Over the past 30 years, the Canadian labour market has experienced the proliferation of low-wage, precarious, temporary jobs that, when coupled with the rising cost of living across the nation, make it difficult for many Canadians to have the security they need to live a fiscally stable and prosperous life. For those who do experience homelessness, getting back into the formal labour market can prove challenging. This is where the role of social enterprises comes in.blended value return on investment implies that revenue generated by the enterprise can be realized financially by investors and shareholders and also used for social good.
Although there is no single definition of a social enterprise, the following are common aspects:
Social enterprises are revenue-generating businesses, but focus on creating social good.
They create impact and improvement in the areas of social, cultural, economic or environment sectors using market-based principles.
Income/revenue generated by the business helps achieve the mission, which is the driving force of the work.
They provide meaningful employment and training for individuals who may face barriers to employment.
Not only do social enterprises work to eliminate barriers, but can also operate services to improve the lives of individuals experiencing homelessness as well, this way delivering social value through the product and service itself.
Social enterprise can be thought of as combining social and economic values to achieve success. Unlike the traditional ‘return on financial investment” used by the private sector or the “social return on investment” used by the non-profit sector, social enterprises are unique in producing blended value return on investment that is not financial or social but rather both simultaneously.
Social Enterprises & Homelessness
How, then, do the proposed benefits of social enterprises factor in the lives of those experiencing homelessness? We know that a loss of employment is one major factor, along with a host of others, that lead to an individual becoming unhoused. Moreover, experiencing homelessness itself and the stigmatization that comes along with that acts as a barrier to employability. Other barriers include whether an individual is facing mental illness that either contribute to or develop after being homeless, unreliable transportation, gaps in employment history, a lack of education and/or skills and so on, such that, employers are hesitant to extend a job offer. And of course, homelessness intersected with other forms of discrimination against substance use and addiction, disability, age, sex, race, sexual orientation, to name a few, make finding and maintaining employment even more onerous. Which is unfortunate, as many individuals experiencing homelessness would take advantage of an employment opportunity if it was made accessible to them.
From this, and as their core philosophy, social enterprises can and do play a key role in the lives of those experiencing homelessness trying to re-enter the formal labour market, as they prioritize creating opportunities for marginalized populations that other industries do not. For example:
The Empowerment Plan in Detroit employs women from shelters who produce winter coats that double as sleeping bags and have been successful in transitioning employees into housing.
Find Edmonton in Alberta provides furniture free of charge to those transitioning into housing by selling furniture to the public and reinvesting the proceeds into housing and support programs.
The Remix Project in Toronto, as well as Chicago, is a creative marketing agency providing career training and experience to marginalized youths who wish to enter into the creative industry or further their education.
Benefits of Social Enterprises
So what makes the common elements of a social enterprise beneficial for those experiencing homelessness? One study interviewed 21 different social enterprises across Ontario on their strategies in creating opportunities for individuals with mental illness that were both accommodating as well as conducive to the operation of the business. A common theme among the employers interviewed was the desire to collaborate with those who traditionally face difficulties finding employment in the formal labour market. Employers interviewed also emphasized the positive outcomes of operating a social enterprise such as community participation and, for the employees particularly, the therapeutic benefits of employment, earning an income and networking opportunities to name a few. Similar benefits have been found across varying demographics.
Social enterprise intervention training programs for youth experiencing homelessness have demonstrated many positive results. Youth have reported an improvement in life satisfaction, family contact, peer social support and showed a decrease in depressive symptoms when compared to the control group who did not receive the training. Youth employed by private sector companies implementing a social enterprise framework were able to meet their basic needs (e.g., food, housing, work attire), 67% acquired new skills and knowledge, and for many others it inspired future career goals, bolstered self-esteem, provided networking opportunities, and resulted in a desire to further their education. The Impact Construction program by Choices for Youth in St. John’s, Newfoundland, that trains and employs at-risk and homeless youth, found that of the 35 participants of their program, 70% completed the program, 9 obtained or were working towards their GED, 7 pursued post-secondary education and 6 gained full-time employment in construction.
