Introduction
Homelessness has emerged as a major social
issue in Canada despite this country’s wealth and
reputation for a high standard of living.
This situation has not gone unnoticed by the United
Nations Committee on Human Rights, which
recently criticized Canada for its lack of action on
homelessness.
Many cities in the country are experiencing
a trend towards more homeless people living on their
streets and in emergency shelters. Along
with this trend is a corresponding rise in the number of
individuals who are considered “hard to
house”. While the magnitude of the problem and the
profile of the homeless and the hard to
house vary across the country, the common experience is
that communities are struggling to address
this difficult and complex issue. The situation in B.C.
is illustrative of many of the issues
that exist across the country.
The issues surrounding homelessness and
the hard to house are inextricably linked. In many
instances, homelessness is the end result
of being “hard to house” and the lack of appropriate
housing and supports in the community
for this group. Moreover, the living situations of much
of the hard to house population in Canada
would fall under one of the two categories of
homelessness as defined by the United
Nations – absolute and relative homelessness.
1
This paper will present an overview of
the issue of homelessness in British Columbia, and will
then profile issues specific to the hard
to house population. The paper will also highlight some of
the initiatives that are underway in B.C.
to respond to homelessness and those who are considered
hard to house.
The Face of Homelessness in B.C.
While the homeless may share the need for
housing, they are not a homogeneous group. There is
an increasing diversity among B.C.’s homeless,
including an increase in the number of women,
youth, seniors, families with children,
immigrants and refugees. Aboriginal people make up a
disproportionate share of the homeless
in most cities in the province.
The number of people living on the streets
and relying on emergency shelters in Vancouver is
estimated to be between 600 to 1,000.
The vast majority of these individuals would be
considered hard to house.
1 According to the United Nations, absolute
homelessness refers to individuals living with no physical shelter.
This would include, for example: people
living on the streets or in doorways, parkades or vacant buildings, in
parks or on beaches, or in their vehicles.
Relative homeless includes those living in spaces that do not meet basic
health and safety standards, including
protection from the elements, access to safe water and sanitation, security
of
tenure, personal safety and affordability.
For example, relative homeless would include many individuals living in
substandard single room occupancy (SRO)
hotels and rooming houses.
In Vancouver, people are being turned away
from shelters due to lack of space or lack of
appropriate beds suited to the particular
needs of the individual. About 500 people are turned
away each month by the four largest shelters
in the city due to lack of space or appropriate beds.
There are also increasing numbers of homeless
persons in the more suburban municipalities in the
Greater Vancouver area such as Surrey
and New Westminster. Homelessness is not just a big
city phenomenon; there is also increasing
homelessness in Victoria, Nanaimo, Prince George,
Kelowna and Kamloops as well as in other
communities around the province.
There are 13,000 to 14,000 individuals
living in single room occupancy (SRO) hotels and
rooming houses throughout the province
– a large proportion of whom would be considered hard
to house. The inadequacy of much of this
housing stock and the loss of units due to demolitions
and conversions puts many of these individuals
at serious risk of becoming homeless.
Factors Contributing to Homelessness:
i) Broad Social and Economic Forces
There are many factors behind homelessness
stemming from broad economic and social forces
leading to increased poverty. Although
there are many causes of homelessness, poverty remains
one of the major contributing factors.
Homelessness may also stem from individual
circumstances such as mental illness, physical
disability and/or alcohol and substance
misuse. Many homeless people lack support networks and
have limited family and social relationships
that they can count on for support. Hard to house
individuals may also end up being homeless
as a result of falling between the gaps in the health
and social support systems.
ii) Lack of Access to Affordable Housing
Access to housing which is affordable is
also an important factor in B.C. Although the province
continues to build social housing, including
units specifically targeted to individuals who are
homeless or at risk of becoming homeless,
the demand for this housing far exceeds supply.
Furthermore, the withdrawal of the federal
government in 1994 from funding new social housing,
the limited construction of new private
rental housing, and losses in the existing supply of low
cost rental housing such as SROs and apartment
buildings have further contributed to the
problem.
