I’m co-author of a new study on cost savings to the health and justice sectors associated Housing First, focusing on Calgary.[1] The other co-authors are Ali Jadidzadeh and Dan Dutton.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. Housing First refers to the immediate provision of subsidized housing (with social work support) to persons experiencing long-term homelessness. With Housing First, there’s no requirement of ‘housing readiness’ on the part of the tenant (i.e., abstinence from drugs or alcohol, or being medication compliant).
    
2. Previous research found there to be cost savings in the health and justice sectors associated with Housing First. However, that research was experimental, meaning that new program settings were developed for the purpose of research. Our study, by contrast, looks at programs already in place, meaning they had several years to evolve and improve before we studied tenant behaviour. It also means that we studied Housing First in the context of a central homeless-serving organization (i.e., the Calgary Homeless Foundation) that has been providing program oversight for many years.   
     
3. Supporting a person in Housing First in Calgary typically costs between $14,000 and $30,000 annually. The precise amount depends on the intensity of the staff support. I’ve referred to this support above as social work support, but it can actually be more specialized than that.  
      
4. The study looks at the impact of Housing First programs on public service utilization for people experiencing homelessness in Calgary. Specifically, we look at single adults without dependants.  
     
5. The study has two main research questions. First, it asks if the delivery of Housing First reduces the utilization of the health and legal systems. It then asks by how much and over what period. (This particular study doesn’t estimate the benefits of Housing First to individual tenants—e.g., improved health, greater life expectancy, etc.)  
     
6. The study is based on a large sample. There are 2,222 individuals in the study’s dataset, spanning the years 2012-2017. The data on individuals was taken both at move-in and in subsequent follow-up assessments every three months.   
     
7. The questionnaires completed by tenants helped us estimate both health and justice costs. Tenants were asked: how many times they’d been hospitalized in the previous three-month period; how many times they’d used Emergency Medical Services in the previous three months; and how many times they’d had interactions with police in the previous three months.  
     
8. The study estimates the actual cost of hospital use thanks to costing data provided by Alberta’s provincial government. Alberta Health publishes reports on the cost of providing hospital and Emergency Room services for people experiencing homelessness. These per-visit costs are higher among persons experiencing homelessness than for the general population.  
     
9. Justice costs are estimated with our knowledge of the cost of the warrant cycle, which we assume to be the average cost of an interaction with police. The estimated cost of police issuing a ticket in Calgary is $139. Arresting an individual who has not paid their tickets costs an additional $135. And the resultant court appearance ranges in cost between $222 and $253. If an individual is convicted, then one day in jail costs $220. Each warrant cycle in Calgary is therefore estimated to cost a total of $1,376, which we use as the unit cost for a single interaction with police.  
     
10. The study finds that every $1 spent on Housing First in Calgary is associated with more than $2 of savings to the public system. In other words, the roughly $42M budgeted by the Calgary Homeless Foundation for Housing First for fiscal year 2018-19 likely resulted in savings of more than $84M in terms of hospital visits, ER visits, and justice services. In the Calgary context, these savings accrue mostly to the province (which funds the health system and courts) and the municipal government (which funds police services).

In sum. This research, which began while Ali and I worked at the Calgary Homeless Foundation, would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Calgary Homeless Foundation and the Government of Alberta. Future research could build on this study by tracking the costs and types of service utilization through linked data.

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: Dan Dutton, Susan Falvo, Ali Jadidzadeh, Ron Kneebone and Vincent St-Martin. Any errors are mine.

 

 [1] For a full copy of the article, please email me at falvo.nicholas@gmail.com.

By Nick Falvo, Doug Pawson, and Jennifer Tipple

Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash

End Homelessness St. John’s (EHSJ) is the system-planning organization for the homeless-serving sector in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. In that capacity, EHSJ plays a central coordinating role and funds important initiatives pertaining to long-term planning.

