Report to / Rapport au :
Health, Recreation and
Social Services Committee
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux
Submitted by / Soumis par
: Ottawa Youth Cabinet / Cabinet des jeunes d’Ottawa
Contact / Personne-ressource: Tania Richard / Advisory Committee Coordinator
Coordinatrice des comités
consultatifs
580-2424
Ext / poste, 29081 / Tania.Richard@ottawa.ca
|
|
|
Ref. N°:
ACS2004-CCV-OYC-0003 |
|
SUBJECT: |
THE RIGHT TO SHELTER: THE OTTAWA YOUTH CABINET YOUTH
AND HOUSING SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT
|
|
OBJET: |
LE DROIT À L’ABRI: RAPPORT DU CABINET DES JEUNES
D’OTTAWA ET DU SOUS-COMITÉ DU LOGEMENT
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the
Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee receive the above-noted report
and consider the recommendations contained within “Appendix 1” of this
document.
Que
le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux reçoive le rapport
précité et examine les recommandations contenues dans l’Annexe 1 du présent
document.
At its 18 November 2003 meeting, the Ottawa Youth Cabinet approved the attached report entitled: “The Right to Shelter”: The Ottawa Youth Cabinet Youth and Housing Sub-Committee Report. The report focuses on the housing situation in general and how it relates to youth in the City of Ottawa.
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
The main issue identified in the report is the need for investment in an appropriate and sufficient system of housing and supports for vulnerable people, young or otherwise. General increase in funding for housing, shelters and support services would improve the overall system, and allow increased attention to particular needs such as those of young people where those needs are not being met.
The very transience of youth suggests that transitional housing is a primary mechanism for addressing youth housing needs. Transitional housing provides a supportive environment for young people to stabilize their lives, to stay in school or find work, with the expectation that after a certain time, that person will move out into permanent housing. Transitional housing can and has been directly linked to education and social supports, where residency requires participation in school or employment and training programs.
Supportive and/or supported housing is where people need additional supports to maintain day to day independence, and the need for more of this kind of housing is evident throughout the community, including youth needs.
Both transitional and supportive housing require significant up front and on-going public investment, particularly from the Provincial government which has jurisdiction and responsibility for health, mental health and social services, and the recommendations in this report to continue lobbying for increased funding are strongly supported.
In response to the specific recommendations of the report, the following comments are provided:
General agreement with the need to reconsider shelter allowance rates to address increased costs.
Recommendation 2
Emergency rental funds are available through Ontario Works for eligible clients. Staff would be prepared to explore the feasibility and cost of a more general emergency fund in Ottawa. The use of NCB funds in supporting an emergency rent fund could be considered. It is not clear, however, how the comment in Recommendation 1 to not “claw back NCB benefits from those on OW and ODSP” supports this recommendation to use NCB funds to support such an emergency fund. The Province appears to remain committed to a Provincial Rent Bank, subject of course to budget availability.
These recommendations all suggest the need to recognize and address the needs of students in knowing how to find assistance in finding and keeping housing while in school. The City funds Housing Help, Action Logement to disseminate information about such issues. These services are available to students and this recommendation should be forwarded to these agencies to encourage proactive engagement with Student Associations. Much of the information in the form of pamphlets, notices and the like already exists.
At the direction of Council, Staff would like to emphasize the need for “alternative forms of housing”. Service providers in the community tend to agree that adding more shelters is not a strategic response to the issue. YSB and other service providers for youth have been very clear about the need for more transitional/supportive housing for youth. Youth services, including transitional/supportive housing, are one of the priorities of the new federal money for homelessness, which will be available in 2004.
The City has adopted a continuum-based model for addressing housing and support needs, and continues to work with community partners to implement targeted solutions within the funding that is available. Funding to undertake research remains scarce within the local housing system, but staff maintain contact with other cities, and will commit to identifying and sharing best practices for intervention with homeless youth as information becomes available. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Ministry Responsible for Homelessness continue to fund research, as well as publish best practice guides on a variety of housing issues, and most agencies working with youth already have access to this information.
This does not appear to be within the City’s role.
The City’s last resort response
is dependent on the particular needs of the young men and women. If they cannot function in the Young Men’s
Shelter or the Young Women’s Shelter, community service providers work together
to find the most appropriate solution.
Often the client is placed, at least temporarily, in the YM/YWCA or a
motel unit that is adjacent to a City shelter.
City shelter caseworkers then coordinate the assessment and
referral. In the last few years, the
City has enhanced its case management services for youth and adults in this
overflow shelter system. There are
ongoing discussions to attempt to have even easier access to the necessary
supports, particularly mental health workers.
There is agreement with the
recommendation to advocate for more beds for complex need youth who require
more intensive, longer-term residential services (addictions and mental
health). The Ministry of Health and
Long Term Care has the mandate to fund the addictions and mental health
services and supports.
Implementation of recommendations from the Mayor’s Task Force on Public/Private Partnerships on Housing is ongoing. The subsequent Affordable Housing Strategy embodied those recommendations in policy and programs, and Action Ottawa is one tangible result of that process.
Federal funding for affordable rental housing is beginning to be accessed. The current Action Ottawa Request for Proposals, open until February 26, 2004, includes approximately $7.5 million of Federal funding, which will help to produce up to 300 units of new affordable housing. It is however, unlikely that any of those units will be specifically targeted to youth, but instead will be affordable to a range of individuals and households based on income and need. The focus of both Action Ottawa and the Federal program is permanent affordable housing. The issue in producing such housing just for youth is that young people get older, and Human Rights legislation would not allow requiring someone to move out of a unit based on age.
