Ten things to know about Canadian attempts to count homelessness through Point-in-Time Counts

by admin | Nov 30, 2016 | Pit Count, Point in time Count, Stats Canada

Ten things to know about Canadian attempts to count homelessness through Point-in-Time Counts

Alberta’s seven largest municipalities recently released early results of a provincially-coordinated effort to enumerate and survey persons experiencing homelessness. Most of these communities reported reductions in homelessness, and reported a 19% reduction in province-wide homelessness compared to the first provincially-coordinated count conducted in 2014. The stated purpose of a Point-in-Time Count (PIT Count) is to provide a current snapshot of the demographics and number of people experiencing homelessness within a specific timeframe. Across Canada, these types of exercises have been going on for years—but they’re not always what they seem. Here are 10 things to know.

Local officials already keep basic information about persons sleeping in emergency shelters and other provisional housing; but they typically have very little information about persons sleeping outside. Across Canada, most urban centres keep administrative data on persons experiencing homelessness. Indeed, local officials (often municipal government staff) keep tabs on how many people are sleeping in their emergency shelters; officials also typically know some demographic information about those persons. From time to time, communities also conduct Point in Time (PIT) Counts (i.e. ‘PIT Counts’) which seek not only to survey and count persons sleeping in emergency shelters, but also to survey and count persons sleeping outside. The recently-conducted 7 Cities PIT Count in Alberta PIT gathered data and survey information from emergency shelters, short-term and interim housing, corrections facilities, and persons outside.
For more than a decade, there have been communities in Canada conducting counts of homelessness in their community (i.e. ‘PIT Counts’). Each community has used its own methodological approach, and that methodological approach often changes from year to year, all of which can impact or skew a count. According to a guide prepared by Employment and Social Development Canada: “Differences include the time of year the count is conducted, the time of day the count happens, the people that are included as ‘homeless,’ and the questions that are asked in the survey.” Other factors that can skew the result of a count include weather conditions on the night of the count and changes in the locations within a city where people experiencing homelessness are known to sleep without interference from law enforcement. Unlike data on people experiencing homelessness kept on a day-to-day basis by social workers and other front-line professionals (which I’ve previously blogged about here), data gathered through PIT Counts typically include a strong focus on rough sleepers (i.e. persons sleeping outside on the night of the count).
In 2016, there was a national effort to coordinate PIT Counts across Canada. During this effort, 31 communities participated, spanning seven provinces and one territory. Each of these communities did their counts between January 1 and April 30. For many communities, this was the first time they’d done a PIT Count. Everyone used the same group of core questions. Training workshops were held in November 2015 and in early 2016. A module was created by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), and the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness created a toolkit. The report with findings from the 2016 national effort will likely be released by ESDC in the near future.
Canada’s most populous cities chose not to participate in the 2016 nationally-coordinated effort. One reason some cities chose not to participate in the nationally-coordinated effort was that the time of year chosen was not ideal for them. It’s hard for some communities to find volunteers when it’s cold outside. And although communities counting as late as April were ultimately included in the national effort, the original time frame chosen by the federal government was in the dead of winter. Another reason many cities chose not to participate is that counting homeless persons when it’s extremely cold outside runs the risk of under-counting rough sleepers. Finally, some cities had done their previous count just a short period earlier, so an early-2016 count would not have been practical. Cities choosing not to participate in the nationally-coordinated effort include: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and Winnipeg. (As mentioned above, however, at the provincial level Alberta’s seven major cities did participate in Canada’s first provincially-coordinated PIT Count in October of 2014 with a commitment to count again in October of 2016.)
