I came across an interesting local study. Released last July 2005 by The Social Planning Council for the North Okanagan, one of the most interesting findings was the need of private landlords for adequate supports. In the study area (Vernon, BC), a good portion of affordable housing for harder to house individuals (those with FASD, brain injury, mental health issues, etc) is supplied by private landlords as opposed to social service agencies or government. The greatest barrier to both maintaining the current housing stock and expanding capacity, is profitability.
Profitability may seem like challenges our sensibilities when considering affordable housing for vulnerable populations. But consider what it takes to purchase, hold and maintain a property. There must but at least some sense of profit if even to maintain a replacement reserve. There is no doubt that there are nefarious landlords to be found. However, how often does a suite need to be rebuilt before it becomes a losing enterprise?
Here's what the study found:
"There is little information available that discusses strategies for working with the low-end private rental sector - the single largest source of rental housing for low income people in Canada - to offer safe, secure housing for individuals whose cognitive and/or behavioral impairments make it difficult for them to secure and maintain housing." (p. 20)
Further,
"The fact remains, however, that the private sector will continue to be the main provider of low cost rental housing in most communities across Canada, particularly in smaller urban and rural areas. The literature review confirms the need for intensive exploration of ways in which service providers can work with cognitively impaired tenants and with private sector landlords to provide the supports each needs to maintain stable housing situations." (p. 21)
I think that what we can take from this is the realization that it takes more than simply more housing stock. Don't get me wrong. More housing stock is an absolute nessecity. We are all aware of the low vacancy rate and very difficult time we have in finding housing for our clients. But that's just it. Landlords that want to see a return on their investment - or at least a break-even - are increasingly reluctant to accept individuals that are typically hard-to-house. We really need to make the case that the most important component to stable housing is support.
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with various outreach/housing workers in town. Overwhelmingly, the message that I am receiving is that the housing directory/guide/binder was a fine exercise, but it rarely gets used. There are some common reasons for this.
First, it’s cumbersome. Let’s face it; pulling out a 4” binder to flip through isn’t exactly an efficient use of your time. It’s not very portable and it can be very difficult to search through.
Second, consider the probability of finding a vacancy in a ‘guide’ that may have been created six or more months ago. Is it up to date? Will any of these landlords accept your client? Why should they?
You can see the difficulty in having a hard copy. Would it be any better if it were delivered electronically? I know that outreach workers and others that work directly with our clients have precious little time to check their email, let alone some other (perceived) marginally useful tool. That’s why the binder never gets looked at. Something needs to happen. It may be that the very idea of this type of guide is moot if in fact there just isn’t the stock to place people. The most user-friendly, cross-referencable web guide in the world will not produce more housing.
The process that takes place in order to develop a resource such as this may, in fact, be the most valuable piece. It is through this process that we may find resources that before now we thought were inaccessible. Any engagement of interested parties will be at least as valuable as not engaging the process.
Can the information collected through this process be used to advocate for more stock? This remains to be seen. There appears to be plenty of evidence (CMHC, BC Housing) to support the need for more stock. The question remains on how to obtain it. Perhaps this is beyond the scope of this discussion and this project for that matter. The key, I think, is for the community – service providers, landlords, tenants and others to compile their voices and provide an integrated message that can garner positive, creative solutions to affordable housing
