Ten things to know about Carey Doberstein’s book on homelessness governance

by admin | Jun 6, 2018 | Calgary, Housing

Ten things to know about Carey Doberstein’s book on homelessness governance

Carey Doberstein, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus, has written a book about homelessness governance in Canada. The book’s focus is on the way homelessness funding is targeted and allocated in three cities: Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. It focuses on the 1995-2015 period.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. There are some major differences in homelessness across Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto.On a per-capita basis, Calgary has the most homelessness of the three cities, and Metro Vancouver the least. Between 2008 and 2014, Calgary saw a 62% drop in street homelessness, while Metro Vancouver saw a 39% decrease and Toronto a 24% increase. Both Calgary and Toronto saw modest increases in Indigenous representation among their homeless populations during the period under consideration (17% and 6% respectively) while Vancouver saw a 15% decrease during this time. Finally, families constituted just 5% of persons living in Vancouver’s shelter system in 2014; in Calgary the figure is 12%, and Toronto 20%. All of these figures are accurate as of 2014 and do not reflect results of more recent enumerations (keeping in mind that cross-city comparisons of homelessness populations do come with challenges).

2. One such difference pertains to policy and governance. According to Doberstein: “These three cities differ dramatically in how government and civil society actors organize themselves in governance arrangements to solve public problems” (p. 6). These differences ultimately have an important impact on what homelessness looks like on the ground; however, they do not fully account for the many differences discussed in point #1 above (for more on the many factors that impact the size of a city’s homeless population, see point #3 of this blog post).

3. Better decisions pertaining to homelessness policy and governance are made when multiple stakeholders are involved in decision-making. With regard to homelessness policy and governance, the book is referring to policies with respect to where homelessness funding should go, how homelessness programming should be designed, and which subgroups of a city’s homeless population should be given priority.

4. Multiple stakeholders play important roles in such decision-making in both Vancouver and Calgary, more so than in Toronto. Vancouver and Calgary both have community advisory bodies that meet regularly and where members engage in important debate that leads to decisions pertaining to the disbursement of homelessness funding from the federal and provincial governments. By contrast, Toronto has a community advisory body that advises Toronto’s municipal government on how to direct federal homelessness funding; however, it meets just once or twice a year, and “essentially functions as a rubber stamp for the [municipal] bureaucracy’s homelessness agenda” (p. 95). The book goes on to state: “Toronto advanced many important policy debates and changes in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but the city has since lost its position on the cutting edge…” (p. 88).

5. Toronto may be turning a corner. The book notes that, in 2014, Toronto City Council tasked the newly-formed Toronto Alliance to End Homelessness “to serve as the designated advisory group to the City of Toronto on all aspects of its policy response to homelessness and housing…with the aim of engaging with community stakeholders in a more sustained and substantive fashion” (p. 123). This may give some Toronto-based readers reason for optimism.

6. Government plays a crucial role as a funder of homelessness programming, but government officials have a limited line of sight. Former BC Housing manager Michael Anhorn is quoted in the book stating: “It’s way too easy as a government bureaucrat to sit in our office and look at stats and think you know what’s happening [on the streets] is because of this or that. And, in part, that is because your statistics will only tell you what you measure, whereas service providers are in the day-to-day, and they will recognize trends that are happening before the statistics can identify them” (pp. 83-84).

7. Government officials can be risk averse. Public servants ultimately need to have their proposals vetted by elected officials, who in turn are nervous about risk. By contrast, staff at smaller non-profit agencies tend to be governed by board members who are often more nimble and less risk averse.

8. The book argues that Vancouver and Toronto’s municipal governments have been more directly involved in housing and homelessness than Calgary’s. For example, according to the book: “The City of Calgary has the same key homelessness-policy levers as other cities do—namely, the control over land use and development—yet it has not fully leveraged that control through inclusionary zoning policies such as we see in Vancouver, and to a lesser extent, in Toronto.” (p. 129).

