Research Matters Blog

York University; The Homeless Hub
July 30, 2014

This week’s Infographic Wednesday post is on the subject of unmet requests for domestic violence services, as per the National Network to End Domestic Violence’s (NNEDV) Domestic Violence (DV) Counts Census infographic and its corresponding report Domestic Violence 2013: A 24-Hour Census of Domestic Violence Shelters and Services, which are both supported by the Avon Foundation.

On September 17, 2013, the NNEDV performed for its “eighth consecutive year,” its “National Census of Domestic Violence Services (Census), a one-day, unduplicated snapshot of the number of individuals who accessed domestic violence services, the types of services they requested, and the stories and experiences of survivors and advocates.”  The snapshot took into account 1,649 of the 1,905 “domestic violence programs and shelters identifiable” across the United States (including its territories) and found that on this date, 66,581 adults and children accessed “services from domestic violence programs.”

The NNEDV noted that on the Census Day:

  • 98% of local programs offered “Individual Support or Advocacy” services.
  • 84% of local programs offered “Children’s Support or Advocacy” services.
  • 77% of local programs offered emergency shelter services.
  • 58% of local programs offered “Court Advocacy/Legal Accompaniment” services.
  • 58% of local programs offered transportation services (i.e. many victims fleeing domestic violence lack transportation, especially those residing in rural areas).
  • 53% of local programs offered “Group Support or Advocacy” services.

While many survivors were able to get the assistance they required, 9,641 service requests regretfully went unmet (which were largely requests for shelter) “due to a lack of resources.”

NNEDV noted that:

  • “42% of unmet requests were for emergency shelter.”
  • “18% of unmet requests were for transitional housing.”
  • “40% of unmet requests were for non-residential services.”

Typically, when survivors flee an abusive situation, finding safe refuge is the most immediate concern, and it continues to remain important as service users shift from first needing emergency shelters to requiring transitional housing, which the NNEDV explains as: “[T]emporary accommodation designed as a stepping stone between crisis and long-term safety and self-sufficiency.”

Unfortunately, since there exists a severe shortage of affordable housing, achieving long-term independent housing “can take 6 to 10 months or more,” meaning that in the absence of transitional housing and other supports (i.e. being able to stay with friends, family members, etc.), many survivors, especially those from “isolated or marginalized communities,” are left with two extreme and undesirable options: (1) Return to the abusive situation, risking further violence; or (2) Become homeless. In fact, the NNEDV’s Census report noted that “When asked what most often happens to survivors when programs are not able to meet their requests for services, 60% of local programs report that victims return to the abuser, and 27% said that they become homeless.” Additionally, 11% noted that “victims end up living in their car.”

10,000 unmet requests for domestic violence services

Clearly there is a link between domestic violence and homelessness, so, why were there nearly 10,000 unmet domestic violence services requests? According to the participants in the Census:

  • 27% believed unmet requests were due to “Reduced government funding.”
  • 20% noted organizations being understaffed as a cause, given that “1,696 staff positions were eliminated in the past year,” of which most were “direct service providers, such as shelter staff or legal advocates.”
  • 12% identified a decrease in private funding.
  • 10% referenced declining individual donations, which covered costs such as hotel/motel stays when local shelters have reach capacity – due to funding cuts, “149 programs had to eliminate these services.”

Due to the reasons just stated, many programs have been left with no option but to reduce services, while some have even had to permanently close down. Even more troubling, perhaps, is that along with this decline is an increase in the demand for domestic violence supports in general. Essentially, if we are to combat the issue of unmet domestic violence service requests, a multifaceted approach involving “funders, policy makers, victim advocates, social service providers, law enforcement, courts, and communities” is needed – “don’t let the conversation end here”!

York Universty
July 28, 2014
Categories: Solutions

Obtaining a high school education is an expectation in Canadian society, established by way of both societal norms and governmental policy. In most provinces, youth are required to be enrolled in school until at least the age of 16. Beyond high school, the expansion of the ‘knowledge economy’ has resulted in a push for post-secondary education as the pathway to gainful employment.

