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

by admin | 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.

Trudeau government should spend more on affordable housing and homelessness

by admin | 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.

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

by admin | Feb 20, 2020 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, British Columbia, Calgary, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Housing, Indigenous peoples, municipalities, Policy, Social Housing, Social Policy

Ten things to know about subsidized rental housing in Alberta

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

Housing need has been increasing in Alberta. The percentage of Alberta households in core housing need has been rising steadily over the past three Census periods. In 2006, 10.1% of Alberta households were in core housing need; by 2011, this figure had risen to 10.7%; and in 2016, the figure stood at 11.4%. In 2016, this represented more than 164,000 Alberta households.

Some household types face especially dire circumstances. Across Alberta, 30.6% of female lone-parent families are in core housing need, while 30.8% of seniors living alone are in core housing need. Further, the rate of core housing need for Status Indians is more than double the rate for non-Indigenous households (and these figures do not account for households living on reserve).[1]

More than one in four persons experiencing absolute homelessness in Alberta is Indigenous. That’s according to Alberta’s 2018 Point-in-Time Count. It’s worth noting that Indigenous peoples make up just 7% of Alberta’s total population.

On a per capita basis, Alberta has far fewer subsidized housing units than the rest of Canada.[2] According to the most recent Census, subsidized housing represents just 2.9% of Alberta’s housing units; for Canada as a whole, the figure is 4.2%.

Comparing Alberta to British Columbia is instructive. As can be seen below, from 2007 until 2010, Alberta produced more housing units funded unilaterally by the provincial government than BC on an annual basis. But since 2011, BC has been outperforming Alberta in that respect. In fact, in 2017, BC’s provincial government funded more than 15 times as many housing units than Alberta, despite having a roughly similar overall population, and despite Alberta having an NDP government at the time.[3]

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

The impact of Canada’s National Housing Strategy will be modest. Recent analysis by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer projects future federal housing spending to actually decrease over the next decade (relative to GDP). The same analysis projects that total spending on Indigenous housing by Canada’s federal government will be “substantially lower” going forward.

When Alberta’s provincial government does fund new subsidized units, the process lacks transparency. Even when Rachel Notley’s NDP government was in power, housing funding was not allocated via a formal grant program through which non-profits (i.e., community housing/non-market housing providers) could apply for funding. Such a process has not been in place in Alberta since 2012.

The Government of Alberta lacks a clear, public reporting structure for provincially-subsidized housing. For example, most Albertans—including very well- placed sources in the affordable housing sector—do not know: how much recent funding was used for repairs vs. new builds; how much of this funding has been dependent on cost-matching from other orders of government; what types of projects have received the funding; which types of households have been targeted; or to which municipalities the funding has flowed. This lack of transparency makes it very challenging for key actors in the non-profit housing and homeless-serving sectors to plan; it has also made it virtually impossible for key players in the sector to have a democratic dialogue about how public dollars are being allocated.

In October 2019, the UCP government unveiled its first budget, announcing some housing cuts. Starting in 2020, operating budgets for Housing Management Bodies (HMBs) will be reduced by an average of 3.5%. There will also be a 24% reduction to the Rental Assistance Program, which provides financial assistance for low- to moderate-income households to assist with monthly rent payments for up to one year. This 24% reduction begins in 2020 and takes full effect within three years.

There has been long-time speculation that the recent provincial funding reduction (or a portion of it) may be retargeted and used to match federal funding through the new Canada Housing Benefit. That program, set to take effect 1 April 2020, requires that the Government of Alberta match federal funding.[4] This speculation was confirmed in a 26 December 2019 Canadian Press article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The use of homeless shelters by Indigenous peoples in Canada

by admin | Oct 3, 2019 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, Calgary, Cities, Data Sharing, Demographics, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Government, Harm Reduction, Homeless, Housing, Indigenous peoples, municipalities, Research and Data, seniors, Toronto

The use of homeless shelters by Indigenous peoples in Canada

The Canadian Press recently gained access to results of analysis of the use of homeless shelters across Canada by Indigenous peoples. The results are summarized in a March 2019 slide presentation obtained by Jordan Press through an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request, and are discussed in this Canadian Press article. They are based on a research project conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).

Here are 10 things to know:

The analysis draws on data gathered from homeless shelters across Canada. ESDC has data on persons using homeless shelters from roughly half of the country’s homeless shelters. This includes data gathered via the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) software, as well as data gathered via data sharing agreements with the City of Toronto, the Government of Alberta and BC Housing. The data used for this analysis was gathered in 2016 and is based on approximately 133,000 unique individuals (approximately 41,000 of whom are Indigenous).
According to the slide presentation, Indigenous peoples in Canada are more than 11 times more likely to use a homeless shelter than non-Indigenous people. Results of the analysis are succinctly summarized in a memo prepared for the Minister which accompanies the slide presentation: “Results show that Indigenous peoples are consistently overrepresented in homeless shelters in all 46 communities examined [Indigenous peoples accounted for more than 30% of people using homeless shelters over the course of 2016, while representing less than 5% of the total population]…The degree of overrepresentation is particularly high for Indigenous women, seniors, and Inuit. Indigenous shelter users experience more shelter stays each year, and are less likely to exit a shelter because of finding a residence.”
As noted in the accompanying memo: “A report is being written to expand on the results shown in the deck.” Neither the memo nor the slide presentation indicate when the report will be ready, which people and groups will be invited to provide input on drafts of the report, or whether the report will be made public. Put differently, the federal government seems to be holding its cards close to its chest on this.
I was personally surprised to see the extent to which Indigenous peoples experience high episodic shelter use. In other words, Indigenous peoples (compared with non-Indigenous peoples) tend to cycle in and out of shelters with high frequency, rather than stay for long periods of time.[1]
I find it remarkable that these very important research findings had to be obtained via an ATIP request. In light of the federal government’s stated commitment to reconciliation, I would have thought it would have proactively released these findings and engaged Indigenous stakeholders in the process. This raises the following questions: To what extent were Indigenous peoples part of this analysis (beyond the fact that their data was collected and analyzed)? To what extent will Indigenous peoples be invited to discuss the implications of the analysis? Why does the slide presentation make no mention of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s Indigenous Caucus?
The findings pertaining to shorter shelter stays raise at least two questions. First, why do Indigenous peoples have short, but frequent, stays in homeless shelters? Second, what could be done to address this? Frequent migration between urban centres and First Nations communities may help explain this. This may also speak to the need for more low-barrier and culturally-appropriate housing options in Canada—both emergency and permanent options.
The findings showing Inuit over-representation are disturbing, though not surprising. Canada’s Inuit experience high rates of unemployment, poverty, and housing need. For more on this, see: the Inuit Statistical Profile 2018, published by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; this Statistics Canada report from 2018; and this profile of Inuit living in Ottawa.
The findings pertaining to women and seniors merit reflection. The analysis finds that, while Indigenous men are more than 10 times more likely to use a homeless shelter over the course of a year than non-Indigenous men, Indigenous women are more than 15 times more likely to use a homeless shelter than non-Indigenous women over the course of a year. Meanwhile, Indigenous seniors are more than 16 times more likely to use a homeless shelter over the course of a year than non-Indigenous seniors. Why would rates of Indigenous over-representation in Canada’s homeless shelters be higher for women and seniors than for other categories?
I was disappointed to see Canada’s largest city dropped from the analysis. According to the slide presentation, City of Toronto data could not be included in the analysis because the City of Toronto lacked Indigenous status data for more than 40% of unique individuals using its homeless shelters. I hope it serves as wake-up call to the Toronto’s homeless-serving sector.
Among the communities studied, Calgary’s rate of Indigenous over-representation was especially high (see screenshot below). The analysis found that, in Calgary, shelter users are about 16 times more likely to be Indigenous than are members of the city’s total population. The rate for Edmonton appears to be about half of that, with only York Region (near Toronto) having a higher rate among the cities studied. It is worth noting that the Calgary Homeless Foundation recently commissioned a research project assessing flow between Treaty 7 First Nations and Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care. Hopefully that project can shed light on this matter. (Full disclosure: I’m one of the research consultants working on this project, along with Gabrielle Lindstrom, Steve Pomeroy, and Jodi Bruhn.)

In sum. Many years of work go into this kind of analysis. Thousands of people were involved in the data collection, including shelter staff and officials both inside and outside of government. Further, people using homeless shelters patiently answered questions about their lives in order for this analysis to happen. However, it is clear that much work remains. It would appear that ESDC up their game in terms of working with Indigenous peoples and groups on such research projects, and some cities clearly must do a better job of data collection. We must all work collectively to understand what specific policy measures are required to address the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in Canada’s homeless shelters.

The following individuals provided me with assistance in preparing this blog post: Jodi Bruhn, Kathy Christiansen, Damian Collins, Dan Dutton, Ron Kneebone, Diana Krecsy, Eric Latimer, Katelyn Lucas, Jenny Morrow, Jennifer Robson, Vincent St-Martin, and two anonymous reviewers. Any errors are mine.

[1] Federal definitions of chronic vs. episodic homelessness are available here.

My review of Eric Weissman’s book on intentional homeless communities

by admin | Jul 20, 2019 | Calgary, Cities, Ending Homelessness, Government, Government Funding, Harm Reduction, Homeless, Housing, Pitching new programs to government, Policy, Social Housing, Social Policy

My review of Eric Weissman’s book on intentional homeless communities

BOOK REVIEW

Weissman, E. (2017). Tranquility on the razor’s edge: Changing narratives of inevitability. Oakville, ON: Rock’s Mills Press.

Eric Weissman is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick, Saint John. But he was once homeless, and has since written a very good book about intentional communities in Canada and the United States. This book is based on Eric’s PhD thesis, which in 2014 won a major national award.

Here are 10 things to know:

This book focuses on intentional homeless communities (IHC) in Canada and the United States. Intentional communities in general are communities built around specific goals. But in the case of this book, I mean small communities of housing sometimes made from discarded, donated and recycled material, and sometimes purpose-built, to address homelessness. IHCs have relatively sophisticated governance structures and are typically located on land owned by non-profits, churches or municipal government. The book argues that such communities are on the rise and that they constitute both official and unofficial responses to homelessness depending on which examples we look at. There are dozens of such communities in the United States. According to the book’s author, Homes for Heroes (Calgary) and Steve Cardiff Tiny House Community (Whitehorse) are Canadian examples of IHCs.
Intentional communities are not the same thing as tent cities or tiny home communities. IHCs are legal in several American cities, where some receive government funding (though most such funding comes from non-profits and private donors). Sometimes referred to as ‘villages,’ they often have their own websites and wi-fi networks. Some have formal triage systems for determining new admissions. Many hold elections and have formal governance arrangements. Some pay liability insurance, some are legally incorporated, and some are inspected regularly by municipal officials. Tent cities, by contrast, are usually temporary, largely-unorganized and rarely sanctioned by cities. Conventional tiny-home communities reflect current tastes for micro-housing and may not be organized around any social cause in particular.
The book demonstrates that who makes day-to-day housing-related decisions for marginalized persons matters. In other words, the book argues that simply having affordable housing in place with social work support (i.e., supportive housing) doesn’t cut it if we truly want to empower tenants. Rather, democratic engagement with tenants is also important. (I think Canadian housing researchers and advocates had a greater appreciation of this concept in the 1970s than they do today. For more on important innovations in the 1970s, check out Greg Suttor’s recent book on the history of social housing in Canada.)
One of the book’s many strengths is that it makes readers think unconventionally about affordable housing. I came away from reading this book realizing that my own views on the topic are somewhat narrow. Until reading the book, I had not really given intentional communities much thought as a serious approach to addressing homelessness.
The book embraces a research approach called ethnography. Very common in anthropology, this approach involves writing about something as you live it. Eric wrote this book based on his participation and residence in a few key intentional communities. He filmed and interviewed hundreds of residents and typed up his notes on site. Not only did he earn ‘street cred,’ he also applied it directly to his research.
One of the book’s messages is that researchers may try to appear neutral, but we all have biases.[1] I can relate to this message, having personally worked 10 years as a front-line community worker with persons experiencing homelessness. Personal take-ways of mine from that work include the following propositions: don’t make it difficult for a person to seek emergency shelter; persons experiencing homelessness thrive when given the chance to engage in paid work; and persons experiencing homelessness almost always agree to live in affordable housing when it’s offered to them in an appropriate manner.
The author’s own biases emerged from his own life experience with trauma, illicit drug use and homelessness. He discusses this brilliantly and powerfully in chapter three, which is arguably the best-written book chapter I’ve ever read. That chapter helped me understand both youth homelessness and illicit drug use.
This would be a good book for students to read in a graduate university seminar on research methods. And chapter two itself would be a great stand-alone reading to assign to graduate students in such a seminar. However, in order to properly understand much of the book’s language, concepts and arguments, a reader would likely need to have at least one university degree in the social sciences (I personally think the book puts too much emphasis on what social theorists have said over the years).
The book could have done a better job of articulating the drawbacks of intentional communities. To be fair, the author does acknowledge that the drawbacks of intentional communities can include: “drug problems, faction-led power struggles and a failure to provide adequate transitional experiences for people wishing to reclaim their role in society” (p. 300). But on the whole, the book contains very little discussion about: some of these communities lacking running water, heating and cooking facilities; how prone some of their residents are to property theft; and the extent to which such communities are vulnerable to being targeted by law enforcement officials.
The book misses an important opportunity to discuss the practical ways government and the non-profit sector can support intentional communities. I was left wondering what kind of funding could be directed at such communities, and what specific services should be supported. Also, the book suggests that supporting intentional communities can be much cheaper than supporting more conventional forms of affordable housing, but no breakdown is provided as to how much it would cost to assist them.

In sum: This book, which took a lot of courage to write, doesn’t shy away from discussing the awkward. And many advocates of the tiny-house movement may find this book to be inspirational. The book also reminds me of advice I once got from a supervisor at Toronto’s Homes First Society: “When housing’s being developed for marginalized populations, people with homes shouldn’t try to tell people without homes what their housing ought to look like.”

Eric Weissman patiently answered all of my questions via email as I prepared this review. I also wish to thank Adam Melnyk, Bernie Pauly, Marion Steele and Vincent St-Martin for their assistance.

[1] In the social sciences, positivists tend to view themselves as neutral observers, merely trying to find evidence. By contrast, interpretivists tend to openly acknowledge and embrace their biases (see this short article for more on this distinction).

« Older Entries

Next Entries »