Last week, I was in Yellowknife, where I released results of new research on affordable housing in the Northwest Territories (NWT). The research project was sponsored by the Social Economy Research Network of Northern Canada, and was a collaboration with the Centre for Northern Families.

Research findings include the following:

• Housing indicators suggest that the state of housing in the NWT (especially in small communities) is much worse than in the rest of Canada. While 2% of Canadians report living in “crowded conditions,” that figure is 8% for rural NWT. And while 8% of Canadian households report living in housing that requires major repairs, the figure is 22% for rural NWT.


• Housing is more expensive to both build and maintain in the NWT than in the rest of Canada, and there are three main reasons for this.  First, building costs are higher in most parts of the North, especially areas that do not have road access; building costs on the Arctic Coast are roughly $300 per square foot, which is roughly double the cost in some other parts of the NWT.  Second, utility costs (i.e. electricity, fuel, water) in the NWT, for the average household, are more than double the Canadian average. Third, there is a considerable amount of poverty in the NWT, especially in small communities, meaning that a large proportion of households in the NWT require public housing, which is a relatively expensive form of government-assisted housing. (Public housing requires a very deep subsidy–i.e. as much as $20,000 per unit, per year, in the NWT–for the operation and maintenance of that unit. Among other things, this subsidy covers fuel, power and water.)


• Due to many of the above factors, the Government of the NWT pays considerably more on housing than a ‘typical Canadian province.’ While the average province pays $61 per capita on housing, the Government of the NWT pays $1,672. Ergo: the Government of the NWT pays more than 25 times per capita on housing than what is the norm for a Canadian province.


• In light of the above, the NWT is very reliant on federal funding for the building, operation and maintenance of housing. But across Canada, federal funding agreements for housing (most of which began in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and which typically last between 35 and 50 years) are starting to expire.  In the NWT, all federal funding commitments of this nature will completely expire by 2038. In the NWT, in the absence of new agreements with the federal government, roughly half of all public housing units will disappear by 2038. Put differently, the issue of expiring operating agreements is very significant throughout Canada, including in Toronto, but even more pressing in the NWT.


• The research results, which appear as a chapter in the 2011-2012 edition of How Ottawa Spends, suggest that a long-term, permanent commitment is required by the federal government in order to sustain housing in the NWT.  The chapter argues that it’s more cost effective for the federal government to reinvest the savings it accrues (as current agreements run out) into fixing already-existing housing, than it would be to allow current units to disappear completely and to then rebuild from scratch. (This general argument has been made before by Steve Pomeroy in the following report, commissioned by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association.)

All of the information relating to last week’s launch of the research can be found here, including a PowerPoint presentation I gave in Yellowknife on Thursday, and plain-language summaries of both my chapter and that of Dr. Frances Abele (who supervised this research and has a chapter of her own in the same publication on the federal government’s northern strategy).

This post originally appeared in The Progressive Economics Forum

Nick Falvo is a PhD Candidate at Carleton University’s School of Public Policy and Administration. He also teaches a course on affordable housing and homelessness at Carleton's School of Social Work. His research interests include homelessness, affordable housing, social assistance, social development in Canada's North and post-secondary education. Under the supervision of Dr. Frances Abele, he is currently the main researcher on two studies looking at affordable housing in Canada's North—one looks at the Northwest Territories and is a partnership with the Centre for Northern Families, the other focuses on the Yukon and is a partnership with the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition.  Prior to his doctoral studies, Nick worked for 10 years as a front-line community worker with homeless persons in Toronto.

Homelessness continues to be a visible problem in most Canadian cities.  I would say most Canadians, when they think about how we respond to homelessness, would consider emergency shelters, drop-ins and soup kitchens – charitable programs set up to shelter and protect people while they are homeless – as central to our response.

But what about policing and law enforcement?  What about the issuing of tickets and fines for panhandling or sleeping in parks?  Such practices, which essentially criminalize homelessness, are every bit as central to our response.

At a time when the growing divide between rich and poor is in the spotlight, how we choose to deal with society’s most vulnerable – the people who occupy our streets not by choice but by necessity – is important to consider.  The criminalization of homelessness runs counter to the “Canadian way.” It is out of line with our principles as a just and civilized society.