At the direction of Council.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
If the Province approves an increase in shelter/housing allowances, this increase will need to be cost-shared by the municipality. The funding split is currently 80% province, 20% municipality. Any supports for affordable housing from the Federal government must also be cost-shared by the municipality.
The Committee Coordinator will inform the Ottawa Youth Cabinet of the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee’s decision on the recommendations.
Member N. Hauch
(Somerset Ward 14)
We shape our dwellings,
and afterwards
our dwellings shape us.
--
Winston Churchill
When one thinks of housing, it is hard not to think of home. Indeed, housing is not simply shelter – it is the very idea of community, of where we live and make our lives. Most people would agree that housing is something that everyone is entitled to. Yet the City of Ottawa is facing a huge housing crisis. On any given night, over one thousand (1000) people are in shelters. Over three hundred (300) of them are children.[1]
With this in mind, the Ottawa Youth Cabinet Sub-Committee on Youth and Housing decided that it was time to talk about the need for more housing from a youth perspective. In this report, we do not wish to discuss only the issue of youth-specific housing, but rather, the housing situation in general, and how it relates to youth. Indeed, poor youth often come from poor families. Thus, for those families currently homeless or in risk of becoming so, it is important to remember that many youth themselves are at risk.
This report draws largely from the City’s own conclusions on the situation with regards to housing, and also from some external sources. Essentially, in this brief report, we seek to show how time is of the essence, and how all levels of government, the public and private sectors and citizens in general must address this problem head-on. While we recognize that the City has been able to develop some affordable housing, in some cases through partnerships with the private sector, we nonetheless recognize that the City cannot combat the issue of unaffordable housing on its own.
The author would like to note that gathering the information for this report, given the breadth of its topic, proved initially quite difficult. Thus, its completion would not have been possible without the help of others. Numerous people offered their thoughts and criticisms, and the author thanks them. In particular, he would like to thank former Cabinet Members Emily Caputo and Isabelle Skalski for their assistance with research. Appreciation is also due to former Cabinet Member Adam Wilson for his encouragement. Thanks must also be given to the fine people at Housing Services, Elizabeth Dandy and Katherine Robertson-Palmer among them, who provided resources. This report would not have been possible without the report on youth and homelessness provided by Judy Perley; the Cabinet recommends that anyone wishing to gain more detailed insight of the issues facing youth and housing read this report. Finally, thanks also to Sherrie Tingley of the Centre for Equality Rights and Accommodation, who reviewed this report and provided much-needed information.
In conclusion, it is also worth noting that
this document was completed several months ago; however, due to meeting time
and quorum difficulties, this paper could not be presented until now. Thus, the paper was written under the
general impression that it would be presented to HRSS and hopefully Council
before the province-wide General Election, while Ontario was still governed by
a Progressive Conservative administration.
Given the change in government to the current Liberals, we may assume
that there will be some changes from Conservative policy with regards to
housing, social assistance and other issues relating to the fight against
homelessness in the City. Thus, some of
the recommendations have been changed to emphasize the Cabinet’s – and to our
hope, City Council’s – desire to see more initiative taken on this issue by all
levels of government.
Backgrounder
Profile of Renters, Affordability
Before delving into the history of housing issues in Ottawa, it is helpful to review the current situation, particularly with regards to the Core Housing Need (CHN) measure by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), which is “based on an analysis of housing suitability, housing adequacy and housing affordability.” Here, we see that, for the 51 000 households in Ottawa in the CHN, 77% of them are renters – 35% of renters overall. We see also that rents in Ottawa have increased by over 21% (1996-2000), while “median weekly wages have increased by 8%.” On top of this 13 000 households are currently on the waiting list for social housing.[2] It is important to remember that this figure does not account for all households in need – there are those so frustrated by the average waiting period of five to eight (5-8) years, that they do not place themselves on the waiting lists to begin with. As well, over 40% of renters pay more than thirty (30) percent of their income on rent – the ceiling rate recommended by the CMHC.[3]
For those on social assistance such as Ontario Works (OW), the situation is even more difficult. In October of 1995, benefits for those on social assistance (excluding the Ontario Disability Support Program) were reduced by 21.6% across the Province. For more on this issue, please refer to the section entitled “Social Assistance” in this report. The financial difficulty for people on social assistance, and indeed low-income earners in general, is clear when average market rents are taken into account:
Unit Type
|
Average
Market Rent |
Ontario Disability Support Program Maximum Shelter Allowance (1 person) |
Ontario
Works Maximum Shelter Allowance (1
person) |
|
Bachelor |
$624 |
$414 |
$325 |
|
1-Bedroom |
$762 |
- |
- |
|
2-Bedroom |
$930 |
- |
- |
|
3-Bedroom |
$1129 |
- |
- |
Derived from Rental
Market Survey, CMHC, October 2002
Thus, it is clear that current market rates, given the lack of social housing, are far from affordable, especially for people on social assistance. To read further details about the great discrepancy between market rental rates and the incomes for those on social assistance, please refer to the “Social Assistance” part of this report.
