L’isolement, la distanciation physique, et les prochaines étapes concernant le sans-abrisme : Un survol de 12 villes canadiennes

L’isolement, la distanciation physique, et les prochaines étapes concernant le sans-abrisme : Un survol de 12 villes canadiennes

L’isolement, la distanciation physique, et les prochaines étapes concernant le sans-abrisme : Un survol de 12 villes canadiennes

An English-language version of this blog post is available here.

Pendant la pandémie de la Covid-19, les fonctionnaires des grandes villes canadiennes ont travaillé de pair avec les responsables de la santé et d’autres secteurs afin d’augmenter la distanciation physique chez la population itinérante. Dans un récent rapport (disponible en anglais ici), j’offre un survol de ce à quoi ressemble la situation à Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Québec, Hamilton, Régina, Saskatoon et Saint-Jean.

Voici 10 points saillants issus du rapport.

  1. Le rapport a été commandé par la Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF). En tant que planificateur du système d’aide aux itinérants, la CHF souhaitait faire un survol des actions prises par les autorités responsables en sans-abrisme dans d’autres villes pendant cette période sans précédent. Initialement, le rapport était destiné à un usage interne, mais la CHF a décidé de le rendre public afin que les intervenants en sans-abrisme, des chercheurs, et des militants d’ailleurs puissent mieux comprendre le portrait national.
  1. Les autorités responsables en sans-abrisme au Canada ont augmenté la distanciation physique grâce à de nombreuses mesures. Ils ont augmenté les mesures de distanciation physique dans les refuges existants, mis sur pied de nouvelles installations et créé des espaces prévus pour l’isolement et la quarantaine. Toronto et Vancouver se démarquent à cet égard puisque les deux villes ont garanti un nombre important de chambres d’hôtel pour qu’elles servent à ces fins.
  1. Les intervenants en sans-abrisme dans la plupart des grandes villes canadiennes ont continué à déplacer les gens des abris d’urgence vers des logements permanents. Ils ont également innové. Par exemple, plusieurs villes ont développé de nouveaux modèles pour déplacer les personnes itinérantes vers des logements permanents. Le rapport offre des explications détaillées à cet égard.
  1. Les réseaux de coopération entre les organismes se sont améliorés pendant la crise; cela est particulièrement vrai des intervenants en santé. Dans plusieurs cas, il existait la perception que les responsables locaux en santé étaient peu engagés à adresser le sans-abrisme, mais qu’ils ont amélioré leur approche pendant la pandémie. Il est espéré que ces formes de collaboration se maintiennent.
  1. Plusieurs autorités responsables dans le secteur du sans-abrisme ont exprimé leur frustration par rapport au manque de collaboration du secteur correctionnel. Le rapport souligne que les intervenants du secteur correctionnel libèrent les détenus sans prévoir leur hébergement, et sans faire appel aux intervenants en sans-abrisme afin de coordonner une transition vers un refuge d’urgence (il faut toutefois noter que Québec est une exception importante à cet égard).
  1. À travers le Canada, un nombre surprenant d’espaces prévus pour les itinérants demeurent ouverts (ou sont en cours de relocalisation). En d’autres mots, les nouvelles mesures de distanciation physique mises en place semblent durer plus longtemps que prévu. Ce « nouveau normal » variera cependant d’une ville à l’autre. Par exemple, la plupart des refuges à Calgary et Edmonton ne s’attendent pas à pouvoir se conformer à l’exigence de deux mètres.
  1. Il reste encore des défis dans le secteur. Bien que cela varie à travers le Canada, les défis suivants perdurent dans tout le secteur : le recours au sommeil extérieur; les salles de toilettes partagées ainsi que d’autres espaces partagées (sans compter les couts additionnels liés au nettoyage de ces espaces partagés); et le nouveau sans-abrisme engendré par le ralentissement économique[1].
  1. Le gouvernement fédéral canadien a annoncé d’importantes sommes de nouveaux financements depuis le début de la pandémie. Le gouvernement canadien a annoncé 157,5 millions de dollars en financement ponctuel pour Vers un chez-soi en mars 2020 (Vers un chez-soi est le véhicule de financement principal utilisé par le gouvernement fédéral pour lutter contre le sans-abrisme). De plus, en septembre 2020, le gouvernement canadien a annoncé 236,7 millions de plus pour Vers un chez-soi, ainsi qu’un milliard de dollars pour des logements modulaires, l’acquisition de terrain, et la transformation d’édifices existants en logement abordable.
  1. Toutefois, ces mesures de financement demeurent temporaires. Depuis le début de la pandémie, il n’y a eu aucune amélioration permanente au financement des initiatives luttant contre le sans-abrisme. Une telle amélioration pourrait : appuyer les intervenants locaux à maintenir la distanciation physique améliorée; appuyer la transition de plus de gens à partir des refuges d’urgence et des campements extérieurs vers des logements permanents; aider à payer les couts supplémentaires liés au nettoyage et au personnel liés au « nouveau normal » mentionné ci-dessus.
  1. Le rapport recommande le renforcement de l’Allocation canadienne pour le logement (ACL). Récemment lancée, l’ACL est essentielle à la Stratégie nationale sur le logement et offre une aide financière aux ménages à faible revenu pour leur permettre de payer leur loyer. Il est attendu que la moitié de cet argent proviendra du gouvernement fédéral et l’autre, des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux. L’ACL devait être lancée le 1er avril 2020; toutefois, seulement cinq provinces ont signé l’entente. Le gouvernement fédéral pourrait augmenter son apport à l’ACL afin d’encourager le restant des provinces et territoires à en faire autant. Par exemple, le gouvernement fédéral pourrait offrir d’assurer les deux tiers ou les trois quarts des couts.

