Affordable housing, homelessness and the upcoming federal budget

by admin | Mar 19, 2020 | Uncategorized

Affordable housing, homelessness and the upcoming federal budget

This year’s Alternative Federal Budget (AFB) was released on March 17.[1] A general overview of the AFB project can be found here, but in a nutshell, it provides an alternative fiscal framework for Canada’s federal government; it’s released ahead of the actual federal budget in an effort to stir debate about an alternative approach to taxing and spending.

I was primary author of the AFB’s affordable housing and homelessness chapter—that chapter is available here in English and here in French. With that in mind, here are 10 things to know about affordable housing, homelessness and the upcoming federal budget:

Federal housing spending is projected to decrease over the next decade (relative to GDP). That’s a key finding of this recent analysis by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). Put differently, while some elected officials and advocates seem quite pleased with Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) the reality is that we should all be very concerned about the future of Canadian housing policy.
Federal spending on urban Aboriginal housing in Canada is expected to drop quite considerably. Indeed, the same PBO report cited in point #2 above also notes: “The planned level of funding for federally administered community housing for Indigenous households not living on reserves ($257 million) is less than half the level of funding provided over the prior 10 years ($534 million).” This comes at a time when the growth of Canada’s Indigenous populations is occurring at four times the rate of the rest of our population.
Across Canada, federal funding for homelessness is rather modest. For each $1 invested federally, $13 is invested by other sources (mostly provincial and municipal dollars). That assertion is made in this federal report. What’s more, just 5% of new funding under the NHS has been earmarked towards the Trudeau government’s goal of reducing chronic homelessness by half. In light of these unfortunate realities, it’s crucial that Canada’s federal government enhance support for homelessness.
The National Housing Co-investment Fund (NHCF) has received considerable criticism. Created by the Trudeau government, this program both repairs existing social housing and helps create new housing; it can assist non-profit housing providers as well as for-profit private rental developers. However, it is primarily a loan program (as opposed to a grant program) and has been criticized for providing insufficient funding to make rent levels truly affordable for low-income tenants.
Supportive housing providers across Canada need more financial support. Supportive housing refers to specialized housing for vulnerable populations that features professional (i.e., social work) staff support. This is especially helpful for people who have experienced long-term homelessness. The NHS contains no specific provisions for supportive housing, even though one of the Strategy’s stated goals is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. [2]
More than two years after the NHS was unveiled, we’re still waiting for the public release of three Indigenous-specific strategies. At the time that the NHS was unveiled, the Trudeau government said it was “working with First Nations, Métis and Inuit organizations on separate housing plans.” They have yet to be released publicly (though a credible source tells me that agreements have been drawn up).
Housing across Canada remains unaffordable, especially in certain cities.[3] Central to the NHS is the planned launch, later this year, of a Canada Housing Benefit (CHB). This benefit will consist of financial assistance to help low-income households afford the rent in both private and social housing units. The Trudeau government estimates that the average beneficiary will receive $2,500 in support per year. This may be too little, too late.
We’re now expecting a recession, making it even more worthwhile to increase federal investments in affordable housing. There is growing consensus among economists that Canada will soon enter a recession (due largely to the COVID-19 pandemic) whose impact on the Canadian economy will likely last years. Increased capital funding for housing can boost employment during an economic downturn, and deeper rent subsidies can assist low-income households facing labour market challenges to pay for housing.
The Government of Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan is a short term measure. Announced on March 18, the Plan includes very important social policy items, including an additional $157.5 million in one-time funding for homelessness. However, Canada needs new annual funding commitments to address a lack of affordable housing and homelessness challenges that were in place well before COVID-19.
This year’s AFB calls for federal funding of $5.25 billion annually over and above what has already been committed by the Trudeau government. Specifically, it calls for: the enhancement of the NHCF with an additional $3 billion in annual grant money for new builds and repairs; the allocation of $2 billion annually to build new supportive housing for vulnerable populations; and the doubling of the federal contribution to the CHB.