9. The book could have done a better job of outlining the various funding streams for homelessness programs across the country. In Calgary, for example, funding available for the local homelessness governing network provided by the provincial government dwarfs federal funding for homelessness by roughly a 4:1 ratio. And in Vancouver, provincial spending on homelessness exceeds federal spending on homelessness by a 20:1 ratio (if one includes capital funding). These arrangements vary tremendously across Canada. What’s more, across Canada there are approximately 3,700 municipal governments (many of which are quite small); yet, only some of them directly receive federal funding for homelessness. A general overview of the homelessness funding framework early in the book would have been helpful.

10. The book contains a few factual errors, though none of them undermine the book’s main arguments. In Chapter 3, the book notes (incorrectly) that in 1993 it was the Chrétien government that put an end to federal funding for new social housing units in Canada (with the exception of on-reserve housing). It was actually the Progressive Conservative government that ended this housing (in its April budget that year). Chapter 3 also notes that Vancouver’s community advisory body has shown innovation in “being the first to fund low-barrier homeless shelters (no requirement to be clean and sober)…” (p. 65). In fact, the first homeless shelter I worked at in Toronto in 1998 (Dixon Hall Men’s Shelter) had no such requirement.

In Sum: I believe this book is important for people interested in homelessness policy and governance in Canada. Officials in both government and the non-profit sector should read this. So should volunteers and consultants. I also recommend that professors read it and assign it to their students (especially graduate students).

I wish to thank Janice Chan, Brian Davis, Carey Doberstein, Paul Dowling, Melissa Goldstein, Katherine Graham, Jonn Kmech, Kevin McNichol, Tim Richter, Robert Shepherd and five anonymous reviewers for assistance in preparing this blog post. Any errors are mine.

Saskatchewan budget misses opportunity on rental housing assistance

by admin | May 2, 2018 | Aboriginal Peoples, Health Care, Homeless, Housing, Income, Income Distribution, Income Support, Labour Market, Oil and Gas, Potash, Poverty, Resources, Social Policy, Unemployment

Saskatchewan budget misses opportunity on rental housing assistance

I recently wrote a ‘top 10’ overview blog post about the 2018 Saskatchewan budget. Following on the heels of that, I’ve now written an opinion piece about the budget’s announcement of a phase out a rental assistance program for low-income households.

Points raised in the opinion piece include the following:

-Across Saskatchewan, rental vacancy rates are unusually high right now, making this a good time to provide rental assistance to tenants for use in private units (indeed, right now it’s a so-called renter’s market in Saskatchewan, meaning it’s a relatively good time for tenants to negotiate rental agreements with private landlords).

-Thus, rather than phasing out the program, it would have been sensible to have expanded it.

-Phasing it out will very possibly lead to more homelessness, which in turn may lead lead to higher public costs elsewhere (especially to the health care sector).

Interestingly, just yesterday the Saskatchewan Landlord Association made many of these same points themselves; they like the rental assistance program, as it increases demand for its members’ housing units (many of which are currently sitting empty).

It’s of course also important for government to finance housing owned by non-profit entities. I recently wrote about the importance of a variety of measures to improve housing affordability in the housing chapter of this year’s Alternative Federal Budget.

Meanwhile, the link to my recent opinion piece is here.

Ten things to know about the newly-signed federal-provincial-territorial housing framework agreement

by admin | Apr 12, 2018 | Uncategorized

Ten things to know about the newly-signed federal-provincial-territorial housing framework agreement

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation

A federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) framework agreement on housing was signed on April 10 in Toronto. It supports the Trudeau government’s National Housing Strategy, which was released last fall.