En conclusion : Les autorités responsables en sans-abrisme à travers le Canada ont travaillé ardemment afin d’améliorer la distanciation physique pendant la pandémie. L’augmentation permanente du financement fédéral aiderait à maintenir le « nouveau normal » tout en trouvant des solutions permanentes de logement abordable pour les personnes itinérantes.

J’aimerais remercier Susan Falvo, Michel Laforge et Vincent St-Martin pour leur appui pendant la rédaction de ce billet.

 

[1] J’ai récemment écrit un autre rapport sur le sans-abrisme engendré par le ralentissement économique. Ce rapport, commandé par Emploi et Développement social Canada, est paru en décembre 2020 et est disponible ici.

 

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

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

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

I’ve recently co-authored a journal article[1] with Ali Jadidzadeh that asks the question: Do higher social assistance benefit levels lead to greater take-up? The short answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t increase benefit levels.

Here are 11 things to know about the study.

1. The study looks only at employable adult singles without dependants. Other studies asking the same question have looked at other household groups; but ours focuses on single adults without dependants in part because this group receives very little public policy attention, and in part because they comprise most persons experiencing absolute homelessness in Canada.

2. While the study measures the impact of a variety of independent variables on caseloads, the one we were most interested in was benefit levels. Other independent variables considered in the study are: the official unemployment rate; ‘working poor’ income (e.g., third and fourth decile income); population variation over time; and social assistance rule changes.

3. The study uses three alternative models to estimate the impact of these variables. Essentially, different measurement techniques have their strengths and weaknesses, so it’s common for statistical work like this to use a variety of approaches so that the reader can compare findings.

4. The first model finds an important relationship between benefit levels and caseload growth. Specifically, it finds that a 1% increase in the real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) value of benefit levels results in a 0.372% increase in caseloads. This model uses pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), an approach that doesn’t account for provincial fixed effects (i.e., characteristics of provinces that don’t vary over time). These results should therefore be taken less seriously than the other two models.

5. The second model finds a rather modest relationship between increases in benefit levels and caseload growth. Specifically, it finds that a 1% increase in the real value of benefit levels results in just a 0.157% increase in caseloads. This approach uses fixed effects OLS, meaning it accounts for unobservable provincial characteristics.

6. The third model finds the relationship to be a bit stronger. This approach uses Panel Fully Modified OLS and finds a 1% increase in the real value of benefit levels to result in a 0.457% increase in caseloads. This approach is considered good when researchers want to study long-run relationships between continuous (i.e., quantifiable) variables. It’s a relatively new approach that has gained currency in the past five years.

7. There’s an important takeaway from this. Specifically, a 10% increase in the real value of social assistance benefit levels would likely result in caseload growth for this group of between 1.57% and 4.57%. Many observers would consider this to be modest caseload growth.

8. Rule changes are important, but they are difficult to measure. In the mid-1990s, several large provinces introduced strict eligibility criteria (including the introduction of work-for-welfare provisions). The study finds their impact in reducing caseloads to be statistically significant. However, in general, it is very challenging for statistical analysis to measure the impact of rule changes on caseloads.