Image of a text bookIndividuals who lack formal education are at a higher risk for unemployment or underemployment than their educated counterparts.  Barriers are often created in obtaining employment, or even accessing services, for those with low levels of literacy or who speak English/French as a second language. For many people (especially youth) their homelessness caused them to leave the educational system. Obtaining a GED is a potential option for a homeless individual who doesn’t have a high school diploma but challenges of preparing for it, having the needed identification and being able to afford the test present barriers to achievement.

Homeless youth in particular are an overly vulnerable population with respect to the acquisition of formal education. Many homeless youth struggle to gain continuous access to education, and most do not have a high school diploma. For instance, in Ottawa and Toronto, “between 63% and 90% of homeless youth have not graduated from high school despite being of age to have done so” (Canada Mortgage and Housing Association, 2001). Many factors contribute to their absence from formal schooling including: interruptions to regular attendance as a result of instable housing, practical issues related to shelter life, including proximity to schools and health issues including (but not limited to) stress. Other homeless youth are unable to remain in school for financial reasons, as monetary income takes precedence over school attendance.

Educational challenges also exist for children in families experiencing homelessness.  Sometimes families are required to move to family shelters or motels that are a great distance from their home school. This results in a change of schools or intensive efforts on behalf of the family to travel back and forth to the child’s old school.

Meeting the educational needs of people who experience homelessness is a challenge that must be addressed by researchers, policy makers and service providers. 

Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub; York University
July 25, 2014
Categories: Ask the Hub

In reference to this story of a man experiencing homelessness who was attacked in Cape Breton my friend Stephanie H. posted this on Facebook.

“My blood pressure has gone up significantly. Where do people get off feeling like they are so superior that they can commit such an act? My heart aches when I read stories like this...I just don't get how people feel that their life is any more significant than someone else's. Why could that person not just have carried on their business? Ah people just don't make any sense to me sometimes.”

While I assumed she meant this as a rhetorical question, I do have some thoughts for her.

Cardboard sign reads"Seeking human kindness"Stephanie, I find people are afraid of what they can’t control and what they fear becoming. It seems so easy to pick on people who we (as individuals or a society) view as “less than”. People who hold the power (or feel that they do) take out their fears (and often their own personal, unrelated frustrations) on someone they feel superior to. This is common with bullies – bigger kids picking on little kids, people being picked on because of appearance, race, sexual orientation etc.

I noticed this happening even when I worked in shelters and drop-ins; people would pick on others. Newcomers were called “bugs” until they earned tenure and status. Then they would perpetuate the cycle. This is common in society. Children who are abused sometimes grow up to be abusers. It’s what they follow as an example. Kids learn from their parents, media, schools etc.  When they see certain segments of society or groups of people constantly being demeaned or discriminated against, they follow along.

I think, like the many cases of gay-bashing caused by internalized homophobia, people who hurt or bully people experiencing homelessness are afraid it could happen to them. So many Canadians live just one paycheque away from homelessness, or exist in cases of extreme housing need. It scares them and they lash out.

People who experience homeless are more likely to be victimized than housed people. They’re more likely to be physically assaulted, and for women especially, sexually assaulted. Violence is common, murder isn’t rare. There are lots of examples – I’m more familiar with the cases in Toronto such as Paul Croutch and Bly “California” Markis – but they exist everywhere. Even things like Bum Fights or the Calgary Creature Hunting/Sightings videos show the utter disregard that some people have for the homeless and indeed, can lead to more violence.

There is also a perception, that “no one cares” about people living on the streets. Gary Ridgway, aka the Green River Killer and Robert Pickton in Vancouver, both killed large numbers of sex workers and street-involved women. It took significant effort for the “trend” of missing women in both locales to be recognized and taken seriously by police. The hundreds, if not thousands, of missing Aboriginal women and the Highway of Tears, clearly show that this continues. If 500 young, employed, housed, white women went missing in the same stretch of time there would be intense police action. Even if 100…50…25…1…

So what do we do?