Here are 10 things to know about the just-signed agreement:

Though a National Housing Strategy (NHS) was released last fall, a federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) framework agreement still had to be signed. That’s because a lot of the funding proposed in the Strategy is dependent on cooperation from provincial and territorial governments.
The federal government will now seek to negotiate bilateral agreements with every provincial and territorial government. In fact, it’s quite likely that the federal government has already begun to negotiate such agreements with some provinces and territories. If recent history serves as any guide, the federal government will likely begin by trying to negotiate agreements with provincial/territorial governments they think are especially keen to sign on (British Columbia might be low-hanging fruit in this regard).
Each bilateral agreement will have a clause that ensures equal terms for all jurisdictions. Such a clause will stipulate that if a subsequent signee gets better terms, those better terms will apply to any provincial or territorial government that previously signed. The intent of such a clause is to not discourage a provincial or territorial government to come to the table early.
One important section of the newly-signed agreement pertains to the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. The newly-signed agreement stipulates that provincial and territorial governments will have a role in decision-making pertaining to this fund; whereas, last fall’s NHS agreement suggested it would be a unilateral federal program. (For more on this fund, see point #3 of this previous blog post.)
The newly-signed agreement touts the goal of removing 490,000 households from core housing need over 10 years. While hundreds of thousands of households may well be removed from core need, this is likely an unrealistic target. For example, the Canada Housing Benefit would need to be very deep and reflect regional differences in order to completely remove most beneficiary households from core housing need(For more on problems associated with using core housing need as a metric, see this June 2017 analysisby Steve Pomeroy.)[1] Also, the (NHS) released just last fall indicated that the goal was to remove 530,000 households from core housing need; likewise, the media release for the just-signed agreement also uses the 530,000 figure.
Much of the federal funding committed will have to be matched by provinces and territories—but still, very few details have been offered as what this will look like. Some of the matching dollars won’t come from provincial/territorial governments themselves—but rather, from municipal governments, Indigenous organizations, non-profits and private entities. Some of these details will surface later in bilateral agreements. Also, some of the federal funding (such as the “targeted northern funding”) won’t require cost matching
No specific information has been provided on program structure. These details will appear in the schedules in bilateral agreements. Such details will include information regarding who’s eligible for housing support and how exactly funds can be used.
The federal government plans to introduce legislation that would underpin the framework agreement. Regardless, future federal, provincial and territorial governments will still have some opportunity to back out asfuture governments always have the opportunity to pass legislation to undo all of this. However, there would be political risk in doing so (i.e., they’d get a lot of political flak).
The just-signed agreement says nothing new about homelessness per se. The homelessness file is being handled by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), while the NHS is being handled by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. An Advisory Committee on Homelessness has been meeting over the course of the past year “to support the redesign” of Canada’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy. Their consultation has recently concluded.
The just-signed agreement says nothing about supportive housing. Supportive housing refers to subsidized housing for marginalized groups (including persons experiencing homelessness) that comes with social work support. I suspect we may hear something about supportive housing from ESDC over the coming months. It’s also possible that the bilateral agreements stemming from the just-signed agreement will get into the details on supportive housing.

In sum. The just-signed FPT housing framework agreement marks a crucial step toward making NHS a reality on the ground. The Calgary Homeless Foundation will be watching the status of bilateral negotiations closely, especially those involving the Government of Alberta. We’ll also be watching for developments on the federal homelessness front.

The author wishes to thank Vicki Ballance, Steve Pomeroy and Greg Suttor for assistance with this blog post. Any errors lie with the author.

Download this blog (PDF)

[1] There’s a footnote in the NHS in reference to this. It makes reference to this target being related to either the removal of a household from core housing need or the household’s degree of core need being “significantly reduced” (p. 4).

Homelessness and Employment: The Case of Calgary

by admin | Mar 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

Homelessness and Employment: The Case of Calgary

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation.

On March 8, I gave a guest presentation to students in Professor Naomi Lightman’s Sociology of Work class at the University of Calgary. I was joined by Alexander Kulakov and Amit Nade, employment coaches at the Mustard Seed. My PowerPoint slides can be downloaded here.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. In Calgary, there aren’t enough jobs to go around, and income support programs for those without work are inadequate. According to the most recent Labour Force Survey, there are almost 173,000 adults in Alberta actively searching for work [1] (in spite of this, 15% of persons experiencing homelessness in Alberta do report some income from employment). While some unemployed people qualify for Employment Insurance (EI), most don’t. And for those who do qualify, benefits are both modest and temporary. Unemployed people who don’t qualify for EI can always apply for social assistance, but these benefits are even more modest (for an overview of social assistance throughout Canada, see this blog post; and for an overview on social assistance in Alberta specifically, see this blog post).

