David Hulchanski class discussion

by admin | Jun 21, 2020 | Canada, Cities, Government, Government Funding, Homeless, Housing, municipalities, Policy, Poverty, Social Housing, Social Policy, taxation

David Hulchanski class discussion

On 9 June 2020, I participated in a panel discussion in David Hulchanski’s graduate-level social housing and homelessness course at the University of Toronto. It included perspectives from Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Participants included Kath Scanlon, Wendy Hayhurst, Andy Yan, Carolyn Whitzman, and Sharon Chisholm.[1]

Here are 10 things to know:

1. The English-speaking countries of the OECD are known for their relatively stingy social welfare systems. In other words, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (along with both the United States and New Zealand) have relatively low levels of social spending and relatively low levels of taxation, relative to the other OECD countries. Subsidized housing is part of a country’s social welfare system and very much impacted by its other pieces (e.g., social assistance, labour market policies, etc.).

2. Not surprisingly, all English-speaking countries of the OECD also have serious affordable housing challenges and large amounts of homelessness. In England, families who lose their housing can subsequently be placed into “temporary accommodation” where they can stay up to 10 years. Years ago, such families were provided with social housing; but there’s so little turnover in England’s social housing units that now such households are almost always placed into the private rental sector.[2] Recent analysis by Steve Pomeroy in Canada looked at the period between 2011 and 2016. During that time, Canada lost more than 300,000 units of private-landlord housing that were affordable to lower-income households (and the financialization of housing is believed to be largely responsible for this).[3] During the same period, fewer than 20,000 subsidized units were created for low-income households across Canada.

3. Housing affordability challenges in all of these countries appear to be getting worse, largely due to the financialization of housing. The financialization of housing refers to the increased use of housing as an investment tool, rather than to serve social needs. It is often facilitated by public policy that makes it attractive for corporate interests to invest in housing, thereby jacking up the price.

4. Poorly-designed tax policies appear to encourage the financialization of housing. For example, in Australia, even people with median incomes have found it attractive to buy a property and rent it out; any losses they incur can be written off against their income. Australia’s capital gains tax system has also made it attractive to do this. One of the undesirable outcomes of this phenomenon is that Australia has a lot of landlords who are not terribly passionate about being landlords.

5. In recent years, there has been growing awareness of the financialization of housing. Both Leilani Farha (former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing) and Martine August (an emerging scholar based at the University of Waterloo) have written and spoken extensively on the topic over the past several years. And Canada’s just-launched Recovery For All campaign includes several demands related to the financialization of housing.

6. Perversely, large groups of each country’s respective population benefit from many of the same rules that create homelessness. When an existing homeowner sees the value of housing increase, they recognize that the value of their assets is growing. Further, homeowners in Australia, Canada and the UK pay no capital gains tax on the windfall earned from the sale of their primary residence, representing substantial foregone revenue for their national treasuries.

7. England has very landlord-friendly rules. Right now, a standard tenancy in England lasts between six and 12 months, after which point the landlord is under no obligation to renew the tenancy. (Fortunately, the UK government is now talking about changing that law.)

8. Authorities in England are starting to focus more on homelessness prevention. When a person becomes legally homeless in England, their reason for becoming homeless is recorded. Now, the single biggest cause is eviction from a private tenancy, and over time that’s grown as a reason. Local authorities have therefore been directed to prevent homelessness when a person is on the verge of an eviction (e.g., with temporary grants). This focus on prevention is getting big in England, but it’s quite reactive; the household in trouble needs to reach out to the authority for help.

9. There are some silver linings worth noting. In Australia, Canada and England, the COVID-19 pandemic has generated an urgent imperative to deal with homelessness. For example, whereas so-called rough sleeping had previously been regarded as an intractable problem in England, a recent political commitment and funding enhancement essentially eliminated it (at least for now) in a matter of days.

10. Some panel participants encouraged ‘big thinking’ with respect to social housing. One participant suggested that housing advocates should advocate for social housing to eventually comprise 50% of all new housing units in Canada, noting we need to stop seeing social housing as the housing of last resort.

In Sum. Housing affordability challenges experienced in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom appear to stem from poorly designed public policy. Low aggregate levels of taxation make it more challenging for governments to make substantial investments in social policies, and pro-landlord public policies appear to drive up housing prices. But if bad public policy brings on a lack of affordable housing, good public policy can help address it. Let’s hope the Recovery For All campaign gains some traction here in Canada!