Ottawa has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country. From 1996-2000, “vacancy rates plummeted in Ottawa from 4.9% to 0.2%.” By October 2002, Ottawa’s vacancy rate stood at 1.9%[4]. It should be noted that this modest increase in vacancies does not represent a decrease in the cost of rental housing; indeed, the cost continues to increase. However, between 1991-2000, there was a “net loss in rental stock of 5.6% (3800 units) due to conversion, redevelopment, and demolitions.” This is in contrast to the early 1990s, when rental housing was produced at an average rate of 1000 units per year. Currently, approximately 200 units are produced annually, and few of these units are affordable. To make matters worse, “[current] projections indicate that Ottawa’s rental housing requirements will jump sharply upward to an average of 4500 units per year for the period between 2001 and 2006.” The City, analysis shows, will require 1000 below-market rental units per year to meet this rise in demand.[5] It is worth noting that, in the recent Provincial Election, the Liberal Party indicated that rental regulations would not be instituted at all in jurisdictions where the vacancy rate was 3% or higher; this does not take into account the fact that just because vacancy rates rise, rental rates do not necessarily decline.
Political Context
Ottawa’s housing crisis did not occur overnight. It was the result of deliberate decisions on the part of provincial and federal levels of government. In 1995, for example, the Federal Government cut transfer payments by $7 billion and relinquished Ottawa’s right to direct federal money to specific programs. As Toronto Star columnist Carol Goar notes, “[This] killed any hope of boosting shelter allowances.”[6] Currently, however, the federal government has committed $680 million over five years to provide affordable housing nationwide[7], as well as $320 million over the next five years, as allocated in the last federal budget[8]. While the federal government has allocated these funds, and has therefore moved in the right direction, there remains a lack of proper funding to address the severity of the problem. Indeed, in 1998, so grave was the neglect of a national housing strategy by senior levels of government that:
[…] Ottawa joined with cities across Canada to declare homelessness a national disaster. The shortage of affordable housing, emergency shelters filled beyond capacity, growing pressures on food banks and other services for the homeless, with no end in sight for the exponential increase, led to this unprecedented step. Not only is homelessness expanding significantly, the profile of the homeless population was changing: from the traditional stereotype of a single, disenfranchised man with alcohol and drug problems to families with children being the fastest growing numbers of homeless people.[9]
Indeed, the situation proved so dire in that in 1998, Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations expressed “grave
concern” over the fact that housing shortages in Canada’s ten largest cities
had reached the point of being declared a national disaster, and noted that
“provincial social assistance rates and other income assistance measures have not been adequate to
cover rental costs of the poor.”[10]
However, while the federal government
has not, in our view, provided sufficient funding to properly provide
affordable housing on the basis of need, it is worth noting that Human
Resources and Development Canada funding, by means of the Supporting Communities Partnerships Initiative (SCPI),
was instrumental in the development of the McEwen Project, a 22-unit apartment
building administered by the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa[11]. This Federal funding program was targeted
towards supportive emergency or transitional
accommodation. The Federal Government
is also offering, through CMHC, some funding to help rehabilitate the dwellings
of some low-income tenants through its Ontario
Rental and Rooming House Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP),
as well as some funding to rehabilitate some shelters through its Shelter
Enhancement Program (SEP)[12].
To date, however, the Province has provided no such direct funding for the construction of new housing, although it has provided some small, indirect funding via initiatives such as PST grants. As well, Provincial Homelessness Funding (PHF), allocated by the City has been funding some affordable housing initiatives already in place, such as the Evelyn Horne Transitional Housing Program; these funds are allocated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This lack of funding for the construction of new affordable housing exists despite a recent provincial-federal accord to build affordable housing, wherein both levels of government would jointly build affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Program involves “$244.71 million in funding from the federal government, with $244.71 in funding from the province, municipalities, private and non-profit partners.”[13] Phase 1 of the project will result in 300 new units of affordable housing. Important details, “such as what will be the affordable rent levels set by individual municipalities”[14] are missing. As the Housing and Homelessness Network in Ontario further notes:
[Under] the Affordable Housing Framework Agreement, signed by the federal, provincial and territorial governments in November of 2001, the feds agreed to pay $680 million over five years for new affordable housing. The provinces and territories agreed that they would provide matching dollars. However, a loophole in this agreement allows provinces to claim municipal or third-party funding as their own. Ontario is only contributing $20 million over five years in new funds (8% of the total funding) for the province under the Affordable Housing Program. If the province would provide its full matching share, then the current funds from municipalities and third parties that is going to match federal dollars could be used to create even more units, or ensure that existing units had lower rents (and therefore more affordable to lowest-income households.)[15]
However, as previously noted, the previous Provincial Government did not construct new affordable housing. The Government had, it must be noted, promised $50 million to help 8000 lower-income families pay their rent even though 887,000 other families would receive no such subsidies. Michael Shapcott of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies at the University of Toronto referred to the plan as a “lottery.”[16] It is worth noting that this money had been announced a number of times in previous budgets, yet had not actually been allocated[17]. In terms of the current Provincial Government, it was difficult at the time of writing to ascertain what exactly is planned with regards to more funding to combat homelessness, as the transition team was still in the process of determining the Province’s financial state, and how this may lead to the delay of some program spending.
Assessing the Need
Many of these youth reside outside the central core, often in the suburbs of the amalgamated city […] Given the current level of services and the lack of appropriate housing options within their own communities many youth have no choice but to migrate to a more central location in order to find accommodation and needed services. This is often destabilizing and can negatively impact a youth’s ability to remain engaged at school […] Decentralized housing options minimize instability and isolation.
Additional support and affordable housing would greatly assist these youth in their transition from child welfare services to independent adulthood.
