solutions to the crisis of homelessness & …solutions to the crisis of homelessness &...

Solutions to the Crisis of Homelessness & Affordable Housing in Greater Vancouver

A Strategy for the Christian Community and Its Partners

March 2007

Preface This report was commissioned by City in Focus subsequent to the Church & Affordable Housing Conference held in Vancouver on 14 October 2006. The purpose of the conference was (1) to inspire the Christian community, governments, and secular agencies with what is possible through partnerships within the Church as well as beyond it and (2) to start the dialogue on how best to proceed. Subsequent to the conference, some philanthropists interested in being significant partners for solving homelessness and housing requested an overview and recommendations. The expense and complexity of best practice affordable housing requires broad partnerships. Members of Parliament and the Provincial Legislature, mayors and councillors, and senior bureaucrats with CMHC and BC Housing shared with us their perspectives and encouragement – as did the leaders of some of the most experienced and influential housing organizations, Christian and secular. The conference program and audio recordings of a number of the sessions are available at www.shalomseekers.ca. This report does not contain new research. Rather, to indicate the scope and range of solutions, we have attempted to create a synopsis of the key homeless and housing research and plans published by the City of Vancouver, the GVRD, the Province, and various advocates. However, we trust we have added something of value to the public dialogue through our commentary informed by our Christian commitments. The theological underpinning of this document draws heavily upon the Ottawa Manifesto released last year by the Poverty & Homelessness Roundtable of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. We would like to express our deep appreciation to our Christian and secular colleagues – not least those who authored the documents we have cited – who continue to teach us how best to respond to our homeless and poorly housed neighbours. This report is by no means exhaustive and we apologize to our readers for the many situations and issues that it fails to address adequately. Our intent is simply to provide interested parties with insights and various models with which to engage the Christian community. The sample projects appended to this report flow from the participants of the Church and Affordable Housing Conference and appear to fit into the contextual model suggested. We encourage interested parties to contact these housing providers directly for more detailed information. Not all of the agencies participating in the conference were able to respond to our request for proposals by our deadline. And we are well aware that our conference was able to accommodate only a fraction of the quality agencies that deserve support. We invite submissions of proposals based on the Matrix Questions found herein. Finally, this is a draft version which is being sent out for vetting by Christian, government, non-profit, and marketplace stakeholders. This report will be revised based on their feedback and then presented to potential philanthropists and patrons. It will also form the basis of a lengthier toolkit targeted to congregations and the Christian community at large. Respectfully,

Jonathan Bird – City in Focus 778-881-2137

Doug Peat – Union Gospel Mission 604-253-3323

Hilary Beard– Union Gospel Mission 604-253-3323

Index

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 British Columbia Manifesto ........................................................................................................... 7

The Scope of the Crisis............................................................................................................. 9 From Crisis to Stability ............................................................................................................ 11 The Housing Continuum – A Place for All............................................................................... 12 Those in Need of Emergency Shelter ..................................................................................... 12 Those in Need of Transitional Housing................................................................................... 13 Those in Need of Supportive Long-Term Housing.................................................................. 14 Those in need of independent affordable housing.................................................................. 16 Characteristics of Effective Housing Solutions........................................................................ 17

Support Services for People at Risk ........................................................................................... 18 Poverty Is More than Lack of Money....................................................................................... 18 Supporting the Poor through Social Networks ........................................................................ 19

Poverty and Social Sustainability................................................................................................ 21 Social Sustainability: Opportunities for All............................................................................... 21 Community Development: Transforming the Community from Within .................................... 23

Print & Web Resources............................................................................................................... 25 Appendix A. A Matrix for Evaluating Housing Proposals ............................................................ 28 Appendix B. Sample Projects & Models ..................................................................................... 29

Union Gospel Mission - Doorways of Hope ............................................................................ 29 New Hope Community Services Society................................................................................. 31 W.I.N.G.S. (Women in Need Gaining Strength) Fellowship Ministries.................................... 32 Lazarus Community Society ................................................................................................... 33 Parent Support Group for Families of Mentally Handicapped Adults Society ......................... 34 Community Land Trust............................................................................................................ 35 Secondary Suite Conversions................................................................................................. 36 Medallion Housing Society......................................................................................................37 Habitat for Humanity Greater Vancouver ................................................................................ 38

Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary

Crisis in the Midst of Plenty Vancouver is globally renowned for its beauty and innovative urban planning. Because our city region is consistently hailed as one of the “most liveable” on the planet, it is all the more disturbing to see so many of our neighbours struggling with homelessness and poverty. Homelessness has reached crisis proportions. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that some 58,000 households in the GVRD were at risk of becoming homeless in 2001 (prior to the dramatic escalation of housing costs), as they were paying 50% or more their gross income on shelter and couldn’t afford other adequate accommodation. The number of people living on the street or in shelters doubled between 2002 and 2005, amounting to more than 2100 in the GVRD, with 1291 in Vancouver alone. Surrey had the second-highest number. The next official count is slated to take place in 2008, but reliable estimates put the current number of homeless in the City of Vancouver at more than 2000. This number is expected to triple before the Olympics unless radical measures are taken. Unstable housing and homelessness sets families and individuals adrift in a complex world of challenges. Low-income households are forced to pay rent that exceed their means, leaving too little for food, clothing, daycare, transportation, education, and other essentials. Many households are compelled to move frequently, uprooting children from their schools and communities. They struggle to attain the essentials of life that provide emotional, physical and social stability for adults and children alike. The compounded effects of homelessness, unemployment and addictive lifestyles places burdens on families, communities and the government - a heavy price tag of ill-health, increasing crime, and lost human potential. People at greatest risk are those who

• Suffer from a serious mental illness • Are addicted to alcohol or drugs • Are refugees or immigrants

• Are prostitutes and abused women • Youth from the foster care system • Aboriginals

With skyrocketing property values, a 25% decline in real earnings among the lowest paid workers, and high rates of poverty, housing has become unaffordable in the GVRD. Between 1980 and 2000, Vancouver was the only metro area in Canada where poverty rates climbed significantly. Poverty is an ugly blight that robs a person of hope, a sense of self-worth and the ability to engage in the positive relationships that foster community, creativity and achievement. Overall Strategy Since homelessness results from many different scenarios, a range of responses and housing options are required, all of which have the common goal of leading people from crisis to stability. Various regional and municipal homelessness plans call for “a continuum of housing and support” that consists of three elements:

• a continuum of safe, affordable housing • a range of support services • adequate income.

Executive Summary

2

The continuum of housing includes

• emergency housing (stays of 30 days or less) • transitional, or second stage, housing (30 days to 2-3 years, plus support services on or off site) • supportive housing (indefinite length of stay) • independent housing.

Support services experiencing critical gaps identified in the GVRD’s homeless plan are

• Prevention services • Outreach services • Drop-in centres

• Health services • Mental health services • Addiction treatment and services

Effective support services are characterized by:

• a high level of participation by all stakeholders • a high level of stewardship and accountability • a model of service delivery which fits the neighbourhood and builds on community assets

Adequate income is another of the three main solutions to homelessness recommended in 3 Ways to Home. The only permanent solution to housing need and poverty is to ensure that people can earn a living that exceeds (by at least a little bit) the minimum costs of a healthy, simple lifestyle. DeGroot-Maggetti and Siggner (2005) of Citizens for Public Justice elaborate four dimensions of poverty:

• material deprivation (having) • social exclusion (relating) • capabilities deprivation (doing) • diminished life chances (ultimately being)

Best practice affordable housing provides supports which assist vulnerable people in each of these dimensions at every point along the housing continuum allowing them to discover, develop, and exercise their gifts in the community. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the goal of these supports is to establish shalom – the well-being that results from the harmonious, equitable interdependency of everyone and everything in a given place. These relational supports go beyond the clinical or professional to involve mutually transforming friendships and social networks. Community development applies these relational supports to the community as a whole and, when given an economic focus, has proven to be highly effective in creating long-term employment and market opportunities. The goals of shalom closely parallel the concept of sustainability. A City of Vancouver policy states that a sustainable Vancouver “is a place where people live, work and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. In such a community, sustainability is achieved through community participation and the reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being.”1

1 City of Vancouver (2002).

Executive Summary

3

Recommended Solutions These proposed solutions must be considered as interdependent. All studies emphasize that, if only selected parts of this service continuum are addressed, such as only emergency shelter and transition housing, the long term support of individuals is broken. This would prevent the ability of people to move from crisis to stability. Further, the synergy emanating from collaborative efforts between public, private, non-profit organizations and all levels of government will result in vibrant sustainable communities. Emergency Shelter A conservative estimate of additional emergency shelters needed to meet the present level of need is 154 shelter beds. This assumes that 976 permanent housing units are built. Should permanent housing not be developed, an additional 1130 shelter beds will be needed. Successful models focus on moving clients out of shelters into transitional, then permanent housing through a continuum of services.

Recommendations Due to the complex needs of those who use emergency shelters, philanthropists are advised to partner with existing service providers who have the necessary expertise. “Best practices” recommends caring for people in their own communities. Municipalities which do not currently have emergency shelters are encouraged to develop them with experienced service providers who have the capacity to expand.

Transition Housing Transition housing provides a high level of support for up to 2 or 3 years, while residents rebuild the personal capacities and the social networks they need to live healthily on their own. With only 187 beds available, there is a critical lack of transitional housing for women, with and without children, fleeing from abuse. To serve the 9,325 women and children turned away in 2003 (only 26% of those seeking assistance were served), the region requires more than 500 new beds. Foster care and Aboriginal youth face multiple challenges, and need a place to belong, a place to learn the skills they need to emerge as adults. Due to the episodic nature of mental illness, many people with mental health problems require ongoing support. Refugees and immigrants require specialized support. The estimated collective needs of these groups for the city of Vancouver alone are indicated below.

• 500 units for women with or without children coming out of safe houses • 300 units for people with addictions or in recovery • 150 units for others including youth and refugees • 100 units for youth with addictions (16-18)

Recommendations It is recommended that philanthropists partner with organizations presently providing services to these populations at risk. Some of these organizations may not yet offer housing but are looking to do so. Such partnerships should be based upon the organizations’ expertise in transitioning people to permanent housing. Transitional housing does require additional expenditures for staff. If the newly developed property were owned by the operating agency, revenue from the property can offset these additional costs.

