Ten Things to Know About Social Assistance in Canada

by admin | May 8, 2017 | Alberta, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Pit Count, Point in time Count, Poverty Reduction, Research and Data, Social Assistance

Ten Things to Know About Social Assistance in Canada

The present blog post is the first in a two-part series on social assistance. (Part two, which looks at social assistance in Alberta, can be viewed here). The series is inspired by recent data captured in Alberta’s 2016 Point-in-Time Count of Homelessness suggesting that just a small percentage of persons experiencing homelessness in Calgary receive social assistance (see point #7 of this previous post).

Ron Kneebone (Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary) and Katherine White (Yukon’s Deputy Finance Minister) have referred to social assistance as “the final layer of the public social safety net — designed to catch those people in need of support but unable to find it from family, friends or non-government agencies…”

(I’d argue that, in larger urban centres, social assistance is in fact the second-last layer before the homeless-serving sector…)

Here are 10 things to know:

Every Canadian province and territory has its own social assistance system—that is, its own legislation, its own regulations and its own policies.First Nations with self-government agreements have their own “income assistance” programs. And for First Nations without self-government agreements, income assistance is funded by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (but “aligned with the rates and eligibility criteria for off-reserve residents of the reference province or territory”).[1] In the words of Martin Papillon (Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Ottawa): “First Nations administer income assistance on behalf of federal authorities, yet they follow rules and objectives established by provinces.”[2]
There aren’t enough jobs to go around,[3] and it’s well-known that Employment Insurance benefits provide only temporary coverage (and only cover a small percentage of jobless persons).[4] Without social assistance, many people without jobs would be destitute. This places elected officials and public servants in a conundrum—while wanting to provide some basic income assistance for those without work, they don’t want to ‘make life so comfortable’ for those persons so as to discourage them from actively looking for work. They also don’t want workers to quit their jobs in the belief that social assistance provides a ‘good living.’ In other words, by design, social assistance has two contradictory objectives: 1) to give people enough money to live on; and 2) to not give people enough money to live on.
In Canada, social assistance coverage expanded in the post-World War II era; it then contracted in the 1980s and 1990s. In the years following World War II, Canada experienced low unemployment, high levels of tax revenue and a strong feeling of collective solidarity. During this time, senior orders of government designed and funded a social assistance system with benefit levels and rules that were generous relative to today.[5] From the mid-1960s until the mid-1970s, this expansion was especially fast.[6] (For more on the political and economic factors that led to the post-1970s contraction, see this 2014 article by Jim Stanford.)
Most people agree that social assistance benefit levels are insufficient to live on. Across Canada, 70% of households on social assistance are “food insecure.” In fact, it’s rare to see an elected official or senior public servant even attempt to make a case that social assistance benefit levels are sufficient. In 1995, an Ontario provincial cabinet minister attempted to do this; he was roundly ridiculed. In Alberta, a “single employable adult” on social assistance receives approximately $8,000 annually to live on. (To see social assistance benefit levels for yourself, check out the most recent Welfare in Canada)
Very few immigrants (relative to Canada’s general population) receive social assistance.That’s a finding of research done by Tracy Smith-Carrier and Jennifer Mitchell (and that research is presented in Chapter 17 of this 2015 book on social assistance in Canada). However, a very large percentage of members of First Nations receive “income assistance” (this issue is discussed in detail by Martin Papillon in Chapter 18 of the aforementioned book).
In recent years, there’s been a substantial increase in persons with disabilities receiving social assistance. At a national level, John Stapleton and Anne Tweddle have written about this here. They find this increase to be especially apparent in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia (and they find it to be most pronounced in Alberta). For a recent review of what this trend looks like in Alberta, see this recent report.
The inadequacy of social assistance puts a strain on other parts of Canada’s social welfare system. Three specific points are worth making here. First, if social assistance benefit levels were higher, there would be less demand for emergency shelter beds (that’s one of the findings of this recent report). Second, most of the government funding required for social housing in Canada is for the “rent supplement” component of the assistance (i.e. financial assistance to cover the gap between what it costs the operator to pay for the housing, on the one hand, and what a low-income household can afford, on the other). There’d be less need for social housing funding if social assistance benefit levels were higher. Third, low income is associated with poor health outcomes,[7] which in turn lead to higher health care costs. It’s therefore likely higher social assistance benefit levels would reduce health care costs in Canada.
Many landlords discriminate against tenants who report social assistance as a source of income. This is commonly known by both social assistance recipients and their advocates. And in 2008, this theory was put to the test in a study where ‘mock phone calls’ were made to Toronto landlords; during the study, researchers found solid empirical support for the claim that landlords do indeed discriminate against social assistance recipients.
Social assistance administrators do not track what happens to people who are denied coverage. In other words, when a person’s application for social assistance is rejected, there’s no systematic effort made to track what happens to them. However, researchers do sometimes look at what happens after people stop receiving social assistance; one such Canadian study is available here.
A modest increase in social assistance benefit levels would likely reduce homelessness. A recent report estimates that modest increases in social assistance benefit levels would likely result in less need for emergency shelter beds for homeless persons. Specifically, the report suggests that a 15-20% increase in benefit levels for ‘single employables’ would likely result in a 15-20% decrease in demand for shelter beds.

