The eviction and death of social housing tenant Al Gosling made national headlines. Gosling died in October 2009 after having lived for 21 years at a Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) building. At age 81, Gosling was evicted for failure to pay rent. He subsequently became homeless and died of an infection five months later.
The case spurred a close examination and overhaul of TCHC’s internal, eviction and mental health policies:
- Mental Health Framework
- Eviction Prevention Policy for Non-payment of Rent (Arrears)
- Report on the Eviction of Al Gosling and the Eviction Prevention Policy of Toronto Community Housing Corporation.
The recommendations in the report highlighted a troubled relationship between the role of social housing landlord and tenants with mental health issues. And the events themselves have left housing providers wondering about the right way to go. While these policies have been implemented within TCHC they illustrate the complicated dynamic faced sector-wide by social housing landlords.
Social+Housing: The Extra Responsibility of the Social Housing Provider
The first recommendation made in the Report on the Eviction of Al Gosling is that “TCHC must better communicate its mandate. It is a landlord, not a direct provider of social work services.”
While this may seem straightforward, it is often not the case for two key reasons.
First, social housing is home to a high percentage of vulnerable residents, many having mental health issues. In housing this population, the role between being strictly a landlord and providing a support service becomes, at times, difficult to navigate.
Second, the responsibility of the social housing landlord is not restricted to providing housing. The same recommendation also notes that TCHC “must assist tenants to identify, locate and contact appropriate support services.”
The result is that social housing landlords do not play the same role as a commercial landlord, nor are they support workers; instead in addition to their building-related responsibilities, they are responsible for identifying those with mental illness and connecting them with the appropriate service.
Challenges and Possibilities
The current system depends heavily on the social housing landlord’s ability to initiate connections with existing services and organizations while juggling their day to day responsibilities. There are also other challenges:
- Support services are often funded by a different level of government, adding complexity to the landlord’s connecting job
- Residents may not accept the services provided by an outside agency
- Outside services may simply not exist within the area
For any of the policies or recommendations to be successful, the disconnect between support services and the population living in social housing must be remedied. Rather than relying exclusively on the social housing landlord to initiate the connection, it seems logical that support services should also initiate interactions with social housing landlords. The differing needs of residents require a policy approach that is multifaceted and versatile, one that promotes relationships with relevant supportive agencies and clarifies the role confusion that social housing landlords often face.
It is important to note that out of the recent influx of mental health and eviction prevention policies and recommendations there is no singular benchmark for success. However what is apparent within these policies and recommendations is that by expanding what it is to be a landlord, while continuing to function as a landlord, tenants with mental health issues can receive both the help they may need and a stable place to live.
Here’s a concept: sponsor Master’s and PhD level students to write housing-related papers, connect them with mentors in the field, and give them the opportunity to present their findings at high-profile housing events.
This is exactly what SHSC has done over the past 3 ½ years. SHSC, with the help of the now defunct Canadian Policy and Research Networks (CPRN), worked to put in place the top housing research internship program in Canada! The program was led by housing scholar Dr. Mike Buzzelli, of the University of Western Ontario, and issued 20 publications during that time.
Paper downloads have numbered in the tens of thousands and many interns have gone on to meaningful and relevant employment in the housing sector. The program has seen wave after wave of students write on topics that delve into the diversity of challenges faced by the housing sector.
Putting humility aside for a second, the results have been incredible. Our most recent round of interns have produced work that offers significant contributions to our collective housing knowledge and have helped to build policy capacity in Canada.
Here are brief summaries of their papers:
Recession and Stimulus Spending: A Preliminary Examination of Stimulus Spending on Affordable Housing in Ontario by Arif Jinha
The federal budget of January 2009 allocated almost $2 billion toward social housing, reversing a trend of funding cuts to social housing policies and programs. What will happen once the one-time stimulus spending is complete?
Jinha argues that the crisis creates opportunities to think in a longer-term way about social housing in Canada. As he puts it: “The recession has created an opportunity to give voice to progressive policies in order to make the argument that the government does have a role in the economy…. whether this situation provokes change for the better is up to the public. Past recessions have brought either more of the same or forks in the road.”
Read more of what Jinha has to say about stimulus spending so far.
The Homeownership Component of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program:
Critical Analysis of Program Objectives by Helen Looker
Is home ownership really the answer for low- and middle-income Canadian households? In April 2005, the federal and provincial governments jointly invested $734 million in the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (COAHP), committing $28.37 million to the Homeownership Component. The goal of the Homeownership Component was to help 20,000 low- to moderate-income households transition from renting to ownership through assisted down payments.
Homeownership has been actively promoted politically in many countries; however, the evidence of its sustainability in low-income households is discouraging and the social benefits are unproven. Given the lack of evidence, is homeownership too much of a risk for low-income households? Since social housing tenants are targeted, could such programs concentrate poverty, and is the program goal of reducing waiting lists for social housing realistic?
Click here to read Helen Looker’s findings.
Overcoming Challenges in Centralized and Decentralized Housing Models:
Ontario and British Columbia Compared by Carla Schuk
Social housing in Canada has gone through substantial changes over the past two decades; in the early 1990s, administration (and most financing as well) devolved completely from federal to provincial governments and, in Ontario, to the municipal level.How have social housing administrators adapted their practices within these models? And what are the strengths and weaknesses experienced in each of them? Are there certain aspects of social housing that would be best dealt with at a provincially centralized level and others that would benefit from aspects of decentralization?
Click here to read Schuk’s findings.
Visit SHSC website for full text of these and other Social Housing Research Internship and Scholar Program papers.
Back to top