There is a great trend, started by a Canadian student Josh Stern of a type of pay it forward concept called #FeedtheDeed. It was based on the trend of tagging of people in social media to post pictures or videos of themselves doing something stupid. Instead, this student (there is a great article in this month’s Reader’s Digest about it) decided to start doing nice things instead. Videos, photos, posters with the #FeedTheDeed hashtag help promote a cycle of good.

These types of stories, like the guy who gives a homeless person a “winning” lottery ticket, and later crowdfunds him a house, or 17 year old Hannah Taylor who founded the Ladybug Foundation as a child or 12 year old Robby Eimers serving food to the homeless in Detroit show that we can change the way homelessness is viewed.

But it’s really up to all of us. Those of us who recognize that people are usually homeless because of structural barriers or system failures rather than personal issues or failures need to educate others. We need to speak up and speak out. We need to point out the injustices that exist. We need to stop the bullying and we need to demand action and justice. And we need to end homelessness. We need to recognize that being housed is an inherent part of human dignity.

Doing good can change the world – Eric (the homeless man helped in the first lottery and home videos) pays it forward himself for another person experiencing homelessness.

Image from Wikimedia Commons.

This post is part of our Friday "Ask the Hub" blog series. Have a homeless-related question you want answered? E-mail us at thehub@edu.yorku.ca and we will provide a research-based answer.

A common misconception that pervades discourse about causes of homelessness and poor households is the belief that individuals live in poverty because they choose to be unemployed. Time and time again, research has shown that this is simply not the case. Perhaps a more important question to ask is: does poverty persist in households where individuals are employed?

Infographic: A Job Doesn't Guarantee Freedom from Poverty

The infographic above, published by the Citizens for Public Justice, answers this question. A job alone does not guarantee freedom from poverty. In fact, in 2012, at least one member of the household was employed in a staggering 44% of all poor households. Even in situations where an individual is employed, there may still be the need for income supplements, as well as educational and employment supports.

This is partially because of the monumental changes that have occurred in the Canadian marketplace. The growing trend that continues to emerge is precarious employment: a decline in the number of well-paid jobs, and an increase in both lower-paying jobs and temporary employment. The infographic provides an example of how an individual working part-time, at minimum wage, falls below the poverty line. Temporary employment, by its very nature, often results in incomes that are unpredictable, making households more prone to suffering from fluctuations in income. In households where families and individuals are living paycheque to paycheque, these trends are direct contributors to family poverty.

Income supplements are essential to lifting families above the poverty line. While the idea of implementing guaranteed annual incomes (GAIs) has been around for decades, it has recently resurged as a result of the rising costs associated with dealing with the symptoms of poverty rather than its causes. GAI refers to various proposals that look to implement a guaranteed minimum income for Canadians, related to the concept of a negative income tax. GAIs will provide struggling Canadians with some security from income shock. The most common criticism associated with GAIs is that such models would act as a disincentive to work. Emery, Fleisch and McIntyre argue that this doesn’t mean a GAI scheme for Canada should be rejected, instead this only means that the uncertainty over GAIs should be “used to guide a phased-in introduction of a GAI with the intent of determining the extent of the ultimate coverage of the scheme."

Educational and employment supports work hand in hand to support communities across Canada. Educational supports can help provide individuals with specialized skills that are easier to market. Employment supports, in turn, can help these same individuals improve their chances of finding a well-paid stable job.

It's important to keep in mind that employment percentages on their own are unlikely to be a clear indicator of what causes homelessness. Details about the nature of employment, and the income generated from employment are far more useful metrics. A recent paper, published by the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, posits household food insecurity as a useful consumption-based indicator of both poverty and lack of insurance against income shocks. Just as the causes for poverty in Canada are multidimensional, solutions in turn have to be multidimensional and have to account for more than just one metric.

Carleton University
July 22, 2014

The Yukon Government recently announced that it will not proceed with a plan to disburse $11.7 million in federal housing dollars to for-profit developers, which would have helped build approximately 100 new rental housing units in Whitehorse.  In justifying the surprise decision, the Pasloski government used the pretext that proceeding with the plan would be unfair to other for-profit developers struggling to develop housing without the help of government funding.
 
Whitehorse looking southerly 1924Here are 10 things to know about this situation:
 
1. Historically in Canada, very little affordable housing―that is, housing that very low-income households can afford―has been built without federal funding.  However, when the federal government does provide financial assistance targeted to housing for very low-income households, such housing gets built (typically with matching funding from provinces and territories).  In periods when the federal government has not provided financial assistance (especially during the mid- to late-1990s) such housing usually does not get built.

2. Since roughly the 1980s, for-profit developers across Canada have generally not found it lucrative to develop rental housing—this is the case even for housing for middle income tenants (never mind for very low-income tenants).  Indeed, when purpose-built rental housing was developed in earnest by for-profit developers in Ontario throughout the 1960s and 1970s, this was done was with the help of federal tax measures such as the Multiple Unit Residential Building tax subsidy, the Assisted Rental Program and the Canadian Rental Supply Program.

3. Once upon a time, a Yukon Member of Parliament had a major role in recommending that the federal government terminate financial assistance to for-profit developers.  In the mid-1980s, at the onset of neoliberalism, the Task Force on Program Review (chaired by the Yukon’s own Erik Nielson) recommended that the federal government do away with rental assistance for for-profit landlords.  This advice was heeded, and since that time there was been very little federal assistance provided to for-profit landlords in Canada.

4. The federal funding that is currently being discussed (i.e. the $11.7 million) was born out of a ‘budget deal’ made between Paul Martin and Jack Layton.  In 2005, with the federal Liberals in a minority situation in the House of Commons, the federal NDP caucus agreed to support the Liberal budget provided it met several conditions, including $1.6 billion for housing; Yukon’s share was a lump sum of $50 million.  In 2006, most of the $1.6 billion was transferred from federal coffers to provincial and territorial finance departments.  In the intervening years, the Yukon Government has spent most of its $50 million (on housing).  The plan for the Yukon’s remaining $11.7 million would have required that the for-profit developers receiving it maintain rent levels at 95% of median rent levels for at least 10 years.  That would have helped middle-income tenants; it would not have provided direct assistance to very low-income households (for example, households receiving social assistance).

5. A lot of people in Yukon lack affordable housing.  Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation considers a Canadian household to be in “core housing need” if, out of necessity, it is either:  a) paying more than 30% of its before-tax income on housing; b) living in housing that requires major repairs; or c) living in housing that has too few bedrooms. In the Yukon, 16% of households are in core housing need; though this rate is lower than in both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, it is higher than in every Canadian province.

6. Federal funding for social housing in the Yukon is declining.   The Yukon Housing Corporation receives funding from the federal government to operate social housing (mostly for very low-income households). This funding covers the operation and maintenance of each unit, including the cost of power, fuel, and water. The funding is subject to operating agreements, most of which were signed several decades ago.  About one-third of the government subsidy needed to operate each unit is covered by the Yukon Government, while the other two-thirds comes from the federal government.  This funding will soon run out.  In fact, as things currently stand, by 2031 there will be no federal operating subsidies at all.  What’s more, the Pasloski government has no plan in place to keep current social housing units operational after these funding agreements expire.

7. When the Yukon Housing Corporation (as opposed to a for-profit firm) develops housing, the key difference is that now a non-profit entity owns and operates the housing.  A key advantage of a non-profit entity owning and operating is that there are very few incentives for those who operate the housing to turn a profit (and therefore few incentives to ‘jack up’ rent levels over the long term).  Staff and board members of the Yukon Housing Corporation, for example, are forbidden from personally profiting from the housing under their purview.  The Yukon Housing Corporation, which has a mandate to provide housing to very low-income tenants, has an incentive to keep rent levels low.  If rent levels were to rise too high, that housing would be put out of reach of its tenants and the territorial government would (rightfully) face a political backlash.  For reasons that remain unclear, the Yukon Government was not planning to have the Housing Corporation own and operate units built with the $11.7 million in question.

8. The Harper government may try to use this recent decision as a political football.  Prime Minister Harper has made it clear that his government would like to both tax less and spend less going forward.  In last fall’s throne speech, the federal government noted: “once the budget is balanced, our Government is committed to greater tax relief for Canadian families.”  With this recent decision by the Yukon Government, the Pasloski government has given Mr. Harper an early Christmas present.  Indeed, when asked by members of opposition parties and advocacy groups what the federal government plans to do improve the housing situation of hundreds of thousands of low-income Canadians, the Prime Minister can simply point to this decision as proof that there is questionable take-up on the federal dollars that have already been put on the table.  This could cause considerable embarrassment for other territorial and provincial governments when they attempt to lobby the Harper government for more housing dollars.

9. One sensible way forward would be to build the units and ‘stack’ some of them with rent supplements.  This $11.7 million can still be spent.  It’s not going anywhere for the time being.  One approach that the Yukon Government could take would be to give this $11.7 million to for-profit developers (as originally planned); allow the for-profit developers to own and operate the units; and ‘stack’ one-third of them with rent supplements, which would be financed by the Yukon Government.  For example, a $350 monthly rent supplement would allow a “single employable” adult on social assistance to live in an $850/month rental unit without exceeding the maximum shelter rental allowance to which they’re entitled.[1]  (Incidentally, a similar approach was recently used with the world-renowned At Home/Chez Soi project, which I’ve blogged about here.)  Yukon―along with Alberta―has no public debt, meaning the Pasloski government could hardly claim it can’t afford to do this!

10. If no for-profit developer is willing to build units on condition that one-third of them be ‘stacked’ with rent supplements, the Yukon Housing Corporation could always develop the units itself.  Some for-profit developers would likely not want to own and operate units if there were a requirement that one-third of them be occupied by very low-income tenants.  And in fairness, many for-profit developers lack the expertise to work with vulnerable populations.  If that turns out to be the case (and there is no take up on such a proposal), the Pasloski government could simply direct the Yukon Housing Corporation to use the $11.7 million to develop housing of its own―units that it would then own and operate.  Ideally, units would go to households from a variety of income groups, a feature known as “income mix.” Some of the units could be rented out at the full $850/month, without additional subsidy.  Others could be stacked with rent supplements (making them affordable to very low-income tenants, including social assistance recipients).  There could even be a third category of units that would receive a more modest rent supplement (possibly in the range of $200-$250/month)―this third category of units could be targeted to ‘working poor’ households.

Postscript: A) Several individuals―whose anonymity I wish to preserve―have provided very helpful input into this blog post. B) In 2012, under the supervision of Dr. Frances Abele, I wrote a policy report on poverty in the Yukon which can be found here.

[1] Two things are worth noting here.  First, rent supplements are usually easier to implement when vacancy rates are relatively high (because landlords are usually more eager to rent out their units in such a context).  With Whitehorse vacancy rates currently just above 3%, now would be a relatively favourable time to try such an approach.  Second, with this rent-supplement approach, for-profit developers who are not recipients of this money might not feel as disadvantaged as in the previous scenario, as now the funding would come with some conditions.

This post was republished with permission from

This post was republished with permission from Northern Public Affairs.

Photo credit: “Whitehorse looking southerly 1924″ by WanderingWhitehorse under a creative commons license.

Pages

Recent Tweets

Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License