Les effets à long terme de la récession de la COVID-19 sur le sans-abrisme au Canada

Les effets à long terme de la récession de la COVID-19 sur le sans-abrisme au Canada

by | Dec 10, 2020 | Canada, Cities, Determinants of Homelessness, Employment, Employment Insurance, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Income, Income Support, Indigenous peoples, Labour Market, Macroeconomics, municipalities, Pitching new programs to government, Policy, Poverty, Social Assistance, Social Policy, Unemployment

Les effets à long terme de la récession de la COVID-19 sur le sans-abrisme au Canada

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

J’ai rédigé un rapport pour Emploi et Développement social Canada qui présente les impacts les plus probables de la récession actuelle sur le sans-abrisme. Le rapport complet est disponible (en  anglais) ici.

Voici 10 choses à savoir à ce sujet.

  1. La récession actuelle risque de contribuer au sans-abrisme au Canada, mais plusieurs facteurs influenceront son ampleur. Parmi ceux-ci : le ressentiment des effets de la récession pourrait prendre jusqu’à cinq ans; les nombreux inconnus à l’horizon (par exemple, de potentielles vagues subséquentes de la pandémie, le développement d’un vaccin, la nature de futures prestations); les variantes démographiques d’une communauté à l’autre (notamment en ce qui concerne le marché du travail et le marché immobilier).
  1. L’effet de décalage de cinq ans s’explique en partie par la lutte pour éviter de perdre leur logement. Lorsque les ménages affronteront une perte de revenu ou d’emploi, ils pourraient tenter de négocier des arriérés de loyer avec le propriétaire de leur domicile; ils pourraient aussi emprunter de l’argent à des amis ou à d’autres membres de leur famille. Ils pourraient tenter d’emménager avec des amis, de la famille, ou dans un logement plus abordable. Le système de bienêtre social canadien a également pour effet de retarder les effets de la récession. Par exemple, les prestations d’assurance emploi (et plus récemment la Prestation d’urgence canadienne) peuvent atténuer les effets d’une perte d’emploi, aidant ainsi les ménages à maintenir leurs logements. Même si elle est moins généreuse, l’assurance sociale peut également contribuer à retarder le sans-abrisme.
  1. L’effet de décalage donne aussi la chance aux paliers gouvernementaux supérieurs de prévoir des initiatives contre le sans-abrisme. Puisqu’il pourrait prendre encore quelques années pour que l’on perçoive la croissance du sans-abrisme dû à la récession actuelle, il y a suffisamment de temps pour concevoir, implanter et observer les retombées de nouvelles mesures préventives. Ces nouvelles mesures pourraient cibler des ménages qui risquent de perdre leur logement, ou qui sont nouvellement sans-abris.[1] 
  1. L’impact de la récession variera d’une communauté à l’autre à travers le pays. L’état des marchés immobiliers, des systèmes d’aide financière, et de la planification du sans-abrisme varie à travers le Canada. De plus, les trajets des sans-abris migrant à travers le pays seront difficiles à prévoir au cours des prochaines années. Conséquemment, il sera difficile de prévoir dans quelles communautés et à quel moment surviendra l’augmentation du sans-abrisme. Nous savons par contre que les personnes les plus affectées par la récession de la COVID-19 sont : les jeunes, les femmes, les personnes célibataires et les personnes sans diplôme d’études secondaires.
  1. Afin de tenir compte des nombreux facteurs en jeu, les fonctionnaires doivent surveiller une variété d’indicateurs. Le rapport recommande à EDSC de tenir compte des indicateurs suivants tout au long de la récession : le taux de chômage officiel, la proportion de Canadiens qui tombent sous la Mesure axée sur les conditions du marché (surtout ceux qui tombent sous le seuil de 75%)[2]; les taux d’aide sociale; le cout médian des loyers; le taux d’inoccupation des loyers; la proportion de ménages qui consacre plus de 50% de leur revenu sur l’habitation; les expulsions; et le taux d’occupation quotidien des refuges d’urgence.
  1. Il faudra faire preuve de nuances avec ces données. Autant que possible, il faudra surveiller l’évolution de ces indicateurs depuis le début de la pandémie, ainsi qu’à travers les différentes régions et groupes démographiques précis (par exemple les femmes, les jeunes, les Autochtones, etc.)
  1. Le rapport recommande au gouvernement fédéral d’améliorer l’Allocation canadienne pour le logement (ACL). Cette prestation offre une aide financière aux foyers à faible revenu afin de payer leur loyer. Il est prévu que la moitié de cet argent proviendra du gouvernement fédéral, et que l’autre moitié proviendra des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux. L’ACL devait être lancée le 1er avril 2020, cependant, il n’y a que cinq provinces qui 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.
  1. Le rapport recommande également que le gouvernement fédéral fasse preuve de souplesse quant au recouvrement des montants excédentaires de la Prestation canadienne d’urgence (PUC) versés aux prestataires d’aide sociale. Il est nécessaire de souligner ce point vu la confusion considérable entourant le lancement de la PUC. Une telle approche pourrait comprendre un recouvrement partiel chez ces individus (par l’entremise du système d’impôts), et une amnistie totale devrait être considérée dans certains cas. 
  1. Le rapport recommande qu’EDSC mette sur pied une nouvelle source de financement pour le programme Vers un chez-soi (le véhicule principal par lequel le gouvernement fédéral lutte contre le sans-abrisme). Le rapport aborde la réussite d’effets préventifs aux États-Unis à la suite de la récession de 2008-2009, et encourage EDSC à mettre sur pied un programme semblable au Canada. Le programme pourrait mettre de l’avant une aide financière de courte-durée pour les ménages qui sont à risque de perdre leur logement, en train de le perdre, ou qui l’ont perdu récemment. Les cibles pourraient évoluer au fil du temps, à la lumière de changements survenant dans les indicateurs mentionnés précédemment (taux de chômage officiel, proportion des gens avec des revenus inférieurs à la Mesure axée sur les conditions du marché, etc.).
  1. Le rapport propose des changements politiques que pourraient entamer les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux. Ceux-ci comprennent une augmentation des prestations d’aide sociale, de rétablir l’admissibilité des gens disqualifiés de l’aide sociale à cause de la PUC, et encourager les refuges d’urgence à prioriser les solutions basées sur le logement.