Executive Summary

4

Supportive Long-Term Housing Supportive Housing is affordable housing for residents who are unable to live alone or who require ongoing support to do so. Most are not expected to become fully self sufficient. This group includes

• frail seniors • people with mental illness or physical disabilities and their families • those with drug and alcohol addictions • women with their children fleeing violence • and the homeless or those at risk of homelessness • some people who have large families, youth and Aboriginal people who may face barriers to

accessing housing in the private market The GVRD estimates that at least 675 units are required simply to meet the immediate need to house unsheltered people. To make substantial progress toward ending chronic homelessness, approximately 5,000 supportive units must be built. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority waiting lists identify at least 1300 individuals waiting for supportive housing – over 1,100 mental health patients and 525 HIV clients. The City of Vancouver intends to build 3,200 units of supportive housing over the next 10 years:

• 800 units for street homeless • 200 units for chronic shelter users • 750 units for mental health clients • 750 units for people with addictions • 450 units for people with HIV/AIDS • 250 units for head/brain injuries.

In addition, in the City of Vancouver alone, more than 1000 units are needed for the number of seniors forecast for 2016.

Recommendations Philanthropists are encouraged to partner with groups that model the three effective support services previously indicated. Staffing these supportive units is expensive. Philanthropists are encouraged to cover the high costs of all capital development, through the leveraging of public/private partnerships, to maximize the impact of other funding partners on operational budgets.

Independent Housing Independent affordable housing is for individuals who can live in the community with little or no support services, but whose low-income makes it difficult for them to rent or purchase adequate housing in addition to meeting essential living expenses. A stock of 25,000 rental units is required for households with annual incomes of $20,000 or less. In addition, 10,500 subsidized housing units are necessary simply to house those on current wait lists - which presently average 8 years.

Recommendations

Executive Summary

5

The most cost effective measure is to preserve and rehabilitate existing older affordable housing stock, in particular apartments blocks outside the downtown core and Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) hotels throughout the region.

General Recommendations • Support the homeless in their home communities – shelters, purpose-built facilities for the

hard-to-house, and support services should be created throughout the region. This would relieve pressure on the Downtown Eastside and surrounding neighbourhoods, and it help preserve familial and social networks.

• Preserve existing affordable housing stock – new stock cannot be built faster than existing stock is being lost to redevelopment, closure, and rent increases. Purchasing and rehabilitating existing stock can cost 55% compared to new construction.

• Turn-key social housing – Philanthropists, foundations, and social entrepreneurs can purchase existing stock or build new stock and then lease or donate the properties to non-profits. Spared the capital outlay, the non-profits can use building revenue as multi-year core funding for their operational/program budgets, which is otherwise very difficult to secure. In the case of some large buildings, rental revenue from residential and commercial tenants may cover all operational/program costs.

• Build mixed developments – new construction should emphasize a mix of income and tenure, involving market owned, affordable owned, and subsidized rentals. This model, which has worked extremely well in the planned communities of south False Creek and Champlain Heights, defrays construction costs, prevents ghettoes, and promotes social sustainability.

• Create and upgrade secondary suites – perhaps the most cost effective and immediate means for creating additional affordable rental stock. This is a highly adaptable model, suitable for a variety target populations and amenable to multi-sectoral partnerships. It is self-sustaining in that homeowners can repay the capital costs through a line of credit on the increased equity or through a second mortgage repayable upon resale.

• Redevelop church properties – cheap land is critical affordability factor, and many congregations have parking lots and other properties which could be used for new developments. Many others are facing closure over the next ten years. Most have considerable equity which could be leveraged or pooled into projects on other sites. In any case, this model requires multi-sectoral partnership for financial and managerial feasibility.

• Create a Greater Vancouver housing foundation – involve public, private, non-profit, and community stakeholders in overseeing a vehicle for philanthropy, charitable investment, and multi-sectoral collaborations. It could remain a reference and funding body only, or it could additionally operate a Community Land Trust. If the latter is pursued, generous turn-key leases (described below) can allow building revenue to heavily subsidize operational budgets of non-profits housing providers, and the long-term growth in equity can be reinvested by purchasing additional properties.

• Create a community land trust – perhaps the most cost effective and immediate way to provide affordable entry-level ownership. A CLT is a non-profit corporation that owns land and holds it “in trust” in perpetuity for the benefit of the community. A homebuyer is granted a long-term lease (60+ years) on the land at a substantially below-market rate, owns the house outright, and may resell the property only according to a pre-arranged pricing schedule. Some land trusts also provide substantial down-payment assistance to households purchasing homes or condominiums on the open market, in exchange for a similar permanent affordability covenant placed on the resulting deeds. This results in 6-10 units for the same price as the average single family detached house. The properties become more affordable over time, as prices appreciate at rates which are keyed to inflation rather than market speculation.

Executive Summary

6

• Increase welfare rates by 50% and index annually to inflation; most rates have not been raised or adjusted for inflation since 1991.

• Create federal tax incentives – for preserving and creating market rentals and investing in affordable housing

• Divert 25% of Provincial Property Transfer Tax – annually into capital projects funded through BC Housing

• Maximize municipal leverage points – donate municipal lands to a land trust or lease them to non-profits for $1; eliminate municipal property taxes and development fees; fast-track permits; grant density bonuses on projects of every scale and go higher than four stories along arterial roads, provided the additional FSR is used exclusively for permanently affordable units; allow secondary suites to be purchasable (i.e., outright approve two-family dwellings everywhere secondary suites are allowed)

British Columbia Manifesto

7

British Columbia Manifesto Poverty & Homelessness – Our Joint Responsibility We, the members of the Christian faith community of Greater Vancouver, are representative of the many British Columbians who believe that the care of poor and vulnerable people of all ages is a central tenet of our own faith, of good government, and of responsible, compassionate citizenship. We have already committed significant personal and organizational resources towards addressing poverty and homelessness. We are therefore concerned to see poverty and homelessness growing at alarming rates. The time has come to add our public voice for further joint action which results in long-term comprehensive solutions to this crisis. The teaching and example of Jesus, together with the repeated testimony of the Bible, reveal that God specifically values those who are poor and ostracized as having been made in His image, and, therefore, as inherently precious to Him. We are convinced of the fundamental dignity and worth of each and every human being, without qualification. Homes, Not Just Housing Home is more than a roof over our heads, it is a place to call our own that is safe, secure and promotes dignity; a place which fosters healthy relationships within vibrant community; a base that helps provide the opportunity for education, meaningful work for reasonable pay; and to worship, dream and play. Housing initiatives need to take these values into account and aim at creating far more than “affordable” space. Compassion Demands Action Differences in life circumstances – such as homelessness – may frighten or repulse us. These perceived differences may cause us to further distance ourselves, until we can easily justify our non-engagement with people who are poor and homeless, who have the same needs and longings we all share.

Informed compassion is more than a feeling. It compels us to take action. Jesus’ compassion, shown through his life and death and resurrection, leads us to get to know people who live outside our own “comfort zones” and motivates us to learn about their lives. Such knowledge leads us to action and advocacy. Resources which result in real change in the lives of people – such as dignified housing, meaningful work, or access to health care or education – stem from such relationships. The True Cost of Poverty Abandoning people to poverty increases health problems, welfare rolls, and jail populations – all major burdens for governments and tax payers. Living in poverty diminishes a person’s hope and sense of worth - especially for children born into poverty, who begin life so far behind others that they may never be able to catch up. Lack of funds can lead to a lifetime loss of creativity and gifts – a loss for all of us. Affordable housing - along with needed supports - not only saves money but provides the base for building stability in lives so necessary for growth and societal involvement.

British Columbia Manifesto

8

Justice & Mercy Define Good Government A key measure of healthy society is how our standard of care for the most vulnerable among us. We expect good government to formulate policy that is both just and compassionate to those who are in need. The Bible teaches that care of people who are poor, oppressed or marginalized is central to both our role as people of faith, and the purpose of government. People of faith have a responsibility to provide moral leadership by making a priority of caring for people who are poor, and particularly people who are homeless. Government Responsibility Does Not Excuse Church Apathy While various levels of government clearly have a responsibility to address these matters, the faith community’s responsibility is to express God’s love by caring in practical ways. As communities of faith, we have different capacities than governments or social service organizations. We must be ready to provide creative leadership in some circumstances, partnership in others, in order to create realistic, dignified and sustainable options for people who are in poverty or homeless The Faith Community Is a Good Partner With a history of success as the largest non-government service providers to the poor and homeless, the faith community has the experience and expertise to expand involvement. Christian teaching emphasizes the giving of oneself and ones resources as part of our faith. Based on this ethos, we can often achieve more with less, while offering a wealth of knowledge and strength of community for the enrichment of all. Christian groups are encouraged to support and partner - when appropriate - with government and community initiatives aimed at the substantial reduction of homelessness, poverty, and their root causes. We recognize that we can not operate alone, but are most effective cooperating with others. Through strategic partnerships, the leveraging private philanthropic investments, and the careful stewardship of funds, we can most effectively serve those who are hurting. Therefore, To Our Brothers and Sisters Who Struggle With Poverty & Homelessness, We Commit to...

LISTEN carefully to you, for you are our greatest teachers. LEARN all we can about the systemic, sociological, economic, cultural and spiritual deficits that have impacted your lives. We will seek out the knowledge others have acquired, and teach what we ourselves have learned to those who want to care more effectively for people who are poor or homeless; ACT with diligence and integrity to create with you healthy, nurturing relationships, and safe, secure, dignified homes; SPEAK on your behalf when your own voices are not heard, and support you in speaking for yourselves, to the end that British Columbian churches, governments, media and businesses would make the substantial reduction of homelessness, poverty and their root causes a high priority; and COOPERATE with others so committed, respecting differences of approach and philosophy.

