Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Risk of homelessness rises as shelter costs squeeze low-income earners
OTTAWA, Nov. 17 -- Rising shelter costs are making some of Canada’s large urban areas too expensive for low-income people and raising the risk of homelessness.
That’s one of the principal findings of “Quality of Life in Canadian Communities, Incomes, Shelter and Necessities,” Theme Report I of the 2004 Quality of Life Reporting System (QOLRS) Report, released today by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).
“It’s time to stop talking about affordable housing and homelessness and start taking action,” said Councillor Brenda Hogg, Chair of the QOLRS Technical Team. “Governments need to work together to get money flowing quickly to create more affordable housing across the country.”
The report finds that low vacancy rates, dramatically rising rents, and lengthening waiting lists for social housing are the results of a 50 per cent drop in rental-housing construction between 1991 and 2001. As a result, the gap between rents and incomes widened, and rents generally exceeded what low-income earners could afford.
The number of single-parent families, single seniors, recent immigrants and Aboriginal people living in the 20 urban communities that contribute to the QOLRS grew substantially from 1991 to 2001 and they were generally unable to afford most housing. Seniors living in rental accommodation were particularly hard hit—60 per cent found it difficult to find affordable shelter in 2001.
Although the QOLRS does not track the number of homeless people, the report finds that five of the seven indicators used to measure the risk of homelessness deteriorated from 1991 to 2001. Although the risk of homelessness is greatest in the largest of the QOLRS communities, small and suburban municipalities are also affected.
A frayed social safety net contributes to the problem. The steady decline in benefit value meant deeper poverty for those depending on social assistance. Poverty levels remained largely unchanged and even grew for some groups, notably two-parent families. The lack of new subsidized housing further narrowed choices for lower-income families and single people. Emergency shelters and food banks increasingly filled the role once played by the social safety net.
“We are ready to work with the federal government to find solutions to the housing,” said FCM President Ann MacLean, Mayor of New Glasgow Nova Scotia. “Pressing needs like affordable housing require federal, provincial and municipal governments to be at the table. We need to work together to meet the crisis and we need to start now.”
A separate report released by FCM, “Moving Forward: Refining the FCM Recommendations for a National Affordable Housing Strategy,” calls for a national
housing strategy. It blames the current shortage of affordable housing on the lack of new construction, slowness in mobilizing funds from the Federal-Provincial/ Territorial (FPT) Affordable Housing Program, and a loss of existing affordable housing.
Both reports are available on FCM’s website at www.fcm.ca.
For further information: Robert Ross, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, (613) 241 5221, ext. 399, or the FCM media line (613) 720-0545.
* * *
BACKGROUNDER
QOLRS THEME REPORT I: INCOMES, SHELTER AND NECESSITIES
The QOLRS Highlights Report (April 2004) found that quality of life in the 20 communities was at risk and had deteriorated for a significant number of people between 1991 and 2001. Theme Report I focuses on a narrower set of trends related to personal incomes, shelter and the affordability of basic needs. In addition, the report provides an in-depth analysis of demographic groups that are more vulnerable to the effects of falling incomes, high poverty rates and lack of affordable housing: single people, single-parent families, recent immigrants and Aboriginal people.
General prosperity masks deepening poverty for some
Although the 1990s were a period of general prosperity in the QOLRS communities, rising shelter costs and a weakened social safety net pushed some groups deeper into poverty, making some of Canada’s large urban areas too expensive for low-income people and raising the risk of homelessness for many.
Theme Report I of the 2004 Quality of Life Reporting System (QOLRS) Report finds that the number of single-parent families, single seniors, recent immigrants and Aboriginal people living in the 20 urban communities that contribute to the QOLRS grew substantially from 1991 to 2001 but they were generally unable to afford most housing. Seniors living in rental accommodation were most affected—60 per cent found it difficult to find affordable shelter in 2001.
Rising shelter costs
The report finds a 50 per cent drop in rental housing construction between 1991 and 2001 led to low vacancy rates, dramatically rising rents, and lengthening waiting lists for social housing. Vacancy rates for the most affordable rental units in larger centres were typically lower than those for higher rent units. As a result, the gap between rents and incomes widened between 1991 and 2001, and rents generally exceeded low-income earners’ ability to pay.
Inadequate social safety net
Contributing to the problem was the inadequate social safety net. Poverty levels remained largely unchanged and even grew for some groups, notably two-parent families.
Although fewer families and singles received social assistance and other government transfers, the steady decline in benefit value meant deeper poverty for those relying on social assistance. The lack of new subsidized housing further narrowed the choices for lower-income families and single people. Emergency shelters and food banks increasingly filled the role once played by the social safety net.
Widening economic disparities affected a variety of vulnerable groups. A growing proportion of two-parent families moved into poverty, widening the divide between have and have-not single people, families and children. Faced with declining incomes and a rising cost of living, a significant minority of families and single people came close to being unable to afford basic needs.
Aboriginal people and recent immigrants faced higher unemployment rates and greater poverty and shelter-cost burden than the general population. Most affected were Toronto, Vancouver, Peel Region and other centres with large immigrant populations, and Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina with large Aboriginal populations.
