|
||||||
 |
                          
|
 |
Question & Answer Homelessness in Canada
What is homelessness? Homelessness is the great unresolved political and social problem of our time. It is an awkward yet necessary term serving as a catchall for a contemporary form of severe destitution. Homelessness should be easy enough to define. It is the absence of a place to live (a house or apartment or room - the physical structure) - which includes the absence of belonging to a place and the people living there (a home, in the social/psychological sense). Homelessness refers to situations in which people lack regular and customary access to adequate and appropriate conventional housing (the physical structures that are designed and intended to be permanent residential accommodation). A person who has no regular place to live stays in an overnight emergency shelter, an abandoned building, an all-night coffee shop or theatre, a car, outdoors, or other such places not meant to be living spaces. In the early 1980s, it became obvious that there was an increasing number of individuals and families, in the wealthiest Western nations, who had no place of their own to live and did not have enough money to pay for life's necessities. They once had housing. They once had enough money on which to get by. They once had a support network of family and friends in combination with a public "social safety net." This private/public support network meant they were housed, they were able to look after their health and general well-being, and they had a place to call home. For a variety of different reasons, large numbers of people are now finding themselves "dehoused" - some for a short period of time, some drifting in and out of having a place to live, and some remaining unhoused for long periods of time. Homelessness involves socio-economic arrangements that exist quite apart from the people who are troubled by them. It is a term applied to different social, economic, and political realities, as well as realities in the lives of the people affected. Homelessness does not occur in a social vacuum. In general, the events that make people homeless are initiated and controlled by other people whom our society allows to engage in the various enterprises that contribute to the homelessness of others. The primary purpose of these enterprises is not to make people homeless but, rather, to achieve socially condoned aims such as making a living, becoming rich, obtaining a more desirable home, increasing the efficiency at the workplace, promoting the growth of cultural institutions, giving cities a competitive advantage, or helping local or federal governments to balance their budgets or limit their debts. Homelessness occurs as a side effect. Yet it is a consequence of these enterprises, and therefore the discourse on homelessness must be broadened to reach into those areas of housing, income production, health care, and family life where the events and people contributing to homelessness are situated. Rene I. Jahiel, from Chapter 18 in Homeless: A Prevention-Oriented Approach, R.I. Jahiel, editor (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).
Are there different types of homelessness? The best advice on defining "homelessness" has been proposed by Sabine Springer, a researcher at the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, ("Homelessness: A proposal for a Global Definition and Classification," by Sabine Springer, Habitat International, Vol. 24, 2000). She notes that homelessness is a term burdened with many possible meanings. The U.N., in its data collection and research efforts, is starting to using the term "houselessness" instead - a much clearer, straightforward term. It refers to the one crucial factor all homeless people have in common. While homelessness is not just a housing problem, it is always a housing problem. Homeless or "houseless people" fall into three very clear categories: the absolute houseless, the concealed houseless and those at risk of becoming houseless. Absolute houselessness Houseless persons are defined as people "sleeping rough" or using public or private shelters. People sleeping rough, which means in the street, in public places or in any other place not meant for human habitation are those forming the core population of the "homeless". Those sleeping in shelters provided by welfare or other institutions will be considered as a part of this population. Persons or households living under these circumstances will furthermore be defined as "houseless". As this definition avoids the use of characteristics that may vary by regions (like climatic conditions, cultural or traditional variables) it should be acceptable to all countries. An individual with no access to housing will be considered as houseless all over the world. Concealed houselessness
Another, not obvious side of the problem is "concealed houselessness." Under this category fall all people living with family members or friends because they cannot afford any shelter for themselves. Without this privately offered housing opportunity, they would be living in the street or be sheltered by an institution of the welfare system. This phenomenon is extremely difficult to enumerate. At risk of houselessness
Another group living under the threat of "houselessness" are those facing the risk of losing their shelter either by eviction or the expiry of the lease, with no other possibility of shelter in view. Prisoners or people living in other institutions facing their release and having no place to go to, are considered as part of this population. The notion we propose for this category is "risk of houselessness." Finally, we need to recognize that there are many Canadians who are inadequately housed. While being inadequately housed is not the same as being houseless, it can lead to being at risk of houselessness. Most of the people who become houseless started off being inadequately housed. Before becoming houseless, many people have been living in "substandard housing" situations. Their way out of houselessness is also likely to pass by this sort of housing unit. Households with a feeble and perhaps insecure income are likely to live in substandard housing units and might also experience houselessness because of economic difficulties. Their situation is somehow comparable with those without shelter, as they are all deprived of the human right of a housing situation without health hazards, allowing the full development of the individuals' capacities. Therefore, the population living in substandard houses should be included in the study of houselessness as the population which feeds mostly the group of houseless, but which is also likely to receive them when they attempt to escape the situation. All people have the human right to adequate housing. All societies have the obligation to make progress on the adequate housing of all people.
Why does homelessness generate so much debate and confusion? While there should be no difficulty in understanding the nature of the problem, there is indeed a great deal of confusion and debate. Service providers, policy makers, researchers, citizens and politicians tend to use the term in many different ways. The confusion is due to conceptual imprecision, fuzzy boundaries, the influence of political agendas, the heterogeneity of the homeless population, and the assumptions and attitudes of the housed population. This confusion and often sterile debate is due to two reasons - one political and one practical. It arises because defining homelessness for policy and program purposes (i.e., taking action) requires compromises between concerns for social injustice, economic realities and political expediency. It requires some authority or combination of authorities - levels of government, in partnership with agencies and charities - to take responsibility. Taking responsibility means allocating resources and imposing regulations and changes in those institutions and practices which are producing homelessness, and which stand in the way of addressing existing and preventing further homelessness. The confusion and inaction is also attributable to the fact that homelessness is the outcome of a very complex set of social processes. These processes include:
These major contextual issues are not only relevant and crucial to understanding the problem, but are difficult to grasp and sort out. In the research literature, there is a similar tension between a definition and explanation of homelessness based on the personal problems of people who are at risk and one based on societal defects. This need not be an either/or matter, though it is often presented as such. The reconciliation now offered in the research literature makes a great deal of sense. Defects and dislocations of social structure (in the broad sense of the term) create a population at risk of homelessness. Personal difficulties help determine who within the at-risk population actually becomes homeless. In short, social, economic and governmental program changes over the past two decades have created a large group of Canadians at risk of becoming homeless. The personal support networks and any additional difficulties faced by people at risk are factors that help lead some to lose their housing. Why worry about defining homelessness?
How does Raising the Roof define the issue? Our approach to finding "solutions for Canada's homeless" is focused on housing:
This approach is the same as the United Nations (see Questions #1 and #2): focus on the common core of the problem. For many households, there is a large gap between the cost of housing and the money available to pay for housing. This is the beginning and the end of the story about a key common feature of people called "homeless." They are people who once had housing but are now unhoused. Other support services (physical and mental health, job training, and so forth) have little or no opportunity to be effective when people are still struggling with life on the streets and in emergency shelters.
Isn't homelessness a mental health and substance abuse problem? Mental illness and chemical dependency are probably the two "pathologies" (a pathology is a disease of abnormal bodily affliction) most frequently associated with homeless people and sometimes even cited as the cause of homelessness. People without stable adequate housing do in fact suffer disproportionately from a wide variety of chronic and acute illnesses that are aggravated by life on the streets. Studies suggest that about 25% of people without housing suffer from severe mental illnesses. There are widely different estimates of chemical dependency. Chronic mental illness complicates daily existence and can mask acute illnesses or prevent people from taking care of themselves. In most cases, it is difficult to determine which came first - whether the disease or disorder preceded the loss of a place to live or whether it was precipitated by life on the streets. Yet, the focus on pathologies leads quite naturally - and quite erroneously - to the assumption that it is the pathology that is responsible for people being unhoused. There is no doubt that mental illness, chemical dependency and a range of other conditions contribute to, and are often aggravated by, not having a place to live. Living on the streets and in emergency shelters for any length of time is not good for one's mental and physical well-being. However, every pathology found among people without housing is also found, in greater numbers, among people who are housed. The majority of people who suffer from any of these diseases or disorders are not houseless. People suffering from pathological conditions require treatment. People without housing do not require medical treatment or rehabilitation due to their lack of housing. They require housing. Any pathology they may have can then be treated with some hope of success. Effective policy approaches to address the pathologies of people who have no place to live are different in only one important way from those who have housing: before any assistance can really work, people without housing must have a stable and adequate place to live - a place to call home. Housing stability is essential for successful treatment and recovery. Adequate housing, combined with supportive services, meaningful daily activity in the community (including work), and access to appropriate therapy, is the necessary framework to address mental health and chemical dependency problems.
Who is homeless? People without housing are a diverse, mobile population encompassing many subgroups. Some people without housing have nothing in common but their lack of housing. The unifying factor is having no fixed address - no stable and adequate place to live. People without housing are male and female, young and old, families and single people. Their demographic characteristics vary in different parts of the country. Among the people without housing are many single men and women, families, visible minorities, aboriginal people, and some people with severe mental illnesses and other serious health problems (such as AIDS). Some people (including some journalists and politicians) tend to assume that panhandlers represent the majority of the people who are homeless. However, many panhandlers are housed. Panhandling for some is the means by which cash is obtained to meet basic needs.
Who is likely to become unhoused? All people living in poverty, and some middle income people whose work and life situations are unstable and problematic, face the potential of being "dehoused" by the normal dynamics of everyday life. It only takes a couple of months without having enough cash available to pay the rent and utilities. If there is little or no support from other informal networks - family, friends and personal/immediate community level supports (such as, religious, ethnic, or cultural organizations) - the chances of becoming houseless are greatly increased. Living in poverty amidst the wealthy lifestyle, and the very expensive land and housing markets of North America is a precarious position in which to be. The cost of living is high, and there are few options outside the market and government for meeting basic needs. If either or both these institutions exclude an individual or household from obtaining the necessary resources for maintaining adequate housing, a state of deprivation that includes losing one's housing is the inevitable result.
What is the practical impact of not having a place to call home? Having no fixed address means being excluded from all that is associated with having a home, a surrounding neighbourhood and a set of established community networks. Having no fixed address means being exiled from the mainstream patterns of day-to-day life. Without a physical place to call "home" in the social, psychological and emotional sense, the hour-to-hour struggle for physical survival replaces all other possible activities. This social exclusion also increasingly means physical exclusion from many locations and neighbourhoods by municipal ordinances and police harassment. Having no fixed address, however, is only the most obvious characteristic of this group of excluded poor. They are also people with no fixed status. They are people who have passed from one "status slot" to a situation that has no status. In the ordinary course of day-to-day life, they are in a state of "social abeyance." People with no place to live - those who have no physical and psychological place of their own to call home - are the most completely excluded group of people in society. On becoming homeless, people enter a different world from the rest of us. Survival is the main goal. It is a nightmare world completely apart from the normal day-to-day pattern of living. Most people who find themselves in this situation migrate to the centre of larger urban areas where a range of services for people without housing are available. Most wander from place to place and from service to service to ensure their physical survival. The "dehousing" processes operating in society (the lack of affordable housing, rising rents, few vacancies) are producing a diaspora of the excluded - struggling to survive without a place to call home.
Does welfare prevent people from becoming unhoused? "We are also calling on the federal government to stem the flow of money out of the pockets of families on welfare. Making sure that families with children on welfare have adequate incomes is fundamental to creating a good system of policies for Canadian families. "The report (Welfare Incomes, 1999) also shows that incomes for other people on welfare remain at rates far below what most people would consider reasonable. Incomes for single people were as low as nine percent of the poverty line in Newfoundland. The highest incomes for single employable people were 41 percent of the poverty line in Ontario. "The lowest benefits for single disabled people were 42 percent of the poverty line in Alberta. The highest rate was 70 percent of the poverty line in Ontario. "Welfare incomes for single-parent families ranged from a low of 50 percent in Alberta to a high of 70 percent in Newfoundland. "For two-parent families with two children, welfare incomes ranged from 45 percent of the poverty line in Quebec to 62 percent in Prince Edward Island." National Council of Welfare, 1999 Press Release. Social assistance (commonly called welfare) is the income program of last resort in Canada. It provides money to individuals and families whose resources are inadequate to meet their needs. Although people talk about welfare as a single entity, there are 13 welfare systems in Canada: one in each province and territory. Most people living on social assistance were poorer (in inflation-adjusted terms) in the 1990s than the people living on welfare in the 1980s, according to the National Council of Welfare, a federal government appointed advisory and research group reporting to the Minister of Human Resources. People on welfare are invariably poor, but the depth of poverty is getting worse, according to the National Council. Single employable people on welfare fare the worst, with incomes as low as one-fifth of the poverty line. The incomes of all welfare households in all provinces were well below the poverty line, as measured by Statistics Canada's low-income cut-offs. The Ontario government's 21.6 percent cut in social assistance payments in October 1995 was one of the more dramatic decreases in assistance to the very poor. This, together with other social assistance cuts, resulted in a net decrease of nearly 24 percent between 1994 and 1996 for Ontario's social assistance recipients. How many low- or even moderate-income households can sustain a loss of about a quarter of their cash income without facing serious difficulties? The federal government also cut its transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance during the mid-1990s. From 1966 until March 1996, the federal government paid a share of the cost of welfare and social services under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP). On April 1, 1996, the federal government replaced CAP with the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST). The CHST is a "block fund" covering Medicare and post-secondary education as well as welfare and social services. Ottawa's support for these important programs decreased by 16 percent between 1996 and 1998 - a cut in transfer payments to provinces that some provinces simply passed on to low-income households. Thus, both senior levels of government have contributed to the problem of low-income households lacking enough money to pay for adequate food and housing. The housing portion of social assistance payments was never enough to cover the actual rent payment. The gap is much larger now. Benefits have decreased across the country, yet rents do not decrease.
What is the health status of people who do not have housing? People without housing are a heterogeneous population with regard to health status. Researchers have found that some report good health and no chronic or acute health problems. As a group, however, the unhoused population has a much lower health status than the housed adult population. "Homeless persons suffer from a high prevalence of physical disease, mental illness, and substance abuse. Homelessness is associated with exposure to the elements and an increased risk of infections such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease.... "This study examines death rates among homeless men in Toronto, Ontario. We identified a cohort of 8,933 men who used shelters in 1995 and ascertained the number and causes of deaths in this group for 1995 through 1997. "Men using homeless shelters in Toronto were more likely to die than men in the city's general population.... The mean age at death was 46 years (range, 20-84 years). Death occurred outside a hospital in 41% of deaths.... Men who use homeless shelters in Toronto experience significant excess mortality compared with the city's general population. This finding is consistent with previous studies of homeless persons in major US cities." Dr. Stephen W. Hwang, MD, "Mortality Among Men Using Homeless Shelters in Toronto, Ontario," Journal of the American Medical Association, April 26, 2000. Clinical studies have demonstrated that the health problems of the unhoused are far worse. Moreover, people who are homeless face more frequent health problems than the housed population. The exact relationship between health and being homeless is unclear. Some health problems may have existed prior to becoming unhoused, some may have been caused by being unhoused, and all health problems (old and new) are exacerbated by the experience of being unhoused. It is now widely agreed that physical health problems are, at best, a relatively minor immediate cause of homelessness compared to factors such as a lack of affordable housing, economic hardship, unemployment or family conflict. Studies that compare the health of homeless people with other populations that have poor health status (such as people on low incomes) are relatively rare. Where this has been done, poverty populations had rates that fell between the unhoused and the general housed population. People who are homeless face an increased risk of contracting infectious disease because they often find themselves in overcrowded, cold, damp and unsanitary conditions. All unhoused people are subject to stress because of the factors that made them homeless and because of the experience of being homeless. Poor diet, stress, cold, damp along with inadequate sanitation and food storage or preparation facilities all increase the risk of health problems. For example, prolonged exposure to cold puts strain on the heart, and high stress is associated with a raised incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancers. There is also an increased risk of trauma (physical damage) because of an increased risk of violence and an increased risk of accidents. Families without housing are likely to experience health problems associated with cramped conditions if they are in certain forms of temporary accommodation. A number of studies of children in these families report behavioural problems, depression, disturbed sleep, bed-wetting, toilet training problems and violent mood swings. There are also concerns about general mental and physical development. Parents in these families are often subject to stress, isolation and loneliness. Single homeless people have higher than average levels of certain health problems. Particular areas of concern are the prevalence of tuberculosis, as well as high levels of mental health problems, and HIV and Hepatitis infection. People without housing who avoid emergency shelters and tend to "sleep in the rough" have a health status that is far worse than that of the general population. Research on the average lifespan of people who sleep on the streets of major Western cities has indicated that many men only live until their mid- to late-forties. The prevalence of infection, physical disease, and mental health problems are very high. In broad terms, the severity of health problems among this group of people is likely to be higher than other single homeless people and they are more likely to have multiple health problems. It is now widely recognized that being houseless is itself an "agent of disease." People who are unhoused find themselves to be in "multiple jeopardy" of contracting a range of severe health problems, including: serious skin infestations; peripheral vascular diseases; bacterial or fungal infections of the skin; diarrheal diseases; food poisoning; chronic respiratory infections, including tuberculosis; AIDS and other forms of HIV-related diseases; chronic illnesses such as hypertension, cardiac failure, arthritis and bronchitis; perinatal morbidity and mortality; environment hazards; and serious physical hazards to the growth and development of children. A survey of the health status of a representative sample of 458 homeless women and men in Toronto found the following chronic health conditions to be much more prevalent than among the general population: arthritis/rheumatism, allergies/hay fever, emphysema/chronic bronchitis, hypertension, asthma, heart attack, epilepsy, head injury, angina, diabetes and stroke. They also have greater vulnerability to a range of physical trauma compared to the general population. In the survey high rates of the following were reported: accidents (such as being hit by vehicles) and injuries (such as frostbite), physical assault, physical assault by the police, sexual harassment and rape. (The Street Health Report: A Study of the Health Status and Barriers to Health Care of Homeless Women and Men in the City of Toronto, May 1992.) Research indicates that people without housing face considerable problems in trying to use mainstream health services. These include: stereotypes and prejudice among staff; the lack of adaptability of the health care system; the relative scarcity of appropriate services and staff with appropriate training and experience; the geographical distribution of services and the lack of transportation; the social marginalization of some homeless people (leading to the denial of health problems, the fear of loss of control, the fear of providers' actions, and the general difficulty of coping with a large bureaucracy); and access problems when the health card and other identification are lost. In summary, the evidence does demonstrate that mortality among unhoused people is very high compared to the rest of the population. Unhoused people, especially children, are at "multiple jeopardy" in terms of contracting a broad range of very serious illnesses.
How many people without housing are there? No one can ever answer this question with precision. Any attempt to count the number of people without housing will be seriously flawed. No matter how thorough and expensive the enumeration is, all methods for counting a mobile population with no fixed addresses can never claim to have counted everyone and to having avoided double counting. The question always remains: how many were missed or counted more than once? In the late 1990s, about 30,000 different people used a Toronto-funded emergency shelter at some time during a year. The City estimates that about 25,000 of these were first time shelter users. Demand for emergency shelter beds has increased dramatically over recent years. In Toronto, the emergency shelter system accommodated about 1,200 people per night in the early 1980s. Usage grew only slightly in the recession of the early 1990s, likely due to better availability of new social housing, improved welfare rates and lower immigration. Usage has more than doubled in the past five years. In 1996, the number of shelter beds increased to 4,000 and in 1997 it reached 5,400. For 1998, the estimated number of shelter beds which will be provided will be over 7,000 per night. People using the emergency shelters represent only some, a minority, of the people who are homeless. Most seek other alternatives, from remaining on the streets to squatting in unoccupied buildings, wanting to avoid the conditions and regulations common to the shelters. The socio-demographic characteristics of people without housing differs from community to community, making regional and national estimates and assumptions about the characteristics of homeless people inadequate or wrong. The differences are due to local factors which include:
Don't some people choose to be homeless? The overwhelming majority of homeless people want to get off the street and into stable adequate housing. A homeless existence is characterized by demeaning environments, numerous threats to survival, and the most abject poverty affecting every aspect of daily existence. Some people who find themselves without housing do choose to avoid using some or all of the emergency shelters because of the rules, the potential for violence, theft and so on. When the range of choices is limited to an emergency shelter or making do elsewhere, it is difficult to call this "choosing to be on the streets." Among the general population, many people make bad choices at some time in their lives. For those on the economic margin, a bad choice can result in becoming unhoused. The alienation and deprivations that accompany life on the streets do not help people learn new and better choices. Sometimes, the effect is just the opposite. Most people will never know what it is like to try to survive without housing. Homeless persons and the people who assist them list the following as just some of the realities:
No one "chooses" this lifestyle.
Are emergency shelters, soup kitchens and sleeping bags the answer? Municipalities, social agencies and charities, in their efforts to cope with the rising numbers of people without housing, have expanded and developed emergency services that help people survive. These typically include emergency shelters, daytime drop-in services, specialized winter services such as Toronto's Out of the Cold program and the Extreme Cold Weather Alert program, various kinds of outreach services, telephone "street helplines," and various physical and mental health care services. At present, people without housing have very few choices in Canadian cities. They can voluntarily institutionalize themselves one night at a time - go to an emergency shelter if there is enough room and if they meet the criteria - or sleep outdoors (on sidewalks, in doorways, under bridges, in parking structures, and in abandoned buildings, and the like). Emergency shelters are institutions that have become the catch-all for many of the problems that cannot be handled elsewhere. They often lack sufficient staff and the appropriate resources. Most are very crowded and offer little or no privacy. All must have at least some rules and regulations, yet these are often difficult for some to follow. The fewer the rules and regulations, the more likely disruptive and difficult people will start using the shelter. It becomes difficult for others to sleep. The strong can victimize the weak. The staff of many shelters must do their best under these conditions, yet they often find themselves in a "no-win" situation. Emergency shelters, daytime drop-in centres and free distribution of sleeping bags and other basic necessities are all vitally important to the day-to-day survival of people who have no housing. As long as there are people without housing, these services will be required. These services, however, are not part of a long term solution to the problem of people not having housing. They only address the fact that there are such people. These emergency survival measures should only be the initial response mechanism for the briefest period of time, not the major -- and for some the only -- option. This is a well known and widely accepted position among providers. Many emergency shelters and the agencies which provide these services have added support services and even created some transitional housing. All this costs money, and neither government nor private fundraising efforts have provided sufficient funding for the necessary housing access assistance services, housing support services and a range of prevention measures. These services move well beyond emergency survival and provide the basis for solutions to the problem.
What are housing "support services" Some people who obtain a good place to live need help in order to stay housed. Researchers and service providers have recognized for some time that a range of highly tailored interventions called housing support services needs to be developed in each community. In some cases, this includes adaptation of traditional services to the unique needs of people who are or have recently been homeless. Given the diversity of reasons people lost their housing in the first place, housing is a necessary but often not a sufficient response. Once a person is housed, meaningful and effective social, mental, and physical health interventions can build on the stability and safety that housing represents. People who need episodic support in order to live independently can do so with surprising little effort. Services can help in very specific ways: budgeting and paying rent (voluntary trusteeship), cleaning, counselling, and social supports. Other people need continuous help to avoid another descent into losing their housing. Both private and public sector housing providers can affiliate with community support agencies, treatment programs, hospitals or other community services. Tenants can then draw upon these resources as required. More intensive support is required for some which often means that support staff have to be available continuously, as is the case of StreetCity and Strachan House in Toronto.
Does Canada have a national strategy for addressing the problem? Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, Canada has no national legislation and no long-term national programs addressing the fact that many Canadians find themselves without housing. In 1999, the federal government announced a three-year funding program focused on providing emergency and support services for Canada's unhoused people. Some of this money began to be spent in 2001. The program explicitly excludes funding for new affordable housing. In addition, during the 2000 federal election campaign the Liberal Party promised to implement a modest spending program ($160 million per year for four years) to help stimulate the supply of rental housing. The funding is not sufficient, by itself, to provide housing for very low-income households in need. In 1990, when Finance Minister Paul Martin was an opposition Member of Parliament, he co-chaired a National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Housing. The report, Finding Room: Housing Solutions for the Future (May 1990), contains many excellent recommendations. One recommendation was the following: "The Task Force recommends that the Conservative government immediately convene a National Conference on the Homeless with participation from all levels of government, the non-profit sector and the private sector to set real objectives and policy responses for the eradication of homelessness in Canada. It is vital that the homeless play a significant role in this process. As well, the federal government must initiate discussions with provincial Ministries of Health and/or Community and Social Services to ensure that the immediate and long-term needs of the homeless are addressed. (page 18)" The press release which accompanied this fine 47 page analysis of Canada's housing problems quotes Mr. Martin as complaining that the "federal government has abandoned its responsibilities with regards to housing problems" and that the "housing crisis is growing at an alarming rate and the government sits there and does nothing." Mr. Martin added that "the lack of affordable housing contributes to and accelerates the cycle of poverty, which is reprehensible in a society as rich as ours." A number of members of Raising the Roof where consulted by Mr. Martin and his co-chair, M.P. Joe Fontana, back in 1990. We agreed with his recommendations back then and we continue to urge that they be implemented. The full text of Mr. Martin's housing study is available at the Housing Again Web site: www.housingagain.web.net A look at other countries shows some examples of the national level of government contributing to the effort to address the problem. In the United States, the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act is a major federal legislative response to the problem signed into law by President Reagan in July 1987. It originally consisted of fifteen programs providing a range of services, including emergency shelter, transitional housing, job training, primary health care, education and some permanent housing. The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act has been amended several times. These amendments have, for the most part, expanded the scope and strengthened the provisions of the original legislation. In 1990, for example, the Shelter Plus Care program was established, which provides housing assistance to homeless people with disabilities, mental illness, AIDS, and drug or alcohol addiction. In 1992 the Rural Homeless Housing Assistance grant program and the Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Support (ACCESS) programs were created. In 1994, Congress amended the Education of the Homeless Children and Youth program and the Surplus Property Program. Funding for McKinney Homeless Assistance Act programs has increased from US$350 million in 1987 to $1.5 billion in the late 1990s. The National Coalition for the Homeless reports that the Act has created valuable programs that have saved lives and helped hundreds of thousands of Americans to regain housing stability. A 1995 evaluation concluded that the programs "have assisted significant numbers of homeless persons to regain independence and permanent housing and at a reasonable cost." All the various evaluations, however, have noted that the resources allocated to the McKinney programs are insufficient to meet demand. In addition, the Act mainly funds emergency measures - a response to the symptoms not the causes. In the United Kingdom, the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act imposed the legal duty on municipal authorities to provide permanent housing for a variety of people in need. The legislation made a distinction between statutorily and non statutorily homeless people. Statutorily homeless households, following assessment by a municipal authority, qualify for permanent rehousing in public or non-profit social housing. The homeless households that qualify for assistance include people with dependent children, women who are pregnant and single people who are "vulnerable," in that they cannot be expected to fend for themselves. In the UK, statutorily homeless households often have to wait for permanent social housing to become available. While statutorily homeless people are waiting in temporary accommodation (such as leased accommodation, and bed and breakfast hotels) for their permanent homes, they are still regarded as homeless. Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. legislation are models for Canada. They are simply examples of the national level of government contributing to the effort to address the problem.
What is the solution? All homeless people have one thing in common - a lack of housing. Though we can debate what has caused the dramatic increase in the number of people without housing, access to housing is still the first step in dealing with the problem. There are three components to the solution:
The causes of the problem are indeed complex, the solution is not. Housing, income and, for some, support services are required. The services required depends upon the person involved. These can include housing support services, job training, education, substance abuse treatment, physical and mental health care, counselling, and assistance in job search. The problem is rooted in the failure of Canada, its provinces and municipalities, to address its poverty and affordable housing problems. Many social problems are lumped together under the label "homelessness." Although homelessness may not be only a housing problem, it is always a housing problem. The gap between the cost of adequate housing and the income available to pay for it is too large for many individuals and families Without stable and adequate housing, nothing else is likely to work. If there were enough rental apartments that lower income people could afford and/or if the incomes of poor people (from jobs or social assistance) were high enough, we would not have very many unhoused people in Canada. Whatever other problems people without housing face, adequate, stable and affordable housing is a prerequisite to solving them. Once people have housing, the rest of their life can improve. Adequate housing is a necessary, though not always a sufficient, solution to the problem. We must move beyond providing more emergency shelter beds, more sleeping bags, and more drop-in centres. Everyone needs a private adequate place of their own. The problem cannot be solved until people without housing have settled into a stable and adequate place to live. They can then devote more time to addressing other problems they face and society can better target the non-housing forms of assistance some may require so as help them remain in their housing and become productive members of society. Prevention is also a key part of the solution. Each metropolitan area is slightly different in terms of how the local housing, employment and real estate markets work, and the nature of the municipal and provincial services and regulations. How and why people become unhoused can be identified and a range of preventative measures can be instituted to prevent further dehousing. People who need to move back into the housing market, but who can only do so with help, must be given the opportunity to receive the support they need. We must have a national strategy to address and prevent the problem of any Canadians finding themselves without a place to live. We must also have local strategies which complement and implement the national strategy. The national and local strategies must address a range of issues including: preventative measures; rental housing market options; social housing options; adequate social assistance benefits; job training and employment options; effective prevention of discrimination in the housing and job markets; specialized services for people with mental illness, chemical dependencies and other personal problems; and adequate settlement services for newcomers (immigrants, refugees and migrants). In short, change needs to be made in the processes, national and local, which lead to dehousing and which make rehousing difficult. Without such change, there is no long-term prevention and there is no solution. Though there are no quick and easy solutions, effective progress can be made in numerous specific ways. As these are implemented the number of people losing their housing and the numbers requiring rehousing will decline. Raising the Roof is dedicated to working with and encouraging involvement from governments, businesses, community and faith groups, service providers and homeless people to work on both developing the overall strategies and implementing the specific solutions that will help end homelessness in Canada.
|
        Community initiatives are providing solutions. Read about them and how we are making an impact.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
 |
 |