PIT Counts combine research and advocacy—and that can be messy. Researchers and policy-makers find it helpful to have accurate data about homeless populations. However, local officials wanting to demonstrate progress in “ending homelessness” sometimes see the results of PIT Counts as ‘progress reports.’ This can create a tension between those wanting accuracy, on the one hand, with those wanting to present an ongoing picture of progress to all stakeholders. Some local officials responsible for undertaking PIT Counts are therefore in a conflict of interest situation. (Remember: local communities decide what kind of methodology to use and how to change their methodology from one year to the next. Communities intent on demonstrating progress in “ending homelessness” may find it tempting to adjust methodologies to create opportunities to present a lower ‘final number’ than previously announced…)
Officials in some communities may (quietly) hope they end up with a smaller ‘count size;’ officials in other communities may (quietly) hope to end up with a larger ‘count size.’ Admittedly, not every community takes the same approach to advocacy. While many want to ‘show progress’ by ending up with a smaller number of individuals enumerated, others may want to end up with a larger number (in order to show funders that further resources are needed in order to end homelessness). This may depend on whether local officials choose a ‘glass half full’ approach to advocacy or a ‘glass half empty’ approach. (I discuss both of these approaches in this previous blog post.)
One challenge with PIT Counts is the need to balance methodological consistency and rigour, on the one hand, with community flexibility and need, on the other. As I’ll discuss in point #9 below, Statistics Canada could potentially be resourced to assist with future PIT Counts; this might result in more methodological consistency across years and across jurisdictions. However, many Canadian cities have an established methodology that works for their community that has been developed over many years. This allows for year over year comparisons within the community but limited comparisons across jurisdictions. As well, these communities often have a very well-organized network of volunteers who support their endeavours and use the PIT Count as an opportunity to raise awareness of homelessness in the community through media engagement and opportunities to involve political leadership in the count.
I think an unresolved methodological question with PIT Counts is whether the outdoor (i.e. rough sleeper) component of a community’s PIT Count results should be interpreted as being representative of that community’s outdoor homeless population.In other words, if 20% of homeless persons enumerated outside in Toronto’s PIT Count are over the age of 65, is it reasonable to infer from this that 20% of Toronto’s actual outdoor homeless population is also over the age of 65? I think most people who read results of PIT Counts have a tendency to assume that the results for most cities are representative; but careful researchers will acknowledge that this may not always be the case. I think the more confident enumerators are that most regions of their city with rough sleepers have been covered in a PIT Count, the more reasonable it is to infer that that city’s PIT Count results are indeed representative of that city’s actual homeless population.
The federal government could add methodological rigour to PIT Counts by asking Statistics Canada to assist with a federally-coordinated PIT Count effort. Indeed, ESDC could fund Statistics Canada to develop a methodology and train volunteers to conduct a survey that would seek to be representative of each community’s homeless population. Under this scenario, volunteers trained by Statistics Canada officials would conduct face-to-face interviews with persons experiencing homelessness. This survey could be done yearly and, once complete, an aggregation of the data collected could be made available at the CANSIM web site. A key advantage of Statistics Canada being involved is that survey design and administration is their area of expertise. Under this approach, there would be one common methodology used to collect data across Canada (rather than several dozen, as is currently the case) and this would allow for comparisons across jurisdictions and across time. This could also help address the potential conflict of interest situation discussed in point #5 above—indeed, Statistics Canada officials would ensure (if not require) methodological consistency across communities.
There are several advantages to the status quo approach. In addition to the advantages mentioned in point #7 above (pertaining to volunteer recruitment), another advantage of the status quo approach is community control. Indeed, under the existing system (whereby each community conducts its own count) if local organizers want to add new questions or rephrase existing ones, they can do so at their own discretion.