When done right, social enterprises not only provide an inclusive workplace but also aim to provide supports beyond the workplace to meet the complex needs of employees. When asked about the importance of supports beyond the workplace, a common theme found among employers was the necessity in acknowledging the reality of maintaining a job when homeless and if facing mental illness or addiction, thereby responding with the appropriate supports. This facilitates the creation of a workplace that is tailored to the individual and their needs, not the other way around.
Choices for Youth is another good examples here, as it operates multiple social enterprises that work in tandem not only to remove employment barriers for youth but also provide services that work to create a social and environmental good. Through their programs tailored to at-risk and homeless youth, Choices for Youth provides programs spanning across crisis response, supportive housing, targeted supports and fostering independence.
Therefore, in order for social enterprises to work, they need to be tailored to the populations they are employing. For instance, our Youth Employment Toolkit is a resource that outlines considerations when employing youths who have or are experiencing homelessness:
Connect employment training with housing stability. Youth should be supported to find or maintain housing, either independently, with the same agency or through a community partner. However, there should be no risk of eviction if the youth fails to complete the training program.
Provide start-up costs including transportation, work clothing and necessary supplies/equipment.
Provide life skills training to assist the youth with development of practical skills that will serve them after the program is complete. In particular, obtaining a bank account and developing a budget, creating a resume, interview skills etc. are key for a youth employment program.
Figure out a plan to address issues of lateness and attendance. These present particular challenges for street-involved youth who may not have the same ability to adhere to a structured routine as housed youth.
Build in access to education – especially a GED – if possible. This will help improve outcomes after the program for the young person. Support a young person’s goals for future educational attainment. This could include discussing educational programs, assisting with applications and applying for scholarships.
Create opportunities for job shadowing/mentorship so that youth can see what a program looks like in a real world application.
Despite the benefits listed, social enterprises do not exist in a vacuum and of course are constantly subject and vulnerable to market pressures, which is commonly cited as a challenge of social enterprises in striking a balance between altruistic intentions and broader free market demands. For instance, research demonstrates that it is common among social enterprises to abandon social good for profit - leaving behind individuals with the most complex needs who perhaps do not fit the mould of the ‘model’ productive worker. On the other hand, for those who do not fit the mould of the ‘model’ worker, this is where the role of other supports and programs factor in to ensure that individuals who perhaps are not ‘job ready’ have the supports to transition into the private sector should they so wish.
Importantly, homelessness cannot be eradicated solely by interventions focused on individuals who have experienced homelessness and their ability to re-enter the formal work force, but rather hold the structural failures accountable for exacerbating the conditions that lead to homelessness in the first place. The shrinking of Canada’s social safety net, the substitution of manufacturing jobs with service-sector, precarious, low-wage labour and the scant availability of affordable housing all need to be addressed. Social enterprises, along with other crucial initiatives like a living wage, Housing First and mental health and/or addictions supports that incorporate ongoing personalized supports and choice are all part of the puzzle. Thus, consistent, reliable funding for social enterprises, social services, mental health supports, health care and investment in non-precarious labour not contingent upon market failures but rather the social good are all integral to a preventative framework and cannot stand separately from each other in combating homelessness.
If interested in starting a social enterprise, take a look at these:
This past summer, Stephen Gaetz and I received a SSHRC Insight Development Grant for a new project, which extends some earlier work we did together when I was the COH’s post-doctoral fellow. In our early work, we were trying to identify social and structural conditions that support collaborations between communities and academic institutions. We studied the work that was happening at the Canadian Homelessness Research Network (now the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness), as well as a number of community-campus collaborations across Canada. In our new work together, we will draw on these prior research experiences as we work to better understand how engaged scholarship contributes to social change. What we mean when we say “engaged scholarship” is any strategy or activity that fosters collaboration between academic and non-academic settings. An important part of this is understanding how wider political-economic relations influence people’s collaborative efforts to move knowledge into action. We are working closely with the new COH post-doctoral fellow – Kaitlin Schwan – to carry out this work.