I wish to thank Susan Falvo, Wendy Hayhurst, David Hulchanski, Kath Scanlon, Vincent St-Martin and Carolyn Whitzman for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

[1] We followed the Chatham House Rule, so the present blog post will not state who made which comment.

[2] Forty years ago, social housing made up one-third of England’s total housing stock. Now, it makes up about 20% of total housing stock.

[3] The lost units in question had monthly rents of $750 or less.

My review of Robert Clark’s book on Canada’s prisons

by admin | Jan 17, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Canada, Corrections, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Harm Reduction, Health Care, Homeless, Indigenous peoples, Policy, Prisons, Social Policy

My review of Robert Clark’s book on Canada’s prisons

Clark, R. (2017). Down inside: Thirty years in Canada’s prison service. Fredericton, NB: Goose Lane.

Robert Clark has written a very good book about his 30 years working in Canada’s prison system. Mr. Clark worked from 1980 until 2009 in seven different federal prisons, all located in Ontario. The book, a compilation of personal accounts based on the author’s various assignments, appears both balanced and concise (though it only discusses male prisoners and federal institutions).

Since prisons can be a pipeline into homelessness, I’ve reviewed the book with great interest.

Here are 10 things to know:

Many of Canada’s prisoners are victims of child abuse. According to the author: “Most of the prisoner files I read contained histories of physical, emotional, and, often, childhood sexual abuse” (p. 16).This often led to child welfare interventions and then incarceration in youth facilities.

Nearly 40% of federal prisoners have serious mental health challenges, and this is exacerbated by solitary confinement (formally known as administrative segregation).[1] Prisoners in solitary often have no idea when their time in there will end. Solitary can be very detrimental to a prisoner’s already-fragile mental health and can cause them to be suicidal. The 1996 Arbour Commission of Inquiry examined the impact of solitary confinement in detail.

Many of Canada’s prison staff do outstanding work. For example, the author felt he had “hit the jackpot” when he arrived at Pittsburgh Institution (p. 216). On a personal note, I was touched to see the author single out my late uncle John Van Luven as being part of a group of four parole officers there who were “knowledgeable, professional, and self-motivated” (p. 216).

Many of Canada’s prison staff do not do outstanding work. According to the author, “too few prison employees care about the prisoners under their care, other than to make sure they are alive and behaving. Any interest in a prisoner’s well-being and their chances for becoming a law-abiding citizen is almost non-existent” (p. 16). One of the author’s colleagues used to say: “I just treat them all like they’re doing a hundred years for rape” (p. 124)!

Solidarity among staff can be excessive. Most prison staff are extremely reluctant to snitch on their colleagues—and this reluctance is known as the blue wall. Some such solidarity is very pronounced among staff in the face of management, and some staff maintain such solidarity even after they become managers. This is almost identical to the understanding that prisoners have among one another, whereby being labelled a ‘rat’ or a ‘snitch’ can come with severe consequences.

Not every Canadian prison is the same. The book has considerable praise for the Regional Reception Centre at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec. It notes, “while newcomer prisoners in Ontario languished under twenty-three-hour lockup, each new prisoner in Quebec was put through a series of academic and vocational aptitude tests that assisted staff at the next institution in guiding the prisoner’s time and energy” (p. 117).

Sometimes a specific prison can develop a bad culture. According to the book, this occurred at the now-decommissioned Kingston Penitentiary, where staff stopped enforcing many rules. When the book’s author started working there in 1997, he noticed that prison cells contained items they weren’t supposed to—in one case, a 25-metre extension cord—and that staff had simply stopped caring. (In this particular case, the author attributes much of the bad culture to a management decision to have uniformed staff work consecutive 16-hour shifts.)

Corruption at Kingston Penitentiary was eventually exposed through an RCMP investigation known as Operation Correct Zero. As a result of the investigation, five guards were terminated for various criminal offences, including drug dealing. In addition, three other guards committed suicide during the course of the investigation.

I wish the book had dealt more with harm reduction in Canada’s prisons. Harm reduction focuses on reducing harm caused by drug use without requiring total abstinence. For example, it can include the distribution of condoms and unused syringes. There is an important body of evidence supporting the view that harm reduction approaches reduce the risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases and prevent overdoses. It is further estimated that HIV rates in Canada’s federal prisons are 10 times higher than in the general population, and Hepatitis C 30 times higher.

