Research Matters Blog
“I’m looking for resources to help put together an effective communications plan to manage NIMBY if we were to move our housing services into a new neighbourhood. I was wondering if the Homeless Hub had any resources that might be helpful to look at with this objective in mind?”
This question came from Misha via email.
There is an unfortunate lack of guidance in creating specific communications plans, as evidenced by you needing to ask this question! NIMBY is something that many housing and homelessness organizations have found they need to overcome, so there are some resources available. I’ll first describe what NIMBY is for all our readers. Then I’ll discuss some responses to it and how they can be applied to communications.
What is NIMBY?
NIMBY is short for “Not in my backyard,” which describes a phenomenon in which residents of a neighbourhood consider a new development (like affordable/supportive housing, a group home, or a shelter) or tenant changes within an existing building as unwanted or ill suited to the area.
NIMBYism has been especially common in the last few decades. Its arguments are typically rooted in anxiety and fear of change, and as such, do not highlight the benefits of shelters and affordable/supportive housing. They are also influenced by negative stereotypes and sometimes, outright discrimination of people living in poverty; people experiencing homelessness, mental health issues, and/or drug abuse. The ideas lead to concerns that that crime will increase, property values will go down, etc. if a new development serving these groups enters a community.
This can be difficult, but not impossible to overcome. The first step in creating successful communications for a shelter or affordable/supportive housing project is being able to speak to NIMBY-based concerns. The Greater Victoria Homelessness Coalition has created an excellent series of fact sheets about NIMBY; and the Ontario Human Rights Commission has an entire section debunking myths about shelters and affordable/supportive housing. Both contain references to studies that have found that the common NIMBY-based concerns are not true. (Crime doesn’t go up! And property values do not decrease!)
There’s also this study, which reviewed literature on the subject and found that subsidized housing developments do not negatively impact communities.
Tips for effective communication
Once you know how to respond to NIMBY, it’s time to create your communications strategy. In her analysis of 14 case studies in 7 Canadian cities and across 5 provinces, Jeannie Wynne-Edwards writes: “While bias and prejudice may not yield to facts, education and awareness through the presentation of facts is important. This fear can only be addressed through education, awareness and change.” She also describes the entire NIMBY cycle and makes specific recommendations around what language to use based on what kind of opposition (ie. prejudice-based).
The Fair Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania made a great toolkit for developing fair housing. In its 4th section, they emphasize the importance of building community support. Here I’ve adapted some of their points on how to launch a successful community campaign:
- Research everything you can about the community. What it is like? Who lives there? What has happened to similar proposals in the past? Who are the neighbourhood leaders and political representatives? What are the zoning laws and bylaws of the area?
- Find potential allies and seek their endorsement. Partner with nearby social service agencies. Find out how they’ve been involved with housing issues in the past, and if they have influence with any relevant decision makers. The writers of the toolkit make some specific suggestions about which kinds of groups to approach (pictured right).
- Make sure the messaging is specific. As the writers state: “Early in the process it is important to develop a set of talking points about why THIS development is the right project for THIS neighborhood and THIS community at THIS point in history.” People are much more likely to support a project they feel matters and they are invested in—it won’t be enough to quote general statistics about homelessness or the importance of affordable housing, though those can come in handy too.
- Prepare a media strategy. If your project is likely to meet opposition, reach out to media first to make the case for its development. This involves telling the story of why this project matters to this community, now. Be sure to also prepare short, fact-based responses to anticipated claims from opponents, as those will inevitably arise when media coverage comes around. (A legal strategy may also be necessary if opponents bring up zoning issues.)
- Get creative to reach different audiences. Putting up a few posters isn’t going to reach everyone you want to anymore. Embrace multimedia and social media, and factor each of those into your communications plan. Create different audiences (Potential Opponent, Youth, Person Experiencing Homelessness, City Councillor) and tailor materials to them, what they care about, and what their concerns might be. In the toolkit, the authors mention a particularly creative example where developers arranged public tours of existing affordable housing buildings to help residents see what the new development would actually be like.