2. For persons experiencing homelessness, one major barrier to finding and maintaining work is poor health. According to Stephen Hwang: “Homeless people in their forties and fifties often develop health disabilities that are more commonly seen only in people who are decades older.” Consider some of these findings from one of the most comprehensive health surveys done on persons experiencing homelessness in Canada: 41% of persons experiencing homelessness report being “usually in some pain or discomfort.” Yet, for the general population, the figure is 15%. Among people who are usually in pain, 35% of persons experiencing homelessness report that pain being “severe,” while for the general population the figure is just 2%.

3. Mustard Seed has an employment program for persons currently experiencing homelessness. That program is funded entirely by private giving (i.e., charitable donations from individuals and foundations). One stream of this program involves one-on-one coaching. This stream is geared toward those needing the most support (typically persons with the poorest health outcomes). Staff help people with resumes and cover letters. Staff even physically go out job searching with participants. Another stream involves job preparation in a group format; this happens at the Seed Academy. Assistance is provided with writing resumes, writing cover letters and networking. Employers even come in and do mock interviews! The third stream of the program is designed for people who are very close to landing a steady job (and in some cases have even received a formal offer). Participants in this stream can get short-term financial assistance to purchase such things as clothing, tools, and transportation to another part of Alberta.

4. The Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre (the DI) has an employment program funded by Alberta’s provincial government. The DI’s program has two employment specialists who meet one-on-one with persons experiencing homelessness. The DI also provides a three-week training program in which people are trained in interview skills, employment strategies, resume writing, financial literacy, first aid, forklift operation, interviewing and employee rights. Staff at the DI then follow up with graduates at 90 days, and then again at 180 days. In the span of one month, this program gets 800 unique individuals out at a job at some point. Also during the course of one month, as many as 500 different employers use this service. [2] The majority of the jobs are general labour (i.e. moving and lifting things; landscaping; clean up). This particular program is especially good at helping workers to find jobs at festivals (i.e., Canada Day, Lilac Festival, Calgary Pride, etc.). Where possible, the DI tries to turn casual positions into full-time ones—last year, they managed to get 21 full-time permanent positions created out of this initiative.

5. There are several other employment-readiness programs for persons experiencing homelessness in Calgary. For example, Calgary John Howard Society has a Learning Enhanced Employment Program for persons involved or at-risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system; it’s a three-week training program. Also, the DI has a WoodWorks program—it’s a social enterprise that funds itself through the sale of the product. Participants work in the program for 12 weeks, with the goal of then entering directly into the woodworking industry.

6. The most successful participants in all of these programs tend to be relatively healthy (compared to others experiencing homelessness) and be between the ages of 25 and 60. Healthier workers having more successful outcomes will be intuitive for most readers. Meanwhile, one of the reasons workers over the age of 60 struggle with work is that some computer literacy is often required for jobs. According to Patty Rideout from the Seed: “Most jobs, even entry level work, require employees to use technology for work schedules, reporting, or organization.”

7. Persons housed by programs funded by the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF) see a modest improvement in employment over time. CHF stewards a large database with information about persons funded in Housing First programs that we fund. We have data on more than 3,000 unique individuals. A quick glance at employment status upon entry, compared with three months later, suggests a modest increase in percentage of clients employed (based on self-reported data).

8. In some cases, persons experiencing homelessness are overqualified for jobs. One employment support worker in Calgary tells me via email: “We are taking master’s degrees off of resumes to try to get clients working.” This may speak to the fact that, even in Calgary, there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around. (Note: this year’s Alternative Federal Budget would create 470,000 full-time equivalent jobs across Canada in just one year.)

