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

Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF) recently unveiled new key performance indicators (KPIs)for programs they fund.[1] These new indicators were developed after nine months of community consultation and have been piloted over the course of the past year. A May 2017 slide presentation on the development of some of these KPIs can be found here, while a seven-page guide for staff in the sector who do data entry can be found here.

Here are 10 things to know.

1. Once a client is referred to a housing program, staff who work for that program are expected to locate the client and move them into housing ASAP. Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care uses a triage system called Coordinated Access and Assessment (CAA). On a weekly basis, staff from the sector meet to discuss persons who are experiencing homelessness and who need to be housed, available housing units and ‘who fits where.’ Program referrals are based on conversations that take place at that table. Once a referral is made, CHF makes sure program entry occurs in the shortest possible time. CHF’s KPIs also monitor the percentage of referrals that never materialize (possible reasons for a referral not materializing include: the referral was declined by the funded program or by the client, or the referral didn’t happen because the client couldn’t be located).[2]
2. Funded programs are encouraged to provide staff only as required (i.e. to not ‘over support’). CHF takes the position that while some tenants will always need case management support (i.e., ongoing professional staff support) many tenants won’t require such support (and some never require it). CHF therefore encourages funded programs to remove unnecessary professional support and promote independence. In that way, CHF creates a smoother ‘flow’ through the system.
3. Programs funded by CHF are encouraged to persevere in keeping challenging tenants housed. Programs in the single adults and families sector are encouraged to keep people housed for at least nine months (i.e., three consecutive quarters); whereas those in the youth sector are expected to keep a person housed for at least six months (i.e., two consecutive quarters). In all sectors, maintaining housing can include moving people to a new unit in cases where a specific tenancy hasn’t worked well. In effect, programs are encouraged to take on challenging clients and to not give up on them.
4. Once a person is successfully housed, CHF encourages program staff to be mindful of ‘missing tenants.’ This incentivizes funded programs to track down clients who are missing and to go back to the ‘CAA table’ to offer the vacated spaces to a future tenant within a short time frame.
5. CHF-funded programs are encouraged (and generally want) to beat the average score for their cohort. On most of the above measures, a cohort average figure (based on the previous year) is calculated for all programs in a specific category (for more on the different categories of programs funded by CHF, see this recent blog post on CHF’s System Planning Framework). CHF sets a benchmark score 10% above the average. Funded programs in that category are then encouraged to score at or better than that benchmark (i.e. at or better than 10% above the cohort average of the previous year).
6. All of this data is tracked through Calgary’s HMIS system. Each quarter, CHF staff use HMIS data to calculate KPI results for all CHF-funded programs. KPI results are then emailed to funded programs each quarter. No follow-up is required for programs that perform well in their KPIs. However, if CHF staff finds a program’s KPIs to be problematic, they may contact the program for clarification. CHF recognizes that a problem may be simply technical in nature (e.g., a new staff person isn’t entering data into HMIS properly). Other times, it may be a performance issue.
7. An accreditation process helps ensure accurate data entry. Programs funded by CHF go through an accreditation process with an external accrediting body called the Canadian Accreditation Council (CAC). This service is paid for by CHF. CHF has its own standardsthat it has developed with help from CAC, and CHF-funded programs are expected to meet these standards. This process involves client file review, staff interviews and client interviews. Detailed reports are then provided to both CHF and the funded program. Among other things, this process helps ensure accurate data entry. Client case notes and files are reviewed during each accreditation by the CAC team.
8. HMIS training also helps ensure accurate data entry. This training, provided free of charge, is provided to programs by CHF staff on a regular basis. Follow-up HMIS technical support is offered throughout the year.
9. The Government of Alberta (GoA) is a strong supporter of the CHF’s KPIs. The GoA continues to show very strong interest in CHF’s KPIs. GoA plans to report on similar KPIs for the 2018/19 Ministry of Community and Social Services Business Plan which will include results from across the homeless serving system. According to one GoA source: “We have drawn heavily on CHF work to inform this thinking.”
10. CHF will soon unveil new KPIs for programs that specifically serve Indigenous peoples. These KPIs have been developed in collaboration with key members of Calgary’s Indigenous community. This will be the subject of a future blog post.

The author wishes to thank Brian Bechtel, Jennifer Eyford, Geoff Gillard, Chantal Hansen, Sarah Knopp, Friney Labranche, Kara Layher, Sara Mikhail, Angela Pye, Jaime Rogers, Ken Swift, Alina Turner and two anonymous reviewers for invaluable assistance with this blog post. Any errors lie with the author.

---

 

[1] For a general overview of the programs funded by CHF, see this previous blog post.

 

[2] It has recently come to light that, in Toronto, officials have trouble locating clients after they’re referred to subsidized housing (and, meanwhile, the units sit vacant).

 

---

 

You can view a PDF version of the present blog post here: Monitoring Program Performance in Calgary’s Homeless-Serving System of Care

 

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 discuss emerging trends in Canada’s affordable housing and homelessness sectors. A version of my PowerPoint slides, which are chock-full of visuals and references, can be downloaded here: Falvo Recent Emerging Trends in Homelessness WHP 2 of 3 This is Part 2 of a 3-part presentation I gave that day.  I’ve blogged about Part 1 here and you can find a blog post based on Part 3 here.