In sum. This year’s AFB provides both a list of new, annual spending initiatives pertaining to affordable housing and homelessness, and a macroeconomic framework that can support them.

I wish to thank Susan Falvo, Ron Kneebone, Jeff Morrison, Steve Pomeroy and Vincent St-Martin for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

[1] For a history of the Alternative Federal Budget, see this overview.

[2] Having said that, supportive housing has received NHCF financing.

[3] For more on how housing affordability varies across Canada, see this two-page analysis by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins.

Cost savings associated with Housing First

by admin | Mar 5, 2020 | Uncategorized

Cost savings associated with Housing First

I’m co-author of a new study on cost savings to the health and justice sectors associated Housing First, focusing on Calgary.[1] The other co-authors are Ali Jadidzadeh and Dan Dutton.

Here are 10 things to know:

Housing First refers to the immediate provision of subsidized housing (with social work support) to persons experiencing long-term homelessness. With Housing First, there’s no requirement of ‘housing readiness’ on the part of the tenant (i.e., abstinence from drugs or alcohol, or being medication compliant).
Previous research found there to be cost savings in the health and justice sectors associated with Housing First. However, that research was experimental, meaning that new program settings were developed for the purpose of research. Our study, by contrast, looks at programs already in place, meaning they had several years to evolve and improve before we studied tenant behaviour. It also means that we studied Housing First in the context of a central homeless-serving organization (i.e., the Calgary Homeless Foundation) that has been providing program oversight for many years.
Supporting a person in Housing First in Calgary typically costs between $14,000 and $30,000 annually. The precise amount depends on the intensity of the staff support. I’ve referred to this support above as social work support, but it can actually be more specialized than that.
The study looks at the impact of Housing First programs on public service utilization for people experiencing homelessness in Calgary. Specifically, we look at single adults without dependants.
The study has two main research questions. First, it asks if the delivery of Housing First reduces the utilization of the health and legal systems. It then asks by how much and over what period. (This particular study doesn’t estimate the benefits of Housing First to individual tenants—e.g., improved health, greater life expectancy, etc.)
The study is based on a large sample. There are 2,222 individuals in the study’s dataset, spanning the years 2012-2017. The data on individuals was taken both at move-in and in subsequent follow-up assessments every three months.
The questionnaires completed by tenants helped us estimate both health and justice costs. Tenants were asked: how many times they’d been hospitalized in the previous three-month period; how many times they’d used Emergency Medical Services in the previous three months; and how many times they’d had interactions with police in the previous three months.
The study estimates the actual cost of hospital use thanks to costing data provided by Alberta’s provincial government. Alberta Health publishes reports on the cost of providing hospital and Emergency Room services for people experiencing homelessness. These per-visit costs are higher among persons experiencing homelessness than for the general population.
Justice costs are estimated with our knowledge of the cost of the warrant cycle, which we assume to be the average cost of an interaction with police. The estimated cost of police issuing a ticket in Calgary is $139. Arresting an individual who has not paid their tickets costs an additional $135. And the resultant court appearance ranges in cost between $222 and $253. If an individual is convicted, then one day in jail costs $220. Each warrant cycle in Calgary is therefore estimated to cost a total of $1,376, which we use as the unit cost for a single interaction with police.
The study finds that every $1 spent on Housing First in Calgary is associated with more than $2 of savings to the public system. In other words, the roughly $42M budgeted by the Calgary Homeless Foundation for Housing First for fiscal year 2018-19 likely resulted in savings of more than $84M in terms of hospital visits, ER visits, and justice services. In the Calgary context, these savings accrue mostly to the province (which funds the health system and courts) and the municipal government (which funds police services).

In sum. This research, which began while Ali and I worked at the Calgary Homeless Foundation, would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Calgary Homeless Foundation and the Government of Alberta. Future research could build on this study by tracking the costs and types of service utilization through linked data.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: Dan Dutton, Susan Falvo, Ali Jadidzadeh, Ron Kneebone and Vincent St-Martin. Any errors are mine.

