Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario Final Report · Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario. Final Report. Report prepared for the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board

Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario

Final Report

Carol Kauppi, Ph.D., DirectorHenri Pallard, Doctorate, LL.B., Associate Director

Emily Faries, Ph.D., Associate Director

withStéphanie St-Pierre, M.A., Research Associate

Roger Gervais, Ph.D., Coordinator and Research AssociateMandy Scott, Indigenous Communications Coordinator

30 June 2015

Poverty, Homelessness and MigrationCentre for Research in Social Justice and Policy

Laurentian UniversitySudbury, Ontario

Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario

Final Report

Carol Kauppi, Ph.D., DirectorHenri Pallard, Doctorate, LL.B., Associate Director

Emily Faries, Ph.D., Associate Director

withStéphanie St-Pierre, M.A., Research Associate

Roger Gervais, Ph.D., Coordinator and Senior Research AssociateMandy Scott, Indigenous Communications Coordinator

30 June 2015

Poverty, Homelessness and MigrationCentre for Research in Social Justice and Policy

Laurentian UniversitySudbury, Ontario

How to cite this document:Carol KAUPPI, Henri PALLARD and Emily FAIRIES (2015). Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario. FinalReport. Report prepared for the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board. Centre forResearch in Social Justice and Policy, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.

This study was funded in part bythe Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board.

Poverty, Homelessness and MigrationPauvreté, sans-abrisme et migration

Centre for Researchin Social Justice and Policy

Laurentian University935 Ramsey Lake RoadSudbury ON P3E 2C6

Tel. 705-675-1151, ext. 5156Fax 705-671-3832

[email protected]/homeless

Centre de rechercheen justice et politique socialesUniversité Laurentienne935, chemin du lac RamseySudbury (Ontario), P3E 2C6

Tél. 705-675-1151, poste 5156Télec. 705-671-3832

[email protected]/sansabri

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people contributed to the success of this project. First and foremost, those who assisted us

included homeless people, service providers and agency personnel and members of the community

in Cochrane. The project was conducted by faculty members and students from the School of Social

Work, the Department of Law and Justice and the Department of Indigenous Human Relations at

Laurentian University and the Department of Indigenous Studies at the University of Sudbury, in

conjunction with key members, staff or volunteers of the Poverty, Homelessness and Migration

Community Advisory Committee in Cochrane, most notably Jack Soloman, Ininew Friendship

Centre, Michael Robin, Ga Beh Shoo In Men’s Shelter and Dave Landers, Cochrane District Social

Services Administration Board. We thank the Ininew Friendship Centre and the Ga Beh Shoo In

Men’s Shelter for providing our project team members with access to space and equipment.

The essential contribution of homeless people in northern communities must be well recognized.

We could not conduct Poverty, Homelessness and Migration without their participation and

willingness to share personal information. The service providers in our communities comprise

another group that has made this study possible. They have assisted in many ways, such as providing

feedback on methodology, facilitating access to service users, collecting information for the study,

and discussing implications and recommendations. The commitment shown by Cochrane service

providers and the town of Cochrane in helping with the project, despite ongoing service pressures,

has been truly remarkable. A comprehensive enumeration of the homeless population could not be

accomplished without their help.

In particular, we gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions, comments and assistance of the

following people in various phases of this study:

C Stephanie St. Pierre, PHM Research Associate and Cochrane Study Coordinator;

C Roger Gervais, PHM Coordinator and Senior Research Associate;

C Tyler Horton, PHM Research Assistant;

C Joseph Menzies, PHM Research Assistant;

C Judy Jewell, PHM Research Assistant;

C Graduate and undergraduate students taking courses at Laurentian University and

Université de Hearst, as well as Northern College, and working for Poverty, Homelessness

and Migration in 2013;

C Local residents of Cochrane hired to work as research staff.

iii

HOMELESSNESS IN COCHRANE, ONTARIO

FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Defining Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Absolutely homeless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

At-risk of homelessness (relative homelessness).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Migration or transience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hidden Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Estimating Homeless Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Approach to the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Period Prevalence “Count” or Census of the Homeless Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Service-Based Count.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Door-to-Survey—Sampling Strategy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Unduplicated Count of Homeless People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Socio-demographic and Health Profile of Homeless Persons in Cochrane:

Characteristics of the Total Homeless Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Receipt of social support/welfare benefits and sources of income. . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Marital/family status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Reasons for homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Reasons for homelessness by gender and cultural group background. . . . . . . . . . 16

Referrals to Other Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Absolute Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Reasons for absolute homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Referrals to other services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CONCLUSIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

v

Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario—Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Characteristics of homeless people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 2: Age of homeless people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 3: Sources of income for homeless people.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 4: Marital status for homeless people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 5: Main reasons for homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 6: Characteristics of absolutely homeless people.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 7: Sources of income for absolutely homeless people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 8: Main reasons for absolute homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 9: Results of the community forum—20 February 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Number of homeless people: at-risk and absolutely homeless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2: Referrals reported by homeless persons.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 3: Family status of absolutely homeless people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4: Referrals reported by absolutely homeless persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1: Main reasons for homelessness by gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Box 2: Main reasons for homelessness among Anglophones,

Francophones and Aboriginals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

vi

HOMELESSNESS IN COCHRANE, ONTARIO

FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

An agency survey and an extended door-to-door survey were conducted from 16 July to 2 August

2013. A service-based survey at local agencies began on 27 July. This report provides a detailed

portrait of the homeless population in Cochrane, Ontario by providing information on the following

points:

• the numbers of people who, during that period of time, were at risk of becoming

homeless or were absolutely homeless in Cochrane;

• the background characteristics including children, youth, women, men, subgroups in the

homeless population (i.e. those of Anglo/European origins, Indigenous people, and

Francophones) in Cochrane;

• the sources of income of homeless people in Cochrane;

• reasons for homelessness; and

• trends in referral of homeless people.

Defining Homelessness

The current project adopted an inclusive definition of homelessness by taking into account people

who were vulnerable to becoming homeless in addition to those who were absolutely homeless at

the time of the study. This definition views homeless people as those who are absolutely,

periodically, or temporarily without shelter, as well as those who are at substantial risk of losing

their housing in the immediate future. The broader definition of homelessness enables the

development of strategies to address the problems that go beyond emergency response to deal with

the fundamental causes of homelessness thereby preventing homelessness.

Research Methodology

• A period prevalence count was conducted of the homeless population using emergency

shelters, social service agencies, and other services supporting this population in

Cochrane.

• Research assistants knocked on the door of every fourth home. Low income

neighbourhoods were over-sampled (every door) because of the higher risk of

homelessness in these areas.

vii


• The study identified individuals who were absolutely homeless and those who were at

risk of becoming homeless.

• A structured questionnaire was used to obtain information about background

characteristics, types of income support, the main reasons for homelessness, physical and

mental health problems and referral patterns.

• The data collection instrument provided for the identification of unduplicated cases.

Key Findings

• Six hundred and forty-nine (649) individuals participated in the study. More than

two-thirds (69%, n=450) of the participants were in the door-to-door survey while close

to a third (31%, n=199) completed the questionnaire as part of the agency period

prevalence count.

Total homeless population

• The total homeless population was composed of 313 individuals: 174 adults and 139

children.

• The homeless persons who participated in the study included 47 absolutely

homeless—including 30 children—and 266 persons at high risk of becoming homeless.

• Most of the homeless participants were experiencing extreme poverty and were at high

risk of homelessness.

• Women and girls comprised a slight majority of the homeless persons (53% females

versus 47% males).

