Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

by | Feb 16, 2018 | British Columbia, Housing

Ten things to know about homelessness in BC

On February 20, the British Columbia government will table its next provincial budget. With that in mind, it’s useful to reflect on the province’s homelessness crisis—along with the various public policy factors that have likely contributed to it.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. Public operating spending by BC’s provincial government has seen a steady reduction over the past two decades. As a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), provincial public operating spending has gone from roughly 22 per cent to roughly 18 per cent during this time. The downward trend was especially sharp during the first mandate of the Gordon Campbell Liberal government (2001-2005); but the trend has yet to be reversed, even with the recent election of an NDP government. All of this is illustrated in the visual below.

Provincial public operational spending

Note: the above data represent total operating expenditures divided by nominal GDP, taken from various sources. Figures include debt-serving costs in the numerator. It should be noted that capital spending was relatively steady during period in question. Figures compiled by Alex Hemingway (CCPA-BC).

2. While the BC Liberals were in office from 2001 until 2017, new supply of subsidized housing for low-income households failed to keep up with increased demand. And as discussed in this report, when successive Liberal governments did provide new funding for affordable housing, they directed it at rental assistance (i.e., financial assistance) for low-income tenants renting from for-profit landlords, emergency shelter beds and SRO hotels. While spending on all of those initiatives are important, so is spending on new units of permanent, non-profit housing for low-income households. (I’ve previously written about this topic here.)

3. Across the province, average rent levels have increased very substantially over the past 25 years. Average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in BC increased by 24 per cent between 1990 and 2016; and for a bachelor unit, average rent increased by 29 per cent (both of these calculations account for inflation). The figures can be accessed here.

4. Beginning in 1996, it became very challenging to qualify for social assistance in BC. I’m referring to successive reforms to BC’s social assistance system brought in 1996, 2002 and 2003. These measures include: lower benefit levels for recipients (to be elaborated on in point #5 below); a reduction in asset exemption limits; stricter eligibility requirements; proof of job search requirements; the requirement of recipients to literally line up to receive their cheques (as opposed to receiving them in the mail or having them directly deposited into the bank); and more fraud detection. (For more on these changes, see this report and this report.)[1]

5. For households ‘lucky’ enough to qualify for social assistance in BC, the value of those benefit levels has decreased substantially since the mid-1990s. In the mid-1990s, a single employable adult (without dependents) in BC who received social assistance received approximately $10,000 annually to live on. By 2016, that same person was receiving less than $8,000 annually.[2] This decrease in the value of social assistance over time is illustrated in the bar graph below, and the figures themselves comes from this report.

Total Welfare Income

6. Changes to BC’s social assistance system discussed above have likely contributed to rising homelessness in BC. Indeed, findings from this report (co-authored by Ron Kneebone and Katherine White) suggest that the reforms to social assistance discussed in point #2 above likely led to fewer people receiving social assistance in BC. What’s more, this recent report (co-authored by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins) finds a negative correlation between social assistance benefit levels and demand for spaces in homeless shelters.

7. BC appears to be experiencing rising homelessness. Time series data showing fluctuations in homeless shelter demand over the past several decades for BC as a whole isn’t publicly available. However, we do know from a recent ‘point in time’ count that, between 2014 and 2017, the number of people considered homeless in Metro Vancouver jumped by 30%.

8. A lack of affordable housing is making it challenging for practitioners to carry out the Housing First approach. Housing First refers to the practice of immediately providing affordable housing to a homeless person in need, without requiring that person to prove their ‘housing readiness.’ Yet, a recent report found that, while Housing First is an effective social work intervention, it’s constrained in the Metro Vancouver Region by a lack of affordable housing, landlord discrimination and inadequate income assistance.

9. BC’s new NDP government has undertaken important initiatives that may reduce homelessness. These measures include a $100/month increase in social assistance benefit levels, along with increases to earnings exemptions for recipients. What’s more, last year’s provincial budget included $291 million over two years to build 2,000 modular housing units for persons experiencing homelessness throughout the province, along with $172 million to operate those units (with 24/7 staffing support). Last year’s budget also included $208 million for the construction of 1,700 new rental units to be operated by non-profit organizations. BC’s provincial government also has a plan to finance these (and other) important initiatives. Indeed, it introduced a new tax bracket created for individuals who earn more than $150,000/yr.; it has also increased the corporate tax rate.

10. The housing measures announced in last year’s provincial budget were likely introduced in part as a result of advocacy. For example, the BC Non-Profit Housing Association has been stellar in its advocacy. And over at the BC office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Marc Lee has done a considerable amount of analysis—including here and here. (For a general overview of advocacy in Canada’s affordable housing and homelessness sectors, see this previous blog post.)[3]

In Sum. Homelessness across BC appears to have increased in recent years, driven by both insufficient investment in non-profit housing and inadequate income assistance measures. However, recent measures introduced by the new provincial government (along with measures at the federal level) may have the effect of reducing homelessness. Further initiatives to watch out for over the next several years in BC include the development of a provincial poverty reduction strategy, a provincial housing strategy and a provincial homelessness strategy (along with a province-wide ‘homeless count’ this spring).[4]

The present blog post was inspired by an October 2017 presentation I gave to a forum on affordable housing and homelessness in Nelson, BC. My PowerPoint slides can be downloaded here.