I wish the book had included more of an intersectional analysis. I found that the book contained insufficient attention to the unique situations—and overrepresentation—of racialized persons (including First Nations, Inuit and Métis people) in Canada’s prisons. I also think the book could have further explored the unique experiences facing trans persons in prisons.[2]

In Sum. If you’re interested in learning more about conditions inside Canada’s prisons, I strongly suggest you read this book. For people interested in the role played by corrections in leading people into homelessness, the book will be especially worthwhile. I also suggest you listen to this 28-minute podcast, where the author is interviewed by the CBC’s Michael Enright.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this review: Robert Clark, JT Falvo, Susan Falvo, Craig Jones, Amber Kellen, Katrina Milaney, Amanda Moss, Angela Regnier, Jonathan Robart, Vincent St-Martin, and three anonymous sources. Any errors are mine.

[1] Such statistics can be found in the annual reports of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, available here.

[2] A primer on intersectional analysis can be found here.

Ten things to know about poverty measurement in Canada

by admin | Oct 30, 2019 | Canada, Cities, Government, Housing, Income, Income Distribution, Income Inequality, Income Support, Labour Market, Macroeconomics, municipalities, population aging, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Research and Data, seniors, Social Assistance, Social Housing, Social Policy, Stats Canada

Ten things to know about poverty measurement in Canada

On October 29, I gave a guest presentation to Professor Filipe Duarte’s master’s seminar class at the University of Windsor. The topic of my presentation was poverty measurement in Canada.

Here are 10 things to know.

Use of the Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO) would suggest that poverty in Canada has decreased dramatically since the mid-1990s. LICO focuses on the amount of money spent by a family on ‘necessities’ (i.e., housing, food and clothing) as determined by a group of federal public servants. If a family is spending a substantially higher percentage of their income on such necessities—e.g., 20 percentage points higher than the average Canadian family—then the family in question falls below the LICO. The LICO was supposed to be recalculated on a regular basis to reflect changes in spending patterns, but that hasn’t happened since 1992 and is one likely reason for the reduction in poverty shown by this measure (having said that, the LICO has been adjusted each year for inflation). Today, very few experts take the LICO seriously.
Use of the Low Income Measure (LIM) would suggest that poverty in Canada has seen mild fluctuations since the mid-1990s. LIM’s focus is on the family’s income, not on what they spend. A family whose income is below 50% of the national median income (adjusted for family size) is said to be poor according to this measure. LIM, in effect, measures income inequality among the bottom half of income earners. The LIM is useful for international comparisons (though it is far from perfect in that regard, as it looks only at income, not the availability of social programs).
Use of the Market Basket Measure (MBM) suggests that Canada has seen a major decrease in poverty over the past decade. With the MBM, public officials figure out the cost of a basket of goods and services they feel is sufficient for a standard of living “between the poles of subsistence and social inclusion.” Calculations are then made about how much such a basket costs (the cost of this basket has been estimated for 50 regions across Canada). The content of this basket is periodically adjusted, the last time being in 2011, and its value gets adjusted each year for inflation. If you’re poor according to the MBM, it’s because experts believe you could not afford that basket of goods in your community.
Visual courtesy of Kevin Milligan.
One of the LICO’s shortcomings is that it doesn’t do a good job of accounting for regional variations in the cost of living across Canada. The LICO (as mentioned above) also hasn’t been adjusted since 1992, meaning that it doesn’t currently account for how much things cost today or what people spend money on today (as Andrew Jackson notes, it doesn’t include the cost of Internet). Finally, LICO doesn’t easily allow for international comparisons.
One of the LIM’s shortcomings is that it can suggest that recessions are good for poverty reduction. As Alain Noël notes, the LIM is “sensitive to changes in the median income, which sometimes produces counterintuitive results. In a recession, for example, when the median income is flat, the poverty rate may seem to be decreasing while unemployment and economic hardship are increasing.” What’s more, the fact that LIM is based on national median income—as opposed to the median income for the province or territory in question—seems arbitrary to many. Indeed, Professor Noël further notes that “real median incomes vary considerably from one province to another.”
Of the three major indicators, my own preference is the LIM. First, it avoids the inherent challenge of deciding what constitutes an appropriate a basket of goods and services in a country of 37 million people, spanning 10 million km² and six time zones. Second, I think relativity is what’s really important here—if median income across Canada is increasing, then so too should everyone’s (and vice versa). Third, the LIM lends itself well to international comparisons. I’d like to see it calculated based on national median income for international comparisons, and also based on median income for the economic region in question, in order to provide a more meaningful number.
The debate within Canada has largely ignored the need for indicators of assets. This point has been made by David Rothwell and Jennifer Robson, who note that income and assets are not always correlated. For example, a low-wage worker might have an income that brings them above the LIM, but they may also have $75,000 in student loans and credit card debt. Conversely, a senior could be relying exclusively on Old Age Security as a source of income while also owning a $2 million home outright. (Monitoring asset poverty might put pressure on provincial and territorial officials to stop discouraging asset accumulation among social assistance recipients.)
It’s also important to directly measure material deprivation. For example, core housing need measures the affordability, suitability and adequacy of a person’s housing. Likewise, food insecurity measurement directly assesses the inadequacy or insecurity in access to food due to financial challenges. It’s also important to assess who has access to high-quality childcare and prescription medication. (For a critical analysis of the need to directly measure material deprivation, see this 2017 conference paper.)
In August 2018, Canada’s federal government announced its formal adoption of the MBM as its official poverty measure. Its poverty reduction strategy also unveiled a dashboard of poverty-related indicators. This seems very much in line with a position taken by Peter Hicks in a recent blog post, in which he calls for “an evolving ‘dashboard’ of carefully selected indicators would be more useful than a single measure.” The new federal strategy will use the MBM to monitor progress—importantly, it will not use the MBM to determine program eligibility.
Seniors make for an interesting case study here. According to the LIM, a great many seniors in Canada currently experience poverty. But according to the MBM, very few seniors in Canada currently experience poverty. As Andrew Jackson pointed out last year: “There is a huge difference between the LIM and MBM poverty rates for seniors (14.3% vs 5.1% in 2015.)” And this raises an important question: if Canada’s official poverty measure suggests there’s very little seniors’ poverty, to what extent will Canada’s federal government prioritize assistance for seniors?