Introduction

9

The Scope of the Crisis

Vancouver is a city known globally for the beauty of its natural setting and the innovative success of its urban planning. The place we call home is consistently hailed as one of the “most liveable” urban areas on the planet. As we prepare to host the world for the 2010 Winter Olympics, it is therefore all the more startling to see so many of our

neighbours struggling with poverty and homelessness. Poverty is becoming both more prevalent and more severe. Between 1980 and 2000, Vancouver was the only metro area in Canada where poverty rates climbed significantly. Presently, we have the highest rates of after-tax poverty among the general population (17.0%) and among children (22.2%). Despite current low unemployment rates, the middle class has seen their purchasing power eroded by inflation, and for the working poor the month lasts longer than their pay cheques. Real wages among middle income earners are still at pre-1990 levels, and the least paid workers have seen their earnings fall 25% since 1980. The income gap between the highest and lowest paid earners is growing rapidly, and British Columbia has the largest gap of any province between the net worth of our richest and poorest households – due in no small part to the skyrocketing property values here.2 Vancouver now has the highest housing costs in the nation. Not only are we experiencing an astonishingly low rental vacancy rate of 0.3% (2006 average), less than 1% of rental units are available at welfare rates – even after we factor in social housing stock. For all these reasons and more, an estimated 58,000 Greater Vancouver households are at risk of becoming homeless.3 With the high cost of living, people are forced to choose between paying for their home or paying for food.4 Homelessness has reached crisis proportions. A recent homelessness count in the GVRD shows that the number of homeless persons has doubled in the past few years – 2,100 people were found sleeping outside, 1,291 in Vancouver alone. Surrey was found to have the second-highest number of people living on the street. Ms Villeneuve, a council member who chairs the mayor's task force on homelessness and housing, has stated that the number in Surrey is now pushing toward 500.5 Pivot Legal Society predicts in their report Cracks in the Foundation that, if we do not respond to this crisis by 2010, we will see nearly three times more people homeless than at present. Right now, emergency shelters and supportive housing providers in Greater Vancouver do not have enough space or funding to respond to this need.6 Homelessness is expensive. Cracks in the Foundation cites a recent BC government report that places the cost to society for a homeless person at $51,460 per year. (According to the 2001 Census, average employment income for individuals in the GVRD was $34,007.) If we provide enough supportive housing, we will save $10,328 to $15,492 per individual per year. Without adequate space in emergency shelters, people 2Median family income for the poorest decile fell 11% and earnings for the lowest-paid decile plummeted 25%, with younger workers feeling the brunt. In fact, Greater Vancouver bucked national trends. Median income across all Canadian Major Cities (CMA)s rose 9% but declined 1% here. 3 SPARC BC (2003), p 47. In 2001, the Census reckoned that the City was home to 40,000 people (8% of the population) living in 20,500 households that were at risk of homelessness (Davidson and Lee 2005). That is, they met Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s criteria for INALH households: they were IN “core need” And paying at Least Half their income on shelter. Households are in “core need” if they live in accommodation that is unaffordable, inappropriately sized or inadequately maintained and they cannot afford housing that meets all three of these standards 4 Each week the Food Bank supplies groceries to 25,000 people in Vancouver, the North Shore, Burnaby, and New Westminster receive groceries from the Food Bank; 18 depots serve 9,000 individuals directly and more than 100 agencies redistribute foodstuffs to an additional 16,000. Forty percent of their clients are families; 39% are under 18 years of age. 5 Hume 2006. 6 During 2004/2005, Lookout Emergency Aid Society turned away 5,962 individuals.

Introduction

10

are forced to sleep in the alleys and the doorways of our cities. This is tragic for the homeless, and it hurts surrounding residents and businesses also. Though drug use is rampant throughout the region, it is highly concentrated in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and in the Whalley area of Surrey. According to the City of Vancouver, “There are an estimated 4,700 injection drug users living in the Downtown Eastside, and alcohol and drug use are leading causes of mortality in the neighbourhood.”7 People are dying on the streets in their addictions. Many have been addicts for years, supporting their destructive habits through criminal activity. Fractured relationships and loneliness result, leading to despair. According to the GVRD’s homelessness plan, “between one third and one half of individuals who are homeless suffer from a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.”8 People suffering from mental illness are difficult to house, because their behaviour is challenging and because they are not easily persuaded to take and then remain on medications. The situation is compounded by the numbers who have replaced their medication for street drugs (often because dealers seek them out as being especially vulnerable marks), leading to “dual diagnosis” – when a person is both mentally ill and addicted. As men come to buy the sexual services of our youth and women, we see the broken lives of those who have sold their bodies to support their addictions. The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 - 14 years. One study from the United States found 65% suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.9 Over 80% are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, so it should not surprise if they turn to substance abuse to medicate the deep pain in their souls, the pain of being used and discarded as objects of pleasure. The estimated 500 to 1000 youth on the BC’s streets each night are at risk of being caught into the cycle of prostitution and addiction.10 Women trapped in abusive situations need places of refuge where they can rebuild their lives and the lives of their children. San Diego’s task force on homelessness says that victims of domestic violence:

• come from households (at every income level) with financial problems

• are isolated by the batterer to ensure dependence • have their employment often sabotaged by their abuser.11

Without adequate transitional housing and supports, women are forced to decide between remaining in a dangerous situation or becoming homeless. Both options risk their children being apprehended by the authorities. Also at risk of homelessness are people on social assistance, single-parent families, refugees and recent immigrants, seniors, Aboriginal Canadians, youth from the foster care system, and people with disabilities.12

7 City of Vancouver (), p 14. 8 GVRD (2003), p 93. 9 Farley 2000. 10 Green (1999) 11 GVRD (2003) quotes a recent study of family homelessness in which more than 40% cited family violence as a factor leading to their homelessness (p 32). 12 Successive cohorts of recent immigrants are finding it harder and harder to catch up to their Canadian-born peers, but no significant disadvantage has been discerned among younger immigrants who acquire education in Canada or enter the workforce for the first time here (instead of outside the country). Of the three largest Canadian cities, Vancouver has the largest population of Aboriginals, who experience a Low Income Measure rate of 40.9%, more than twice that of non-Aboriginals. They earn one-

Introduction

11

They require more than a roof; they require ongoing support. And such is recognized by every level of government, as can be seen in Housing Matters - BC Provincial Housing Strategy, 3 Ways to a Home - The Regional Homeless plan for Great Vancouver, The Vancouver Agreement, and the City of Vancouver Housing Plan for the Downtown Eastside.

From Crisis to Stability

Because homelessness results from many different scenarios, it is essential to respond with a continuum of housing that has the common goal of leading people from crisis to stability. Common sense and sociological research conclude that stable housing is vital for stable lives. The various regional and municipal homelessness plans call for “a continuum of housing and support” that consists of three elements:

• a continuum of safe, affordable housing • adequate income, and • a range of support services.13

third less than their non-Aboriginal peers, are almost twice as likely to get their income from government transfers, and Aboriginal children are 2.5 times more likely to live in a lone-parent family. Welfare recipients have had their benefits cut, even though these have not been raised since 1991. It is estimated that welfare now covers little more than half the actual cost of living in the GVRD, virtually guaranteeing poverty rather than alleviating it. 13 Vancouver’s plan, completed in 2005, has a ten-year horizon. It calls for the creation of at least 8,000 subsidized units, which would double the share of social housing in the City’s total stock (currently 8.5%). It recommends that 4,200 of these be developed for independent living; 3,200 for supported living; and 600 transitional units to end homelessness.

The Housing Continuum – A Place for All

12

The Housing Continuum – A Place for All The continuum of safe, affordable housing includes

• emergency housing (stays of 30 days or less) • transitional, or second stage, housing (30 days to 2-3 years, plus support services on or off site) • supportive housing (no limit on length of stay because most residents are unlikely ever to become

fully self-sufficient) • independent housing.

The Province uses a similar continuum that emphasizes the amount of government subsidy required.

Faith communities – especially Christian non-profits and churches – continue to play a significant role in providing housing all along this continuum and have the ability, through multi-sector partnerships, to increase their involvement.14

Those in Need of Emergency Shelter The GVRD is in the midst of a homelessness crisis. Our existing emergency shelter services (936 shelter and safe house beds) continue to be filled to capacity and are forced to turn people away.15 On March 15th, 2005 the regional homeless count found 1,130 people without shelter. All strategies recognize that the solution to homelessness is permanent housing. However the first step out of crisis is often through assistance from shelter staff. While providing emergency shelter, food, clothing and support, staff establish relationship with

14 All levels of government recognize fully that the cost and complexity of providing housing at any point on the housing continuum requires multi-sectoral partnership. They also readily acknowledge that local Christian agencies are among the largest and finest housing providers in the province. The largest share consists of supportive units for seniors and, to a much lesser degree, the mentally and physically disabled. Christians also oversee a large majority of the emergency shelters beds for the homeless and for women with or without children fleeing violence or exploitation. With regard to transitional housing, Christians provide a significant number of units to recovering addicts and women, as well as the majority of (relatively short-term) the few units for refugees and refugee claimants. Only a small proportion of Christian housing is geared to independent living, and these are for low-income singles in the DTES and low-income families in the suburbs. 15 During 2004/2005 one agency alone, Lookout Emergency Aid Society, turned away 5,962 individuals.

From Housing Matters BC


13

individuals. Relationship then allows them jointly to address whatever caused the person’s homelessness and to connect with others who can help. However, because affordable and supportive housing units are scarce (including long-term care facilities for seniors, treatment beds for people with addictions, and supportive housing for those suffering from mental illness), shelters have become residences rather than temporary waypoints. Emergency resources are thus no longer available for dealing with crisis. As a result, it is difficult to determine exactly how many additional emergency beds are required: depending on how many units are created or lost further along the housing continuum, more or less people will find themselves homeless, and those who become homeless will be able to find housing faster or slower. In three scenarios outlined by the Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy 2006 – 2015, the number of additional beds required varies according to the number of permanent housing units that will be developed. In order to meet the present level of need, their best-case scenario calls for the development of an additional 31 emergency beds per year for the next five years in sites strategically placed throughout Greater Vancouver.16 Any future loss to existing affordable stock (especially SROs) will increase the number of shelter beds needed, because new stock not already in development cannot be built before 2010. Between June 2005 and June 2006, 82 new rooms for low-income singles were opened in the City of Vancouver – but 400 were lost due to conversions, rent increases, and closures.17 2006-2010 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Min Shelter Expansion Med Shelter Expansion Max Shelter Expansion #beds/units Annual #beds/units Annual #beds/units Annual Additional Shelter Beds 154 31 452 91 1130 226 Converted CWWS to year round beds* 266 53 266 53 226 53 Subtotal Shelter Beds 420 718 1396 Permanent Housing Units 976 195 678 136 0 0 Total Current needs 1396 1396 1396

* Cold Wet Weather Strategy beds, presently only available during part of the year.

Those in Need of Transitional Housing People undergoing a major life transition or recovering from illness, addiction or trauma need a place to stay where they can receive a high level of support for up to 2 or 3 years, as they rebuild the personal capacities and social networks we all need to live healthily on our own.

16 Woodward et al. (2006). 17 Carnegie (2006). The number of SRO rooms in Vancouver plummeted from 13,300 in 1970 to 6,079 in 2006 – a loss of 7,221 rooms or 201 per year.