In 2014, EHSJ unveiled the St. John’s Community Plan to End Homelessness 2014-2019; earlier this year, Nick Falvo Consulting was engaged to both assess that Plan and help EHSJ move forward with their next Plan.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. The 2014-19 Plan helped lay the groundwork for a range of housing and supports. These include: an Intensive Case Management program, launched in January 2016; the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing program, focusing on prevention, launched in October 2017; and three Permanent Supportive Housing projects. Nevertheless, community members have articulated the need for more sustainable housing situations. Stakeholders in the sector have been particularly clear about the need for more supportive housing, more low-barrier shelter capacity, and more harm reduction services.

2. Exciting governance changes are happening in the St. John’s homeless-serving sector.  EHSJ historically leaned on community partners for both advisory and governance decisions. Naturally, that led to conflicts of interest that precipitated a new governance direction. Moving forward, EHSJ is transitioning from being under the umbrella of the City of St. John’s into its own non-profit—a transition that will formally take effect in 2019-20. The new EHSJ will be led by a new Executive Director position (hired in March 2019), governed by an independent board of directors, and advised by the community through its new Community Advisory Board.

3. Recent increases in federal funding for homelessness have made a very important difference to St. John’s homeless-serving sector. The federal budgets for 2016 and 2017 respectively led to Canada-wide increases in funding for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (which has since been renamed Reaching Home). This translated into an additional $1,046,138 for St. John’s homeless-serving sector over a three-period. Put differently, for the five-year period of the St. John’s Plan, St. John’s received 30% more federal homelessness funding than anticipated at the Plan’s outset.

4. The corrections sector in Newfoundland and Labrador creates problems for homelessness. The assessment of the 2014-19 Plan uncovered that inmates in St. John’s are often discharged into homelessness. It is very difficult for a discharged inmate to go directly into housing, in part because landlords want to meet with the tenant before agreeing to sign a rental agreement. It is also very challenging for inmates to see online ads for apartments while in jail. Discharge planning in provincial correctional facilities is part of the role of a Classification Officer, but not every inmate sees a Classification Officer while inside. If an inmate requests to see a Classification Officer, it might take one month to do so. Further, the provincial government requires people to have an address before applying for social assistance, and jail does not count as an address. (Hospitals and the child welfare system also discharge people directly into homelessness, and this is discussed in detail in the forthcoming assessment of the 2014-19 Plan).

5. Once a youth has left Newfoundland and Labrador’s child welfare system, they can be quite vulnerable to homelessness. Housing secured by such youth is often shared; the youth might rent a room in a house with complete strangers. They might struggle in their dealings with housemates and a landlord. St. John’s has some supportive housing available for youth, but these options are in short supply relative to need. Prior to June 2019, youth in the provincial child welfare system could remain in the group home or under the care of a Youth Services case manager until age 18; but they are now allowed to remain in the child welfare system until 21. Local officials who work in the youth homelessness sector have welcomed these changes and believe they have the potential to reduce youth homelessness.

6. The City of St. John’s and EHSJ enjoy a very positive working relationship. The City provides EHSJ with considerable in-kind support, both administratively and operationally. This includes free office space, human resources support, legal support, support with purchasing and procurement, and financial/administrative support. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that the City provides EHSJ with annual in-kind support estimated at $250,000, in addition to an annual cash contribution of $100,000. Going forward, the City has committed to cash contributions in 2019 for $100,000 and in 2020 for $100,000. The City has also supported EHSJ in its new governance structure, supporting EHSJ in seeking the Community Entity status.

7. Service providers in St. John’s are having major challenges with software that tracks persons experiencing homelessness. Canada’s federal government created and now supports the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) software. Many community agencies in St. John’s are using HIFIS 3.8 (an old version of the software), and it has recently come to light that the federal government has reduced its support for HIFIS 3.8 in order to focus on HIFIS 4. It is estimated that it will be at least another year before HIFIS 4 is available to service providers province-wide.

8. St. John’s needs more low-barrier shelter capacity. Some people are barred from all emergency shelters in St. John’s. Further, it is common for all emergency shelter beds in the city to be full. Several stakeholders also expressed concern about the reliance on for-profit shelters in St. John’s—nearly 40% of homeless shelter beds in the city are run by for-profit providers, paid for by provincial government. And some for-profit emergency housing options have no overnight staffing despite the fact that they often house high-need clients. There is also a rather formal approval process for being admitted into any St. John’s emergency shelter funded by NL Housing. Sometimes it can take up to a week for a client to gain admission.