In this new research, our goal is to get underneath popular concepts like social innovation, collective impact, knowledge mobilization, evidence-based practice and research impact in order to find out how people actually work together to influence positive social change. This includes investigating how people use knowledge and research as part of social and political change. Unless we understand how working together contributes to social innovation and change, we won’t be able to improve the work we do or the partnerships we form, or effectively extend our collective efforts into other spheres where our work might matter. We want to understand whether and how particular activities (e.g., me writing this blog) actually contribute to changes in how people think about and do their work. In fact, we are conducting a survey on the impact of the COH and the Homeless Hub this month and would love your help! The survey asks you to share if and how the COH or the Homeless Hub has impacted your work, and how we can do so more effectively.
This research project begins with the observation that while many people are mobilizing research and knowledge for positive change, this work requires extensive social, financial, and intellectual commitments. There is seldom enough time for participants in these complex initiatives to reflect on the successes and challenges of their work. As a result, we have limited knowledge of the precise ways that our collective efforts contribute to the changes we want to see (e.g., preventing and ending homelessness).
Through this study, we want to find out:
- What are the actual things people do as part of collective efforts to solve complex social problems?
- How do the things people do shape the social changes that they are trying to make?
- How do social, institutional, political, and economic relations shape this work and influence how processes of social transformation unfold?
- How do we bring these complex social and political processes into view so that we can all learn to do the work more effectively?
To address these research questions, we will talk to people who participate in collective social change initiatives about:
- The changes they are trying to make;
- How their initiatives developed historically – for example, the things people did to create a collaborative model – and the policy, funding and social contexts that influenced this development;
- What people actually do, day-to-day, as participants in these initiatives;
- How people organize their individual work and responsibilities to support the broader aims of a collaboration;
- How they know their work is making a difference (with concrete examples); and
- How they know where the work needs to go next.
To provide additional context, we’ll be looking at the organizational, economic, institutional, and policy effects that background and shape their ability to make change. We will also pay attention to the flow of ideas, diffusion of practices, and a variety of communication techniques.
To help us understand how research-to-action processes actually work, we’ll be experimenting with a few different mapping techniques such as those used to track the movement of disease in spatial epidemiology, diffusion analysis, network analysis, and drawing on developmental evaluation work being done in the non-profit sector.
Ultimately, this research will produce a series of case studies that will serve as a demonstration project or a real-time lab. In the pilot phase, we are beginning with two cases (Exeko in Montreal and the COH in Toronto). In a face-to-face knowledge exchange between the two projects, we will be working collaboratively to articulate how the demonstration model will look, feel and function, what it will seek to convey, and how we anticipate people will use it. My hope is that we can create web-based demonstration cases that can be continuously updated and evolved as the projects themselves evolve. As we advance this aspect of the work, we will also be building a collection of tools, which we’ve found useful to capture and convey the relationship between particular activities and the changes they’ve produced or influenced. To be honest, we are making this part up as we go along – that is, we will be learning about innovation by trying to do something differently, ourselves.
To learn more about this project, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
News that the federal government is considering a portable housing benefit as part of its National Housing Strategy hit the wires earlier this month and was quickly picked up by news outlets.
What could this mean for families facing homelessness?
First, let’s define our terms. Governments typically provide housing assistance to tenants in three ways: through bricks-and-mortar social housing, via rent supplements paid to private and non-profit landlords to keep specific units affordable, or via housing benefits paid directly to tenants (or sometimes to their landlords) to help cover the cost of their rent. This kind of benefit is called “portable” because instead of being tied to a specific unit, it stays with the tenant even when they move.
In articles about the federal government’s plans, experts affirm that this measure could rapidly improve housing affordability for Canadian households in core housing need, until longer-term solutions such as increasing the supply of social and affordable housing come on-line. Commentators also point out that a portable housing benefit would allow low-income households to select their own housing and neighbourhood from available options in the private market, instead of living in specific social housing developments or subsidized units.