The author wishes to thank Jill Atkey, Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Ann Harvey, David Hay, Alex Hemingway, Iglika Ivanova, Lindsay Lenny, Kevin Milligan and Chidom Otogwu, Steve Pomeroy and Greg Suttor for assistance preparing this blog post. Any errors lie with the author.

  

[1] In 2012, some ‘good news’ reforms were made to BC’s social assistance system. They’re discussed here.

[2] These figures include all forms of federal and provincial tax benefits; the figures are also expressed in constant, 2016 dollars.

[3] Other factors likely played a role as well. For example, a BC-based colleague of mine tells me via email: “BC’s new NDP government has a constituency, values and ideology that has moved poverty-reduction to the top of the policy priorities list.”

[4] Other upcoming provincial strategies to note include a mental health and addictions strategy, as well as a child care and development strategy.

Nick Falvo is the Director of Research and Data at Calgary Homeless Foundation. You can follow him on Twitter at @nicholas_falvo 

Ten things to know about Canada’s newly-unveiled National Housing Strategy

Ten things to know about Canada’s newly-unveiled National Housing Strategy

by | Nov 30, 2017 | Federal Budget, Government, Government Funding, Housing

Ten things to know about Canada’s newly-unveiled National Housing Strategy

On November 22, the Trudeau government unveiled its much-anticipated National Housing Strategy. While much of the Strategy’s content and funding levels had already been broadly outlined in the most recent federal budget, the Strategy provides further detail on the content of a renewed federal role in affordable housing.

Here are 10 things to know:

  1. The Strategy aims to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% over 10 years. According to the federal government’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy Directives: “Chronically homeless refers to individuals, often with disabling conditions (e.g. chronic physical or mental illness, substance abuse problems), who are currently homeless and have been homeless for six months or more in the past year (i.e., have spent more than 180 cumulative nights in a shelter or place not fit for human habitation).” Setting targets is certainly a positive, however, in the absence of a clearly defined implementation framework it’s very challenging for researchers to accurately assess how realistic this target is vis-à-vis various spending commitments.
  2. A key feature of the Strategy is the announcement of the government’s intent to create a Canada Housing Benefit. This benefit will consist of financial assistance[1] to help low-income households afford the rent in both private and social housing units. The Trudeau government estimates that this will cost $4 billion over eight years beginning in 2020, and that the average beneficiary will receive $2,500 in support per year. It is expected that half of this money will come from the federal government, and the other half from provinces and territories. Certain subgroups will be prioritized—however, it’s not clear which subgroups of households will be targeted. This benefit program will be designed by 2020, in partnership with provinces and territories.  It’s therefore unclear how this new benefit program will interact with the rest of Canada’s income assistance framework. For example, will a social assistance recipient who receives this new benefit be allowed to keep the full value of both the new benefit and their existing social assistance benefits? What about a household that’s already receiving a provincially-administered rent supplement? And what will this look like on reserve?
  3. A new National Housing Co-Investment Fund will create up to 60,000 units of new housing and repair up to 240,000 units of existing housing. Over 10 years, this federally-managed initiative will be worth $15.9 billion (including $4.7 billion in capital grants and $11.2B in low-interest loans from CMHC). About half of the grant funding will fund repair, while the other half will fund new builds. This will assist both with social housing and housing that’s owned and operated by for-profit landlords. This large fund will consist of several programs that target different groups; it will include grants and loans. The federal government anticipates 6,000 new housing units annually will be created, in addition to repairs. At least 7,000 shelter spaces will be created or repaired for survivors of family violence. There will also be 12,000 new units created for seniors. At least 2,400 new units for persons with developmental disabilities will be created. This is a unilateral federal program; dollar-for-dollar cost-sharing will not be required from provincial and territorial governments (however, some assistance from provincial and territorial governments may be required). Among other things, this is a demonstration of the Trudeau government’s interest in getting back into the direct delivery of housing programs. Quebec has already said that it does not want direct federal involvement in the housing sector and expects to negotiate an arrangement whereby the government of Quebec will remain solely responsible for the development of its housing sector.
  4. The Canada Community Housing Initiative will focus on preserving existing units of social housing. This will entail $4.3 billion of federal funding over a decade and will require cost-matching from provinces and territories. Note that this is precisely the amount of federal funding set to expire over the next decade on existing social housing units (ergo: this is about expiring operating agreements). Canada’s approximately 500,000 social housing units that are both administered by either provincial or territorial authorities, and have rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidies, are eligible for this. This fund will assist with repairs, help keep rents affordable and provide mortgage assistance for the operators. This means the issue of ‘expiring operating agreements’ is fixed for the next 10 years…provided the provinces and territories agree to cost-match. (The Federal Community Housing Initiative will do essentially the same thing for social housing units that are federally-administered; this will include co-op units. This will entail $500 million in federal funding over 10 years. No cost matching will be required here.)[2]
  5. The Trudeau government appears to want to shift traditional ‘social housing’ models toward mixed-income developments. Developments that are 100% RGI will be discouraged; likewise, current 100% RGI will be encouraged to be redeveloped with income mix.[3] This will be done through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and through the Canada Community Housing Initiative (both of which are discussed above).
  6. An assortment of additional new initiatives were announced. A new Federal Housing Advocate will be created. A new National Housing Council will be created, it will be an advisory body that will provide ongoing input to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). It will begin its work in 2018. A new Community Based-Tenant Initiative will be created; it will foster participation by people with lived experience. A new public engagement campaign (with an anti-stigma focus) will be created.
  7. The Strategy discusses a National Housing Strategy Research Agenda. Worth $241 million over 10 years, the Strategy says this Agenda will embrace open data. Some of this funding will go to Statistics Canada; some will go to CMHC. According to the Strategy, the Trudeau government wants to increase funding for housing research “both inside and outside government and enhance the channels available to communicate research results.” Also according to the Strategy: “Solution Labs will be funded to bring experts and a range of housing stakeholders together to rapidly incubate and scale potential solutions to housing affordability pressures. Through open competitive processes, teams from the housing sector will be invited to identify housing challenges in key National Housing Strategy priority areas and propose strategies to develop new, world-leading solutions.”[4]
  8. The Strategy refers to this as “Canada’s first ever National Housing Strategy,” but that may not be accurate. In in the mid-1980s, Canada’s federal government released a document titled A National Direction for Housing Solutions, which many housing policy experts considered to be a form of a strategy. This had a transformative impact on affordable housing policy in Canada—specifically, it got the provinces and territories more engaged in affordable housing (that document can be accessed online, free of charge, at this link). Also, while the new Strategy contains some language pertaining to home ownership, the Strategy is very heavily focused on the rental sector.[5]
  9. The Strategy may overstate a few points. As indicated above, the Trudeau government may be stretching things when it says this is Canada’s “first ever” National Housing Strategy. Likewise, the Strategy vows to create four times as many housing units annually as were created from 2005 to 2015. However, according to Greg Suttor’s new book about the history of Canadian social housing policy, approximately 7,900 affordable rental housing units (not counting on reserve housing) were created annually during the 2005-2013 period.[6] Since the Strategy claims it will create 100,000 new units over 10 years, it would be more accurate to say that it will result in a modest increase in new builds annually (indeed, it’s quite unlikely that there will even be a doubling of annual new builds under the Strategy). Further, CMHC has not published good data on numbers of new units created annually over the past several decades, so this makes it challenging for researchers to ‘fact check’ any such claim with any level of precision.
  10. There will be lots to monitor over the next several years, and there are many unresolved questions. For example, beginning in 2020, there will be reports to Parliament every three years on housing targets and outcomes. But who will do that reporting, who will set the metrics for the reporting and who will calculate the figures? Also, the federal government says it’s working with First Nations, Métis and Inuit organizations to develop separate housing plans, but what will they look like and will they involve new funding? The Strategy vows to take a “rights-based approach to housing” and this will require new legislation; but it’s not clear what such an approach actually means. Finally, what happens if some provinces or territories refuse to ‘cost match’ some of the initiatives?