9. Stakeholders have expressed a strong desire to strengthen Coordinated Access (CA). CA is the triage system used to refer people to housing and homelessness supports. Going forward, most stakeholders want more local organizations to make their housing units and program capacity available for direct referrals. Stakeholders also want to see the CA process become more efficient.

10. The most effective objectives and outcomes in a plan to end homelessness are tangible and measurable. The 2014-19 Plan contained six desired outcomes, some including numerical targets (i.e. provide housing and supports for 460 people) and some not (i.e. develop a coordinated homeless-serving system). The assessment found it difficult to measure progress toward outcomes without specific targets. Local stakeholders would like to see more emphasis on key performance indicators in the next Plan.

In sum. A considerable amount of progress has been made in the fight to end homelessness in St. John’s. But more work remains. That future work will be the focus on the 2019-24 Plan, which will be unveiled later this year.

Download Looking Back to Move Forward: An Assessment of Progress on the 2014-2019 St. John’s Community Plan to End Homelessness

This blog post originally appeared at the website of the Homeless Hub.

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation.

With limited resources at their disposal, System Planners—such as the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF)—like to know how long various subgroups of persons experiencing homelessness will likely require various forms of housing support. With this in mind, Ali Jadidzadeh and I have co-authored a study that appears in Housing Studies—a leading housing journal. Titled Patterns of exits from housing in a homelessness system of care: The case of Calgary, Alberta, the study looks at the case of CHF-funded Housing First programs.[1]

Here are 10 things to know:

 

1. The study uses survival analysis and hazard models. To quote from the study: “[S]urvival analysis tells us when we can expect new housing units to become available for new tenants, and which programme types will have available units more quickly… [while] hazard analysis can tell us which tenants will be most likely to graduate, based on the individual characteristics of those tenants” (p. 7).

2. The data in the study comes from Calgary’s Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS). Gathered between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2015, the data pertain to people residing in Housing First programs funded by CHF. Literally thousands of people were involved in this data collection effort, including: persons living in Housing First programs who signed release of information forms; staff in Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care who inputted the data; CHF staff who provided training and support to community on how to use HMIS; as well as CHF staff who then cleaned the data.[2] The data in question were gathered on each person residing in Housing First every three months. An intake form was first completed by a case manager at intake into the program; then, another assessment form got completed every three months. There was also a form completed at exit from the program. These forms ask basic demographic information, as well as information about education, income, employment, history of family violence, use of health services and involvement in corrections. Most of the data gathered is based on self-reporting by an experienced case manager who receives accreditation. Blank copies of these forms can be accessed here.
3. Key to the study is a concept known as graduation. Alberta’s provincial government provides homelessness funding to System Planners (such as CHF). To quote directly from the study: “In line with provincial programme guidelines in place during the period under consideration in the present study, a client is said to graduate from CHF-funded housing when they no longer require ‘housing support’ (i.e. case management). And in the case of temporary housing funded by CHF, a client is said to graduate once they complete programme requirements and move into a more permanent form of housing—either subsidized or unsubsidized…” (p. 3). [Note: subsequent to the period of study, the definition of graduation has changed for Calgary.] For a recent academic consideration of graduation, see this 2018 article.

4. One of the study’s findings is that single adults without dependents require housing support longest, and families for the least amount of time. Put differently: single adults without dependents who have recently been homeless require social work[3] support longer than other groups. I suspect a few factors may be at play here. First, single adults without dependents sometimes don’t have dependents because their children have been taken into child protection (possibly stemming from the parent’s challenges with mental health and/or substance use). It’s therefore intuitive that a person with such challenges would require social work support for a longer period of time. Also, in Alberta, singles without dependents receive less income assistance than other groups, making it more challenging to live independently (I encourage people to read the poverty chapter in this year’s Alberta Alternative Budget, which argues that the poverty gap for singles without dependents is much larger than for other groups).

5. Women require social work support for longer periods than men (even when we control for employment and income). In fact, the study finds that men are 32% more likely to graduate than women. As noted in the study: “One possible reason for this is that women experiencing homelessness often find themselves in relationships with people who in turn jeopardize their housing stability…” (p. 20).

