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

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

by | 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

Homelessness could rise with economic downturn

by | 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

Canada’s history of residential schools

by | 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).

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

by | Jul 22, 2020 | Alternative Federal Budget, Canada, Ending Homelessness, Federal Budget, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Housing, Income Support, Policy, Poverty, Social Housing, Social Policy

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

On July 21, the Alternative Federal Budget (AFB) Recovery Plan was released. The document aims to provide public policy direction to Canada’s federal government, in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic (more information on the AFB Recovery Plan can be found, while an overview of the AFB’s history can be found here).

I was author of the Recovery Plan’s chapter on affordable housing and homelessness, which can be accessed here.

 Here are 10 things to know.

1. The COVID-19 Recession has resulted in income loss and rental arrears, especially for lower-income households who are mostly renters. Eviction bans across Canada have had some effectiveness in preventing or slowing down evictions; but when those bans are lifted, many households will be on the brink of absolute homelessness.

2. The recession has diminished people’s ability to get mortgage approvals. In part, this is due to many people having reduced income (or having lost their jobs entirely); it is also due in part to new mortgage rules taking effect on July 1.[1] This means an entire cohort of would-be homeowners will be stuck in the rental market, driving down rental vacancy rates.

3. The COVID-19 pandemic has also exposed cracks in the patchwork of social services in place for people experiencing homelessness. Challenges have included: the closing of daytime services (e.g., drop-in centres); the closing of public spaces with access to washroom facilities (e.g., libraries); and a lack of Internet access. The pandemic has also created additional costs and operational pressures on supportive housing programs and emergency shelters—for cleaning, personal protective equipment and increased staffing.

4. Across Canada, local officials in the homelessness sector have worked very hard responding to the pandemic. They have created more physical distancing at existing emergency shelters, opened new facilities, leased hotel rooms, and created facilities for both isolation and quarantine. The Trudeau government has provided important financial assistance to the homelessness sector to support these efforts. Indeed, the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan, announced on 18 March 2020, includes an additional $157.5 million in one-time funding for Reaching Home (representing a 74% increase in Reaching Home funding for the 2020-21 fiscal year).

5. Nevertheless, challenges remain in the homelessness sector. They include: the existence of shared bathrooms; inadequate access to personal protective equipment; harm reduction (e.g., safe access to illicit drugs); encampments (i.e., outdoor sleeping); a dwindling workforce at emergency shelters and drop-in centres; and an anticipated increase in homelessness resulting from the economic downturn.[2]

6. The Trudeau government should provide a rental top-up to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). This could simply be added to existing CERB payments, showing up in recipients’ bank accounts along with CERB. Canada Revenue Agency could administer the program, just as it does CERB.[3] CERB recipients transitioning onto Employment Insurance could carry their rental top-up with them.

7. The recent Reaching Home enhancement ought to be made permanent. The AFB Recovery Plan would make permanent the recent enhancement to federal Reaching Home funding. Across Canada, federal funding for homelessness (i.e., Reaching Home) is rather modest. According to a 2018 federal program evaluation, for each $1 invested federally, $13 is invested by other sources (mostly provincial and municipal dollars).[4]

8. Federal spending on the National Housing Co-investment Fund should be boosted. A central feature of the National Housing Strategy unveiled in November 2017 is a new National Housing Co-investment Fund (NHCF). Primarily a loan program (as opposed to a grant program) the NHCF has been criticized for providing insufficient funding to make rent levels truly affordable for low-income tenants. The AFB Recovery Plan would enhance the NHCF with an additional $3 billion in grant money annually, over and above what has already been committed by the Trudeau government.

9. The Canada Housing Benefit ought to be enhanced. Central to the Trudeau 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. The AFB Recovery Plan would double the federal contribution to this benefit at a cost of $250 million annually, over and above current allocations. Province and territories would be expected to cost-share.

10. There should be federal spending earmarked to fund capital for supportive housing. Supportive housing refers to specialized housing for vulnerable populations that features professional (i.e., social work) staff support. The National Housing Strategy contains no specific provisions for supportive housing, even though one of the Strategy’s stated goals is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.[5] The AFB Recovery Plan would allocate $2 billion in new annual funding (for capital) for supportive housing.

In sum. The AFB Recovery Plan urges the federal government to create housing options to the point where, when we are hit by a future wave or new pandemic, all Canadians have a home in which to stay safe. Further, the downturn in the real estate market offers an opportunity for the Trudeau government to assist non-profit housing providers to acquire new stock in cost-effective ways.

The following individuals provided invaluable assistance with the affordable housing and homelessness chapter of the AFB Recovery Plan: Meaghan Bell, Michele Biss, Stéphan Corriveau, Katie-Sue Derejko, John Dickie, George Fallis, Sherwin Flight, Alex Hemingway, Graeme Hussey, Bruce Irvine, Brandi Kapell, Ron Kneebone, Brian Kreps, David Macdonald, Christina Maes Nino, Bernadette Majdell, Elsbeth Mehrer, Michael Mendelson, Jeff Morrison, Amanda Noble, Abe Oudshoorn, Steve Pomeroy, Tim Richter, Michal Rozworski, Natalie Spagnuolo, Marion Steele, Greg Suttor, Jennifer Tipple, Letisha Toop, Ricardo Tranjan, Stuart Trew, Samuel Watts and one anonymous source. I wish to also thank Susan Falvo, Hayley Gislason, Angela Regnier, Vincent St-Martin and Sarah Woodgate for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

 

Photo used with permission from Home Space Society.

