Une introduction au logement supervisé et le Logement d’abord

Une introduction au logement supervisé et le Logement d’abord

by | Feb 20, 2021 | Canada, Ending Homelessness, Fiscal policy, Government, Government Funding, Harm Reduction, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Ontario, Pitching new programs to government, Policy, Social Housing, Social Policy, Toronto

Une introduction au logement supervisé et le Logement d’abord

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

Le 3 février 2021, j’étais conférencier dans le séminaire d’études supérieures de Greg Suttor au département de géographie et de planification de l’université de Toronto (un grand honneur puisque Greg est un de mes mentors depuis longtemps). Ma présentation portait sur les liens entre les univers du logement et du sans-abrisme au Canada (et plus particulièrement à Toronto).

La présentation entière et détaillée est disponible (en anglais) ici.

Voici 10 choses à savoir à ce sujet :

1. Au Canada, la plupart des gens qui réfléchissent à la question s’entendent pour dire que le logement subventionné est essentiel afin de le prévenir et de répondre au sans-abrisme. Toutefois, il existe des débats importants : la quantité additionnelle de logements abordables requis; à qui devraient servir le nombre limité de logements; quels sont les meilleurs modèles de logements subventionnés; et à quel degré chaque logement devrait-il être subventionné?

2. Les élus ne s’entendent pas sur la répartition des couts des subventions. À l’heure actuelle, le consensus est que le gouvernement fédéral canadien devrait s’acquitter des frais de développement (par exemple, le capital), mais on ne s’entend pas à savoir qui devrait financer les frais d’exploitation conséquents. Les paliers de gouvernements jouent en quelque sorte à voir qui cèdera en premier, ce qui limite la quantité de nouveaux logements abordables créés chaque année.

3. En Ontario, lorsque le sans-abrisme est survenu comme défi de politique publique dans les années 80, les personnes itinérantes sont devenues un point focal majeur de la politique sur le logement. Une approche de l’époque consistait à reloger les itinérants dans des logements abordables et leur offrir de l’assistance sociale. Aujourd’hui, cette approche s’appelle le logement supervisé (et de nos jours, Logement d’abord en est presque un synonyme). La plupart des résidents qui ont recours au logement supervisé au Canada sont des adultes célibataires n’ayant personne à charge et qui ont de sérieux défis de santé mentale. 

4. Ce changement de cap n’est pas survenu dans un vacuum politique – assurément, le militantisme politique a joué un rôle central à son avènement. À Toronto, cela a compris la création du Singles Displaced Persons Project (ou « le projet des personnes célibataires déplacées »), du mouvement des « survivants/consommateurs » qui avait pour slogan « homes not hostels » (ou « un domicile, pas du dépannage ») ainsi que la mise sur pied d’organismes tels Houselink Community Homes, et Homes First Society.

5. Le genre d’appui social offert conjointement avec le logement supervisé fait l’objet de débat. Lorsque j’offrais de tels appuis en travaillant à Toronto, j’aidais les locataires à tenir compte de leurs rendez-vous (par exemple chez le médecin, avec de travailleurs sociaux pour le revenu, ou pour des comparutions en cour). Je les ai souvent accompagnés à leurs rendez-vous. Je les ai défendus s’ils étaient menacés d’éviction et les ai aidés à déménager lorsque cela était nécessaire. Il m’est souvent arrivé de les inviter à prendre un café également.

6. Le logement supervisé permanent adapté au milieu facilite l’organisation d’activités sociales en groupe. On parle ici d’un édifice entier où l’ensemble des locataires ont recours au logement supervisé (plutôt qu’une simple proportion de ses locataires). Ce genre de logement supervisé comprend habituellement du personnel d’appui sur place et dans certains cas, le personnel demeure sur place en tout temps. Le logement supervisé permanent adapté au milieu peut offrir un important appui avec la gestion d’invités et facilite la mise sur pied de programmes alimentaires, d’exercice physique, et de cours d’art.

7. Au Canada, le concept de Logement d’abord – qui est presque synonyme du logement supervisé – a commencé à être accepté au début des années 2000. La Ville de Toronto a beaucoup misé sur le concept à partir de 2005, et la Calgary Homeless Foundation s’y est intéressée également; les militants et les intervenants du domaine s’en servent maintenant à travers le Canada. La stratégie du Logement d’abord permet d’éliminer la condition exigeant qu’un locataire potentiel soit « prêt » à être logé pour l’être.