14

There is a critical lack of transitional housing for women with and without children fleeing from abuse.18 Currently, there are 187 beds available. In 2003, these beds served 3,347 women and children. However, they turned away 9,325 women and children, and were able to serve only 26% of those seeking assistance. Based on these figures, the region requires 532 more beds, for a total of 719. Vancouver is a major destination for sex tourism and international sex trafficking. Some transitional programs addressing family violence or addiction also take in women (and their children) escaping sexual exploitation, but more spaces which specialize in this regard are needed, and no spaces exist for trafficked illegal aliens. There is a great need for transitional housing for youth, particularly Aboriginals and those who have been in foster care. These youth face multiple challenges, and need a place to belong, a place to learn the skills they need to thrive as adults.19 Due to the episodic nature of mental illness, many people with mental health problems require ongoing support. Transitional housing prior to moving into independent affordable housing or supportive long-term housing allows people to stabilize. Refugee claimants and approved refugees require highly specialized emergency and transitional housing. For at least a year they are dependant on welfare, awaiting immigrant stratus (which allows them to work). They also take much longer to find sustaining employment than other new Canadians, since they arrive with no social capital (significantly-sized ethnic communities or family), often unable to speak English, and universally suffering multiple symptoms of profound trauma. The City of Vancouver’s Homeless Action Plan has set the following 10-year goals for transitional housing:

• 300 units for adults with addictions • 150 units for others • 100 units for youth (16-18) with addictions • 50 units for women with or without children coming out of safe houses.

Though not officially recognized as such, alcohol and drug recovery houses operate as transition houses for those who have completed a treatment program or have cleaned up through a twelve-step program. In the absence of residential recovery programs, the number of people looking for affordable housing would increase by several hundred.

Those in Need of Supportive Long-Term Housing Supportive Housing is affordable housing for residents who are unable to live alone or who require ongoing support to do so. Many are not expected to become fully self sufficient.20 “This group often includes frail seniors, people with mental illness or physical disabilities and their families, those with drug and alcohol addictions, women with their children fleeing violence, and the homeless or those at risk of homelessness.

18 SPARC BC (2003), p 37. 19 East Vancouver alone has hundreds of teens in need of a supportive home environment, because their families cannot care for them. Their family dysfunction is due to many reasons, including parental addiction, abuse, neglect, mental illness or multi-generational poverty. Lacking proper guidance in the home, a majority of these youth find themselves repeating these cycles of destructive behaviour from an early age. Their own addictions, criminal activity, and teen pregnancies then perpetuate their inability to secure stable housing (Shantz and Dickinson 2006). 20 GVRD (2003), p 41.


15

The term might also refer to people who have large families, youth and Aboriginal people who may face barriers to accessing housing in the private market.”21 It is becoming common to advocate for a “housing first” approach to people with multiple needs. “Housing first” simply means that if we first get them housed, then they are in a better position to address other life issues such as addiction or mental illness. Safe housing makes it possible for them “to become abstinent, reduce their substance use, or reduce the negative impacts of their use. In [this] approach, housing is viewed primarily as a place to live, not to receive treatment. Central to this idea is that consumers will receive whatever individual services and assistance they need to maintain their housing choice.” 22 Accepting their life style choices allows an honest and open relationship to occur, where they can share their struggles without having to worry if they are jeopardizing their housing. We recommend a range of supportive housing which includes housing that is abstinence-based. It is critical to provide a supportive community for those choosing a living environment that does not include drug or alcohol use in order to maintain their sobriety. This has been identified as a need not only by those who come from an addiction recovery program, but also by those who choose abstinence from within the harm reduction model.23 Presently few buildings have a clean and sober mandate. This lack of housing for the recovery community forces those who have successfully recovered back into living situations that lead to relapse. Those who suffer from mental illness are much more likely to stay housed and healthy for long periods when they remain on their prescribed medications. And they are much more likely to stay on their medications with encouragement they receive through caring non-judgmental relationships with support staff (clinical and non-clinical). It is also critical that they are given the ability to retain their housing during a period of hospitalization. Otherwise, they will be homeless upon discharge and will have to start again precisely when their mental balance is most fragile. Health Authorities identify at least 1,300 individuals waiting for supportive housing – over 1,100 mental health patients and 525 HIV clients.24 The City of Vancouver has identified the following 10-year goals for 3,200 units of supportive housing:

• 800 units for street homeless • 200 units for chronic shelter users • 750 units for mental health clients • 750 units for people with addictions • 450 units for people with HIV/AIDS • 250 units for head/brain injuries

Over the next 10 years, the number of people in Vancouver aged 65 and older is projected to increase 23% from 74,439 to 91,728.25 We are obviously pressed to provide additional affordable, supportive housing options for our aging population. However, these options must include more than assisted living facilities. “Only six per cent of seniors require residential care. Evidence shows that helping seniors remain in independent housing not only contributes to an enhanced quality of life, it also helps

21 Housing Matters BC, p 7. 22 Kraus, Serge, andl Goldberg (2005), pp 7, 23. 23 Ibid., p 38. 24 GVRD (2003), p 44. 25 Cooper (2006), p 5.


16

to reduce pressure on health and long-term care resources. At present, there are not enough supported and assisted living residences available, especially for those with low income.”26

Those in need of independent affordable housing The inability of our superheated real estate market to supply affordable options, our extraordinarily low market rental vacancy rates, increasing rents, and lack of access to subsidized housing are placing low-income families and individuals throughout the GVRD.

The social and health consequences of affordable housing shortages can be broad and destructive for individuals and families. Low-income families are forced to allocate money that would otherwise be spent on food, clothing, recreation, and other essentials toward rent payments that exceed their means. Their housing situations are often unstable, requiring them to make frequent residential moves which can uproot children from their schools and communities and compound other family stressors.27

The 2001 Census enumerated 58,000 households in Greater Vancouver who were at risk of homelessness due to economic circumstances. Since then, house prices have climbed roughly 200%. Vancouver now has the highest housing costs in the nation. Market ownership is impossible for low-income households and most middle-income households alike. Affordable market rental units are exceedingly rare.28 New ones can be built only on a non-market basis. The growth in land and construction costs has far outpaced growth in median household incomes, so the market has not been able to support new rental developments - especially family

units whose multiple bedrooms reduce return on investment per square foot. Last year there were only 897 rental starts in the entire province. Secondary suites

and high-rise condominiums – many purchased as investment properties before construction began – are taking over the role of purpose-built apartments, in many cases literally as older rental stock is torn down or renovated. This, together with an ultra-low vacancy rate (0.3% in the City), is putting upward pressure on rents, as new owners have to charge more to meet their mortgage obligations. Less than 1%

of rental units are available at welfare rates – even after we factor in social housing stock. There are 42,421 independent social housing units in the GVRD. Meanwhile, about 10,500 households are on the wait list for subsidized housing and will remain on it an average of 8 years before getting placed.

More subsidized housing units, affordable market rental properties will help solve this crisis. Innovative financing, shared ownerships, land trusts and shared equity can enable low-income families and individuals to enter the housing market.

26 Housing Matters BC, p 11. 27 Cooper (2006), p 18. 28 Purchase prices of all forms of housing have risen astronomically during the last six years, by about 200%. At the end of 2006, the City had the country’s highest average list price of a detached single-family dwelling at just over $1 million (compare Surrey at $497,000). Taking into account the price differential between the eastern and western halves of the City, a house on the west side would consume 110% of the median household income of Vancouverites, and 63% on the east side – putting ownership out of reach even for most of the middle class. The average rent in 2006 for a two-bedroom purpose-built apartment in the City was $1,241.


17

In June 2005, there were 14,122 low-income units in Vancouver’s downtown core: 6,601 non-market units, 6,079 single room occupancy (SRO) units, and 1,442 special needs residential facility (SNRF) units.29 SRO hotels are a critical component of Vancouver’s affordable housing stock. Though Vancouver’s plan is a one-to-one replacement of these aging hotel rooms, there is increasing concern about existing units being lost faster than low-income suites are being built. The City has committed to buying and upgrading one hotel per year. Between June 2005 and June 2006, 82 new rooms for low-income singles were opened in the City of Vancouver – but 400 were lost due to conversions, rent increases, and closures. In order to provide a reasonable standard of living and supports to residents of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, some philanthropic businessman have been purchasing and upgrading hotels.

Characteristics of Effective Housing Solutions Through an extensive literature review and a housing conference engaging the Christian community, the following characteristics for effective services rose to the surface.

• There is a high level of participation by all involved. The people being assisted have a strong voice in what services are being offered and planning. These models built the capacity of all parties, including those being assisted. There was the ability for the people being assisted to give back. The housing solution was incorporated into and engaged the larger community, as much as is possible.

• There is a high level of stewardship and accountability built into the management and governance

model. There is an emphasis on measuring the effectiveness of the services being offered. The model has a track record of success. The capacity of the organization to manage the services was measured against objective criteria. Their solutions make good business sense

• The model fits the neighbourhood and takes into account community assets. It is sellable to potential

stakeholders - both private and government. The organization has the capacity to sustain the housing solution long-term.

29 City Of Vancouver (2005b).

Support Services for People At Risk

18

Support Services for People at Risk Support services to homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness constitute another of the three foundational elements of most regional and municipal homeless/housing plans in the Lower Mainland. 3 Ways to Home identifies the following gaps in support services in the GVRD:

Prevention services • Inadequate assistance to prevent evictions

and promote stable tenancies • Barriers to accessing services • Inadequate support services for individuals

and families Outreach services

• Lack of outreach services Drop-in centres

• Lack of 24/7 drop-in facilities • Drop-in centres are unable to serve

individuals with unique needs Health services

• Inability of health care providers to access medical histories • Inadequate supply of convalescent beds for people who are homeless • Inadequate dental care for people who are homeless or at risk

Mental health services • Inadequate community care resources in the mental health system • Demand for emergency psychiatric hospital beds exceeds supply • Individuals who are not deemed to have a serious and persistent mental illness are falling

between the cracks Addiction treatment and services

• Lack of residential addiction treatment capacity • Lack of transitional and supportive housing for individuals with addictions and those who are

recovering • Lack of harm reduction measures

Poverty Is More than Lack of Money By including support services as a fundamental aspect of affordable housing, the regional and municipal homelessness strategies acknowledge that poverty is far more complex than mere low income or net worth. And while they emphasize programs and services, the strategies also explicitly recognize that personal support offered by family and friends is also important. World Vision Canada defines poverty as “a surmountable human condition of deprivation and broken relationships which often threatens human survival and involves unacceptable human suffering, preventing people from fulfilling their God-given potential.” From this statement DeGroot-Maggetti and Siggner (2005) of Citizens for Public Justice elaborate four dimensions of poverty:

• material deprivation (having)


19

• social exclusion (relating) • capabilities deprivation (doing) • diminished life chances (ultimately being).

At every point along the continuum from emergency shelter to entry-level ownership, best practice affordable housing provides supports in each of these dimensions to assist people in breaking free of personal and systemic forces that bind them in poverty. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the goal of these supports is to establish shalom, which is nothing less than the well-being and harmonious, equitable interdependency of everyone and everything in a given place. These relational supports include yet go beyond the clinical and professional to involve mutually transforming friendships and social networks. In this way, our vulnerable neighbours are empowered to discover, develop, and exercise their gifts in the community.