In Sum. This Strategy’s unveiling is arguably the most positive development in federal housing policy since the early 1970s. It signals that the Trudeau government is serious about federal housing policy. But while the government’s intent is clear, we’ll now see how well they can actually deliver.

I wish to thank Tim Aubry, Victoria Ballance, Janice Chan, George Fallis, Martina Jileckova, Marc Lee, Lindsay Lenny, David Macdonald, Michael Mendelson, Jeff Morrison, Geoffrey Nelson, Chidom Otogwu, Steve Pomeroy, Tim Richter, Joel Sinclair, Marion Steele, Greg Suttor, John Sylvestre and one anonymous reviewer for invaluable assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

 

[1] For more on what such a benefit structure might look like, see this March 2016 report by Michael Mendelson.

[2] This funding for expiring operating agreements (i.e. the $4.3 billion + $500 million) was the only ‘new money’ announced in the Strategy. Though the 2017 federal budget had announced the intent to reinstate funding for expiring operating agreements, the actual amount was not spelled out. It will now take a supplemental vote in Parliament to formalize this additional funding.

[3] Adam Vaughan (a Toronto Member of Parliament) is believed to be the chief architect of this piece of the Strategy.

[4] Both of the quotes used in this paragraph are taken from p. 21 of the Strategy.

[5] Thus, it would probably be more accurate to call this an ‘affordable housing strategy’ than a ‘comprehensive housing strategy.’

[6] Dr. Suttor had to impute this figure, based on multiple sources. He presents the results in Table 8.5

 

You can view a PDF version of this blog post here: Ten things to know about Canada’s newly-unveiled National Housing Strategy

 

Second Annual Canadian Homelessness Data Sharing Initiative

Second Annual Canadian Homelessness Data Sharing Initiative

by | Jul 4, 2017 | Data Sharing, Ending Homelessness, Government, Housing, Pit Count, Poverty Reduction, Research and Data, Ron Kneebone

Second Annual Canadian Homelessness Data Sharing Initiative

On May 18, 2017, the Second Annual Canadian Homelessness Data Sharing Initiative took place in Calgary (all slide presentations, as well as photos from the event, are available here). The event was organized by the Calgary Homeless Foundation and the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, and the participants included:  people who build datasets (about persons experiencing homelessness); researchers who use that data; persons with lived experience; and public servants.

