Comparing municipal spending on housing and homelessness in Canada’s major cities
La version française de ce billet se trouve ici.
I recently led a research study, commissioned by the City of Edmonton, comparing spending by large Canadian municipalities on homeless-related services and affordable housing, including capital and operating dollars. The seven cases were the cities of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Toronto, as well as Peel Regional Municipality. My co-authors were Greg Suttor and Chidom Otogwu.
Here are 10 things to know:
1. Annual per-capita spending levels varied greatly among the municipalities. Homeless-related spending ranged from $9 to $256 per capita. Housing spending ranged from $25 to $277 per capita. Combined homelessness and housing spending ranged from $34 to $532 per capita. All of these figures include spending by the Community Entity (see more on this in point #5 below).
2. Several institutional and jurisdictional differences help explain these divergent spending levels across municipalities. This particular finding, in my opinion, was the report’s key contribution to the policy literature. Indeed, as will be elaborated upon below, there are logical reasons for the spending discrepancies that transcend any given municipality’s commitment to the cause.
3. One key explanatory variable is the relationship between each municipality and its respective provincial government. In most provinces, rent subsidies and social housing funding is provincial, but Ontario law and policy make that a municipal responsibility. Emergency shelter funding is also municipal (with cost-sharing) in Ontario but provincial in Alberta and Manitoba.
4. Another pertains to which entity does the heavy lifting in developing and operating housing. In some cities, spending may partly reflect municipal housing corporations having a prominent role, while other cities may rely more on community non-profits or provincial public housing.
5. In some cases, the municipality is the Community Entity, in some cases not. A municipality that is the Community Entity (i.e., the vehicle through which flows federal spending for homelessness) will spend more on homelessness than it otherwise would, and its role may extend beyond administering federal funding (e.g., to homelessness system planning more broadly). In general and in this study, Ontario municipalities are the CE while western cities are not.
6. The relationship between the municipality and the Census Metropolitan Area matters. Many housing and homelessness needs are most evident in inner-city areas, and this may be reflected in the location of services and housing. Municipalities which are the inner half or quarter of a very large metropolitan area (e.g., Toronto or Vancouver) may shoulder large program costs, resulting in high per-capita spending because it is spread across a smaller portion of metro-area population (smaller denominator).
7. Histories and established practices make a difference. Toronto and Vancouver, for example, have long-established roles and practices in funding and in creating non-market housing, a role that is smaller or more recent in other cities.
8. Higher needs may also lead to more spending. The research literature would suggest that cities with higher rents generally have higher levels of homelessness. In some cases, market pressures (e.g. high in-migration) may lead to political pressures and stronger policy/program responses.
9. This analysis also tracked sources for municipal spending. Federal funding is notably larger than provincial for affordable housing in most cities (keeping in mind that we only tracked what flowed through the municipality). Provincial funding is larger than federal for homeless-related services in most cities (again, noting that we only tracked what flows through the municipality). Net municipal funds were 56% of housing spending but only 33% of homeless-related spending (medians for 5 cities).
10. As part of the report, Greg Suttor created a very helpful one-page cheat sheet. It’s a table featured on page 15 of the report summarizing some of the contextual points discussed above, as well as other factors that might affect spending levels by municipalities on affordable housing and homelessness.
In sum. Municipal governments have extremely important roles to play with respect to affordable housing and homelessness (these roles are discussed in detail in this report series published in 2022). Our recent report, commissioned by the City of Edmonton, shines a light on some of the reasons spending levels alone do not necessarily reflect a municipality’s commitment to either file.
I wish to thank Jenny Morrow and Annick Torfs for assistance with this blog post.