In Sum. Across Canada, social assistance plays an important, but insufficient, role in poverty alleviation. Higher social assistance benefit levels would likely result in tangible outcomes, including less food insecurity, improved health outcomes and less homelessness. Part 2 of the present blog series will focus on the Alberta context.

The author wishes to thank Daniel Béland, Gerry Boychuk, Pierre-Marc Daigneault, Louise Gallagher, Seth Klein, Jennefer Laidley, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Michael Mendelson, Dionne Miazdyck-Shield, Munir Sheikh, Anne Tweddle and Donna Wood for invaluable assistance with this blog post. Any errors lie with the author.

Download a PDF of this blog post here: Ten Things to Know About Social Assistance in Canada

[1] An important exception is Ontario, where the provincial government is responsible for on-reserve income assistance. Martin Papillon briefly discusses this in Chapter 18 of this book.

[2] I’ve taken this quote from p. 334 of this book.

[3] For more on the relationship between the labour market and social assistance receipt, see Gerard Boychuk’s chapter in this 2015 book. Figure 2.2 in the chapter consists of a line graph suggestive of a strong correlation (R^{2 = –}0.88) between the percentage of Canada’s adult population receiving social assistance, and the employment rate, over time.

[4] For more on the inadequacy of Employment Insurance benefits, see the Employment Insurance chapter in the 2017 Alternative Federal Budget.

[5] This happened as part of an expansion of Canada’s entire social welfare system. For more on this, see this book by Dennis Guest.

[6] To learn more about this history, check out my PhD thesis, which can be downloaded here.

[7] This 2009 report, focusing on the Ontario context, looks specifically at health outcomes of social assistance recipients.

Ten things to know about program evaluation and the Calgary Homeless Foundation

by admin | May 2, 2017 | Ending Homelessness, Research and Data

Ten things to know about program evaluation and the Calgary Homeless Foundation

The Canadian Evaluation Society (CES) recently invited me to speak on a panel discussion. I was asked to speak to how my organization, the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF), views program evaluation.

The CES defines evaluation as: “the systematic assessment of the design, implementation or results of an initiative for the purposes of learning or decision-making.”

With this in mind, here are 10 things to know about program evaluation in general and specifically its role at CHF:

Formal program evaluation typically has a logic model.[1] In order to build the logic model, evaluators interview staff with direct knowledge of the program being evaluated. They also do a lot of readings—those readings include funding agreements and any reports that led to the genesis of the program being evaluated. The process of producing the logic model should be iterative, with multiple drafts and a feedback process involving program staff. Eventually, both the evaluators and program staff should agree on the logic model’s content.
Some program evaluators learn on the job, while others have formal training. There are at least three ways to obtain program evaluation credentials in Canada: 1) there are several diploma and certificate programs offered by members of the Consortium of Universities for Evaluation Education; 2) the CES offers non-credit courses through its Essential Skills Series; and 3) evaluators can receive credentials via the CES Credentialed Evaluator program.
How ‘arm’s length’ program evaluators should be is often the subject of debate. In Canada’s federal government, most evaluation is done internally. Having said that, when the federal government does evaluation internally, it often outsources many of the specific tasks (e.g., survey administration, the facilitation of focus groups, etc.).
There are advantages to having program evaluation done externally. Those advantages include: 1) capacity (perhaps no in-house staff have comparable levels of expertise, including expertise pertaining to data analysis); 2) perspective (that external person might be able to guide the conversation in a way that insiders, who might have designed the program, might not think about it); and 3) independence (i.e. the avoidance of bias).
There are advantages to having program evaluation done internally. An external evaluator won’t understand the program when they begin the evaluation and will take time to learn; by contrast, when a program evaluation is done internally, all basic information about the program under evaluation is known by evaluators up front. Put differently, when you pay an external person to come in and evaluate your program, your staff have to explain the program’s basics to the external person—and while this is happening, you’re paying both your staff and the external person! Another advantage of doing program evaluation in-house is that it builds capacity—i.e. staff get to know their work better.
Like many non-profit organizations, the Calgary Homeless Foundation typically (CHF) chooses not to use external program evaluators. One major reason for this is cost.
CHF uses a logic model for the housing programs that it funds. This logic model was built ‘in house’ via a process led by a CHF staff person (namely, my colleague Janice Chan). Our logic model begins by outlining the major contributing factors to homelessness. It then lists the major inputs required to successfully house persons who are experiencing homelessness. It then discusses outputs (e.g., number of clients housed within a given time frame), outcomes (i.e., housing stability) and impact (namely, more client independence). This logic model is presented below.