In 2001, 640 youth accessed shelters (Salvation Army Young Men’s Shelter, YSB Young Women’s Shelter, and the Y’s Emergency Housing Program). In the Young Men’s Emergency Shelter, 269 youth aged 16-24 accessed services in 2001, accounting for an 85% occupancy rate. YSB’s Young Women’s Shelter served 194 females in 2001, with an occupancy rate of 102%. The average length of stay was 24.5 days, reflecting a 7.5 day increase over 2000 when the average stay was 18 days. Housing Help reported 236 youth aged 16 to 25 accessing their program in 2001 (75% female). YSB’s Evelyn Horne Program (developed to serve young women who were homeless or inappropriately housed) accommodated 22 females in 2001, with an occupancy rate of 82%. The YMCA-YWCA reported 155 youth aged 16 to 24 who accessed emergency housing over this past year.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are a high
need subgroup of the homeless population.
GLBTQ youth have a higher propensity to leave the family home as part of
their coming out process. They report
feeling unsafe in some shelters and most rooming houses (particularly gay and
transgender youth) due to homophobic [and transphobic] atmospheres within these
settings. This population is at high
risk of depression, suicide, involvement in the sex trade and substance
abuse. The recently-released Wellness
Survey indicates that 62% of youth respondents reported depression as an issue
while 36% reported feeling suicidal.
The Young Single Parent Support Network estimates 20 to 30 new families annually headed by adolescents who are inappropriately housed. Without appropriate housing they are at risk of losing custody of their children. Without stable housing they are less able to take advantage of the support programs in places such as the Young/Single Parent Support Network. Rooming houses and emergency shelters are inappropriate for these families. They often require support to adapt to the dual role of parenting and transition to independent living.
(Some of these youth may be parents, GLBT or from the child welfare system.) They often struggle to maintain independence and stable housing. Affordability is always an issue [emphasis added]. Many of these youth require transitional support to develop skills for living – some of them require ongoing support to manage their lives.
Many face rejection from family or neighbourhood due to their offending behaviour, while for others a return to their own community presents a higher risk for re-offending. Many of these youth have limited experience with independent living and require a transitional period of enhanced support to achieve successful community reintegration. John Howard Society estimates that of the approximately 200 youth aged 16 to 20 who are released from custody, 50 to 65 are in need of housing.
These youth are over-represented in statistics on incarceration, addictions and homelessness. In addition, a number of culturally diverse youth are disenfranchised at an early age as a result of being refugees, losing an immigration sponsor or intergenerational conflict.
These youth face few supported housing choices. Given the scarcity of appropriate, affordable accommodation, many remain in unstable, unsafe situations.
As well, in the case of physically or developmentally challenged youth, a few other facts must be noted. The first is that the majority of rental housing is inaccessible. Also, the majority of housing for this group must be located in the downtown core, whereby these youth may access a number of services, as public transportation is not accessible at all times.
The report also notes throughout the need to provide ongoing support to youth with regards to housing. This includes not only financial support to cover the costs for hydro, heat and laundry, but also, the need for life skills and support services. Indeed, a “majority [of those youth surveyed] wanted support on site. Almost all supported the idea of a 24-hour number to call for questions, assistance, or information.”[20]
As noted above, there is also concern with regard to regional disparities in access to services. Since 33.6% in total of the youth surveyed by Perley and Totten left their last places of residence due to a lack of support[21], it is important that affordable housing for youth continue to be developed with this in mind.
For those youth 16 to 17 years of age, some social assistance is available to qualified applicants through the Enhanced Youth Assistance Program (EYAP). As part of EYAP, a program for young parents called LEAP is available to help clients re-enter the workforce; it provides funding for training, but not for advanced education. In general, for those youth at least 18 years of age who are in need of social assistance, there are two main programs that may apply to them. The first is Ontario Works (OW), which was formerly welfare. The second is the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP); the latter is reserved for those youth who have a long-term disability and are physically or mentally limited from full participation in the workforce.
For those youth on OW, the maximum shelter allowance for a single person is $325 per month[22]. The maximum allotment for basic needs stands at $195 per month. The total amount that a single youth may receive, then, is $520 a month. For these youth on ODSP, the maximum shelter allowance is $414 a month. The Basic Needs Supplement stands at $516 an overall total of $930. It should be noted that during the Provincial Election, the Liberals pledged to increase benefits for those on OW and ODSP, although by exactly what amount remains unclear.
However, if a youth on OW enters the workforce, he or she may make $143 a month before deductions from the social assistance allotment are made. If a youth on ODSP enters the workforce, he or she may make $160 a month before facing a 75% claw back of any income above this threshold is deducted from his or her social assistance allotment. While the Cabinet agrees that people on social assistance should be allowed to work, we feel that, given the extremely high rental rates in Ottawa, a lower, or perhaps more gradual, clawback of funds should be implemented, instead of the high 75% clawback from benefits.
As we have previously seen, the rental market in Ottawa is extremely tight, thereby resulting in inflated prices. Even with the increase in vacancies, there has been no substantial reduction in market rental prices. Thus, we can see how such a limited income is squeezed by such high rental rates. It is therefore clear that a larger pool of affordable housing and rent control is needed to ensure that income required for other, no less essential, expenses is provided. As well, as Perley and Totten note, “Given the lack of new rental housing being built, the situation is expected to remain critical for at least the next five years or longer. Those [youth] with the lowest incomes have the fewest choices [emphasis added] […] With the lack of affordable shelter, they are forced into situations that are unsafe and unsuitable”.[23]
As well, it is worth noting that it is difficult for many youth to obtain even the little rental housing that is available; some landlords are reluctant to have youth as tenants, even if such exclusion goes against the Ontario Human Rights Code. As Michael Ornstein notes, “For couples as well as individuals, the exact income criterion changes the particular figures, but not the finding that young people are less likely to qualify for income-restricted rental accommodation. The effects of age are statistically significant and, more important, the observed differentials in access are clearly large enough to place young people in meaningfully worse positions in the housing market.”[24]
The situation for those persons on OW who apply for the Ontario Assistance Program is made even more difficult in that OSAP funding is treated as income, and is therefore deducted from OW payments accordingly. As the OW Policy Directive 27 on Post Secondary Education states:
The Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) is
provided by the provincial government to assist students who intend to pursue
post secondary education. The purpose of OSAP is to supplement, not to replace,
the financial resources the applicant is expected to contribute towards
educational and living expenses. OSAP is based on financial need as determined
by OSAP through an assessment of the student’s application.