This comes as welcome news to many advocates who have been calling for a housing benefit as part of the range of necessary solutions for ending Canada’s housing and homelessness crisis. Our 2014 report on inadequate housing and risk of homelessness among families in Toronto recommended a portable benefit to help families cover housing costs. The State of Homelessness in Canada 2016 and the National Housing Collaborative’s submission to the National Housing Strategy consultations, also recommend a portable national housing benefit for low-income households. Both sources propose a design similar to the National Child Benefit, which could be delivered via the tax system, and would be designed to cover most of the gap between the cost of rent and 30% of a household’s income.
Some jurisdictions in Canada already have more limited, temporary versions of a portable housing benefit. Housing First programs in municipalities across the country, for example, often include a housing allowance, along with services to assist people to find and maintain housing. And Ontario is piloting a housing benefit for women fleeing intimate partner violence. Advocates hope this can help women and families to move more quickly into safe housing in the community, reducing long shelter stays that keep shelters crowded and force them to turn away thousands of women and children each year.
But a national benefit would help to close the rent-to-income gap for low-income households across the country, for as long as needed, no matter where they live or what their circumstances – an important first step in ending homelessness and ensuring adequate housing for all.
In order to best address the needs of families facing homelessness, though, such a benefit must meet some criteria:
It must be sheltered from clawbacks by provincial social assistance programs. When the National Child Benefit was introduced, it was not protected from clawbacks. Activists fought for almost twenty years to stop Ontario from taking the benefit away from kids in the poorest families, until the Canada Child Benefit was introduced in 2016.
It must be universal and ongoing. Every household in need should have access to this benefit – otherwise it will become just another waiting list. This is the case in the U.S., where most households in need don’t receive any housing assistance, and family homelessness is rampant. In many US cities, wait lists for the national Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) are closed, and only add new names by annual lottery.
It must be ongoing, and use a formula that fills the gap between income and rent. A fixed, temporary housing allowance that provides a couple of hundred dollars per month for a year or so will not ensure housing stability for low-income families, especially in the context of a labour market that is creating precarity and working poverty for increasing numbers of workers across the country. A formula that fills the gap between income and rent will make the benefit less costly, while ensuring equal housing affordability for families in every market, from lower-cost rural areas to high-priced markets like Toronto and Vancouver.
It must not inflate rents at the low end of the private market. There is a risk that landlords will simply raise rents to absorb the extra income from a benefit, reducing its impact for families and making housing less affordable for households that don’t qualify. In the US, the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) includes a mechanism to prevent this, called Fair Market Rent - a maximum rent for units rented through the HCVP, calculated annually for each metropolitan area or county, and allowing for smaller-area calculations in high-priced, densely-populated housing markets. Provincial rent control laws also have an important role to play in preventing rent inflation.
It must be paired with local emergency supports. A benefit tied to the tax system is not responsive enough to address the unstable incomes and changing housing situations that families facing homelessness often experience. Local and provincial governments need to fill this gap, offering other income supports to prevent or alleviate homelessness and bridge families on to the national benefit.
It must be linked with initiatives to increase and repair rental supply. Rental housing is not only unaffordable – it is also scarce and deteriorating in many places. Construction of purpose-built rental housing has been at a virtual standstill in Canada’s cities for more than 25 years, meaning most apartment buildings are now in decline, poorly-maintained, and overcrowded. Vacancy rates are dangerously low in many places, and there is a desperate shortage of rental housing in the North and in many rural areas.
It must not abandon families to the private market. Research from US cities shows that families who receive housing vouchers often struggle in the private market. They may end up in deteriorating units and declining neighbourhoods, with poor access to public transit, and move frequently with little improvement in their housing situation. When families relocate from public housing into the private market with a portable benefit, rates of food insecurity and financial hardship increase.
