for employable singles.

10. The study cautions policymakers against focusing too much on the sizes of caseloads. In other words, when deciding on the appropriate levels of benefits, the study encourages policymakers to consider positive outcomes associated with higher benefit levels.

11. Higher social assistance benefit levels can help accomplish other policy objectives. As the study points out, they can reduce the percentage of Canadians living in poverty, reduce levels of food insecurity, improve health outcomes and reduce homelessness (all of which can result in savings of their own to the taxpayer). So if higher benefit levels also result in modest caseload growth, that may not be so bad.

In sum. There are many positive outcomes associated with higher social assistance benefit levels. Having said that, when policymakers decide to increase benefit levels, they should budget for some increased take-up.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: Susan Falvo, Ali Jadidzadeh, Richard Shillington and Vincent St-Martin.

[1] For a full copy of the article, please email me at falvo.nicholas@gmail.com.

Homelessness could rise with economic downturn

by admin | Sep 25, 2020 | Uncategorized

Homelessness could rise with economic downturn

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted those who are homeless. The pandemic has resulted in the closure of daytime services like drop-in centres and the closure of public spaces offering access to washroom facilities such as libraries, along with free Internet access.

But things may get even worse in light of the current recession. In order to stem the possibility of a rise in homelessness as a result of the economic downturn, senior orders of government must act boldly. They should fix problems caused by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), increase income assistance and enhance spending on homelessness prevention.

What have been the main policy responses?

In Canada’s major cities, senior homelessness officials have partnered with health officials and others to respond to the pandemic. Typically, local officials have done so by creating more physical distancing at existing shelters, opening new facilities and creating facilities for both isolation and quarantine.

The Government of Canada has provided important financial support for the homelessness sector during the crisis. Indeed, Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan, announced in March, included an additional $157.5 million in one-time funding for Reaching Home (the federal government’s major funding program for homelessness). On September 21, Ottawa announced an additional $236.7 million for Reaching Home, along with $1 billion for modular housing, the acquisition of land, and the conversion of existing buildings into affordable housing. Provincial governments have also stepped up with funding enhancements of their own.

Despite this enhanced financial support, a number of challenges remain in the sector, including the existence of shared bathrooms; harm reduction, such as safe access to illicit drugs; outdoor sleeping; a dwindling workforce at emergency shelters and drop-in centres; and an anticipated increase in homelessness resulting from the economic downturn.

What should the federal government do now?

The federal government should take a soft approach to recovering CERB overpayments from social assistance recipients, add a prevention stream to the Reaching Home program, and enhance the Canada Housing Benefit.

Offer CERB forgiveness. There is growing concern across Canada about CERB overpayments made to many low-income individuals, including to social assistance recipients -- people who are already very vulnerable to homelessness. There are anecdotal accounts of social assistance staff in some parts of Canada encouraging their clients to apply for CERB, even though they may not have been eligible. With this in mind, the federal government should consider taking a soft approach with some recipients of CERB who may not have been eligible for the benefit. Such an approach might include not trying to fully recover the value of CERB from these individuals. Even complete amnesty should be considered in some cases.

Add a Reaching Home prevention stream. Reaching Home is a federal program that funds communities across Canada to respond to absolute homelessness. It currently funds some prevention work (in addition to other initiatives). However, Employment and Social Development Canada should consider creating a new funding stream within Reaching Home with a specific focus on prevention. The focus would be short-term financial assistance to prevent persons from losing their existing housing.

Enhance the Canada Housing Benefit. Central to the Canadian government’s National Housing Strategy is the launch, in 2020, of a Canada Housing Benefit (CHB). This benefit provides financial assistance to help low-income households afford the rent, mostly in private-landlord buildings. The government estimates this will cost $4 billion over eight years. It is expected that half of this money will come from the federal government, and the other half from provinces and territories.

The CHB was supposed to launch nationally on April 1; however, at the time of this writing, just two provinces (British Columbia and Ontario) had formally agreed to terms regarding the CHB. The federal government could increase the value of this benefit, which would encourage provinces and territories to sign on. For example, the federal government might offer cost-sharing.

What should provincial and territorial governments do?

Provincial and territorial governments have crucial roles to play in preventing further homelessness. They should reinstate social assistance eligibility for recipients who became ineligible due to the CERB, and also encourage housing-focused emergency shelters.

Reverse social assistance suspensions caused by CERB. Many public officials have been unclear with social assistance recipients as to whether or not they are eligible for the CERB. Some administrators penalized social assistance recipients who received it, while others did not. Some provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador) even encouraged CERB applications and then suspended social assistance benefits from the same individuals after they received it. Such suspensions often result in the loss of health and dental benefits, in addition to the loss of social assistance cash benefits.

For people who have lost their social assistance benefits after receiving the CERB, re-applications for social assistance may take a considerable amount of time thus increasing their vulnerability to homelessness. Provincial and territorial officials should not suspend people from social assistance because they received the CERB. Anyone who has already been suspended should be immediately reinstated.

Encourage housing-focused shelters. The concept of “housing-focused shelters” is growing in Canada. It refers to operators of emergency shelters moving shelter residents into permanent housing. Such a practice is easier to carry out when rental vacancy rates are relatively high--and vacancy rates are expected to increase in light of COVID-19.