Single applicants or participants attending post secondary education are ineligible for social assistance upon receipt of a student loan.
It is difficult for the Cabinet to understand the rationale behind
such a policy directive. It is our
understanding that those on social assistance should be encouraged to seek
higher education, thereby ensuring greater integration into the workforce,
which will likely result in higher incomes, which will make it easier for that
person to attain housing. It is not, in
our view, proper that a sole-support parent on OW should not have full OSAP and
OW benefits (and vice versa) while in school, as OW payments help in offsetting
the costs of providing for dependents.
While dependents of those on OW are allowed to apply for OSAP, it makes
little sense to not allow sole-support parents to do the same. There is, we feel, no reason that such a
person should not be able to pay back the loan after having entered the
workforce, and having left OW.
With the assistance of the federal
government, the Province provides some relief to low-income earners through the
Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families (OCCSWF):
In 1998, the Province created this program in part funded by the provincial savings from the National Child Tax Benefit. The program gives low to modest-income families with children a maximum benefit of $1,100 annually for each child under the age of seven. Families are eligible if they have work earnings over $5,000, if one parent is working and one stays at home to care for their children or if they are in school or a training program and have childcare expenses. The supplement is reduced as income exceeds $20,000.[25]
The Cabinet commends the Province for providing this relief to some families. Yet it should be noted that people on OW and ODSP are not eligible for the OCCSWF. While the benefit amounts for OW and ODSP-dependent persons with children are very moderately increased, we find that it is not enough to cover the high costs of rent. As one local campaign has put it, it is extremely difficult to have to choose between “paying the rent and feeding the kids”.[26] While the issue of social assistance has largely been discussed in the context of youth 18 years or older, it remains that the National Child Benefit Supplement is “clawed back” from the benefits of those parents who have children. As the OW Policy Directive 16 on Income states:
The CCTB is a tax-free monthly payment provided
to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age
18. The CCTB consists of two parts: the
Child Tax Benefit (CTB) base and the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS). The NCBS is targeted at low-income families. The NCBS is considered an income
charge under social assistance and is deducted from social assistance payments
dollar for dollar. Families who receive the NCBS have their social assistance
payment reduced dollar for dollar.
(33)
The clawback of the NCBS applies to those on ODSP as well. As Directive #0302-12: Treatment of the Federal Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) states:
The CCTB consists of two parts:
Child Tax Benefit (CTB)
National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS). The
NCBS is chargeable as income and deducted from social assistance payments [emphasis
added].
It is the Cabinet’s finding that such a policy effectually punishes children for being poor. Given that the NCBS was designed to partially relieve the effects of poverty, we do not agree with taking it from those who need it most. We also find that such a policy makes an already difficult situation all that more dire: this policy renders the ability to pay high rental rates that much weaker. It is also worth noting that the City continues to receive a portion of the funds from the “clawback” of those on OW and ODSP, or 20% in overall savings from the NCBS portion from the Province. The City, in our view, correctly re-invests these funds in community services. Yet the City of Toronto invests the funds from the municipal portion into an emergency rental fund (which totaled $9 million last year). This program is designed to assist parents/guardians on social assistance pay the cost of rent and to avoid eviction[27]. We in the Cabinet agree that low-income Ottawans may benefit from such a program.
a) That shelter allowances be increased to better reflect the cost of rental housing, including, but not limited to, actual rent, the cost of utilities, and the cost of insurance;
b) That Basic Income allotments be increased to reflect an increase in inflation and the rising cost of essentials such as food;
c) That sole-support parents concurrently be permitted the benefits of OW and student loans;
d) That the NCBS not be clawed back from the benefits of those on OW and ODSP.
Recommendation 2: That Council have staff assess the possibility of an emergency rental fund (in the context of an eviction prevention program) in Ottawa, and, if staff deem such a program possible, allow, over a certain adjustment period, for the development of an emergency rental fund, similar to that of Toronto, from the municipal portion of the NCBS that is “clawed back” from parents/guardians on social assistance.
Double Cohort
Much debate has occurred around the impending "double cohort", or influx of a large number of post-secondary students due to the loss of Ontario Academic Credits, whereby those students who wished to attain post-secondary educations typically completed an extra year of OACs. The previous Provincial Government repeatedly stated that new measures to accommodate the influx of students, including more funding for residences, would not allow a crisis to emerge. Other groups, such as the Canadian Federation of Students (Ontario), held that the system was currently not equipped to handle the new influx of students[28].
On behalf of the youth of Somerset Ward (14), Member Nathan Hauch wrote a letter to the then Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Hon. Dianne Cunningham, to express concern about the fact that Ottawa's extremely tight rental market will not be able to accommodate the new influx of students. The Minister replied in her letter, dated May 16, 2003, stating that by September of this year, Carleton University will have increased its residence spaces by 50% of what was available in 2000. Ottawa University will have, by September, added 830 residence spaces, a 40% increase from 2000. Similarly, La Cité Collégiale and Algonquin College have added 251 and 350 new residence spaces respectively.