Here are 10 things to know about this year’s event:

1. For the second year in a row, there was strong representation from Canada’s federal government. Five officials from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) participated, three of whom had formal speaking roles at the event. Aaron Segaert (from ESDC) presented data from more than 200 homeless shelters between 2005 and 2014, showing that:

  • the occupancy rate (i.e. % of beds filled each night) across these shelters rose from 83% in 2010 to 92% in 2014;
  • the average ‘duration of stay’ by households using these shelters is increasing, especially for families and seniors;
  • the number of seniors using homeless shelters annually nearly doubled across Canada between 2005 and 2014.

2. This year’s event had strong Quebec representation. Research presented by Annie Duchesne, for example, finds that certain subgroups of persons in Montreal’s largest homeless shelter are more likely to experience chronic homelessness (i.e. long-term homelessness) than others—those subgroups include persons over the age of 50, persons with mental health problems and persons with disabilities.

3. Indigenous perspectives were presented. Bonnie Healy’s presentation focused on the work of the Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre. Topics raised in her presentation included First Nations OCAP principles, a publication titled First Nations – Health Trends Alberta, the First Nations health status report for the Alberta region, the work of the Alberta First Nations Governance Centre, and Indigenous logic models.

4. Several data-sharing advocates actively participated in this year’s event. Michael Lenczner, a data-sharing champion in Canada’s social sector, attended and spoke at this year’s event. He stated that, in terms of data sharing, he’s not aware of any other subsector of Canada’s non-profit sector that has an annual forum to discuss the importance of data. He also cited Alberta as a leader in data sharing, making reference mostly to PolicyWise, who’ve worked with government to link client administrative data from multiple ministries. They’re the leaders of this kind of data-linking in Canada, and possibly the world.

5. Difficulties with researchers accessing federal homelessness data were raised. Tracey Lauriault is a Carleton University professor who described her past difficulties in trying to access HIFIS data for research. When she did, she was told that her data requests must be sent to community coordinators; yet, federal officials were never able to provide her with a list of community coordinators.

6. One of the event highlights was a panel discussion on moving towards increased national integration of Homelessness Management Information Systems (HMIS). As I’ve written before, there are multiple software systems across Canada that keep data on persons experiencing homelessness; many people would like to see increased integration of these systems (possibly into one very large system, or at least the sharing of data among these systems so that researchers can have larger samples for their work). Henry Dagher (ESDC) discussed the evolution of the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) software system (which is one type of HMIS system). This federally-administered HIFIS system is now operating in more than 100 communities. HIFIS 4 is now web-based and gaining strong momentum; BC Housing is now implementing HIFIS province-wide (spanning approximately 200 service providers). Several panel members suggest that community members need to gain more control of HIFIS (via a stakeholder advisory body with some clout that includes persons with lived experience). As Michael Lenczner puts it: “The tail shouldn’t wag the dog.” Jenn Legate (Calgary Homeless Foundation) raised several operational concerns that need to be kept in mind as we move forward on increased national integration of HIMIS systems—namely, the ongoing costs a server, the cost of migrating data from an old database system to a new system, challenges pertaining to customer service provided by software vendors, and legal barriers to data sharing.

7. Important findings were presented from Canada’s recent nationally-coordinated Point in Time Count of homeless persons. Patrick Hunter’s presentation noted that more than 25% of homeless persons enumerated during the 2016 count did not use an emergency shelter during the previous year—I think this speaks in part to conditions in emergency shelters, about which there’s virtually no research.[1] Hunter also reported that Indigenous peoples are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than the rest of Canada’s population; what’s more, more likely to experience longer homeless spells than non-Indigenous people.

8. One of the event highlights was a “review of the day” by Stephen Metraux. Metraux, the Director of the Health Policy Program at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, gave a ‘wrap up’ presentation that included a short slide presentation. He subsequently wrote a blog post in which he reflected on his experience at the event.

9. Several suggestions were made about a ‘way forward.’ Topics that need to be tackled in the future include:

10. This will continue to be an annual event that we expect to be held each year in (or near) Calgary. It may also evolve into a two-day format, with one day focusing on the operational aspects associated with building, maintaining and improving HMIS systems. All of these operational matters are the focus of this biannual event in the United States; yet, no Canadian equivalent currently exists.

In Sum. We hope this annual event will help communities across Canada get closer to ending homelessness. The event web page—with slide presentations and minutes from the event—can be found here.

A blog post written about the First Annual Canadian Homelessness Data Sharing Initiative can be found here.

The author wishes to thank the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this blog post: Vicki Ballance, Ron Kneebone, Eric Latimer, Tracey Lauriault, Kara Layher, Michael Lenczner, Lindsay Lenny, Stephen Metraux and one anonymous source. Any errors lie with the author.

 

[1] This 2016 report on conditions inside Out of the Cold facilities and Warming Centres is worth reading. However, it should be noted that the facilities that are the focus of this report are not “homeless shelters” as defined by City of Toronto officials; rather, they operate separately from the formal shelter system.