En résumé, puisque nous sommes conscients que le sans-abrisme risque d’augmenter au Canada en raison de la récession, les paliers gouvernementaux supérieurs doivent limiter les dégâts. S’ils sont bien conçus, les efforts de prévention du sans-abrisme peuvent être plus économiques que des réponses d’urgences postérieures.

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

[1] Il est également très important de continuer à adresser le sans-abrisme existant. J’ai écrit à ce sujet ici (billet en anglais).

[2] Pour d’autres informations par rapport à la Mesure axée sur les conditions du marché, lisez ce billet (en anglais).

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

by | Dec 9, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, British Columbia, Calgary, Canada, Cities, Corrections, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Income, Income Support, Indigenous peoples, municipalities, Pitching new programs to government, Policy, Poverty, Social Policy, Toronto

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.

 

Lifting singles out of poverty in Canada

Lifting singles out of poverty in Canada

by | Dec 2, 2020 | Canada, Demographics, Determinants of Homelessness, Employment, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Housing, Income, Income Distribution, Income Inequality, Income Support, Labour Market, Policy, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Social Assistance, Social Policy, Unemployment

Lifting singles out of poverty in Canada

I’ve written a report for the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy making the case for higher social assistance benefit levels for employable single adults without dependants. The link to the report is here.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. In Canada, most employable adult singles without dependants who receive social assistance get less than $10,000/yr. in benefits. This amount of money is ridiculously low (keeping in mind that this figure includes all forms of tax credits received by the recipient). A person with this income must use it to pay for housing, food, transportation and other basic necessities (to see benefit levels in every province and territory, check out Welfare in Canada).

2. In relation to Canada’s official poverty line, social assistance benefit levels for this household group are dismal. ‘Welfare income’—which includes social assistance benefit levels, child benefits and all forms of tax credits—brings couples with two children to between 75% and 95% of the federally-defined poverty line, depending on the province (see figure 1 below). However, welfare income for employable singles without dependants typically comes to about 50% of the poverty line for this particular household type.

  

3. In most provinces and territories, $10,000 is less than half of what a minimum wage earner would earn in one year working full-time hours. Historically, policy-makers and economists have often been nervous about setting social assistance benefit levels high enough to make paid work unattractive. However, that shouldn’t be a major concern right now in most parts of Canada, as the differential between welfare incomes and minimum wage rates is currently quite substantial.

4. Increases to social assistance benefit levels could help Canada’s federal government achieve its poverty reduction targets. In Canada, we say a household is in ‘deep income poverty’ if it makes less than 75% of the official poverty line. Canada’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, unveiled in October 2018, seeks to track progress on this indicator. Increases in social assistance benefit levels would be a very easy way for progress to be made in this respect.

