|
Housing and Harm Reduction: A Policy Framework for Greater Victoria. Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness, 2011.
A look at similarities between Edmonton and Greater Victoria’s housing problems and recommended solutions.
Context: Alberta’s Plan to End Homelessness
The Government of Alberta, in partnership with many municipalities, businesses, service agencies and individuals, has successfully begun the implementation of a heavily-funded plan to end homelessness by 2018. Its success in Edmonton, cited throughout the Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness’ A Place to Call Home: Edmonton’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, has been driven by focused attention and funding from the ‘top-down’ and in partnership from the ‘bottom-up’. This type of partnership has been unheard of since the downloading of federal housing responsibilities in the early 1990’s, and successes seen in Alberta are to be an inspiration for other governments and businesses across Canada. The primary difference between ending homelessness in Alberta as compared to other provinces is the existence of a multi-sector commitment to the capital funding and central coordination of various services that is crucial for success in the Housing First model.
Edmonton: Housing First inherently facilitates harm reduction
Greater Victoria: Harm reduction philosophy necessitates Housing First as a tool to achieve health
As the benefits of having a centrally focused plan become apparent, it is interesting, nonetheless, to compare the Plan’s coordinated approach to ending homelessness with concurrent plans in other municipalities. In Victoria, BC, the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness (GVCEH) was created in 2008 with the task of housing over 1,500 people within five years. Capital recommendations seen in the GVCEH Housing Procurement Action Plan are comparable to those found in A Place to Call Home (albeit much less funded) and the GVCEH’s service delivery approach is likewise similar. What varies between municipalities, however, is the apparent motivation for achieving a homeless-free society. Similarly, the dialogue surrounding the social, mental and physical problems related to homelessness differs between locations.
In Edmonton, a strong emphasis is placed on the business case for ending homelessness, as well as on Edmontonians’ feelings of compassion regarding people experiencing homelessness. A Place to Call Home is also a more-or-less stand-alone document that touches lightly upon the many service delivery systems used. Conversely, the GVCEH works under the umbrella of harm reduction and has commissioned many supporting documents that provide transparency of actions taken by the municipality. Harm reduction refers to the reduction of the social, mental and physical harms associated with substance use. Edmonton’s 10-year plan to end homelessness cites harm reduction in the glossary of terms at the end of the document.
One of the documents commissioned by the GVCEH, Housing and Harm Reduction: a Policy Framework for Greater Victoria, outlines how the Housing First model (embraced by both the Edmonton and GVCEH housing plans) can act as a tool to reduce harm among people encountering homelessness.
GVCEH’s Housing and Harm Reduction: a Policy Framework for Greater Victoria
The Province of British Columbia is a leader in the promotion of harm reduction action. This is seen through cultural support and government funding of safer drug-use methods, including comprehensive mobile and permanent needle exchanges, safe injection facilities, and a low-barrier approach to housing (exercised in the Housing First model). As seen in Table 1, it is calculated that more than 50 per cent of people facing homelessness in Edmonton, and 41 per cent of those in Greater Victoria, abuse drugs and/or alcohol. These are people that can benefit the most from the Housing First model and harm reduction approach to service delivery. Therefore, it is interesting to note the strength of the harm reduction discourse in Victoria as compared to its absence in the Edmonton dialogue, despite the much higher rate of substance abuse in Edmonton’s homeless population. This is not to say that the Edmonton Plan does not address harm reduction in its strategies; however, related commentary is addressed as a means to an end to house people facing homelessness and to show ultimate cost savings because of the Plan.
In eminent contrast, the Greater Victoria Housing and Harm Reduction policy framework acts as a testifying rationale for ending homelessness. With a prevailing emphasis on harm reduction, it highlights specific additions to the housing intake, monitoring and service system that can aid in the housing of clients and the reduction of social, mental and physical harm. Again, these additions are similar to those found in the Edmonton plan, however they are represented with more intention regarding the benefit of their clients. Also, by creating this dialogue publically, the GVCEH exercises the intent and culture of the plan within itself – to educate citizens on the issue of homelessness and to foster an environment of social inclusion.
Public education, social inclusion and harm reduction are terms less frequented by A Place to Call Home. It may be concluded that although initiatives in both municipalities are positive and urgently needed, there may be room for each to learn from the other’s strengths – Edmonton’s focused and funded approach to providing Housing First, and Greater Victoria’s holistic and educational dialogue regarding housing and health service delivery to achieve the benefits of harm reduction.
See Table 1 for more comparisons between each location’s housing and homelessness situation.
Review by Teresa Thomas
|
Thursday, 17 May 2012 