Not all shelter operators in Canada currently encourage residents to move on to housing to the same degree. Provincial and territorial governments can encourage emergency shelters to be more housing focused by changing the terms of funding agreements. For example, they can incentivize flow rather than bed occupation. (For a brief consideration of housing focused shelters, see the module titled “Innovative practices” in my Homelessness 101 workshop.)

Homelessness officials in Canada’s major cities have partnered with health officials and others to respond to COVID-19, arguably this sector’s greatest challenge since the Great Depression. However, the current recession may make matters worse and bold policy responses are needed to prevent this.

This article is part of the Tackling inequality as part of Canada’s post-pandemic recovery special feature.

This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Canada’s history of residential schools

by admin | Aug 1, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Canada, Determinants of Homelessness, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Indigenous peoples, Policy, Social Policy

Canada’s history of residential schools

When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are savages; he is surrounded by savages…He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly pressed upon myself…that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in…schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.

— John A. Macdonald (Canada’s First Prime Minister)

I recently had the chance to read the Volume 1 summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which discusses Canada’s history with residential schools.[1]

Here are 10 things to know.

1. Residential schools were part of a deliberate policy to assimilate Indigenous peoples against their will. Such schools existed in Canada for over a century, with federal support for them beginning in in the 1880s (peak enrolment was reached in the late 1950s). Federal officials hoped that students who went to these schools would stop feeling connected to their culture and would sever ties with their families and communities. Canada’s federal government used such schools to gain control over land and resources of Indigenous peoples.

2. Initially, attendance was voluntary; but this soon changed. It is also very important to bear in mind that many reserves did not have schools of their own, meaning that Indigenous people typically had no alternative to residential schools.

3. Residential schools were funded by the federal government, but administered by churches. The major religious denominations that administered Canada’s residential schools were: Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Methodist, and Presbyterian. The Roman Catholic Church ran more of these schools than any other denomination. Most of the staff were recruited by the church. Each school’s principal was typically a priest or minister (as opposed to an educator). Staff were disproportionately women, many worked for free, and many worked seven-day weeks. Turnover was high—it was common for a staff person to work for a residential school for no more than two years before moving on to another job.

4. Residential schools were profoundly disruptive to families. Some students were sent to schools located several thousand kilometres from their communities; some went several years without seeing their parents. Siblings attending the same school were separated from each other.

5. Students were not allowed to speak Indigenous languages in residential schools. Often, they were physically punished when they tried. When students returned home, it was challenging for them to communicate with their parents, as well as discuss the abuse to which they were subjected in school. Only English—and French, to a lesser extent—were allowed to be spoken in residential schools.

6. Residential schools were woefully underfunded and used students as child labour. Prior to the early-1950s, students typically spent half the day in class, and the other half of the day working (e.g., growing much of the food they ate, fixing their own clothing). Not surprisingly, this resulted in a considerable number of workplace accidents (e.g., hands being caught in equipment). It also meant that students did not receive the same quality education as students in Canada’s mainstream schools.

7. Students at residential schools faced many forms of abuse. Students who wet their beds were often subjected to organized forms of public humiliation. One TRC witness testified that staff would line up the bedwetters and parade them through the dining hall at breakfast time in order to shame them. Sometimes students were forced to eat their own vomit.[2] One school even built its own electric chair. As is now well known, sexual abuse of Indigenous children was all too commonplace in the schools.

8. Not surprisingly, students often ran away from residential schools. Chanie Wenjack was an Anishinaabe boy who died in 1966 while trying to return home after escaping from a residential school. His story is now the subject of a multimedia art project, the centrepiece of which is Secret Path (the last studio album ever released by Gord Downie). And Trent University has the Chanie Wenjack School for Indigenous Studies. Hundreds of others ran away and died, and thousands died at school.

9. Parents often fought back. Sometimes they refused to enrol their students; sometimes they refused to return their children after they had run away from school and come home (or after summer holidays). Sometimes these tactics were effective, forcing some schools to close. Having said that, parents often faced legal sanctions (e.g., jail time) for employing such tactics. Parents also advocated for better conditions pertaining to pedagogy, food and clothing.

10. Beginning in the late 1940s, mainstream thought in Canada began to shift. Increasingly, public officials began to encourage the integration of First Nations students into the public school system. By 1960, more First Nations students were attending public schools than residential schools.

In closing. In the late-1960s, the federal government began to take control of residential schools away from churches. It then began to close them, with the last one closing in 1996. As of 2005, more than 18,000 lawsuits had been filed by residential school survivors against the federal government, churches and individuals. Despite the work of the TRC and the financial compensation, many Indigenous people are still experiencing intergenerational trauma from the experience of residential schools. The implications for homelessness have been studied extensively by Peter Menzies (see this book chapter, for example).

I wish to thank Frances Abele, Angele Alook, Kelly Black, Susan Falvo, Josh Gladstone, Root Gorelick, Katelyn Lucas, Jenny Morrow, Allan Moscovitch, and Vincent St-Martin for providing feedback on an early draft of this blog post. Any errors are mine.

[1] The TRC’s website is here, and all TRC reports can be found here.

[2] In 1999, a Roman Catholic nun was convicted of administering a noxious substance and assault (though she received no jail time).

« Older Entries

Next Entries »