9. More affordable child care in Calgary would make it easier for parents experiencing homelessness to access employment. A lack of subsidized child care is a major barrier to employment, especially for women. In the case of households experiencing homelessness, this is especially challenging. The median monthly childcare fee for a Calgary infant is $1,250. (For a recent review of barriers to affordable childcare across Canada and a proposed ‘way forward,’ see the child care chapter in this year’s Alternative Federal Budget; and to see the Alberta picture, see the child care chapter in this year’s Alberta Alternative Budget (coming soon!).

10. Just as affordable housing can improve employment outcomes, so too can employment help end homelessness. According to the DI’s Santino Marinucci: “We have many successes in helping clients achieve their housing goals with independent living through employment. It is one of my personal goals to start tracking metrics related to employment and housing moving forward.”

In Sum. Too few jobs, inadequate income assistance programs, major health challenges and a lack of subsidized child care all pose barriers to employment for persons experiencing homelessness. Fortunately, programs in Calgary offered by Mustard Seed, the Calgary Drop-In and Rehab Centre, and Calgary John Howard Society help many persons experiencing homelessness to overcome some of these barriers. For a ‘big picture’ advocacy ask at the federal level that could address all of these issues, check out this year’s Alternative Federal Budget; and for a similar ‘big picture’ ask at the provincial level, check out this year’s Alberta Alternative Budget (coming soon!).

The author wishes to thank Anna Cameron, Tanya Gerber, Alicia Kalmanovitch, Naomi Lightman, Santino Marinucci, Chidom Otogwu, Patty Rideout, John Rook, John Rowland and Debbie Tripp for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are his own.

Download this blog (PDF)

[1] This figure doesn’t include the many discouraged workers in Alberta who’ve given up looking for employment.

[2] These impressive figures may help explain why more than 30% of persons experiencing homelessness in Calgary report some income from employment, while the average for Alberta’s homeless population as a whole is just 15%. Specifically, this is in response to the question: “Where do you get your money from?”

Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

by admin | Feb 16, 2018 | British Columbia, Housing

Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

On February 20, the British Columbia government will table its next provincial budget. With that in mind, it’s useful to reflect on the province’s homelessness crisis—along with the various public policy factors that have likely contributed to it.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. Public operating spending by BC’s provincial government has seen a steady reduction over the past two decades. As a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), provincial public operating spending has gone from roughly 22 per cent to roughly 18 per cent during this time. The downward trend was especially sharp during the first mandate of the Gordon Campbell Liberal government (2001-2005); but the trend has yet to be reversed, even with the recent election of an NDP government. All of this is illustrated in the visual below.

Note: the above data represent total operating expenditures divided by nominal GDP, taken from various sources. Figures include debt-serving costs in the numerator. It should be noted that capital spending was relatively steady during period in question. Figures compiled by Alex Hemingway (CCPA-BC).

2. While the BC Liberals were in office from 2001 until 2017, new supply of subsidized housing for low-income households failed to keep up with increased demand. And as discussed in this report, when successive Liberal governments did provide new funding for affordable housing, they directed it at rental assistance (i.e., financial assistance) for low-income tenants renting from for-profit landlords, emergency shelter beds and SRO hotels. While spending on all of those initiatives are important, so is spending on new units of permanent, non-profit housing for low-income households. (I’ve previously written about this topic here.)

3. Across the province, average rent levels have increased very substantially over the past 25 years. Average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in BC increased by 24 per cent between 1990 and 2016; and for a bachelor unit, average rent increased by 29 per cent (both of these calculations account for inflation). The figures can be accessed here.

4. Beginning in 1996, it became very challenging to qualify for social assistance in BC. I’m referring to successive reforms to BC’s social assistance system brought in 1996, 2002 and 2003. These measures include: lower benefit levels for recipients (to be elaborated on in point #5 below); a reduction in asset exemption limits; stricter eligibility requirements; proof of job search requirements; the requirement of recipients to literally line up to receive their cheques (as opposed to receiving them in the mail or having them directly deposited into the bank); and more fraud detection. (For more on these changes, see this report and this report.)[1]

5. For households ‘lucky’ enough to qualify for social assistance in BC, the value of those benefit levels has decreased substantially since the mid-1990s. In the mid-1990s, a single employable adult (without dependents) in BC who received social assistance received approximately $10,000 annually to live on. By 2016, that same person was receiving less than $8,000 annually.[2] This decrease in the value of social assistance over time is illustrated in the bar graph below, and the figures themselves comes from this report.