8. L’idéologie entourant le Logement d’abord ne se situe ni à droite ni à gauche de l’échiquier politique. Elle sert plutôt de “troisième approche” stratégique grâce à laquelle elle trouve des adeptes parmi les entrepreneurs chefs de fil, les élus de toute allégeance politique, et toute une gamme de militants. Cela s’explique en partie par le fait que le Logement d’abord promeut habituellement une redistribution des ressources existantes. Ça s’explique aussi par le fait que les adeptes du Logement d’abord favorisent l’usage de logements privés à but lucratif plutôt que des logements appartenu par des organismes à but non lucratif.

9. Le mérite de l’approche Logement d’abord a été démontré davantage par l’étude canadienne At Home/Chez soi. Dans cette étude randomisée et contrôlée, des participants de cinq villes avec des besoins modérés ont reçu une forme de Logement d’abord incluant une intervention de type Soutien d’intensité variable, tandis que les participants avec des besoins élevés ont reçu une forme de Logement d’abord incluant une intervention de type Suivi intensif. Les participants ont été interviewés tous les trois mois pendant deux ans. Les résultats étaient concluants et moins dispendieux.

10. La Stratégie nationale sur le logement, dévoilée en 2017, ne contient aucune provision spécifique pour le logement supervisé, et ne mentionne pas le Logement d’abord. Pourtant, dans le discours du Trône de septembre 2020, le gouvernement canadien s’engageait à « complètement éliminer le sans-abrisme chronique ». De plus, seulement 5% du nouvel argent a été mis de côté pour réduire le sans-abrisme chronique.

En conclusion, la bonne nouvelle c’est que la plupart des leadeurs du Canada croient que le logement supervisé est une bonne façon de prévenir et de répondre au sans-abrisme. Leur usage du langage de Logement d’abord en témoigne. La mauvaise nouvelle, c’est que la plupart des élus hésitent à engager les fonds nécessaires pour réduire le sans-abrisme – par exemple, la Stratégie nationale sur le logement semble insuffisamment financée pour atteindre l’objectif du gouvernement canadien de mettre fin au sans-abrisme chronique.

Je voudrais remercier Damian Collins, Stéphan Corriveau, John Ecker, Joshua Evans, George Fallis, Susan Falvo, Hayley Gislason, David Hulchanski, Michel Laforge, Steve Lurie, Geoffrey Nelson, Deborah Padgett, Angela Regnier, John Rook et Vincent St-Martin pour leur aide à la rédaction de ce billet.

Une introduction au logement supervisé et le Logement d’abord

A primer on supportive housing and Housing First

by | Feb 20, 2021 | Canada, Ending Homelessness, Government, Government Funding, Harm Reduction, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Ontario, Social Housing, Social Policy, Toronto

A primer on supportive housing and Housing First

La version française de ce billet se trouve ici.

On 3 February 2021, I gave a guest lecture in Greg Suttor‘s graduate seminar course at the University of Toronto’s Department of Geography and Planning (Greg is a long-time mentor of mine, so this was a huge honour). My presentation focused on how the worlds of housing and homelessness connect in Canada (and in Toronto especially).

My full slide deck, which contains considerable detail, can be found here.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. In Canada, most leading thinkers agree that subsidized housing is key to both preventing and responding to homelessness. However, there are important debates about: how much more subsidized housing is needed; who should be prioritized for the limited number of available units; which models of subsidized housing are best; and how much subsidy should be attached to each unit.

2. Elected officials do not agree on who should finance subsidized housing. Right now, there’s broad agreement that Canada’s federal government should provide assistance with up-front development costs (i.e., capital costs), but there’s considerable debate over who should finance the ongoing costs after the housing is developed (i.e., operating costs). This ongoing game of chicken, whereby one order of government waits for another one to cave, limits the amount of new affordable housing that gets created each year.

3. In Ontario, when homelessness emerged as a pressing public policy challenge in the 1980s, persons experiencing homelessness started to become a major focus of housing policy. An approach emerged at that time that focused on re-housing persons into subsidized housing and providing them with social work support. This approach became known as supportive housing (today, the term Housing First means almost the same thing). Most residents of supportive housing in Canada are single adults without dependants and are experiencing serious mental health challenges.

