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

by admin | 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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].

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.

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.

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 1^er 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.

Isolation, Physical Distancing and Next Steps Regarding Homelessness: A Scan of 12 Canadian Cities

by admin | Dec 7, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Calgary, Cities, Corrections, Ending Homelessness, Government Funding, Health Care, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Indigenous peoples, municipalities, Social Policy, Toronto

Isolation, Physical Distancing and Next Steps Regarding Homelessness: A Scan of 12 Canadian Cities

La version française de ce billet se trouve ici.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, officials in Canada’s major cities have partnered with health officials and others to create more physical distancing for persons experiencing homelessness. In a recent report (available here) I provide an overview of what this has looked like in the following cities: Toronto; Montreal; Vancouver; Calgary; Edmonton; Ottawa; Winnipeg; Quebec City; Hamilton; Regina; Saskatoon; and St. John’s.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. The report was commissioned by the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF).
As the System Planner for Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care, CHF was interested in scanning what homelessness officials in other cities were doing during this unprecedented time. While the report was initially intended for internal use, CHF decided to release it publicly so that homelessness officials, researchers and advocates in other cities could learn more about the national picture.

2. Homelessness officials in Canada’s major cities have created more physical distancing through a variety of measures.
They have created more physical distancing at existing shelters, opened new facilities, and created space for both isolation and quarantine. Toronto and Vancouver are noteworthy in that both cities have secured large numbers of hotel rooms.

3. Officials in most of Canada’s large cities have continued to move persons directly from emergency shelters into permanent housing.
They have also developed innovations. For example, several cities have developed new models of moving people from homelessness into permanent housing. The report discusses these in detail.

4. Networks of cooperation have generally improved during this crisis; this is especially true with health officials.
In several cases, local health officials were perceived to have not been very engaged in homelessness prior to the pandemic, but improved their approach during the pandemic. It is hoped that these improved forms of collaboration will continue.

5. Many homelessness officials have expressed frustration with the lack of cooperation from the corrections sector.
The report finds officials in correctional facilities commonly discharge inmates without housing plans and without reaching out to homelessness officials to coordinate a transition into emergency shelter (however, Quebec City is an important exception here).

6. Across Canada, a surprisingly large number of newly-created spaces for persons experiencing homelessness are staying open (or re-locating).
Put differently, the new physical distancing arrangements put in place during the pandemic appear to be having a remarkable amount of staying power. The state of this ‘new normal’ will vary by city, however. For example, most emergency shelters in Calgary and Edmonton do not expect to be able to comply with a two-metre requirement.

7. Challenges remain in the sector.
While the current situation varies across Canada, the following challenges remain in the sector as a whole: outdoor sleeping; shared bathrooms and other common areas (as well as the additional costs of cleaning associated with these shared spaces); and new homelessness created by the economic downturn.[1]

8. Canada’s federal government has made important new funding announcements since the start of the pandemic.
The Government of Canada announced $157.5 million in one-time funding for Reaching Home in March 2020 (Reaching Home is the federal government’s main funding vehicle for homelessness). Further, in September 2020, the Government of Canada announced an additional $236.7 million for Reaching Home, along with $1 billion for modular housing, the acquisition of land, and the conversion of existing buildings into affordable housing.

9. However, all of these funding enhancements are temporary.
There has been no enhancement to permanent federal homelessness funding announced since the start of the pandemic. An enhancement to permanent funding could: support local officials in maintaining the improved physical distancing; assist in transitioning more people from both emergency shelters and outdoor encampments into permanent housing; and help pay for increased cleaning costs and staffing needs associated with the ‘new normal’ discussed above.

10. The report recommends the enhancement of the Canada Housing Benefit (CHB).
Central to the National Housing Strategy is the recent launch of the CHB, providing financial assistance to help low-income households afford their rent. It is expected that half of this money will come from the federal government, and the other half from provinces and territories. The CHB was supposed to launch nationally on 1 April 2020; however, just five provinces have formally agreed to terms on the new benefit. The federal government could increase the value of this benefit, which could encourage provinces and territories to sign on. For example, the federal government might offer 2/3 or 3/4 cost-sharing.

In sum: Homelessness officials across Canada have worked hard to improve physical distancing during the pandemic. Permanent increases in federal funding would help them both maintain this ‘new normal’ and find more permanent, affordable housing for persons experiencing homelessness.

[1] I have recently written another report about new homelessness created by the downturn. That report, commissioned by Employment and Social Development Canada, will be released in December 2020.

I wish to thank Susan Falvo and Vincent St-Martin for assistance with this blog post.

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.