 

You can view a PDF version of this blog post here: Second Annual Canadian Homelessness Data Sharing Initiative

 

Public Policy and Homelessness: The Case of Calgary

Public Policy and Homelessness: The Case of Calgary

by | Feb 21, 2017 | Alberta, Big City Charter, Chidom Otogwu, Determinants of Homelessness, Ending Homelessness, Housing, Poverty, Poverty Reduction, Ron Kneebone, Social Housing

Public Policy and Homelessness: The Case of Calgary

On January 24, I gave a presentation to students at the University of Calgary as part of the Certificate in Working with Homeless Populations program. The goal of this presentation was to convey the fact that public policy strongly impacts the number of homeless people in a given jurisdiction at any particular time.

A version of my PowerPoint slides, which are chock-full of visuals and references, can be downloaded here: Falvo Public Policy and Homelessness WHP 1 of 3 

This is Part 1 of a 3-part presentation I gave that day. A blog post based on Part 2 can be found here, while a blog post based on Part 3 can be found here.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. Federal spending in Canada fell drastically from the early 1990s until the mid-2000s. In the early 1990s, federal spending (not counting intergovernmental transfers) represented 19% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By the late-2000s, that figure had dropped to about 13%. That’s a remarkably sharp drop in such a short time.

2. Taxation fell sharply in Canada between the mid-1990s and the late-2000s. Looking at annual tax revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP (all orders of government combined) tax revenue in Canada represented 36% of GDP in the late-1990s.  By 2012, that figure had dropped to below 31%. What’s more, Canada’s level of taxation was considerably above the average for OECD countries in the mid-1990s; today, our taxation level is well below the OECD average.

3. Federal spending on housing decreased substantially beginning in the early 1990s. In light of the trends discussed in points #1 and #2 above, this comes as little surprise to most people. For more on the federal role in housing policy, including a look at how it has evolved over the past several decades, see this 2013 conference paper.

4. Rental housing production in Canada fell sharply beginning in the late 1970s. This happened in part due to reductions in public spending on housing discussed in point #3 above. Other factors that likely led to this drop include high interest rates (which made it expensive for developers to finance new supply), a shrinking middle class (which resulted in less demand for rental units), provincial legislation pertaining to condominiums, and rent regulation.[1]

5. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the Alberta government began spending substantially less on housing.This decrease was drastic. Indeed, in 1995, the Alberta government devoted an amount worth 0.36% of its GDP to housing; just five years later, this amount had shrunk to a mere 0.10%. The Alberta government’s annual spending on housing didn’t start to increase again until the early 2000s.

6. In 1993, the Alberta government introduced strict reforms to social assistance. This entailed at least two things.  First, the rules changed, meaning that provincial officials made it much more difficult for Albertans to qualify for social assistance. Second, the annual value of benefit levels for those who did qualify for social assistance dropped quite suddenly (and then continued to erode over time).  Indeed, a ‘single employable adult’ without dependents received almost $9,000 annually in 1992 (that figure includes tax credits); by 2007, this figure had shrunk to less than $6,000[2]  That’s a very sharp loss in annual income for a very low-income individual.

7. Alberta has much less rental housing than other provinces, and this gap has grown in the past 25 years. In 1990, Alberta had almost as many apartment rental units (on a per capita basis) as the rest of Canada.  Then, beginning in the early 1990s, the amount of apartment rentals in Alberta started to decrease; today, Alberta has just half the number of apartment rental units (per capita) as the rest of Canada.  There are three main reasons for this: the first being, historically, Alberta experienced higher rates of in-migration than other provinces; secondly, the Alberta government was not as keen as other provinces to subsidize housing for lower-income households; and lastly, Alberta has a relatively large number of high-income households (and higher-income households typically prefer to own than rent).

8. Calgary has much less rental housing than Edmonton, and this gap has grown since the mid-1990s. Beginning in the early 1990s, the number of rental housing units (per capita) in both Edmonton and Calgary started to drop each year; and it dropped more sharply in Calgary than in Edmonton. Today, Calgary has approximately half the number of rental units as Edmonton on a per-capita basis.

9. The many public policy factors raised above helped create the ‘perfect storm’ for a very sharp rise in homelessness in Calgary beginning in the mid-1990s. From the mid-1990s until the mid-2000s, homelessness in Calgary saw very rapid growth.  For example, according to analysis done with Point-in-Time Count methodology, it grew by almost 700% (per capita) during that time. And while it’s always hard for researchers to establish causation (see point #2 of this blog post) it can reasonably be inferred that the public policy changes discussed above played a major role in this increase.

Part1, Slide 19

10. In 2008, Calgary became the first Canadian city to develop a plan to ‘end homelessness’; since that time, homelessness in Calgary has decreased. There are three main reasons for that decrease. First, since 2008, a great deal of progress has been made at the community level in Calgary (I’ve previously discussed the very important role played by the Calgary Homeless Foundation as System Planner here). Second, benefit levels for Alberta social assistance recipients have increased since 2008.  For example, total annual income received by a ‘single employable’ household receiving social assistance jumped by more than 30% in 2009; and total annual income for a single adult receiving Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped increased by 30% between 2011 and 2013. Third, Calgary’s rental vacancy rate is very high right now (an indirect result of the drop in the price of oil).