Going forward. In 2018, the federal government will once again attempt a nationally-coordinated PiT Count. Participating communities will be asked to conduct their counts in either March or April that year. Each participating community will also receive funding from ESDC to use toward the effort. More information on the “second Canadian coordinated homeless count” can be found here. To download a PDF version of this document click HERE. ______________________________________________________

The following persons provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of this blog post: Robbie Brydon, Rachel Campbell, Wally Czech, Jesse Donaldson, Louise Gallagher, Darcy Halber, Patrick Hunter, Nicole Jackson, Ali Jadidzadeh, Lindsay Lenny, Kevin McNichol, Adam Melnyk, Tim Richter, John Rowland and Munir Sheikh. The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Calgary Homeless Foundation. Any errors lie with the author.

Ten Things to Know About Federal Income Support for Low-Income Seniors in Canada

by admin | Aug 25, 2016 | Income Inequality, Poverty

Ten Things to Know About Federal Income Support for Low-Income Seniors in Canada

Prepared by Allan Moscovitch, Professor, Carleton University; Nick Falvo, Director of Research & Data at the Calgary Housing Foundation; and David Macdonald, Senior Economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

In the latest edition of How Ottawa Spends, we have a chapter titled “The Federal Government and Old Age Security: Then, Now, and the Future.” The focus of our chapter was the potential impact of the Harper government’s decision to move the age of eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) benefits from 65 to 67.

This change had been announced by the Harper government in the 2012 federal budget; it was to start to take effect in 2023. The Trudeau Liberals promised in their recent election platform to notgo ahead with the change; and after the election they did announce they would return the age of qualification for the OAS back to 65.

