Speaking at the Canadian Urban Institute’s breakfast seminar on January 13, Dr. J. David Hulchanski, one of Toronto Neighbourhoods Research Network’s conveners and professor in the Faculty of Social Work, spoke on the issue of Toronto’s growing income gap.

Hulchanski’s research, posits three “cities” that make up Toronto based on income level. The middle income “city” is getting smaller with every census count, the top is predominantly “white” as self-identified in the census, and the low income “city” comprises 40 per cent of the city’s population and is composed of:

• 34 per cent self-identifying as “white”
• 12 per cent “black”
• 15 per cent “Chinese”
• 20 per cent “Asian”
• And 19 per cent “other”

Hulchanski noted that these figures continue to point towards growing inequality by geography and he recommends all levels of government should continue to emphasize the importance of putting neightbourhoods on the public policy agenda. His specific recommendations included inclusionary zoning, rental housing rehabilitation, and redirecting the provincial share of land transfer tax to municipalities.

There are other reports that support Hulchanski’s findings as well, including Poverty By Postal Code, a report prepared jointly by United Way of Greater Toronto and the Canadian Council on Social Development. This report also illustrates the income gap is widening in Toronto and neighbourhood poverty has intensified. Their recommendations include creating employment and retraining opportunities and making housing affordable in all areas of the city.

You can download more detailed information about Hulchanski’s research from the Centre for Urban & Community Studies website.

First off, let me say that I’m a blogging novice, so hopefully I won’t violate too many rules of social networking here! But when Graham Watts (who is Director of Resource & Exchange (REX), Training & Development) asked me to get involved in our team’s contribution to the new blog for our colleagues in the social housing sector, I couldn’t turn him down… turns out Graham is quite persuasive.

Before I go any further, I want to introduce myself to you. I’m Tim Leung, Research Analyst in REX from SHSC. I’ve been in this role for about six months, and prior to that, was a research assistant at the University of Toronto. Before joining SHSC, I held a role in statistical analysis in Charter Cases, and also picked up some interesting knowledge in shelter development in the Third World.

But enough about me… the real reason I’m blogging is to talk about my attendance at the XXV International Methodology Symposium in Gatineau, Quebec from October 26-30, organized by Statistics Canada. To be sure, I am no survey methodologist in the strictest sense (my statistical training was at the analytical end), but I am currently working on satisfaction surveys to evaluate services for the social housing sector (stay tuned).

One way we evaluate our services is through longitudinal data analysis. Why do we care so much about this kind of analysis even if the surveys we conduct do not involve the general public?

The answer?

It matters to us because social housing, as with all sectors, can suffer from “survey overload” and response rates can decline over time (this even happens with big-time statistical agencies like Statistics Canada). For instance, when people feel that their response to a survey produces no value, they are less likely to respond the next time. There are many problems associated with a decline in response rates. Perhaps, the most crucial problem, from an organizational view, is that a decrease in participation can actually increase the costs of the operating cost of conducting a survey (e.g. how many times do we have to call back respondents who did not respond initially or who left out key information?).

When response rates decline in longitudinal surveys about household spending, for instance, one strategy can entail selecting other respondents to be part of the sampling frame. It is harder for us to do this in the social housing sector because we have a smaller pool of respondents – when our “sector” respondents stop responding to surveys, we have nowhere else to go! Moreover, our respondents are pre-determined—they include housing providers and property managers in Ontario—and if we survey the entire group at once and receive a low response rate, there is no replacement!

There are, obviously, possible implications to how we approach surveys and the potential burden it has on busy respondents (e.g. housing providers, property managers). Many social housing providers can recall responding to lengthy surveys over the years as either government or others try to identify issues in the social housing sector and apply common solutions. We acknowledge the importance and the sincerity of these approaches, but at the same time we have to learn from past mistakes and try to create a system of information-gathering that builds on current systems and data to create an ongoing and manageable way of measuring the “state” of social housing. Stay tuned for more as SHSC moves forward with a data collection and inventory plan and evaluates the social housing sector in a “longitudinal” way!

I was fortunate to be able to chair a session at the ONPHA conference on Sunday entitled Recruitment and Retention: Changing the “Image” of Social Housing. Our presenters for this session were excellent, but the real stars of the show were the conference participants that asked some great questions and offered insightful feedback.

Presenters from left: Neville McGuire, Michael Buzzelli, Merv Huges and Dave Colangelo

One of the best ideas was to establish an undergraduate housing essay competition. Not only would this motivate students at the undergraduate level to think and write about housing, it would also be an excellent public relations opportunity for a sector that could use a bit of good press. A bursary for students in financial need studying housing could also work in the same way. For the past three years SHSC has helped to fund and manage a research internship program for MA and PhD level students. You can see their work here.

A number of participants also mentioned the importance of involving tenants in the operation of their own housing. Who better to manage housing than someone who knows the place from the inside? This is a model that has quite a bit of traction in the UK (eg. Tenant Participation Advisory Service, Tenant Services Authority) and something that we could definitely use more of in Canada.

Fittingly, the conference wrapped up with awards for a group of tenants that had made outstanding contributions where they live. One of GLOBE’s Community Champions, Lynn Wood from Richview Residence, received an award.

If you have some examples of how tenants have made where they live a great place to live, or if you have ideas on how we can further engage tenants in the provision of housing, post a comment!

Well, it’s budget time again! Just got back from a breakfast forum put on by Global Public Affairs at the National Club entitled “Toronto’s Budget: Priorities for 2010” – it was covering the city of Toronto capital budget (the 10-year capital plan totals over $16 billion – http://www.toronto.ca/budget2010/index.htm). Councillor and Budget Chair Shelley Carroll described the budget process and the public consultations that are now underway to get input. They call this “the easy budget” – the operating budget will be the hard one (February, 2010).

A Markham Municipal staff described their zero tax policy – but that it may change in the coming years. The Markham staff person described the Toronto budget as a bellwether for most Municipalities. Bill Davis reminded everyone that wherever the $ seem to come from, they in fact all originate with the same tax payer. I found the debate interesting, and the challenges from Board of Trade on the flaws of the budget process and consultation, as well as the challenges and thoughts on how to raise funds (Peter Kuitenbrouwer of the National Post suggested some ways of raising funds – like selling Metro Hall). It made me think about how reactive budgets can be – Carroll wants to tie the city’s funds to the economy more closely so that as the economy grows, so do the funds. Others commented that this can be flawed in tough times. Either way, this budget is going forward and really is only representative of what is actually done with the money to make a sustainable and prosperous city.

And as I go into my own departmental budgeting process, I gain a new insight into the context in which I work. Social housing budgets are notoriously tight and constrained. To help with managing these dollars, SHSC has tried to provide insight into specific ways in which social housing as a sector can become more efficient and effective. Affordable Housing in Perilous Times is concerned with the framework of spending decisions, regulatory requirements, and housing programs which shape the production of new affordable housing and which protect the existing housing stock, both private and social. Check it out on our website under the SHSC Research section. Stay tuned for more thoughts on budgeting and how and what we do with the funds that fuel our communities.