Our research with low-income families in private-market rentals in Toronto showed that families encountered a number of housing problems in addition to unaffordable rents: dangerous and unsanitary common areas; lack of good repair in units; discrimination on the basis of race, immigrant status, gender, and other factors; housing that is not accessible to residents with disabilities; and disrespectful treatment by building managers. While financial assistance is vital, families may also require access to services and advocacy to help them find and maintain housing that is decent, safe, suitable, accessible, and stable. A national portable benefit program should be paired with strong provincial landlord-tenant laws, and local programs such as Toronto’s new landlord regulations. And many families, including those fleeing intimate partner violence, will continue to require community supports, education, and employment training in order to move towards self-sufficiency.
It must not replace social housing communities. Considering the expense of maintaining bricks-and-mortar social housing in good condition, not to mention the money and time it will take to increase this stock to meet the need, some may wonder why we don’t just dispense with social housing altogether, and simply assist low-income households to pay rent in the private market. But maintaining non-market housing as part of Canada’s housing system is important for many reasons. First, keeping land out of the market helps to hold spiraling land values and speculation in check. Secondly, in order to meet diverse housing needs, our housing system must include a broad range of accessible options: emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, social housing, co-ops, affordable market rental, and affordable home-ownership. Thirdly, social housing is durable in a way that portable benefits are not: it’s a lot easier for government to cancel or reduce a benefit (as recently happened in the UK) than it is to demolish a building.
Most importantly, as research from Chicago demonstrates, social housing developments are home to vibrant communities where informal networks provide material and emotional support that are vital to residents’ well-being. Even when offered the opportunity to leave neglected and distressed public housing projects, many tenants prefer to stay. Neighbourhoods are vital sites for the delivery of place-based approaches and the development of residents’ collective agency. U.S. research proves that when resources are invested in improved management, renovations, and services for residents, outcomes for tenants who remain in public housing can be better than for tenants who relocate into the private market with a housing benefit.
With more than 170,000 households on the affordable housing waiting list in Ontario, and Toronto family shelters often at 100% capacity, governments at all levels must move quickly to provide desperately-needed affordable housing options. A national portable housing benefit will be an important first step – as long as it’s done right.
Community planning is essential to preventing and ending youth homelessness. A Way Home Canada supports sector and community capacity to plan, implement and sustain effective, evidence-based and measurable strategies to prevent and end youth homelessness. Communities everywhere are asking for assistance on how to develop and implement successful plans. In response to this need, A Way Home’s Youth Homelessness Community Planning Webinar Series will provide guidance on the fundamentals for strong community planning practice over the 2017 year.
Phase One webinars, from January to March, will provide the fundamentals by introducing key concepts of youth homelessness community planning, applying the Collective Impact framework specifically to youth homelessness and focusing on the role of Ontario Service Managers and their communities in ending and preventing youth homelessness.
In Phase Two, we will dig deeper into community planning with topics ranging from the role of funders, government policy, research, youth engagement, regional planning, achieving early wins and so much more!
Who should attend?
Consider participating in one or all of these webinars if you are a(n):
- Community Leader or coordinator of a community planning process or want to start one?
- Funder who wants to increase the impact of your support on youth homelessness.
- Ontario Service Manager who wants to support better service integration for young people.
- Community Entity (CE) or Community Advisory Board (CAB) looking to enhance the impact of HPS investments on youth homelessness.
- Policy maker who wants to ensure community plans are aligned with government policy for maximum impact?
- Executive Director (or Manager) of a youth-serving agency who wants better integration of services in your community so young people no longer slip through the cracks.
- Member of a community planning steering committee or board member who wants to know more about the mechanics of community planning to make more effective contributions.
- Consultant hired to support youth homelessness efforts by conducting research, writing plans or facilitating stakeholder groups.
- Researcher working on a project with bearing on youth homelessness and want to enhance its research and policy relevance.