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

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

by admin | Feb 20, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, British Columbia, Calgary, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Housing, Indigenous peoples, municipalities, Policy, Social Housing, Social Policy

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

On February 27, the UCP Government of Jason Kenney will table its second budget. With that in mind, here are 10 things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta:

Housing need has been increasing in Alberta. The percentage of Alberta households in core housing need has been rising steadily over the past three Census periods. In 2006, 10.1% of Alberta households were in core housing need; by 2011, this figure had risen to 10.7%; and in 2016, the figure stood at 11.4%. In 2016, this represented more than 164,000 Alberta households.

Some household types face especially dire circumstances. Across Alberta, 30.6% of female lone-parent families are in core housing need, while 30.8% of seniors living alone are in core housing need. Further, the rate of core housing need for Status Indians is more than double the rate for non-Indigenous households (and these figures do not account for households living on reserve).[1]

More than one in four persons experiencing absolute homelessness in Alberta is Indigenous. That’s according to Alberta’s 2018 Point-in-Time Count. It’s worth noting that Indigenous peoples make up just 7% of Alberta’s total population.

On a per capita basis, Alberta has far fewer subsidized housing units than the rest of Canada.[2] According to the most recent Census, subsidized housing represents just 2.9% of Alberta’s housing units; for Canada as a whole, the figure is 4.2%.

Comparing Alberta to British Columbia is instructive. As can be seen below, from 2007 until 2010, Alberta produced more housing units funded unilaterally by the provincial government than BC on an annual basis. But since 2011, BC has been outperforming Alberta in that respect. In fact, in 2017, BC’s provincial government funded more than 15 times as many housing units than Alberta, despite having a roughly similar overall population, and despite Alberta having an NDP government at the time.[3]

Note. Figures compiled by David Macdonald and Greg Suttor using provincial reporting. Figures only include unilateral provincial spending, and do not include cost-shared initiatives.

The impact of Canada’s National Housing Strategy will be modest. Recent analysis by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer projects future federal housing spending to actually decrease over the next decade (relative to GDP). The same analysis projects that total spending on Indigenous housing by Canada’s federal government will be “substantially lower” going forward.

When Alberta’s provincial government does fund new subsidized units, the process lacks transparency. Even when Rachel Notley’s NDP government was in power, housing funding was not allocated via a formal grant program through which non-profits (i.e., community housing/non-market housing providers) could apply for funding. Such a process has not been in place in Alberta since 2012.

The Government of Alberta lacks a clear, public reporting structure for provincially-subsidized housing. For example, most Albertans—including very well- placed sources in the affordable housing sector—do not know: how much recent funding was used for repairs vs. new builds; how much of this funding has been dependent on cost-matching from other orders of government; what types of projects have received the funding; which types of households have been targeted; or to which municipalities the funding has flowed. This lack of transparency makes it very challenging for key actors in the non-profit housing and homeless-serving sectors to plan; it has also made it virtually impossible for key players in the sector to have a democratic dialogue about how public dollars are being allocated.

In October 2019, the UCP government unveiled its first budget, announcing some housing cuts. Starting in 2020, operating budgets for Housing Management Bodies (HMBs) will be reduced by an average of 3.5%. There will also be a 24% reduction to the Rental Assistance Program, which provides financial assistance for low- to moderate-income households to assist with monthly rent payments for up to one year. This 24% reduction begins in 2020 and takes full effect within three years.

There has been long-time speculation that the recent provincial funding reduction (or a portion of it) may be retargeted and used to match federal funding through the new Canada Housing Benefit. That program, set to take effect 1 April 2020, requires that the Government of Alberta match federal funding.[4] This speculation was confirmed in a 26 December 2019 Canadian Press article.

In sum. There is need for both more subsidized rental housing in Alberta and more transparency at the provincial level. In its upcoming provincial budget, the Jason Kenney government has the opportunity to address both issues.