• The average age of adolescents or women using services (over 15) was 47—the same as

the average age for the men.

• Indigenous people are greatly over-represented amongst homeless people; they made up

well over a third (41.2%) of the homeless population but constitute only 19% of the

population in Cochrane according to Statistics Canada (2011).

• French-speaking people were greatly under-represented amongst homeless people

(13.5%) compared to their proportion in the general population of Cochrane (37.5%)

according to the 2011 Census (Statistics Canada, 2012).

• A substantial proportion of homeless people were adults between 20 and 59 years of age

(44.1%) but close to half were infants, children or adolescents (46.9%). When infants,

children, adolescents and women are combined, they comprised over three-quarters of

the total homeless population (77.2%).

viii


• A quarter of the participants reported that their main source of financial support was the

Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security, a fifth received income support from the

Ontario Disabilities Support Program (ODSP).

• The overall proportion of homeless people not reporting the receipt of any income was

approximately 12 percent.

• The majority of homeless people are single/unattached or divorced/widowed.

• The most cited reason for homelessness was physical or mental illness.

• The central reasons for homelessness stem from the structural/systemic problems of

unemployment, problems with social assistance, and the lack of affordable housing

(58%).

Absolute homelessness

• Most absolutely homeless people (53%) completed questionnaires through the door-to-

door survey.

• There were significantly more men than women among those who were absolutely

homeless (60.9% men versus 39.1% women).

• Anglophones and Francophones of European origins were under-represented, while

Indigenous people were greatly over-represented (nearly two-thirds of those absolutely

without housing).

• The age range amongst the participants who were absolutely homeless was 17 to 67 and

the dependents ranged in age from 0 to 19. The absolutely homeless included 30

children.

• The absolutely homeless group included 17 children under age 12 (37.7% of absolutely

homeless persons). In addition, 11 adolescents aged 13 to 19 were absolutely homeless

(24% of this subsample). Children and youth up to the age of 19 constitute

approximately 64% of the absolutely homeless population in Cochrane.

• Women, children and youth represent over three-quarters (77.7%) of the absolutely

homeless population.

• Over one-third (35.6%) of the absolutely homeless people were adults aged 20 and over.

• Nearly three-quarters (70.6%) of those who were absolutely homeless were

single/unattached individuals.

• Well over a third of absolutely homeless participants indicated that they had no source

of income. Over a third (35.2%) indicated that their main sources of income were

Ontario Works or Ontario Disabilities Support Program.

ix


• Participants (67.2%) cited structural problems such as unemployment (n=17, 34.6%),

lack of affordable housing (n=10, 20.4%) and lack of access to social assistance and

poverty (n=6, 12.2%) as the primary causes of absolute homelessness.

• Only a third (35%) of absolutely homeless persons were reportedly referred to other

service providers to assist with the problems they were experiencing.

Recommendations

Twenty-eight recommendations were identified on the basis of the findings of the Cochrane study

and prior research on homelessness in Sudbury. These recommendations were reviewed and

prioritized by18 participants at a Community Forum in Cochrane on 19 February 2015. The

participants collectively identified 28 recommendations as relevant for Cochrane. The top five

recommendations focus on remedying the lack of affordable housing, addressing food security,

providing assistance to shelters, and developing long-term strategies for addressing housing.

x


INTRODUCTION

On a per capita basis, poverty, housing need and homelessness are as acute in northern communities

as in the southern regions of Canada and they have been persistent problems through times of

economic boom and bust. While little information is available about homelessness in many

communities within northeastern Ontario, we know that the extent and nature of the homelessness

problem in Sudbury remained largely unchanged between 2000 and 2009 (Kauppi, Gasparini,

Pallard, Garg, Montgomery & Webster, 2009). However, the quality of housing available to low

income people has deteriorated since 2000 given low rental vacancy rates, strong rental demand and

increases in rents (CMHC, 2011).

Knowledge about the size of homeless populations, characteristics of homeless people and living

circumstances within small towns in northern regions of Canada is limited and superficial. Those

who have not experienced homelessness, including service providers who support this population,

often have difficulty in comprehending the nature of the challenging life experiences and

circumstances and their varied impacts on homeless persons. Given the human and systemic costs,

it is vital to acquire a better understanding of homelessness within cities in northern regions of

Ontario in order to ensure that people’s needs are met. In addition, research on issues of deep

poverty and homelessness can support local initiatives to make positive changes, including advocacy

for policies that can prevent and eliminate homelessness.

One objective of Poverty, Homelessness and Migration (PHM) is to examine the extent and nature

of homelessness in northeastern Ontario communities in order to gain a better understanding of the

issues related to forms of homelessness including absolute homelessness and near homelessness and

patterns of migration and transience. A second major objective is to develop recommendations for

change. This report addresses the findings from the period prevalence count conducted in the

community of Cochrane in January 2013.

Defining Homelessness

Within the literature on homelessness, varied terms are used to describe differing housing and

shelter situations. The Canadian Homelessness Research Network (CHRN, 2012) developed a

comprehensive typology of homelessness that includes four major categories; homeless persons may

be i) unsheltered, ii) emergency sheltered, iii) provisionally accommodated, and iv) at risk of

homelessness. The first two categories refer to circumstances for those who are often absolutely

without housing. The third and fourth categories describe the varied circumstances for persons

whose shelter arrangements lack permanence and those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

1


Terms used to refer to persons in the latter two categories include technically homeless, near

homeless, precariously housed, provisionally or temporarily accommodated, inadequately housed,

at risk or at imminent risk. Those at risk of being homeless are also described as relatively homeless

(Peressini, McDonald and Hulchanski, 2010). These categories correspond to the definition of

homelessness developed in Europe by the Federation européenne d’associations nationales

travaillant avec les sans-abri or FEANTSA1 (2005).

In the current study, the terms at risk, high risk, near homeless and relatively homeless are used

synonymously. Like the earlier studies on homelessness in Sudbury (Kauppi, Gasparini & Pallard,

2009), the current project adopted an inclusive definition of homelessness by taking into account

people who were precariously housed and vulnerable to becoming homeless in addition to those who

were absolutely homeless at the time of the study. As Peressini, McDonald and Hulchanski (2010,

p. 2) have noted, the use of “relative definitions”, which are broad and inclusive, can ensure that the

study includes a “representative sample of all the constituent groups”. The broader definition of

homelessness enables the development of strategies to address the problems that go beyond

emergency response to deal with the fundamental causes of homelessness thereby preventing

homelessness.

Absolutely homeless

We defined absolute homelessness as situations in which a homeless person does not have a place

that he/she considers to be home or a place where he/she sleeps regularly. The questionnaire

included the following examples of absolute homelessness:

C no place to call home;

C home is neither a room, an apartment, nor a house;

C residing in a room, apartment or house that is not one's own;

C staying there four times a week or less;

C having no arrangement to sleep there regularly.

At-risk for homelessness (relative homelessness)

Due to particular circumstances, a person is at an elevated risk for homelessness (i.e. pending

eviction, extremely low income, familial abuse, inability to pay rent, existing medical condition with

no benefits, etc.). As Peressini et al. (2010) observed, studies employing relative definitions must

1 The English name of the organization is Federation of European National AssociationsWorking with the Homeless.

2


sample from a wide range of locations to cover the greatest number of sites where persons at risk

of homeless may be found.