Supporting the Poor through Social Networks Styan (2004), writing specifically of persons with disabilities, reminds us that our vulnerable neighbours “aspire to:

• having a home, • loving relationships with family and friends, • controlling the basic elements in their lives, • attaining sufficient financial means to live with dignity, • pursuing their dreams and passions, and making a contribution.”

Persons with disabilities, seniors, at-risk youth, refugees and recent immigrants, low-income families, Aboriginals, persons suffering from mental illness, those in addiction or recovery from addiction – all share the same human needs every Canadian does. And like all of us, they depend heavily on social networks (formal and informal) to help them secure those needs. Unfortunately, the tragedy of living in poverty includes being isolated from others – and missing out on the life-enriching experiences which social networks provide, especially networks that reconcile socio-economic differences. Poverty and isolation become mutually reinforcing factors in the lives of chronically vulnerable populations. This dynamic also operates at the neighbourhood level and results in zones of highly concentrated poverty like Vancouver’s near eastside and similar areas elsewhere in our region. Perversely, prejudices against these neighbourhoods then come to be applied to all people residing in them regardless of their individual capacities and circumstances. Residents of these neighbourhoods lose employment opportunities, are turned down by prospective landlords elsewhere, and become so stigmatized that they rarely if ever venture into other parts of the city.

Stayn identifies of four elements of relationships that effectively address the isolation and loneliness. These elements are crucial for preventing and ameliorating the negative effects of homelessness for any sub-population:

1. Reciprocity- Relationships cannot be characterized as genuine, meaningful or sustainable without the presence of reciprocity. Some would say that relationships do not exist without reciprocity.

2. Asking – It is hard for those who are in social isolation to reach out and ask, to take the risk of connecting. A role for a facilitator is to assist people in making the connections they need to develop genuine relationships.


20

3. Time, Space and Passion - Walking with people is different than working for people. We must create spaces in our lives, in our communities and in our society for the relationships to develop. They must develop at their own pace. This runs counter to our society, which increasingly expects its needs and desires to be satisfied immediately. It also runs counter to more traditional accountability frameworks, which require concrete outcomes and specific timelines.

4. Transformation - At multiple levels, [vulnerable persons], their families and people providing services all must be prepared to embrace transformation. The isolated individual must accept the risks inherent in change, growth and relationships. They must be prepared to accept that their identity – their understanding of self – will fundamentally change. Family members also must accept a new story for their relatives. Their relationships with the persons at the centre of networks will change.30

Programs and services to support vulnerable people in housing must be designed so that they, our neighbours,

• are connected to a community or group where they are accepted and • are empowered to be active contributors, so they may • experience increased hope, confidence, self esteem, and socio-economic opportunity.

The design of housing projects and neighbourhoods needs to include amenity and community spaces for the support services listed above, and should more generally encourage the socio-economic mixing and bonding that are essential to counteracting isolation caused by low-income.

30 Styan (2004).

Poverty & Social Sustainability

21

Poverty and Social Sustainability Adequate income is another of the three main solutions to homelessness recommended in 3 Ways to Home. The only permanent solution to housing need and poverty is to ensure that people can earn a living that exceeds (by at least a little bit) the minimum costs of a healthy, simple lifestyle. Why then do we discuss it last instead of first? To build and preserve quality affordable housing throughout our city region is to signal to the poor that we want them to be our neighbours. To offer them a broad range of support services is to demonstrate what being neighbourly means to us. To create opportunities – particularly economic opportunities – for them to join us in securing the well-being of our neighbourhoods and city region is to prove that we believe they possess unique gifts vital to our own future. We put adequate income last because it requires the greatest communal and spiritual investment.

Social Sustainability: Opportunities for All In the last section we spoke of the key Judeo-Christian concept shalom, which is the harmonious and equitable interdependency between everyone and everything in a given place which yields well-being for all. Urban planners, sociologists, and economists do not normally use the word shalom and are mainly unaware of it. But they are increasingly deploying the term sustainability to articulate commitments that have striking parallels to the biblical vision. For instance, City of Vancouver policy states that a sustainable Vancouver “is a place where people live, work and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. In such a community, sustainability is achieved through community participation and the reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being.”31 The word reconciliation in the above definition of sustainability points up the fact that the prosperity evident in our city region results from competing values and interests. If these are not harmonized (“balanced” is too weak a word for what reconciliation involves) then well-being for some comes at the expense of hardship for others. More to the point, when prosperity is not broadly shared but rather continues to be concentrated in fewer hands, then the resulting hardship will eventually tax society into crisis. Prosperity for anyone in such circumstances is not sustainable. In our city region, the crisis of homelessness and housing affordability is the primary evidence that our prosperity is not sustainable in its current form. Sustainable Income Assistance for the Unemployed The most minimalist justification for welfare is that, since a certain amount of unemployment is required to keep inflation in check and because the business cycle creates periods of high unemployment, poverty (at least temporary poverty) is a structural feature of our economy. Households thus affected by forces beyond their control would seem then to have rightful claim to financial assistance that ensures (at least for time) a lifestyle equal to that afforded by a full time minimum wage. BC Benefits pays single “employable” adults $610 per month, which is

• 35% of the $1,732 set as the poverty line (2005 before-tax Low Income Cut Off)32 • 44% of the $1,386 earned by the full time minimum wage

31 City of Vancouver (2002). 32 Canada has no official poverty line, but the LICOs are the government measures most often used by bureaucrats and advocates. 2005 is the latest year for which LICOs are available. Before-tax and after-tax LICOs are published, but the former is the most appropriate for gauging the adequacy of welfare benefits, since welfare recipients don’t pay income taxes.


22

• 49% of the $1,233 estimated as the minimum cost of living in Vancouver in 2005.33 Welfare rates offered to non-disabled people were not raised for 13 years (between 1994 and 2007), even to adjust for inflation, reducing their purchasing power by 30%. In fact, the rates were reduced twice. The 2007 Provincial Budget raised the shelter and living allowances by $50 each, which now total $375 and $235 respectively for single “employable” adults. The increases amount to 15.3% and 27.0%. In 2005, less than 1% of rental units in the GVRD were available at the former rates, forcing households on income assistance to pay for shelter by dipping into their living allowances. They can pay rent or eat adequately, but not both. Given the general rise of rents since then, and the extremely low vacancy rates (GVRD 0.7%, City of Vancouver 0.3%), the new increases are welcome but not very meaningful. Advocates have been calling for the rates to be increased by 50% and to be annually indexed to inflation. 3 Ways to Home also focuses attention on the fact that inadequate access to BC Employment and Assistance Benefits (welfare) and Employment Insurance, particularly since changes to the legislation were made in 2002, has been verified as a key factor leading to homelessness and perpetuating it. Sustainable Wages for the Working Poor If welfare recipients cannot sustain themselves on what they receive from government, low-wage workers are not faring much better. Cooper (2006) neatly summarizes the evidence:

Almost one in 10 workers in Greater Vancouver already lives in poverty – the highest incidence of working poor of any major city in Canada – and this is likely to continue.

Together, economic and labour market trends

mean that unskilled and low-skilled Vancouverites may have a better chance of obtaining work, but the quality of and pay for that work is likely to be poor relative to the cost of living and to the wages of highly-skilled workers. Vancouver’s social sustainability requires that all workers, including immigrants, Aboriginal peoples, women, youth, older workers, and persons with disabilities, have the opportunity to participate in the labour force. Yet, each of these groups and, particularly, Aboriginal and immigrant workers, continues to experience labour market exclusion in Vancouver. The employment rate among Aboriginal workers aged 25 to 54 years in Greater Vancouver has not improved in 20 years. … Among full-time, full-year Aboriginal workers of all ages and education levels, average annual earnings were only $34,696, compared to the earnings of non-Aboriginals at $44,552. In 2001, full-time, full-year recent immigrant men aged 25 to 54 earned an average of $39,460, compared to the $57,712 earned by their Canadian-born counterparts; recent immigrant women meeting these characteristics earned $29,098, compared to the $42,181 earned by their Canadian-born counterparts. These earnings gaps were among the largest among major Canadian Metropolitan Areas. Until the 1990s, new immigrants have earned less than the average native-born Canadian upon arrival, but their earnings have caught up to or surpassed the Canadian average after 10 to 14 years and, among immigrants selected on the basis of education and skills, as soon as one year after arrival. Over the past decade, however, employment rates among recent immigrants have declined markedly and earnings have been significantly lower

33 Minimum cost of living estimated by SPARC BC (2005).


23

than native-born residents and previous cohorts of immigrants, despite the fact that most of these people are better educated than previous cohorts.

In Greater Vancouver, recent immigrants with a university degree were

much more likely to be working in a low-skill occupation than their Canadian-born counterparts: 31% of recent immigrants with a degree were employed in low-skill jobs compared with 13% of Canadian-born graduates.

This is all the more remarkable given that Greater Vancouver attracts more economic class immigrants (67%), who are expected to have the skills, education, work experience, language ability and other qualities needed to participate in the Canadian labour market, than any other city in Canada.

It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the large-scale market and social forces that are depressing wages for the working poor and closing off avenues to better jobs. We simply note the trend in order to emphasize that the working poor are not poor because they are lazy. They do not need to “try harder.” It would be fairer to say they are working too hard. Many are working more than one job at a time. Stories abound, for instance, of immigrants households where both parents are working 12-16 hours a day, seven days a week for years on end without vacation. The impact on their children is permanent. Nevertheless, over the last decade the growth in poverty in the GVRD has been driven almost entirely by circumstances among recent immigrants.

Community Development: Transforming the Community from Within If job creation and adequate income are the crux solution, how might these goals be realized in a way that fosters the communal and spiritual investment that are required for shalom or social sustainability? Community development begins with the relational supports we advocated in the last section and then crucially proceeds to apply the same principles to the community as a whole. Community development is both a process and an outcome. It is a process by which members of a community jointly build their capacity to understand and control the forces which have been shaping their individual and collective futures – to assess their capabilities, needs, and options for first forging and then achieving a shared vision. Often the process (which is as much a worldview as it is a strategy) yields the greatest gains when it establishes personal bonds across socio-economic divisions. In any case, the outcome is the further development of community and shared well-being (shalom) as participants discover the benefits of mutual aid. Christian congregations and non-profits have a biblical mandate to partner humbly with other stakeholders in the process and to inaugurate the process where it is not yet happening. Community economic development “mobilizes community members and organizations to improve job skills, increase the number and quality of jobs, create businesses and access new markets.”34 Examples of the many different ways to draw alongside people and equip them to be full participants in the workforce include

• Educational upgrading • Mentoring for youth • ESL classes, especially for the workplace • Employment placements & mediation • Affirmative hiring practices • Social enterprise.