1. When it comes to affordable housing and homelessness, the Trudeau government has put its money where its mouth is…so far. In its first budget, substantial new investments were announced for housing for First Nations, Inuit, and Northern communities (approximately $370 million annually for two years). New funding for renovations of existing social housing was also announced. Approximately $55 million in new annual funding was announced for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (also for two years). Annual funding for the Investment in Affordable Housing Initiative was doubled (for 2016/17 and 2016/18). What’s more, $100 million in new annual funding for seniors housing was announced, also for two years. (A succinct list of housing-related initiatives from the 2016/17 federal budget can be found here, while a more thorough analysis can be found here.)
2. However, the Trudeau government has yet to put in place a long-term plan to deal with operating agreements that are expiring on existing units of non-profit housing. Canada’s provinces and territories receive funding on an annual basis from the federal government to operate existing housing units (mostly for low-income tenants). This funding is not just used to cover the mortgages; it also helps with the ongoing operating costs—that is, the difference between the rent received from tenants and what it actually costs the housing provider to keep the units in a good state of repair. These funding agreements usually last 35-50 years. Some of these funding agreements have already started to sunset; they’re scheduled to end altogether in 2039.[1]
3. Canada’s aging population will pose challenges for non-profit housing providers across Canada. It’s well-known that Canada’s population is aging, and this is starting to impact homeless demographics. Among other things, this means that demand for seniors supportive housing (i.e. subsidized housing with professional social staff support for low-income seniors) will grow a July 2010 advocacy paper on this topic (with a Calgary focus) can be found here.
4. Many plans to “end homelessness” are starting to sunset. Beginning in the late-2000s, several Canadian jurisdictions made plans to “end homelessness.” Most were 10-year plans; and those 10-year ‘deadlines’ are nearing, which means the proverbial chickens are now coming home to roost. Very recently, the City of Victoria announced it was pushing its ‘deadline’ back by three years. An October 2016 report argues that such plans are overly ambitious and ill-advised without substantial new funding from senior orders of government. I think the belief that communities can “end homelessness” with a ‘can do’ attitude is starting to wear thin. Indeed, for some observers, 10-year plans, while well-intentioned, lacked the necessary support from senior orders of government to be successful. I therefore predict we’ll start to see advocates place increased emphasis on the need for deep-seated changes to public policy, and less emphasis on what local communities can do differently.
5. The final report of the National Housing Strategy will soon be released. Canada’s federal government has undertaken national consultations on the development of a “national housing strategy.” The consultation web site is called “Let’s Talk Housing.” It includes the consultation’s stated vision, principles, themes, intended outcomes, a ‘what we heard’ document and key dates.

---

The author wishes to thank the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, Louise Gallagher, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Steve Pomeroy and one anonymous source for assistance in writing this. Any errors are his. [1] Admittedly, the Trudeau government did announce $30 million in temporary funding for some social housing agreements in its first budget; but that was just two years of funding.

---

For a PDF version of the present blog post, please click here: Five emerging trends in affordable housing and homelessness

On March 9, I spoke on a panel in Professor Susan Phillips’ Policy and Program Evaluation course at Carleton University.  This is a required course in Carleton’s Master of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership program, and one of the program’s main themes is that non-profit organizations face strong expectations to demonstrate their effectiveness.  Thus, future leaders in the sector will need to be both knowledgeable and competent in this regard.

I was asked to speak to the above theme from the vantage point of my role as Director of Research & Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF).  With this in mind, here are 10 things future non-profit leaders should know.