4. This didn’t happen in a political vacuum—indeed, political advocacy played a major role in bringing it about. In Toronto, this included the Singles Displaced Persons Project, the “consumer survivor” movement, the slogan “homes not hostels” and the founding of organizations such as Houselink Community Homes, and Homes First Society.

5. The type of social work support provided with supportive housing is the subject of much debate. When I provided such support while working in Toronto, I helped tenants keep track of appointments (e.g., doctors’ appointments, appointments with income support workers, and court appearances). I often accompanied tenants to the appointments. I advocated for them if they were ever being threatened with eviction and (when necessary) helped them relocate to new units. I frequently took them for coffee as well.

6. Place-based supportive housing makes it relatively easy to organize group social activities. Place-based supportive housing refers to a situation where an entire building is occupied by tenants in need of supportive housing (as opposed to just a small percentage of a building’s units being occupied by a specific population group). This type of supportive housing typically involves on-site staff support (with some models, there are staff on site at all times). Place-based supportive housing can offer important assistance with guest management and makes it relatively easy to have meal programs, as well as exercise and art classes.

7. In Canada, Housing First—which means something very similar to supportive housing—became an effective narrative beginning in the early 2000s. The City of Toronto pushed this hard beginning in 2005, and the Calgary Homeless Foundation picked it up quickly as well; advocates and practitioners across Canada now use the term extensively. The Housing First narrative places great emphasis on the importance of not requiring housing readiness on the part of the prospective tenant as a condition of obtaining housing.

8. Ideologically, advocacy in favour of Housing First isn’t exactly left or right; rather, it entails a ‘third way’ political advocacy strategy. Largely because of that ‘third way’ approach, it has found traction among business leaders, elected officials of all stripes and a broad cross-section of advocates. Part of this stems from the fact that Housing First advocates often promote a reallocation of existing resources. It also stems from the fact that Housing First proponents tend to favour the use of housing owned by for-profit landlords (whereas proponents of supportive housing have historically favoured non-profit ownership).

9. Housing First was further advanced by Canada’s At Home/Chez Soi study. This was a five-city randomized controlled study in which participants with moderate needs received Intensive Case Management, while those with higher levels of need received Assertive Community Treatment. Participants were interviewed every three months over two years. Results demonstrated successful outcomes and cost savings.

10. Canada’s National Housing Strategy, unveiled in 2017, contains no specific provisions for supportive housing and makes no mention of Housing First. Yet, the September 2020 Federal Throne Speech includes a commitment to “completely eliminate chronic homelessness.” Further, just 5% of new funding under the National Housing Strategy has been earmarked towards the goal of reducing chronic homelessness.

In sum. The good news is that most of Canada’s thought leaders believe that supportive housing—often articulated via Housing First language—is an important way to both prevent and respond to homelessness. The bad news is that most elected officials are reluctant to commit the necessary funding to substantially reduce homelessness—for example, the National Housing Strategy appears insufficiently resourced to meet the Government of Canada’s objective of ending chronic homelessness.

I wish to thank Damian Collins, Stéphan Corriveau, John Ecker, Joshua Evans, George Fallis, Susan Falvo, Hayley Gislason, David Hulchanski, Michel Laforge, Steve Lurie, Geoffrey Nelson, Deborah Padgett, Angela Regnier, John Rook and Vincent St-Martin for assistance with this blog post. I also wish to thank HomeSpace Society for permission to use the photo used in this post.

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

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

by | 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:

 

  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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). 
  1. 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)! 
  1. 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.
  1. 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). 
  1. 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.) 
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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

The use of homeless shelters by Indigenous peoples in Canada

by | 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:

 

  1. 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).
  2. 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.”
  3. 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.
  4. 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]
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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

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

by | 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: 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.)
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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).

 

 

The use of homeless shelters by Indigenous peoples in Canada

Homelessness, harm reduction and Housing First

by | May 16, 2019 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, Calgary, Harm Reduction, Homeless, Housing, Housing First, Indigenous peoples, Point in time Count, Poverty, Social Policy

Homelessness, harm reduction and Housing First

I was recently invited to give a presentation at a two-day event discussing the overdose crisis and First Nations, with a focus on southern Alberta. My presentation (slide deck available here) focused on homelessness, substance use, harm reduction and Housing First.