In sum. The Trudeau government deserves praise for unveiling a dashboard of poverty indicators that will hopefully receive close attention from federal officials in partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal officials, as well as researchers and advocates. Having said that, Ron Kneebone reminds me that the MBM has yet to be formally adopted by provincial or territorial governments. There is also reason to be very concerned about what initiatives may or not be in store for seniors, given that the MBM suggests they currently experience very little poverty.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: Miles Corak, Filipe Duarte and his students, Susan Falvo, Reuben Ford, Rob Gillezeau, Seth Klein, Ron Kneebone, Andrew Jackson, Marc Lee, David Macdonald, Michael Mendelson, Allan Moscovitch, Geranda Notten, Charles Plante, Saul Schwartz, Richard Shillington, Vincent St-Martin, John Stapleton, Ricardo Tranjan, and Mike Veall. Any errors are mine.

What Impact will the 2019 Federal Budget have on Canada’s Housing Market?

by admin | Apr 25, 2019 | Alternative Federal Budget, Canada, Federal Budget, Housing

What Impact will the 2019 Federal Budget have on Canada’s Housing Market?

On March 19, Canada’s federal finance minister tabled the Trudeau government’s 2019 budget titled Investing in the Middle Class. Key social policy announcements include a new Canada Training Credit, increased funding for municipalities, some increased funding for women’s organizations and increased earnings’ exemptions for low-income seniors.

Budget 2019 also has implications for housing—and on that front, here are 10 things to know:

