|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
The immediate intended impacts of the Initiative were to help build the capacity of communities to address the problem of homelessness while making an immediate, incremental contribution to facilities and services for homeless people. This chapter presents the evaluation findings on the progress of the Initiative in meeting these objectives. It includes a section that examines community capacity-related issues, as well as sections on the impacts of the SCPI, Aboriginal and Youth Homelessness funding, respectively.23 The analysis of the evaluation issues that have a community focus takes into account the major variations in the pre-existing circumstances of the participating communities, including:
When variations in outcomes have been observed, the evaluation looked at the possible role these characteristics may have played. 8.1 Community Capacity Related IssuesThis section examines the extent to which the NHI components being evaluated have contributed to increases in community capacity to address homelessness. The assessment results primarily from the 20 community case studies conducted for the evaluation, and is based on the stated views of the key informants consulted within each community. Evidence was also derived from the analysis of documents describing both pre-SCPI activities related to homelessness and activities during the SCPI period. 8.1.1 Community MobilizationBased on key informant interviews and the evaluator's review of documents, there is evidence that only two of the case study communities, Toronto and Ottawa, had already conducted an extensive community consultation and planning process on homelessness prior to the SCPI. Nine other communities (including four 80% communities) had come together as a broad community to examine the problem of homelessness, and had begun a planning process. However, they had not produced a plan similar to what they ultimately produced for the SCPI and had not agreed on a set of priorities for the community. In the remaining nine communities, no formal community planning had taken place, and formal consultations with service providers had been limited. In these communities, ad hoc meetings and informal collaboration among service providers were common, but the community as a whole had not come together prior to the SCPI to address homelessness in a systematic way. The review of community plans and the analysis of other community documents indicate that all 61 participating SCPI communities now have a concerted, coordinated focus on homelessness. The SCPI design allowed communities to decide how the funds would be spent (within the broad limits of the funding criteria). This is widely viewed by key informants as having been critical to communities agreeing to invest the time and energy in community planning and project selection. This is especially true for the communities that had not undertaken any pre-SCPI planning. In the nine communities with some pre-SCPI mobilization, the SCPI funding and the community-based approach are widely reported to have brought the community planning process to a new level of inclusiveness and collaboration that would not likely have been reached otherwise. 8.1.2 Enhanced Awareness in CommunitiesA presumption of the SCPI was that more broad-based knowledge and understanding of homelessness, and of community assets and gaps to address the problem, would contribute to better decision-making. A major benefit of the SCPI planning process that was reported in every community other than the two with extensive pre-SCPI planning has been an increase in awareness of available resources, expertise and services in the community. Interviews with participating service providers in the large majority of communities indicate that this has led to more directed and regular client referrals, and new working relationships so that referrals tend more to be followed up by exchanges of information and an informal case tracking approach. Awareness of the nature and complexity of homelessness among service providers and other stakeholders is also reportedly increasing directly as a result of groups coming together to discuss homelessness and the continuum of supports approach. Community planning leaders in almost all the case study communities volunteered this information, and the claim was corroborated by at least some service providers in almost every community. In part, the planning process and the community plans themselves brought increased awareness because planning in all but a few communities included background research on the nature and extent of homelessness, and the communication of this information to participants. The plans themselves detail the extent of the homelessness problem, the specific assets in place, and the gaps in facilities and services. In addition, service providers reported that discussions at community meetings, both in the broader group context and informally among participants, led to a broader awareness for many participants. Key informants indicated that this increased awareness is reflected, in particular, in:
8.1.3 New or Enhanced Processes and StructuresThe benefits of the mobilization stimulated by the SCPI are reported to be not only in the planning process, but also in the consultative processes and decision-making structures that have been established as a result. In the large majority of communities, new committee and sub-committee structures have been put in place. This has resulted in on-going plenary, and often sector-specific, discussions about what is needed in the community and how available resources would best be allocated. In the large majority of communities, the mobilization has also resulted in new formal processes for joint decision-making on the allocation of resources that incorporate conflict-of-interest guidelines. In about half of the communities, particularly but not exclusively the larger ones, those processes are supported by "funding tables" or other similar functions that promote a creative approach to finding and allocating sources of funding.