Barriers to people obtaining employment are often small and easily overcome with support. Lack of a permanent address, a phone, transportation, required

34 Wind (2006), p 33.


24

tools, or work clothes – even having to wait in food lines in order to get food – these all impact a person’s ability to obtain that needed employment.

Vancouver’s Social Purchasing Portal, where businesses are encouraged to do business with each other partially based on their commitment to hire people from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside is an example of a joint commitment to participate in the economic revitalization of a neighbourhood. As employers in the community deliberately choose to include people who are presently being excluded from the job market, or are being hired in jobs far below their competency, residents are able to afford the high cost of housing. Works Cited Bradford, N. 2002. Why Cities Matter: Policy Research Perspectives for Canada. CPRN Discussion Paper F|23.

Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Carnegie Community Action Project. 2006. Why SROs Matter. City of Vancouver. 2002. City of Vancouver Principles of Sustainability. www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/sustainability City of Vancouver. 2005a. Housing Plan for the Downtown Eastside. City of Vancouver. 2005b. 2005 Survey of Low-Income Housing in the Downtown Core. Cooper, Merrill. 2006. Social Sustainability in Vancouver. Canadian Policy Research Network. Davidson, Jill and Annita Lee. 2005. Homeless Action Plan: City of Vancouver.

www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050510/documents/rr1.pdf DeGroot-Maggetti, Greg and Rebecca Siggner. 2004. Poverty in Canada and Working with the Poor: A Report for

World Vision Canada. Public Justice Resource Centre. Eby, David et al. 2006. Cracks in the Foundation: Solving the Housing Crisis in Canada’s Poorest Neighbourhood.

Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society. Kraus, Deborah, Luba Serge, and Michael Goldberg. 2005. Homelessness, Housing, and Harm Reduction: Stable

Housing for Homeless People with Substance Use Issues. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, The Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia

Green, Elizabeth. 1999. Transitions from Childhood to Youth and Adulthood: Background Paper for First Call: the BC child And Youth Advocacy Coalition.

Hume, Mark. “Dead-end Streets: Vancouver's losing struggle with homelessness, suburbs can't escape city's disturbing trend” Globe and Mail, 6 December 2006.

Shantz and Dickinson. 2006 SPARC BC (Social Planning & Research Council of BC). 2003. Three Ways to Home: Regional Homelessness Plan

for Greater Vancouver. www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/FinalPlanUpdateReport.pdf Styan, Jack. 2004. Connecting to Citizenship: Social Policy Recommendations to Address Isolation and Loneliness.

Vancouver BC: PLAN Institute for Citizenship and Disability. Wind, Tricia. 2006. An Overview of Child, Youth and Family Poverty in Ottawa and Anti-Poverty Responses. Toronto:

World Vision Canada. Woodward, Jim et al. 2006. From Shelter to Home … Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy, 2006 – 2015.

www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/Shelter_Planning_Report-May2006.pdf

Print & Web Resources

25

Print & Web Resources MUNICIPAL & REGIONAL Fraser Valley Regional District

VanWyk, Ron and Anita VanWyk. 2005. Homelessness in the Upper Fraser Valley: Age, Gender,

Community of Origin, Health, Income, Employment and Services in Relation to Homelessness. Abbotsford, BC: Mennonite Central Committee of British Columbia. 93 pages. www.mccecd.bc.ca/homeless/Upper%20Fraser%20Valley%20Homelessness%20Report.pdf

Guthrie, Sherril, Ron VanWyk and Glenn Hope. 2006. Affordable & Accessible Housing in the Upper Fraser Valley: Issue & Opportunities. Abbotsford, BC: United Way of the Fraser Valley, Mennonite Central Committee of British Columbia. 244 pages. www.uwfv.bc.ca/FVHRP%20Final%20Report%2026Feb06.pdf

Greater Vancouver Regional District

GVRD Homelessness Count 2005 www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/HomelessCount2005Final.pdf Understanding Greater Vancouver’s Shelter System

www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/COMMSVCS/SOCIALPLANNING/tools/pdf/ShelterFact-Feb06.pdf

GVRD Cold/Wet Weather Strategy www.shelternetbc.ca/CWWS.htm

From Shelter to Home: Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy 2006 – 2015 www.stophomelessness.ca/pdf/Final_strategy053106.pdf Three Ways to Home: Regional Homelessness Plan for Greater Vancouver

www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/FinalPlanUpdateReport.pdf Discussion Paper on a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy for Greater Vancouver, DRAFT

www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/RAHS_draft_Dec2006.pdf McClanaghan & Associates. 2006. Greater Vancouver: Affordable Housing Supply Analysis, 2001 to

2021. Burnaby: Greater Vancouver Regional District. 152 pages. www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/Affordable_Hsng_Supply_2006.pdf

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 2004. Forecast Demand for Affordable Housing in Greater Vancouver. 306 pages. www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/AffordableHsgForecast-%20Apr04.pdf

Burnaby

Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness. 2006. Homelessness in Burnaby. 15 pages.

www.sharedlearnings.org/resources/burnaby/Task%20Force%20Report-%20Final.pdf

Coquitlam

Affordable Housing in Coquitlam, Draft, August 2006

www.coquitlam.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A08B6337-BA9B-4257-AD2D-E8F21D9DF3D1/56583/CITYDOCS441374v1060905_Coquitlam_Full_Report.PDF

Report on the Homeless in Tri-Cities. www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/Homelessness_Tri-Cities_April-September.pdf

Maple Ridge /

McLaughlin & Associates. 2003. Responding to Homelessness in Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows: A


26

Pitt Meadows

Needs Assessment & Action Plan. 36 pages. www.ihpr.ubc.ca/media/MapleRidgePittMeadows2003.pdf

North Vancouver

Black, Erin. 2000. North Shore Homelessness. 22 pages. North Shore Homeless Task Force.

www.ihpr.ubc.ca/media/Black2000.pdf

Port Coquitlam / Port Moody

Report on the Homeless in Tri-Cities.

www.gvrd.bc.ca/homelessness/pdfs/Homelessness_Tri-Cities_April-September.pdf

Richmond

Richmond Homelessness Needs Assessment & Strategy. McClanaghan & Associates. 2006. Draft Affordable Housing Strategy, City of Richmond: Building the

Richmond We Want. City of Richmond. 78 pages. www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Item7_Draft_Affordable_Housing_Strategy15692.pdf

Vancouver

City of Vancouver Housing Centre www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/ Inventory of Facilities & Services Related to Homelessness in Vancouver. www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/homelessinventory03oct.pdf Homeless Action Plan. City of Vancouver. www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/hap05jun.pdf City of Vancouver. 2005. 2005 Survey of Low-Income in the Downtown Core. Vancouver: The

Housing Centre, Community Services Group, City of Vancouver. 56 pages. www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/SRO2005.pdf

City of Vancouver. 2005. Housing Plan for the Downtown Eastside. 88 pages. www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/dteshousingplan.pdf

City of Vancouver. 2007. Supportive Housing Strategy for Vancouver Coastal Health’s Mental Health & Addictions Supported Housing Framework, DRAFT. Vancouver: The Housing Centre, Community Services Group, City of Vancouver. 33 pages. www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/housing/supportivehousing/pdf/SupportHousingStrat.pdf

Eby, David et al. 2006. Cracks in the Foundation: Solving the Housing Crisis in Canada’s Poorest Neighbourhood. Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society. www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/CracksinFoundation.pdf

Smart Growth BC. 2006. Affordability By Design, Affordability for All: A Summary of What the City Can Do to Create Affordable Housing. Vancouver. www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/downloads/Affordability%20by%20Design%20Report.pdf

PROVINCIAL Provincial Housing Policy Branch www.housing.gov.bc.ca/housing/ Raise The Rates www.raisetherates.org ShelterNet BC www.shelternetbc.ca Tenants Rights Action Coalition (TRAC) www.tenants.bc.ca Homelessness Research Virtual Library www.hvl.ihpr.ubc.ca


27

Housing Matters BC: A Housing Strategy for British Columbia October 2006. www.bchousing.org/aboutus/Housing_Matters_BC

Eberle, Margaret, et al. 2001. Homelessness – Causes & Effects. Four Volumes. British Columbia: Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. www.housing.gov.bc.ca/housing/homeless/vol1.htm

Goldberg, Michael, and Kari Wolanski. 2005. Left Behind: A Comparison of Living Costs and Employment Assistance Rates in British Columbia. www.sparc.bc.ca/resources_publications/left_behind

NATIONAL

National Homelessness Initiative www.homelessness.gc.ca/home Canadian Housing Information Centre (CMHC) www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca Canadian Housing & Renewal Association www.chra-achru.ca/english Raising The Roof www.raisingtheroof.org Evolving Housing Conditions in Canada’s Metropolitan Areas, 1991-2001. Statistics Canada.

www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hoficlincl/homain/stda/stda_003.cfm Drummond, Don, Derek Burleton, and Gillian Manning. 2003. Affordable Housing in Canada: In Search of New

Paradigm. Toronto: Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group. 45 pages. www.td.com/economics/special/house03.pdf

Toward a New Canadian Housing Framework. 2005. Ottawa: National Secretariat on Homelessness and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 19 pages. www.homelessness.gc.ca/consultations/cfdocs/final_cf_doc_e.pdf

BEST PRACTICES & REPORTS ON POPULATIONS AT RISK

Best Practices for Shelters: Consultations with Shelters in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, 2004-2005. ShelterNet BC

Society. www.shelternetbc.ca/Best%20Practices%20GVRD%20Discussion%20Paper%20%2006.pdf

Kraus, Debra, Luba Serge, Michael Goldberg. 2006. Homelessness, Housing, and Harm Reduction: Stable Housing for Homeless People with Substance Use Issues. Distinct Housing Needs Series. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Serge, Luba et al. 1999. Documentation of Best Practices Addressing Homelessness. Distinct Housing Needs Series. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Murphy, Aileen et al. 2002. Between the Cracks: Homeless Youth in Vancouver. Burnaby, BC: McCreary Centre Society. www.ihpr.ubc.ca/media/McCreary2002.pdf

Novac, Sylvia, Luba Serge, Margaret Eberle, and Joyce Brown. 2002. On Her Own: Young Women and Homelessness in Canada. Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. 150 pages. www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/0662318986/200303_0662318986_e.pdf

Tutty, Leslie. 2006. Effective Practices in Sheltering Women Leaving Violence in Intimate Relationships. Toronto: YWCA Canada. 130 pages. www.ywca.ca/public_eng/advocacy/Shelter/YWCA_ShelterReport_EN.pdf

Chan, Sherman et al. 2005. Profile of Absolute & Relative Homelessness among Immigrants, Refugees, & Refugee Claimants in the GVRD. 160 pages. www.mosaicbc.com/PDF_files/The_Profile_of_Absolute_and_Relative_Homelessness.pdf

Appendices

28

Appendix A. A Matrix for Evaluating Housing Proposals The British Columbia Manifesto suggests the following outcome-based criteria for vetting housing proposals. Model of Service Delivery Questions

• How well does it balance institutional and professional requirements with grassroots community development principles and practices?