Budget 2019 introduces a new First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, creating so-called ‘shared-equity mortgages.’ This program fronts a portion of the required down payment for a ‘middle income’ household trying to buy a home for the first time. The federal government contribution is set at 5% of the value of an existing home, or 10% of the value of a newly-built home. The household does not pay interest on the federal loan portion; however, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) ends up owning 5% or 10% of the home’s value—and on the home’s sale, CMHC gets back 5% or 10% of the appreciated (or depreciated) value. Participants must be first-time home buyers with annual household incomes of under $120,000. The maximum value of the mortgage plus CMHC support will be four times household income (i.e., $480,000). This program is expected to be operational by September 2019. Federal officials say they expect approximately 100,000 first-time home buyers to take advantage of this program over the next three years.
The Home Buyers’ Plan withdrawal limit has been raised from $25,000 to $35,000. This is the program that allows first-time homeowners in Canada to borrow from their Registered Retirement Savings Plan for a down payment. This increased limit is available for withdrawals made after March 19, 2019. Budget 2019 also proposes that individuals who go through a separation or divorce be permitted to participate in the Plan, even if they’re not buying for the first time.
The good news on the housing affordability front is that the home ownership measures contained in Budget 2019 will likely increase the average rental vacancy rate and exert downward pressure on average rent levels. That’s because some households currently renting will now become home owners, creating a bit of slack in the rental market. This is good news for prospective renters and existing renters. Some landlords won’t be happy though—with reduced demand for rental housing, they may not be able to charge as much rent or be as selective in terms of which tenants they rent to.
The bad news on the housing affordability front is that these same measures will likely exert upward pressure on the average price of a new home. That’s because when you increase demand for a product, its price typically goes up as well. This is good news for current home owners, especially when they decide to sell, but it’s bad news for prospective home owners who aren’t eligible for the initiatives.
Incentivizing households of modest means to become home owners isn’t necessarily good public policy. In a 2006 report, Michael Mendelson argued that Canadian housing prices are subject to large price swings. Indeed, housing prices do not only go up—for example, from January 2018 until January 2019, the price of detached homes in Vancouver fell by approximately 9%. Mendelson argues that such price decreases are bad news for owners of modest means who need to sell during such a downturn, especially if they haven’t been owners for very long. He cautioned that, in such situations, those households can lose their life savings.
Incentivizing households of modest means to become home owners also runs counter to at least one action recently introduced at the federal level in Canada. I refer here to the introduction of the mortgage stress test, largely in response to unprecedented consumer debt levels (and against which Canada’s home builders have recently expressed strong opposition). This measure was introduced by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, an arm’s length regulator (and endorsed by the federal minister of finance).
Canada’s Rental Construction Financing Initiative, originally scheduled to be in place for four years, will now be extended to nine years and provided with an additional $10 billion in loans. Originally announced in the 2016 federal budget, this program provides low-cost loans for the construction of new rental housing for ‘middle income’ households. These loans are for developers (either non-profit or for-profit) and unit rents must be set 10% below full market potential. Funded projects must also meet two other important criteria: 1) achieve a standard 15% better than required by national codes for energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and 2) have 10% of units accessible. With changes announced in the 2019 federal budget, the program is now expected to assist 42,500 new units across Canada, targeting areas of low rental supply. This represents federal loans totalling $829.5 million over nine years, starting in 2019–20. It’s expected that CMHC will make money on these loans.
This budget announced a new $300 million program to improve energy efficiency in new and existing housing. It is being allocated to, and will be administered by, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). In fact, three energy-efficiency initiatives for residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings worth a total of just over $1 billion annually were announced in this year’s federal budget, all of which will be administered by the FCM. This includes one $300 million initiative specifically for energy efficiency in social/affordable housing (new and existing).
This budget announced that the Canada Revenue Agency will receive $50 million over five years to create audit teams in high-risk regions of the country. One can infer from this that the federal government believes that home prices, especially in Toronto and Vancouver, have been driven up by investors flipping houses and not paying their fair share of taxes in the process (a practice that makes houses more expensive while denying revenue to the federal government).
A budget supported by a more robust social spending framework could do a lot for both affordable housing and homelessness. A major reason people have housing affordability challenges is that they have low incomes. Addressing low incomes requires a well-funded social spending framework that would reduce income inequality. This year’s Alternative Federal Budget (AFB) provided such a framework. The AFB is a fully costed-out advocacy document that includes funding increases for post-secondary education, seniors’ benefits, child care, First Nations’ infrastructure, social assistance, and affordable housing (including supportive housing for vulnerable populations). It also proposes universal pharmacare. (Full disclosure: I was primary author of the AFB’s housing chapter.)

In sum. The Trudeau government’s 2019 federal budget contains very few initiatives explicitly geared toward affordable rental housing, and no new funding at all for absolute homelessness. The home-buying incentive measures will make it easier for some households to become homeowners; however, they may have unintended consequences as well. The extension of the Rental Construction Financing Initiative is good news for housing affordability, while new funding for auditing may have the effect of exerting downward pressure on the price of homes—especially new condos in Toronto and Vancouver. Far-reaching changes to housing affordability would require bold changes to fiscal policy, such as those proposed in the 2018 Alternative Federal Budget.

I wish to thank Helen Harris, Ron Kneebone, Marc Lee, Scott Leon, Michael Mendelson, Claire Noble, Brian Pincott, Shayne Ramsay, Tim Richter, Steve Saretsky, Marion Steele, Ray Sullivan, Greg Suttor, and three anonymous reviewers for invaluable assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

Nick Falvo is a Calgary-based research consultant, a research associate at the Carleton University Centre for Community Innovation, and a CCPA research associate.

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.

Next Entries »