The federal government also has constitutional
responsibilities with respect to meeting the
housing needs of Aboriginal peoples, new
immigrants and refugees. The failure of the federal
government to respond effectively has
contributed to the homeless problem and has placed
increasing pressures on other levels of
government and the existing support network.
iii) Shift from
Institutional to Community-based Services
It is also widely acknowledged that in
many parts of the country, the shift from institutional to
community-based services for persons with
mental illness created gaps in the provision of housing
and support services for this group in
the community. This shift, in the context of insufficient
funding for services at the community
level, has been identified as part of the problem. For
individuals with a mental illness combined
with a drug or alcohol addiction, the service gaps are
even more pronounced.
Focussing on the
Hard to House
In looking at the issue of homelessness,
perhaps the greatest challenge lies in responding to the
needs of those who are considered “hard
to house”. Generally, the hard to house include
individuals of all ages who for a variety
of reasons have demonstrated difficulty in maintaining
stable housing, and who are at risk of
becoming or remaining homeless because of their situation
or particular vulnerabilities. In addition,
it should be recognized that access to affordable housing
alone may not be enough for this group.
Many also require necessary support services to allow
them to maintain their housing.
Many of the individuals within this group
are homeless and alternate between living on the street
and accessing emergency shelters or hostels
as well as other types of emergency health or social
services. The hard to house also include
individuals who may be inadequately housed, e.g., in an
SRO or rooming house, experience repeated
evictions, and who are at serious risk of becoming
homeless.
Individuals may be considered hard to house
because of particular behaviors (e.g. collecting,
aggressiveness) or visual appearance,
or because of the lack of social skills that are difficult for
housing providers or other tenants to
deal with. In other situations, individuals may be considered
hard to house because of a lack of appropriate
housing options and/or services gaps within a
particular community.
Individuals with
Multiple Challenges
Another large segment of the hard to house
population would include individuals with multiple
challenges such as a severe mental illness
or mental disability combined with a drug or alcohol
addiction. Many of these individuals may
also experience a physical disability or physical illness.
A Vancouver study conducted in 1996 found
that 61 percent of individuals most in need of shelter
and housing were men and women with multiple
problems, including mental illness combined with
substance misuse problems, or physical
disabilities combined with substance misuse problems.
Similarly, a 1999 Shelter Study found
that 75 percent of shelter users have alcohol and/or drug
misuse issues and 66 percent suffer from
a severe mental illness.
Responding to the
multi-faceted needs of this group requires a large degree of flexibility
and co-ordination
in the provision
of housing, health and support services.
Supportive Housing
For the hard to house population, access
to affordable housing alone is not an effective solution to
their homelessness – although it is a
critical starting point. What is needed is appropriate housing
combined with a range of health and social
supports that are tailored to the individual’s situation.
Supportive housing has proven to be successful
and effective in responding to the needs of the
hard to house. It combines housing with
support services in a flexible and co-ordinated manner to
assist individuals in making the transition
to stable housing, and in maintaining their housing over
time. It also provides opportunities for
individuals to stabilize their personal situation and re-establish
their connections within the community.
The type of housing and the form of support
that are provided may significantly vary
in order to reflect the diversity of the hard to house
population. As a housing model, supportive
housing is flexible and can serve a wide range of populations with
differing support needs. Services can
be provided on site, or they can be accessed though
existing agencies within the community.
The types and levels of support required by tenants vary
considerably, ranging from help with housekeeping,
meal preparation, banking and life skills, to
medical care, counseling and drop-in programs,
referrals to service agencies, and training and
employment services. The level of on-site
support may range from enhanced building
management to 24 hour staffing by trained
individuals.
Successful Supportive
Housing Initiatives in B.C.
There are numerous examples of successful
supported housing developments in British Columbia,
including Jim Green Residence and the
Portland Hotel and its replacement project in the
Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. In Victoria,
there is the Medewiwin development which
involved converting a motel in the downtown
area into permanent housing for the homeless.
These developments generally serve a hard
to house population, for example, individuals with
multiple challenges who previously lived
on the streets or in inadequate housing.
The Need for a
Pro-Active Response
The B.C. government has been pro-active
in maintaining its commitment to social housing
through the HOMES BC program. Since 1994,
the provincial government has funded more than
4,100 units of housing for families and
for individuals who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness.
Through the Homeless/At Risk component
of HOMES BC, the province has made a determined
effort to specifically target individuals
who are hard to house, and who would have previously
“fallen between the cracks” of the housing,
health and social systems.
Referred to as second stage or supportive
housing, it is an intermediate stage of accommodation
from emergency to fully independent housing.
