Research Matters Blog

April 20, 2015
Categories: Topics

Legal and Justices Issues for People Experiencing HomelessnessThe 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.

Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub: York University
April 17, 2015
Categories: Ask the Hub

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.

Amy's route 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.”

Potential solutions

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.”

As NextCity reported last July, taking a Housing First approach with people (and youth) leaving incarceration can dramatically reduce homelessness and recidivism amongst this population.

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.                                      

BC Non-Profit Housing Association
April 15, 2015

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.  

BC Budget 2015: What does it mean for housing?

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.   

Turner Research & Strategy Inc.
April 14, 2015

Introducing the Guide

In its renewal of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS), the Government of Canada has prioritized Housing First as a key strategy to reduce homelessness. A Housing First approach focuses on moving people who are experiencing chronic or episodic homelessness as rapidly as possible from the street or emergency shelters into permanent housing with supports to maintain housing stability.

To support communities transitioning to Housing First, HPS commissioned the development of a guide to performance management specifically for Community Entities with the support of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.  The Guide is accessible in full here, a French version is also available.

You can also register for today's Homeless Hub webinar from 1-2PM (EDT) that introduces the key topics covered in the Guide.

What is performance management?

Performance management is essential to understand the effectiveness of interventions funded under HPS, as well as a community's overall progress towards reducing homelessness. It is important that communities develop effective performance management processes to link their efforts to national-level goals and benchmarks.

Performance management can help you:

  • Articulate what your homeless-serving system, as a whole, is trying to achieve;
  • Illustrate whether progress is being made towards preventing and reducing homelessness in a particular community;
  • Keep programs accountable to funders;
  • Quantify achievements towards the goals of the Community Plan and HPS targets;
  • Use information gathered for continuous improvement;
  • Align program-level results to client outcomes at the individual and system-levels; and
  • Inform the next round of strategy review and investment planning.

An Overview of the Guide

The Guide consists of 4 modules, each building on previous discussions on interrelated topics.

The guide contains 4 modules.

Module 1 - Designing the Homeless-Serving System discusses the tenets of Housing First as program and philosophy and links these to system planning. The Module provides an introduction to implementing a systems approach focusing on the role of the CE in leading the development of a local homeless-serving system. This is an important first step to introducing performance management.

Module 2 - Performance Management introduces the concepts of performance indicators and targets to enable program and system-level analysis. These concepts are brought together in real-life examples to illustrate the systems approach to performance management in CE practice.

Module 3 - Quality Assurance outlines key processes and procedures that aim to improve service impact through continuous improvement with a focus on service standards, program monitoring and risk management.

Module 4 - Funding Allocation brings the concepts discussed full circle by linking performance management, system planning, and quality assurance to CE investment practices. Financial monitoring is presented as a powerful tool that can be leveraged in performance management, with particular focus on developing eligible costs guidelines and benchmarking costs. The module discusses annual funding cycles that incorporate funding allocation into strategic review and business planning processes.

The modules begin with an overview of the main aims of each section, present detail discussions on themes, and end with a summary, reflection questions, and key considerations for smaller CEs to highlight essential steps in a particular practice area. Each module points you to sample resources, such as client grievance and serious incident forms, contract boilerplates, etc. from the CE Resource Inventory, which you can adapt locally.

Building a Resource Inventory

The Guide was developed through research and key stakeholder consultation to collect and review existing promising practices from 14 CEs. Practices across a range of communities varying in size were reviewed to shape the content of the Guide and identify promising approaches. The review process also included consultation with national organizations and drew on US, UK and Australian performance management practices to complement Canadian findings.

We are extremely thankful for the willingness of the 14 CEs to freely share resources and knowledge to build the collective effort to end homelessness. In fact, over 80 resources have been shared to date.   These resources include: calls for proposals, privacy policies, safety guidelines, data collection examples, service standards, indicators of progress, system planning frameworks, and more.

It is our hope that this online inventory supported by the COH will continue to grow as the community of practice evolves in our country – and we call on everyone to contribute further to ensure its ongoing relevance and continuous improvement. You can access the current CE Resource Inventory here.

April 13, 2015
Categories: Topics

""The prevalence of mental illness in Canadian children and adolescents, at any given point in time, is about 15%. In other words, 1.2 million children and adolescents experience mental illness and/or addiction of sufficient severity to cause significant distress and impaired functioning. The most common mental illnesses among children and adolescents are anxiety (6.5%), conduct (3.3%), attention deficit (3.3%), depressive (2.1%), substance use (0.8%), and autism and other developmental disorders (0.3%). 

At the provincial/territorial level, the delivery of mental health services to children and adolescents is highly fragmented and uncoordinated. Usually, a variety of departments and agencies (e.g., mental health, primary health care, hospitals, child welfare, schools, young offender, addiction services, and special education services) are involved. When services are available, usually there are long waiting lists for access to service. Service capacity must be increased to provide a basic level of accessible services in the places where children, adolescents and their families spend most of their time (e.g., schools and homes) and at appropriately flexible times of day. 

In addition, there are specific mental health care needs of those making the transition from adolescence to adulthood. The need for mental health services and supports will likely continue following an adolescent’s 18th birthday but children and adolescent mental health services are generally no longer accessible when an individual turns 18. The period of transition from childhood to adulthood can be difficult, and requirements for mental health services and supports may actually increase rather than decrease during this important developmental period. 

The various systems must work in an integrated, collaborative and timely manner to prepare and plan for adolescents experiencing the transition to adulthood. Unfortunately, child and adolescent mental health services and supports have been called the “orphan’s orphan” of the health care system in Canada, a term that has its origin in the frequent reference to mental health as the “orphan” of the Canadian health care system. 

Learn more about the research on mental health and youth homelessness and the need for early mental health intervention for street-involved youth in this chapter of the Youth Homelessness in Canada book.


Recent Tweets

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.