6. Having a history of addictions does not appear to affect a client’s graduation rate. This is consistent with findings from the At Home/Chez Soi study, which found that formerly-homeless persons who consume large amounts drugs and/or alcohol maintain housing about as well as other formerly-homeless persons. This reaffirms the importance of the Housing First approach, which holds that a person should not have to go to a drug or alcohol treatment program as a precondition to receiving permanent housing.

7. Older clients have lower graduation rates (meaning that it takes longer for them to move on to independence). Put differently: older people who have recently been homeless require social work support longer than other groups. The study notes: “Older clients having lower graduation rates should also not be surprising to many readers, as the health outcomes of seniors are poorer than those of younger clients” (p. 21). This is an especially important findings for System Planners across Canada, as older adults are making up an increasingly large share of the homeless population. In Calgary’s homeless shelter system, adults aged 55 and over now account for 19% of bed spaces on any given night; in 2008, they accounted for just 9% of all bed spaces.[4] This trend will likely continue for at least another decade or two.

8. Findings pertaining to Indigenous peoples have already had ramifications on the ground. Indeed, the study finds that Indigenous peoples in the study needed support longer than non-Indigenous peoples. This holds even after controlling for income, education, and a history of family violence. Future research is needed that looks at factors that inhibit success among Indigenous peoples in Housing First.[5] These findings have also informed CHF’s engagement strategies with Indigenous peoples, including CHF”s hiring of an Indigenous advisor (since promoted to Director), a business case for two supportive housing buildings for Indigenous peoples (not yet funded) and future Indigenous-focused research (to be discussed in future blog posts).

9. The study finds that having a source of income is positively correlated with graduation rates (i.e., it speeds up the move toward independence)—and this has already led to several changes in Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care. This finding has helped inform an effort by CHF to identify, in collaboration with community partners, specific individuals in CHF-funded Housing First programs who, with some additional (short term) financial support, could likely graduate. This particular effort has been taking place for roughly one year; thus far, it has involved approximately 170 individuals with considerable success. The additional financial assistance provided varies by individual and is not intended to be permanent.

10. In Calgary’s family homelessness sector, the study’s finding pertaining to income has led to the development of a new Adaptive Case Management (ACM) approach. ACM has a strong focus on providing short-term financial assistance to households in need (and it is discussed in detail in our Family System Planning Framework).

In Sum. This study finds that some groups move on from Housing First programs more quickly than others, and that some factors (such as a source of income) appear to accelerate graduation from Housing First. Because CHF embeds research into its day-to-day operations, we were well-positioned to start acting on findings well before the research was published.

For assistance with this blog post, I wish to thank Tim Aubry, Carla Babiuk, Victoria Ballance, Candice Giammarino, Ali Jadidzadeh, Stephen Metraux, Shane Rempel and one anonymous source. Any errors are mine.

[1] For a full copy of the article, please email me at nick@calgaryhomeless.com.

[2] Note: Ali Jadidzadeh has spent many hours cleaning this data so that it can be used for analysis—not only for this study, but for other stakeholders in community, including other researchers.

[3] People working in Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care refer to such support as ‘case management.’

[4] These figures apply to single adults without dependents. The 19% figure is for 2017.

[5] Some research has already been undertaken on this in Edmonton. Check out this 2011 report and this 23-minute video.Blog PDF download here.

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation

A federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) framework agreement on housing was signed on April 10 in Toronto. It supports the Trudeau government’s National Housing Strategy, which was released last fall.

Here are 10 things to know about the just-signed agreement:

1. Though a National Housing Strategy (NHS) was released last fall, a federal-provincial-territorial (FPT) framework agreement still had to be signed. That’s because a lot of the funding proposed in the Strategy is dependent on cooperation from provincial and territorial governments.
2. The federal government will now seek to negotiate bilateral agreements with every provincial and territorial government. In fact, it’s quite likely that the federal government has already begun to negotiate such agreements with some provinces and territories. If recent history serves as any guide, the federal government will likely begin by trying to negotiate agreements with provincial/territorial governments they think are especially keen to sign on (British Columbia might be low-hanging fruit in this regard).
3. Each bilateral agreement will have a clause that ensures equal terms for all jurisdictions. Such a clause will stipulate that if a subsequent signee gets better terms, those better terms will apply to any provincial or territorial government that previously signed. The intent of such a clause is to not discourage a provincial or territorial government to come to the table early.
4. One important section of the newly-signed agreement pertains to the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. The newly-signed agreement stipulates that provincial and territorial governments will have a role in decision-making pertaining to this fund; whereas, last fall’s NHS agreement suggested it would be a unilateral federal program. (For more on this fund, see point #3 of this previous blog post.)
5. The newly-signed agreement touts the goal of removing 490,000 households from core housing need over 10 years. While hundreds of thousands of households may well be removed from core need, this is likely an unrealistic target. For example, the Canada Housing Benefit would need to be very deep and reflect regional differences in order to completely remove most beneficiary households from core housing need(For more on problems associated with using core housing need as a metric, see this June 2017 analysisby Steve Pomeroy.)[1] Also, the (NHS) released just last fall indicated that the goal was to remove 530,000 households from core housing need; likewise, the media release for the just-signed agreement also uses the 530,000 figure.
6. Much of the federal funding committed will have to be matched by provinces and territories—but still, very few details have been offered as what this will look like. Some of the matching dollars won’t come from provincial/territorial governments themselves—but rather, from municipal governments, Indigenous organizations, non-profits and private entities. Some of these details will surface later in bilateral agreements. Also, some of the federal funding (such as the “targeted northern funding”) won’t require cost matching
7. No specific information has been provided on program structure. These details will appear in the schedules in bilateral agreements. Such details will include information regarding who’s eligible for housing support and how exactly funds can be used.
8. The federal government plans to introduce legislation that would underpin the framework agreement. Regardless, future federal, provincial and territorial governments will still have some opportunity to back out asfuture governments always have the opportunity to pass legislation to undo all of this. However, there would be political risk in doing so (i.e., they’d get a lot of political flak).
9. The just-signed agreement says nothing new about homelessness per se. The homelessness file is being handled by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), while the NHS is being handled by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. An Advisory Committee on Homelessness has been meeting over the course of the past year “to support the redesign” of Canada’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy. Their consultation has recently concluded.
10. The just-signed agreement says nothing about supportive housing. Supportive housing refers to subsidized housing for marginalized groups (including persons experiencing homelessness) that comes with social work support. I suspect we may hear something about supportive housing from ESDC over the coming months. It’s also possible that the bilateral agreements stemming from the just-signed agreement will get into the details on supportive housing.

In sum. The just-signed FPT housing framework agreement marks a crucial step toward making NHS a reality on the ground. The Calgary Homeless Foundation will be watching the status of bilateral negotiations closely, especially those involving the Government of Alberta. We’ll also be watching for developments on the federal homelessness front.

The author wishes to thank Vicki Ballance, Steve Pomeroy and Greg Suttor for assistance with this blog post. Any errors lie with the author.

Download this blog (PDF)

[1] There’s a footnote in the NHS in reference to this. It makes reference to this target being related to either the removal of a household from core housing need or the household’s degree of core need being “significantly reduced” (p. 4).

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation.

On March 8, I gave a guest presentation to students in Professor Naomi Lightman’s Sociology of Work class at the University of Calgary. I was joined by Alexander Kulakov and Amit Nade, employment coaches at the Mustard Seed. My PowerPoint slides can be downloaded here.

Here are 10 things to know:

1. In Calgary, there aren’t enough jobs to go around, and income support programs for those without work are inadequate. According to the most recent Labour Force Survey, there are almost 173,000 adults in Alberta actively searching for work [1] (in spite of this, 15% of persons experiencing homelessness in Alberta do report some income from employment). While some unemployed people qualify for Employment Insurance (EI), most don’t. And for those who do qualify, benefits are both modest and temporary. Unemployed people who don’t qualify for EI can always apply for social assistance, but these benefits are even more modest (for an overview of social assistance throughout Canada, see this blog post; and for an overview on social assistance in Alberta specifically, see this blog post).

