XI.12.2018 - Housing Ends Homelessness II
This is the second of two installments regarding housing and homelessness. I returned home late last night from an assignment in a rural area of Ontario to study the system from the perspectives of the various stakeholders who are committed (sort of) to ending homelessness. My activities over the past week were part of an end-to-end analysis of the municipality’s system over a study period of approximately six months.
I should disclose that I’m a glass half-full kind of guy but I’m also a pragmatic existentialist. When I reflect on how homelessness initiatives have positively impacted people’s lives over the past two decades, I’m cautiously optimistic that Canadians can end chronic homelessness. The provincial and federal governments have committed significant dollars to build affordable housing and fund programs designed to provide people with tailored supports so they can sustain their homes “permanently.” When households are unable to maintain their housing for whatever reason — including addictions, loss of income, mental health, family breakdown, etc. — they are immediately eligible for re-housing. The re-housing approach is consistent with the principles of the Housing First program accompanied by Intensive Case Management (ICM) that helped them to secure their original housing without preconditions for being “housing ready.”
If Canadians are going to end chronic homelessness, the housing and homelessness supports system needs to be designed to make that happen. In Alberta, the original 10-year plan to end homelessness in Alberta stipulated a very specific goal (vision) that “…no Albertan will be without a home for longer than 30 days.” With that goal in play, it’s not a coincidence that Medicine Hat has essentially ended chronic homelessness in their community of 63,000 people. It has been nine years since the 2009 provincial plan was implemented but chronic homelessness has not ended in Calgary with a population of 1.2 million — 20 times the size of Medicine Hat. Is the system that ended chronic homelessness in Medicine Hat not scalable? Are the Housing First principles, techniques and tools implemented differently in the two cities? If affordable housing stock was available for everyone experiencing chronic homelessness, would Calgary also be able to declare an end to chronic homelessness? Chronic homelessness does not include women who are homeless due to gender-based violence or homeless youth — two additional, priority groups who need immediate access to affordable housing. How does the system adapt to the needs of these priority sub-populations?
The comparison of Medicine Hat and Calgary is an example of how difficult it is to replicate best practices from community to community. And, it’s important to note, Alberta has been on the leading edge of innovative approaches to ending homelessness. For instance, Alberta re-purposed and restructured their emergency shelter system so that people accessing these services can choose to participate in the Housing First program with a direct connection to permanent supportive housing. Representatives from the “
7 Cities” in Alberta discuss the tough questions, crunch the data and adjust their cities’ homelessness plans on a regular basis. But, it’s a paradox: the lack of affordable housing is not the only issue but without available, adequate, safe affordable housing as an integral part of the system, an end to chronic homelessness in large urban centres is just wishful thinking. Why can’t Calgary — or Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal — also end chronic homelessness?
James Carville, the rambunctious advisor to Bill Clinton, made the presidential campaign’s priorities clear when he said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In the case of housing and homelessness, it’s about four key elements: vision, alignment of resources, housing stock and a functional system. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision without action is perpetual dreaming. Vision with action can create a better future by ending chronic homelessness.