• Is the model based on the assets/strengths of its target population and community? • Is person-to-person mutual aid the unifying and directive element? To what degree are all staff,

volunteers, and Board members expected to enter into transforming relationships with the target population?

• Does the model demonstrate shared vision and collaborative procedures/services with partner agencies, churches, neighbourhood groups, and other stakeholders – including governments and secular agencies when appropriate?

• Is community nurtured by giving equal influence to all stakeholders, including those being assisted? • Does the model build capacity for all involved and social capital in the neighbourhood? • Does the model include multiple entry points for clients? • Does the model reflect best practices for its target group? What evidence does it offer that these are

in fact best practices?

Stewardship Questions

• To what degree do the design and materials of the site and structure(s) contribute to a healthy local ecology and minimize overall negative environmental impacts?

• How will donations and investments be stretched the furthest? How will they be leveraged? What safeguards are in place for their efficient and effective use? How can donors and investors be involved personally? What influence will they have in decisions being made?

• What evaluation and accountability measures will be in place? To whom will the project be accountable?

• What is the history of success for this approach? Has it been tried before? • What objective criteria have been established to determine the capacities of the proponent

organization prior to their presenting a proposal? • What will happen to the property and/or capital assets, if the housing project or proponent

organization is terminated?

Feasibility Questions

• Is the proposal based on a competent needs assessment? • Does the proposal include a viable business plan? • Does the business plan afford each employee liveable wages and quality benefits? • Does it require capital expenditures as well as seed money for start-up costs and/or staffing and

program expenses? What are the ongoing costs? • If there is a social enterprise aspect, how long will it take to become self-sustaining? • Is it sellable to potential private investors? Is it sellable to government investors? • Does the model fit its neighbourhood in terms of scale, architecture, and local community assets? • What are the projected effects on the neighbourhood? How will these be quantified periodically?

Does the proposal address NIMBYism by referencing adequately agreed upon solutions?

Appendices

29

Appendix B. Sample Projects & Models

Union Gospel Mission - Doorways of Hope

Note: This project models a combination of several forms of housing and supports. Target Population: The residents in the DTES – those homeless and addicted, those needing education and assistance with employment, low income families Summary of Model: With over 5,000 drug users in the Downtown Eastside and many more alcoholics, people are dying on the streets in their addictions. Many have been practicing their addictions for years, leading them into criminal activity. Loneliness and fractured relationships lead to despair.

Those caught in poverty find daily living a struggle. After paying for their housing, men and women are forced to line up for free meals just to survive. The working poor exist on low paying or part time jobs and the month lasts longer than their pay cheques. Others, who suffer from illness and addictions, are incapable of supporting themselves. With the high cost of living, people are forced to choose between paying for rent or paying for food. In the midst of this community you will find Union Gospel Mission reaching out with hope to the city’s most vulnerable. Union Gospel Mission strives to be part of the solution to poverty, addiction, and homeless in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. We bring more than 67 years of experience and expertise to the growing challenges of this unique community.

The Doorways of Hope facility will provide an inviting dining room with capacity to serve 275 guests. UGM is known for the quality of its nutritious meals and as a place where people are treated with dignity and respect. Beyond this new doorway of hope, individuals will find a place to lay their head. By providing a safe, secure, and clean emergency shelter, the process of restoration begins through helping them to obtain housing and other services they need. With UGM’s expanded facilities as a base, professional outreach workers will offer hope and assistance as they go out into the alleys and streets of Vancouver’s DTES. Many who seek to break the cycle of poverty must first break the cycle of dependency on drugs and alcohol. One place to start is with UGM’s Addiction Recovery Programs. Through the support of professional counselors they develop the tools to begin living a clean and sober lifestyle. UGM’s ability to provide assistance through a continuum of services makes UGM ideally suited for reaching people with barriers to education and employment. Hope Learning Centre will assist those in recovery to achieve their grade twelve equivalency, a vital first step in securing further education and employment. They will also receive professional assistance in developing employment skills so they can obtain and keep a job. Providing the latest software in an updated computer lab will allow students to address and overcome learning disabilities and overcome some of the lasting effects of substance abuse. In the evenings, the community will have access to this education facility. The quality of UGM services provides people with the tools to become self-supporting members of society. UGM desperately needs to expand its capacity to serve the growing number of adults trying to make a new life for themselves and their families. The needs for these services has never been so urgent

Appendices

30

Union Gospel Mission has expanded rapidly to meet the growing needs in our community. In order to build further public support, it is important to enhance the public’s understanding of the comprehensive programs and services we provide, increase financial support, and by so doing, accommodate the growing operational and capital costs of expanded programs and facilities. Given the history and the reputation that UGM has developed as a credible service provider to those hungry, hurting and homeless in our community, we believe that the public will recognize and fully support our plans for expanded services. Ketchum Canada Inc has indicated that UGM is in position for a successful capital campaign. Financial summary Society and community equity $ 12,928,000 Land 1,600,000* Donation 500,000** Municipal government 171,000*** Capital Campaign 10,657,000**** Mortgage financing required 7,093,000 Total capital cost $ 20,021,000

Barriers to success: Some opposition from Community Residents and groups to expanded services.

Project Status: Waiting for City of Vancouver Development Permit

Target construction start: September 1, 2007 Target occupancy date: May 1, 2009

Number of Units:

Gross Floor Area – Whole Building

Studio units

(200 – 315 sf)

Supported Recovery Units

(190 - 320 sf)

Emergency Shelter Beds

(Area = 5940 sf)

Total units

70, 480 sf 37 37 43 117

Contact Information:

Doug Peat 616 East Cordova St Vancouver BC V6A 1L9 604-253-3323 Cell 604-880-3584 [email protected] www.ugm.ca

*Present Market Value **Already received *** Vancouver City – DCC’s No commitment given by the City. This is an estimate only. **** Feasibility study by Ketchum Canada Inc indicates UGM could raise $8Million through donations. UGM already has $3.5Million in restricted reserve. Therefore, total donations of $ 11.5Million are forecast

Appendices

31

New Hope Community Services Society Note: Poverty in Canada and Greater Vancouver is growing fastest among new Canadians, with refugees and refugee claimants experiencing the worst effects and for the longest period.

Target Population: refugee claimants – men, women, and families, especially women at risk with children

Summary of Model: Founded in 2004, New Hope Community Services Society provides emergency and transitional housing, along with settlement services, to refugee claimants. New Hope is also the umbrella charity for Journey Home Community Association (working with refugee claimant families in Burnaby and Surrey) and Vancouver Urban Mission (working with First Nations youth and families). Some refugees arrive at Canadian airports and border crossings with their claims already recognized by the government and therefore are pre-approved for government supports, including housing. However, many refugees arrive without warning, sponsorship, contacts, money, or necessary documentation. Pre-approved or not, refugees are left to themselves to find housing and other supports as they navigate the lengthy processes of applying for Convention Refugee status and then Immigrant status. Typically, the officials they encounter at the border simply point them to the nearest public transit. New Hope gives them a place to stay, orientation to Canada, advocacy, and generally offers a long-term community of holistic support and friendship by linking refugee claimants to partner agencies and volunteers from nearby churches.

Barriers to success: locating and purchasing suitable properties in areas zoned for this type of service Status of Project: They are renting a house for men, which they are in the final stages of purchasing (all funds now in hand). When renovations are complete this home will have 10 bed-units. They also rent a 6 bed-unit house for women. New Hope plans to open an apartment building in Autumn 2007 for families, particularly lone women with children who have been traumatized. They have secured partnerships with The Baptist Foundation of BC and World Vision Canada which cover program and staffing costs. However, they require capital to purchase a facility. Number of Units: approximately 7 two-bedroom suites, $2.2 million for purchase, renovation, and furnishings Contact Information:

Pastor Jack Taylor 2551 East 49th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5S 1J6 604-321-6134

Appendices

32

W.I.N.G.S. (Women in Need Gaining Strength) Fellowship Ministries

Target Population: Women and children leaving abusive relationships Summary of Model: Third stage affordable supportive housing for up to 4 families (4 women and 8-12 children) leaving abusive relationships; includes a satellite WINGS outreach office that would also serve as a community drop-in centre for past, present, and future clients. (Third stage = Informal outreach support designed for individual situation, access to immediate support if needed) Many women and children leaving abusive relationships are often forced to leave their former residence without the possibility of safe return. They come to a transition house that provides emergency shelter for up to 30 days and then they often have nowhere to go. There is inadequate supportive housing available for these women to assist them to become independent and living free from abuse. They have special needs of safety, security, and support and often there is not enough time to adequately address the challenges of the future. This project targets several priorities from the regional homelessness plan: supportive housing, support for single mothers with children, low income women, and people with special needs (for safety, security, and support). Potential outreach support offers:

• Opportunities to set individual goals and experience success in reach them • Opportunities to share experiences, feelings and resources with women in similar situations • Information on the dynamics of abuse against women and access to a support group • Information, advocacy and referrals in dealing with medical, legal, financial, and social services • Information on life skills development, education, training, and employment opportunities • Opportunities to explore parenting skills, child development and behaviour • Occasional group activities, social outings, and children’s programs

Desired facility would also include a self-contained communal space for a satellite WINGS outreach office with the ability to provide a drop-in centre for other women and children clients (meeting space, group space, laundry facilities, resource nook, community kitchen opportunities, etc.) Barriers to success: Current barriers are funding and either identifying a current suitable building or pursuing land and building a facility. Status of Project: This project has been central to our long term plans for 4 years. A suitable building was identified and a complete proposal for $750,000 was submitted to SCPI in 2003 but was not shortlisted for funding. We have begun a faith fund of our own towards this project. Current balance is $14,000. In addition, we have recently been left a financial gift through the will of a donor. The estate is in probate. Our portion is estimated at approximately $300,000. Rough estimate of money required to complete the project in today’s dollars would be $1.3 million. Number of Units: 4-plex would house 4 families with a maximum potential of 16 people. Drop-in Centre could serve 200 women and children per year. Contact Information

Lorrie Wasyliw #501 - 104 - 1015 Columbia Street, New Westminster, BC, V3M 6V3. 604-521-1888