Migration or transience

Transience was described by Pollio (1997) as comprising four dimensions based on the concepts of

migration, duration, intention and involvement. We adopted this definition in our 2009 survey of

homeless people in Sudbury (Kauppi et al., 2009), but we also drew on the earlier work of Rahimian

et al. (1992) who argued that definitions of migration used for domiciled populations may not be

helpful in understanding migration among homeless persons. Building on a study by Rahimian et

al. (1992), our definition of migration includes three groups: individuals who have been in the

community less than one year are viewed as recent migrants, those who have been in the community

between one to five years are considered to be intermediate-term migrants and stayers have been in

the community more than five years.

Hidden Homelessness

It is difficult to identify the hidden homeless population. This subgroup of the homeless may include

people who “double up” by permitting a homeless person to live with them. Some consider doubling

up or “double bunking” to be a type of homelessness since it can create housing situations involving

overcrowding. A key factor that may create a challenge in counting the “hidden homeless” is the

reluctance of low income residents in subsidized housing units to reveal how they are “doubling up”

because of fear that they will be penalized if the housing authority were to find out that someone was

staying with them. “Double bunking” is often not permitted by public housing authorities. The study

of homelessness in Cochrane included the hidden homeless who accessed services during the week

of the period prevalence count. In addition, conducting the door-to-door survey enabled people to

include information about individuals who were among the hidden homeless residing temporarily

with others. Therefore, those who did not use services had an opportunity to participate in the study.

Estimating Homeless Populations

Numerous challenges have been described in the literature on defining homelessness, counting or

estimating the size of the homeless population, and determining an appropriate methodology for

studying homeless people (Cronley, 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Toro, 2007). Research in this area

continues to be somewhat problematic (Counting Homelessness, 2010). A key problem is that

particular subgroups in the population are not captured in “homeless counts” that use particular types

3


of methodologies, such as 24-hour counts and studies that focus on homeless persons who live on

the streets (i.e., rough sleepers).

Some researchers, such as those conducting research on homelessness in Canadian cities such as

Edmonton (2010), Prince George (2010) and Vancouver (2011), have opted to conduct their count

of homeless people by collecting data on a single day (17 to 24 hours). A recent count in Calgary

(2012) was conducted over five hours in shelters and on the streets, with a focus on a subgroup of

absolutely homeless people. While this approach reduces the time and effort required to collect the

data, it produces a more conservative estimate of the number of homeless people, since individuals

who are not visible on the streets or using services on the day of the count will be excluded.

The work of Peressini et al. (2010) is useful in that it reviewed methods for counting homeless

people and reported that “service-based methods produce the most accurate and reliable results”.

Indeed, they state such service-based methods reportedly produce more accurate population

estimates than the Canadian Census. Moreover, collecting data at varied services such as shelters,

health and social services, soup kitchens, thrift stores and drop-in centres captures nearly all of the

urban homeless population (90% to 95%). Peressini et al. (1996) noted that, since the late 1980s,

there has been a tendency to utilize a variation of the service-based methodology in most studies

involving counts of homeless people.

The study in Cochrane sought to include all agencies and programs in the city that provide services

to people experiencing forms of homelessness because it has the potential to capture most of the

population. The current study draws on the same methodology used in nine studies conducted on

homelessness in Sudbury (2000-2009), in the one in Timmins (2011) and the one in North Bay

(2011). In Cochrane, service providers were asked to provide the information on homeless people

using their services during a one-week period of the study in July 2013. They collected this

information from clients who consented to provide it.

In addition, in Hearst (2011), Moosonee (2012) and Cochrane (2013), a door-to-door community

survey was conducted simultaneously with the agency period prevalence count. The use of the same

methodology allows for the examination of basic trends in homelessness.

The data collection instrument used in conducting the unduplicated count was designed to gather

the same information as in the prior studies in Northern Ontario, but was refined to improve

recording procedures and to gather some additional data. The data collection instrument

differentiated between people who were absolutely homeless and those who were at high risk of

homelessness and collected information on background characteristics, receipt of income support,

4


and the main reasons for homelessness. In addition, the questionnaire gathered information about

the physical and mental health problems experienced by homeless people, as well as migration

patterns. The project was approved by Laurentian University's Research Ethics Board.

Overview

This report describes the following:

• the number of people who were homeless in Cochrane, including those who were

absolutely homeless;

• breakdowns on background characteristics including children, youth, women, men,

subgroups in the population (i.e. those of Anglo/European origins, Indigenous people,

and Francophones);

• sources of income;

• reasons for homelessness; and

• trends in referral of homeless people.

METHODOLOGY

Approach to the Study

In order to provide accurate data and estimates that reflect the extent of homelessness in the

community, our methodology consequently utilized a service-based method, extended to a full week

of data collection in order to maximize the number of people included in the study. The agency

survey and extended door-to-door survey was conducted from 16 July to 2 August 2013. The

service-based survey at local agencies began on 27 July. The study focussed on obtaining a count

of the homeless population using agencies such as emergency shelter, health and social service

agencies, and other services supporting this population in Cochrane as well as gathering information

on their characteristics, reasons for homelessness and migration patterns.

Period Prevalence “Count” or Census of the Homeless Population

A preliminary list of providers was developed and then expanded through consultations with local

organizations in order to ensure that organizations serving this population would be invited to

participate. Searches were conducted to identify and locate additional services such as food banks.

5


Using the internet, telephone directories and the network of identified service providers, a list of 11

services was generated. A letter explaining the objectives of the study and the need for participation

from all providers was delivered to the agencies along with a copy of the data collection instrument

to be used for the count. Every provider was subsequently contacted by telephone in order to set a

date and time for a meeting to review the information to be collected in the study and to determine

how the data could be collected from each agency.

We worked with local service providers in order to obtain an accurate snapshot of the homeless

population during a one-week period. Given the inherent difficulties in studying homeless people,

as noted above, it must be recognized that any count will produce an under-estimate of the total

homeless population. Nevertheless, by securing the participation of a majority of the service

providers in Cochrane, combined with a door-to-door community survey, a reasonable estimate was

obtained.

The data collection instrument consisted of a questionnaire for collecting information from each

homeless person (see explanation in the following section).

The Service-Based Count

By gathering detailed information about each individual accessing services in the shelter and allied

services for seven consecutive days, we were able to identify the number of repeat service users and

unique cases. Continuing the data collection for a one-week period captures a more accurate “snap-

shot” of the homeless population. Including the service providers in the study reduced the

intrusiveness for some who preferred to complete the survey with a service provider.

However, due to limited staff resources available to perform this task and service pressures for some

agencies, PHM research assistants collected data at some agency locations. The research staff

received training in all aspects of data collection, with an emphasis on ethical issues such as

confidentiality; the research assistants were closely supervised to ensure that the study protocols

were followed. The research team included Francophone, Anglophone and Indigenous people. An

Indigenous staff person spoke Cree fluently and he provided translation services for two participants.

The team of research assistants collected data both within agency settings and within the

community-based door-to-door survey.

The methodology used in this study was designed to obtain an unduplicated count of the homeless

population in Cochrane. The data collection was operationalized by using a questionnaire that

allowed us to gather information about each one of the homeless people using the service. Some

6


individuals did not want to provide information about themselves, however, the PHM staff person

who supervised the data collection observed that the majority of people using services were willing

to participate. The following excerpts from field notes indicate some of the reasons why the count

may underestimate the extent of homelessness; they also show why some people opted not to

participate in the study while others were pleased to have an opportunity to share their experiences

and views.

One of the participating organizations is a multi-service agency. Some services are

accessed directly at the agency while others are accessed in locations away from the

agency. Some employees did not bring copies of the survey instruments when they

met clients outside of the office.