Our first webinar will be on January 31, 2017 at 1PM (EST). Dr. Alina Turner will be walking step-by-step through the fundamentals involved in building a plan to prevent and end youth homelessness. Alina has developed such plans in a variety of communities: urban, rural and regional. She brings a system planning approach to her work and grounds this in Collective Impact principles. In this webinar, she will work through topics including: community readiness, research and consultations approaches, setting targets and costs analysis, and implementation considerations. To register for the webinar visit https://youthhomelessnesscommunityplanning101.eventbrite.ca
Our second webinar on February 28, 2017 at 1PM (EST) with Melanie Redman, Executive Director of A Way Home Canada and Dr. Stephen Gaetz, Director of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness will offer a practical training on Collective Impact and the role it plays in youth homelessness community planning. The session will be peppered with mini case studies of the successes and pitfalls of Collective Impact work and what we can learn from them. Participants will gain a rich understanding of why Collective Impact is critical if we want to prevent and end youth homelessness. Registration information will soon be available on the A Way Home website.
You can also email me at email@example.com to sign up for our newsletter to receive updates on upcoming webinar dates and registration information.
We’re looking forward to sharing this information with you and hope to see you there!
This series was developed with generous support from the Government of Ontario and in partnership with the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, (OMSSA) and the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (COH).
In our latest website survey, we received the following question from Patricia F.: “Where can we get funding for transitional type housing projects?” This is a bit tough to answer without further information on the initiative but I’ll do my best!
Funding is the lifeline of service agencies but searching and applying for grants is not as simple as just asking, and gone are the days of government support as the main, if not the sole contributor. Besides providing essential services for their communities, one of the most important activities for non-profits is securing funding to fuel their operations. However, for the past three decades, the federal government has reduced funding for services providing support for people experiencing homelessness. Last year, Nick Falvo from the Calgary Homeless Foundation wrote an entry titled “Ten Things to Know About the Challenges of Ending Homelessness in Canada”, and 3 out of the 10 challenges he discussed had to do with the declining federal funds made available to non-profit organizations. Whether you’re looking for funding for transitional housing, community programming, research, advocacy or any other initiative, the lack of government funding is a serious barrier that makes it harder, if not impossible for communities to address the root causes of homelessness in a meaningful way. This point is reflected in the Government of Canada’s What We Heard report that summarized Canadians’ concerns around housing heard during the National Housing Strategy consultations held in the summer of 2016:
“Social housing providers and developers highlighted the need for innovative financing ideas, lower land costs and long-term, stable funding to help them plan and build more affordable homes for Canadians in need.”
Although the federal government has an important role to play in leading efforts in preventing and ending homelessness, provincial, territorial, municipal governments, civil institutions as well as the private sector and the general population can be important stakeholders in providing the necessary funding. Yet, when it comes to the housing question, the private sector alone doesn’t cut it and government intervention is critical if Canada is to end homelessness any time soon. In our systems approach to homelessness section, we advocate for government participation as leaders to pull in together various sectors through collective and coordinated responses. This means the sharing of responsibilities, developing structural supports through policy, agreeing on definitions, pooling funding, and engaging multiple sectors and levels of governments.
Before jumping into Patricia’s question, I’ll quickly discuss what is meant by transitional housing. As Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) defines it:
“Transitional housing is conceptualized as an intermediate step between emergency crisis shelter and permanent housing. It is more long-term, service-intensive and private than emergency shelters, yet remains time-limited to stays of three months to three years. It is meant to provide a safe, supportive environment where residents can overcome trauma, begin to address the issues that led to homelessness or kept them homeless, and begin to rebuild their support network.”
In light of the successes of Housing First models, there have been concerns around the time-limited nature of transitional housing including “rewarding” those who have proven to be “housing ready” by requiring them to move on, and for being highly dependent on the availability of affordable housing as a next step. Nevertheless, transitional housing is an important housing option where there isn’t an adequate supply of affordable housing and when dealing with youth. Unlike adults, youth lack many of the social supports deemed necessary for a successful transition into adulthood. Appropriate models of housing for youth should take into account their age, experience, level of independence and need. Therefore, models like that of Housing First need to be adapted to the needs of young people to be effective. The Housing First for Youth framework outlines the different options for models of accommodation that are suitable for youth and includes transitional housing that comes with a pathway to independent living.