Appendices

33

Lazarus Community Society Target Population: low-income recent immigrants and refugees awaiting immigrant status Summary of Model: Over the last two decades it has become harder and harder for recent immigrants and refugees to secure entry-level employment and then to catch-up with their Canadian-born peers. Refugees also typically do not have extended family or significant ethnic enclaves to help them get established. LCS provides affordable room and board, relational supports, and connections into the community for new Canadians. Two or three live-in hosts establish a home-like environment for residents who are welcomed to stay until they are earning enough to secure a market rental situation (typically 1-2 years). Residents are referred from service agencies and are encouraged to make full use of settlement services, most of which are within easy reach by transit. In addition to the friendships nurtured in the house and among alumni, residents also have opportunity (but are not required) to participate in social networks provided by local churches. Through formal and informal supports, vulnerable new Canadians are oriented to our society and enabled to contribute their unique gifts to it. Barriers to success: If the City of Burnaby considers the operation to be a Special Needs Residential Facility, they may require a community consultation process before granting a permit, which could generate NIMBY opposition. However, the property in question has already been used as a licensed care facility until a few years ago, and the target population is not commonly thought to be threatening. Status of Project: A large house on a double lot in north Burnaby is currently being leased through October 2007. The owner wants to sell. A rough estimate of the combined cost of purchase and renovation is $1.5 million. Number of Units: 8 bedrooms in 2 or 3 units; tenants have the option of sharing a room. Contact Information

Don Cowie 220 – 588 East 5th Ave Vancouver, BC V5T 4H6 604-710-7480

Appendices

34

Parent Support Group for Families of Mentally Handicapped Adults Society Target Population: adults with mental handicaps Summary of Model: For more than half a century, mentally handicapped people were warehoused in government-run residential facilities. Some parents chose to care for their offspring at home, believing that families – not government institutions – are best suited for caring for children and that children can best thrive by forming external relations through education, recreation and work opportunities. In the early 1990s, the Province closed the residential institutions, spending millions to relocate the displaced residents in new group homes of 2-4 residents, each complemented with staffing, support programs and services. Parents who had been caring for their children at home sought but were denied access to these new support programs and services. Since 1997 the Province has not established any new staffed group homes. Given the long waitlists, foster care is functionally the only residential option now offered. Foster care has proved traumatic for mentally handicapped adults because (1) many of them have serious health/behavioral concerns that require qualified and experienced attention, and (2) the transition from to a stranger’s house impacts their health and safety. The older generation of parents is running out of quality options as they are becoming unable to care for their children. They would like to establish 10-20 adaptive residential units by 2009 to accommodate their adult children with developmental disabilities so that they can “age in place” or participate in semi-independent living parents who wish to continue living with their adult children seniors with developmental disabilities. Barriers to success: The high cost of constructing new clustered housing. The difficulties in finding enough suitable suites in existing properties that are close enough to each other to create the same effect. Status of Project: The Mennonite Central Committee Support Care Services are acting as consultants. CMHC has provided a grant to identify families who need this assistance and to explore different housing models. Number of Units: 10 – 20 in a communal village or clustered townhomes, duplexes, or secondary suites.

Contact Information Gwen Lee 58 East 56th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C V5X 1P8 604-321-6230

Appendices

35

Community Land Trust Note: Perhaps the most cost effective and immediate solution to creating permanently affordable entry-level housing. Target Population: low and moderate income households ready for entry-level ownership Summary of Model: A community land trust is a non-profit corporation that owns land and holds it “in trust” forever for the benefit of the community. Land trusts lower the cost of housing by separating ownership of the house from ownership of the land on which the house sits. A homebuyer is given a long-term lease (60+ years) on the land at a substantially below-market rate, and may resell the property only according to a pre-arranged pricing schedule. Properties are resold only to other land trust members in order to eliminate the possibility of black market arrangements. Some land trusts also provide substantial down-payment assistance to households purchasing homes or condominiums on the open market, in exchange for a similar permanent affordability covenant that is placed on the resulting deeds. A typical resale formula allows for a maximum price of down-payment amount, plus their mortgage amount, plus 3% of these combined amounts compounded annually, plus the value of any improvements, minus the value of any deferred maintenance. One of the beauties of the model is that the properties become more affordable over time, since prices appreciate at rates which are keyed to inflation rather than market speculation. Given the high cost of land and new construction in Greater Vancouver, it makes a great deal of sense to focus on the condominium/townhouse market. Preliminary scans suggest that units selling up to the median price range could be made available to low and moderate income purchasers through grants offering a down-payment of between 30% and 50%. By this means 6 to 10 units could be made permanently affordable for the same price it would cost to purchase the average single family detached house. Barriers to success: While there are more than 100 residential land trusts in the United States, few exist in Canada. Typically, they are funded through a combination of revenue diverted from government sources (housing funds, property taxes, etc.), philanthropy, and membership dues. Further investigation is needed to determine potential funding sources, concerns of mortgage lenders, and regulatory considerations (such as the Strata Act). Project Status: draft proposal Number of Units: none-to-date; 30% down on entry-level 2 bedroom apartment would be approximately $60,000. Contact Person

Jonathan Bird 700 Kingsway Vancouver, BC V5V 3C1 778-881-2137

Appendices

36

Secondary Suite Conversions

Note: Perhaps the most cost effective and immediate solution to creating additional affordable rental stock. Secondary suites and infill housing are key elements of the Eco-density Initiative of the City. Target Population: variable Summary of Model: homeowners are given capital to create or upgrade a secondary suite in their home and agree to rent it at an affordable rate established by the granting body. In some cases, they may be required to choose tenants from a pre-qualified pool of renters. If loaned, the capital can be forgiven proportionally for every year the unit is rented at the agreed rate, or the capital can be repaid through (1) a conventional low-rate mortgage, (2) a line of credit taken out on the added equity, (3) a silent second mortgage which activates upon resale of the home. Alternatively, in zones allowing duplex and multifamily dwellings, these new suites could be sold at cost or through an associated community land trust. Obviously, where the capital is recouped the model is self-sustaining. Costs can be lowered if volunteer labour is used to foster community. The model is particularly well-suited to low-income renter families (single moms, recent immigrants, working poor) and persons in third-stage recovery (more than one year sober, employed, capable of living independently). When units are clustered in a neighbourhood, it can also work for adults with disabilities who may or may not require a live-in caregiver. A similar model has been very successful for the Housing Foundation, which provides affordable independent living units to seniors. Some have argued that Greater Vancouver doesn’t have a shortage of housing, it has an overabundance of empty bedrooms and basements. Our population is aging and already there are many seniors who are land rich but cash poor – especially in areas of the region that have little or no social housing. Converting their basements, attics, and empty bedrooms into secondary suites would provide them with needed income, safety, and (potentially) cross-generational companionship. Barriers to success: Homeowners will need to be confident in the vetting process for potential tenants. And it is advisable to provide ongoing check-ins/mediation to both tenants and landlords. These services may already be provided by the several excellent non-profit housing societies who offer property management. If they aren’t, and if no society is willing to take up the challenge, then a new agency will need to be created. The proposed Housing Foundation / Community Land Trust could be this agency. Status of Project: draft proposal Number of Units: none-to-date, a two-bedroom suite conversion at market rates for labour and materials would cost around $50,000. Contact Person

Jonathan Bird 700 Kingsway Vancouver, BC V5V 3C1 778-881-2137

Appendices

37

Medallion Housing Society Target Population: entry-level ownership for low and moderate income single parents, the disabled, and seniors Summary of Model: Partnering with real estate professionals and related sectors, Medallion targets the above persons who are presently employed, earning $8-15 per hour (full-time = $14,000 to $28,800 per year), for whom ownership is the appropriate option, and who need a 1 or 2 bedroom unit and can afford to pay a minimum of $500 for the former and $800 for the latter. Medallion requires qualified applicants to take a series of home-ownership courses, then assigns each a Realtor-Mentor who continues to work with them while they are on the waitlist for suitable properties. Medallion locates and purchases properties (usually entire buildings), and then resells the units to their approved applicants at prices several percentage points below market using an economic co-operative model. The co-operative loans homebuyers a down payment of between 5 and 25%, which the homebuyers repay at with modest interest when they eventually sell back the co-op, again at below-market prices. The co-op therefore has a perpetual source of new funds, and, if the property rises in value, the family realizes a profit. Barriers to success: Capital for down payment loans and for acquiring apartment blocks for resale. If the market continues to rise faster than incomes, this model will have increasing difficulty finding properties that can be resold at affordable rates, unless the co-op is further subsidized to offer ever larger down payment loans. Status of Project: Founded in 2002, Medallion resold its first units in 2006. So far it has cycled 4 units and has 150 households on their waiting list. Number of Units: unlimited, dependant on number and size of down payments funded, which cost between $5,000 and $90,000 and cover between 5% and 25% of purchase price Contact Information

Mercedes Wong C/o Royal Pacific Realty Corporation 650 West 41st Ave 550 North Tower Vancouver, BC V5Z 2M9 604-734-3816

Appendices

38

Habitat for Humanity Greater Vancouver Target Population: low and moderate income households ready for entry-level ownership Summary of Model: Habitat for Humanity Greater Vancouver (HFHGV) is a non-profit, faith-based organization working for a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live. Their mission is to mobilize volunteers, faith groups, corporations and community partners in building affordable housing and promoting homeownership as a means to breaking the cycle of poverty. It's about families moving into their first decent, affordable home "one house and one family at a time". Habitat for Humanity is not a give-away program, but builds homes for sale to low-income working families with partners who donate materials, volunteer their labour and provide financial support. Habitat partners with selected families to help them learn about the responsibility of home ownership, and facilitates the homebuyer’s contribution of 500 hours of labour (“sweat equity”) towards the building of their own and other Habitat homes. Homebuyers receive the benefit of a no-profit, interest-free mortgage. Their mortgage payments go into a revolving fund towards building future houses, ensuring the perpetual growth of building capacity. Worldwide, this model has built over 200,000 houses in 100 countries. As good stewards of their resources, HFHGV also believes in being partially self-sustaining. To that end they own and operate two Habitat ReStores (building supply stores) in Burnaby and Vancouver which fund operating expenses, in addition to providing funding towards the building of the houses. Therefore 100% of all donations go towards the building of the houses. Barriers to success: availability of free or low-cost land, labour and materials; extra time required by use of in-kind services Status of Project: HFHGV was founded in 1994, and purchased an acre of land in Burnaby in 1999 where it is building a 27-townhouse community in six phases. Phases 1 & 2 (8 houses) are occupied and Phase 3 (four houses) will be finished by April 2007. The remaining 3 phases should be completed by 2010. Number of Units: 15 houses, including 3 units for the disabled are yet to built at approximately $150,000 per house Contact Information

Anneke Rees PO Box 60577 Granville Park PO Vancouver, BC V6H 4B9 604-681-5618

solutions to the crisis of homelessness & …solutions to the crisis of homelessness &...

Documents