9. The unemployment rate has a modest impact on caseloads. In the first model, a one percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate is found to be associated with a 7.3% drop in caseloads (in the second model, it’s associated with a 5.8% drop). One implication from this is that provincial and territorial officials should not expect job creation alone to wipe out social assistance caseloads for employable singles.

10. The study cautions policymakers against focusing too much on the sizes of caseloads. In other words, when deciding on the appropriate levels of benefits, the study encourages policymakers to consider positive outcomes associated with higher benefit levels.

11. Higher social assistance benefit levels can help accomplish other policy objectives. As the study points out, they can reduce the percentage of Canadians living in poverty, reduce levels of food insecurity, improve health outcomes and reduce homelessness (all of which can result in savings of their own to the taxpayer). So if higher benefit levels also result in modest caseload growth, that may not be so bad. 

In sum. There are many positive outcomes associated with higher social assistance benefit levels. Having said that, when policymakers decide to increase benefit levels, they should budget for some increased take-up.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: Susan Falvo, Ali Jadidzadeh, Richard Shillington and Vincent St-Martin.

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

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

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

  1. Housing need has been increasing in Alberta. The percentage of Alberta households in core housing need has been rising steadily over the past three Census periods. In 2006, 10.1% of Alberta households were in core housing need; by 2011, this figure had risen to 10.7%; and in 2016, the figure stood at 11.4%. In 2016, this represented more than 164,000 Alberta households.
  1. Some household types face especially dire circumstances. Across Alberta, 30.6% of female lone-parent families are in core housing need, while 30.8% of seniors living alone are in core housing need. Further, the rate of core housing need for Status Indians is more than double the rate for non-Indigenous households (and these figures do not account for households living on reserve).[1]
  1. More than one in four persons experiencing absolute homelessness in Alberta is Indigenous. That’s according to Alberta’s 2018 Point-in-Time Count. It’s worth noting that Indigenous peoples make up just 7% of Alberta’s total population.
  1. On a per capita basis, Alberta has far fewer subsidized housing units than the rest of Canada.[2] According to the most recent Census, subsidized housing represents just 2.9% of Alberta’s housing units; for Canada as a whole, the figure is 4.2%.
  1. Comparing Alberta to British Columbia is instructive. As can be seen below, from 2007 until 2010, Alberta produced more housing units funded unilaterally by the provincial government than BC on an annual basis. But since 2011, BC has been outperforming Alberta in that respect. In fact, in 2017, BC’s provincial government funded more than 15 times as many housing units than Alberta, despite having a roughly similar overall population, and despite Alberta having an NDP government at the time.[3]

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

  1. The impact of Canada’s National Housing Strategy will be modest. Recent analysis by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer projects future federal housing spending to actually decrease over the next decade (relative to GDP). The same analysis projects that total spending on Indigenous housing by Canada’s federal government will be “substantially lower” going forward.
  1. When Alberta’s provincial government does fund new subsidized units, the process lacks transparency. Even when Rachel Notley’s NDP government was in power, housing funding was not allocated via a formal grant program through which non-profits (i.e., community housing/non-market housing providers) could apply for funding. Such a process has not been in place in Alberta since 2012.
  1. The Government of Alberta lacks a clear, public reporting structure for provincially-subsidized housing. For example, most Albertans—including very well- placed sources in the affordable housing sector—do not know: how much recent funding was used for repairs vs. new builds; how much of this funding has been dependent on cost-matching from other orders of government; what types of projects have received the funding; which types of households have been targeted; or to which municipalities the funding has flowed. This lack of transparency makes it very challenging for key actors in the non-profit housing and homeless-serving sectors to plan; it has also made it virtually impossible for key players in the sector to have a democratic dialogue about how public dollars are being allocated.
  1. In October 2019, the UCP government unveiled its first budget, announcing some housing cuts. Starting in 2020, operating budgets for Housing Management Bodies (HMBs) will be reduced by an average of 3.5%. There will also be a 24% reduction to the Rental Assistance Program, which provides financial assistance for low- to moderate-income households to assist with monthly rent payments for up to one year. This 24% reduction begins in 2020 and takes full effect within three years.
  1. There has been long-time speculation that the recent provincial funding reduction (or a portion of it) may be retargeted and used to match federal funding through the new Canada Housing Benefit. That program, set to take effect 1 April 2020, requires that the Government of Alberta match federal funding.[4] This speculation was confirmed in a 26 December 2019 Canadian Press article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

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.

Provincial public operational spending

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.

Total Welfare Income

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