8. CHF’s performance indicators are linked to the CHF’s logic model. CHF’s performance indicators[2] and quarterly monitoring of performance by programs it funds are linked to the logic model presented above (put differently, there’s ongoing monitoring against our logic model). That said, our performance indicators are only one part of our overall performance measurement. With our overall evaluative process, we also ask the following questions about programs that we fund: Has the program in question been providing us with good financial reporting on time? How collaborative have program staff been?
9. CHF contracts (for the programs we fund) contain explicit information about our performance indicators. Indeed, contracts spell out expected performance by that funded program on those indicators. Funded programs are expected to achieve outcomes that are 10% greater than their cohort’s average the previous year. (Click on this link to see the template version of the program outline section of one of our typical contracts; see pp. 10-11 of the template for information on performance indicators.)
10. Some programs funded by CHF have their own logic models. One reason for this is that CHF isn’t always that program’s sole funder. Likewise, CHF funds some non-housing programs (e.g., outreach, prevention) for which this logic model isn’t a neat fit.[3] In such cases, we develop arrangements (and funding contracts) that seek to reconcile this tension.

In sum. Program evaluation is an important tool to demonstrate performance and efficiency. Whether an internal or external approach is adopted, the outcome can provide important information to guide funding and programming decisions.

A PDF version of the present blog post is available to download here: Ten things to know about program evaluation and the Calgary Homeless Foundation

The author wishes to thank the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this blog post: Carla Babiuk, John Burrett, Janice Chan, John Ecker, Louise Gallagher, Penny Hawkins, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Kevin McNichol, Natalie Noble, Rob Shepherd, Tim Veitch and Jeannette Waegemakers Schiff. Any errors lie with the author.

[1] Behind the logic model is a theory of change.

[2] CHF’s performance indicators (for programs it funds) will be the subject of a future blog post.

[3] See this previous blog post for an overview of the various program types funded by CHF.

Advocacy in Canada’s Affordable Housing and Homelessness Sectors

by admin | Apr 24, 2017 | Alberta, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Policy, Research and Data, Social Housing

Advocacy in Canada’s Affordable Housing and Homelessness Sectors

My PowerPoint slides from the presentation can be downloaded here: Falvo_Homelessness Advocacy WHP 3 of 3 20jan2017.

This is the last of a 3-part presentation that I delivered that day. A blog post based on Part 1 can be found here, while a blog post based on Part 2 can be found here.

Here are 10 things to know about advocacy in Canada’s homelessness and affordable housing sectors:

Advocacy can be defined as a collective effort to bring about changes to political priorities, funding levels, legislation, regulations or policies. It’s relevant to people working in the homeless-serving sector because, in addition to delivering services to clients on a day-to-day basis, many workers in that sector also want to see changes to public policy that would help end homelessness.
In the homelessness and affordable housing sectors, there are at least seven approaches to advocacy. They are: grassroots advocacy; direct action; rights-based advocacy; government-to-government advocacy; advocacy within Parliament; professionalized advocacy; and policy-based advocacy. Some people and groups take part in more than one type of advocacy; also, there’s considerable overlap among the different approaches.
People engaged in “grassroots advocacy” have often been directly affected by homelessness. Also, their effort likely has a very small budget. This often involves informal working relationships, as well as a strong volunteer component. Examples of grassroots advocacy in Canada’s homelessness and affordable housing sectors include: Calgary’s Client Action Committee; Vancouver’s Carnegie Community Action Project; Housing Action Now (in Toronto); Montreal’s Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain(FRAPRU); and Montreal’s Réseau d’aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal (RAPSIM).
People who engage in “direct action” are very willing to be disruptive (i.e. sit-ins, protest, civil disobedience). Little effort is made to charm or cajole the audience (e.g., observers, media, etc.). Direct action often receives a considerable amount of media attention. Examples of groups who engage in direct action include CLAC-Montréal and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty.
The underlying argument of “rights-based advocacy” is that individuals should receive a social benefit because it’s their legal right to have it. This often means challenging interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and invoking “economic, social and cultural rights.”[1] Rights-based advocacy is heavily dominated by people in the legal community. Examples of organizations that take this approach include Canada Without Poverty and the Right to Housing Coalition (organized by the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario). An example of a Calgary-based approach to rights-based advocacy is the Homeless Charter of Rights project.
Government-to-government advocacy, as well as advocacy within a legislature or parliament, has obvious importance. Examples of organizations that engage in the former approach include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Assembly of First Nations. Examples of advocacy that take place within a legislature or parliament include Question Period, committee work and the legislative process.
“Professionalized advocacy” is often well-resourced and tries to positively reinforce what it sees as ‘good behaviour’ by government. This approach typically involves frequent meetings with elected officials—sometimes elected officials even seek out the group in question for their opinion and for background information. Such groups typically have multiple paid staff and sufficient resources to plan large events (e.g., conferences), hire consultants, commission research and produce web-based resources. Such organizations often provide services to their members (e.g. webinars, trainings). They also place emphasis on positive messaging with government (i.e. praising good behaviour, positive reinforcement). Canadian groups in the homelessness and affordable housing sector that engage in this approach include the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, Housing Partnership Canada and the National Housing Collaborative.
“Policy-based advocacy” is an approach whereby a specific policy or funding pitch is used to galvanize attention and lobby government. Examples include the Alternative Federal Budget, the One Percent Solution and “ending homelessness.” (As a self-proclaimed policy wonk myself, I like this approach very much.)
In the past decade, there’s been a change in tone in Canadian homelessness advocacy. Beginning in the mid-2000s, many homelessness advocates began making their cases to senior orders of government in Canada in new ways. Advocates started to emphasize what the non-profit sector could do differently, rather than how much more money senior orders of government needed to spend on social welfare programs. Increasingly, advocates also began using economic arguments in favour of action (by emphasizing the economic cost of homelessness to society) rather than a moral argument. This approach was especially popular among those practicing the professionalized approach; it has notbeen as popular within the direct action movement. I’ve previously blogged about this phenomenon here.
There’s a role for all of these approaches. There’s no inherent reason why all of these approaches can’t co-exist. Not only do they not need to compete; they can actually complement and reinforce each other. I would argue, for example, that direct action approaches ‘create space’ for professionalized approaches. What’s more, some people and groups may choose to practice a variety of approaches.

The author wishes to thank the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this blog post: Cathy Crowe, Katie-Sue Derejko, Louise Gallagher, Kara Layher, Allan Moscovitch, Emily Paradis, Steve Pomeroy, Kaitlin Schwan and Greg Suttor. Any errors lie with the author.

[1] For a consideration of whether economic, social and cultural rights can be litigated in courts, see this resource.

You can get a PDF version of this blog post here: Advocacy in Canada’s Affordable Housing and Homelessness Sectors

Five emerging trends in affordable housing and homelessness

by admin | Mar 8, 2017 | Uncategorized

Five emerging trends in affordable housing and homelessness

On January 24, I gave a presentation to students at the University of Calgary as part of the Certificate in Working with Homeless Populations program. The goal of this presentation was to discuss emerging trends in Canada’s affordable housing and homelessness sectors. A version of my PowerPoint slides, which are chock-full of visuals and references, can be downloaded here: Falvo Recent Emerging Trends in Homelessness WHP 2 of 3 This is Part 2 of a 3-part presentation I gave that day. I’ve blogged about Part 1 here and you can find a blog post based on Part 3 here.