In Sum: The intended ‘take away’ from the presentation is that, homelessness is a complex issue that requires a coordinated and collective response that addresses the local issues through local responses. When it comes to ending homelessness, a community plan that is focused on increasing coordination and collaboration across a system of care and greater integration with big system public service providers is vital. For agencies at the frontline, having a System Planner, such as the Calgary Homeless Foundation, providing the big picture view and coordination matters a great deal… and so too does public policy.

I wish to thank: Rachel Campbell, Louise Gallagher, Ron Kneebone, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Chidom Otogwu, Steve Pomeroy, Joel Sinclair, John Stapleton, Greg Suttor, Alina Turner and Donna Wood for assistance with this.  Any errors are mine.

[1] This is not to suggest that rent regulation doesn’t play an important role in regulating landlord-tenant relations.  For more on this, see this recent analysis.

[2] Both figures in this paragraph are expressed in 2015 constant dollars.

For a PDF version of the present blog post, please click here: Public Policy and Homelessness,The Case of Calgary

Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada

Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada

by | Sep 15, 2015 | Aboriginal Peoples, Alberta, Canada, Cities, Demographics, Employment, Employment Insurance, Fiscal policy, Homeless, Housing, Income, Income Support, Indigenous peoples, Labour Market, Macroeconomics, municipalities, Nunavut, Ontario, population aging, Poverty, seniors, Social Policy, taxation, Toronto, Unemployment

Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada

This afternoon I gave a presentation at Raising the Roof’s Child & Family Homelessness Stakeholder Summit in Toronto. My slide deck can be downloaded here. To accompany the presentation, I’ve prepared the following list of Ten Things to Know About Homelessness in Canada.

1.Efforts to enumerate persons experiencing homeless have generally been spotty, but it is reasonable to assert that homelessness in Canada saw substantial growth in the 1980s and 1990s. On a nightly basis in Toronto, there were about 1,000 persons per night staying in emergency shelters in 1980. By 1990, that figure had doubled. And ten years later, there were 4,000 persons per night staying in Toronto’s emergency shelters. The Toronto figure of 4,000 per night has remained relatively constant for the past 15 years, though it has edged up in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 recession a phenomenon which I’ve previously written about here. (Admittedly, the number of persons living in emergency shelters on a nightly basis is a rather narrow gauge of homelessness. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, approximately 13% of Canadian households are in core housing need; for Nunavut, the figure is a whopping 39%.)

2. Though it’s difficult to establish causation, I think relatively safe assumptions can be made about some of the major contributors to homelessness. Researchers are generally careful about using the term causation in fact, there are long-standing tensions among academic disciplines as to what methodological approaches are required to establish it. Statisticians, for example, generally believe that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to establish causation; but as David Freedman has argued, RCTs are often impractical or unethical (Freedman, 1999, p. 255). Rather, careful researchers are more likely to say things like these factors have likely contributed to this effect,” or “I think it’s likely that this effect caused this to happen And with that in mind, I’d like to suggest that there are probably three major factors that have contributed to homelessness in Canada: 1) macroeconomic factors (especially unemployment); 2) changes to our social welfare system (including a decrease in the availability of government-subsidized housing); and 3) the design and administration of policies whose specific intent is to respond directly to homelessness (often referred to as ‘systems responses’ to homelessness).

3. Homelessness has profound ramifications on the lives of children. As I wrote in 2012: Two studies have been done in Toronto looking at the role of housing with respect to children in care. Results of both studies indicate that the state of the family housing was a factor in one in five cases in which a child was temporarily admitted into care. Results from the Toronto research also indicate that, in one in 10 cases, housing status delayed the return home of a child from care (Falvo, 2012, p. 14). Other research estimates that, on an annual basis in Toronto alone, approximately 300 babies are born to mothers who are homeless. (Of course, homelessness can have profound ramifications on the lives of adults as well. For more on this, see this 2007 study.)

4. The role of Canada’s federal government in funding both housing for low-income persons and programming for homeless persons has varied considerably over time. Provinces and territories spend much more of their own money on housing for low-income persons when the federal government leads. Thus, a considerable amount of subsidized housing for low-income Canadians was built from the mid-1960s through to the early 1990s. Since the early 1990s, comparatively little subsidized housing has been built for low-income persons in Canada. I should also note that the annual, inflation-adjusted value of federal funding for homelessness today is worth just 35% of what it was worth in 1999.

5. Not every province/territory responds to homelessness in the same way. While much mores subsidized housing for low-income persons gets built when the federal government leads, provinces and territories don’t always respond to federal funding initiatives in the same way. For example, between 2002 and 2013, three times as many subsidized housing units were built in Alberta (on a per capita basis) than in Ontario. I would argue that a driving force behind this differential stems from Alberta’s strong economic performance during this same period relative to that of Ontario’s.