Homeless/At Risk developments involve
partnerships with housing providers and
community agencies who provide the necessary supports
to assist individuals to make the transition
into stable housing and to maintain their housing over
the longer term.
Program Expansion
Over the next two years, the HOMES BC
program will be expanded and will include additional
Homeless/At Risk housing units. Specifically,
the province has committed to providing:
· 180 units of second-stage housing
for people at risk of becoming homeless. Developments
will include the necessary supports to
help stabilize hard to house individuals within their
housing and community;
· 170 units of second-stage housing
for people who are homeless combined with emergency
shelter beds in the same development(s).
This combination of shelter and housing is intended
to facilitate individuals moving from
the street or shelter system to stable housing. The
developments will also contain the capacity
for additional temporary shelter beds during
severe cold or wet weather;
· 700 housing units for low-income
urban singles. Low income singles are individuals who are
at risk of homelessness due to the loss
SRO housing, and who generally capable of
independent living with more limited supports;
and
· 200 supportive housing units for
seniors who require some assistance to continue living
independently as they age.
Purchase and Rehabilitation
of SRO Hotels
The province is also involved in a number
of other initiatives for the hard to house, including the
purchase and rehabilitation of two SRO
hotels in the Downtown Eastside. The purchase of the
Sunrise and Washington hotels involved
numerous partners including BC Housing, the Ministry of
Human Resources, the Vancouver/Richmond
Health Board and the City of Vancouver. As well
funding for some of the rehabilitation
was made available through Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC). Key to the success
of this initiative is the experience and expertise of the
Portland Hotel Society who will operate
the hotels.
This initiative was put into place based
on the belief among the funding partners that stabilizing
and improving the housing for the hard
to house in the Downtown Eastside, along with the
enhanced delivery of social and support
services, will result in improvements in the quality of life
for the residents living in these SRO
units and would reduce the overall costs associated with the
delivery of health and social services.
A detailed evaluation to measure these anticipated
outcomes will begin shortly. BC Housing
is also involved in similar SRO initiatives in Prince
George and Kamloops.
BC Housing Health
Services Program
Another significant initiative is the
BC Housing Health Services Program which is a partnership
program between BC Housing and the Ministry
of Health, Mental Health Division. The purpose
of the program is to assist individuals
with a mental illness to access and maintain housing in the
social housing stock. In 1997, the program
received national recognition through the Clarke
Institute of Psychiatry as a Best Practice
Model in Mental Health Reform in Canada. There are
currently 350 individuals who have been
housed through referrals by local mental health teams.
The program will be expanded to serve
1,100 individuals over the next 3 to 5 years.
Research on Homelessness
BC Housing along with the ministries of
Municipal Affairs, Attorney General and Children &
Families, the Vancouver/Richmond Health
Board and the City of Vancouver are funding a major
research project on homelessness. This
research seeks to develop a profile of the homeless
population in B.C., and describes and
analyzes key factors contributing to homelessness in this
province compared to the situations in
Ontario, Quebec and Alberta.
The research will also analyze the costs
of homelessness, and whether the provision of adequate
and affordable housing is a preventative
cost to the health, social and correctional systems.
Preliminary findings from the literature
review suggests that people who do not have safe, secure,
affordable shelter:
· have more
health problems than the general population;
· experience
social problems that may be exacerbated by their lack of shelter; and
· are more
likely to become involved in criminal activity than the general public.
2
The literature also suggests that there
is greater utilization of some services by the homeless,
particularly hospital emergency services,
shelters and detention centres or jails, and that
supportive housing is cost effective and
far less expensive than other alternatives such as hospital
beds, shelters and jails. The full results
of this research project will be available by January, 2000.
Other research into single adult shelter
users in New York City and Philadelphia
3
suggests that
shelter users are not a homogeneous population,
and can generally be grouped as follows:
· Those who
are transitionally homeless (brief, usually one-time stays at shelters);
· Those who
are episodically homeless (more frequent shelter use, generally younger
with fairly
high rates of health
conditions such as medical, mental health or substance misuse problems);
and
· Those who
are chronically homeless (steady users of shelters as a form of long-term
housing,
older population
with many special needs).