A recent report by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office has resulted in some debate as to the wisdom of the Trudeau government changing the age of eligibility for OAS from 67 back to 65.

With all of this in mind, here are 10 things to know about federal income support for seniors in Canada:

The first income-support program for low-income seniors in Canada was called the Old Age Pension. This program took effect in 1927, when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed. Labour unrest after World War I had helped bring this about; there were general strikes all over Canada (including the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919 and a bitter strike in Cape Breton in 1925). Initially, the federal government would cost-share (50:50) this means-tested pension plan with those provincial governments which chose to participate. A few years later, this changed to a 75:25 fed-prov split to induce more provinces to join. From the outset, the program was administered by provincial governments.
Over time, income support for seniors became more generous. When the 1927 legislation was passed, an individual had to be 70 years of age or older in order to qualify. The individual also had to have an assessed annual income of less than $5,120 (in 2015 dollars) at the time of receipt. The maximum pension a single person could receive was $3,370/yr (in 2015 dollars). Beginning in 1947, the maximum annual pension that a single person could receive, in 2015 dollars, was $9,200.
Initially, Indians^[1] who had status under the Indian Act were explicitly excluded from receiving a pension under the 1927 legislation. The attitude of the federal government at the time was the Indigenous peoples should leave the reserve and stop being Aboriginal. If they left the reserve, they could qualify for an Old Age Pension. To do that, they had to renounce their Aboriginal status and become a British subject (Canadian citizenship didn’t exist until 1947).
In 1951, major changes were made to this program and it became known as Old Age Security (OAS). In 1951, the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act were both passed, providing the legislative basis for a new pension program that came into being in 1952. The former provided for a pension at age 70 while the latter provided for a pension for people 65 to 69 and in need. In 1952, the provinces agreed to a constitutional amendment that permitted the federal government to administer the program. This entire program was financed 100% federally; there would now be no provincial money involved.
With the 1951 changes, members of First Nations were now eligible for benefits. This reflected changes in attitudes after World War II; the public began to realize that returning Indigenous war veterans were not eligible for social welfare benefits that were available to the rest of Canada’s population.
In the mid-1960s, major changes were made to the OAS. Beginning in 1965, the OAS would now be one program for people over the age of 65. By this time, the system included a supplement, cost shared 50:50 with the provinces, that would be available to some seniors between the ages of 65 and 69. In 1966, the OAS was made available (universally) to anyone 65 and older. This had the effect of setting a standard for the age of retirement in Canada.
Today’s OAS system serves 5.5 million Canadians; its current annual cost is $35 billion, or about 13% of total spending by Canada’s federal government. As of May 2015, the full OAS was $6,800/yr. That full amount is available to Canadians with annual incomes below $71,592. Today, low-income seniors who received the OAS can also apply for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). The maximum GIS benefit for a single adult is $766/month, or $9,200/year. In the case of GIS recipients who continue to work, the GIS is ‘clawed back’ at the rate of 50 cents for every dollar of income. About 1.8 million Canadians receive the GIS today. This costs Canada’s federal government almost $11 billion/yr.
With the OAS/GIS system in place, there is substantially less poverty among seniors than there would be if the system were not in place. Using the after-tax Low Income Measure (LIM), an individual or household is ‘in poverty’ if their income is less than 50% of the median income. In 1976, almost 23% of seniors households fell below the LIM; by 1996, this number had declined to a mere 3%. OAS and GIS are almost certainly responsible for much of this decline.The Canada Pension Plan (CPP)/Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) is also having the effect of lowering the poverty rate for seniors. Once Canadians reach the age of 65 and receive income from OAS, GIS and/or CPP their poverty rate (as measured by the LIM) drops very substantially. For example, 37% of single females aged 64 in Canada live in poverty; among 65 year-old single females, the rate is just 21%.
Since 2003, the percentage of elderly Canadians in poverty, as measured by the LIM, has risen back up to almost 10%. That’s largely because the LIM is set at 50% of median income adjusted for family size; and since 2003, the median incomes of Canadians have increased in real terms. Meanwhile, lower income seniors rely mostly on OAS/GIS and the CPP/QPP. OAS/GIS is indexed to the Consumer Prince Index (CPI) only (i.e. not to wages and not median income). The CPP/QPP you get in the year you retire is tied to average wages; but after you retire, your CPP/QPP increases by CPI only…so you fall relative to median incomes of the general population.
Our chapter argues that, if the change in OAS eligibility were to happen, the percentage of Canadians aged 65 and 66 living in poverty would increase substantially. We made these calculations with the help of Statistics Canada’s Social Policy Simulation Database and Model (note: David Macdonald is a whiz at this!). Many of those aged 65 and 66 not getting OAS/GIS would likely continue receiving social assistancebenefits; and social assistance benefits are not as generous as the combination of OAS/GIS benefits. For example, a single senior with no other income currently has access to just over $17,000 annually from OAS and GIS; but as a social assistance recipient, the same person would receive between $7,000 and $11,000 per year (depending on the province)—or $6,000 and $16,000 in the territories. What’s more, social assistance is funded by provincial governments, meaning that the proposed changed would offload spending from the federal government onto provincial governments.