The staff noticed many refusals throughout the day at one service location, mostly

due to the fact that people were in a rush.

One of the research assistants is also a volunteer at a local service organization and

was well known by both staff and people who accessed services. Her presence

greatly benefited the project, making everyone more at ease.

Hence, while the method is appropriate and captures most of the homeless population, it is likely

that the results provide a conservative estimate of the extent of homelessness in Cochrane. In

addition, some agencies did not participate in the study which may impact on the results. For

example, a key agency was closed for vacation during the week of the study. However it is also

possible that, for example, some of the same people utilize the services of non-participating agencies

and participating agencies, thereby enabling them to be included in the study.

Questionnaire

The data collection tool was designed to obtain information providing a valid, unduplicated count

of the homeless population without raising concerns about violating the privacy rights of individuals

using services. The data collection tool utilized was originally adapted from the Automated National

Client-specific Homeless services Recording System (ANCHoR). The ANCHoR recording system

is an information system designed to support the coordination of services to the homeless. It was

designed to collect basic socio-demographic information about the consumers using the services,

including the first, middle, and last initials, date of birth, gender, ethnicity/race or cultural group,

linguistic orientation, marital status, date of entry or use of services and referral (Peressini,

McDonald and Hulchanski; 1996). We also gathered information on employment, education, welfare

7


status and income, reasons for homelessness, physical and mental health, history of homelessness

and migration patterns.

Door-to-Door Survey— Sampling Strategy

Maps of the town were provided by the Town of Cochrane; regions within each of these maps were

numerically sectioned and assigned to the teams working on the community survey. In our studies

of homelessness in Sudbury, low income neighbourhoods were over-sampled in order to better

ensure that data were collected from people who were among the hidden homeless. Many of

Cochrane’s neighbourhoods contain a mix of older and newer homes. It was not always possible to

identify low income areas. However, two trailer parks outside the town were included. Social

housing units and the downtown area were over-sampled.

In order to obtain a systematic sample, research assistants knocked on the door of every fourth

home. A tracking system was used to return to any address up to three times in instances where no

one answered the door. Low income neighbourhoods were over-sampled (every door) because of

the higher risk of homelessness in these areas.

Sixteen research assistants were trained to gather data and the door-to-door survey was conducted

between July 16th to August 2nd. When sampling a section, the researchers were paired together to

form teams of two. The teams selected every third street and knocked at every fourth door on the

street. All areas of Cochrane were included in the study and a systematic sample of households was

obtained.

RESULTS

Unduplicated Count of Homeless People

The data collection instrument provides for the identification of unduplicated cases. An unduplicated

count was obtained by examining the first, middle, and last initials as well as the date of birth and

gender; individuals with identical information were considered to be the same person and the

duplicated information was eliminated from further analysis. Most individuals provided all of the

information required to identify duplicate cases.

8


The raw numbers (duplicated and unduplicated cases) from the count of homeless people, conducted

by service providers and the door-to-door survey, indicated that there were 653 participants. This

number included 4 duplicate cases which were removed from the analysis. The number of different

individuals participating in the study was 649. More than two-thirds (69%, n=450) of the

participants were in the door-to-door survey while close to a third (31%, n=199) completed the

questionnaire as part of the agency period prevalence count.

The homeless population of 313 individuals included 174 adults and 139 children. In addition, it

should be noted that parents using services identified three dependent children who were over the

age of 20. In the current study; we used the age of 20 as the cut-off to define dependent children.

Thus, the analysis of the background information indicated that there were 313 different individuals

who were homeless during the week of the study and used the services of an agency or participated

in the study through the door-to-door survey. The homeless persons who participated in the study

included 47 absolutely homeless—including 30 children—and 266 persons at high risk of becoming

homeless. Those absolutely without housing constituted a sixth (15%) of the homeless people

identified by the participating agencies or in the door-to-door survey. Most of the homeless

participants were in the category of people experiencing extreme poverty and high risk of

homelessness (see Figure 1).

9


Socio-Demographic and Health Profile of Homeless Persons in Cochrane:

Characteristics of the Total Homeless Population

Table 1 provides a socio-demographic profile of the homeless persons in the sample and shows that

women and girls comprised a slight majority of the homeless persons (53% females versus 47%

males). One participant had a transgender child and another did not know the gender of the child she

was expecting.

Table 1: Characteristics of homeless people

N %

Gender

Female 157 53

Male 144 47

Groups:

Anglophone/European 76 44.7

Francophone/European 23 13.5

Indigenous/First Nations 70 41.2

When taking into account the age groups of men and women, several studies in Sudbury have shown

that there was a gender difference in homelessness among adults. An examination of the average

(mean) age of homeless men and women had indicated that there was a significant gender difference

in the age of homeless people in Sudbury, wherein the average age of women was consistently lower

compared to men. This was not the case in the Cochrane study. The average age of adolescents or

women using services (over 15) was 47—the same as the average age for the men. At 47, the

average age of the men and women experiencing homelessness in Cochrane was higher than was

found in our study in Timmins in 2011, where the average age was 43. It is worth noting that two

young people under the age of majority (18 in Ontario) were accessing services and participated in

the study.

With regard to the self identification of Indigenous heritage or linguistic/cultural backgrounds

(Anglophone or Francophone), most homeless people reported that they were Anglophones or

Francophones of European origins, compared with visible minorities or Indigenous (see Table 1).

10


However, it is important to note that Indigenous people are greatly over-represented amongst

homeless people; they made up well over a third (41.2%) of the homeless population. According to

Statistics Canada (2011), the 2011 census data have indicated that the Indigenous people, including

North American Indigenous and Metis, made up 19% of the population in Cochrane. Indigenous

people were over-represented in the homeless population by a factor greater than two (2.42).

In contrast to Indigenous people, while French-speaking people were also a minority in the

population, they were greatly under-represented amongst homeless people (13.5%) compared to

their proportion in the general population of Cochrane. Francophones comprised 37.5% of the total

population, according to the 2011 Census (Statistics Canada, 2012). The number of homeless people

who were members of visible minority groups was extremely small (not shown). This finding

reflects the small proportion of people from visible/racialized minorities in the local population (.4%

according to the 2011 Census).

The overall age distribution2 of homeless people showed that the range was from early infancy to

age 91 (Table 2). There were many children under 10 years old among the homeless population

(22.7% of the homeless). Moreover, young people aged 10 to 19 also represented a substantial

proportion of the homeless, at 24.3%. Relatively few people aged 60 and older were identified

among the homeless population (12.9%), but this proportion was higher than we found in Timmins

(8.5%). Thus, a substantial proportion of homeless people were adults between 20 and 59 years of

age (44.1%) but close to half were infants, children or adolescents (46.9%). When infants, children,

adolescents and women are combined, they comprised over three-quarters of the total homeless

population (77.2%).

2 Numbers and percentages are based on available data for gender (n=301), age ofparticipants and their children (n=309) and cultural group of participants (n=170) ; missing data arewithin accepted parameters.