My colleague Tanya also made a great suggestion in a previous Ask the Hub post, in which she highlights the potentially high impact of including personal stories from people with lived experience in communications. As she wrote:
“The Dream Team, a group of mental health survivors who advocate for supportive housing, have used videos, post card campaigns and lawsuits to challenge both NIMBYism and to call for more supportive housing. By telling their stories — see Philip and Linda sharing their stories — they help educate the public and government alike about the importance of supportive housing and how it helped get them off the streets.”
A few other resources make similar points and are also worth reading:
- Jaimie Ross’s fact sheet on NIMBYism and overcoming community opposition
- The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s case study research on affordable housing projects
- Matthew McNeil’s step-by-step guide to overcoming NIMBYism
While none of this makes a complete communications plan, it hopefully provides a foundation and understanding of NIMBYism that can help you move forward in creating your own specific plan. Here are a few more resources you might want to check out:
Creating inclusive communities in Florida (United States)
This post is part of our Friday "Ask the Hub" blog series. Have a homeless-related question you want answered? E-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org and we will provide a research-based answer.
Photo credit: Elliott Brown on Flickr
The below infographic, published by the Ontario Non-profit Housing Association, acts as a handy guide to the number of housing options that exist in the province. This post will focus on three of these housing options mentioned: (1) emergency housing, (2) co-op housing, and (3) transitional housing.
1. Emergency Housing
In many cities, shelters are the primary response that communities have to homelessness. The role of these shelters extends far beyond providing temporary housing, they also provide clients access to a network of a wide variety of resources. These resources can include everything from access to food and basic healthcare, to informal counselling and employment services.
Specialized shelter services exist for certain subgroups of the homeless population, and other individuals who use shelters (e.g. shelters designed for women fleeing abuse). In major cities like Toronto, there is an urgent need for specialized shelter initiatives for LGBTQ2 youth, who are overrepresented in Canada's homeless population. A recent Toronto survey estimates that 25-40% of all homeless youth in the city are LGBTQ2. Many of these youth, who left home because of the discrimination they faced, often end up facing homophobic and transphobic violence in the shelter system. To date there are zero specialized housing initiatives in Canada that address their needs. However, Toronto City Council recently approved 54 new shelter beds specifically for LGBTQ2 youth as part of its 2015 budget. An official announcement of these new shelter spaces is expected in the coming months.
2. Co-op Housing
Co-operative housing provides housing for individuals with low to moderate incomes. Co-ops include subsidized units and units that cost market rent. Funding for subsidies varies across municipalities and provinces; for example, in Ontario the provincial government no longer funds housing co-ops, while subsidies are available in Toronto for the vast majority of co-ops, due to federal funding.
This kind of housing is “rooted in the principle that members [of a housing complex] should be empowered to make decisions about their housing”. Since ownership of co-ops is collective, decisions in co-op housing tend to be governed by a democratic process. Applications of this kind of housing solution have often been applauded because they present individuals with greater autonomy over their housing. A recent study of Aboriginal housing cooperatives in Canada found that co-op housing encouraged self-determination and feelings of community among members.
3. Transitional Housing
Transitional housing is defined as "an intermediate step between emergency crisis shelter and permanent housing". These programs are designed to provide clients with a safe and secure environment where they can begin to rebuild their lives. While transitional housing services are more long-term than emergency shelters, time limits are still enforced in most programs. Depending on the focus and the resources of a transitional housing service, the maximum duration for a stay can vary from a few months to a few years.
In order to be effective, transitional housing services require the availability of affordable, permanent housing for individuals who are moving on. The rising costs of housing jeopardizes the continuity of such programs and the progress that participants have made. In the absence of affordable housing, there needs to be adequate supports to help these individuals. If these supports do not exist, participants risk re-entry into a cycle of poverty and homelessness.
We also need to consider what happens to individuals who do not see significant improvements over the course of their stay in transitional housing. Since this housing option is often time-limited, where would these individuals go? This is one of the problems inherent with transitional housing, and presents us with the need for alternate non-profit housing options.
The research on legal and justice issues focuses on factors that may contribute to homelessness, including criminal victimization (physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children, women and seniors), discrimination (based on race, class, sexual orientation, and gender, for instance), poverty, justice system involvement, and/or criminal or delinquent behaviour (illegal substance use, involvement in crime). Research also explores how experiences of homelessness produce a range of legal and justice issues.
People who become homeless are more likely to be victims of crime and discrimination, may become involved in illegal or quasi-legal activities for survival reasons, and have a much greater likelihood of being involved in the justice system. A dominant response to the homelessness crisis has been to criminalize the behaviours and activities of people who become homeless but legal and justice issues that impact people experiencing housing instability and homelessness can also be non-criminal in nature.
Poverty and homelessness has potentially catastrophic effects on civil liberties, including the right to vote, the right to secure government benefits or essential services, the right to security of the person, and the right to participate in the democratic life of the community. As well, homelessness is directly linked to the criminal justice system – many discharged inmates end up homeless and, conversely, many homeless people wind up in prison.
Non-criminal legal problems that impact civil liberties include: claims for government benefits such as social assistance or disability benefits; housing and homelessness issues such as evictions, tenant/landlord disputes, and housing discrimination; family law, including divorces, child custody, and domestic violence; consumer issues; employee rights; elder law, such as rights of nursing home residents; mental health and disability issues, especially where benefits are denied; immigration law; and, any other non-criminal legal problems. Service providers and outreach teams often work with individuals, that are at risk of or experiencing homelessness, in an attempt to mediate these difficult challenges.
How does homelessness impact the recidivism rates for youth involved with the justice system?
This question came from Marlene N. via our latest website survey.
As a 2006 Toronto report points out, most research suggests that the relationship between homelessness and incarceration is bidirectional: “That is, just as homeless people are at high risk of becoming incarcerated, prisoners are at high risk for becoming homeless.” Unfortunately, the criminal justice system in Canada is inextricably linked with homelessness.
This is also true for youth involved with the criminal justice system, which is a highly vulnerable population. Specific data about youth offenders in Canada is difficult to obtain, but we know that many of these youth come from backgrounds of poverty, health issues, conflict and/or violence, and general instability. As a result, many do not have a stable, positive place to stay once they’ve been released; or families, friends and other social systems simply are not able to cope with caring for those who have been recently discharged. In the words of Jane Glover and Naomi Clewett (from their report, No Fixed Abode): “…periods of unsettlement in the transition periods just prior to release and immediately following release from custody can be triggers for disengagement from services, risky behaviour and re-offending.” The authors presented several case studies and outlined their paths to homelessness and back into custody (if that occurred). Below is one example of how they conceptualize the system failures that can lead youth back into custody.
In England, fewer youth are committing crimes but recidivism rates are very high at 74%. Glover and Clewett’s report highlights previous research from the English government that estimated youth recidivism rates could be reduced by 20% if stable housing was provided; and notes: “A Home Office evaluation concluded that 69 per cent of offenders with an accommodation need re-offended within two years, compared to 40 per cent who were in suitable accommodation.”
Similar rates have been found in a number of American studies. A 2013 study from the Washington state department found that 26% of youth released from juvenile detention facilities are homeless within 12 months of being released; and that recidivism rates were higher for these youth than those who had stable housing. Furthermore, the youth who experienced homelessness were found to have “a high rate of substance abuse, serious mental illness, rates of chronic illness, and higher mortality rate than youth released with no identified housing need.”
A lack of stable housing and effective discharge planning also affects adult offenders, as research by Gaetz and O’Grady explores. Studies have also been done on the complex relationship between homelessness, trauma, poverty, and mental health—all of which makes people more likely to be incarcerated.
Other research supports solutions that go beyond limiting recidivism and improving people’s lives. A study about the cycle of homelessness and incarceration among Aboriginal women in Canada—among the participants, 56% reported a lack of housing contributed to recommitting crimes—concluded that “…there is a need for prevention and intervention supports for women living in poverty." The writers also argued that we "...need to address the systemic and institutional racism and sexism that continue to deny women the right to a living income, safe and affordable housing, and human dignity.”
Glover and Clewett recommend that youth first be given the opportunity to stay with family whenever possible upon release, with additional support services to ease the transition. If this is not possible, the writers state that youth be provided with safe, supportive accommodation (with quality standards defined by the government) as they have seen success with this approach through their work at Barnardo’s. The writers also advocate for a cross-government strategy to support not only youth, but their families in order to move towards preventing homelessness.
This post is part of our Friday "Ask the Hub" blog series. Have a homeless-related question you want answered? E-mail us at email@example.com and we will provide a research-based answer.
In February of 2015, the BC Provincial government released its annual budget plan. While issues like healthcare, education, and the projected surplus gained most of the media attention, BC Non-Profit Housing Association wanted to look at how the budget affects subsidized housing. Using BC Housing Annual Reports and Service Plans (released alongside the budget), we put together an infographic that shows some recent and long-term trends in housing policy.
Funding levels of housing programs
In the first section of the infographic, we highlight the funding levels of housing programs and how they are projected to fluctuate between 2014-15 and 2015-2016. Looking at these short-term trends is useful because it allows us to better understand where the province’s housing funding priorities lie. The numbers show that the province places a strong emphasis on emergency shelters, homelessness services and transitional housing, which is broadly reflective of the shift in housing policy away from long-term funding for independent social housing.
There’s no doubt getting people off the streets and into housing is critical, however we need an affordable, secure housing supply to make this happen. Unfortunately funding priorities are not reflecting this reality. Emergency and short-term housing is estimated at $335 million in 2015/16, while funding levels for independent social housing lag behind at $206 million.
Funding relationship between the provincial and federal government for housing programs
For every dollar that the federal government contributes, the provincial government contributes $2.50. This figure is reflective of two broad trends occurring in housing policy over the last 20 years. The first is that the federal government has not developed any social housing supply programs since 1993 (except on-reserve). The second reason is that the federal government began to devolve responsibility for social housing portfolios to the provinces back in 1996, which means that the provinces are now primarily responsible for housing policy. While the federal government has provided some piecemeal funding through the Affordable Housing Initiative/Investment in Affordable Housing, it has not been enough to keep up with growing demand.
One of the dominant trends moving forward is that households living in core housing need in BC will increase by approximately 2,200 households per year while the provincial and federal governments have only managed to fund 1,700 units a year on average. If we project this out, it means we will have a minimum shortfall of 12,000 units by 2036. It should be noted that this number is a conservative estimate that does not examine factors such as affordable housing stock lost to reconversion and demolitions, or more rapid increases in core housing need due to income and labour market issues. Nonetheless, a shortfall of 12,000 units will certainly result in more homelessness and housing insecurity for lower-income groups.
Trends in subsidized housing
The charts at the bottom of the infographic take a longer-term perspective and show trends in subsidized housing over the last 10 years. The chart on the bottom left demonstrates the relationship between provincial and federal spending levels over the last 10 years. While housing at the provincial level more than doubled between 2006 and 2015 (in part due to devolution of social housing portfolios to the provinces), it has recently levelled off. Federal spending increased over the course of 2008-2011 due to more than $2 billion in stimulus spending for social housing allocated under Canada’s Economic Action Plan. Now that this funding has evaporated, federal funding has trended downward, and will continue to do so because of expiring operating agreements.
Related to this last point, the graph at the bottom right looks specifically at funding levels for independent social housing over the last 10 years, and highlights the impact of expiring operating agreements. Operating agreements are long-term subsidy arrangements (usually between 35 and 50 years) with social housing providers to cover mortgage costs and keep rents affordable for low-income tenants. The bulk of these agreements will expire over the next 20 years, and while many projects will be viable and providers will be able to keep rents affordable, others will be forced to raise rents to ensure the building remains financially viable. This growing affordability squeeze will contribute to homelessness as it leaves society’s most vulnerable citizens with few housing options.
The lesson learned from infographic is that although the provincial government has attempted to provide at least some support for subsidized housing (although mostly in the form of rent supplements and shorter-term housing), more needs to be done. Both levels of government need to step up and create permanent and long-term independent social housing if we are to truly have an impact on homelessness.
Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License
The analysis and interpretations contained in the blog posts are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.