Sustainability The NHI is a three-year initiative (ending in March 2003) that requires communities to build sustainability into its planning and funding processes. As stated above, the SCPI has stimulated the development of community-based structures and processes in most participating communities. A key evaluation question, therefore, concerns the sustainability of these new structures and processes.24 Based on the interviews and a review of the pre-SCPI and current community coalitions and planning structures and processes, the evaluation has found that communities fall into three categories concerning the predicted sustainability of what has been developed:
These findings indicate that there remains work to be done in firmly establishing what has been built to date, and in providing support to those communities that require it. 8.1.4 New/Enhanced PartnershipsAnother benefit of the community-based approach of the SCPI that was foreseen by its architects was the fostering of new and enhanced partnerships among stakeholders with an interest in homelessness. The presumption was that community mobilization for purposes of planning and funding allocation would result in a broader recognition of the opportunities for, and potential benefits of, partnership. To varying degrees in different communities, the evaluation has identified new or enhanced community-based partnerships on four distinct levels that have been fostered directly as a result of the SCPI.
It is premature to assess the impact of this collaboration on government policy and program directions. Service providers and planners in the majority of communities have reported, however, that participation by all levels of government is helping to integrate homelessness planning with existing government policy and program directions. Planners are better informed about current government policies and programs, and the planners also cited the potential to influence policy directions when government officials are active participants. At the same time, provincial government officials in almost every community have expressed fears that their departments will ultimately face community pressures to provide on-going funding for projects initially funded through the SCPI. In about a quarter of the communities examined, community planning leaders and local provincial government officials themselves have reported that this fear has circumscribed the extent of provincial government participation in community planning. 8.1.5 Capacity in Aboriginal CommunitiesInterviews with Aboriginal homelessness leaders in the 20 case study communities indicate that, at the outset of the Initiative, Aboriginal communities began with a lower capacity to address homelessness than other communities.26 They pointed to the lack of dedicated services and facilities, the relative lack of experience and resources of those services that do exist as compared to many mainstream services, and the lack of formal education and training of many service providers. This perspective was shared widely by Aboriginal leaders and service providers interviewed, and by mainstream planners in the eighteen communities with a sizeable Aboriginal population. As previously mentioned, there was no requirement and no dedicated funding for community planning under Aboriginal Homelessness. Furthermore, there were early delays in the initial implementation of the Aboriginal Homelessness component under the auspices of local AHRDA holders. These delays and the lack of dedicated planning funds in the Aboriginal funding stream were widely perceived by key informants in Aboriginal communities to have limited the kind of capacity building and partnership development that community planning was able to produce in the mainstream communities. The separate Aboriginal Homelessness stream was intended to ensure that Aboriginal communities received targeted funding and could work independently of the broader community processes to the extent that they chose. Mid-program correction through the application of the SCPI terms and conditions has helped encourage Aboriginal service providers and political leaders to collaborate in planning homelessness strategies (either within the context of mainstream community planning or independently). The majority of Aboriginal communities, however, had not completed an independent plan to address Aboriginal homelessness at the time of the evaluation. In mainstream communities the community planning process itself has reportedly contributed greatly to an increased capacity to address homelessness. In half of the SCPI communities with a significant Aboriginal population, Aboriginal agencies and political leaders have participated actively in mainstream planning. Those representatives reported that their participation has been positive in that project funding has been allocated in a more planned way, based on an assessment of needs and priorities. As well, they frequently pointed to new working relationships they had developed with mainstream service providers. Most of them also noted, however, that the lack of an independent Aboriginal planning process limited the extent to which the Aboriginal communities developed their own capacity to address homelessness. In six communities, there was some degree of independent Aboriginal homelessness planning. This meant that large and diverse groups