11


Table 2: Age of homeless people

Age N %

0 - 4 41 17.6

5 - 9 29 9.1

10 - 14 37 9.8

15 - 19 38 7.9

20 - 24 12 5.7

25 - 29 9 5.5

30 - 34 15 6.8

35 - 39 16 5.4

40 - 44 12 5.8

45 - 49 24 6.1

50 - 54 20 6.7

55 - 59 16 5.1

60 + 40 2.2

Receipt of social support/welfare benefits and sources of income

The main source of financial support received from government sources was the Canada Pension

Plan and Old Age Security as reported by a quarter of the participants (see Table 3). Secondly, over

a fifth (21.9%) of the participants stated that they were receiving income support from the Ontario

Disabilities Support Program (ODSP). The third largest source of income was employment, cited

by 11% of homeless people. Employment income included sources such as part-time, seasonal,

temporary or self-employment. The next main source of financial support was Ontario Works

(9.7%) followed by employment Insurance (EI) or WSIB as reported by 7.5%. Other sources of

income came from a variety of non governmental support such as private pension plans or financial

support from family members as well as some types of government programs such as funding for

war veterans or the child tax credit.

Further analysis of the sources of income indicates that the overall proportion of homeless people

not reporting the receipt of any income was approximately 12 percent. Those reporting that they had

12


no income were between the ages of 17 and 77. However, a larger proportion of young people (17

to 24) indicated that they were not receiving any type of income support (30%) compared to other

age groups (e.g. 15% for 25 to34 year olds and 22% for 35 to 44 year olds).

Table 3: Sources of income for homeless people

Sources of Income N %

Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security 55 24.1

Ontario Disabilities Support Program 50 21.9

No income 29 12.7

Employment including part time and seasonal 26 11.5

Ontario Works 22 9.7

Employment Insurance or WSIB 16 7.0

Other (private pension, War Veterans

Allowance, support from family, sale of

personal assets)

30 13.1

Results are based on multiple responses as some participants reported more

than one source of income. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

error.

Marital/family status

The findings of the study reinforce those of our previous studies on homelessness in northeastern

Ontario indicating that the majority of homeless people are single/unattached or divorced/widowed

(see Table 4). Less than a third of those in the study reported that they were married or in a common

law relationship.

13


Table 4: Marital status for homeless people

Marital status N %

Single 80 46.0

Married/common law 56 32.2

Divorced/Widowed 38 21.8

Reasons for homelessness

Table 5 summarizes the main reasons for homelessness in Cochrane.The participants were asked

to identify all relevant reasons for homelessness; thus, the number of responses is larger than the

number of participants. The single reason for homelessness that was cited most oftern was physical

or mental illness. Physical illness was mentioned most often (59 individuals), while fewer stated that

the reason for homelessness was mental illness (11).

Taken together, the central reasons stem from the structural/systemic problems of unemployment,

problems with social assistance, and the lack of affordable housing (58%). These issues accounted

for the largest proportion of homelessness from the perspectives of the participants. In providing

reasons for homelessness, the largest number of people indicated that they could not find work or

an adequate level of employment. Thus unemployment, underemployment, lay-off or seasonal work

(n=29), as well as low wages or lack of money (n=29) were identified as among the central reasons

for homelessness.

Secondly, a substantial proportion of homeless people cited problems with social assistance. They

mentioned that social assistance payments were inadequate to live on (n=15), that they did not

qualify for benefits (n=7), that their benefits had been cut (n=7) or that their payments from social

assistance were late (n=2).

With regard to the third set of reasons for homelessness, housing problems, 27 individuals reported

that they were unable to pay their rent (or in a few cases, a mortgage, maintenance or utilities) while

another 13 people had been evicted from their homes and a few others were staying temporarily with

others. Participants stated that they were having problems with the landlord, family members,

neighbours, former partners, or that they could not obtain suitable or affordable housing.

14


Table 5: Main reasons for homelessness

Reasons for homelessnessa N %

Illness or mental illness 69 29.9

Problems with work

• Unemployment

• Seeking work

• Low wages

• No money

58 25.1

Problems with housing

• Unable to pay rent or mortgage

• Evicted or kicked out

• Housing not adequate

45 19.5

Problems with social assistance

• Welfare not adequate/late

• Social assistance cut

• Waiting for disability pension

• Does not qualify for OW

31 13.4

Domestic violence and family issues (including divorce) 14 6.1

Substance use 6 2.5

Out of jail 3 1.3

Travelling/transient/relocated, transferred or moving 2 0.9

Other 3 1.3

Total responses 231 100

a Results are based on multiple responses. Percentages may not sum to

100 due to rounding error.

Family problems, including domestic violence and divorce, were reasons cited by 6 percent of the

participants. In most cases a general response indicating “family issues” was given. Divorce or

separation was reported by 6 individuals as being directly linked to their homelessness.

15


Substance use was reported as a cause of homelessness by a few individuals (6) in the study. Finally,

the number of people citing release from jail (n=3) or transience, relocation, or moving (n=2) was

relatively small (about 7%). The reasons included in “other” were not unimportant even though they

were not mentioned by many people. They pertained to stereotyping and racism against Indigenous

people, being in temporary care (i.e., child welfare), and housing rules and regulations that were

barriers to obtaining housing.

Reasons for homelessness by gender and cultural group background

Boxes 1 and 2 list, in order of importance, the main reasons for homelessness among subgroups

based on gender and background (Anglophone, Francophone or Indigenous). The results reinforce

the view that there are more commonalities than differences in the main reasons for homelessness

among the various subgroups.

Structural problems were cited as the main reason for homelessness by all subgroups of homeless

people. Without exception, all of these subgroups reported unemployment, problems with social

assistance and problems with housing as being among the main reasons for homelessness. The order

of reasons given, based on the number of participants citing each reason, was identical for men and

women. However, illness and problems with social assistance were cited by larger proportions of

women than men.

Problems with obtaining, retaining or paying for housing were identified more often by Indigenous

people than by Anglophones and Francophones. Some individuals specifically mentioned that

stereotyping and discrimination against Indigenous people was an issue when seeking housing or

employment. The relative importance of physical or mental illness compared to other reasons listed

in the top five was more prominent amongst Anglophones. Illness was the second issue cited by

Francophones and the third issue mentioned by Indigenous people. Men and women as well as all

three cultural groups cited unemployment as a key issue and it was within the top two reasons given

for homelessness.

Problems with social assistance were mentioned as a slightly more prominent issue amongst

Francophphones compared with the other groups shown in Boxes 1 and 2. However, all groups

mentioned this as an issue.

16


Box 1: Main reasons for homelessness by gender

Men

(adults)

Women

(adults)

Physical or mental illness

Unemployment/seeking work

Housing issues/inability to pay

rent/mortgage





Housing issues/inability to pay rent/mortgage



Box 2: Main reasons for homelessness

among Anglophones, Francophones and Indigenous People

Anglophones Francophones Indigenous



Housing issues/inability to

pay rent/mortgage

Problems with social

assistance

Family issues/domestic

violence/divorce




assistance


pay rent/mortgage


violence/divorce


pay rent/mortgage




assistance


violence/divorce

Referrals to Other Services

Most of the study participants stated that they had not been referred to services to assist with their

living circumstances (see Figure 2). Less than a third reported that they had been referred (31%).

Among those who were referred, the largest number were directed to government income support

programs such as Ontario Works, Ontario Disabilities Support Program, Employment Insurance,

Canada Pension Plan or student loans (n=20, 38%). Participants had also been referred to area food

17


banks (17%) or to health services (17%). A small number (n=6) stated that they were given

information about services for Indigenous people. Only two individuals were referred to shelter or

housing services. Other participants were directed to child welfare, counselling or employment

training.

Absolute Homelessness

Four of the agencies/services that participated in the survey identified one or more absolutely

homeless people. The agencies included the food bank, services for housing or shelter, Aboriginal

people, and social services. However, most absolutely homeless people (53%) completed

questionnaires through the door-to-door survey.

Table 6 compares the characteristics of the adult homeless (i.e. over age 17) who were absolutely

without housing in the study. The age groups for dependent children/adolescents are also shown.