Frances Abele and Richard Shillington have been very helpful in the preparation of this blog post. Any errors are our own.

[1] The term “First Nation” was not used until relatively recently.

Ten things to know about central agencies in Canada

by admin | Aug 8, 2016 | Government Funding, Pitching new programs to government, Research and Data

Ten things to know about central agencies in Canada

From time to time, voluntary sector leaders—and advocates in general—come up with ideas for new spending and new social programs. When they do this, they often focus too much on influencing elected officials, and too little on influencing senior public servants. What’s more, it’s important that their proposals be supported by good research, in part because exaggerated claims about the benefits of their proposals may hurt them in the end. With all of this in mind, here are 10 things to know about central agencies in Canada.

Even after a minister tells you they support your idea, there will often be further government approvals required.[1] At the federal level, this process is run by three central agencies; they are Privy Council Office (PCO), Finance Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). Their respective roles will be discussed below. There are broadly similar functions for provincial and territorial governments (but details may vary).
For your idea to become a new program, cabinet will need to give “policy authority” and PCO supports this cabinet decision-making process. PCO coordinates the meetings of cabinet and cabinet committees, provides advice to the prime minister on cabinet business and briefs the chair of committees on agenda items. During this process, PCO analysts play a “challenge function role” (this will be a recurring theme), meaning they critically assess and examine proposals as they come forward. Questions that might get asked by PCO officials in Ottawa include: Is this an area of federal jurisdiction? Does this initiative have intergovernmental implications? Have you consulted on this with other departments within the federal government? (If no such consultation has taken place, PCO officials will coordinate a meeting among staff from various federal departments.) PCO officials might call into question the rationale or evidence used to support the proposal and if a similar program exists elsewhere, PCO officials will point this out. PCO will also ensure that the political implications are spelled out.
Once you have policy authority from cabinet, a new program will still need budgetary approval through Finance if it involves new money. Finance provides funding authority or a “source of funds” for new proposals through the budget process. Departments and Ministers generally make a request to the Minister of Finance and it gets assessed by public servants in the Department of Finance, who also play a challenge function. The underlying question asked by Finance officials is “Does this initiative really require new money?” My sources in Ottawa have three unofficial mottos that Finance officials can almost always be expected to say. The first is “How much will that cost?” The second is “Why can’t you do that from your existing budgetary allotment?” And the third is “No” (hopefully, the last one is not so consistent). It’s also important to note that the budget process doesn’t just assess the merit of spending money on your idea on a yes-or-no basis, but also the comparative merit of different proposals. You’re competing against other ideas for scarce resources. Finance officials are suspicious of lofty promises that a proposal will save large sums of money somewhere else; they hear this often. If the proposal has the potential to save money elsewhere, be prepared to demonstrate this with precision and nuance.
Treasury Board, a committee of cabinet, provides implementation authority for proposals and this approval process gets into the details of how the program will be run. Cabinet policy authority is sometimes thought of as “agreement in principle”, while Treasury Board is where the details get discussed. TBS officials play a challenge function that is focused on how the proposal will be implemented rather than challenging the basic idea. They will want to know the risks inherent in the proposed initiative and how they are addressed. They’ll also want to know if the proposal is compliant with other federal policies and they’ll want to know if the details of the proposal are logistically sound and realistic. For example, if a complex program is proposed with a plan for three staff persons to run it, TBS officials will call this into question. In Ottawa these days, treasury board officials are also very focused on the measurement of outcomes.
There is typically some overlap between what the different central agencies do. For example, in Ottawa, PCO officials might ask how results for a new program might be measured (even though that’s more typically thought of as a question asked by TBS officials). Likewise, PCO officials might also scrutinize a cost-benefit analysis that is supporting a pitch (even though similar scrutiny might be provided by finance officials). And the central agencies work closely together.
At the end of the day, if cabinet really wants a new program or new spending, central agencies won’t stop the initiative. An inherent principle underlying representative, executive government is that ministers are ultimately the decision-makers. Public servants, meanwhile, operate with the principle of “fearless advice, faithful implementation.”
In Ottawa, even the Minister typically has to wait until Budget Day to know if each proposal has been accepted. That’s because the final decision on every budget item is made between the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, and their decision is usually kept secret—even from the rest of cabinet—until the budget is released. (In Ottawa, proposals for a new program or new spending are typically made months before.)
A key take-away from all of this is that, when voluntary sector organizations advocate for a new program or new spending, they should think about both elected officials and senior public servants. Indeed, it’s important to engage senior public servants early and often. If an elected official likes your proposal, do not assume that members of the senior public service won’t eventually give it the third degree. Ideally, as many senior public servants as possible should hear about your proposal directly from your organization before it arrives to them via official channels.
New proposals should be supported by sound research. Just because an elected official doesn’t scrutinize your cost-benefit analysis or your long-term savings calculations, doesn’t mean senior public servants won’t. Staff in both central agencies and line departments will appreciate intellectually honest analysis, the humble presentation of information and well-referenced propositions. The challenge function at the central agencies will involve dozens of very smart people reviewing and assessing the proposal; your proposal (sponsored by the department and minister) will stand up much better if it has a strong problem definition (a.k.a. the rationale for why action is needed) and recommendations supported by evidence.
Exaggerated claims about your proposal will probably burn you in the end. Consider a statement such as: “This proposed program will revolutionize this sector because nothing this great has ever been done before.” That might get you traction in the media and with some elected officials; but always consider the roles of central agencies discussed above. Senior public servants have heard such statements before and will likely scrutinize every aspect of such a claim.