So what is available in terms of funding? I’ve researched a few transitional housing programs to shed light on a few funding models that rely on government grants and private donations at varying degrees.
Funding Models for Transitional Housing
With the funding support of the Home Depot Canada Foundation’s Orange Door Project, we recently released the Youth Transitional Housing Toolkit. One of the chapters discusses the funding question for both capital aCovenant House’s $1.7 million annual expenses as an example. This total dollar amount covers staffing costs, program expenses, food, mentoring program, and the physical housing structure. In their 2015 annual report, Covenant House highlights that 82% of their total revenue (which includes expenses beyond their transitional housing program) comes from individual donors and 13% from government funding. The vast majority (79%) comes from individuals, 8% from corporations/foundations, 9% from events and 4% from Catholic charities. Covenant House has a number of engaging ways to reach out to donors who provide the bread and butter of their agency.
Since we are on the topic of funding, The Home Depot Canada Foundation has committed $10 million to help homeless youth. In 2015, they supported 300 organizations to improve their spaces and programming initiatives. The Orange Door Project has three priorities areas that could fit with transitional housing initiatives:
- Increasing and improving the inventory of new and existing housing options for homeless youth.
- Helping homeless youth with life skills development through programs that focus on critical support services.
- Supporting research, community dialogue and evaluation that identifies best practices and support solutions that will help put an end to youth homelessness.
A second organization providing three distinct transitional housing programs is YWCA Halifax. Because YWCA Halifax offers a number of community-based services besides their transitional housing program, it is not clear from their 2014 annual report how much of their revenues are allocated towards their transitional housing. However, the majority of their revenue comes from both government funding and programming fees. While most of their programs are free of charge, YWCA Halifax operates two child care centres which are an important form of revenue for the organization.
Other transitional housing programs such as Siem Lelum managed by Victoria Native Friendship Centre and established with the support of the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness and the City of Victoria, rent their units at below-market prices to their residents. The project is funded by the Government of Canada’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy, the Capital Regional District’s Housing Trust Fund, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the City of Victoria. The building itself was a Traveller’s Inns that the City of Victoria purchased and renovated into 26 apartments. In addition, last year, YMCA Sprott House opened its doors, with room for up to 25 youth, it is Canada’s first transitional housing program for LBGTQ2SA youth. YMCA Sprott House is supported by funding from the City of Toronto, the Sprott Foundation, individual donors such as Ben Pobjoy, and perhaps other sources.
These are just a few examples of many transitional housing funding models that employ various strategies to diversify their revenue streams. The reality is that organizations are required to engage a number of contributors including, different levels of government, foundations, corporations, and individuals (including the tenants themselves in some cases). In addition, operating a social enterprise is another method used by organizations to offset their costs and/or run sustainable programs such as Eva’s Phoenix Print Shop. But if you’re looking to build housing or need a major cash injection, running a successful capital campaign is a must!
Below, I’ve compiled a list of funders (not including local government, businesses and community foundations) that provide large grants to organizations serving the homeless. However, I’m hoping to share this list on our Community Workspace so please feel free to tweet or Facebook me and/or share names of additional funders that you know of in the comments section below.
- Homelessness Partnering Strategy
- United Way Canada
- The Home Depot Canada Foundation
- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
- Hockey Helps the Homeless
- Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
- J. Armand Bombardier Foundation
- Aviva Community Fund
- Catherine Donnelly Foundation
- The Morrison Foundation
- The Sprott Foundation
- Government of Canada supporting shelters for victims of violence
- It’s Everybody’s Business: Engaging the Private Sector in Solutions to Youth Homelessness
- NGO and Private Sector Partnerships: A Framework for Success
- Models of social enterprise in the homelessness field
- Federal Investment in Youth Homelessness: Comparing Canada and the United States and a Proposal for Reinvestment
- A Way Home: Youth Homelessness Community Planning Toolkit
- Funders Together to End Homelessness: Funder Toolkit
- Charity Village funders database
- The funding and delivery of programs to reduce homelessness: The case study evidence
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.
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.