All QOLRS communities affected
None of the QOLRS communities escaped the overall trends—increasing child poverty, stubbornly high rates of poverty among single-parent families and seniors, increasing rates and size of income inequality, growing levels of housing affordability problems, and homelessness. However, overall levels of poverty, unemployment and income, and housing affordability differed significantly among the 20 communities.
Income gap widens among general prosperity
Unemployment and dependence on social benefits were significantly lower for all demographic groups in QOLRS communities than in the rest of Canada. Incomes were measurably higher and increasing faster. However, the income gap—a measure of the ratio of highest to lowest incomes—for both individuals and families grew twice as fast as in the rest of Canada.
Rates of poverty, measured as the proportion of households with incomes below the Low Income Cut-Off, were generally lower and fell farther in the QOLRS communities than in the rest of Canada, especially for single-parent families. But poverty among two-parent families (and associated child poverty), as well as poverty among single seniors, was higher in the QOLRS communities than in the rest of Canada. Although family and child poverty fell in many smaller Ontario communities, in the Prairie cities, and in Quebec, half of the QOLRS communities experienced increases in family and child poverty, led by large increases in the largest urban centres of Vancouver and Toronto.
Affording a place to live was more difficult for renters (and to a lesser extent owners) in the QOLRS communities than in the rest of Canada.
Table 1 FCM QOLRS Members – 2003
Municipality Short Name used in
QOLRS Tables and Charts
Province Population
(2001)
Vancouver (City) Vancouver British Columbia
545,670
Calgary (City) Calgary Alberta 878,870
Edmonton (City) Edmonton Alberta 666,105
Saskatoon (City) Saskatoon Saskatchewan 196,810
Regina (City) Regina Saskatchewan 178,225
Winnipeg (City) Winnipeg Manitoba 619,545
Windsor (City) Windsor Ontario 208,405
London (City) London Ontario 336,540
Sudbury (City of Greater) Sudbury Ontario 155,220
Waterloo (Regional Municipality)
Waterloo Ontario 438,515
Hamilton (City) Hamilton Ontario 490,265
Halton (Regional Municipality)
Halton Ontario 375,230
Peel (Regional Municipality)
Peel Ontario 988,945
York (Regional Municipality)
York Ontario 729,255
Toronto (City) Toronto Ontario 2,481,495
Niagara (Regional Municipality)
Niagara Ontario 410,575
Kingston (City) Kingston Ontario 114,195
Ottawa (City) Ottawa Ontario 774,075
Quebec (Metropolitan Community)
CMQ Quebec 674,700
Halifax (Regional Municipality)
Halifax
* * *
BACKGROUNDER
RISK OF HOMELESSNESS RISING IN 20 URBAN MUNICIPALITIES
Although the Quality of Life Reporting System (QOLRS) does not track the number of homeless people, Theme Report I finds that five of the seven indicators used to measure the risk of homelessness deteriorated from 1991 to 2001.
Indicator 1 – Households spending 50 per cent or more of income on rent - The proportion of QOLRS renter households spending more than 50 per cent of their income on shelter rose by 25 per cent between 1991 and 2001 to include nearly one in five renter households (19.5 per cent). Those most affected were: Aboriginals (23 per cent), recent immigrants (23 per cent), and single-parent families (25 per cent) living in the 20 QOLRS communities.
Indicator 2 - Rental housing starts - Low-income individuals and families rely more heavily on rental housing than those with higher incomes. Private and non-market rental starts fell from an average of 30 per cent of all starts to eight per cent by 2001. A large number of 2001 rental starts were concentrated in a small number of cities, notably Vancouver, so conditions were even more severe in other municipalities.
Indicator 3 - Social housing waiting lists - Waiting times for social housing were highest in larger Ontario municipalities, (five to ten years), and lower in Prairie communities. Approximately 10-15 per cent of renter households in Ontario municipalities were on waiting lists for social housing.
Indicator 4 - Vacancy rates - Vacancy rates were well below three per cent in the GTA municipalities and Vancouver during the 10-year period, and reached as low as one to two per cent in nearly all 20 communities by 2001. Vacancy rates for the least expensive rental units were well below average in many of the largest rental markets, including Toronto.
Indicator 5 - Low Income - The largest increase in poverty rates in the 20 QOLRS communities was for two-parent families, which grew to 11 per cent of families with incomes below the Low Income Cut-off by 2001. Aboriginal and recent immigrant populations also experienced above average increases in poverty rates (to 43 per cent and 34 per cent respectively). Poverty rates decreased but remained high for lone-parent families (to over 30 per cent) and single seniors (to 45 per cent).
Indicator 6 - Unemployment - Although unemployment fell in 17 of the 20 QOLRS communities, a wide and growing gap in unemployment rates between the general population and certain demographic groups placed the latter at greater risk of homelessness. These included Aboriginal people (14 per cent unemployment), recent immigrants (11 per cent) and single parents (8 per cent).
Indicator 7 - Lone-parent families - Lone-parent families were the second-fastest growing demographic group in the 20 QOLRS communities, accounting for 11 per cent of all households by 2001 and 17 per cent of all families.
National Housing Strategy needed
A separate report for FCM, “Moving Forward: Refining the FCM Recommendations for a National Affordable Housing Strategy,” finds the lack of a national affordable housing policy and declining supply of lower-rent units contributed to poor progress on improving housing.