Acknowledgements. I wish to thank the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this blog post: Zain Abedin, Damian Collins, Martina Jileckova, Jonn Kmech, Ron Kneebone, David Macdonald, Jedd Matechuk, Katrina Milaney, Jeff Morrison, Jenny Morrow, Steve Pomeroy, John Rook, Greg Suttor, Vincent St-Martin and one anonymous source. Any errors are mine.

[1] Rates of core housing need are not calculated in many of Canada’s First Nations communities, largely because in order to calculate core housing need, one must know the cost of market housing (which often does not exist in First Nations’ communities).

[2] According to Statistics Canada’s 2016 Census of Population, subsidized housing “includes rent geared to income, social housing, public housing, government-assisted housing, non-profit housing, rent supplements and housing allowances.”

[3] According to the 2016 Census, Alberta had a total population of 4,067,175, while BC had a total population of 4,648,055.

[4] The Canada Housing Benefit is expected to provide an average of $2,500/annually, per eligible household, to Canadians in housing need.

My review of Robert Clark’s book on Canada’s prisons

by admin | Jan 17, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Canada, Corrections, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Harm Reduction, Health Care, Homeless, Indigenous peoples, Policy, Prisons, Social Policy

My review of Robert Clark’s book on Canada’s prisons

Clark, R. (2017). Down inside: Thirty years in Canada’s prison service. Fredericton, NB: Goose Lane.

Robert Clark has written a very good book about his 30 years working in Canada’s prison system. Mr. Clark worked from 1980 until 2009 in seven different federal prisons, all located in Ontario. The book, a compilation of personal accounts based on the author’s various assignments, appears both balanced and concise (though it only discusses male prisoners and federal institutions).

Since prisons can be a pipeline into homelessness, I’ve reviewed the book with great interest.

Here are 10 things to know:

Many of Canada’s prisoners are victims of child abuse. According to the author: “Most of the prisoner files I read contained histories of physical, emotional, and, often, childhood sexual abuse” (p. 16).This often led to child welfare interventions and then incarceration in youth facilities.

Nearly 40% of federal prisoners have serious mental health challenges, and this is exacerbated by solitary confinement (formally known as administrative segregation).[1] Prisoners in solitary often have no idea when their time in there will end. Solitary can be very detrimental to a prisoner’s already-fragile mental health and can cause them to be suicidal. The 1996 Arbour Commission of Inquiry examined the impact of solitary confinement in detail.

Many of Canada’s prison staff do outstanding work. For example, the author felt he had “hit the jackpot” when he arrived at Pittsburgh Institution (p. 216). On a personal note, I was touched to see the author single out my late uncle John Van Luven as being part of a group of four parole officers there who were “knowledgeable, professional, and self-motivated” (p. 216).

Many of Canada’s prison staff do not do outstanding work. According to the author, “too few prison employees care about the prisoners under their care, other than to make sure they are alive and behaving. Any interest in a prisoner’s well-being and their chances for becoming a law-abiding citizen is almost non-existent” (p. 16). One of the author’s colleagues used to say: “I just treat them all like they’re doing a hundred years for rape” (p. 124)!

Solidarity among staff can be excessive. Most prison staff are extremely reluctant to snitch on their colleagues—and this reluctance is known as the blue wall. Some such solidarity is very pronounced among staff in the face of management, and some staff maintain such solidarity even after they become managers. This is almost identical to the understanding that prisoners have among one another, whereby being labelled a ‘rat’ or a ‘snitch’ can come with severe consequences.

Not every Canadian prison is the same. The book has considerable praise for the Regional Reception Centre at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec. It notes, “while newcomer prisoners in Ontario languished under twenty-three-hour lockup, each new prisoner in Quebec was put through a series of academic and vocational aptitude tests that assisted staff at the next institution in guiding the prisoner’s time and energy” (p. 117).

Sometimes a specific prison can develop a bad culture. According to the book, this occurred at the now-decommissioned Kingston Penitentiary, where staff stopped enforcing many rules. When the book’s author started working there in 1997, he noticed that prison cells contained items they weren’t supposed to—in one case, a 25-metre extension cord—and that staff had simply stopped caring. (In this particular case, the author attributes much of the bad culture to a management decision to have uniformed staff work consecutive 16-hour shifts.)