The analysis indicated that there were significantly more men than women among those who were

absolutely homeless (60.9% men versus 39.1% women). Comparing the proportions of

Anglophones, Francophones and Indigenous people within the general population and in the study,

the results indicate that Anglophones and Francophones of European origins were under-

represented, while Indigenous people were greatly over-represented (nearly two-thirds of those

absolutely without housing). Absolutely homeless Indigenous people included those who self-

identified as First Nations, Cree or Ojibway.

18


Table 6: Characteristics of absolutely homeless people

N %

Gender:

Female 18 39.1

Male 28 60.9

Groups

Indigenous 11 68.8

Anglophone 4 25.0

Francophone 1 6.3

Age (including dependent children)

0 - 4 4 8.9

5 - 9 9 20.0

10 - 14 8 17.8

15 - 19 8 17.8

20 - 24 1 2.2

25 - 29 2 4.4

30 - 34 2 2.2

35 - 39 3 6.6

40 - 44 1 2.2

45 - 49 4 8.9

50 - 54 1 2.2

55 - 59 0 0

60 + 2 4.4

Missing data are within accepted parameters. May not

sum to 100 due to rounding error.

The analysis of age includes children in order to provide for an overview of the full age range of this

population. The range amongst the participants was 17 to 67 and the dependents ranged in age from

19


0 to 19. The absolutely homeless included 30 children (the age was missing for one child and one

adult participant).

The absolutely homeless group included 17 children under age 12 (37.7% of absolutely homeless

persons). In addition, 11 adolescents aged 13 to 19 were absolutely homeless (24% of this

subsample). It is remarkable that children and youth up to the age of 19 constitute approximately

64% of the absolutely homeless population in Cochrane. Furthermore, women, children and youth

represent over three-quarters (77.7%) of the absolutely homeless population.

Along with the large proportion of homeless children and youth, over one-third (35.6%) of the

absolutely homeless people were adults aged 20 and over. Two older adults, above age 60, were

among those absolutely without housing.

With regard to family status, nearly three-quarters (70.6%) of those who were absolutely homeless

were single/unattached individuals while, additionally, 17.6% were divorced, separated or widowed

(see Figure 2). Only two individuals among those who were absolutely homeless were in marital or

cohabiting relationships.

Table 7 shows the sources of income for those who were absolutely homeless. Well over a third

indicated that they had no source of income. The main sources of income were Ontario Works or

20


Ontario Disabilities Support Program; these types of government support were received by over a

third (35.2%). Only two individuals were receiving employment income and two were receiving

retirement benefits from CPP or from a private pension.

Table 7 : Sources of income for absolutely homeless people

Sources of Income N %

No income 7 41.2

Ontario Works 3 17.6

ODSP 3 17.6

Employment 2 11.8

CPP 1 5.9

OAS – –

Other (private pension) 1 5.9

Reasons for absolute homelessness

As noted above, the questionnaire allowed participants to indicate multiple reasons for

homelessness. Therefore, the number of responses is greater than the number of participants

(dependent children are not included in this analysis). The main reasons for absolute homelessness

were based on the perceptions of the homeless individuals, which are listed in Table 8.

21


Table 8: Main reasons for absolute homelessness

Reasons for homelessnessa N %

Problems with work

• Unemployment

• Seeking work

• Low wages

• No money

17 34.6

Problems with housing

• Unable to pay rent or mortgage

• Evicted or kicked out

• Housing not adequate

10 20.4

Illness or mental illness 7 14.3


• Welfare not adequate/late

• Social assistance cut

• Waiting for disability pension

• Does not qualify for OW

6 12.2

Domestic violence and family issues (including divorce) 3 6.1

Substance use 3 6.1

Out of jail 1 2.0

Travelling/transient, relocated, transferred or moving 1 2.0

Other 1 2.0

Total responses 49 100

a Results are based on multiple responses. Percentages may not sum to

100 due to rounding error.

As was noted above with regard to the total homeless sample, when viewed as a whole, structural

problems such as unemployment, lack of access to social assistance, poverty and lack of affordable

22


housing were the primary causes of absolute homelessness in Cochrane. These structural or systemic

issues accounted for 67.2% of the reasons given by people who were absolutely homeless.

Most absolutely homeless people indicated that the main explanation for their circumstances was

because they were unemployed and could not obtain employment (n=17).The inability to pay rent

was the second issue, accounting for a fifth of the reasons given (20.4%). This issue is also

interrelated with poverty, low wages and the lack of availability of affordable housing. Three people

had become homeless because of eviction.

Close to a sixth of the responses indicated physical or mental illness as reasons for homelessness.

Five individuals cited physical illness or disability and two reported mental illness. It was reported

in Table 5 above that three participants were receiving financial support from ODSP. The data

indicate that some people who self-reported illnesses as reasons for absolute homelessness were not

receiving income from this program. This is consistent with the reports of problems with income

security programs, notably Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disabilities Support Program (ODSP);

these programs were linked to homelessness as indicated in 12.2% of the responses. These people

reported that they were absolutely homeless because they were deemed to be ineligible for social

assistance benefits, their benefits were late or cut, or were they were simply inadequate to live on.

Domestic violence and other family issues, including divorce or separation were also cited as causes

of homelessness. These categories accounted for six percent of the responses regarding reasons for

absolute homelessness. A few of the participants in the study reported other issues as reasons for

absolute homelessness. Substance use, release from jail or moving were cited. The issue of

stereotyping and discrimination against Indigenous people was also mentioned.

Referrals to Other Services

Most absolutely homeless people stated that they had not been referred to other services in

Cochrane. Just over a third (35%) were reportedly referred to other service providers to assist them

with the problems they were experiencing. The types of referrals mentioned were for housing or

shelter, food bank or employment training. However, the vast majority indicated that they had not

been referred to other services (65%).

23


CONCLUSIONS

Most studies of homelessness have been conducted in urban centres (Goering, Velduizen, Watson,

Adair, Kopp, Latimer, Nelson, MacNaughton, Streiner & Aubrey, 2014). Within Ontario,

considerable research has originated within cities such as Toronto, Ottawa or London. The current

study of homelessness in Cochrane provides new information about this issue within a samller

northern town. The results show that, in many ways, the phenomenon of the new homelessness (Lee,

Tyler, & Wright, 2010) is present in northeastern Ontario. The face of the new homelessness reflects

the strong presence of women and children among homeless populations. The old stereotype of the

single homeless male offers an inaccurate perspective on the nature of homelessness in the present.

The current study of homelessness in Cochrane has shown that a large majority of homeless people

in the town are infants, children, adolescents or women, with less than a quarter being men. The

primary reasons for their living circumstances centre on matters over which they had little control

such as becoming ill and experiencing problems with work, housing or social assistance. Cronley

(2010) has argued that, within the American context, a central barrier to addressing the underlying

structural problems has been a lack of political will to implement public policies that can tackle the

serious systemic issues of low wages, limited employment opportunties for people living with

poverty and low educational attainment and the lack of decent, affordable housing. Canadian

research has also pointed towards the need to make policy changes that will reverse the trend toward

rising poverty and homelessness (Forchuk, Csiernik & Jensen, 2011).