6. Changes to BC’s social assistance system discussed above have likely contributed to rising homelessness in BC. Indeed, findings from this report (co-authored by Ron Kneebone and Katherine White) suggest that the reforms to social assistance discussed in point #2 above likely led to fewer people receiving social assistance in BC. What’s more, this recent report (co-authored by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins) finds a negative correlation between social assistance benefit levels and demand for spaces in homeless shelters.

7. BC appears to be experiencing rising homelessness. Time series data showing fluctuations in homeless shelter demand over the past several decades for BC as a whole isn’t publicly available. However, we do know from a recent ‘point in time’ count that, between 2014 and 2017, the number of people considered homeless in Metro Vancouver jumped by 30%.

8. A lack of affordable housing is making it challenging for practitioners to carry out the Housing First approach. Housing First refers to the practice of immediately providing affordable housing to a homeless person in need, without requiring that person to prove their ‘housing readiness.’ Yet, a recent report found that, while Housing First is an effective social work intervention, it’s constrained in the Metro Vancouver Region by a lack of affordable housing, landlord discrimination and inadequate income assistance.

9. BC’s new NDP government has undertaken important initiatives that may reduce homelessness. These measures include a $100/month increase in social assistance benefit levels, along with increases to earnings exemptions for recipients. What’s more, last year’s provincial budget included $291 million over two years to build 2,000 modular housing units for persons experiencing homelessness throughout the province, along with $172 million to operate those units (with 24/7 staffing support). Last year’s budget also included $208 million for the construction of 1,700 new rental units to be operated by non-profit organizations. BC’s provincial government also has a plan to finance these (and other) important initiatives. Indeed, it introduced a new tax bracket created for individuals who earn more than $150,000/yr.; it has also increased the corporate tax rate.

10. The housing measures announced in last year’s provincial budget were likely introduced in part as a result of advocacy. For example, the BC Non-Profit Housing Association has been stellar in its advocacy. And over at the BC office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Marc Lee has done a considerable amount of analysis—including here and here. (For a general overview of advocacy in Canada’s affordable housing and homelessness sectors, see this previous blog post.)[3]

In Sum. Homelessness across BC appears to have increased in recent years, driven by both insufficient investment in non-profit housing and inadequate income assistance measures. However, recent measures introduced by the new provincial government (along with measures at the federal level) may have the effect of reducing homelessness. Further initiatives to watch out for over the next several years in BC include the development of a provincial poverty reduction strategy, a provincial housing strategy and a provincial homelessness strategy (along with a province-wide ‘homeless count’ this spring).[4]

The present blog post was inspired by an October 2017 presentation I gave to a forum on affordable housing and homelessness in Nelson, BC. My PowerPoint slides can be downloaded here.

The author wishes to thank Jill Atkey, Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Ann Harvey, David Hay, Alex Hemingway, Iglika Ivanova, Lindsay Lenny, Kevin Milligan and Chidom Otogwu, Steve Pomeroy and Greg Suttor for assistance preparing this blog post. Any errors lie with the author.

[1] In 2012, some ‘good news’ reforms were made to BC’s social assistance system. They’re discussed here.

[2] These figures include all forms of federal and provincial tax benefits; the figures are also expressed in constant, 2016 dollars.

[3] Other factors likely played a role as well. For example, a BC-based colleague of mine tells me via email: “BC’s new NDP government has a constituency, values and ideology that has moved poverty-reduction to the top of the policy priorities list.”

[4] Other upcoming provincial strategies to note include a mental health and addictions strategy, as well as a child care and development strategy.

Nick Falvo is the Director of Research and Data at Calgary Homeless Foundation. You can follow him on Twitter at @nicholas_falvo

« Older Entries

Next Entries »