The report cites the lack of new affordable housing construction, slowness in mobilizing funds from the Federal-Provincial/ Territorial (FPT) Affordable Housing Program, and a loss of existing affordable housing. It recommends:
1. Expand the supply of affordable housing with refinements to the FPT program to target to the working poor and to create a specific target allocation to address the housing needs of Aboriginal people living off reserve.
2. Preserve the existing affordable stock through rehabilitation of existing private and social housing units and through helping non-profit operators acquire privately owned units to enhance long-term affordability.
3. Remedy deficiencies in the shelter components of provincial income assistance programs and create a new shelter allowance program for working-poor renters.
4. Encourage expansion of market rental housing by reforming the tax treatment of rental investment and equalize tax treatment of donations of land for affordable housing with the treatment provided for land donated to environmental trusts.
QUALITY OF LIFE IN
CANADIAN COMMUNITIES
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Incomes,Shelter and
Necessities
T H E M E R E P O RT #1
AS THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE NEW DEAL moves into itssecond year, with commitments from the federal
government to share federal fuel taxes with municipalgovernments, it is time to reinforce the message thatthe New Deal must be about more than money.
FCM has long argued that “partnership is the heartof the New Deal” and that a new intergovernmentalpartnership is essential to preserve and improve thequality of life in our communities.
As this report indicates, much remains to be done to ensure all Canadians enjoy quality of life. During the1990s, the period under review—a period of generalprosperity for many—specific groups of people fell further behind.
If this can happen during an economic boom, we canonly imagine what may happen when times are tough.Clearly, the systems and structures we have in place arenot adequate to ensure all Canadians quality of life.
This report points to the severe lack of affordablehousing as a prime cause of economic hardship amongchildren, single-parent families and seniors living in the20 QOLRS communities.
The shortage of affordable housing is among themost pressing issues facing municipalities. It means toomany people, particularly single-parent families, living intemporary shelter or crowed into sub-standard andsometimes unsafe housing. It also means more peopleliving on the streets and straining the ability of socialservice agencies to help them.
Municipal governments, already struggling in the faceof shrinking resources and growing responsibilities, can-not respond to this growing need on their own.Thepurpose of the QOLRS reports is to provide the objec-tive data needed to inform citizens and policy makers inall orders of government of the true state of those fac-tors that contribute to quality of life.
We hope that, as governments sit down to make theNew Deal a reality, the information in this report willhelp to inform the discussion and shape effective policyaction.
Our thanks go to the mayors and chairs of the 20 participating municipal governments for their support; to the FCM Standing Committee on SocialInfrastructure for its contribution; and to the membersof the Quality of Life Technical Team for their participa-tion in preparing the report.
Ann MacLeanPresident, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
ONE OF THE REALITIES DRIVING the campaign for aNew Deal is that Canadian communities are
struggling to maintain their quality of life, trying to meet growing responsibilities with shrinking resources.
This report, QOLRS Theme Report I, indicates someof the stress points where this struggle affects peoplethe most: incomes, shelter and necessities. It also highlights the need for a new intergovernmental partnership.
Much of the public discussion about the New Dealfocuses on money, particularly on the federal govern-ment’s proposal to share federal fuel taxes with munici-pal governments.
This is understandable. During the 1990s, other governments cut transfers to municipalities by 37 percent, while steadily offloading services.
But while revenue sharing is certainly important, theNew Deal must be about more than money. It must beprimarily about partnership—governments workingtogether to preserve and improve the quality of life inCanada’s communities.
FCM has been actively involved in promoting the fed-eral-municipal partnership for many years, and we seethe New Deal as furthering the cooperation that hasaccomplished so much for our communities.
As this report indicates, we need federal governmentinvestment in our communities, particularly in the areaof affordable housing.
Housing is critical to the health, personal well-beingand quality of life of all Canadians. But although housingis a basic necessity, especially in a country with Canada’sclimate, municipal governments cannot deal with thiscomplex social issue with the revenues available tothem.
The New Deal, with its promise of revenue sharing, anew intergovernmental partnership, and a municipal lensfor federal government policies and programs, offers theprospect of real change in the way governments manageissues, like affordable housing, that cross jurisdictions.
And this new partnership gives hope to the manyCanadians for whom everyday life is a struggle to meetthe basic necessities.
My thanks to all those who assisted in the prepara-tion of this report: FCM staff, the members of theQuality of Life Technical Team, and consultants MichelFrojmovic, Director of Acacia Consulting and Research,and Steve Pomeroy, Focus Consulting.