2. For persons experiencing homelessness, one major barrier to finding and maintaining work is poor health. According to Stephen Hwang: “Homeless people in their forties and fifties often develop health disabilities that are more commonly seen only in people who are decades older.” Consider some of these findings from one of the most comprehensive health surveys done on persons experiencing homelessness in Canada: 41% of persons experiencing homelessness report being “usually in some pain or discomfort.” Yet, for the general population, the figure is 15%. Among people who are usually in pain, 35% of persons experiencing homelessness report that pain being “severe,” while for the general population the figure is just 2%.

3. Mustard Seed has an employment program for persons currently experiencing homelessness. That program is funded entirely by private giving (i.e., charitable donations from individuals and foundations). One stream of this program involves one-on-one coaching. This stream is geared toward those needing the most support (typically persons with the poorest health outcomes). Staff help people with resumes and cover letters. Staff even physically go out job searching with participants. Another stream involves job preparation in a group format; this happens at the Seed Academy. Assistance is provided with writing resumes, writing cover letters and networking. Employers even come in and do mock interviews! The third stream of the program is designed for people who are very close to landing a steady job (and in some cases have even received a formal offer). Participants in this stream can get short-term financial assistance to purchase such things as clothing, tools, and transportation to another part of Alberta.

4. The Calgary Drop-In & Rehab Centre (the DI) has an employment program funded by Alberta’s provincial government. The DI’s program has two employment specialists who meet one-on-one with persons experiencing homelessness. The DI also provides a three-week training program in which people are trained in interview skills, employment strategies, resume writing, financial literacy, first aid, forklift operation, interviewing and employee rights. Staff at the DI then follow up with graduates at 90 days, and then again at 180 days. In the span of one month, this program gets 800 unique individuals out at a job at some point. Also during the course of one month, as many as 500 different employers use this service. [2] The majority of the jobs are general labour (i.e. moving and lifting things; landscaping; clean up). This particular program is especially good at helping workers to find jobs at festivals (i.e., Canada Day, Lilac Festival, Calgary Pride, etc.). Where possible, the DI tries to turn casual positions into full-time ones—last year, they managed to get 21 full-time permanent positions created out of this initiative.

5. There are several other employment-readiness programs for persons experiencing homelessness in Calgary. For example, Calgary John Howard Society has a Learning Enhanced Employment Program for persons involved or at-risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system; it’s a three-week training program. Also, the DI has a WoodWorks program—it’s a social enterprise that funds itself through the sale of the product. Participants work in the program for 12 weeks, with the goal of then entering directly into the woodworking industry.

6. The most successful participants in all of these programs tend to be relatively healthy (compared to others experiencing homelessness) and be between the ages of 25 and 60. Healthier workers having more successful outcomes will be intuitive for most readers. Meanwhile, one of the reasons workers over the age of 60 struggle with work is that some computer literacy is often required for jobs. According to Patty Rideout from the Seed: “Most jobs, even entry level work, require employees to use technology for work schedules, reporting, or organization.”

7. Persons housed by programs funded by the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF) see a modest improvement in employment over time. CHF stewards a large database with information about persons funded in Housing First programs that we fund. We have data on more than 3,000 unique individuals. A quick glance at employment status upon entry, compared with three months later, suggests a modest increase in percentage of clients employed (based on self-reported data).

8. In some cases, persons experiencing homelessness are overqualified for jobs. One employment support worker in Calgary tells me via email: “We are taking master’s degrees off of resumes to try to get clients working.” This may speak to the fact that, even in Calgary, there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around. (Note: this year’s Alternative Federal Budget would create 470,000 full-time equivalent jobs across Canada in just one year.)

9. More affordable child care in Calgary would make it easier for parents experiencing homelessness to access employment. A lack of subsidized child care is a major barrier to employment, especially for women. In the case of households experiencing homelessness, this is especially challenging. The median monthly childcare fee for a Calgary infant is $1,250. (For a recent review of barriers to affordable childcare across Canada and a proposed ‘way forward,’ see the child care chapter in this year’s Alternative Federal Budget; and to see the Alberta picture, see the child care chapter in this year’s Alberta Alternative Budget (coming soon!).