Two reports that highlight the downside of criminalizing homelessness in Canada have been released this week.  “Can I See Your ID?  The Policing of Youth Homelessness in Toronto” (Bill O’Grady, Stephen Gaetz, Kristy Buccieri) and “La judiciarisation des personnes en situation d’itinérance à Québec : point de vue des acteurs socio-judiciaires et analyse du phénomène” (Dominique Bernier, Céline Bellot, Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Catherine Chesnay) both explore the impact of policing on homelessness. The first report, Can I See Your ID, reveals that despite strong evidence that panhandling and squeegeeing have declined over the past ten years, the amount of tickets issued under Ontario’s Safe Streets Act has increased exponentially, rising from 780 issued in 2000, to over 15,000 in 2010.  All this has left homeless people with an accumulated debt of over $4 million dollars.

Interviews with street youth reveal that they receive a huge amount of attention from police, not only in the form of tickets, but also through regular ‘stop and searches’. This attention is not limited to those who are criminally involved – the evidence is clear, street youth are being subject to social profiling.  In particular, being young, male and visibly homeless in downtown Toronto means you are very likely to have regular encounters with police.  The second report also documents consistent practices of criminalizing homelessness across seven Canadian cities (Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, and Halifax).

How does any of this make sense?  Issuing fines to people with little or no money does not help them move forward with their lives. It alienates and traumatizes an already marginalized population and makes moving out of homelessness that much more difficult.  Ample research from the United States highlights the negative impact of criminalizing homelessness (Culhane 2010; Ruddick, 1996; NLCHP, 2006; 2009).  While we often consider the use of law enforcement – including both policing and incarceration – as a characteristically ‘American’ response to poverty, we need to accept and realize that we do the same thing in Canada (Hermer & Mosher, 2002; Sommers, 2005; Sylvestre, 2010).  Whether this means creating new laws that target homeless persons, (banning panhandling or sleeping in parks), or simply using existing laws in a disproportionate or discriminatory manner, (tickets for drinking in public, jaywalking etc.), the goal is to harass people who are homeless so they stay away from public places – spaces that we are all entitled to use.  The outcome of all this is debt, a greater likelihood of going to jail, and the outright violation of the rights of Canadian citizens.

In recent years, several Canadian studies have highlighted the bidirectional relationship between homelessness and prison (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2006, 2009; Novac, Hermer, Paradis and Kellen, 2007; Kellen et al., 2010).  That is, being homeless means you are more likely to go to prison, and prisoners – unless they receive effective discharge planning and supports, are more likely to become homeless.

All of this raises important questions. If people are afraid of those who are homeless, should the police intervene?  The answer is no.  One might be afraid of someone because of the way they look, their second hand clothes, their ethnic background, or the colour of their skin, but that doesn’t mean they actually pose a real threat.  Using police intervention to respond to public fear that is based on stereotypes and prejudice is unacceptable.  Then why don’t we object when this happens to people who are homeless?

If the general public, business owners and politicians find homeless people annoying or unseemly and don’t want to see them on their streets or sidewalks, is there an obligation for the State to act?  Perhaps there IS an obligation  . . .  but doesn’t it make more sense to address homelessness by ensuring there are the necessary resources and supports (including an adequate supply of affordable housing) to prevent homelessness in the first place or to help people move into permanent housing?  Let’s stop treating the symptom through punishment, and instead let’s go for the cure! 

To read the full reports, visit: 

Can I See Your ID?  The Policing of Youth Homelessness in Toronto 

La judiciarisation des personnes en situation d’itinérance à Québec : point de vue des acteurs socio-judiciaires et analyse du phénomène

In Florida, people are being arrested for giving food to people who are homeless. That’s right, for providing food to malnourished people. The City of Orlando has been targeting Food not Bombs, a community group that, twice a week for the past 5 years, has been providing meals to homeless people in parks. By June 15th of this year, 15 people had been arrested. The penalty for violating the Orlando ordinance is 60 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both. This kind of ridiculous policy and practice raises a couple of issues for me. 