6. Though a careful researcher will be cautious in discussing what causes homelessness, I think we know a lot about what solves it. In many cases, a person who stays in an emergency shelter will exit homelessness without substantial public resources. In some cases, they might find housing on their own; in other cases, family and friends may provide them with short term assistance e.g. some financial support, a couch to sleep on, etc. (To learn more about lengths of stay in homeless shelters in a sample of Canadian cities, see this 2013 study.) Researchers and advocates for the homeless generally don’t view such short-term stays as a major public policy challenge the bigger challenge is in the case of persons who stay in emergency shelters (and outside) for longer periods of time. Even here though, I would argue that it’s hardly a mystery as to what constitutes an effective policy response.

Indeed, as early as the mid-1980s, small non-profit organizations in Ontario (and possibly in other provinces as well) found success in building subsidized housing for persons who had experienced long-term homelessness they did so by providing professional staff support to help such tenants live independently in those units. This was (and still is) known as supportive housing. The emergence of supportive housing in Ontario happened in large part due to strong advocacy by community-based groups. This included: the Singles Displaced Persons Project; the consumer/survivor movement; the slogan homes not hostels the founding of Houselink Community Homes; and the founding of Homes First Society. Conditions of eligibility for such housing varied from one provider to the next. In many cases, the tenant did not have to prove housing readiness before being offered a unit. In fact, Homes First Society got its name because its founders believed that its tenants needed homes first before addressing other challenges (i.e. mental health, substance use, employment, etc.).

Today, researchers, practitioners and advocates refer to this approach ashousing first. And very recently, a successful RCT of housing first was conducted in five Canadian cities; I’ve previously written about that study here.

7. There are several ways of making housing available to low-income households; all of them involve the private sector to varying degrees. Sometimes when government subsidizes housing for low-income persons, it provides money to a non-profit entity that develops, owns and operates the units. Other times, government provides a subsidy to landlords (either for-profit or non-profit); in exchange for the subsidy, the landlord agree to rent units at a reduced rate for a specified period of time (e.g. in some cases, for 10 years). And other times, government provides money (often known as a housing allowance) to low-income tenants who then rent a unit from a for-profit landlord. Of the three possible approaches, I personally have a preference for the option where a non-profit entity develops, owns and operates the units (and I have previously written about this here). Having said that, I think there’s a place for all three approaches, depending on local context.

8. Some jurisdictions have used sophisticated information management systems as part of their efforts to respond to homelessness. Many organizations serving homeless persons in Calgary enter client information into a database called the Homelessness Management Information System, a system that is also used in many American cities. Client-level information (such as age, health status, employment status and housing status) is entered into the database when an initial intake is done. While the client is receiving services, updated information is entered again; in the case of some programs, follow-up assessments are done every three months. In the case of some program types, there are both exit and post-exit follow-up assessments completed. All information-gathering is subject to provincial privacy legislation. There are many uses for the data once it’s gathered. For example, some organizations use the data to provide case management services to clients. Also, funders are able to assess each organization’s performance against benchmarks (i.e. percentage of clients who receive housing after a specific period of time).

9. When it comes to both preventing and responding to homelessness, the capacity of government to generate revenue matters a great deal.Governments typically use revenue generated from taxation to finance both subsidized housing and other important social programs. When tax revenue decreases, many governments have less ability to spend on such programs. Since the mid-1990s, tax revenue in Canada (measured as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product) has decreased substantially. If this trend doesn’t reverse itself soon, it will be very challenging for many governments (especially provincial, territorial and municipal governments) to invest in important social programs. There is currently a move afoot by some Canadians to increase taxes; it is led by Alex Himelfarb, former Clerk of the Privy Council. Alex and his son Jordan recently co-edited a book that calls for the need for higher taxation in Canada. (Note: according to some schools of thought, it isn’t necessary for a sovereign government with its own currency to tax more in order to finance more social spending. While keeping in mind that such an approach would be most relevant to Canada’s federal government and much less relevant to provincial, territorial and municipal governments readers can read more about one such school of thought here.)

10. Over the course of the next decade, Canada will likely see substantial increases in homelessness among both seniors and Indigenous peoples (First Nation, Metis and Inuit). Seniors and Indigenous peoples are growing as a percentage of Canada’s total population. Further, the percentage of seniors living below Statistics Canada’s Low-Income Measure has grown substantially since the mid-1990s. I think all of this makes it likely that both of these groups will begin to grow as a percentage of Canada’s homeless populations.

–

The following individuals were very helpful in helping me prepare the present blog post: Maroine Bendaoud, Lisa Burke, George Fallis, Greg Suttor, Francesco Falvo, Louise Gallagher, Ali Jadidzadeh, Lisa Ker, Jennifer Legate, Kevin McNichol, Richard Shillington, Blake Thomas and Mike Veall. Any errors are mine.

Ten Thing To Know About Homelessness in Canada’s North

Ten Thing To Know About Homelessness in Canada’s North

by | Mar 25, 2015 | Housing, Nunavut

Ten Thing To Know About Homelessness in Canada’s North

On March 5, I gave a presentation on homelessness in Canada’s North at a panel at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. The other presenters on the panel were Peter Collings, Carmen Springer, Josh Louwerse and Sally Carraher. My presentation was loosely based on previous research I’ve done in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and the Yukon.