of Aboriginal organizations and individuals (mainly service providers but also some community leaders) came together periodically to discuss homelessness and to plan how to make best use of the Aboriginal Homelessness resources available. This kind of community-wide consultation on homelessness had not previously taken place, and was seen as beneficial in itself. Even in these communities, however, capacity building was viewed by participants as being greatly limited by the lack of dedicated planning funds (for example, to hire outside consultants for background research and facilitation, as about half the mainstream communities did). Based on reported assessments of staff education and training, experience, and existing resources, capacity building was also constrained by the existing capacity of Aboriginal organizations to plan and implement major homelessness initiatives. Thus, whether or not an independent Aboriginal approach was taken, the evaluation has found that there remains considerable work to be done in building capacity and partnerships, and in developing comprehensive Aboriginal community homelessness plans. 8.1.6 Summary and Conclusion on Capacity BuildingThe evaluation found that the SCPI has made an important contribution to enhancing existing capacity to address homelessness in the majority of communities examined. This is evidenced by 1) the mobilization of service providers, governments and other stakeholders; 2) increase in the number and kind of partnerships working to address homelessness; and 3) the community-based planning and decision-making structures that are now in place. These results stem from the combination of the availability of SCPI funding and the SCPI design, which entrusts communities with the responsibility for planning and decision-making around homelessness. Even in Ottawa and Toronto, where the evaluation has observed a more limited impact of the SCPI on community capacity, the SCPI was reported by local service providers and municipal representatives to have helped refine the existing community plans, increase inclusiveness, and fine-tune priorities. The twenty SCPI communities investigated for the evaluation varied considerably in their capacity to address homelessness prior to the Initiative. While a few already had well established structures and processes, the majority had a greater need to build their capacity. In those communities, planners and service providers routinely pointed to a continuing need to further refine and update community planning, improve project development capacity, and build expertise in a range of service delivery areas. 8.2 Impacts of SCPI Funding27While the previous section addressed the impacts of the SCPI on community capacity building, this section presents the available evidence on the immediate, incremental impacts of the program funding itself. The evaluation measured the impacts of program funding in two ways. First, it examined the incremental nature of the funding, by looking at the extent to which it represented new investment over and above existing investment from other sources (rather than displacing existing investment). It also considered whether it allowed some projects to go forward that would not have otherwise. Second, the evaluation looked at how the funds were spent, to see the extent to which expenditures were in keeping with the federal objective to foster a continuum of supports approach. 8.2.1 Incremental Impact of SCPI FundingBased on the methodology described in Chapter 1, the evaluation found that the program funding built upon, rather than substituted for, existing levels of municipal and provincial investment in homelessness immediately prior to the Initiative. 
The graph above shows that the federal program funding under the SCPI was fully incremental for each of the three years of the Initiative. This indicates that the program was successful in avoiding the displacement of existing levels of investment by provinces and municipalities. Moreover, the community data indicate that considerable additional investment, over and above pre-NHI levels, has occurred on the part of provinces and municipalities during the three-year period of SCPI activity. Some of this additional investment may also have been leveraged as a result of the federal initiative.28 Information from the case studies and from key informant interviews suggest that a number of design features of the SCPI, and some other factors, may have played an important role in safeguarding against displacement and fostering increased investments from other sources:
None of these factors are permanent features in the participating communities. With the exception of the last factor, they were design features of the SCPI or the result of a deliberate effort by NHI planners and managers. Other incremental benefits The evaluation sought the views of observers in the 20 case study communities about the role of SCPI funds in moving projects forward and realizing projects previously not contemplated in any concrete way. These consultations indicate that the large majority of SCPI-funded projects would not have taken place in the foreseeable future. SCPI funding is most often described as having filled gaps in existing funding streams, thereby allowing projects to go forward that may not have, or that would have taken longer to develop without these funds.