 

[1] Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2020, June 4). CMHC reviews underwriting criteria. Retrieved from CMHC website: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca

[2] Bainbridge, J., & Carrizales, T. J. (2017). Global homelessness in a post-recession world. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 24(1), 6. Retrieved from: https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol24/iss1/6/

[3] This proposal has been put forth by Marion Steele and also by a third-sector group of experts. For more information, see this recent Toronto Star opinion piece: https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2020/05/24/a-lot-of-toronto-renters-cant-get-by-even-with-cerb-they-need-a-top-up-from-the-feds.html.

[4] Employment and Social Development Canada. (2018). Evaluation of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy: Final Report. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca

[5] Having said that, supportive housing has received Co-investment Fund financing.

David Hulchanski class discussion

David Hulchanski class discussion

by | Jun 21, 2020 | Canada, Cities, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Housing, municipalities, Policy, Poverty, Social Housing, Social Policy, taxation

David Hulchanski class discussion

On 9 June 2020, I participated in a panel discussion in David Hulchanski’s graduate-level social housing and homelessness course at the University of Toronto. It included perspectives from Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Participants included Kath Scanlon, Wendy Hayhurst, Andy Yan, Carolyn Whitzman, and Sharon Chisholm.[1]

Here are 10 things to know:

1. The English-speaking countries of the OECD are known for their relatively stingy social welfare systems. In other words, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (along with both the United States and New Zealand) have relatively low levels of social spending and relatively low levels of taxation, relative to the other OECD countries. Subsidized housing is part of a country’s social welfare system and very much impacted by its other pieces (e.g., social assistance, labour market policies, etc.).

2. Not surprisingly, all English-speaking countries of the OECD also have serious affordable housing challenges and large amounts of homelessness. In England, families who lose their housing can subsequently be placed into “temporary accommodation” where they can stay up to 10 years. Years ago, such families were provided with social housing; but there’s so little turnover in England’s social housing units that now such households are almost always placed into the private rental sector.[2] Recent analysis by Steve Pomeroy in Canada looked at the period between 2011 and 2016. During that time, Canada lost more than 300,000 units of private-landlord housing that were affordable to lower-income households (and the financialization of housing is believed to be largely responsible for this).[3] During the same period, fewer than 20,000 subsidized units were created for low-income households across Canada.

3. Housing affordability challenges in all of these countries appear to be getting worse, largely due to the financialization of housing. The financialization of housing refers to the increased use of housing as an investment tool, rather than to serve social needs. It is often facilitated by public policy that makes it attractive for corporate interests to invest in housing, thereby jacking up the price.

4. Poorly-designed tax policies appear to encourage the financialization of housing. For example, in Australia, even people with median incomes have found it attractive to buy a property and rent it out; any losses they incur can be written off against their income. Australia’s capital gains tax system has also made it attractive to do this. One of the undesirable outcomes of this phenomenon is that Australia has a lot of landlords who are not terribly passionate about being landlords.

5. In recent years, there has been growing awareness of the financialization of housing. Both Leilani Farha (former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing) and Martine August (an emerging scholar based at the University of Waterloo) have written and spoken extensively on the topic over the past several years. And Canada’s just-launched Recovery For All campaign includes several demands related to the financialization of housing.

6. Perversely, large groups of each country’s respective population benefit from many of the same rules that create homelessness. When an existing homeowner sees the value of housing increase, they recognize that the value of their assets is growing. Further, homeowners in Australia, Canada and the UK pay no capital gains tax on the windfall earned from the sale of their primary residence, representing substantial foregone revenue for their national treasuries.

7. England has very landlord-friendly rules. Right now, a standard tenancy in England lasts between six and 12 months, after which point the landlord is under no obligation to renew the tenancy. (Fortunately, the UK government is now talking about changing that law.)

8. Authorities in England are starting to focus more on homelessness prevention. When a person becomes legally homeless in England, their reason for becoming homeless is recorded. Now, the single biggest cause is eviction from a private tenancy, and over time that’s grown as a reason. Local authorities have therefore been directed to prevent homelessness when a person is on the verge of an eviction (e.g., with temporary grants). This focus on prevention is getting big in England, but it’s quite reactive; the household in trouble needs to reach out to the authority for help.

9. There are some silver linings worth noting. In Australia, Canada and England, the COVID-19 pandemic has generated an urgent imperative to deal with homelessness. For example, whereas so-called rough sleeping had previously been regarded as an intractable problem in England, a recent political commitment and funding enhancement essentially eliminated it (at least for now) in a matter of days.

10. Some panel participants encouraged ‘big thinking’ with respect to social housing. One participant suggested that housing advocates should advocate for social housing to eventually comprise 50% of all new housing units in Canada, noting we need to stop seeing social housing as the housing of last resort.

In Sum. Housing affordability challenges experienced in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom appear to stem from poorly designed public policy. Low aggregate levels of taxation make it more challenging for governments to make substantial investments in social policies, and pro-landlord public policies appear to drive up housing prices. But if bad public policy brings on a lack of affordable housing, good public policy can help address it. Let’s hope the Recovery For All campaign gains some traction here in Canada!

I wish to thank Susan Falvo, Wendy Hayhurst, David Hulchanski, Kath Scanlon, Vincent St-Martin and Carolyn Whitzman for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

 

[1] We followed the Chatham House Rule, so the present blog post will not state who made which comment.

[2] Forty years ago, social housing made up one-third of England’s total housing stock. Now, it makes up about 20% of total housing stock.

[3] The lost units in question had monthly rents of $750 or less.