First, we have to address the criminalization of homelessness as a serious problem. Most people don’t consider law enforcement when thinking about our response to homeless. Shelters and day programs are usually what come to mind. But, criminalization of homelessness isn’t just an American issue; we’re equally good at this in Canada. Ontario, for instance, legislated the Safe Streets Act over ten years ago to address panhandling and squeegeeing (many communities across Canada have followed suit), and in Toronto police continue to issue thousands of Safe Streets act tickets (not to mention tickets for other misdemeanors) to people who are homeless and without means to pay the fines. In response to this, there is a growing body of research on ticketing and the use of law enforcement to address homelessness, and the bidirectional relationship between homelessness and prison, that attests to the highly problematic (and unethical) nature of this ‘response’ to homelessness. 



The second issue to consider is the nutritional vulnerability of people who are homeless. While many of us may believe that the nutritional needs of homeless people are met through charitable food services, the reality is quite different. In fact, Val Tarasuk’s research on youth homelessness and nutritional vulnerability shows that it doesn’t matter whether young people get all their food in agencies, or from the proceeds of panhandling, they are quite likely to be malnourished, and this at a time when they are growing and really need appropriate and adequate food. 



A new report from Victoria highlights the link between homelessness and nutritional vulnerability. More than this, the report reminds us that a person’s lack of food isn’t solved once they become housed. In fact, when homeless people do become housed, a large number continue to live in extreme poverty, and after the rent, utilities and other necessities are paid, there is often very little left for food. The use of food banks in Victoria and other communities continues to rise. 



If we want to support people who are homeless in an ethical and humane way, we need to begin by treating them as people. Criminalizing homelessness, and failing to address nutritional needs of particularly vulnerable people is no solution, and this is something no one should be proud of.

I'm in Yellowknife this week for the launch of a policy report on homelessness.  It's the first of several publications coming out of a multi-year research project that looks at affordable housing and homelessness in the Northwest Territories.  The research is being supervised by Dr. Frances Abele (Carleton University) and our community partner is Arlene Haché (Centre for Northern Families).

Here are the top 10 things I learned while preparing this report:

10. Local stakeholders should lead. 

• This project started with Arlene Haché, Executive Director of the Centre for Northern Families and recent recipient of the Order of Canada.  She wanted to see more research done on homelessness in Yellowknife.

9. Researchers work best when they work together. 

• Arlene’s first step was to approach Chris Southcott, a Principal Investigator with the Social Economy Research Network of Northern Canada (SERRNoCa).  They had a team of researchers in place who had already laid the groundwork for a multi-year, multidisciplinary research project in Canada’s North.  They asked me to join the effort.

8. Learn your history!  

• My supervisor on this project, Dr. Frances Abele, made it clear to me from the get-go that, in addition to the present-day analysis, I would also be involved in writing a historical article on government-assisted housing in the Northwest Territories.  No ifs, ands or buts!  You can’t understand the present if you don’t know how we got here.  Stay tuned for news on the release of the historical article, likely next year.

7. In Canada’s North, get a research license! 

• In any of Canada’s territories, even if a researcher has clearance from their university’s research ethics board, they are still required to obtain a “research license” from one of the three research licensing bodies.  In the case of the NWT, this is done through the Aurora Research Institute.  Part of the process involved in obtaining a license includes consultation with the local community, including Aboriginal groups, NGOs and municipalities.

6. Disseminate research in multiple formats.

• A full-length policy report isn’t for everyone.  That’s why my supervisor instructed me to ask Mary McCreadie, formerly of the NWT Literacy Council, to write a plain-language summary of the report.  The summary is longer than the report’s executive summary, shorter than the policy report, and a more straightforward read than either of them.

5. Work with local NGOs. 

• The Yellowknife Homelessness Coalition has provided us with invaluable assistance in planning the public launch of this research, including the booking of Yellowknife City Hall Council Chambers.  And all of the media work around the launch of this report has been coordinated by Alternatives North, a highly-respected social justice organization based in Yellowknife.  Without the assistance of these NGOs, I wouldn’t have the slightest clue about how to get the message out.

4. Engage with government.

• Well before the public launch of this report, Arlene and I requested a meeting with the NWT’s Minister Responsible for Homelessness, along with his Deputy Minister.  That means that by the time this report reaches the media, the Minister will know everything he wants to about it.  The report was also sent to relevant territorial departments for feedback; again, this means there will be no surprises when bureaucrats hear about the results through the media. 

3. Defer to local stakeholders. 

• Once the research findings have been presented, it’s time for local stakeholders to take over the debate.  After Arlene and I present our findings, there will be a panel discussion involving the co-chair of the Yellowknife Homelessness Coalition, a member of the NWT Legislative Assembly, a local ER physician and a senior bureaucrat in the NWT government. 

2. Use the Internet. 

• The role of the folks at the Homeless Hub has been invaluable.  You wouldn’t be reading about any of this if it weren’t for them!  What’s more, the public launch of this report is being recorded by a member of the SERRNoCa research team; and everyone speaking on the panel will be asked to sign consent forms.  The video recording will then be uploaded to the Internet.

And, the number 1 thing I’ve learned about research through this effort is…

Don’t compete with other researchers. 

• It just so happens that another PhD student Julia Christensen (a Trudeau Scholar no less!) is actively engaged with homelessness research in the NWT.  Rather than compete, Julia and I hope to one day collaborate together on a journal article that brings together two (non-competing) perspectives.

To access the full report, see: Homelessness in Yellowknife: An Emerging Social Challenge

Nick Falvo is a PhD Candidate at Carleton University’s School of Public Policy and Administration. He also teaches a course on affordable housing and homelessness at Carleton's School of Social Work. His research interests include homelessness, affordable housing, social assistance, social development in Canada's North and post-secondary education. Under the supervision of Dr. Frances Abele, he is currently the main researcher on a three-year study looking at homelessness and affordable housing in the Northwest Territories—a partnership with the Centre for Northern Families. Prior to his doctoral studies, Nick worked for 10 years as a front-line community worker with homeless persons in Toronto.

So, what do you think of when you see a kid on the street? What crosses your mind? Is he or she a runaway? A dropout? A kid looking for kicks? Is it a young person fleeing abuse at home? Usually, when we think of teenagers, we also think of them in relation to family. They’re young, so they must have parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, right? But in that moment of contact when you see them sitting on the sidewalk often looking unkept, cold and hungry, family is nowhere to be seen. What comes to my mind when I encounter a homeless youth is that they must be running away from something; something that has clearly gone very wrong.

As a mother, my instinct is that they are vulnerable and need care, and I often wonder how they ended up on the street. I think about whether there is any possibility of reconciling with their families and going home. I also wonder how agencies that serve street youth support them, and what if any efforts are made to help young people reconnect with families? I say this fully cognizant of the fact that many young people are forced to leave very difficult home lives characterized by violence and abuse, and going back may not even be possible.

Our new report, Family Matters (co-authored by Stephen Gaetz and Tara Patton), looks at the experiences of homeless youth and the efforts of Family Reconnect, a unique program delivered through Eva’s Initiatives. Through assessment, counseling and help that allows young people to access appropriate services and supports, the Family Reconnect team work to help young people address underlying conflicts within their families, and hopefully improve relationships to the point that they are able to return home, or move into the community, ideally with family support. Family reconnection can mean making contact with a mom or dad, but also an uncle, aunt, sibling or grandparent. If contact is not possible or desired by a young person, Family Reconnect counselors can help youth come to terms with this reality and move forward with their lives in a healthy and productive way.

Our research demonstrates that for many homeless youth and those at risk of homelessness, family does matter. We have found that not only do youth express the desire to improve relations with family, but that often the problems that forced these kids to leave home have more to do with family member’s struggles with mental health, abuse, poverty and/or addictions, rather than with the problems of the youth themselves. We also found that in many cases, family members couldn’t cope with the challenges of undiagnosed learning or mental health issues of youth, and this can often lead to youth homelessness.

Providing youth and their families with needed support and counseling can lead to the early identification of underlying issues and challenges. From there, the necessary supports can lay the foundation for potential reconciliation with family or community, or allow the young person to move towards independent living in a safe and planned way.

The report also highlights the importance of prevention as a key strategy to addressing youth homelessness. In countries like Australia and the United Kingdom, their response to youth homelessness stresses preventive strategies, including programs in schools to help identify and support young people at risk, early intervention programs that include family mediation, counseling and support, and respite housing to give young people and their families a ‘time out’ period in the midst of a heated conflict. This preventive orientation makes a lot of sense and appears to be very effective in providing young people and their families with the supports they need.

Unfortunately in Canada, preventive programs like Family Reconnect are the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, our response to youth homelessness is characterized by the provision of emergency services such as shelters and day programs. As good as many of these programs are, they tend to focus on helping young people become self-sufficient instead of considering the benefits of helping young people reconnect with family. That is, from this perspective, the family is seen only as part of a young person’s past, not as part of their future. In this report, we propose a radical rethinking of the way we respond to youth homelessness in Canada; one that places prevention and family reconnection at the centre of our response. This is not a cynical appeal to ‘family values’. Rather, it is a call to consider the role that family reconnection can play in helping young people avoid homelessness, and support those who are homeless in moving off the streets as quickly as possible. Have a look at the report. Now what will come to mind the next you cross paths with a homeless youth? Don’t you agree that this kind of reform is necessary?

To access the full report, see:  Family Matters: Homeless Youth & Eva's Initiative's Family Reconnect Program

Daphne Winland is Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director for the Department of Anthropology at York University.

Many jurisdictions in Canada have begun to recognize the value of harm reduction and have developed innovative and effective programs to deal with the harms of substance use and addiction.  For example, there are over 30 studies that support the effectiveness of Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site, as reducing the harm associated with injection drug use.  Harm reduction works because it gives people choice, counters stigma associated with drug use, acknowledges that drug use is part of our history as a society, and that reducing harms instead of eliminating use can make people and communities safer and healthier.  Recognizing the value of harm reduction can be seen in the inclusion of harm reduction in strategies related to mental health promotion and addictions care as well as public health programs and services oriented to preventing the harms of substance use. However, there has not been much discussion of the role harm reduction plays in ending homelessness. 

Harm reduction is a key principle of Housing First programs.  Housing First separates the right to housing from conditions such as acceptance of treatment or sobriety.  Recently, the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness contracted Scientists at Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia to develop a paper that outlines the role of harm reduction as part of a strategic plan to end homelessness.  The cornerstones of this policy framework are social inclusion and the provision of permanent affordable housing.  Permanent housing is essential to reducing the harms of homelessness and substance use. For example, lack of housing increases the harms of substance use including the risk of blood borne diseases and premature death.  The need for permanent affordable housing and policies of client inclusion in the development of policies and programs are complemented by a series of six other strategic directions that outline the necessary elements of a housing and harm reduction strategy. 

This framework recognizes that ‘one size does not fit all’ and that a variety of approaches are needed in the provision of housing and supports.  A housing and harm reduction policy framework includes a range of housing options that place client choice at the center. The proposed policy framework widens the range of housing options to include  low barrier housing where drugs and alcohol are tolerated  to living in buildings where alcohol and drug use is prohibited. Low-barrier housing has the same requirements of tenants in any other rental situation: pay the rent, don’t destroy property and don’t behave in ways that will harm or disturb other tenants. The framework recommends a number of options for integrating housing and harm reduction. For example: the Dr. Peter Centre in Vancouver has  integrated harm reduction philosophy and services such as supervised injection into the provision of housing and supports for people with HIV/AIDS and injecting drug use. Community harm reduction services are important for those living in market housing. 

The strategies recommended in the frame work are consistent with current evidence and have been shown in other cities to reduce the harms of drug use as well as health and social costs. For example, the provision of low barrier housing to people with long term chronic homelessness and alcohol problems significantly reduced, health, policing, social service and justice costs in Seattle. A policy framework is an initial first step and it plays a role in bringing people together around new understandings of what we ought to do. The next step is doing the right things for citizens and communities.

To access the full policy framework, see: Housing and Harm Reduction: A Policy Framework for Greater Victoria

Bernie Pauly RN, Ph.D is an Associate Professor in the School of Nursing and a Scientist in the Centre for Addictions Research of BC at the University of Victoria.

By Stephen Hwang & Emily Holton

For the first time in Canada, we have the numbers to show that people who are vulnerably housed face the same severe health problems - and danger of assault - as people who are homeless. This means that the number of people experiencing the devastating health outcomes associated with inadequate housing could be staggering. There are about 17,000 shelter beds available across Canada every night, but almost 400,000 Canadians are vulnerably housed. This means that for each person who is homeless in Canada, there are more than 20 other low-income individuals who are vulnerably housed - paying more than half of their monthly income for rent, and living with substantial risk of becoming homeless. We’ve shed light on a hidden emergency.

For the Health and Housing in Transition (HHiT) study, we interviewed 1200 vulnerably housed and homeless single adults in Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa. The results were disturbing. People who don’t have a healthy place to live - regardless of whether they’re vulnerably housed or homeless - are at high risk of serious physical and mental health problems and major problems accessing the health care they need. Many end up hospitalized or in the emergency department. Almost half (40%) of people who don’t have a healthy place to live have been assaulted at least once in the past year, and 1 in 3 (33%) have trouble getting enough to eat.

Check out the report on our early findings here: Housing Vulnerability and Health: Canada’s Hidden Emergency. We’re presenting it today at National Housing Day in Ottawa. Over the next two years, the HHiT study will continue to track the health and housing status of our participants. The results will help us better understand how changes in housing status can affect health. They will also help us to identify factors that help people achieve stable, healthy housing.

Having a roof over one’s head is not enough. The HHiT results showed us that the real gulf in health outcomes doesn’t lie between people who are homeless and people who aren’t homeless. It’s between those who have continued access to healthy housing, and those who don’t. To support health, housing must be decent (i.e. good quality), stable (i.e. affordable), and appropriate to its residents’ needs. We’re calling for the federal government to respond by setting national housing standards that ensure universal, timely access to healthy housing. The need is overwhelming.

Stephen Hwang's primary appointment is in the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto, with cross-appointments in the Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation. His research focuses on deepening our understanding of the relationship between homelessness, housing, and health through epidemiologic studies, health services research, and longitudinal cohort studies. His current research projects include a study of predictors of health care utilization in a representative sample of 1,200 homeless men, women, and families in Toronto, a study of the barriers to the management of chronic pain among homeless people, and an evaluation of the effects of a supportive housing program on health and health care utilization among homeless and hard-to-house individuals.

Emily Holton is a research writer and knowledge transfer specialist at the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital.

Would you be outraged if your child was exposed to violence?  Would your community consider this unacceptable? 

That’s what I thought.

Then why do we, as a society, tolerate this when it comes to homeless youth?

In 2009, Bill O’Grady and I interviewed 244 homeless youth in Toronto.  We asked them about their life on the streets and if they’d ever been a victim of crime.  What we found was astounding and we’ve documented it in our report: Surviving Crime and Violence: Street Youth Victimization in Toronto (2010).

People tend to think of homeless youth as trouble makers and delinquents; as perpetrators of crime rather than victims.  But that’s not what we found.  In reality, street youth are often the victims of violent crime.  This is mainly because of the vulnerability they face by not having a home.  To make matters worse, we found that this victimization isn’t really being addressed by the police or the courts. 

Here are some of the Key findings from our research:

• When young people become homeless, they are much more likely than youth with homes to be victims of crime and violence.
• Young women in particular are much more likely to be victimized, and report high levels of sexual assault and partner abuse.
• The younger you are, and the earlier you leave home, the more vulnerable you are to criminal victimization.
• The solution to this problem lies in changing the way we address youth homelessness.

If the levels of violence and crime found in our study were experienced by any other group in Canada, there would be immediate public outrage and pressure for the government to take action. Street youth deserve that same level of outrage directed toward their personal safety. They deserve the same response that any other group in Canada is entitled to.

I have written about this subject before, and with this new research, I am even more convinced that our current response to youth homelessness is not working. There is no doubt that being homeless puts young people at a high risk for violence and crime, and that we should be doing anything and everything we can to give young people the safety and support they need to get off the streets.

For street youth to have an opportunity to move forward in life, they need to be safe and protected from all forms of crime. Having a roof over ones head should not be a factor here and we need to press our government to make changes so that young people who become homeless have real options.

You can find the report, which includes our findings, recommendations and much more on the Homeless Hub.

Stephen Gaetz talks about street youth as victims of crime. Watch the video

Listen to Stephen's interview with CBC Metro Morning.

Surviving Crime and Violence: Street Youth Victimization in Toronto was created for Justice for Children and Youth and was written by Stephen Gaetz, Bill O’Grady and Kristy Buccieri.

Just when I think I've got a debate resolved in my head, new research comes along and makes me think again. I'd like to put a question to blog readers... Last year, I wrote

Last year, I wrote a policy paper on the Housing First model of rapid rehousing of the homeless.

In the paper, I argue that the Housing First model, unlike the "treatment first" model, does not require homeless people to go through a transition to "housing readiness" (i.e. learning money-management skills, learning life skills, following the treatment plan of a psychiatrist, etc.).  Instead, the Housing First approach provides homeless persons with almost immediate access to permanent housing.

In the paper, I also argue that the academic literature on Housing First is very positive, demonstrating that Housing First appears to work very well for up to 90 percent of people it tries to house.

Moreover, I argue in the paper that in just a one-year span in the lead-up to the publication of my paper, staff from Toronto's Housing First program (known as "Streets to Homes," or S2H for short) had travelled to 23 different Canadian cities to discuss the program with local officials.

Furthermore, Regina, Ottawa, Grand Prairie, Lethbridge, Calgary and Edmonton had all sent contingents of staff to Toronto to learn from S2H officials.

Finally, Lethbridge, Sudbury, Ottawa and London already have Housing First programs in place, and Edmonton and Victoria expected to have Housing Fierst programs in place in the very near future.

In short, while homelessness policy wonks had spent decades debating whether homeless persons could in fact be housed, the debate now appears to be over.  Indeed, it now seems rather clear to most that, provided there's a suitable affordable housing unit for the person to go to (and that is not always the case in Housing First programs, as I argue in Section 5.2 of my paper), we now accept that the problem of homelessness can best be solved by providing housing to the homeless as quickly as possible.

No more policy conundrum, right?

Enter a new report that I recently discovered while perusing the Homeless Hub.  In said report, four researchers (Adam Fair, Hollis Moore, Jennifer Robson and Barb Gosse) report on results from the Independent Living Account (ILA) project of Social Enterprise Development Innovations (SEDI).  According to the report, ILA assists "residents of Toronto shelter system to save, build life skills and subsequently move into their own place."

According to the new report

"The ILA model was designed to test the effectiveness of matched saving incentives in supporting individuals living in the shelter system to save for expenses related to moving out on their own. Participants enrolled in the ILA are provided with assistance to open a bank account and start saving. To incentivize this saving, SEDI offered a virtual $3 in match credits for each $1 saved, up to a maximum personal savings of $400. Participants are also required to work with a case manager on a savings plan and attend a financial literacy workshop which lasts approximately 12 hours. If a participant meets all of the program requirements they are eligible to use their credits, combined with their own savings, to pay for first and last month’s rent, utility hook up, moving expenses as well as supports to employment."

The report goes on to say

"The results suggest a conservative estimate of a $2.19 return for each $1 of project costs within the first year following project graduation. It is also worth noting that the analysis of the base case (existing environment) estimates a negative return of nearly -$0.74 for each $1 invested in the current system of support for those moving through the housing continuum to exit homelessness. This result clearly illustrates the investment potential created by the ILA model."

While I don't see a direct contradiction between Housing First and the ILA approach, I do see an inconsistency.

I believe it was Confucius who said "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

Housing First says:

1. give homeless persons keys to housing unit ASAP; and
2. have Housing First staff work with the person's income support office to cut out the bureaucratic red tape so that the person can move right into housing ASAP.  In other words: give the man the fish and, no disrespect intended to Confucius, but he'll keep fishin'.

The ILA approach says:

1. teach the homeless person financial literacy skills with some matching funds/incentives; and 
2. when they put aside sufficient money, they can move into a new unit.  In other words, teach the man to fish.

So, my question for blog readers is: how do we reconcile the successes of Housing First with the successes of the ILA project?

Nick Falvo is a PhD Candidate at Carleton University’s School of Public Policy and Administration (Ottawa, Canada). He is the author of several policy papers on homelessness and affordable housing. A frequent guest lecturer at Canadian universities, his research interests include homelessness, affordable housing, child benefits, social assistance and program evaluation. Under the supervision of Prof. Frances Abele, he is currently the main researcher on a three-year study exploring homelessness and affordable housing in Canada’s North—a partnership with the Centre for Northern Families. Prior to his doctoral studies, Mr. Falvo was a Parliamentary Intern at the Parliament of Canada and worked for 10 years as a front-line community worker with homeless persons in Toronto.