Here are 10 things one should know about homelessness in Canada’s North:

1. Construction costs are higher in Canada’s North than in most southern jurisdictions. This is especially true in Nunavut. A major reason for this is the cost associated with transporting work crews and supplies to rural communities (i.e. communities located outside of larger regional centres such as Yellowknife and Whitehorse). These costs are highest for communities that lack road access to regional centres (i.e. ‘fly-in’ communities).

2. Once housing is built, it deteriorates more quickly in the North than it would in a southern jurisdiction. As Luigi Zanasi notes: “The [Northern] climate results in housing deteriorating faster. Large temperature differentials between outside and inside houses in winter lead to large amounts of condensation, resulting in mould and premature rot. Movement due to permafrost freezing and thawing also takes a toll on houses” (Zanasi, 2007, p. iii).

3. Operating costs for housing are usually higher in the North. As Zanasi notes,this is due largely to the need for higher energy consumption in a colder climate and higher energy prices. Zanasi also notes: “In Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, the cost of drinking water and sewage disposal is extremely high as houses depend on trucked water delivery and sewage tank pumpouts” (Zanasi, 2007, p. 21). Another reason for higher operating costs has to do with proximity to larger urban centres—i.e. it’s expensive to transport trades people and supplies to rural areas (especially ‘fly in’ communities).

4. Federal funding for social housing in Canada’s North is declining.  As I’ve noted before (both here and here) federal funding assists each of Canada’s northern territories to operate housing for lower-income households. The annual funding from the federal government is declining at an alarming pace.

5. There is very little supportive housing in Canada’s North. Supportive housing is permanent housing for marginalized persons; it typically involves subsidy from government both to make the housing affordable to the low-income tenant and to provide professional support to the tenant household. Historically in Canada, this model of housing has generally been seen as a sensible, cost-effective response to homelessness. What’s more, it has recently been the subject of a very ambitious randomized controlled trial in five Canadian cities (which I’ve previously written about here). Yet, there is very little supportive housing in Canada’s North.

6. Conditions in homeless shelters in the North leave much to be desired. At Yellowknife’s men’s shelter, men must sleep one foot apart from one another on thin mats. This is the same shelter that experienced a tuberculosis outbreak in 2007-2008. At Whitehorse’s only emergency shelter, women must often sleep in the same common area as men.

7. There is insufficient ‘harm reduction’ programming in Canada’s North. ‘Harm reduction’ refers to a public health response to drug and alcohol use whereby an effort is made to reduce the harm caused to a person (but to not necessarily aim for abstinence).Examples of harm reduction initiatives in other Canadian jurisdictions include managed-alcohol programs and needle-exchange programs. One important example of harm reduction programming in the North is the work of Blood Ties Four Directions Centre (located in Whitehorse). I should also note that emergency shelters in both Yellowknife and Whitehorse allow residents to be intoxicated (provided their behavior is manageable)—this too can be considered a form of harm reduction. That said, I would argue that there is a strong need for more harm reduction initiatives in the North. For example, I think it would be good public policy for each respective territorial government to implement its own managed-alcohol program. (Further reading on managed-alcohol programs include: this 2006 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal; this 2014 articlefrom CBC News Thunder Bay; this 2014 study by the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia; and this 2014 article in Northern News Service.)

8. The “housing first” philosophy is not widely embraced throughout Canada’s North. Though there is a growing belief throughout North America that providing permanent housing to a homeless person is the most effective way to ‘fix’ their homelessness, that belief—often known as “housing first”—is not held prevalently throughout Canada’s North. (It may be that results of the aforementioned randomized controlled trial may change this mindset.)

9. Access to affordable housing remains a major challenge in Canada’s North. To access public housing (which is a means-tested benefit) a person must usually apply for it.In Yellowknife, most social housing is administered by the Yellowknife Housing Authority, which prioritizes its bachelor and one-bedroom units for persons who are either over the age of 60 or who have a physical disability. Thus: “No single, unattached person, unless in one of those two categories, has ever or will ever get into a public housing unit administered by the Yellowknife Housing Authority, under the current system” (Falvo, 2011, p. 11). In Whitehorse, it can take up to nine months for a person to just have their name put on the social housing wait list (for reasons I discuss here); and once they’re on the list, they can be removed from it if they do not ‘check back’ with a social wait list administrator at least once a month. (Needless to say, all of this runs contrary to the “housing first” philosophy discussed above.)

10. When considering homelessness in Canada’s North, it’s important to understand migration patterns. An evaluation of Yellowknife’s day shelter done in 2011 found that just one-third of the people using it were actually from Yellowknife—almost half were from “other NWT communities” and one-fifth were from “outside of the NWT.” Put differently, addressing homelessness in Yellowknife benefits residents from throughout the NWT, just as addressing poverty in rural areas of the NWT can help prevent homelessness in Yellowknife. (My colleague Julia Christensen has done some excellent research on this.)

Notes

All of my research in Canada’s North has been done under the supervision of Professor Frances Abele. The NWT research was done in partnership with Arlene Haché and the Centre for Northern Families; the Yukon research was done in partnership with Bill Thomas, Christina Sim and the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition. I have yet to do research in Nunavut, but hope to someday.