The author wishes to thank Francesco Falvo, Louise Gallagher, Darcy Halber, Kayle Hatt, Alex Himelfarb, Kevin McNichol, Michael Mendelson, Leslie Pal, John Stapleton, Katherine White and one anonymous reviewer for invaluable assistance with this. Any errors are his.

[1] An important exception is in the case where your idea happens to be within the minister’s existing authority and, more importantly, within the existing department/ministry budget and not especially politically contentious.

Using Data to End Homelessness in Calgary

by admin | Apr 8, 2016 | Uncategorized

Using Data to End Homelessness in Calgary

On March 9, I spoke on a panel in Professor Susan Phillips’ Policy and Program Evaluation course at Carleton University. This is a required course in Carleton’s Master of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership program, and one of the program’s main themes is that non-profit organizations face strong expectations to demonstrate their effectiveness. Thus, future leaders in the sector will need to be both knowledgeable and competent in this regard.

I was asked to speak to the above theme from the vantage point of my role as Director of Research & Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF). With this in mind, here are 10 things future non-profit leaders should know.

In 2008, Calgary became the first city in Canada to launch a plan to “end homelessness.” Calgary’s plan was based on a model used in more than 300 communities in the United States. Today, more than one dozen Canadian cities have such a plan. Also since 2008, on a per capita basis, homelessness (as measured by Point-in-Time counts) has decreased in Calgary by 17%.
Calgary’s Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) may be the most sophisticated of its kind in Canada. When Calgary developed its plan, it decided to also develop an information management system that, among other things, could help it track progress. Indeed, last fall, I wrote that many of Calgary’s homeless-serving organizations enter client information into a database called HMIS. Today, all Calgary non-profit programs that receive funding from the CHF must use the HMIS (it’s stipulated in their contracts); and some non-funded agencies voluntarily use the HMIS system for some of their programs.
The development and implementation of Calgary’s HMIS system has been guided by several community committees. For several years, an HMIS Advisory Committee met to test the ‘big brother’ concern about the system. The Committee consisted of both staff from homeless-serving agencies and clients from the sector. Along with addressing privacy concerns, clients were part of the decision-making process (and were assured that the police would not have access to client records). There was also (and still is) an HMIS User Group attended by staff who use the HMIS system—that group meets on an ad hoc basis to discuss more technical matters, such as updates to the database system, reporting cycles and ‘how to’ matters (it met more frequently in the early days of the system than it does today). Finally, now that the system has been ‘up and running’ for some time, the CHF still convenes smaller committees on an ad hoc basis to help guide specific initiatives.
An important success of Calgary’s HMIS system has been its assistance with program referrals. Many (but not all) homeless persons in Calgary go through an intake process with the help of the Service Prioritization Decision Assessment Tool (SPDAT). The SPDAT gives the client an acuity score, which assists with their placement into CHF-funded housing programs (information gathered during the SPDAT process is entered into the HMIS system). Based on the goals set out in Calgary’s Plan to End Homelessness, clients with higher SPDAT scores are often given higher priority for placement into CHF-funded housing. Committees meet on a regular basis to recommend which clients be placed into the limited amount of subsidized housing available.[1] The formal name for this entire process is called Coordinated Access & Assessment (CAA). (For more on Calgary’s CAA system, see this recent book chapter by Jerilyn Dressler.)
Some non-profit organizations have been happy to share their data with CHF; others less so. In my experience, before a non-profit shares data voluntarily with CHF, they like to know what exactly the data will be used for and how they may benefit from sharing their data. Until they see how the sharing of data can benefit their organization and its clientele, they’re reluctant to share (unless they’re mandated to do so by their funder). Organizations such as the CHF need to therefore work hard to build trust with other non-profits and demonstrate how data sharing can be mutually beneficial, rather than simply thinking of receiving data as an entitlement.
CHF disburses funding to Calgary-based non-profits in the homeless-serving sector each year; to monitor their outcomes and impact, it benchmarks them against key performance indicators (KPIs). Different programs have different objectives—for example, KPIs developed for some programs put emphasis on how effective those programs appear to be in creating stable housing situations for their tenants. CHF staff, in monitoring each funded agency’s progress on KPIs, is able to track progress thanks to the aforementioned HMIS database system. CHF then makes annual funding decisions based in part on each funded program’s performance against KPIs.
Calgary’s HMIS system provides invaluable support to the aforementioned benchmarking system. Indeed, this has been one of the major successes of Calgary’s HMIS system. It’s through the HMIS system that ‘program performance’ data is gathered from CHF-funded programs.
One drawback of HMIS data is that most of its client data is based on self-reporting. However, it should be noted that self-reported information is gathered by an experienced case manager during an in-person interview. What’s more, many well-respected data sources in Canada are also based on self-reporting; these include the Labour Force Survey and the Census.In future, CHF researchers would like to cross-reference self-reported HMIS data with administrative data from health systems and justice systems, in order to compare information on the same individual. (Such a research exercise would obviously require client consent, as well as cooperation from health and justice authorities.)
I think the main success of Calgary’s initial Plan to End Homelessness was that it helped galvanize public attention and stopped homelessness from rising. When the original Plan was developed in 2008, Calgary had experienced a 650% increase in homelessness over just a 10-year period. And as indicated above, Calgary has since seen a 17% drop in per-capita homelessness since the original Plan was unveiled. I personally consider that to be a very impressive accomplishment; indeed, there is little doubt in my mind that there are people alive today thanks largely to that Plan. In retrospect, eliminating homelessness by 2018 (a key goal of he original plan) was a very ambitious target.
My main piece of advice to third-sector (i.e. non-profit) leaders is to be humble with data. By that, I mean they shouldn’t try to ‘over interpret’ data. Non-profit leaders need to be honest about the limitations of both their data and the statistical analysis they undertake using that data. They should also be forthright about assumptions they make in long-term projections. When in doubt, they should seek guidance from more senior researchers. Though it may be tempting to exaggerate one’s knowledge and foresight at times, remember that chickens eventually come home to roost. And with that in mind, I’ll remind blog readers what the late John Kenneth Galbraith once said about economic forecasters: “There are two kinds of forecasters: those who don’t know, and those who don’t know they don’t know.”

[1] Even with Calgary’s sophisticated use of data, the city still has far more homeless people in need of housing than it has subsidized housing units available. Thus, due to a lack of affordable housing, some people experiencing homelessness can wait years to be placed into housing; others die while on the waiting list. That’s a big reason why the CHF endorses this recent policy statement and continues to lobby all levels of government for more funding.

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation. His area of research is social policy, with a focus on poverty, housing, homelessness and social assistance. Nick has a PhD in public policy from Carleton University. Fluently bilingual, he is a member of the editorial board of the Canadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale. Contact him at nick@calgaryhomeless.com. Follow him on Twitter: @nicholas_falvo.

