This year’s Alternative Federal Budget (AFB) was released on March 17.[1] A general overview of the AFB project can be found here, but in a nutshell, it provides an alternative fiscal framework for Canada’s federal government; it’s released ahead of the actual federal budget in an effort to stir debate about an alternative approach to taxing and spending.

I was primary author of the AFB’s affordable housing and homelessness chapter—that chapter is available here in English and here in French. With that in mind, here are 10 things to know about affordable housing, homelessness and the upcoming federal budget:

1. Federal housing spending is projected to decrease over the next decade (relative to GDP). That’s a key finding of this recent analysis by Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO).  Put differently, while some elected officials and advocates seem quite pleased with Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) the reality is that we should all be very concerned about the future of Canadian housing policy.     
        
2. Federal spending on urban Aboriginal housing in Canada is expected to drop quite considerably. Indeed, the same PBO report cited in point #2 above also notes: “The planned level of funding for federally administered community housing for Indigenous households not living on reserves ($257 million) is less than half the level of funding provided over the prior 10 years ($534 million).” This comes at a time when the growth of Canada’s Indigenous populations is occurring at four times the rate of the rest of our population.        
     
3. Across Canada, federal funding for homelessness is rather modest. For each $1 invested federally, $13 is invested by other sources (mostly provincial and municipal dollars). That assertion is made in this federal report. What’s more, just 5% of new funding under the NHS has been earmarked towards the Trudeau government’s goal of reducing chronic homelessness by half. In light of these unfortunate realities, it’s crucial that Canada’s federal government enhance support for homelessness.
     
4. The National Housing Co-investment Fund (NHCF) has received considerable criticism. Created by the Trudeau government, this program both repairs existing social housing and helps create new housing; it can assist non-profit housing providers as well as for-profit private rental developers. However, it is primarily a loan program (as opposed to a grant program) and has been criticized for providing insufficient funding to make rent levels truly affordable for low-income tenants.      
     
5. Supportive housing providers across Canada need more financial support. Supportive housing refers to specialized housing for vulnerable populations that features professional (i.e., social work) staff support. This is especially helpful for people who have experienced long-term homelessness. The NHS contains no specific provisions for supportive housing, even though one of the Strategy’s stated goals is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. [2]
     
6. More than two years after the NHS was unveiled, we’re still waiting for the public release of three Indigenous-specific strategies. At the time that the NHS was unveiled, the Trudeau government said it was “working with First Nations, Métis and Inuit organizations on separate housing plans.” They have yet to be released publicly (though a credible source tells me that agreements have been drawn up). 
     
7. Housing across Canada remains unaffordable, especially in certain cities.[3] Central to the NHS is the planned launch, later this year, of a Canada Housing Benefit (CHB). This benefit will consist of financial assistance to help low-income households afford the rent in both private and social housing units. The Trudeau government estimates that the average beneficiary will receive $2,500 in support per year. This may be too little, too late.
     
8. We’re now expecting a recession, making it even more worthwhile to increase federal investments in affordable housing. There is growing consensus among economists that Canada will soon enter a recession (due largely to the COVID-19 pandemic) whose impact on the Canadian economy will likely last years. Increased capital funding for housing can boost employment during an economic downturn, and deeper rent subsidies can assist low-income households facing labour market challenges to pay for housing.
     
9. The Government of Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan is a short term measure. Announced on March 18, the Plan includes very important social policy items, including an additional $157.5 million in one-time funding for homelessness. However, Canada needs new annual funding commitments to address a lack of affordable housing and homelessness challenges that were in place well before COVID-19.
     
10. This year’s AFB calls for federal funding of $5.25 billion annually over and above what has already been committed by the Trudeau government. Specifically, it calls for: the enhancement of the NHCF with an additional $3 billion in annual grant money for new builds and repairs; the allocation of $2 billion annually to build new supportive housing for vulnerable populations; and the doubling of the federal contribution to the CHB.

In sum. This year’s AFB provides both a list of new, annual spending initiatives pertaining to affordable housing and homelessness, and a macroeconomic framework that can support them.

I wish to thank Susan Falvo, Ron Kneebone, Jeff Morrison, Steve Pomeroy and Vincent St-Martin for assistance with this blog post. Any errors are mine.

[1] For a history of the Alternative Federal Budget, see this overview.

[2] Having said that, supportive housing has received NHCF financing.

[3] For more on how housing affordability varies across Canada, see this two-page analysis by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins.

 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).