This research shows that the chronically
homeless are the heaviest users of the shelter system,
representing 10 percent of shelter users
and consuming 50 percent of shelter system days. The
researcher concludes that in many cases
transitional and permanent housing with supports would
be more appropriate responses, especially
for the episodically and chronically homeless. Similar
research for the Toronto’s Report of the
Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force found that 17
percent of hostel users over a nine year
period were considered chronic (stayed in the hostel
system for one year or more) and used
46 percent of the resources.
2 “The Relationship
between Homelessness, Health, Social Services and Criminal Justice Systems:
A Review of the
Literature”, prepared
by Margaret Eberle, Deborah Kraus, Luba Serge and David Hulchanski. Prepared
for the
B.C. Ministry of
Municipal Affairs, and BC Housing, June, 1999.
3 “A test of a typology
of homelessness by pattern of public shelter utilization”, R. Kuhn and
D. Culhane, 1996, as
referenced in the
testimony of D. Culhane at the U.S. Housing of Representatives, Subcommittee
on Housing and
Community Opportunity,
March, 1997.
Homeless Individuals
and Families Information System
A related project which is currently being
explored in B.C. and in other parts of the country is the
piloting of the Homeless Individuals and
Families Information System (HIFIS) initiated and
developed by CMHC. This project has the
potential to address the significant gap in information
on the homeless population.
This information system will assist in
the daily operations of shelters, e.g., register clients, collect
demographic and health information etc.,
and will also provide aggregated information about
shelter clients in central databases so
that the information can be analyzed at a local, regional or
provincial level. Ultimately, the system
can be used to obtain accurate, aggregated longitudinal
data on characteristics of shelter/hostel
clients which will assist in developing more effective
policies and programs in responding to
homelessness.
Another recent CMHC initiative concerning
homelessness is a series of Round Tables on Best
Practices in Responding to Homelessness.
Regional Round Tables were held in most parts of the
country, followed by a national event
in Ottawa in June, 1999. One recommendation coming out
of this event is for CMHC to continue
to support the dialogue to further develop a best practices
approach in responding to homelessness.
BC Housing’s Board
of Commissioner’s Brief on Homelessness: A Call for Action
BC Housing’s Board of Commissioners prepared
a brief on homelessness for presentation at the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities’
annual conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia in June 1999.
This brief describes the homeless situation
in British Columbia, and calls for a stronger federal
role in responding to this issue.
Although B.C. has continued to be pro-active
through the provincial HOMES BC housing
program and other initiatives, homelessness
continues to grow and will become worse unless
there is a concerted effort involving
the federal government. The Board’s brief notes that an
effective response to homelessness requires
all three levels of government to work together to
provide affordable housing and access
to the required social and support services.
Next Steps
The issues of homelessness and the hard
to house are a major concern, and there is a need for a
clear and coherent strategy to respond
to this issue. The Senior Officials should work towards
developing a series of options for consideration
by the Provincial/Territorial Housing Ministers.
Homelessness
A Call for Actionl
ess.Homelessness: A National Emergency
Homelessness is a major social issue in Canada today despite the country’s wealth and reputation for a high living standard. There are an estimated 200,000 people without shelter in Canada—a national emergency.
This situation has not gone unnoticed by the international community. The United Nations Committee on Human Rights recently criticized Canada for its lack of action on homelessness.
Most Canadian cities continue to experience an increase in the number of homeless living on their streets and in emergency shelters and many others living in various forms of substandard accommodation who are at risk of
becoming homeless.While the magnitude of the problem and the profile of the homeless may vary across the country, communities from coast to coast are increasingly unable to cope with this crisis.
If the Canadian government can quickly mobilize resources to transport, feed, clothe and house 5,000 people fleeing Kosovo, it has the capacity to provide housing for at least that number of homeless Canadians. The people of Kosovo are not responsible for their homelessness; neither are the people living on the streets of Canada.
The Face of Homelessness in B.C.
While the homeless may share the need for housing, they are not a homogeneous group.
There is an increasing diversity among B.C.’s homeless, including an increase in the number of women, youth, seniors, families with children, immigrants and refugees.
June 1999
Mike Farnworth
Minister Responsible
for Housing Highlights Homelessness is a national emergency.
Communities from coast to coast are
increasingly unable to cope with this
crisis. The federal government is the missing
partner in this housing crisis. The
withdrawal of federal funding and the
cancellation of numerous programs in
the 1990s resulted in about 11,000
fewer housing units built in the
province. The B.C. government responded by
initiating the HOMES BC program in
1994—to build homes for families,
seniors and for those who are homeless
or at risk of becoming homeless. Even with the B.C. government’s pro-active
response, homelessness continues
to grow. The situation will become
worse without a concerted effort
involving the federal government. A federal response and a national
housing strategy are absolutely
essential in addressing homelessness
across Canada. A commitment of
federal funding for new, affordable and
permanent housing is a critical starting
point. BC Housing’s Board of Commissioners
challenges other provincial governments
and the federal government to join with
the B.C. government in addressing this
national crisis, and calls on municipalities to form partnerships and to play a role in resolving this issue.2 Homelessness A Call for Action
In addition, aboriginal people make
up a disproportionate share of the
homeless in most cities.Factors Contributing to
HomelessnessThere are many factors contributing to
homelessness. They range from broad
economic forces to individual
circumstances, such as mental illness
and/or alcohol and substance misuse.
Many homeless people lack support
networks and are unable to form
supportive social relationships.However, poverty and lack of access
to affordable housing are major
contributing factors.Absolute Homelessness
The United Nations has defined two
kinds of homelessness: absolute and
relative.Absolute homeless refers to
individuals living with no physical
shelter—people living on the street, in
doorways or parkades, in parks or on
beaches, or in their vehicles and youth
squatting in vacant buildings. Too
often, absolute homelessness is treated
as a law-and-order problem rather
than a housing problem.Even with mild winters in Vancouver
and Victoria, the lack of shelter can be
fatal because of hypothermia. The
Coroners Service has documented 14
exposure-related deaths of homeless
persons in B.C. between 1992 and
1997.Relative Homelessness
Persons living without any physical
shelter actually make up a small
percentage of the homeless
population.Relative homeless includes those
living in spaces that do not meet basic
health and safety standards, including
protection from the elements, security
of tenure, personal safety and
affordability.This group includes individuals who
rely on emergency shelters and hostels
for accommodation (although some
may be among the absolute homeless
as well).The relative homeless includes the
thousands of lower-income single
persons in B.C. living in substandard
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels
that rent out single rooms, usually
with shared washrooms and limited or
no kitchen facilities.Inadequate housing can have a
detrimental effect on tenants’ health
and well-being and can place an
additional strain on health and
correctional services, and on other
social and support services.The Need for a Pro-active Response
Affordable housing plays a key role in
addressing homelessness.Given the diversity of the homeless,
we need a wide range of housing
options with appropriate health and
support services.Housing alone is not an effective
solution to the needs of many
segments of the homeless, but it is the
first step to stability.Unlike most other provincial
governments and the federal
government, the B.C. government has
been pro-active in maintaining its
commitment to social housing
through the HOMES BC program.
Safe, affordable and stable housing is
vital to British Columbians’ health and
well-being.Since 1994, the B.C. government has
funded more than 4,100 units of
housing for families and for
individuals who are homeless or at risk
of homelessness, and, in conjunction
with the local health board and the
City of Vancouver, the B.C.
government has purchased several
SRO hotels. They are being upgraded
and converted for non-profit
management.While the main focus of the B.C.
government’s response to
homelessness is to provide permanent,
affordable housing, we are also
working on emergency shelters.
In addition to continued support of
the HOMES BC program, the B.C.
government: participated in developing a cold-and-
wet-weather strategy to increase
shelter beds and improve
coordination of shelter services
during the winter months,and
is researching the problem of
homelessness so as to develop more
effective policies and programs.Homelessness A Call for Action
3
Since the federal government’s
withdrawal from an active role in
social housing, British Columbia and
Quebec are the only provinces with
governments that continue to help
develop significant amounts of new
non-profit and co-operative housing
units.This year’s B.C. budget includes
funding to increase the number of
social housing units developed in 1999
from 600 to 1,200 throughout the
province.By improving access to affordable
housing, the B.C. government is
committed to building healthy
communities.However, even with the initiatives
now in place, the number of homeless
people in B.C. continues to grow.
While the crisis has not reached the
acute stage of other parts of the
country like Toronto, the homeless
situation in B.C. will continue to
become worse without a concerted
effort.Federal Government—the
Missing PartnerThe federal government’s decision to
end funding for new social housing in
1993 has contributed to the homeless
crisis by limiting the ability of
provincial governments, municipalities
and communities to respond
effectively to local housing needs.