1. In 2008, Calgary became the first city in Canada to launch a plan to “end homelessness.” Calgary’s plan was based on a model used in more than 300 communities in the United States. Today, more than one dozen Canadian cities have such a plan. Also since 2008, on a per capita basis, homelessness (as measured by Point-in-Time counts) has decreased in Calgary by 17%.
2. Calgary’s Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) may be the most sophisticated of its kind in Canada. When Calgary developed its plan, it decided to also develop an information management system that, among other things, could help it track progress. Indeed, last fall, I wrote that many of Calgary’s homeless-serving organizations enter client information into a database called HMIS.  Today, all Calgary non-profit programs that receive funding from the CHF must use the HMIS (it’s stipulated in their contracts); and some non-funded agencies voluntarily use the HMIS system for some of their programs.
3. The development and implementation of Calgary’s HMIS system has been guided by several community committees. For several years, an HMIS Advisory Committee met to test the ‘big brother’ concern about the system. The Committee consisted of both staff from homeless-serving agencies and clients from the sector. Along with addressing privacy concerns, clients were part of the decision-making process (and were assured that the police would not have access to client records). There was also (and still is) an HMIS User Group attended by staff who use the HMIS system—that group meets on an ad hoc basis to discuss more technical matters, such as updates to the database system, reporting cycles and ‘how to’ matters (it met more frequently in the early days of the system than it does today).  Finally, now that the system has been ‘up and running’ for some time, the CHF still convenes smaller committees on an ad hoc basis to help guide specific initiatives.
4. An important success of Calgary’s HMIS system has been its assistance with program referrals. Many (but not all) homeless persons in Calgary go through an intake process with the help of the Service Prioritization Decision Assessment Tool (SPDAT). The SPDAT gives the client an acuity score, which assists with their placement into CHF-funded housing programs (information gathered during the SPDAT process is entered into the HMIS system).  Based on the goals set out in Calgary’s Plan to End Homelessness, clients with higher SPDAT scores are often given higher priority for placement into CHF-funded housing.  Committees meet on a regular basis to recommend which clients be placed into the limited amount of subsidized housing available.[1] The formal name for this entire process is called Coordinated Access & Assessment (CAA). (For more on Calgary’s CAA system, see this recent book chapter by Jerilyn Dressler.)
5. Some non-profit organizations have been happy to share their data with CHF; others less so. In my experience, before a non-profit shares data voluntarily with CHF, they like to know what exactly the data will be used for and how they may benefit from sharing their data. Until they see how the sharing of data can benefit their organization and its clientele, they’re reluctant to share (unless they’re mandated to do so by their funder).  Organizations such as the CHF need to therefore work hard to build trust with other non-profits and demonstrate how data sharing can be mutually beneficial, rather than simply thinking of receiving data as an entitlement.
6. CHF disburses funding to Calgary-based non-profits in the homeless-serving sector each year; to monitor their outcomes and impact, it benchmarks them against key performance indicators (KPIs). Different programs have different objectives—for example, KPIs developed for some programs put emphasis on how effective those programs appear to be in creating stable housing situations for their tenants. CHF staff, in monitoring each funded agency’s progress on KPIs, is able to track progress thanks to the aforementioned HMIS database system.  CHF then makes annual funding decisions based in part on each funded program’s performance against KPIs. 
7. Calgary’s HMIS system provides invaluable support to the aforementioned benchmarking system. Indeed, this has been one of the major successes of Calgary’s HMIS system. It’s through the HMIS system that ‘program performance’ data is gathered from CHF-funded programs.
8. One drawback of HMIS data is that most of its client data is based on self-reporting. However, it should be noted that self-reported information is gathered by an experienced case manager during an in-person interview.  What’s more, many well-respected data sources in Canada are also based on self-reporting; these include the Labour Force Survey and the Census.In future, CHF researchers would like to cross-reference self-reported HMIS data with administrative data from health systems and justice systems, in order to compare information on the same individual. (Such a research exercise would obviously require client consent, as well as cooperation from health and justice authorities.) 
9. I think the main success of Calgary’s initial Plan to End Homelessness was that it helped galvanize public attention and stopped homelessness from rising. When the original Plan was developed in 2008, Calgary had experienced a 650% increase in homelessness over just a 10-year period. And as indicated above, Calgary has since seen a 17% drop in per-capita homelessness since the original Plan was unveiled.  I personally consider that to be a very impressive accomplishment; indeed, there is little doubt in my mind that there are people alive today thanks largely to that Plan.  In retrospect, eliminating homelessness by 2018 (a key goal of he original plan) was a very ambitious target.
10. My main piece of advice to third-sector (i.e. non-profit) leaders is to be humble with data. By that, I mean they shouldn’t try to ‘over interpret’ data.  Non-profit leaders need to be honest about the limitations of both their data and the statistical analysis they undertake using that data.  They should also be forthright about assumptions they make in long-term projections.  When in doubt, they should seek guidance from more senior researchers.  Though it may be tempting to exaggerate one’s knowledge and foresight at times, remember that chickens eventually come home to roost.  And with that in mind, I’ll remind blog readers what the late John Kenneth Galbraith once said about economic forecasters: “There are two kinds of forecasters: those who don’t know, and those who don’t know they don’t know.”

[1] Even with Calgary’s sophisticated use of data, the city still has far more homeless people in need of housing than it has subsidized housing units available.  Thus, due to a lack of affordable housing, some people experiencing homelessness can wait years to be placed into housing; others die while on the waiting list.  That’s a big reason why the CHF endorses this recent policy statement and continues to lobby all levels of government for more funding.

Nick Falvo is Director of Research and Data at the Calgary Homeless Foundation. His area of research is social policy, with a focus on poverty, housing, homelessness and social assistance. Nick has a PhD in public policy from Carleton University. Fluently bilingual, he is a member of the editorial board of the Canadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale.  Contact him at nick@calgaryhomeless.com. Follow him on Twitter: @nicholas_falvo.

Version française: L’ Utilisation de données dans le programme visant à mettre fin à l’itinérance à Calgary

–

The following individuals were very helpful in the preparation of this blog post:  Britany Ardelli, Janice Chan, Francesco Falvo, Louise Gallagher, Darcy Halber, Chantal Hansen, Ron Kneebone, Ali Jadidzadeh, Jennifer Legate, Kevin McNichol, Natalie Noble, John Rowland and Kelsey Shea.  Any errors are mine.