Version française: L’ Utilisation de données dans le programme visant à mettre fin à l’itinérance à Calgary

–

The following individuals were very helpful in the preparation of this blog post: Britany Ardelli, Janice Chan, Francesco Falvo, Louise Gallagher, Darcy Halber, Chantal Hansen, Ron Kneebone, Ali Jadidzadeh, Jennifer Legate, Kevin McNichol, Natalie Noble, John Rowland and Kelsey Shea. Any errors are mine.

Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada

by admin | Sep 15, 2015 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, Canada, Cities, Demographics, Employment, Employment Insurance, Fiscal policy, Homeless, Housing, Income, Income Support, Indigenous peoples, Labour Market, Macroeconomics, municipalities, Nunavut, Ontario, population aging, Poverty, seniors, Social Policy, taxation, Toronto, Unemployment

Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada

This afternoon I gave a presentation at Raising the Roof’s Child & Family Homelessness Stakeholder Summit in Toronto. My slide deck can be downloaded here. To accompany the presentation, I’ve prepared the following list of Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada.

1.Efforts to enumerate persons experiencing homeless have generally been spotty, but it is reasonable to assert that homelessness in Canada saw substantial growth in the 1980s and 1990s. On a nightly basis in Toronto, there were about 1,000 persons per night staying in emergency shelters in 1980. By 1990, that figure had doubled. And ten years later, there were 4,000 persons per night staying in Toronto’s emergency shelters. The Toronto figure of 4,000 per night has remained relatively constant for the past 15 years, though it has edged up in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 recession a phenomenon which I’ve previously written about here. (Admittedly, the number of persons living in emergency shelters on a nightly basis is a rather narrow gauge of homelessness. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, approximately 13% of Canadian households are in core housing need; for Nunavut, the figure is a whopping 39%.)

2. Though it’s difficult to establish causation, I think relatively safe assumptions can be made about some of the major contributors to homelessness. Researchers are generally careful about using the term causation in fact, there are long-standing tensions among academic disciplines as to what methodological approaches are required to establish it. Statisticians, for example, generally believe that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to establish causation; but as David Freedman has argued, RCTs are often impractical or unethical (Freedman, 1999, p. 255). Rather, careful researchers are more likely to say things like these factors have likely contributed to this effect,” or “I think it’s likely that this effect caused this to happen And with that in mind, I’d like to suggest that there are probably three major factors that have contributed to homelessness in Canada: 1) macroeconomic factors (especially unemployment); 2) changes to our social welfare system (including a decrease in the availability of government-subsidized housing); and 3) the design and administration of policies whose specific intent is to respond directly to homelessness (often referred to as ‘systems responses’ to homelessness).

3. Homelessness has profound ramifications on the lives of children. As I wrote in 2012: Two studies have been done in Toronto looking at the role of housing with respect to children in care. Results of both studies indicate that the state of the family housing was a factor in one in five cases in which a child was temporarily admitted into care. Results from the Toronto research also indicate that, in one in 10 cases, housing status delayed the return home of a child from care (Falvo, 2012, p. 14). Other research estimates that, on an annual basis in Toronto alone, approximately 300 babies are born to mothers who are homeless. (Of course, homelessness can have profound ramifications on the lives of adults as well. For more on this, see this 2007 study.)

4. The role of Canada’s federal government in funding both housing for low-income persons and programming for homeless persons has varied considerably over time. Provinces and territories spend much more of their own money on housing for low-income persons when the federal government leads. Thus, a considerable amount of subsidized housing for low-income Canadians was built from the mid-1960s through to the early 1990s. Since the early 1990s, comparatively little subsidized housing has been built for low-income persons in Canada. I should also note that the annual, inflation-adjusted value of federal funding for homelessness today is worth just 35% of what it was worth in 1999.

5. Not every province/territory responds to homelessness in the same way. While much mores subsidized housing for low-income persons gets built when the federal government leads, provinces and territories don’t always respond to federal funding initiatives in the same way. For example, between 2002 and 2013, three times as many subsidized housing units were built in Alberta (on a per capita basis) than in Ontario. I would argue that a driving force behind this differential stems from Alberta’s strong economic performance during this same period relative to that of Ontario’s.

6. Though a careful researcher will be cautious in discussing what causes homelessness, I think we know a lot about what solves it. In many cases, a person who stays in an emergency shelter will exit homelessness without substantial public resources. In some cases, they might find housing on their own; in other cases, family and friends may provide them with short term assistance e.g. some financial support, a couch to sleep on, etc. (To learn more about lengths of stay in homeless shelters in a sample of Canadian cities, see this 2013 study.) Researchers and advocates for the homeless generally don’t view such short-term stays as a major public policy challenge the bigger challenge is in the case of persons who stay in emergency shelters (and outside) for longer periods of time. Even here though, I would argue that it’s hardly a mystery as to what constitutes an effective policy response.