The withdrawal of federal funding
and the cancellation of numerous
programs in the 1990s—including the
federal/provincial non-profit program
and the federal co-op and urban native
programs—has meant about 11,000The Facts
The number of people living on
Vancouver’s streets is estimated
between 600 to 1,000, with
increasing numbers living in the
surrounding municipalities, such as
Surrey and New Westminster. There is also an increasing number
of homeless people in Victoria,
Nanaimo, Prince George, Kelowna
and Kamloops. It is increasingly difficult for
emergency housing providers in
Greater Vancouver to keep up with
demand. There are about 330
emergency shelter and hostel beds
in this region with most beds in
Vancouver. More and more people are being
turned away from shelters due to
lack of space or lack of appropriate
beds. About 500 people are turned
away each month by Vancouver’s
four largest shelters due to lack of
space. In Greater Victoria, the number of
individuals accessing shelter beds is
similar to Toronto on a per-capita
basis. There are 13,000 to 14,000
individuals living in single room
occupancy (SRO) accommodation
and rooming houses throughout B.C. In Vancouver, the SRO housing stock
is decreasing due to demolition,
redevelopment or conversion of the
hotels to other uses such as tourist
or backpacker accommodation. An
estimated 800 to 900 SRO units
have been lost since 1996. In B.C.’s interior, many SRO hotel
residents must find other shelter
during summer when the rooms are
converted for tourist use.
fewer housing units were built in B.C.
This estimate is based on previous
federal program commitments.BC Housing’s waiting list for social
housing now totals 10,500 households,
an increase of about 50 per cent since
1994. This number does not include
those on separate waiting lists
maintained by non-profits and co-ops.The Need for a Stronger
Federal PresenceAn effective response to homelessness
requires all three levels of government
to work together to provide affordable
housing and access to the required
social and support services.The B.C. government has responded
through HOMES BC and the
development of second-stage and
permanent housing for those who are
homeless or at risk of homelessness.Many municipalities have also
responded by providing land at
reduced costs or implementing other
measures to facilitate affordable
housing.Community agencies, non-profit
societies and co-ops have brought their
knowledge and expertise by crafting
local responses to homelessness and, in
some cases, also contribute equity or
land.The federal government has made a
modest contribution by improving the
quality of housing for the homeless
through the Rental and Rooming
House component of the Residential
Rehabilitation Assistance Program and
through the Shelter Enhancement
Program. However, these initiatives do
not provide permanent housingsolutions nor do they address some of
the root causes of homelessness.
Without a concerted effort from all
three levels of government, the efforts
of the provincial governments and
municipalities will continue to be
severely hindered.The United Nations Committee on
Human Rights noted:“The Committee is concerned that
homelessness has led to serious health
problems and even to death. The
Committee recommends that the State
party take positive measures required by
article 6 to address this serious problem.”
United Nations Human Rights
Committee, Concluding Observation
on Canada, April 9, 1999.A Blueprint for Federal Action
The National Housing Policy Options
Team of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities has developed an
excellent discussion paper on housing.
It includes a menu of options for an
effective federal response.The paper calls for a national
housing strategy that provides the
flexibility for provincial governments,
municipalities and communities to
respond to particular housing issues in
local areas.Options for an effective federal
response are divided into five main
categories: Funding support for the
development of new social housing; Repairing and preserving the
existing affordable housing stock; Block funding, which can be
targeted to specific needs, such as
housing for persons with mental
health issues, specialized housing for
youth, women or new immigrants; Incentive-based policies to support
housing responses from the private
sector;and
4 Homelessness A Call for Action
An enhanced role for CMHC in
helping to build and facilitate
affordable housing partnerships
including the continued cost-sharing
of on-going subsidies.This menu of housing options and
strategies, described in more detail in
the FCM paper, could serve as a basis
for developing a national policy to
address homelessness.Action is urgently needed in each of
the five identified areas to properly
address the crisis.Conclusions
A federal response and a national
housing strategy are absolutely
essential in addressing homelessness
across Canada.A commitment of federal funding
for new affordable and permanent
housing is a critical starting point.The B.C. government has a
comprehensive strategy to address
homelessness involving new social
housing units targeted to individuals
who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness.The B.C. government is also working
with municipalities, community
agencies and other levels of
government to put in place an
integrated and coordinated response.
Even with these efforts, however, the
homeless situation in B.C. will
continue to become worse unless the
federal government supplements the
concerted efforts already underway.BC Housing’s Board of
Commissioners challenges other
provincial governments and the federal
government to join with the B.C.
government in addressing this national
crisis, and calls on municipalities to
form partnerships and to play a role in
resolving this issue.Related Resource
MaterialsBuilding a Strong Shelter System in the
Lower Mainland: An initial evaluation
of the cold/wet weather strategy (1999)
Housing Survey with Residents of
Vancouver’s Downtown Area, Ministry
of Municipal Affairs (1993)Measuring Up: Considering Critical
Housing Needs in New Westminster,
New Westminster Reachout (1998)Nowhere to Live, A Call to Action by the
Lower Income Urban Singles Task Force
(1995)Nowhere to Live Next Steps: Report and
Outcomes on the Premier’s Roundtable
on Housing for Lower Income Urban
Singles, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
(1997)Opening Doors, Homelessness fact
sheets and video
SRO: A New Frontier or a Step to the
Rear?, Single Room Occupancy
Research and Discussion Paper,
Ministry of Municipal Affairs (1994)Taking Responsibility for Homelessness:
An Action Plan for Toronto, A Report of
the Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task
Force (January 1999)Under the Viaduct, Sheila Baxter (1991)
For more information
Contact BC Housing at
(604) 433 1711 or visit our website:
Back
to top of page
BC/Yukon Roundtable
on Best Practices Addressing Homelessness
Vancouver, April 23, 1999
"The true answer to homelessness is homes."
— Karen O'Shannacery, Executive Director, Lookout Emergency Aid Society
The B.C./Yukon
regional Roundtable on Best Practices Addressing Homelessness
brought together forty individuals
from all areas of the province, including one guest from
the Yukon. The group included
consumers, funders, government and front line service
providers and represented smaller
as well as major urban centres. Their clients include
youth, men, women, and seniors
as well as the aboriginal, ethnic and people with
disabilities. The services ranged
from shelters, drop-ins and safe houses to advocacy,
health, outreach and special
needs, provided to single people, couples and families.
There was general
agreement that a "best practices" approach is beneficial to all
parties provided that the criteria
are not "cast in stone" or used as a tool to curtail or
eliminate programs and services
to homeless people. Ideally, "best practices"
incorporates a seamless continuum
of services which supports clients/consumers from
the street through to independent
or supported permanent housing.
The Regional Perspective
The starting
point for the discussion was the Backgrounder document provided to
participants before the event.
In acknowledging the points made in this assessment of
regional issues, a number of
critical points were highlighted:
The alarming increase in the numbers of youth as well as adults living
on the streets
throughout the province (this is less true in the Yukon because of the
severity of the
climate), with more than 50 percent of youth coming from outside the province.
It
was noted that there are different "ages of majority" across the country,
which
results in a "hit and miss" approach to treatment and support for transient
young
people. The group agreed that a common standard for the definition of "youth"
should be created. Participants commented that focusing more recognition
and
appropriate support for young people would go a long way towards preventing
future
multiple problems and homelessness.
A lack of shelter beds throughout the province results in large numbers
of people
being turned away from accommodation. The group felt that more shelter
beds are
necessary as a critical part of the housing continuum, while acknowledging
that
shelters are a "band aid" rather than the solution.
The deinstitutionalization of mentally ill persons without the requisite
development of
housing and support services in the community was seen as a major cause
of the
rising numbers of shelterless, vulnerable street people. The solutions
are not limited
to funding appropriate services and housing but must embrace the attitudes
of
communities that refuse to deal with their own problems (NIMBY). It would
also be
helpful to proclaim as yet unimplemented sections of B.C.'s progressive
child
welfare legislation.
Initial Review of "Best Practices" - What Does "Best Practice" Mean to Me?
This session
began with presentations from a funder, a service provider and a number
of people with experience of
being homeless (consumers). The essential qualities of best
practices include building quality
relationships and connections between the providers
and those needing the services
based on honesty, respect and acceptance (defined as
being non-judgemental).
From the service
provider's perspective, "best practices" are about demonstrating
that everyone has something
to learn in each situation, navigating through difficulties and
sticking with people when there
are setbacks. "You cannot make people change," several
participants noted. "And you
cannot predict and prevent every harm that may come to
them." Accordingly, collaborative
community relations develop over time and should not
just respond to crises.
From the perspective
of the funder, "best practices" help demonstrate that public
funds are being spent responsibly
and help decision makers understand that providing
appropriate housing and services
is an investment, not just a social value.
Three consumers
talked about the destructive force of being homeless, vulnerability
issues, and how difficult it
is to access the necessary support resources in order to make
the hard decisions necessary
to move towards a healthy, stable lifestyle. "Best practices"
from their perspective mean
having physical, emotional and mental safety, flexible
programs, continued outreach
and a continuum of proactive rather than reactive services.
The consumers' experiences helped
their fellow participants grasp the value of
abandoning exclusionary criteria
regarding age, addictions and the use of alcohol.
An example
was described in suburban Surrey, where in a two year period more than
500 people with no fixed address
were turned away from a hospital emergency room.
Close to a third had mental
illness and many were making multiple visits. Effective "best
practices" also do not deflect
responsibility and their common sense application helps
reduce bureaucratic blocks.
"Best Practices" also is the meaningful involvement of
consumers on program development
and service review.
The Benefits of Improving Networks
As an example
of how forming and improving networks can be beneficial, a report was
received from the fledgling
B.C.
Provincial Shelter Providers Network.This group recently
met for the first time to address
how to improve service quality and share common
concerns. The meeting was made
possible as a direct result of the networking activity
stimulated by the "Roundtables
Addressing Best Practices in Homelessness" initiative.
The group agreed that expectations
for an effective network include reducing isolation,
sharing information, frustrations
and successes, enabling common planning around
obstacles and jointly exploring
options and ideas. Another key benefit of networks is the
opportunity to influence policy
and effect change through advocacy. The shelter network
plans to link with other housing
networks, allowing stronger regional representation while
accounting for different priorities.
The group concurred that networks are valuable
regionally, provincially and
nationally and urged support for this approach from all levels of
government.
Principal Issues for the National Roundtable
This session resulted in several key suggestions:
Senior levels of government should be encouraged to re-enter the field
of providing
housing, but the key is cooperation among all government agencies to avoid
the
"silo" approach to funding. "We are all part of the solution," was the
sentiment. This
inclusive approach is intended to include agencies such as Health Boards,
for
example.
Involvement needs to be focused on "the common problem" by delivering services
in a seamless way. Funders also need to be involved from the beginning
of projects
to get buy in and be focused on common objectives rather than judging success
by
criteria applicable only to their agency.
More effective use should be made of legislation that already exists. An
example
cited by the group was that official community plans may include social
policies but
rarely do and can be used as tools of exclusion.
Funders should be encouraged to establish criteria more broadly and to
involve
consumers in the development of programs. Success should be defined to
reflect
the experience of consumers rather than program criteria alone.
There is a benefit to considering homelessness in a broader context, which
would
encourage individual ministries to consider longer term effects that benefit
other
ministries in the future (i.e. investing in youth can minimize future expenditures
on
items such as shelters). This was described as "spending a dollar to save
a dollar"
on an inter-ministry basis.
Participants were keen to have all levels of government understand the
value of the
"1% solution" which would result in a doubling of funding for homeless
relief
available for supported housing and rent supplements.
All agreed that Canada needs to develop a national housing policy, recognizing
the
right to shelter.
Putting "Best Practices" to work.
"Best Practices"
provide a common model to be shared, which reflects the current
status, and are ever changing.
They make a national perspective on the issues possible
and are a gauge by which to
measure success.
"Best Practices"
build relationships, foster partnerships, inform government funders,
eliminate artificial criteria
for funding, break down "silos", demonstrate diversity of funding
approaches, promote consistency
of funding, provide ongoing stimulus for change, help
stimulate and support fledgling
agencies, promote public education, and are instructive
for public advocates.
"Best Practices"
stress human issues, promote a continuum of support, cooperation
and sharing of information,
client needs, stimulate working groups, provide a framework
(not a template), promote ongoing
attempts to improve service standards, help save time,
and promote codes of ethics
for front line workers.
"Best Practices"
are underscored by principles and values which are central to a core
of ethics. "Best Practices"
address things within the control of service providers but also
suggest how to deal with things
beyond their control. The approach recognizes that we
can come together in our diversity
for a common cause, and reinforces the importance of
fostering financial and other
community support for the issue in such a way as to make it
"our" issue.