As for the housing crisis in Ottawa, she referred those comments to the then Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Hon. David Young. No response was ever received. It is however, worth noting that in her letter, Ms. Cunningham referred to on-campus housing as an "ancillary" service. Given how unaffordable Ottawa's rental market is at the present, the Cabinet feels that greater consideration should be given as to how off-campus housing is better able to accommodate the influx of new students. While the availability of off-campus housing is, at the very best, precarious for reasons already outlined, the City may be able to take the following steps in ensuring some continuity:
Recommendation 3: That the City take a proactive approach in ensuring that students know of the tenant services available to them, such as Housing Help.
Recommendation 4: That the City take a proactive approach in terms of educating students and youth in general of their rights under the Tenant Protection Act.
These two recommendations could be achieved by, for example, having pamphlets on housing services and rights placed in the frosh week kits of students. The City could also look into simply providing a card, informing students that it is helpful to be informed on housing issues. The address of a housing rights website could be provided. The City would, of course, need to work with housing advocate groups and student associations and campus residence associations in this regard.
Recommendation 5: That the City take a proactive approach in terms of connecting students to alternative forms of housing, including, but not limited to, Student Senior Match.[29]
While limited, there are alternate forms of housing available to students than those previously explored in this report. Staff may wish to research the services out there, and explore various ways of getting the message out to youth. A partnership with tenant advocates may be helpful in this regard. As well, the City would be well advised to establish a network of residents in the City who may be willing to offer free or reduced-cost billeting in their own residences; for this to be effective, the City would have to actively recruit such residents.
Recommendation 6: That student associations, campus residence associations, tenants' rights groups and other interested parties be encouraged to give at least annual reports to the Ottawa Youth Cabinet, whereby the Cabinet may offer assistance in terms of bringing housing issues from a youth perspective to the Council agenda.
The following recommendation would ensure continuity between the OYC and other parties interested in the issue of housing and youth.
Recommendation 7: That Council be prepared to provide extra funding for shelters and alternative forms of housing to ensure that current homeless youth and any new influx of youth are properly housed.
Since we do not yet know the impact of a new influx of students, it is not possible to provide a financial figure in this regard. However, we ask that Council be prepared to financially address this problem when it arises, especially considering that, a number of shelters, such as the YSB Young Women’s Shelter, are currently operating at full capacity, as previously noted. It is also suggested that the City perhaps evaluate the feasibility of emergency shelters for youth outside the downtown core, as Cabinet Member Kyle Vezzaro has suggested to the author of this report.
Renter’s Rights
As outlined in the previous section, many youth are unaware of their rights under the Tenant Protection Act. It is interesting to note that, in the surveys conducted by Perley and Totten, 63% of male youth (38 subjects) left their last place of residence due to conflict with their landlords or other tenants. The figure is 25% of female youth (13 subjects) for a total of 45.1% of youth (51 subjects). These figures are notably high, and, considering that a high number of cases before the Ontario Rental Tribunal (ORB) are uncontested petitions by landlords for the removal of tenants, we see that many youth are not equipped to deal with housing disputes. In 2002, 41% of the 4428 households facing eviction in the city of Ottawa were ordered evicted without a hearing. Some youth, for example, may not be aware that landlords are only permitted to increase rental rates once a year and that three months prior notice is required. As well, rents may be higher for youth who move from one residence to another, as landlords are permitted by law to increase rents for new tenants. In fact, it is likely that youth, in order to compete against ‘more desirable’ tenants likely face higher rents and lower quality housing than more advantaged tenants.[30] To make matters worse, youth are often generally discriminated against when it comes to housing. As the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation notes:
Landlords’
informal assessment of default risks and their reluctance to rent to groups
deemed high risk has significant social costs.
An analysis of 1995 census data conducted by Professor Michael Ornstein
for CERA revealed that the majority of single mothers who move are forced to
rent within the least affordable third of apartments of comparable size within
the private market. The primary reason
for this anomalous distribution is that single mothers are deemed to pose a
high risk of default because of their lower income and their reliance on one
income source. When a high proportion
of landlords will not rent to them, their choices are restricted within the
rental market and they are forced to resort to the most overpriced and poorly
maintained apartments on the market, where landlords cannot afford to be as
selective.[31]
These are, we see, only a few of the
issues that young tenants face, including discrimination in rental housing, as
previously mentioned. While some
organizations, such as Housing Help and the Centre for Equality Rights in
Accommodation provide support at the time of disputes, many youth could benefit
from better information regarding their rights and responsibilities as tenants
from the outset. As well, due to high
use of services, many youth are not in the position to access legal aid when
necessary. Thus, the Cabinet
recommends:
Recommendation
8: That City Staff assess the
possibility of a Young Tenants’ Rights Education Campaign, wherein staff,
working in concert with tenant and youth advocates, could seek to provide youth
with information on the Tenant Protection
Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code
and services available to tenants. The
campaign could include pamphlets to be distributed in secondary schools,
post-secondary institutions and youth service centers. Staff may wish to assess the willingness of
others to work on such a project, and to assess the financial cost of such a
campaign.
Other Recommendations
The Cabinet is encouraged by the City’s initiatives in developing new housing, even though the rate of development cannot meet demand. Such initiatives include the lessening of property taxes on projects that seek to develop affordable housing, and the leasing of some lands at nominal cost for such projects. Such initiatives are to be encouraged. However, the Cabinet is wary of Council’s recent decision not to increase the provision in the Official Plan that 25% of new housing built must be affordable. We do however, support the work of the Working Group, as promised by Mayor Chiarelli before December 2003, charged with determining how to support the initial recommendations previously passed by Planning and Development. We ask that, in future deliberations, Council consider the severity of the housing crisis in Ottawa, from a youth perspective, as outlined in this report.
The Cabinet also concurs with the following recommendations from the Perley and Totten report, and asks that Council act accordingly[32]:
9)
Support
ongoing research initiatives in order to enhance understanding of Best
Practices for the prevention and intervention with homeless youth.
10)
Maximize financial support options for youth
and advocate improved access to available scholarships, bursaries and grants.
11)
Encourage the development of a continuum of
housing and support services relevant to the diverse housing needs of youth in
the City of Ottawa by addressing identified gaps. The exploration of existing models needs to consider evidence-based
best practice whenever possible.
12)
Explore the need for a last resort option for
youth who are periodically not able to access existing shelters.
13)
Advocate for more beds for complex needs
youth who require more intensive, longer-term residential services (addictions
and mental health).
14)
Support the Host Homes Pilot program and
assess the effectiveness for potential expansion to other target youth
groups. It is worth noting that this
program ceased to operate as of March 31, 2003 as SCPI funding terminated and
was not renewed/extended. Thus, the
Cabinet recommends renewed funding for the program, whereby the initial
recommendation may be executed.
15)
Increase home-based community supports to
families of youth with mental health issues including
crisis/respite/stabilization options.
16)
Explore opportunities arising from the
recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on Public/Private Partnership on
Housing. Funding for youth housing must
include both capital and sustained support dollars. Identify private and public sector partners to contribute
finances and/or resources.
The Cabinet would again like to stress that Council continue to combat homelessness overall, keeping in mind that many poor youth come from poor families. We also hold that an increase in the minimum wage is essential to lower-income youth in terms of obtaining affordable housing; as previously stated, those youth with the least income have the least housing options. Indeed, the minimum wage has remained frozen at $6.85 since 1995 despite increases in general inflation, and far greater increases in rental rates[33]. In Ontario, the Liberals and New Democrats both advocate raising the minimum wage to $8/hour, although the parties disagree with respect to when this increase should take place. Thus, the Cabinet recommends:
Recommendation
17: That Council petition the
Government of Ontario to immediately raise the minimum wage to $8/hour, making
clear that the minimum wage has remained frozen despite such high rental rates,
and thereby leaves many renters with much less income to purchase other
essentials.
As we have seen, the City cannot establish an affordable housing strategy on its own behalf; assistance is required from other levels of government. As no real commitment has been made by these levels of government in this regard, the Cabinet feels that the case must be made from a youth perspective, thereby detailing the difficult and/or dangerous situations many youth find themselves in with regards to housing. Thus, the Cabinet recommends:
Recommendation
18: That Council petition, from a
youth perspective, both the Provincial and Federal Governments to provide
sustainable, ongoing funding to construct more affordable housing.
As we have noted, rental rates are extremely high in Ottawa. Considering that, under the Tenant Protection Act, landlords are permitted to largely arbitrarily raise rents on vacant apartments. Given the transient nature of the youth population, as previously noted, this constituency is greatly harmed by such a policy. We in the Cabinet are not against fair rent increases; we simply disagree with rental rate gouging. Thus, the Cabinet recommends:
Conclusion
As we have seen, the situation faced by many youth with regards to homelessness in Ottawa is very dire. It is not the intention of the Cabinet in this report to sound alarmist, yet the facts remain: the status quo is simply not acceptable. We all have a duty to protect our youth, and to ensure that one of the most basic human rights, that of adequate shelter, is satisfied. We also recognize that this report does not encompass all the aspects of this important issue; a number of strategies to rid the City of this problem must be evaluated, and based on their respective merits, executed. If there is any one point the Cabinet wishes to make, it is this: we all have a responsibility with regards to this issue; concrete, decisive action must be taken.
We hope that Council, and others concerned about this issue will take these recommendations seriously, and act accordingly. We have much to be proud of in our City; if we do all in our power to eradicate youth homelessness – and homelessness in general – we will have that much more a reason to celebrate it.
a) That shelter allowances be increased to better reflect the cost of rental housing, including, but not limited to, actual rent, the cost of utilities, and the cost of insurance;
b) That Basic Income allotments be increased to reflect an increase in inflation and the rising cost of essentials such as food;
c) That sole-support parents concurrently be permitted the benefits of OW and student loans;
d) That the NCBS not be clawed back from the benefits of those on OW and ODSP.
Recommendation
2
That Council
have staff assess the possibility of an emergency rental fund in Ottawa, and,
if staff deem such a program possible, allow, over a certain adjustment period,
for the development of an emergency rental fund, similar to that of Toronto,
from the municipal portion of the NCBS that is “clawed back” from
parents/guardians on social assistance.
Recommendation
3
That the City take a proactive approach in ensuring that students know of the tenant services available to them, such as Housing Help.
Recommendation 4
That the City take a proactive approach in
terms of educating students and youth in general of their rights under the
Tenant Protection Act.
Recommendation 5
That the City take a proactive approach in
terms of connecting students to alternative forms of housing, including, but
not limited to, Student Senior Match.
Recommendation 6
That student associations, campus
residence associations, tenants' rights groups and other interested parties be
encouraged to give at least annual reports to the Ottawa Youth Cabinet, whereby
the Cabinet may offer assistance in terms of bringing housing issues from a
youth perspective to the Council agenda.