When it comes to affordable housing and homelessness, the Trudeau government has put its money where its mouth is…so far. In its first budget, substantial new investments were announced for housing for First Nations, Inuit, and Northern communities (approximately $370 million annually for two years). New funding for renovations of existing social housing was also announced. Approximately $55 million in new annual funding was announced for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (also for two years). Annual funding for the Investment in Affordable Housing Initiative was doubled (for 2016/17 and 2016/18). What’s more, $100 million in new annual funding for seniors housing was announced, also for two years. (A succinct list of housing-related initiatives from the 2016/17 federal budget can be found here, while a more thorough analysis can be found here.)
However, the Trudeau government has yet to put in place a long-term plan to deal with operating agreements that are expiring on existing units of non-profit housing. Canada’s provinces and territories receive funding on an annual basis from the federal government to operate existing housing units (mostly for low-income tenants). This funding is not just used to cover the mortgages; it also helps with the ongoing operating costs—that is, the difference between the rent received from tenants and what it actually costs the housing provider to keep the units in a good state of repair. These funding agreements usually last 35-50 years. Some of these funding agreements have already started to sunset; they’re scheduled to end altogether in 2039.[1]
Canada’s aging population will pose challenges for non-profit housing providers across Canada. It’s well-known that Canada’s population is aging, and this is starting to impact homeless demographics. Among other things, this means that demand for seniors supportive housing (i.e. subsidized housing with professional social staff support for low-income seniors) will grow a July 2010 advocacy paper on this topic (with a Calgary focus) can be found here.
Many plans to “end homelessness” are starting to sunset. Beginning in the late-2000s, several Canadian jurisdictions made plans to “end homelessness.” Most were 10-year plans; and those 10-year ‘deadlines’ are nearing, which means the proverbial chickens are now coming home to roost. Very recently, the City of Victoria announced it was pushing its ‘deadline’ back by three years. An October 2016 report argues that such plans are overly ambitious and ill-advised without substantial new funding from senior orders of government. I think the belief that communities can “end homelessness” with a ‘can do’ attitude is starting to wear thin. Indeed, for some observers, 10-year plans, while well-intentioned, lacked the necessary support from senior orders of government to be successful. I therefore predict we’ll start to see advocates place increased emphasis on the need for deep-seated changes to public policy, and less emphasis on what local communities can do differently.
The final report of the National Housing Strategy will soon be released. Canada’s federal government has undertaken national consultations on the development of a “national housing strategy.” The consultation web site is called “Let’s Talk Housing.” It includes the consultation’s stated vision, principles, themes, intended outcomes, a ‘what we heard’ document and key dates.

The author wishes to thank the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, Louise Gallagher, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Steve Pomeroy and one anonymous source for assistance in writing this. Any errors are his. [1] Admittedly, the Trudeau government did announce $30 million in temporary funding for some social housing agreements in its first budget; but that was just two years of funding.

For a PDF version of the present blog post, please click here: Five emerging trends in affordable housing and homelessness

Public Policy and Homelessness: The Case of Calgary

by admin | Feb 21, 2017 | Alberta, Big City Charter, Chidom Otogwu, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Housing, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Ron Kneebone, Social Housing

Public Policy and Homelessness: The Case of Calgary

A version of my PowerPoint slides, which are chock-full of visuals and references, can be downloaded here: Falvo Public Policy and Homelessness WHP 1 of 3

This is Part 1 of a 3-part presentation I gave that day. A blog post based on Part 2 can be found here, while a blog post based on Part 3 can be found here.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. Federal spending in Canada fell drastically from the early 1990s until the mid-2000s. In the early 1990s, federal spending (not counting intergovernmental transfers) represented 19% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By the late-2000s, that figure had dropped to about 13%. That’s a remarkably sharp drop in such a short time.

2. Taxation fell sharply in Canada between the mid-1990s and the late-2000s. Looking at annual tax revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP (all orders of government combined) tax revenue in Canada represented 36% of GDP in the late-1990s. By 2012, that figure had dropped to below 31%. What’s more, Canada’s level of taxation was considerably above the average for OECD countries in the mid-1990s; today, our taxation level is well below the OECD average.

3. Federal spending on housing decreased substantially beginning in the early 1990s. In light of the trends discussed in points #1 and #2 above, this comes as little surprise to most people. For more on the federal role in housing policy, including a look at how it has evolved over the past several decades, see this 2013 conference paper.