Councillor Brenda HoggChair, Quality of Life Technical Team
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE CHAIR’S MESSAGE
Theme Repor t #1 • Incomes , She l ter and Neces s i t i e s
Fig
ure
1 F
CM
QO
LRS
Ind
icat
ors
2
Dem
og
rap
hic
&
Bac
kgro
un
d
Info
rmat
ion
(DB
I)
DB
I1Po
pu
lati
on
Gro
wth
DB
I2H
ou
seh
old
&Fa
mily
Com
po
siti
on
DB
I3A
vera
ge
Inco
me
DB
I4R
ente
rs
& O
wn
ers
EM1
Une
mp
loym
ent/
Em
plo
ymen
tR
ates
EM2
Qu
alit
y o
f Em
plo
ymen
t
EM3
Lon
g T
erm
U
nem
plo
ymen
t
EM4
Lab
ou
r Fo
rce
R
epla
cem
ent
PS1
You
ng
Off
end
ers
PS2
Vio
len
t C
rim
es
PS3
Pro
per
ty
Cri
mes
PS4
Inju
ries
and
po
iso
nin
gs
Aff
ord
able
, A
pp
rop
riat
e
Ho
usi
ng
(AA
H)
Civ
icEn
gag
emen
t(C
E)
Com
mu
nit
y
and
So
cial
Infr
astr
uct
ure
(CSI
)
Edu
cati
on
(ED
)Em
plo
ymen
t(E
M)
Loca
lEc
on
om
y(L
E)
Nat
ura
l En
viro
nm
ent
(NE)
Pers
on
al &
Com
mu
nit
y
Hea
lth
(PC
H)
Pers
on
alFi
nan
cial
Secu
rity
(PFS
)
Pers
on
alSa
fety
(PS)
DB
I5Po
pu
lati
on
M
ob
ility
LE1
Bu
sin
ess
Ban
kru
ptc
ies
LE2
Con
sum
erB
ankr
up
tcie
s
LE3
Ho
url
yW
ages
LE4
Ch
ang
e in
Fam
ilyIn
com
e
LE5
Bu
ildin
gPe
rmit
s
CE5
Ch
arit
able
Do
nat
ion
s
DB
I6Fo
reig
nB
orn
PC
H1
Low
Bir
th
Wei
gh
t Bab
ies
PC
H2
Teen
Bir
ths
PC
H3
Prem
atu
re
Mo
rtal
ity
PC
H4
Wo
rk H
ou
rsLo
st
PC
H5
Suic
ides
PC
H6
Infa
nt
Mo
rtal
ity
DB
I8La
ng
uag
eSp
oke
n a
t H
om
e
DB
I9V
isib
leM
ino
riti
es
DB
I7N
ewIm
mig
ran
tG
rou
ps
NE1
Air
Qu
alit
y
NE2
Urb
anTr
ansp
orta
tion
NE3
Pop
ula
tio
n
Den
sity
NE4
Wat
erCo
nsu
mp
tio
n
NE5
Was
tew
ater
Tr
eatm
ent
NE6
Solid
Was
te
NE8
Rec
reat
ion
al
Wat
erQ
ual
ity
NE7
Eco
log
ical
Foo
tpri
nt
ED1
Edu
cati
on
Le
vels
ED2
Lite
racy
Le
vels
ED3
Ad
ult
Lear
nin
g
ED4
Edu
cati
on
Ex
pen
dit
ure
s
ED5
Cla
ssro
om
Si
ze
ED6
Stu
den
t /
Teac
her
Rat
io
ED8
Spen
din
g o
nPr
ivat
eEd
uca
tio
n
ED7
Post
-Se
con
dar
y
Tuit
ion
CSI
1So
cial
Ho
usi
ng
Wai
tin
g L
ists
CSI
2R
ent-
G
eare
d-t
o-
Inco
me
Hou
sin
g
CSI
3So
cial
Ass
ista
nce
A
llow
ance
CSI
4Su
bsi
diz
ed
Ch
ild C
are
Sp
aces
CSI
5Pu
blic
Tran
sit C
ost
s
CSI
6So
cial
Ser
vice
Pr
ofe
ssio
nal
s
CSI
7Pr
ivat
e H
ealt
h
Car
e
Exp
end
itu
res
PFS
1Co
mm
un
ity
A
ffo
rdab
ility
PFS
2Fa
mili
esR
ecei
vin
g E
I/
Soci
al A
ssis
tanc
e
PFS
3Ec
on
om
icD
epen
den
cy
Rat
io
PFS
4Lo
ne
Pare
nt
Fam
ilies
PFS
5In
cid
ence
o
f Low
Inco
me
Fa
mili
es
PSF
6C
hild
ren
Li
vin
gin
Pov
erty
PFS
7In
com
e G
ap
DB
I10
Ab
ori
gin
alPo
pu
lati
on
AA
H1
30%
+In
com
e o
n
Shel
ter
AA
H2
50%
+In
com
e o
n
Shel
ter
AA
H3
Core
Ho
usi
ng
Nee
d
AA
H4
Sub
stan
dar
d
Un
its
CE1
Vo
ter
Turn
ou
t
CE2
Wo
men
inM
un
icip
alG
over
nm
ent
CE3
New
spap
er
Cir
cula
tio
n
CE4
Vo
lun
teer
ing
AA
H5
Ch
ang
ing
Face
of
Ho
mel
essn
ess
AA
H6
Vac
ancy
R
ates
AA
H8
Mo
nth
ly
Ren
t
AA
H7
Ren
tal
Ho
usi
ng
Star
ts
Rep
ort
1 I
nco
me,
Sh
elte
r & N
eces
siti
es
FCM QOLRS INDICATORS
2 Figure 1identifies the 72 indicators included in the Quality of Life Reporting System. Shaded cells refer to indicators presented in this report.