With this in mind, here are 10 things to know:

  1. Indigenous peoples are overrepresented among persons experiencing absolute homelessness in Alberta. According to results of the last province-wide Point-in-Time homelessness count, Indigenous peoples represent 7% of Alberta’s total population, but 26% of persons experiencing absolute homelessness in the province’s seven largest cities. A similar phenomenon exists right across Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
  2. To truly understand homelessness among Indigenous peoples, it is important to understand flow between communities. Most Indigenous peoples experiencing absolute homelessness in Alberta’s major cities report not being from the community in question. In Calgary, for example, just 11% of Indigenous peoples experiencing absolute homelessness report always having lived in Calgary.
  3. A major study is about to explore factors behind the flow of First Nations people between southern Alberta communities. Specifically, it will look at those who end up experiencing absolute homelessness in Calgary. Its research team consists of Jodi Bruhn, Gabrielle Linsdstrom, Allan Moscovitch and Steve Pomeroy. More information on this project can be found in last fall’s Request for Proposals. The research is being funded by the Calgary Homeless Foundation.
  4. Traumatic events are an important factor leading a homeless person to use drugs. A 2015 Winnipeg study asked what factors made a homeless person more likely to be a person who uses drugs (PWUD). Traumatic events, especially residential school history, were found to be one of the most important factors. Other factors identified in the study as leading a person to use drugs included mental and physical health problems (i.e., people self-medicate). What’s more, a recent First Nations Health Authority report from British Columbia identifies factors that lead to substance use. They include: racism; intergenerational trauma (e.g., residential schools); and limited access to mental health and addiction treatment (which is often reported by members of First Nations).
  5. Homeless shelters do not and cannot adequately respond to the overdose crisis. A 2014 study looked at the use of homeless shelters in Atlantic Canada (it looked at all four Atlantic provinces). It found that shelters focus on providing shelter and do not have a strong mandate to fully support PWUDs. A 2018 report went further, identifying the following barriers in some homeless shelters in Canada: clients having to ask staff to access harm reduction supplies (to be discussed below); shelters refusing services to people under the influence; and rigid entry process (e.g., extensive paperwork, the need for multiple pieces of documentation).
  6. It is very challenging for staff in homeless shelters to properly engage with people who use drugs, largely because on-site use of illicit substances is prohibited. To put it bluntly, staff give out supplies but forbid the on-site use of drugs. Shelter washrooms can therefore become “de facto unsupervised consumption sites” (p. 87).
  7. Harm reduction focuses on reducing harm caused by drug use without requiring total abstinence. Harm reduction approaches include the distribution of condoms, clean syringes and safe inhalation kits. There is solid evidence supporting the view that harm reduction approaches: reduce risk-taking behaviour; reduce the risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases; prevent overdoses; reduce crime; and increase contact with other supports (including healthcare supports).
  8. Supervised consumption services are one form of harm reduction. According to this report, they “consist of providing a safe, hygienic environment in which people can use drugs with sterile equipment under the supervision of trained staff or volunteers” (p. 2). As of February 2019, 28 supervised consumption services sites were operating under an exemption from Canada’s federal government.
  9. Supervised consumption services have proven to be very effective in southern Alberta. During 2018 alone, Calgary’s supervised consumption site saw nearly 52,000 visits, resulting in more than 700 overdose reversals. Also during 2018 alone, Lethbridge’s site saw nearly 128,000 site visits, resulting in more than 1,300 overdose reversals.
  10. Housing First is an approach whereby people in need of affordable housing receive housing without having to first prove their ‘housing readiness.’ According to this study: “Harm reduction is a key principle of Housing First, where individuals are not required or expected to undergo treatment for substance use or to abstain in order to access and keep permanent housing” (p. 1). However, Housing First does not mean housing only. That is, other social supports—including drug and alcohol treatment, which may lead to reduced substance use—are crucial to the success of Housing First.

In Sum. To understand high rates of homelessness and substance use among Indigenous peoples, it is important to consider the roles played by trauma and racism. It is also important to understand flow between communities, as well as the inadequacies of homeless shelters. Harm reduction and Housing First remain important policy responses to the overdose crisis.

 

I wish to thank the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this blog post: Lorraine Barnaby, Shannon Beavis, Jodi Bruhn, Julia Christensen, Arlene Haché, Leslie Hill, Diana Krecsy, Bren Little Light, Katelyn Lucas, Adam Melnyk, Susan McGee, Katrina Milaney, Gautam Mukherjee, Bernie Pauly, Steven Richardson, Chris Sarin, Quentin Sinclair, Lorie Steer, Vincent St-Martin and Alina Turner. Any errors are mine.