Recommendation 7
That Council be prepared to provide extra funding for shelters and alternative forms of housing to ensure that current homeless youth and any new influx of youth are properly housed.
Recommendation 8
That City Staff assess the possibility of a Young Tenants’ Rights Education Campaign, wherein staff, working in concert with tenant and youth advocates, could seek to provide youth with information on the Tenant Protection Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code and services available to tenants. The campaign could include pamphlets to be distributed in secondary schools, post-secondary institutions and youth service centers. Staff may wish to assess the willingness of others to work on such a project, and to assess the financial cost of such a campaign.
Recommendation 9
Support ongoing research initiatives in order to enhance understanding of Best Practices for the prevention and intervention with homeless youth.
Recommendation 10
Maximize financial support options for youth and advocate improved access to available scholarships, bursaries and grants.
Recommendation 11
Encourage the development of a continuum of housing and support services relevant to the diverse housing needs of youth in the City of Ottawa by addressing identified gaps. The exploration of existing models needs to consider evidence-based best practice whenever possible.
Recommendation 12
Explore the need for a last resort option for youth who are periodically not able to access existing shelters.
Recommendation 13
Advocate for more beds for complex need youth who require more intensive, longer-term residential services (addictions and mental health).
Recommendation 14
Support the Host Homes Pilot program and assess the effectiveness for potential expansion to other target youth groups. It is worth noting that this program ceased to operate as of March 31, 2003 as SCPI funding terminated and was not renewed/extended. Thus, the Cabinet recommends renewed funding for the program, whereby the initial recommendation may be executed.
Recommendation 15
Increase home-based community supports to families of youth with mental health issues including crisis/respite/stabilization options.
Recommendation 16
Explore opportunities arising from the
recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on Public/Private Partnership on
Housing. Funding for youth housing must
include both capital and sustained support dollars. Identify private and public sector partners to contribute
finances and/or resources.
Recommendation
17
That
Council petition the Government of Ontario to immediately raise the minimum
wage to $8/hour, making clear that the minimum wage has remained frozen despite
such high rental rates, and thereby leaves many renters with much less income
to purchase other essentials.
Recommendation 18
That Council, from a youth perspective, petition the Province to re-instate rent control on vacant and occupied apartments, and that rent increases be limited by means of a fair rent regulation system.
[1] WECAN Housing Consultation, Ottawa, November 27, 2002.
[2] Affordable Housing Strategy for the City Of Ottawa, People Services Department, Housing Branch, Policy and Programs Division, February 2002, pp. 3-5; updated via consultation with Social Housing Registry of Ottawa-Carleton.
[3] WECAN Housing Consultation, Ottawa, November 27, 2002.
[4] http://www.cmhc.ca/en/News/nere/2002/2002-11-26-0815.cfm
[5] Affordable Housing Strategy for the City Of Ottawa, pp. 4-5.
[6] Carol Goar. “Still watching, still waiting.” Toronto Star. April 4, 2003, p. A26.
[7] Affordable Housing Strategy for the City of Ottawa. City of Ottawa, p. 10.
[8] Statistic provided by HRDC.
[9] Partnerships to End Homelessness in the Nation’s Capital. City Of Ottawa, p. 1.
[10] The Right to Housing, Under International Human Rights Law, Poverty and Human Rights Project, Vancouver, BC, October 24, 2002, p. 3.
[11] Judy Perley and Mark Totten. Reducing Youth Homelessness in Ottawa: Needs Survey and Action Plan. Ottawa: Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa, November 27, 2002, p. 4.
[12] CMHC website, October 9, 2003.
[13] Michael Shapcott. “Ontario “Affordable Housing Program” backgrounder”. Toronto: Housing and Homelessness Network in Ontario, December 8, 2002, p. 1.
[14] Ibid. 3
[15] Ibid. 3
[16] Carol Goar. “Still watching, still waiting.” Toronto Star. April 4, 2003, p. A26; Conversation with Michael Shapcott, 9 June 2003.
[17] Telephone conversation with Michael Shapcott, June 2003.
[18] Perley and Totten, pp. 10-11
[19] Ibid. 7-9
[20] Perley and Totten, pp. 11-12.
[21] Perley and Totten, p. 17
[22] [22] All figures and policy citations are derived from the OW and ODSP Policy Directives, which may be viewed online at http://www.cfcs.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/programs/IES/default.htm.
[23] Perley and Totten, p. 5.
[24] Michael Ornstein, “The Differential Effect of Income Criteria on Access to Rental Accommodation on the Basis of Age and Race: 1996 Census Results”. http://www.equalityrights.org/cera/docs/ornstein1999.html
[25] Toronto
Report Card on Homelessness 2000: An Action Plan for Homelessness. City of Toronto.
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/homelessness/action.htm
[26] National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), Somerset West Action Network (SWAN)
[27] Details regarding
the program may be found at
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/socialservices/Policy/Shelterfund.htm.
[28] [28] Canadian Federation of Students (Ontario): http://www.cfsontario.ca/main.shtml.
[29] For more information on Student Senior Match, please visit http://www.studentseniormatch.ca.
[30] Consultation with Sherrie Tingley of the Centre for Equality Rights in Accomodation, May 2003.
[31] A
Feasibility Study on Rent Insurance in Toronto’s Rental Housing Market, Phase
I: Research on Rent Default in Toronto,
http://www.equalityrights.org/cera/docs/ri.htm.
[32] Perley and Totten, p. 26.
[33] Ontario Coalition for Social Justice. “Living Wage Income Campaign: Minimum wage fact sheet”. http://www.ocsj.ca/docs/factsheet-livingwage.pdf