10. Just as affordable housing can improve employment outcomes, so too can employment help end homelessness. According to the DI’s Santino Marinucci: “We have many successes in helping clients achieve their housing goals with independent living through employment. It is one of my personal goals to start tracking metrics related to employment and housing moving forward.”

In Sum. Too few jobs, inadequate income assistance programs, major health challenges and a lack of subsidized child care all pose barriers to employment for persons experiencing homelessness. Fortunately, programs in Calgary offered by Mustard Seed, the Calgary Drop-In and Rehab Centre, and Calgary John Howard Society help many persons experiencing homelessness to overcome some of these barriers. For a ‘big picture’ advocacy ask at the federal level that could address all of these issues, check out this year’s Alternative Federal Budget; and for a similar ‘big picture’ ask at the provincial level, check out this year’s Alberta Alternative Budget (coming soon!).

The author wishes to thank Anna Cameron, Tanya Gerber, Alicia Kalmanovitch, Naomi Lightman, Santino Marinucci, Chidom Otogwu, Patty Rideout, John Rook, John Rowland and Debbie Tripp for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are his own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Download this blog (PDF)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] This figure doesn’t include the many discouraged workers in Alberta who’ve given up looking for employment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2] These impressive figures may help explain why more than 30% of persons experiencing homelessness in Calgary report some income from employment, while the average for Alberta’s homeless population as a whole is just 15%. Specifically, this is in response to the question: “Where do you get your money from?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evelyn Peters and Julia Christensen recently wrote an edited book on homelessness among Indigenous peoples in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Excluding the Introduction and Conclusion, more than half of the chapters are either authored or co-authored by an Indigenous person. A useful contribution to researchers, students, consultants and policymakers in all three countries, it should be required reading for anyone wanting to learn more about homelessness experienced by Indigenous peoples.

Here are 10 things to know about this book.

 

1. The book contains lots of useful information. In Chapter 1, Christensen—citing research done previously by Yale Belanger, Olu Awosoga and Gabrielle Weasel Head—notes that on any given night in Canada, approximately 7% of Canada’s urban Indigenous population is homeless, compared to fewer than 1% for Canada’s total population. Chapter 8, authored by Yale Belanger and Gabrielle Lindstrom, includes a succinct, three-page section titled “Understanding Indigenous Homelessness” that provides a useful history of the Canadian context. And in Chapter 9—co-authored by Rebecca Schiff, Alina Turner and Jeannette Waegemakers Schiff—we learn that many Indigenous people in Canada migrate from urban to rural areas (as well as between rural areas). By contrast, it is commonly believed that Indigenous migration in Canada happens only from rural to urban areas.
2. The book includes contributions from three countries with similar social welfare systems. The book looks at Canada, Australia and New Zealand, allowing readers in each respective country to learn from other countries’ experiences and perspectives. What’s more, many researchers will appreciate the opportunity to compare the experiences of these particular countries because all three are considered “liberal welfare states.” That means their social welfare systems are considered stingier than those of many other OECD countries—they have relatively low rates of taxation, relatively low levels of public social spending (including spending on housing for low-income households) and relatively high levels of income inequality (the United States, while not a focus of this book, is also considered a liberal welfare state). At the other extreme of the spectrum are social democratic welfare states (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden); they’re known for having relatively generous social welfare systems—relatively high tax rates, relatively high levels of public social spending (including spending on housing for low-income households) and relatively low levels of income inequality.^[1]
3. The book’s account suggests that the history of Indigenous peoples in all three countries is similar. As Dr. Peters notes in the book’s Conclusion: “All of the [book’s] authors situate their analysis within the ongoing legacy of Western colonialisms that dispossessed people of their lands, waters and resources, attempted to destroy Indigenous cultures, and resulted in intergenerational individual and collective trauma…Indigenous homelessness cannot be understood without recognition of this legacy” (p. 390).
4. One of the book’s chapters which I found very empirically-grounded was Chapter 4 which makes the case that police often relocate Indigenous peoples from affluent areas of Edmonton to poor areas of the city. Chapter 4, written by Joshua Freistadt,is a condensed version of the author’s PhD thesis, which can be downloaded here^[2] and which is now available in book format here. (I suspect that people involved with the Homeless Charter of Rights project in Calgary will find this chapter especially interesting.)
5. Chapter 13, by Kelly Greenop and Paul Memmott, calls for the need to rethink the concept of crowding for Indigenous peoples. Indeed, the authors suggest that, rather than think of crowding in simple mathematical terms (e.g., number of rooms per person, square footage per person), we should consider asking Indigenous people to personally define how crowded they actually feel. To make this point, the authors draw on previous research done by Robert Gifford. The authors also note that, for some Indigenous people, too few people in a house can be a problem. (This information is useful to the Calgary Homeless Foundation as we continue to plan and design culturally appropriate housing with and for Indigenous peoples. In 2016, for example, we began surveying tenants about their own perception of the quality of their housing unit.)
6. I find the book pays insufficient attention to each country’s social welfare system—including the macroeconomic factors that shape it. In fact, even though all three countries are classified as being in the same family of social welfare systems (as discussed in point #1 above) the editors make no explicit mention of this. Do the editors not believe the amount of public social spending (as a percent of GDP) in each country can have a major impact on Indigenous homelessness? What about social housing stock in each country (as a percentage of total stock)? How about the amount of money each country provides to people—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—receiving social assistance?
7. The book could have benefited from a discussion of advocacy approaches in each country. Canada has gone through an interesting evolution of advocacy approaches to homelessness; I’ve previously discussed them here. What have advocacy campaigns looked like in Australia and New Zealand? Do advocates in those countries seek to “end homelessness?” To what extent have Indigenous and non-Indigenous advocates worked collaboratively in each country to end homelessness?^[3] I would have liked to have seen these questions addressed.
8. The book could have benefited from some quantitative analysis. My colleague and friend, Michael Shapcott, once said: “Qualitative research engages the heart. Quantitative research engages the mind.” With that said, I would have liked to have seen a bit more quantitative research in this book.  For example, in 2014, Jalene Tayler Anderson and Damian Collins authored this journal article; it looks at the prevalence and causes of urban homelessness among Indigenous peoples in all three countries considered in this book. A modified version of that article would have therefore made for an excellent contribution.^[4]
9. Chapter 1, which focuses on the Canadian context, ought to have made at least passing reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Indeed, Canada’s federal government has committed to “fully” implementing all 94 of the final report’s Calls to Action. These “calls to action” include calls pertaining to child welfare, health, and missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (all of which have important ramifications for homelessness experienced by Indigenous peoples).
10. The book lacks content from the United States (likely because very little has been written about homelessness among Native Americans). The book includes nine chapters of Canadian content, five of Australian content, three from New Zealand and none from the United States. Trouble is, there does seem to be a shortage of research on homelessness among Indigenous peoples in the United States (one of the only recent exceptions I’m aware of is this report). The editors could have taken this issue head on by discussing this important research gap in the book’s preface (especially since the United States is also one of the so-called liberal welfare states discussed above).

In Sum.  The publication of this book is a remarkable accomplishment. I consider it a ‘must read’ for anybody interested in understanding what contributes to, and what can end, homelessness among Indigenous peoples. You can order a copy of the book here.

The author wishes to thank the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this book review:  Vicki Ballance, Cynthia Bird, Sally Carraher, Janice Chan, Julia Christensen, Joshua Freistadt, Kahente Horn-Miller, Evelyn Peters, Robert Regnier, Rebecca Schiff, Michael Shapcott, Joel Sinclair, Ken Swift and Billie Thurston.  Any errors lie with the present author.

 

---

 

[1] Building on the work of Richard Titmuss, the early work on categorizing OECD countries into different categories like this was done by Gøsta Esping-Andersen.  Interestingly, Esping-Andersen’s work has been criticized for providing insufficient attention to Indigenous peoples (see chapter 3 in this book).

[2] More recently, it has come to light that Indigenous people in Edmonton are six times more likely than white people to be ‘street checked’ by police.

[3] For more on the importance of weighting macroeconomic and social welfare factors into any consideration of housing and homelessness, see this recent blog post.

[4] To be fair, Christensen does reference this article in the book’s Introduction.

 

---

 

You can view a PDF version of this blog post here: Book review – Indigenous Homelessness