The flexibility of the SCPI component in particular was seen by the great majority of those consulted, in all twenty communities visited, as a considerable asset that allowed communities facing a variety of circumstances to fund the projects they required. Impact on other funding sources In each of the twenty communities examined for the evaluation, there were examples of provincial and local government in-kind commitments arising from the SCPI, such as 1) the provision of office space and other resources for community planning, 2) the provision of housing, real estate, architectural and engineering expertise, 3) tax exemptions, and 4) the secondment of part- or full-time staff. In a small number of communities, the municipal government has provided grants for projects funded in part through the SCPI, although these tend to be financed through on-going community grant programs that existed prior to the NHI. According to key informants, provincial commitments that were identifiable as a result of the SCPI have largely consisted in agreements to increase per diem expenditures for health or social services resulting from new or enhanced facilities funded by the SCPI. Additionally, in Alberta and Ontario, the provincial governments increased direct financial commitments to homelessness during the period that SCPI was being implemented. Some informants in those provinces believed that the increases were at least partly a result of the federal commitments and the ensuing community focus on homelessness, but the evaluation was unable to validate this point of view. However, it should be noted that provincial government commitments to homelessness are reported by local provincial officials and by service providers to be contingent on provincial economic and fiscal circumstances, and cannot be assumed to remain at current levels in the long term. New financial commitments from the private sector in the great majority of communities visited are very limited. This was most often explained from the perspective of service providers and community planners as having to do with the profit orientation of the private sector, and the perception that businesses were reluctant to be associated with the homeless. As well, these same respondents noted that public perceptions of homeless people as being "primarily responsible for their situation" were not conducive to private sector involvement. Private sector investment is widely recognized at the community level and by HRDC and NSH officials as "an area that still needs to be developed". Furthermore, there is considerable pessimism among the great majority of service providers concerning the idea that private commitments will ever represent a substantial proportion of overall funding requirements. 8.2.2 Impacts of Project ExpendituresThe most tangible short-term benefit that was expected to derive from the SCPI was the funding of new or enhanced facilities and services for homeless people. This section examines the nature of the expenditures, and how they reflect the program's objective to foster the "continuum of supports" approach to alleviating homelessness. SCPI spending patterns Figure 2 below describes the distribution of SCPI expenditures in all 61 communities across the country. It is based on available figures for actual funds allocated at the time of the evaluation, drawn from the NSH financial databases (a total of $222. 6 million, or about 85% of the $260 million available for project funding). 
Of SCPI funding allocated to date, about 54% of approved expenditures across the country have been for capital spending on shelters of various types, including emergency shelters and transitional housing (21% each), and supportive housing (11%). At the community level, funding allocation varies greatly in terms of the proportion of expenditures on shelter facilities (from very small proportions in some small communities, to as high as 100% in one community). The majority of communities spent in the middle range (between one-quarter and three-quarters of their funds) on shelter facilities, but a substantial number (20%) spent more than three-quarters, and about 28% spent less than one-quarter of their allocation on sheltering facilities. NSH figures provide a further breakdown of SCPI shelter-related capital spending: 16% of all sheltering projects (emergency, supportive, transitional) paid for land or building purchases; 8% was allocated to pre-development (site planning, architectural services, environmental assessments, etc. ); 10% was spent on new construction; 31% paid for renovations; 13% was devoted to direct operational costs; and finally, 22% paid for equipment and supplies (furniture, mobile vans, etc.).30 Aside from shelter-related capital expenditures, about 8% of SCPI project funding has been targeted to other types of support facilities such as food banks, drop-in centres, soup kitchens and a limited number of facilities for addictions and health programs. Thus, the total expenditures at this point on capital projects are about 62% of overall expenditures under the SCPI component. The second largest area of expenditure is for the provision of services, including housing supports, information and referral, counselling, health, and education and training. These comprise about 30% of total expenditures. Research, project planning and coordination, training and other capacity building project expenditures have totalled about 7% of expenditures, and public awareness projects have comprised about 1.5%. It was frequently noted during community consultations that, while a significant amount of funds has been invested to date in transitional housing facilities (either independent facilities or a part of a multiple use space), there remains considerable unmet need in this area. This situation has arisen because transitional and supportive housing are much more expensive to establish and operate than emergency shelters or larger multi-purpose facilities. They require a much higher ratio of paid staff to clients, and there are greater space requirements to support a client living in a more independent environment, and staying for a considerably longer period of time. Thus, while expenditures on transitional and supportive housing have been considerable, most community planners report that relative to need and comparative cost, these expenditures have been relatively modest. Community planning leaders also pointed to the relatively small expenditures on research, training and other capacity building activities, and on public awareness, as resulting from the critical need for immediate support for homeless people. In light of this critical need, communities chose to direct SCPI resources to services. 
Aboriginal Homelessness spending patterns As Figure 3 indicates, about 43% of the $16 million in Aboriginal Homelessness funds allocated to date was devoted to shelter facilities. Of the shelter allocations, nearly three times as much funding had been dedicated to transitional/supportive housing as to emergency shelters. This differs somewhat from the SCPI allocation pattern, which showed about one-and-a-half times as much funding going to transitional and supportive housing as to emergency shelters. The other major allocation of Aboriginal Homelessness funds has been for the provision of services (about 41% of total expenditures). Client education and training services received more funding (14%) than other types of services because of the terms under which much of the funding was provided through the employment-focused AHRDAs. An interesting observation about Aboriginal Homelessness expenditures is that 10% of allocations have been targeted to capacity building activities, with the great majority of that going to community planning and coordination functions. This is explained by the fact that unlike the SCPI communities, which were provided with a total of $2 million in additional funds to carry out these functions (not included in the project expenditure figures), Aboriginal communities did not have dedicated resources for these purposes. Some project funding was therefore used to pay for costs associated with planning and coordination. Drop-in centres, soup kitchens and other types of support facilities accounted for about 5% of Aboriginal Homelessness spending, and 2% was spent on public awareness within Aboriginal communities. 
Youth Homelessness spending patterns The allocation of Youth Homelessness funds paralleled SCPI spending generally, as shown in Figure 4. Of the $17 million that had been allocated at the time of the evaluation, shelters comprised 44% of all spending. Twice as much Youth Homelessness funding went to transitional and supportive housing facilities as to emergency shelters, falling in between the SCPI and Aboriginal Homelessness allocation patterns in this respect. About 36% of Youth funding was allocated to the provision of services, especially education and training services (in keeping with the fact that much of the youth spending was allocated under the terms of the YES programs). This proportion of expenditures also included a wide range of other services such as housing supports, information and referral, the provision of clothing, furniture and other goods, and health and personal counselling. Youth spending differed somewhat from both Aboriginal Homelessness and SCPI spending in its emphasis on drop-in centres, food banks and other support facilities-these comprised about 14% of total spending, close to double the proportion spent under the other programs. Capacity building was not a spending priority for youth homelessness-only about 2% of spending was allocated in this area, mainly for the training of service providers. (Key informants noted that there are many well-established, experienced youth-serving agencies in Canadian urban centres, and these were typically the agencies that received youth homelessness funds. ) Public awareness accounted for almost 4% of youth homelessness spending. New and enhanced NHI-funded facilities and services The following table offers an indication of how many of each type of project was funded by SCPI, Aboriginal Homelessness and Youth Homelessness.31 The data complements the funding allocation charts presented above, and they demonstrate how many facilities and services were created or enhanced in Canadian communities as a result of the NHI.
Summary The analysis of available data on project expenditures suggests that SCPI, Aboriginal Homelessness and Youth Homelessness funds have been spent on a wide range of projects across the continuum of supports. However, there is a reported need at this point (as indicated in the community plans and supported through key informant interviews) for communities to expand significantly on the existing base of second-stage support facilities, and to move away from the funding of emergency facilities and services in future fund allocations.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060126221253im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060126221253im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060126221253im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060126221253im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}