Corruption at Kingston Penitentiary was eventually exposed through an RCMP investigation known as Operation Correct Zero. As a result of the investigation, five guards were terminated for various criminal offences, including drug dealing. In addition, three other guards committed suicide during the course of the investigation.

I wish the book had dealt more with harm reduction in Canada’s prisons. Harm reduction focuses on reducing harm caused by drug use without requiring total abstinence. For example, it can include the distribution of condoms and unused syringes. There is an important body of evidence supporting the view that harm reduction approaches reduce the risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases and prevent overdoses. It is further estimated that HIV rates in Canada’s federal prisons are 10 times higher than in the general population, and Hepatitis C 30 times higher.

I wish the book had included more of an intersectional analysis. I found that the book contained insufficient attention to the unique situations—and overrepresentation—of racialized persons (including First Nations, Inuit and Métis people) in Canada’s prisons. I also think the book could have further explored the unique experiences facing trans persons in prisons.[2]

In Sum. If you’re interested in learning more about conditions inside Canada’s prisons, I strongly suggest you read this book. For people interested in the role played by corrections in leading people into homelessness, the book will be especially worthwhile. I also suggest you listen to this 28-minute podcast, where the author is interviewed by the CBC’s Michael Enright.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this review: Robert Clark, JT Falvo, Susan Falvo, Craig Jones, Amber Kellen, Katrina Milaney, Amanda Moss, Angela Regnier, Jonathan Robart, Vincent St-Martin, and three anonymous sources. Any errors are mine.

[1] Such statistics can be found in the annual reports of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, available here.

[2] A primer on intersectional analysis can be found here.

Ten things to know about poverty measurement in Canada

by admin | Oct 30, 2019 | Canada, Cities, Government, Housing, Income, Income Distribution, Income Inequality, Income Support, Labour Market, Macroeconomics, municipalities, population aging, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Research and Data, seniors, Social Assistance, Social Housing, Social Policy, Stats Canada

Ten things to know about poverty measurement in Canada

On October 29, I gave a guest presentation to Professor Filipe Duarte’s master’s seminar class at the University of Windsor. The topic of my presentation was poverty measurement in Canada.

Here are 10 things to know.