24


The current study has also revealed the strong presence of Indigenous people amongst those who

are homeless in Cochrane. At 41percent of the total homeless population, the proportion is high;

however, the indication that they comprise 69 percent of those who were absolutely homeless is

startling and stands out as an area that must be addressed. The location of Cochrane as the rail link

to the James Bay may be a factor contributing to the presence of Indigenous people amongst those

who are homeless in Cochrane. There is an urgent need for culturally appropriate approaches to

mitigate against factors that lead to adverse outcomes for Indigenous people who migrate to towns

and cities in search of employment, housing, education and services. It is also possible that this

study has underestimated the number of homeless Indigenous people in Cochrane, as Thurston,

Oelke & Turner (2013) have recently asserted that under-counting is a troubling issue in research

on urban Indigenous homelessness.

An issue for further research pertains to the average age of the homeless population in Cochrane.

The findings of this study revealed the presence of older adults amongst homeless people in larger

numbers than may have been expected. This is an area for further research as it may indicate the

increasing vulnerability of older people to extreme poverty and homelessness within the current

context of rising costs of living.

25


RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations shown in Table 9 are based on the research conducted in Cochrane. They also

draw upon best practices set out in numerous publications and upon the recommendations developed

in period prevalence counts that we have previously conducted in Sudbury, Moosonee, North Bay,

Timmins and Hearst. A community forum was held in Cochrane on 19 February 2015 and the

results of the report were presented along with the recommendations. The 18 participants of the

forum were invited to review the recommendations, revise them or put forward additional

recommendations. The participants were then invited to vote on their top five recommendations.

Each participant was provided with a list of the recommendations and asked to list his or her

priorities by ranking them from one to five. The recommendation ranked in first place received five

points and the last place recommendation one point. The intervening recommendations received

points according to their ranking. The individual sheets were collected from the participants and the

total points for each recommendation were summed. In Table 9, the recommendations have been

rank ordered by score.

The participants collectively endorsed 28 recommendations as relevant for Cochrane. The top five

recommendations focus on addressing the lack of affordable housing, addressing food security,

assisting shelters and developing long-term strategies for addressing housing. Local action on these

recommendations can help to ensure that the pressing needs of poor and homeless people are met

and that they are supported effectively in obtaining and retaining housing. A goal of this research

is to facilitate the implementation of the top priorities identified by the community of Cochrane.

Table 9: Results of the community forum—20 February 2015

Rank Recommendation Score

1Remedy the Lack of Affordable Housing—Develop new public housing

initiatives (i.e. the creation of subsidized housing units). 58

2

Address Food Security—Develop standards around food security to ensure that

near homeless and absolutely homeless people have access to nutritious food

supplies. For example, the needs for food security are not met when clients can

only access food banks once per month and when homeless people are not

permitted to use food banks due to the requirement to produce proof of

residence.

31

26



3Assist Shelters—Provide sustainable funding for shelters and beds for homeless

people to ensure that there are adequate numbers of shelter beds available.21

4

Assist Shelters—Redesign the system of emergency services to reflect the

characteristics of the homeless populations using them (e.g., more women,

children, Indigenous people, etc.).

17

4

Develop Long-Term Strategies for Addressing Housing—Conduct a series of

community forums to ensure that service providers and other community

partners have opportunities to meet, exchange information about needs and local

services, and resolve conflicting program requirements. For example, Ontario

Works and Children's Aid Society have conflicting policies for women who are

attempting to regain custody of their children) i.e. OW benefits are often

provided for a single person while the CAS may require women to demonstrate

that they can provide adequate food and shelter for their children

17

6

Address Cultural Issues, Racism and Social Exclusion—Take steps to address

racism as a cause of homelessness to ensure that Indigenous people can obtain

rental housing and gain access to services.

13

6

Develop Long-Term Strategies for Addressing Housing—Develop local,

provincial, and national initiatives to address the structural problems of lack of

access to education, unemployment, lack of jobs, and low wages for vulnerable

groups.

13

8

Enhance Services—Provide resources to shelters and soup kitchens to enable

the provision of comprehensive services and to work with individual clients in

order to coordinate services. Taylor Gaubatz (2001) has outlined the

requirements of comprehensive housing and service programs for homeless

people. These include the provision of clean, safe housing, professional

counselling, housing support services, medical care and mental health services,

income support, literacy and job skills training, job placement, education, day

care and respite care, and drug and alcohol treatment.Take steps to address

racism as a cause of homelessness to ensure that Aboriginal people can obtain

rental housing.

12

9Enhance Services—Provide sufficient funding to agencies serving homeless

people to ensure that adequate staffing is available to meet the needs of clients.10

9 Enhance Services—Enhance services in the areas of greatest need such as 10

27



housing and income security, counselling, healthcare, mental health services and

dental care, employment services, transportation and addictions.

11

Address the Lack of Affordable Housing—Educate landlords in order to reduce

discrimination against key groups (e.g., people with mental illness, battered

women, and Indigenous persons).

8

12

Enhance Services—Develop training materials documenting effective strategies

for working with the most marginalized groups of people (e.g., people with

addictions and serious mental illness) and ensure that these groups are not

barred from access to services.

7

12

Support People with Mental Illness—Provide more community-based services

to people with mental illness in order to prevent periodic or chronic

homelessness.

7

14

Assist Shelters—Establish standards for emergency shelters (e.g., in an

evaluation tool) to ensure that homeless people are not exposed to further stress

from over-crowding in shelters, or overly rigid shelter regulations.

5

14Address the Lack of Affordable Housing—Develop affordable housing with

supports.5

16

Assist Shelters—Extend the length of time that clients may stay in shelters to

provide sufficient time for homeless people to become connected to services and

housing support systems.

4

16

Address Violence and Abuse—Increase funding for outreach and prevention

programs to address domestic violence and abuse among all age groups,

including seniors.

4

16

Address Public Education—Develop materials to educate service providers and

the general public about the complex individual and structural causes of

homelessness, including the high prevalence of victimization and trauma among

homeless persons.

4

16Address the Lack of Affordable Housing—Provide or enhance moving

allowances.4

20

Address Violence and Abuse—Given the primacy of domestic violence and

other family issues as causes of homelessness, especially for women, provide

more funding support for services to address trauma.

3

28



21

Address Cultural Issues, Racism and Social Exclusion—Work with

Indigenous communities to develop strategies for supporting Indigenouss who

move from their First Nations communities into urban centres. Culturally

appropriate services must be developed to assist with basic needs, education,

and employment.

3

22Address Violence and Abuse—Develop programs so that they address trauma

and reduce further exposure to abuse and violence on the streets.2

22Address the Geared-to-Income Waitlist—Redefine the criteria for homelessness

in order to be prioritised on the geared-to-income waitlist.2

24

Collect Local Information on Homelessness on an Ongoing Basis—Sustain

local working relationships between the university, local planning bodies, and

local agencies to ensure that there is an ongoing process for the collection of

data on people who are homeless.

1

24Address Ontario Works Criteria—Provide more supports to enable individuals

to meet the Ontario Works requirements and criteria.1

–

Address Migration—Work with various levels of government to recognize the

medium-sized urban centres that are destination points for people leaving small,

rural, and remote communities in search of work or services. Enhance the

emergency service systems to deal with the needs of those who become

homeless as a result of relocation.

–

–Address Cultural Issues, Racism and Social Exclusion—Develop linguistically

and culturally appropriate emergency services for Indigenous people.–

–

Address Cultural Issues, Racism and Social Exclusion—Develop strategies for

ensuring that Indigenous people moving to urban communities can be connected

to varied services.