Indeed, as early as the mid-1980s, small non-profit organizations in Ontario (and possibly in other provinces as well) found success in building subsidized housing for persons who had experienced long-term homelessness they did so by providing professional staff support to help such tenants live independently in those units. This was (and still is) known as supportive housing. The emergence of supportive housing in Ontario happened in large part due to strong advocacy by community-based groups. This included: the Singles Displaced Persons Project; the consumer/survivor movement; the slogan homes not hostels the founding of Houselink Community Homes; and the founding of Homes First Society. Conditions of eligibility for such housing varied from one provider to the next. In many cases, the tenant did not have to prove housing readiness before being offered a unit. In fact, Homes First Society got its name because its founders believed that its tenants needed homes first before addressing other challenges (i.e. mental health, substance use, employment, etc.).

Today, researchers, practitioners and advocates refer to this approach ashousing first. And very recently, a successful RCT of housing first was conducted in five Canadian cities; I’ve previously written about that study here.

7. There are several ways of making housing available to low-income households; all of them involve the private sector to varying degrees. Sometimes when government subsidizes housing for low-income persons, it provides money to a non-profit entity that develops, owns and operates the units. Other times, government provides a subsidy to landlords (either for-profit or non-profit); in exchange for the subsidy, the landlord agree to rent units at a reduced rate for a specified period of time (e.g. in some cases, for 10 years). And other times, government provides money (often known as a housing allowance) to low-income tenants who then rent a unit from a for-profit landlord. Of the three possible approaches, I personally have a preference for the option where a non-profit entity develops, owns and operates the units (and I have previously written about this here). Having said that, I think there’s a place for all three approaches, depending on local context.

8. Some jurisdictions have used sophisticated information management systems as part of their efforts to respond to homelessness. Many organizations serving homeless persons in Calgary enter client information into a database called the Homelessness Management Information System, a system that is also used in many American cities. Client-level information (such as age, health status, employment status and housing status) is entered into the database when an initial intake is done. While the client is receiving services, updated information is entered again; in the case of some programs, follow-up assessments are done every three months. In the case of some program types, there are both exit and post-exit follow-up assessments completed. All information-gathering is subject to provincial privacy legislation. There are many uses for the data once it’s gathered. For example, some organizations use the data to provide case management services to clients. Also, funders are able to assess each organization’s performance against benchmarks (i.e. percentage of clients who receive housing after a specific period of time).

9. When it comes to both preventing and responding to homelessness, the capacity of government to generate revenue matters a great deal.Governments typically use revenue generated from taxation to finance both subsidized housing and other important social programs. When tax revenue decreases, many governments have less ability to spend on such programs. Since the mid-1990s, tax revenue in Canada (measured as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product) has decreased substantially. If this trend doesn’t reverse itself soon, it will be very challenging for many governments (especially provincial, territorial and municipal governments) to invest in important social programs. There is currently a move afoot by some Canadians to increase taxes; it is led by Alex Himelfarb, former Clerk of the Privy Council. Alex and his son Jordan recently co-edited a book that calls for the need for higher taxation in Canada. (Note: according to some schools of thought, it isn’t necessary for a sovereign government with its own currency to tax more in order to finance more social spending. While keeping in mind that such an approach would be most relevant to Canada’s federal government and much less relevant to provincial, territorial and municipal governments readers can read more about one such school of thought here.)

10. Over the course of the next decade, Canada will likely see substantial increases in homelessness among both seniors and Indigenous peoples (First Nation, Metis and Inuit). Seniors and Indigenous peoples are growing as a percentage of Canada’s total population. Further, the percentage of seniors living below Statistics Canada’s Low-Income Measure has grown substantially since the mid-1990s. I think all of this makes it likely that both of these groups will begin to grow as a percentage of Canada’s homeless populations.

–

The following individuals were very helpful in helping me prepare the present blog post: Maroine Bendaoud, Lisa Burke, George Fallis, Greg Suttor, Francesco Falvo, Louise Gallagher, Ali Jadidzadeh, Lisa Ker, Jennifer Legate, Kevin McNichol, Richard Shillington, Blake Thomas and Mike Veall. Any errors are mine.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »