Many programs and policies in Canada and around the world have preventing or reducing homelessness as a goal. Do these programs really work? What kinds of programs have been evaluated? What are the different approaches used by researchers to evaluate strategies to end homelessness?
To answer these questions, we have recently developed a literature review that summarizes research on interventions that aim to reduce or prevent homelessness. Here’s a brief summary of that work. We started with the question: What works and for whom? Our specific goals were to understand the different populations for whom interventions have been tested, and the types of interventions evaluated, as well as to create an inventory of the indicators used in program evaluations. We’re hoping this will help people who are planning program evaluations, as well as highlight gaps in the evaluation of initiatives to end homelessness.
Here are some of the highlights from the review:
Different people, different needs: More research is needed on what works for different groups. The main focus of most published evaluations in the peer-reviewed literature was people with mental illness, with little attention given to differences in gender, age, ethnicity, or substance use. This is especially the case for evaluations of permanent independent housing (such as housing first). This is concerning given the increasing number of homeless women, youth, and families, including people from diverse ethnic backgrounds and those with minority sexual orientations. The gap in evaluation of housing interventions for First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples is particularly concerning given the over-representation of Aboriginal people among homeless populations in Canada There is also a lack of research on independent housing programs for people whose main concern is substance use or addiction. Future research on homelessness interventions would benefit from a wider focus on what eases transitions out of homelessness for different groups of people with distinct needs (e.g. women, people with substance use problems, youth).
What about health? Housing and health are closely linked. A lack of housing has dire consequences for health, and people who are homeless suffer disproportionately from many health conditions. We didn’t find very many evaluations that looked at participants’ health outcomes beyond psychological functioning, even though health would likely improve with better housing. There is a need for future evaluation that focuses on changes in health (both physical and mental) related to housing.
What about the social and economic conditions that lead to homelessness? Mostly, the evaluations measured success by looking at whether program participants became or remained housed after leaving the program. They also often reported on participants’ thoughts about how effective the programs were. These are important things to look at, but the evaluations tended to focus on individual circumstances without referring to the broader social conditions that create homelessness, like poverty, racism, discrimination, housing policy, welfare policy, and cost of living. Evaluations that include discussion of these factors would give a fuller picture of the context, which can tell us something about why the program failed or succeeded and under what conditions similar programs could have a positive impact.
Social and economic conditions matter, so why don’t we change them? There are policy-level initiatives to end homelessness designed to address the social conditions that make it so hard for some people to find housing. While we did find some evaluations of policy level initiatives to end homelessness in this review, more are needed. Thus, we suggest an increased focus on evaluating broader systemic responses to end homelessness. The causes of homelessness are complex and require a multi-pronged approach; we know that systemic changes are needed if programs are going to achieve the goals of preventing, ending or reducing homelessness.
In undertaking program evaluation, we need to ask what are the broader social and economic conditions that impact the success of any program and move to questions regarding "what works for whom and in what context?"
Our names sit at the very core of our being and yet are thoroughly mediated by the social. The stories we tell about our names and our name as a story are among the most fundamental stories we tell about ourselves. These stories are subject to constant revision by ourselves as well as by other people. For trans people, choosing a name may be one of the first ways they begin narrating their experience of assuming a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth. The act of re-naming signifies an important moment in the process by which trans people come to understand and author their developing identity.
Trans youth are the most vulnerable adolescent population, due to both violence by peers and harassment by adults. Trans youth experience higher ratesof discrimination, violence, substance abuse, and suicide ideation than their gender-conforming peers. The needs of trans youth are different from their gay, lesbian, and bi- sexual peers–and more complex than trans adults. They go beyond the issues of sexual orientation and homophobia in a heterosexist society; they extend past the experiences of severe employment, housing, and health-care discrimination faced by trans adults.
As trans people start to transition at younger ages, their experience of changing their name and transitioning is in closer contact with those who are tied to their given name. Trans youths’ relationship to and negotiation of re-naming is particularly complex: these young people may still be dependent on the very families who named them. Families have a range of unpredictable reactions to their child’s trans expression and identity, and often feel a sense of loss when their child identifies differentlyfrom the gender they were assigned at birth. Trans youth’s process of re-naming can come in conflict with and symbolize a rejection of their family and their family’s desires for them. In addition to pressures from home and family, trans youth are tasked with choosing a name that reflects their identity and renders them intelligible in the various communities they are a part of. These tensions reflect some of the complex issues trans youth negotiate and narrate in their process of re-naming. In my dissertation I explore the complicated relationship trans people may have to both their given and chosen names and consider how trans people construct narratives about their process of choosing a name.
Julia Sinclair-Palm is a doctoral student in the Graduate Programme in Language, Culture and Teaching at York University in Toronto. Her research interests include gender, language, Trans studies, Queer theory, and Postcolonial studies. She is currently working on her dissertation, exploring names as a way to consider the desires trans youth have for their identity, the ties they feel to their home and origins, and their need to be recognized in society. She has presented her work at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) and the American Sociology Association (ASA) conferences. She is also a research assistant with the Homeless Hub at York University.
Last week I was in Whitehorse where I released a peer-reviewed policy report on poverty in Yukon. The report was part of the much larger Social Economy Research Network of Northern Canada project.
Report findings include the following:
- Ignoring poverty can be quite costly, as has been clearly demonstrated by research on the ‘costs of poverty’ done by economist Nathan Laurie and others, including PEF Blogger Iglika Ivanova . This is due largely to lost productivity and higher health care costs associated with poverty.
- As can be seen in the table below, most Canadian jurisdictions have implemented a “poverty reduction strategy” at some point in the past decade.
-Yukon does not yet have a "poverty reduction strategy."
-Yukon's rate of food insecurity amongst social assistance (SA) recipients — as measured by the Canadian Community Health Survey — is significantly higher than for SA recipients in the rest of Canada. This is almost certainly due to the higher costs of food in Canada's North. This is cause for concern, especially since poor nutrition predisposes individuals to multiple health problems, including hypertension, diabetes and certain forms of cancer.
-The budgets of lone-parent households in Yukon are especially stretched. In fact, lone-parent households in Yukon are twice as likely to live in overcrowded housing than the rest of Yukon households.
-The housing market in Whitehorse (which accounts for three-quarters of Yukon's population) is a very challenging place to be trying to find affordable housing. The average price of a house in Whitehorse has increased by 80% in the past six years (even after adjusting for inflation). And as of March 2012, the rental vacancy rate in Whitehorse was just 1.3% (yet, a 'healthy vacancy rate' is generally believed to be in the 3-4 % range).
-Federal funding for social housing (on long-term operating agreements) is running out. Most already-existing social housing units in Yukon currently depend on federal funding for their operation and maintenance; this includes the cost of fuel, power and water. As the federal contributions start to run out (see figure below), this will leave much of Yukon's stock of social housing in a very vulnerable position. (Every Canadian jurisdiction is facing this challenge, and Steve Pomeroy does a very good job of writing about the national picture here . But Canada's North, where housing is much more expensive, is especially vulnerable on this issue, and I've previously written about that here .)
-Yukon is one the only jurisdictions in Canada that fully 'claws back' the National Child Benefit Supplement from SA recipients, thereby denying households on SA up to $2,200 annually for one child. This is presumably done by the Yukon Government in order to make gainful employment seem more attractive. (However, another way of making gainful employment more attractive would be to invest more in child care.)
-The report discusses findings from recent research on Quebec's $7/day daycare program. That research argues that Quebec's program has resulted in 70,000 additional mothers being gainfully employed; it also argues that for every one dollar the Quebec provincial government spends to operate its daycare program, it gets more than one dollar back in provincial tax revenue. Yet, my report notes that fewer than one-third of Yukon children are in licensed child care.
-Over the years, the Yukon Government has relaxed its earnings-exemptions rules for SA recipients. This has made it easier for Yukon's SA recipients to earn money from gainful employment. SA benefit levels in Yukon have also increased steadily — even after adjusting for inflation — since the mid-1980s.
-Yukon's economy has been performing very well in the past decade. Using tax data put together by fellow PEF Blogger Armine Yalnizyan, my report notes that, between 2001 and 2008, the number of Yukon tax filers (i.e. individuals) earning more than $250,000 annually more than quadrupled.
-Between 2008 and 2010, while the Canadian economy as a whole grew by just 1%, Yukon's economy grew 11%.
-Yukon, along with Alberta, has no public debt.
-The report reminds readers that, in November 2010, an all-party House of Commons Standing Committee recommended "that the federal government immediately commit to a federal action plan to reduce poverty in Canada…" The report also recommends that the Yukon Government, in addition to taking measures of its own on poverty reduction, remind the federal government of the vital role that such a federal action plan could play in poverty reduction.
(-There is some good recent news on poverty-reduction in Yukon. As of May 1, Yukon's minimum wage increased to $10.30/hr., making Yukon's minimum wage the second-highest in Canada.)
All of the information pertaining to my policy report can be found here: www.homelesshub.ca/Yukon.
Reprinted with permission from The Progressive Economics Forum
Nick Falvo is a doctoral candidate at Carleton University’s School of Public Policy and Administration and teaches a course on affordable housing and homelessness in Carleton’s School of Social Work. His research interests include poverty, affordable housing, social assistance, homelessness and post-secondary education policy. Under the supervision of Dr. Frances Abele, he is currently involved in two SSHRC-funded research projects looking at poverty and affordable housing in Canada’s North. And his doctoral dissertation, under the supervision of Dr. Saul Schwartz, consists of three essays on social assistance. Nick is a frequent blogger and op-ed writer, a steering committee member of the Progressive Economics Forum (PEF) and the PEF Events Coordinator for the Annual Conference of the Canadian Economics Association. Prior to his doctoral studies, Nick was a Parliamentary Intern in Ottawa, and then worked for 10 years as a community social worker with homeless persons in Toronto. Contact him at email@example.com
President Obama’s recent endorsement of marriage equality gives much hope to millions of people in the queer community, however, there is still much more work to be done, especially with regards to the extremely high number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQ) youth who are bullied, abused, kicked out, and forced to leave home due to homophobia and transphobia. Research studies continuously report that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the homeless youth population and that approximately 25-40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ, however, there is seldom any follow-up or further investigation into the phenomenon of LGBTQ youth homelessness, which has created a large gap in knowledge in this area, leading to barriers for agencies, policy makers and health care providers trying to respond to the needs of LGBTQ youth, perpetuating a situation whereby this population is underserved and their needs are unmet. What we do know, however, is that a high proportion of LGBTQ homeless youth feel safer on the streets than in shelters due to homophobic and transphobic violence in the shelter system and this desperately needs to change.
My PhD study examines the lack of support available to LGBTQ homeless youth in Toronto and specifically asks: What changes need to be implemented in the current shelter system in order for it to become safer, more accessible and more supportive for LGBTQ homeless youth? Several relevant secondary questions that arise from the main inquiry include:(1) In light of previous research findings which establish a need for specialized services for LGBTQ homeless youth, what kind of specialized services are needed? (2) What kind of training is needed for staff in the shelter system in order to be well equipped to deal with situations of homophobia and transphobia? (3) What underpins and recreates the current problems and barriers that LGBTQ youth face in the shelter system?
These questions are being answered through a series of research stages methodologically comprised of participatory research, critical ethnography, and arts-informed research. The research stages will help identify the changes that need to be implemented in the current shelter system to render it safer, more accessible and supportive for LGBTQ homeless youth. The first stage of the research study examined the adults who work in the shelter system and focused on the training they have received, their levels of preparedness in dealing with situations of homophobia and transphobia, and how the shelters operate. Data collected in the first stage included shelter staff focus groups, one-on-one interviews with shelter Executive Directors, City of Toronto management, and facilitators of shelter training workshops, and observations of three shelter training workshops. The second stage of research identified the local problems faced by LGBTQ homeless youth in Toronto and explored how the shelter system has let them down and their everyday experiences within the system. I conducted 10 one-on-one interviews with youth aged 21 to 29 years. I had originally proposed the third and final stage of data collection to be a Digital Storytelling project with a small group of previously homeless or street-involved LGBTQ youth. Each youth was going to be provided with a digital point and shoot camera and asked to take both still photos and video footage representing the problems they have encountered in the shelter system, as well as a representation of where they found support due to the problems they have encountered in the shelter system. Unfortunately, due to time constraints and difficulty with recruitment, I was only able to complete one Digital Story with one youth.
My preliminary data analysis indicates that the issue of homophobia and transphobia in the shelter system is much greater than our current understanding. Several key themes that have emerged include the need for shelter staff to receive Anti-Homophobia training as soon as possible, as well as LGBTQ terminology training; and the issue of youth facing intersecting oppressions in the shelter system, specifically, homophobia-transphobia-racism-ageism.
This study serves as an important call to action for all levels of government, policy makers, shelter directors and staff, youth, and the general public to improve the shelter system and support services and to increase funding for specialized programs for LGBTQ homeless youth so that the necessary support is in turn available. For more information, please visit: www.ilona6.com
Alex (Ilona) Abramovich
Ilona Alex Abramovich is a Doctoral Candidate in the Adult Education and Community Development program at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education-University of Toronto. Alex’s research focuses on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, and queer (LGBTQ) youth homelessness in Toronto. Alex is currently investigating the changes that need to be implemented in the Toronto’s shelter system in order for it to become safer, more accessible, and more supportive for LGBTQ youth who are homeless. Alex’s PhD study is methodologically comprised of Arts-informed research, Critical Ethnography, and Participatory research. As an artist, activist, and researcher Alex is interested in the use of Digital Storytelling, photovoice, and filmmaking. For more information on Alex's work, please visit: www.ilona6.com
There’s a new national player in the struggle to end homelessness in Canada. The new Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness was launched last week, and promises to be an effective champion for ending homelessness in Canada by mobilizing communities and governments across the country to develop and implement their own 10 Year Plans to End Homelessness. Check out their newly released “A Plan Not a Dream”, a document that outlines the Ten Year Plan approach.
“We will seek to make progress one community at a time, building on the proven success of communities like Calgary.” says Tim Richter, who will head up this effort. The CAEH will also play a strong role in ensuring that all levels of government in Canada do their part in supporting communities, including through investment in affordable housing.
Why do I like this new Alliance? First, the focus is on supporting communities, municipalities and provincial and national governments to develop strategic and coordinated responses to homelessness. I have long argued that we need to move away from a response that simply provides emergency services such as shelters and drop-ins. In many, if not most communities, the provision of emergency services means that homelessness is addressed through a fragmented patchwork of such services, often with a heavy dose of law enforcement (we have to acknowledge that the criminalization of homelessness IS unfortunately part of our national strategy to address homelessness).
The Ten Year Plan model, first pioneered in the United States, but successfully adapted in many Canadian cities, has shown that we can shift this focus, not only though strategic coordination, but also by emphasizing prevention and rapid rehousing (it should be noted that Housing First is a central strategy of the Ten Year Plan model). This means retooling the emergency sector to ensure that people don’t languish in shelters for years. The Ten Year Plan model has been proven effective, and Tim Richter will bring his experience from the highly successful model in Calgary to the national stage.
A second strong feature of the approach advocated by the CAEH is the foundational belief that research and data collection must be part of the solution. For too long in Canada, we have said: “We don’t need research to solve homelessness; we know what the problem is, and we know what the solution is”. Wrong! This kind of thinking has actually gotten in the way. In communities that have successfully addressed homelessness, research has been used to address instrumental concerns (does Housing First work?), pose conceptual challenges (How can we shift the focus to prevention), implement program evaluation, and as a means of supporting systems-based responses through data management (such as the highly successful HMIS system). Research DOES matter.
Now some people may question whether we need yet another national entity for addressing homelessness. Won’t this just increase competition and dilute the effort? In fact, the CAEH and other important national voices such as the Canadian Homelessness Research Network, Raising the Roof, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Wellesley Institute and Eva’s Initiatives, as well as many other significant local groups have already signaled not only their intent, but their active commitment to working collaboratively in a way that enhances the work of everyone.
Others may question whether there is much to be learned from a model that originated in the United States, or whether the Alberta experience is transferable to the rest of Canada. Well, on that front, we need to get over ourselves! We need to identify the best ideas; figure out what works; and adapt these practices to new contexts. I don’t care where an idea comes from. If it’s a good idea and it is proven effective, I’ll take it.
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.