Use of the Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO) would suggest that poverty in Canada has decreased dramatically since the mid-1990s. LICO focuses on the amount of money spent by a family on ‘necessities’ (i.e., housing, food and clothing) as determined by a group of federal public servants. If a family is spending a substantially higher percentage of their income on such necessities—e.g., 20 percentage points higher than the average Canadian family—then the family in question falls below the LICO. The LICO was supposed to be recalculated on a regular basis to reflect changes in spending patterns, but that hasn’t happened since 1992 and is one likely reason for the reduction in poverty shown by this measure (having said that, the LICO has been adjusted each year for inflation). Today, very few experts take the LICO seriously.
Use of the Low Income Measure (LIM) would suggest that poverty in Canada has seen mild fluctuations since the mid-1990s. LIM’s focus is on the family’s income, not on what they spend. A family whose income is below 50% of the national median income (adjusted for family size) is said to be poor according to this measure. LIM, in effect, measures income inequality among the bottom half of income earners. The LIM is useful for international comparisons (though it is far from perfect in that regard, as it looks only at income, not the availability of social programs).
Use of the Market Basket Measure (MBM) suggests that Canada has seen a major decrease in poverty over the past decade. With the MBM, public officials figure out the cost of a basket of goods and services they feel is sufficient for a standard of living “between the poles of subsistence and social inclusion.” Calculations are then made about how much such a basket costs (the cost of this basket has been estimated for 50 regions across Canada). The content of this basket is periodically adjusted, the last time being in 2011, and its value gets adjusted each year for inflation. If you’re poor according to the MBM, it’s because experts believe you could not afford that basket of goods in your community.
Visual courtesy of Kevin Milligan.
One of the LICO’s shortcomings is that it doesn’t do a good job of accounting for regional variations in the cost of living across Canada. The LICO (as mentioned above) also hasn’t been adjusted since 1992, meaning that it doesn’t currently account for how much things cost today or what people spend money on today (as Andrew Jackson notes, it doesn’t include the cost of Internet). Finally, LICO doesn’t easily allow for international comparisons.
One of the LIM’s shortcomings is that it can suggest that recessions are good for poverty reduction. As Alain Noël notes, the LIM is “sensitive to changes in the median income, which sometimes produces counterintuitive results. In a recession, for example, when the median income is flat, the poverty rate may seem to be decreasing while unemployment and economic hardship are increasing.” What’s more, the fact that LIM is based on national median income—as opposed to the median income for the province or territory in question—seems arbitrary to many. Indeed, Professor Noël further notes that “real median incomes vary considerably from one province to another.”
Of the three major indicators, my own preference is the LIM. First, it avoids the inherent challenge of deciding what constitutes an appropriate a basket of goods and services in a country of 37 million people, spanning 10 million km² and six time zones. Second, I think relativity is what’s really important here—if median income across Canada is increasing, then so too should everyone’s (and vice versa). Third, the LIM lends itself well to international comparisons. I’d like to see it calculated based on national median income for international comparisons, and also based on median income for the economic region in question, in order to provide a more meaningful number.
The debate within Canada has largely ignored the need for indicators of assets. This point has been made by David Rothwell and Jennifer Robson, who note that income and assets are not always correlated. For example, a low-wage worker might have an income that brings them above the LIM, but they may also have $75,000 in student loans and credit card debt. Conversely, a senior could be relying exclusively on Old Age Security as a source of income while also owning a $2 million home outright. (Monitoring asset poverty might put pressure on provincial and territorial officials to stop discouraging asset accumulation among social assistance recipients.)
It’s also important to directly measure material deprivation. For example, core housing need measures the affordability, suitability and adequacy of a person’s housing. Likewise, food insecurity measurement directly assesses the inadequacy or insecurity in access to food due to financial challenges. It’s also important to assess who has access to high-quality childcare and prescription medication. (For a critical analysis of the need to directly measure material deprivation, see this 2017 conference paper.)
In August 2018, Canada’s federal government announced its formal adoption of the MBM as its official poverty measure. Its poverty reduction strategy also unveiled a dashboard of poverty-related indicators. This seems very much in line with a position taken by Peter Hicks in a recent blog post, in which he calls for “an evolving ‘dashboard’ of carefully selected indicators would be more useful than a single measure.” The new federal strategy will use the MBM to monitor progress—importantly, it will not use the MBM to determine program eligibility.
Seniors make for an interesting case study here. According to the LIM, a great many seniors in Canada currently experience poverty. But according to the MBM, very few seniors in Canada currently experience poverty. As Andrew Jackson pointed out last year: “There is a huge difference between the LIM and MBM poverty rates for seniors (14.3% vs 5.1% in 2015.)” And this raises an important question: if Canada’s official poverty measure suggests there’s very little seniors’ poverty, to what extent will Canada’s federal government prioritize assistance for seniors?

In sum. The Trudeau government deserves praise for unveiling a dashboard of poverty indicators that will hopefully receive close attention from federal officials in partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal officials, as well as researchers and advocates. Having said that, Ron Kneebone reminds me that the MBM has yet to be formally adopted by provincial or territorial governments. There is also reason to be very concerned about what initiatives may or not be in store for seniors, given that the MBM suggests they currently experience very little poverty.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: Miles Corak, Filipe Duarte and his students, Susan Falvo, Reuben Ford, Rob Gillezeau, Seth Klein, Ron Kneebone, Andrew Jackson, Marc Lee, David Macdonald, Michael Mendelson, Allan Moscovitch, Geranda Notten, Charles Plante, Saul Schwartz, Richard Shillington, Vincent St-Martin, John Stapleton, Ricardo Tranjan, and Mike Veall. Any errors are mine.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »