By Mark Pancer
According to recent government of Ontario estimates, nearly a quarter of a million people in the province are unhoused.
Many of those dealing with homelessness are families with children. A report presented to Waterloo regional council last year stated the numbers of those chronically experiencing homelessness have increased by an average of 28 per cent a year since 2020 — and are on track to have tripled by 2028.
Homelessness has devastating impacts on those who experience it. Research tells us that people without homes have mortality rates three and a half times the population rate, and live an average of 26 fewer years. They tend to suffer from a host of chronic health conditions and are five times more likely to experience major depressive disorders than those who have stable housing.
The most tragic effects are those experienced by children, who are significantly more likely than other children to show developmental delays, disruptions in their schooling, family separation and emotional difficulties. Homelessness affects the whole community. The growing number of encampments, or “tent cities,” entail significant costs to local sanitation, health and fire departments.
It doesn’t have to be this way. There are effective ways of dealing with the problem. One way is to build more affordable housing, but this takes years. Another is through programs like Housing First, which provides rent subsidies.
There is another solution, though, that has been shown to be effective and immediate in reducing homelessness, through the provision of a basic annual income. Basic income programs provide individuals with an unconditional annual cash transfer from the government to allow them to meet their basic needs, whatever those needs might be.
One such program is the New Leaf Project in Vancouver. The program distributed $7,500 to each of 50 individuals who had been homeless for up to two years and then tracked them over the next year to see the impact these payments had on their housing situation. The results? Program participants spent 99 fewer days unhoused than they had before receiving the payment and spent significantly less time in shelters.
In fact, it was estimated that there was a savings of $8,277 in shelter costs for each individual receiving the $7,500 payment. In other words, the program resulted in a cost savings of more than $750 for each person enrolled in the program. It is often thought that people who receive free money will just spend it on things like drugs and alcohol. This did not happen with the New Leaf participants. Rather, they spent their money on necessities like rent, food and transportation.
Other programs have found similar effects. The Denver Basic Income Project provided cash payments to 800 people in Denver. Some recipients received monthly payments of $1,000; others received a lump sum of $6,500 up front, and then $500 per month; and a third group received only $50 per month.
After six months, the percentage of participants in all three groups who were living in their own apartment or house went up substantially. Those receiving the lump sum payment and monthly allowance showed the greatest impact. Thirty-five per cent of them went from being unhoused to living in their own house or apartment.
Can we afford to have such programs in our communities? The question should really be: can we afford not to?
