Nowhere  Else  to  Go:  Inadequate  Housing  and  Risk  of  Homelessness  

Among  Families    in  Toronto’s  Aging  Rental  High-­‐Rises  

Emily  Paradis,    University  of  Toronto  e.paradis@utoronto.ca  

The  Study  •  High-­‐rise  apartment  tenants  in  the  inner  suburbs  and  Parkdale  (private  market  &  TCHC)  

•  Random  sample  of  all  rental  apartment  units  in  Toronto  built  between  1950  &  1980  

•  Oversampling  in  high-­‐poverty  clusters  •  3200  persons  interviewed  in  2009  –  2010  •  This  study  based  on  1566  families  with  children  •  Focus  groups  with  100+  service  providers  and  30+  parents      

•  Examining  inadequate  housing,  risk  of  homelessness,  and  hidden  homelessness  

Socio-­‐demographic  indicators    

81%   82%   37%  47%   50%   30%  0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

80%  

90%  

Racialized     Immigrants     Lone  Parent  Families  

Sample  

Toronto  

Immigrant  Status  

Newcomer,  under  5  years  35%  

Recent  immigrant,  5.1  -­‐  10  years  21%  

Long-­‐term  immigrant,  10+  years  

26%  

Canadian  born  18%  

Educa[on  

Less  than  high  school  

16%  

High  school  diploma  26%  

Post  secondary  educaMon  

56%  

Other  2%  

At  Risk  of  Homelessness  “At-­‐Risk  of  Homelessness”  includes  2  categories:  •  Precariously  Housed:  Facing  housing  challenges  that  may  or  may  not  

lead  to  homelessness  in  near  future,  such  as  –  Unaffordable  housing    –  Bad  housing  condi[ons  –  Overcrowding  –  Unsafe  housing    

•  At  Imminent  Risk  of  Homelessness:  Facing  poten[al  loss  of  housing,  due  to  –  Evic[on  –  Inability  to  pay  rent    –  Violence  /  abuse  in  the  home  

   See  Canadian  Defini[on  of  Homelessness  at    hdp://www.homelesshub.ca/Library/Canadian-­‐Defini[on-­‐of-­‐Homelessness-­‐54225.aspx    

Indicators  of  Inadequate  Housing  •  Unaffordable  Housing:  50%  or  more  of  household  income  is  spent  on  

rent  and  other  housing  costs  

•  Overcrowded  Housing:  More  than  2  persons  per  bedroom  

•  Unsafe  Housing:  Resident  has  changed  rou[ne  due  to  safety  concerns  •  Insecure  Housing:  Resident  has  been  behind  in  the  rent  in  the  past  

year  (risk  of  evic[on)  

•  Bad  Unit  CondiMons:  The  unit  required  3  or  more  repairs,  and  the  landlord  did  not  fix  all  of  them  

•  Bad  Building  CondiMons:  The  building  has  two  or  more  of  the  following  condi[ons:  frequent  elevator  breakdown,  pests  and  vermin,  and  /  or  broken  entrance  locks  

 

Inadequate  Housing  Indicators  

22%#

23%#

27%#

32%#

46%#

50%#

0%# 20%# 40%# 60%#

Insecure#Housing#

Unsafe#Housing#

Bad#Unit#Condi<ons#

Unaffordable#Housing#

Bad#Building#Condi<ons#

Overcrowded#Housing#

Risk  of  Homelessness  Index  •  Adequately  Housed:        

 0  indicators  

•  Inadequately  Housed,  Moderate  Risk  of  Homelessness:                                

 1  –  2  indicators  

•  Severe  Risk  of  Homelessness:                            

 3  –  4  indicators  

•  CriMcal  Risk  of  Homelessness:                                

 5  –  6  indicators  

Risk  of  Homelessness  Index  

3%#

30%#

56%#

11%#

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%#

Cri+cal#Risk#of#Homelessness#586#indicators##

Severe#Risk#of##Homelessness#384#indicators##

Moderate#Risk#of#Homelessness#182#indicators##

Adequately#Housed#0#indicators#

From  Homeless  Hub      www.HomelessHub.ca  infographic  by  Isaac  Coplan  

Immigrant  Status  

18%$

33%$

37%$

35%$

20%$

23%$

21%$

16%$

33%$

26%$

25%$

28%$

29%$

18%$

16%$

20%$

0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#

Cri/cal$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Severe$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Moderate$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Adequately$Housed$