5. Doing so could also help provincial and territorial governments achieve their poverty reduction targets. All provinces and territories now have their own poverty reduction strategies; many of these strategies include targets pertaining to reducing the number of people under the poverty line (New Brunswick’s strategy actually seeks to reduce deep income poverty by 50%). Increasing social assistance benefit levels would help all provinces and territories achieve their targets.

6. More than half of people in Canada who are in ‘deep income poverty’ are singles. Not only do singles receive very low social assistance benefit levels relative to other household types, but they also do not realize many of the economies of scale that come with cohabitating (e.g., shared rent, shared utility costs, etc.). This reality makes this household group all the more worthy of policy attention.

7. Higher social assistance benefit levels can result in less homelessness. It’s intuitive for many of us that higher social assistance benefit levels would both reduce the likelihood of a person losing their housing and also increase the likelihood of a person experiencing homelessness to obtain rental housing on the private market. Research by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins confirms this, estimating that a $1,500/yr. increase in social assistance benefits for an employable single without dependants would (in 2011) reduce the use of shelter beds on any given night by nearly 20%.

8. Higher benefit levels can improve food security. A recent study in British Columbia confirms this, finding that overall rates of food security improved among social assistance recipients after a one-time increase in social assistance benefit levels in that province. 

9. Less homelessness and improved food security would almost certainly result in public cost savings. The costs of homelessness to the taxpayer are well documented, as are the healthcare costs associated with food insecurity. Put differently, increasing public expenditure on social assistance would likely result in public savings elsewhere.

10. While higher benefit levels would likely lead to more takeup, this increased takeup would be modest. That is precisely the finding of a recent Canadian study that I co-authored with Ali Jadidzadeh. We found that a 10% increase in the real value of social assistance benefit levels for this same household group would likely result in an increase in caseloads of less than 5%.

In sum. When it comes to social assistance across Canada, employable single adults without dependants are a very neglected subgroup. Increasing their benefit levels would likely result in less poverty, improved food security and less homelessness.

 

I wish to thank Susan Falvo, Lynn McIntyre, Vincent St-Martin and Val Tarasuk for assistance with this blog post.

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

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

by | Oct 10, 2020 | British Columbia, Canada, Data Sharing, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Income, Income Distribution, Income Inequality, Income Support, Labour Market, Policy, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Research and Data, Social Assistance, Social Policy

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.

Canada’s history of residential schools

Canada’s history of residential schools

by | Aug 1, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Canada, Determinants of Homelessness, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Indigenous peoples, Policy, Social Policy

Canada’s history of residential schools

When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are savages; he is surrounded by savages…He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly pressed upon myself…that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in…schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.

— John A. Macdonald (Canada’s First Prime Minister)

 

I recently had the chance to read the Volume 1 summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which discusses Canada’s history with residential schools.[1]

Here are 10 things to know.

1. Residential schools were part of a deliberate policy to assimilate Indigenous peoples against their will. Such schools existed in Canada for over a century, with federal support for them beginning in in the 1880s (peak enrolment was reached in the late 1950s). Federal officials hoped that students who went to these schools would stop feeling connected to their culture and would sever ties with their families and communities. Canada’s federal government used such schools to gain control over land and resources of Indigenous peoples.

2. Initially, attendance was voluntary; but this soon changed. It is also very important to bear in mind that many reserves did not have schools of their own, meaning that Indigenous people typically had no alternative to residential schools.

3. Residential schools were funded by the federal government, but administered by churches. The major religious denominations that administered Canada’s residential schools were: Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Methodist, and Presbyterian. The Roman Catholic Church ran more of these schools than any other denomination. Most of the staff were recruited by the church. Each school’s principal was typically a priest or minister (as opposed to an educator). Staff were disproportionately women, many worked for free, and many worked seven-day weeks. Turnover was high—it was common for a staff person to work for a residential school for no more than two years before moving on to another job.

4. Residential schools were profoundly disruptive to families. Some students were sent to schools located several thousand kilometres from their communities; some went several years without seeing their parents. Siblings attending the same school were separated from each other.

5. Students were not allowed to speak Indigenous languages in residential schools. Often, they were physically punished when they tried. When students returned home, it was challenging for them to communicate with their parents, as well as discuss the abuse to which they were subjected in school. Only English—and French, to a lesser extent—were allowed to be spoken in residential schools.

