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.

The first phase of a study on Ontario’s Special Priority Policy (SPP) Impact Study was recently released by a joint research task force. SPP allows victims of domestic abuse special priority for social housing. It became a legal requirement for all social housing providers with the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, though specific types of providers had adopted priority policies for victims of abuse in the 1990s.

The report is useful for those interested in learning about the housing outcomes of SPP applicants as well as housing trends for all categories of social housing applicants. It utilizes waiting list data collected from 33 Service Managers representing the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), non-GTA urban and rural service areas. For each of the three service areas, waiting list totals, housing placements by number of bedrooms and average wait times were examined for SPP, local priority, special needs and chronological applicants.

Interesting Facts:

• As of mid-2010, an estimated 147,000 applicants were on waiting lists for social housing in Ontario
• 33.5% of the all-age community vacancies are allocated to SPP applicants, yet they represent only 3.6% of the waiting list
• The province-wide average wait time for SPP applicants is less than 6 months
• Chronological applicants in the GTA wait 5.1 years on average, which is significantly longer than non-GTA urban service areas of 2.4 years and rural areas which is 1 year

Results and Recommendations

The study indicates that the policy is in fact housing victims of domestic abuse more quickly compared to other applicants, just as the province intended.  However, new spaces in social housing have not been created and chronological applicants have reduced opportunities to secure housing.  Not surprisingly, the GTA has the longest wait times for all categories of applicants compared to other urban and rural service areas.  While the report does not provide formal policy recommendations, it does advocate for a provincially consistent database to collect social housing waiting list information to ensure more consistency in data collection. The report also highlights the need for more affordable housing in all Service Manager areas, which is evidenced by the length of time that chronological applicants have to wait.

What’s Next?

The next part of this study, Phase 1, Step 2, will examine if the SPP is meeting the needs of its applicants. For instance, are applicants retaining their new housing and what services could better support this group? Later, Phase 2 will examine the conditions for safe and stable housing for special priority applicants.

Read the SPP Impact Study and let us know what you think – is the SPP working?

City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 1244, Item 3106, Title: View of the courtyard at Spruce Court

Although it’s believed that providing people with better housing improves their physical and mental health, it’s difficult to prove. Like many housing researchers I’ve grappled with the same question that has remained scientifically un-tested. But over the past three years, I’ve worked with Dr. James Dunn, an internationally renowned scientist who specializes in the health impacts of housing and neighbourhood interventions, is studying the very issue through a natural research experiment, the Regent Park Social Housing Redevelopment Project. With only seven studies done like this in the last 100 years, this unique research project merits much attention by those working in the housing sector. Being the first of its kind in the world, and in Canada, it is recognized for using a natural method of conducting research, its longitudinal perspective, and its scientific integrity.

The Regent Park Story

Built 60 years ago as Canada’s first and largest social housing project, Regent Park occupies a 69-acre site in downtown Toronto and home to 7,500 people living in 2,087 social housing units is under transformation. Toronto Community Housing (TCH), which owns and manages Regent Park, is demolishing and rebuilding the entire community in six phases. The fundamental objective of the $ 1-billion, 12 year plan which began in 2005, is to reverse the decline of aging stock and create a financial operational model by mixing incomes and tenure.

This community-based academic partnered research project investigates the impact of Regent Park’s redevelopment on the health of social housing residents – both adults and children.

For proponents and providers of social housing, this is crucial research that will inform redevelopment planning and provide solid evidence to demonstrate the impacts of new built urban forms, in particular the impact affordable and quality housing has on the livelihood of low and moderate income households.

SHSC is optimistic that the evidence will show the benefits of improving the housing situation for Regent Park residents. Ambiguous however, is whether transformative improvements, such as new social housing, can change the situation of marginalized residents that have lived in extended periods of poverty. While the controversy still continues about mixed income communities and whether to demolish a social housing project, relocating residents and rebuilding the sites can truly benefit the original residents, which Dr. Dunn’s research will surely shed some light on. The initial results of Phase 1 residents are expected late 2011.

Until then I ponder the question: Is redevelopment and mixed income communities the current way of thinking about how to do social housing right ? What are your thoughts?

Study at a Glance

Principal Investigator: Dr. James Dunn, Associate Professor McMaster University, Chair in Research on Urban Neighbourhoods, Community Health & Housing, & Scientist, Keenan Research Centre of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital.

Research Objective: Examine the changes in the health of low-income adults & developmental competencies of their children aged 3 to 10 after moving into the redeveloped social housing units in RP.

Research Questions: Does the health and well-being of Regent Park residents improve after redevelopment compared to their baseline health status and compared to a control group?

Approach: At each phase of the development, baseline data is collected from families prior to their move to temporary off-site social housing. Follow up interviews are completed 12 months after the same individuals move into their new social housing units in the rebuilt Regent Park development. The process will repeat with subsequent waves of subsidized tenants relocated through the different phases.
Advisory Committee: Includes representatives from SHSC, TCH and Regent Park residents’ groups as well as municipal, provincial and federal housing officials. The research team is based at the Centre for Research on Inner City Health at St. Michael’s Hospital.

Research Status: Baseline and follow-up interviews have been conducted with a sample (N=60) of residents of four buildings (Phase 1) that were demolished in 2007; some of these residents moved back to Regent Park in May 2009. Baseline data has also been collected from a number of participants (N=154) living in housing that was demolished (Phase 2) in fall 2010. Recruiting of the comparison group is currently underway.

On March 4, 2011, the Canadian Senate marked the one year anniversary of the release of its report In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness with a symposium. Led by Senator Art Eggleton, the key proponent of the report, the symposium focused on reviewing the progress made on its recommendations – which call for all levels of government to take an integrated, “housing first” approach to homelessness and poverty.

In From the Margin Report (PDF)

The housing first model advocates addressing housing and homelessness as a single, integrated issue rather than two separate issues that require completely different approaches. In both the report and at the symposium, it was reflected in Eggleton’s main suggestion for housing, which is that housing provision should be a system that focuses broadly on supplying everyone in need with affordable and adequate housing. Taking such an approach, Eggleton contends, would give rise to dramatically improved health and educational outcomes and would better enable the self-sufficiency of poor Canadians.  It would also reduce the excessive social and financial costs of poverty, a theme highlighted in the report.

The primary recommendation in the report (which was reiterated at the symposium) was the need for Canadian income support programs to do more to actively lift people out of poverty by targeting the root of poverty. A key element in addressing this would be a national poverty reduction strategy, which Senators have called for.

A corresponding national housing strategy, according to Eggleton, is also part of the solution. When asked from an audience member about the amount of funding needed to improve the state of social housing, he emphasized the need for a federal housing strategy, and called on all levels of government to increase their levels of leadership and commitment to Canada’s affordable housing sector through the support of Bill C-304 The Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act.

Eggleton stressed the importance of continuing to build on the report’s findings; he stated that “This symposium keeps the momentum going as we work to strengthen the engagement of the federal government to adopt comprehensive strategies on poverty, housing and homelessness.”

The report and its recommendations were the result of a two-year Canada wide consultation.

Further Reading:

• In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness
• Bill C-304 The Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act
• Senator Art Eggleton’s website featuring:
  • A poverty fact sheet
  • Commentary on the recent United Way report, Poverty by Postal Code (partially funded by SHSC)
  • Statement on the need for a national housing strategy

This week United Way, Toronto released “Poverty By Postal Code 2: Vertical Poverty,” a research study partially funded by SHSC. This study examines the quality of living in Toronto’s inner suburban high-rise apartment buildings. It looks at tenants’ housing experiences in these types of buildings and how their health, well-being and connection to their neighbourhood are impacted. The report primarily concerns the housing experience in private rental buildings – though a portion of the tenants interviewed were in social housing for a comparator. While this housing stock is aging and in general need of repair, it has become some of the most affordable housing for Toronto’s low and modest income households in the absence of other options. As a result, the report states that “high-rise apartment buildings are increasingly the sites of poverty within neighbourhoods” and that “high-poverty clusters” have emerged.

As one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind, the report summarizes the housing experiences of over 2800 tenants and is supported by Statistics Canada data as well as interviews with housing experts at the government and community level. According to the study many of the buildings require major and/or minor repairs, particularly elevators; pests and vermin remain a consistent problem; and there are issues of safety and social disorder including drug dealing, vandalism and trespassing — all of which appear to be greater in non-profit housing.

The good news is that in many instances there are strong social connections among tenants and between tenants and landlords in both housing types. Tenants also expressed a desire for change and a willingness to work together, which is an important building block for community revitalization. It also cites developments like San Romanoway Towers, where property owners and managers played an active role in leading positive change in the community by engaging residents in developing and implementing ideas to improve the community.

What does this report mean for the rest of Ontario?

The report emphasizes the importance of ‘home’ and neighbourhoods for tenants in rental housing. As such, its findings and recommendations have broader applicability. Residents of neighbourhoods with declining housing stock and social disorder feel isolated, avoid reaching out to each other and want to leave the neighbourhood – which in turn perpetuates the social disorder. So in other words, if tenants are in adequate, suitable and affordable housing, they will have greater satisfaction with their housing and a stronger connection to their neighbourhood.

Given these findings, the report also makes 26 recommendations, which may impact or influence housing policy in Ontario, below are some of the highlights:

This report makes it clear that in Toronto the concentration of poverty is creating a deep geographic divide. Without a concerted effort from all levels of government, as well as tenants, landlords, and the non-profit sector the trend of growing income inequality is likely to increase, and not just in Toronto. A lack of adequate, suitable and affordable housing will continue to put pressure on the non-profit housing sector as demand for affordable housing continues to increase. This report is a significant contribution to housing research in Toronto and we hope that the United Way make their data available for further research.

SHSC will work with its partners towards supporting the recommendations of the report where it is well positioned to do so. It will also continue to support research which benefits the social housing sector and is both people-focused and evidence-based.

Read the full report

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) recently published Mending Canada’s frayed social safety net: The role of municipal governments, a report that has attracted praise and support from a variety of quarters. The report highlights the pressing need for municipalities to expand and strengthen Canada’s social infrastructure to protect limited income individuals who become increasingly vulnerable during times of economic recession.

Mending Canada's Frayed Social Safety Net

Mending Canada’s frayed social safety net looks at the growing need for municipalities to fill the gap in social services left by the reduction of provincial and federal funding. Its findings are based on data from the Quality of Life Reporting System (QLRS), a joint initiative between twenty-four Canadian municipalities. The aim of the QLRS model is to emphasize the central role that municipalities occupy in relation to ending poverty. A key finding of the report is that while the need for social services has increased, investments in social services have declined. Furthermore, the report recommends that the federal government help municipalities meet pressing social services and physical infrastructure needs through funding from the GST refund, Gas Tax Fund, and infrastructure programs.

While FCM’s report does not offer specific new recommendations for social housing – it is not a housing-focused paper – it recognizes social housing as a core component of the Canada’s social safety net. In addition, of the twenty-four QLRS communities surveyed for the report, an average of 60 out of 1000 homes were social housing units. A consequence of this comparative study has been the creation of social housing-specific stress indicators. These stress indicators are attached to problems found within affordable housing such as housing waiting lists, and the unmet demand for new housing stock as a means of demonstrating the faltering health of affordable housing.

In spite of its national focus, the paper is relevant to Ontario’s social housing sector due to the province’s devolution of social housing in the year 2000 to municipal governments and the resulting financial issues and lack of resources facing Ontario municipalities.

Want to read more? Download the SHSC research paper Affordable Housing in Perilous Times on this issue and the need for provincial and federal support.

Helen Looker is a graduate of the University of Toronto’s master’s program in planning and a successful contributor to the joint SHSC/CPRN internship and scholar program. Her main research interest is exurban housing in small town Ontario and senior’s issues in segregated retirement communities. Helen recently took time to answer some questions about her paper The Homeownership Component of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program: Critical Analysis of Program Objectives.

Research Questions:

Q. Why do you think it is important that research be focused on the effectiveness of the homeownership component of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program?

A. It is important to critically examine the political reasons for increasing homeownership to low and moderate income households. The implications of the financial burden to such households could result in impaired health, financial instability, and increased homelessness.

Q. Could you elaborate on the impact that increased rates of home ownership has had on waiting lists for affordable housing in Ontario?

A. Market renters represent the majority of the applicants for supported home ownership programs. While their movement out of social housing frees up spaces, it increases the concentration of low-income households in the sector.

Q. Based on your research, how do you foresee the homeownership component Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program evolving?

A. As policies to support home ownership have become the preferred housing option of many North American housing strategies, the program will continue to be a government tool to promote homeownership. This is why efforts must be made to craft policies to help low-to-moderate income households sustain their place on the real estate ladder.

Q. What needs to happen to make the transition from affordable housing to homeownership a more feasible option for lower income tenants?

A. What is needed is a system that provides the financial and educational support needed to promote the transition to a higher income level.
The move from affordable housing to home ownership could be made more accessible by equipping low income individuals with financial literacy, household management skills, employment and educational upgrading opportunities.

Click here to checkout Helen Looker’s paper!
The Homeownership Component of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program: Critical Analysis of Program Objectives

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.

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.

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.

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.