FCM Quali ty o f Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
Part 1 | Trends in Income, Poverty and Basic Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Widening income disparities between vulnerable groups and the general population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Significant declines in unemployment, and less dependency on government transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Lower rates of poverty among singles and single parents, while child poverty was on the rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Increase in the number of working poor families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5General ability to afford basic needs, with some important exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Part 2 | Demographic Change and the Housing Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Demographic shift toward older singles and away from the two-parent family . . . . . . .7New housing construction moves from away from rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Social housing starts decline and waiting lists lengthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Substantial growth in homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11A period of declining rental vacancy rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Growing housing affordability challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Widening gaps between rents and incomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Housing stock is generally of good quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Part 3 | Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Evidence of an increased risk of homelessness in the QOLRS communities . . . . . . . .21The challenge of measuring the numbers of homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24The “Changing Face of Homelessness” in the QOLRS communities . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
The following technical Annexes and supplementary charts for this report are available in the Quality of Life Reporting System section of FCM’s Web site at http://www.fcm.ca.
Annex 1 QOL Issues Report #1Technical Sub-Team Members
Annex 2 Glossary of Terms
Annex 3 Issues Report #1 Chart References
Annex 4 Data Tables
Annex 5 Supplementary Chart References
Annex 6 Guide to the QOLRS Geography
Annex 7 The QOLRS Indicators
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evidence of an increased risk of homelessness22 in the QOLRS communitiesHomelessness represents one of the starkest outcomesof a combination of inadequate income, poverty andunaffordable housing, and factors such as substanceabuse and mental illness.23
The QOLRS relies on a definition of homelessnessthat includes singles and families experiencing any ofthe following conditions:24
• Rooflessness: staying overnight in a place notmeant for human habitation (e.g., a vacantbuilding, a public or commercial facility, a citypark, a car or on the street);
• Living in an emergency shelter: singles and fami-lies relying on the emergency shelter system on ashort-term or recurrent basis;
• Invisible homelessness: temporarily and/or invol-untarily living with friends or relatives (“couch-surfing”), or exchanging favours in return forhousing; and
• Houselessness: includes people who reside inlong-term institutions because there is no suit-able accommodation in the community, andyouth living in care.
FCM has developed a measure of the risk of homelessness in Canadian communities based onseven indicators monitored by the QOLRS. Themeasure provides an indication of the extent towhich factors commonly associated with homeless-ness are prevalent in a given community. Measuringthis risk also demonstrates how homelessness is anindicator of a broader set of quality of life issuesaffecting a much larger proportion of the population.The risk of homelessness applies to singles and families not necessarily experiencing absolute homelessness. Instead, they are often at a point on acontinuum that can, under various circumstances,lead directly to absolute homelessness.
21Theme Repor t #1 • Incomes , She l ter and Neces s i t i e s
While the QOLRS does not report on it, theabsence of supportive housing and services isanother contributing factor to increased homeless-ness. In Toronto, serious and persistent mentalhealth issues and substance abuse have exacerbatedthe homelessness situation.The city estimates thatan additional 1,000 units of supportive housing isrequired every year for the next five years to sup-port individuals at risk of homelessness due tomental illness. Only a quarter of this target hasbeen met over the last three years. In Halifax,severe mental health problems, addictions and mul-tiple needs, behavioural problems, and deinstitution-alization have all contributed to homelessness.Access to mental health services and addictionsprograms is a critical issue in the Halifax metropoli-tan area, since the number of beds in the generalhospital has been reduced from 500 to about 50.
M E N TA L I L L N E S S,A D D I C T I O N S
A N D H O M E L E S S N E S S
PART 3 | HOMELESSNESS
22 This section of the report is based on work carried out by FCM for the National Secretariat on Homelessness intended to contribute to a methodologyfor measuring and monitoring homelessness in Canadian municipalities.
23 Individual circumstances may act as triggers when combined with structural factors not included in this analysis (e.g., leaving the parental home afterarguments or abuse; marital or relationship breakdown; widowhood; leaving prison; a sharp deterioration in mental health or an increase in alcohol ordrug misuse; a financial crisis; and/or eviction from a rented or owned home).
24 This definition was developed as part of the research conducted by FCM for the National Secretariat on Homelessness.
22
The following section summarizes the seven indica-tors comprising the measure of the risk of homeless-ness and describes the trends associated with them.
Indicator 1 | Households Spending 50 per centor more of Income on RentHouseholds in this situation do not have enoughmoney left over for other necessities, such as food,
clothing and transportation. Households may beunable to pay their rent if they miss one pay
cheque or if their income declines sud-denly. Rental arrears or leaving their
home may be the only solution.
The proportion of QOLRSrenter households spending
more than 50 per cent of theirincome on shelter rose by 25 per cent between 1991and 2001 to include nearlyone in five renter house-holds (19.5 per cent).Severe rental affordabilityproblems (i.e., payingmore than 50 per cent ofincome for rent) werehighest for Aboriginals
(23 per cent), recent immi-grants (23 per cent), and
single parent families (25 per cent) living in the
20 QOLRS communities.
Indicator 2 | Rental Housing StartsIn comparison to wealthier households,
low-income individuals and families relyheavily on the rental sector for access to afford-
able housing. An earlier section of this reportdescribed a substantial decline in new rental housingstarts in all but one of the QOLRS communities.Private and non-market rental starts fell from anaverage of 30 per cent of all starts to eight per centby 2001. A large number of 2001 rental starts were
concentrated in a small number of cities, notablyVancouver, so that the absence of rental housing waseven more severe in other municipalities.
Indicator 3 | Social Housing Waiting ListsResearch shows that almost all the people on a wait-ing list are there because they cannot afford housingin the private rental market. Studies have consistentlyshown that affordable, usually subsidized housing,prevents homelessness more effectively than any otherform of intervention.25
While social housing wait times in the QOLRS com-munities were generally lengthening, there was a widediscrepancy in this indicator. Wait times were highestin larger Ontario municipalities, ranging from five to10 years, and far lower in Prairie communities.Approximately 10 to 15 per cent of renter house-holds in Ontario municipalities were on waiting listsfor social housing.
Indicator 4 | Vacancy ratesDecreasing vacancy rates often signal future increasesin rents, along with more investment, particularly in“high end” accommodation. There is consensus thata vacancy rate below three per cent indicates thatrenters do not have an adequate choice of rentalunits. When vacancy rates are low, landlords can bemore selective in choosing lower risk tenants. Thiscan explicitly or inadvertently result in discriminationagainst tenants from populations considered to be at risk of homelessness.
Vacancy rates were well below three per cent in theGTA municipalities and Vancouver throughout the10-year period and reached as low as one to two per cent in nearly all 20 communities by 2001.Furthermore, vacancy rates for the least expensiverental units were well below the average in many ofthe largest rental markets, including Toronto.
FCM Quali ty o f Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem
25 See Shinn, M. and J. Baumohl. 1999. Rethinking the Prevention of Homelessness. In Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium onHomelessness Research. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/13-Preven.HTM
Indicator 5 | Incidence of Low IncomesGenerally speaking, one shared characteristic ofhomeless persons is that they have very limited, ifany, financial resources. Inadequate incomes and the resulting inability to pay market rents is a contributing factor to homelessness among familiesand singles.
The largest increase in rates of poverty in the 20 QOLRS communities was for two-parent fami-lies, which grew to 11 per cent of families withincomes below the LICO by 2001. Aboriginal andrecent immigrant populations also experienced above average increases in already high poverty rates (to 43 per cent and 34 per cent respectively). Povertyrates decreased but remained very high for lone- parent families (to over 30 per cent) and single sen-iors (to 45 per cent).
Indicator 6 | Unemployment RatesLack of employment income—even on a short-termbasis—is a contributing factor to increased vulnera-bility. Unemployment rates fell in 17 of the 20QOLRS communities between 1991 and 2001,declining to an average of six per cent for all 20 com-munities. However, a wide and growing gap inunemployment rates between the general populationand other demographic groups placed the latter atgreater risk of homelessness. These included theAboriginal population, at 14 per cent unemploy-ment, recent immigrants (11 per cent) and singleparents (eight per cent).
Indicator 7 | Lone-Parent FamiliesThe final indicator serves as a measure of social and economic vulnerability. Persons in lone-parentfamilies are more likely to be in low-income situa-tions. They also tend to face greater health and well-being risks, including poor housing conditions, and fewer employment prospects due to a lack ofchildcare. Persons in lone-parent situations may also require a range of social supports that are notalways available in the community, thereby increasingtheir vulnerability.
Lone-parent families were the second-fastest growingdemographic group in the 20 QOLRS communities(after individuals aged 35 to 64), accounting for 11 per cent of all households by 2001 and 17 percent of all families.
Taken together, and despite the general improve-ments that took place between 1996 and 2001, the seven indicators suggest a significantly increasedrisk of homelessness in the 20 QOLRS communities.While two indicators showed either no change (the incidence of poverty) or an overall improvement(rates of unemployment), the remaining five showedclear signs of deterioration.
The most substantial and worrisome increases in therisk of homelessness were directly related to the lackof affordable housing. Between 1991 and 2001, 25 per cent of renter households in the QOLRS communities were spending 50 per cent or more oftheir income on shelter. At the same time, the num-ber of private and non-market rental housing startsdeclined by more than 50 per cent and vacancy ratesfell to sub-equilibrium levels in many communities.Fewer rental units translated into a general increase in the number of households on waiting lists forsocial housing and corresponding increases in waitingtimes. Finally, the number of lone-parent families—ademographic group generally considered to be morevulnerable to the effects of poverty—increased bynearly 40 per cent, more than three times the rate ofincrease of two-parent families.
23Theme Repor t #1 • Incomes , She l ter and Neces s i t i e s
24
While these numbers present a change in the risk ofhomelessness on average, there was considerable variation across different population sub-groups anddifferent municipalities. For example, in contrast toother vulnerable groups, Aboriginals and recentimmigrants faced relatively severe and growing housing-affordability problems, high levels and aboveaverage increases in the incidence of poverty and wellabove average levels of unemployment.
These trends varied considerably across theQOLRS communities. For example,
declines in rental housing starts,chronic shortages of social housing,
and waiting lists measured inyears were most prevalent in the
largest Ontario municipalities.In contrast, smaller commu-nities had a higher concen-tration of lone-parentfamily households, measured as a percentageof all households, andconsiderably higher ratesof unemployment. Theincidence of child povertywas relatively high in west-ern communities and low-
est in the suburban GTAcommunities.
In effect, the risk of homeless-ness facing singles and families,
single parents and seniors, recentimmigrants and Aboriginal people is
not limited to the largest cities, but alsoaffects the smaller and suburban municipali-
ties to varying degrees.
The challenge of measuring the numbers of homelessWhile there is strong evidence of a growing incidenceof homelessness in Canadian municipalities, theQOLRS does not specifically measure the numbersof homeless people. There are numerous obstacles toestimating this population. Some of the most significant are:
• There is no universally accepted definition ofabsolute homelessness, making it difficult tocompare estimates of the population.
• Only a few municipalities conduct street counts,and the results of these surveys tend to be diffi-cult to compare.
• There is currently no consistent or reliable meas-urement of the emergency shelter population.Data collection in different provinces is variouslythe responsibility of municipalities, provincialgovernment agencies, or shelters themselves. As aresult, data compilation methods differ substan-tially across jurisdictions.
• Data collection on shelter users that depends on the Homeless Individuals and FamiliesInformation System (HIFIS) and other reportingmethods are not used by all shelter providers.
• Shelter users typically rely on numerous sheltersand support services, leading to significant dou-ble-counting.
FCM Quali ty o f Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem
The “Changing Face of Homelessness” in the QOLRS communitiesRather than monitoring the overall size of theabsolute homeless population, the QOLRS monitorsits demographic composition. The measure of the“Changing Face of Homelessness” is based on ananalysis of permanent and surplus emergency shelterbeds devoted to the following demographic groups:single men; women (including victims of family violence); families (including single- and two-parentfamilies); and youth (minors living without a legalguardian). Data were collected for the period 1991 to 2002 by means of a survey of the 20 QOLRScommunities conducted in 2003, and included emergency shelter systems run by faith-based organizations, municipalities and other orders of government. While not a direct measure of thehomeless population, the “Changing Face ofHomelessness” is a useful and feasible proxy.
It is important to keep in mind that the reliability ofFCM’s measure of the composition of the homelesspopulation is limited by several factors.
• In several instances, survey responses on numbersof shelter beds corresponded to a subset of shelters present in the municipality. For example,shelter-bed data for the City of Vancouver wereavailable only for four mixed shelters out of atotal of 27 shelters being operated for a range ofdemographic groups and so could not be used inour analysis.
• While bed counts for shelters of different typesare helpful in serving as an indicator of demo-graphic composition, shelter overflow can dramatically alter the numbers. Only a limitednumber of municipalities reported on surplus beds.
• The composition of the shelter-bed system andthe number of beds dedicated to specific clientgroups will have an impact on the client mix. For example, homeless families will not use thesystem if there is no appropriate shelter.
25Theme Repor t #1 • Incomes , She l ter and Neces s i t i e s
Homelessness exists in Halton Region despite oneof the highest median incomes in Canada ($74,946in 2001).While considered a “hidden” problem inaffluent Halton, 1,200 to 1,300 people are homelessor at risk of homelessness each year. These figuresexclude homeless youth who “cruise” from couchto couch throughout the region. Halton’s first permanent emergency shelter will be opening in Oakville in the late fall of 2004. It will have 25 beds, including 10 for youth.
The City of Calgary has conducted a census ofabsolutely homeless persons every two years since1992. In 2004, 2,597 homeless persons were enu-merated, including 2,440 in shelters, representing anincrease of approximately 23 per cent over 2002.This was a far smaller increase compared to theover 30 per cent growth rate trend seen in the pre-ceding four counts (1996 through 2002).
A snapshot survey of homelessness conducted bythe Halifax Regional Municipality in June 2003 found234 homeless individuals in the metropolitan area.Sixty-seven per cent of those surveyed were men,while youth under 18 years of age accompanied byan adult comprised 15 per cent of the surveyedpopulation.Ten per cent of the youth populationwere independent youth under 18.The Aboriginalpopulation accounted for 14 per cent of the sur-veyed population, but comprised only one per centof the total local population
Hamilton’s 2004 Housing Strategy identifies consid-erable demand for emergency shelter by families. In2003, 560 children and adults were living in hotelsat some point during the year. The report alsodescribes the presence of a disproportionate num-ber of Aboriginal persons.While representing only2.5 per cent of Hamilton’s overall population,Aboriginals make up an estimated 20 per cent ofthe city’s homeless population. Recent research inHamilton also shows that the majority of peopleexperiencing homelessness do not use emergencyshelters. In fact, Hamilton’s Housing Help Centrehas estimated that only one-third may do so.
P RO F I L E S O FH O M E L E S S N E S S I N
Q O L R S M U N I C I PA L I T I E S
26
Consequently, the data presented in Chart 16 arelimited to the eight QOLRS communities with themost comprehensive time-series emergency shelter-bed data. Despite these limitations, the FCM surveyresults suggest that the following conditions andtrends are prevalent in the QOLRS communities.
FCM Quali ty o f Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem
Chart 16 Changing Face of HomelessnessComposition of Shelter Beds, by Shelter Type, as Percentage of All Shelter Beds, Select QOLRS Municipalities, 1991, 2002
Source: FCM Municipal Survey Database, 2003; Data for Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, London, Waterloo, Peel, Kingston, and Halifax, including permanent plus surplus shelter beds. The category of “women” includes both single women and victims of domestic violence, which can include women and their children.
1991 2002
Families7%
Youth7%
Mixed10%
Single men47%
Women29%
Families7%
Youth4%
Mixed26%
Single men49%
Women22%
The first observation is that absolute homelessness is present in all municipalities, large and small. All 20 communities participating in the survey indicatedthat emergency shelters were present in their commu-nity and serving a range of users. While this wasexpected for the larger municipalities, both the small-est and wealthiest suburban communities representedby the QOLRS also reported growing numbers ofemergency shelters serving their local population,including Sudbury, Kingston, York Region, andHalton Region (see Profiles of Homelessness, page 25).
A second observation is the diversity of demographicgroups served by the shelter system. The compositionof permanent and surplus emergency shelter bedspresented in Chart 16 indicates the diverse andchanging demands placed on the shelter systembetween 1991 and 2002. It reflects the attempts bymunicipalities, provincial and federal governmentsand non-governmental organizations to address thesechanges.
While the single largest group of beds in the emer-gency shelter system continues to be for single men,permanent beds devoted exclusively to single menaccounted for just under 50 per cent of the total.Shelter beds devoted specifically to women, familiesor youth accounted for over 25 per cent of the totalin 2001, with an additional 26 per cent devoted tobeds in mixed shelters.
Chart 16 indicates that the proportion of bedsdevoted to single men rose only slightly over the 10-year period. The largest growth in the share ofbeds was under the category of mixed shelters,reflecting the increased flexibility of the shelter sys-tem as it responds to the diverse groups that make upthe homeless population. A mixed shelter typicallyrefers to a program or facility offering shelter to apopulation of both single men and single women,but can include any combination of men, women,youth and families. Several shelters also supportedclient groups comprising refugee claimants or
Aboriginal people in various household configura-tions. Some shelters in larger municipalities now alsoaccommodate the particular needs of couples (withno children). Data available from the City of Torontoindicates that the proportion of all shelter users whowere couples grew from 0.6 to 2.1 per cent between1991 and 2002.
27Theme Repor t #1 • Incomes , She l ter and Neces s i t i e s
1FCM’s Quality of Life Reporting SystemThis is one of a series of reports on quality of life in Canadian communities prepared by the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities (FCM) using information derived from a variety of national and municipal datasources. The first report, published in 1999, addressed the social effects of the severe economic recession ofthe early 1990s, focusing on the period 1991 to 1996. Trends identified in this first report showed thatincome disparities in Canada’s urban communities were larger than provincial and national averages. FCM’s2001 report on quality of life re-affirmed that analysis. The first volume of the current, third report, releasedin April 20041, found that despite a recovery from the recession of the early 1990s, progress on quality of lifehas been mixed. While quality of life remained stable for many during the period studied, it deteriorated significantly for a growing number of people.
The statistics used in these reports are drawn from a larger reporting system containing hundreds of variablesthat measure changes in social, economic and environmental factors. These variables are structured into 72 indicators of the quality of life in 20 Canadian communities from 1990 to 2002 (see Figure 1). Takentogether, these data form the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Quality of Life Reporting System(QOLRS). QOLRS indicator tables and reports are available at http://www.fcm.ca.
The 20 communities participating in the QOLRS account for 40 percent of Canada’s population. These communities comprise some of Canada’s largest urban centres and many of the suburban municipalitiessurrounding them, as well as small and medium-sized municipalities in seven provinces (see Table 1).
By providing a method to monitor quality of life at the local level, the QOLRS ensures that municipal government is a strong partner in formulating public policy in Canada. Developed by FCM and municipalstaff, each report is also intended to serve as a planning tool for municipalities. Each report considers qualityof life issues from a municipal perspective and uses data segregated by actual municipal boundaries, notCensus Metropolitan Areas, as is often the case in other studies.
The reporting system is equally important as a tool for community organizations, research institutes, and other orders of government, allowing them to:
• identify and promote awareness of issues affecting quality of life in Canadian municipalities;• better target policies and resources aimed at improving quality of life;• support collaborative efforts to improve quality of life; and• inform and influence decision-makers across Canada.
Subsequent volumes in the QOLRS report series will examine in more detail issues such as income securityand social inclusion, community safety and security and the urban environment.
Federation of Canadian MunicipalitiesThe Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has been the national voice of municipal governments since1901.The organization is dedicated to improving the quality of life in all communities by promoting strong,effective, and accountable municipal government. FCM membership includes Canada’s largest cities and regionalmunicipalities, small towns, rural municipalities, and the 19 provincial and territorial municipal associations.
1 Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2004. Quality of Life Reporting System. Highlights Report 2004. Ottawa.
FCM gratefully acknowledges the financialsupport of Human Resources and SkillsDevelopment Canada in this project.