4. Rental housing production in Canada fell sharply beginning in the late 1970s. This happened in part due to reductions in public spending on housing discussed in point #3 above. Other factors that likely led to this drop include high interest rates (which made it expensive for developers to finance new supply), a shrinking middle class (which resulted in less demand for rental units), provincial legislation pertaining to condominiums, and rent regulation.[1]

5. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the Alberta government began spending substantially less on housing.This decrease was drastic. Indeed, in 1995, the Alberta government devoted an amount worth 0.36% of its GDP to housing; just five years later, this amount had shrunk to a mere 0.10%. The Alberta government’s annual spending on housing didn’t start to increase again until the early 2000s.

6. In 1993, the Alberta government introduced strict reforms to social assistance. This entailed at least two things. First, the rules changed, meaning that provincial officials made it much more difficult for Albertans to qualify for social assistance. Second, the annual value of benefit levels for those who did qualify for social assistance dropped quite suddenly (and then continued to erode over time). Indeed, a ‘single employable adult’ without dependents received almost $9,000 annually in 1992 (that figure includes tax credits); by 2007, this figure had shrunk to less than $6,000[2] That’s a very sharp loss in annual income for a very low-income individual.

7. Alberta has much less rental housing than other provinces, and this gap has grown in the past 25 years. In 1990, Alberta had almost as many apartment rental units (on a per capita basis) as the rest of Canada. Then, beginning in the early 1990s, the amount of apartment rentals in Alberta started to decrease; today, Alberta has just half the number of apartment rental units (per capita) as the rest of Canada. There are three main reasons for this: the first being, historically, Alberta experienced higher rates of in-migration than other provinces; secondly, the Alberta government was not as keen as other provinces to subsidize housing for lower-income households; and lastly, Alberta has a relatively large number of high-income households (and higher-income households typically prefer to own than rent).

8. Calgary has much less rental housing than Edmonton, and this gap has grown since the mid-1990s. Beginning in the early 1990s, the number of rental housing units (per capita) in both Edmonton and Calgary started to drop each year; and it dropped more sharply in Calgary than in Edmonton. Today, Calgary has approximately half the number of rental units as Edmonton on a per-capita basis.

9. The many public policy factors raised above helped create the ‘perfect storm’ for a very sharp rise in homelessness in Calgary beginning in the mid-1990s. From the mid-1990s until the mid-2000s, homelessness in Calgary saw very rapid growth. For example, according to analysis done with Point-in-Time Count methodology, it grew by almost 700% (per capita) during that time. And while it’s always hard for researchers to establish causation (see point #2 of this blog post) it can reasonably be inferred that the public policy changes discussed above played a major role in this increase.

10. In 2008, Calgary became the first Canadian city to develop a plan to ‘end homelessness’; since that time, homelessness in Calgary has decreased. There are three main reasons for that decrease. First, since 2008, a great deal of progress has been made at the community level in Calgary (I’ve previously discussed the very important role played by the Calgary Homeless Foundation as System Planner here). Second, benefit levels for Alberta social assistance recipients have increased since 2008. For example, total annual income received by a ‘single employable’ household receiving social assistance jumped by more than 30% in 2009; and total annual income for a single adult receiving Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped increased by 30% between 2011 and 2013. Third, Calgary’s rental vacancy rate is very high right now (an indirect result of the drop in the price of oil).

In Sum: The intended ‘take away’ from the presentation is that, homelessness is a complex issue that requires a coordinated and collective response that addresses the local issues through local responses. When it comes to ending homelessness, a community plan that is focused on increasing coordination and collaboration across a system of care and greater integration with big system public service providers is vital. For agencies at the frontline, having a System Planner, such as the Calgary Homeless Foundation, providing the big picture view and coordination matters a great deal… and so too does public policy.

I wish to thank: Rachel Campbell, Louise Gallagher, Ron Kneebone, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Chidom Otogwu, Steve Pomeroy, Joel Sinclair, John Stapleton, Greg Suttor, Alina Turner and Donna Wood for assistance with this. Any errors are mine.

[1] This is not to suggest that rent regulation doesn’t play an important role in regulating landlord-tenant relations. For more on this, see this recent analysis.

[2] Both figures in this paragraph are expressed in 2015 constant dollars.

For a PDF version of the present blog post, please click here: Public Policy and Homelessness,The Case of Calgary

« Older Entries

Next Entries »