Newcomer# Recent#Immigrant# Long8term#Immigrant# Canadian8born#

Immigrant$Status$All$Families$in$the$Study$

Risk  of  Homelessness  by  Low  Income  

100%  

83%  

68%  

47%  

18%  

32%  

53%  

0%   20%   40%   60%   80%   100%  

CriMcal  risk  (3%)  

Severe  risk  (30%)  

Inadequate,  some  risk  (56%)  

Adequate  housing  (11%)  

Low-­‐Income  (At  or  Below  Cutoff)   Not  Low-­‐Income  (Above  Cutoff)  

Source  of  Income  

47%$

58%$

67%$

80%$

45%$

37%$

29%$

15%$

0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#

Cri0cal$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Severe$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Moderate$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Adequately$Housed$

Employent# Government# Child#Support# Other#

Sources$of$Income$All$Families$in$the$Study$

Reasons  for  Moving  

14%$

24%$

34%$

54%$ 9%$

23%$

17%$

18%$

12%$

14%$

15%$

14%$

25%$

13%$

8%$

15%$

15%$

0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#

Cri.cal$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Severe$Risk$of$Homelessness$

Moderate$Risk$of$$Homelessness$

Adequately$Housed$

To#buy#a#house# To#be#nearer#work# Too#expensive#Require#bigger#unit# Poor#maintenance# Too#unsafe#Other#

Reasons$for$Moving$All$Families$in$the$Study$

Risk  of  Homelessness  by  Neighbourhood  

Adequate  

Moderate  

Severe  

Cri[cal  

Mid-­‐Scarborough    

Dorset/Kennedy  

Weston/Mt.  Dennis    

Jane/Finch    

Rexdale    

Thorncliffe/Flemingdon  

Parkdale    

Total    

0%  20%              40%                      60%                              80%                                        100%        

How  Inadequate  Housing  Affects  Families  

•  Overcrowding:  Increases  stress  and  conflict  •  Bad  building  and  unit  condi[ons:  Associated  with  poor  health  among  children  

•  Unaffordable  housing:  Drives  housing  choices;  linked  to  hunger  

•  Unsafe  housing:  Experiencing  crime  more  common  among  families  at  higher  risk  

•  Insecure  housing:  History  of  evic[on  creates  barriers  to  new  housing  

Housing  Loss  &  Hidden  Homelessness  •  Newcomers  double-­‐up  “temporarily”    •  Severity  of  risk  differs  between  groups  •  Housing  loss  common  among  low-­‐income  families    

•  Causes:  Violence,  evic[on  due  to  unaffordability,  poor  condi[ons  

•  Families  double-­‐up  to  stay  close  to  home  •  Hidden  homelessness  and  shelter  stays  genng  longer  

•  Finding  new  housing  impeded  by  discrimina[on,  low  income  

Barriers  to  Adequate  Housing  for  Migrant  Communi[es  

•  Income:  Low  wages,  precarious  employment,  low  social  assistance  rates,  benefit  cuts    

•  Housing:  High  rents,  bad  condi[ons,  wait  lists    •  Shelter:  inaccessible,  long  stays  •  Immigra[on  &  integra[on:  discrimina[on,  changing  policies  

•  Landlord  rela[ons:  Disrespect,  racism  &  sexism;  insufficient  enforcement  by  City  

•  Services  &  access:  Childcare  

Par[cipants’  recommenda[ons    •  Mul[-­‐lingual  educa[on  &  enforcement  on  discrimina[on,  human  rights,  tenant  rights  

•  Eliminate  “Canadian  credit  history”  and  “Canadian  experience”  requirements  

•  Increase  wages  &  government  transfers  •  Build  more  affordable  housing  •  Housing  stabiliza[on  services:  rent  banks,  Housing  Stabiliza[on  Fund  

•  Family  shelters  in  all  neighbourhoods  •  Make  services  available  to  all  families  –  not  only  those  in  TCHC  or  shelters  

•  Children’s  services  

What  can  be  done?  

1.  Federal:  First,  Housing  2.  Province:  Inclusionary  Zoning  3.  Province:  Housing  Benefit  4.  City:  Standards  Enforcement  &  Tenant  Rights  

Family  Homelessness  in  Toronto’s  Inner  Suburbs  

View  the  full  report:  hdp://neighbourhoodchange.ca  

 Funded  by  Homeless  Partnering  Strategy,  HRSDC    

and  by  Social  Sciences  and  Humani[es  Research  Council  of  Canada    

Emily  Paradis,  University  of  Toronto,  e.paradis@utoronto.ca