–

29


REFERENCES

Begin, P., Casavant, L., Miller Chenier, N., Dupuis, J. (1999). Homelessness. ParliamentaryResearch Branch. Ottawa: Library of Parliament.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2000). Public Opinion Survey of Canadians’ AttitudesToward Homelessness. http//www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/rd-dr/en/hmls-snsbri/e_public.html

Caputo, T., Wiler, R., & Anderson, J. (1997). The Street Lifestyle Study. Minister of Public Worksand Government Services Canada. Cat. No. H39-382/1997E

Casavant, L. (1999). Counting the Homeless. Political and Social Affairs Division, ParliamentaryResearch Branch, Government of Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/modules/prb99-1-homelessness/counting-e.htm

City of Toronto (2001). Toronto Report Card on Homelessness 2001. http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/housing/index.htm

Counting Homelessness—Guidelines for a Standardized Method for BC Communities (2010).Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Labour and Citizen’s Services, Office of the Chief InformationOfficer, Policy and Practice Branch.

Cox, G., Walker, D., Freng, S., Short, B., Meijer, L., & Gilchrist, L. (1998). Outcome of aControlled Trial of the Effectiveness of Intensive Case Management for Chronic PublicInebriates. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 59 (5), p. 523-533.

Cronley, C. (2010). Unraveling the Social Construction of Homelessness. Journal of HumanBehaviour in the Social Environment, 20, p. 319-333.

Culhans, D. (1992). Ending Homelessness Among Women with Severe Mental Illness: A ModelProgram from Philadelphia. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 16 (1), p. 63.

Echenberg, H. (1998). Income Security and Support for Persons with Disabilities: FutureDirections. Research Paper no. 14. Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress.

Forchuk, C., Csierkik, R. & Jensen, E. (2011). Homelessness, Housing and Mental Health: FindingTruths—Creating Change. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., & Vaillancourt, B. (1999). Making Money: The Shout Clinic Report onHomeless Youth and Unemployment. Toronto: Central Toronto Community Health Clinics.

30


Goering, Paula, Scott Veldhuizen, Aimee Watson, Carol Adair, Brianna Kopp, Eric Latimer, GeoffNelson, Eric MacNaughton, David Streiner & Tim Aubry. 2014. National At Home/Chez SoiFinal Report. Calgary, AB: Mental Health Commission of Canada. http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/node/24376

Golden, S. (1992). The Women Outside: Meanings and Myths of Homelessness. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1998). Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Hodgson, M. (1992). Rebuilding Community after the Residential School Experience. In Engelstad,D., & Bird, J. (eds.), Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada.Toronto: Irwin Publishing.

Human Resources Development Canada (2001). Labour Market Review: Sudbury and Manitoulin.http://www.on.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/sudbury/lmi/reports/newsletters/aug01.htm

Hulchanski, D. (2000). Did the Weather Cause Canada’s Mass Homelessness? Homeless MakingProcesses and Homeless Makers. Toronto Disaster Relief Committee. http//www.tao.ca/~tdrc/

Lee, B., Tyler, K. & Wright, D. (2010). The New Homelessness Revisited. Annual Review ofSociology, 36, p. 501-521.

Peressini, T., McDonald, L. and Hulchanski, D. (2010). Towards a Strategy for Counting theHomeless. In: Hulchanski, J. David; Campsie, Philippa; Chau, Shirley; Hwang, Stephen;Paradis, Emily (eds.) Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness inCanada (e-book), Chapter 8.3. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.www.homelesshub.ca/FindingHome

Hwang, S. (2001). Homelessness and Health. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 164 (2),p. 229-233.

Maclean’s. (2002). Homelessness: Down and Out in Toronto and Vancouver. October 7, 2002, p.14.

Novac, S., Brown, J., & Bourbonnais, C. (1996). No Room of Her Own: A Literature Review onWomen and Homelessness. Ottawa: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Novac, S., Brown, J., & Gallant, G. (1999). Women on the Rough Edge: A Decade of Change forLong-Term Homeless Women. Ottawa: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

31


Novac, S., Serve, L., Eberle, M., & Brown, J. (2002). On Her Own: Young Women andHomelessness in Canada. Ottawa: Research Directorate, Status of Women Canada.

Ontario Weather Page. (2001). Weather Archives Database for Sudbury Airport, January, 2001.www.ontarioweather.com/analysis/ontarioresults.asp

Ontario Works. (2001). Calculating Assistance: Directive 29.0. Ministry of Community and SocialServices. http://www.gov.on.ca:80/CSS/page/brochure/policy/policy.html

O’Reilly-Fleming, T. (1993). Down and Out in Canada: Homeless Canadians. Toronto: CanadianScholars’ Press.

Ottawa Inner City Health Project. (2001). Research on Homelessness and Health.http://www.travel-net.com/~billr/stmore/hospice.html

Peressini, T., McDonald, L., & Hulchanski, D. (1996). Estimating Homelessness: Towards aMethodology for Counting the Homeless in Canada. Canada Mortgage and HousingCorporation. Ottawa, Ontario.

Public Health Research, Education & Development Program (2000). Report on the Health Statusof the Residents of Ontario. http://www.opha.on.ca/specialreports/

Statistics Canada. 2012. Cochrane, Ontario (Code 0192) and Ontario (Code 35) (table). CensusProfile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. ReleasedOctober 24, 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Statistics Canada. 2013. Cochrane, T, Ontario (Code 3556042) (table). National Household Survey(NHS) Profile. 2011 National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.99-004-XWE. Ottawa. Released September 11, 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Statistics Canada (2003). Aboriginal Identity Population, 2001 Counts, for Canada, Provinces,Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas, and Census Agglomerations - 20% Sample Data.http://www12.statcan.ca/english.cens...artRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Counts01&B2=Total

Statistics Canada (2003). Mother Tongue, 2001 Counts for Both Sexes, for Canada, Provinces,Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas, and Census Agglomerations - 20% Sample Data.http://www12.statcan.ca/english.cens...&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Counts01&B2=Both

32


Toronto Disaster Relief Committee. (2000). State of the Disaster: Winter 2000, A Report onHomelessness in the City of Toronto. http://www.tao.ca/~tdrc/press/stateofdisaster.htm

Thurston, W., Oelke, N. & Turner, D. (2013). Methodological Challenges in Studying UrbanAboriginal Homelessness. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7 (2),p. 250-259.

United Nations. (2001). Commission on Human Rights Adopts Resolutions on Right to Food,Unilateral Coercive Measures, Foreign Debt, Adequate Housing, Education, and Economic,Social, and Cultural Rights. Press Release. Commission on Human Rights, 57th session, 20April 2001. www.unhchr.ch/huricane/hurica...CD8A618C1256A38002743AE?opendocument

United Nations. (1998). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Concludes FallSession. Press Release. Commission on Human Rights, HR/ESC/98/46. http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/63A920AA28EC3B02802566D300364295?opendocument

Wilhelm, T. (2001). Job Growth in Sudbury Stalls in September. The Sudbury Star, 10-06-2001.

Wrate, R, & Blair, C. (1999). Homeless adolescents. In Homeless Children: Problems and Needs.Panos Vostanis and Stuart Cumella (eds.) London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

33

Poverty, Homelessness and MigrationPauvreté, sans-abrisme et migration

Centre for Research in Social Justice and PolicyCentre de recherche en justice et politique sociales

Laurentian University | Université Laurentienne935 Ramsey Lake Road | 935 chemin du lac Ramsey Sudbury ON P3E 2C6

Tel. (705) 675-1151, ext. 5156Fax (705) 671-3832

[email protected] | [email protected]/homeless | www.lul.ca/sansabri

Documents

Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario Final Report · Homelessness in Cochrane, Ontario. Final Report. Report prepared for the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board