6. Residential schools were woefully underfunded and used students as child labour. Prior to the early-1950s, students typically spent half the day in class, and the other half of the day working (e.g., growing much of the food they ate, fixing their own clothing). Not surprisingly, this resulted in a considerable number of workplace accidents (e.g., hands being caught in equipment). It also meant that students did not receive the same quality education as students in Canada’s mainstream schools.

7. Students at residential schools faced many forms of abuse. Students who wet their beds were often subjected to organized forms of public humiliation. One TRC witness testified that staff would line up the bedwetters and parade them through the dining hall at breakfast time in order to shame them. Sometimes students were forced to eat their own vomit.[2] One school even built its own electric chair. As is now well known, sexual abuse of Indigenous children was all too commonplace in the schools.

8. Not surprisingly, students often ran away from residential schools. Chanie Wenjack was an Anishinaabe boy who died in 1966 while trying to return home after escaping from a residential school. His story is now the subject of a multimedia art project, the centrepiece of which is Secret Path (the last studio album ever released by Gord Downie). And Trent University has the Chanie Wenjack School for Indigenous Studies. Hundreds of others ran away and died, and thousands died at school.

9. Parents often fought back. Sometimes they refused to enrol their students; sometimes they refused to return their children after they had run away from school and come home (or after summer holidays). Sometimes these tactics were effective, forcing some schools to close. Having said that, parents often faced legal sanctions (e.g., jail time) for employing such tactics. Parents also advocated for better conditions pertaining to pedagogy, food and clothing.

10. Beginning in the late 1940s, mainstream thought in Canada began to shift. Increasingly, public officials began to encourage the integration of First Nations students into the public school system. By 1960, more First Nations students were attending public schools than residential schools.

In closing.  In the late-1960s, the federal government began to take control of residential schools away from churches. It then began to close them, with the last one closing in 1996. As of 2005, more than 18,000 lawsuits had been filed by residential school survivors against the federal government, churches and individuals. Despite the work of the TRC and the financial compensation, many Indigenous people are still experiencing intergenerational trauma from the experience of residential schools. The implications for homelessness have been studied extensively by Peter Menzies (see this book chapter, for example).

I wish to thank Frances Abele, Angele Alook, Kelly Black, Susan Falvo, Josh Gladstone, Root Gorelick, Katelyn Lucas, Jenny Morrow, Allan Moscovitch,  and Vincent St-Martin for providing feedback on an early draft of this blog post. Any errors are mine.

 

[1] The TRC’s website is here, and all TRC reports can be found here.

[2] In 1999, a Roman Catholic nun was convicted of administering a noxious substance and assault (though she received no jail time).

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

by | Jul 22, 2020 | Alternative Federal Budget, Canada, Ending Homelessness, Federal Budget, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Housing, Income Support, Policy, Poverty, Social Housing, Social Policy

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

On July 21, the Alternative Federal Budget (AFB) Recovery Plan was released. The document aims to provide public policy direction to Canada’s federal government, in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic (more information on the AFB Recovery Plan can be found, while an overview of the AFB’s history can be found here).

I was author of the Recovery Plan’s chapter on affordable housing and homelessness, which can be accessed here.

 Here are 10 things to know.

1. The COVID-19 Recession has resulted in income loss and rental arrears, especially for lower-income households who are mostly renters. Eviction bans across Canada have had some effectiveness in preventing or slowing down evictions; but when those bans are lifted, many households will be on the brink of absolute homelessness.

2. The recession has diminished people’s ability to get mortgage approvals. In part, this is due to many people having reduced income (or having lost their jobs entirely); it is also due in part to new mortgage rules taking effect on July 1.[1] This means an entire cohort of would-be homeowners will be stuck in the rental market, driving down rental vacancy rates.

3. The COVID-19 pandemic has also exposed cracks in the patchwork of social services in place for people experiencing homelessness. Challenges have included: the closing of daytime services (e.g., drop-in centres); the closing of public spaces with access to washroom facilities (e.g., libraries); and a lack of Internet access. The pandemic has also created additional costs and operational pressures on supportive housing programs and emergency shelters—for cleaning, personal protective equipment and increased staffing.

4. Across Canada, local officials in the homelessness sector have worked very hard responding to the pandemic. They have created more physical distancing at existing emergency shelters, opened new facilities, leased hotel rooms, and created facilities for both isolation and quarantine. The Trudeau government has provided important financial assistance to the homelessness sector to support these efforts. Indeed, the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan, announced on 18 March 2020, includes an additional $157.5 million in one-time funding for Reaching Home (representing a 74% increase in Reaching Home funding for the 2020-21 fiscal year).

5. Nevertheless, challenges remain in the homelessness sector. They include: the existence of shared bathrooms; inadequate access to personal protective equipment; harm reduction (e.g., safe access to illicit drugs); encampments (i.e., outdoor sleeping); a dwindling workforce at emergency shelters and drop-in centres; and an anticipated increase in homelessness resulting from the economic downturn.[2]

6. The Trudeau government should provide a rental top-up to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). This could simply be added to existing CERB payments, showing up in recipients’ bank accounts along with CERB. Canada Revenue Agency could administer the program, just as it does CERB.[3] CERB recipients transitioning onto Employment Insurance could carry their rental top-up with them.

7. The recent Reaching Home enhancement ought to be made permanent. The AFB Recovery Plan would make permanent the recent enhancement to federal Reaching Home funding. Across Canada, federal funding for homelessness (i.e., Reaching Home) is rather modest. According to a 2018 federal program evaluation, for each $1 invested federally, $13 is invested by other sources (mostly provincial and municipal dollars).[4]

8. Federal spending on the National Housing Co-investment Fund should be boosted. A central feature of the National Housing Strategy unveiled in November 2017 is a new National Housing Co-investment Fund (NHCF). Primarily a loan program (as opposed to a grant program) the NHCF has been criticized for providing insufficient funding to make rent levels truly affordable for low-income tenants. The AFB Recovery Plan would enhance the NHCF with an additional $3 billion in grant money annually, over and above what has already been committed by the Trudeau government.

9. The Canada Housing Benefit ought to be enhanced. Central to the Trudeau government’s National Housing Strategy is the launch, in 2020, of a Canada Housing Benefit (CHB). This benefit provides financial assistance to help low-income households afford the rent. The AFB Recovery Plan would double the federal contribution to this benefit at a cost of $250 million annually, over and above current allocations. Province and territories would be expected to cost-share.

10. There should be federal spending earmarked to fund capital for supportive housing. Supportive housing refers to specialized housing for vulnerable populations that features professional (i.e., social work) staff support. The National Housing Strategy contains no specific provisions for supportive housing, even though one of the Strategy’s stated goals is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.[5] The AFB Recovery Plan would allocate $2 billion in new annual funding (for capital) for supportive housing.

In sum. The AFB Recovery Plan urges the federal government to create housing options to the point where, when we are hit by a future wave or new pandemic, all Canadians have a home in which to stay safe. Further, the downturn in the real estate market offers an opportunity for the Trudeau government to assist non-profit housing providers to acquire new stock in cost-effective ways.

The following individuals provided invaluable assistance with the affordable housing and homelessness chapter of the AFB Recovery Plan: Meaghan Bell, Michele Biss, Stéphan Corriveau, Katie-Sue Derejko, John Dickie, George Fallis, Sherwin Flight, Alex Hemingway, Graeme Hussey, Bruce Irvine, Brandi Kapell, Ron Kneebone, Brian Kreps, David Macdonald, Christina Maes Nino, Bernadette Majdell, Elsbeth Mehrer, Michael Mendelson, Jeff Morrison, Amanda Noble, Abe Oudshoorn, Steve Pomeroy, Tim Richter, Michal Rozworski, Natalie Spagnuolo, Marion Steele, Greg Suttor, Jennifer Tipple, Letisha Toop, Ricardo Tranjan, Stuart Trew, Samuel Watts and one anonymous source. I wish to also thank Susan Falvo, Hayley Gislason, Angela Regnier, Vincent St-Martin and Sarah Woodgate for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

 

Photo used with permission from Home Space Society.

 

[1] Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2020, June 4). CMHC reviews underwriting criteria. Retrieved from CMHC website: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca

[2] Bainbridge, J., & Carrizales, T. J. (2017). Global homelessness in a post-recession world. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 24(1), 6. Retrieved from: https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol24/iss1/6/

[3] This proposal has been put forth by Marion Steele and also by a third-sector group of experts. For more information, see this recent Toronto Star opinion piece: https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2020/05/24/a-lot-of-toronto-renters-cant-get-by-even-with-cerb-they-need-a-top-up-from-the-feds.html.

[4] Employment and Social Development Canada. (2018). Evaluation of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy: Final Report. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca

[5] Having said that, supportive housing has received Co-investment Fund financing.