Findings:
Pillar 2: Addressing Conditions in
Encampments and Basic Needs
Rethinking Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments: Building a Human Rights Approach in Ontario
Exploratory Questions:
|
Do protocols include the provision of services to meet day-to-day needs?
A second key element of a human rights approach is addressing conditions in encampments, and taking steps to meet basic needs, including access to safe and clean drinking water, hygiene and sanitation facilities, and resources to support food security. We found that very few encampment protocols included details on meeting basic needs of people sheltering in encampments, suggesting residents have to rely on service or charitable organizations or informal and unfunded mutual aid organizing to meet their needs. For example, the protocols of Kitchener, Kingston, and Toronto do not mention meeting basic needs at all. The protocol of the City of Brantford states that “community partners are supported to deliver outreach support” including a hygiene station, but no details are provided. The City of Greater Sudbury’s encampment protocol did not include any details about providing access to water, food or hygiene facilities, but did include language raising concern about voluntary community efforts to meet needs, stating, “voluntary engagement without professional training interferes with the professional response to encampments. It detracts from the core mission."
A second key element of a human rights approach is addressing conditions in encampments, and taking steps to meet basic needs, including access to safe and clean drinking water, hygiene and sanitation facilities, and resources to support food security. We found that very few encampment protocols included details on meeting basic needs of people sheltering in encampments, suggesting residents have to rely on service or charitable organizations or informal and unfunded mutual aid organizing to meet their needs. For example, the protocols of Kitchener, Kingston, and Toronto do not mention meeting basic needs at all. The protocol of the City of Brantford states that “community partners are supported to deliver outreach support” including a hygiene station, but no details are provided. The City of Greater Sudbury’s encampment protocol did not include any details about providing access to water, food or hygiene facilities, but did include language raising concern about voluntary community efforts to meet needs, stating, “voluntary engagement without professional training interferes with the professional response to encampments. It detracts from the core mission."
The main exception among municipalities was the City of London, where the encampment protocol outlined a Service Depot model which is only available at some encampment sites, but set up daily at these sites to provide access to basic needs including water, food, hygiene and sanitation. The City of Thunder Bay also specifies in its protocol the use of funds to “support community partners to provide and maintain amenities such as portable toilets, laundry services, access to shower facilities, creating start up kits for individuals who receive housing, and other activities to further support a human rights-based approach in our Response.”
Promising Practice: The City of London’s Service Depots
Service Depots are temporary, mobile sites set up near encampments to deliver basic needs and supports directly where people are living unsheltered. Typically, a Service Depot will be deployed for 90 minutes at a given site. Some of the service provided at depots include:
Delivering services directly to encampment residents is effective because it removes transportation barriers from service access. It also means that people staying at encampments do not need to worry about the theft or destruction of belongings, which is a concern when leaving to access services offsite. People who accessed service depots reported they were more likely to have access to food (97%), drinking water (97%), personal supplies (93%), hygiene supplies (88%), harm reduction equipment (81%), showers and washrooms (80%), referrals to health and social services (75%), and fire safety gear (68%), indicating that this model is highly effective in assisting people in encampments in meeting their basic needs, albeit on a temporary basis.
Service Depots are temporary, mobile sites set up near encampments to deliver basic needs and supports directly where people are living unsheltered. Typically, a Service Depot will be deployed for 90 minutes at a given site. Some of the service provided at depots include:
- Safe and clean drinking water
- Hygiene and sanitation facilities
- Waste management and garbage collection systems
- Social supports and services
- Resources to support personal safety of residents, including fire safety
Delivering services directly to encampment residents is effective because it removes transportation barriers from service access. It also means that people staying at encampments do not need to worry about the theft or destruction of belongings, which is a concern when leaving to access services offsite. People who accessed service depots reported they were more likely to have access to food (97%), drinking water (97%), personal supplies (93%), hygiene supplies (88%), harm reduction equipment (81%), showers and washrooms (80%), referrals to health and social services (75%), and fire safety gear (68%), indicating that this model is highly effective in assisting people in encampments in meeting their basic needs, albeit on a temporary basis.
Do bylaws make it illegal to carry out activities that meet basic needs?
Another area of consideration is whether activities required to meet basic needs are rendered illegal through the application of bylaws. People living in encampments need to engage in a variety of activities to meet their daily needs, including income-generating activities (for example, panhandling, selling of handicrafts), using public water-sources (ex. fountains and taps), using public washrooms (ex. at parks, at transit locations), preparing food and/or eating in public, resting and sitting in public (for example in parks, on benches, on sidewalks), and sheltering in public (for example using an umbrella, tarp, tent or blankets). Many neo-vagrancy bylaws target these activities of daily life, which people experiencing homelessness are forced to carry out in public. Anti-loitering bylaws and anti-obstruction bylaws can target individuals who are panhandling, selling crafts, or resting/sleeping in public spaces. In addition some municipalities had bylaws or encampment protocols that included prohibitions on particular forms of heating or cooking. Two municipalities also had specific bylaws prohibiting sanitation-related behaviours in public spaces. While bylaws limiting certain behaviours in public have a place in the regulation of public space, in the case of experiencing homelessness, the issue becomes the rendering of behaviour as illegal when people do not have alternatives to support carrying out necessary activities. This dynamic effectively criminalizes survival, exposing people to fines, displacement, and repeated contact with law enforcement for actions that are unavoidable in the absence of private space or accessible services. It also shifts responsibility for structural failures, such as inadequate shelter, washroom access, or safe warming options, onto individuals, reinforcing cycles of marginalization and making it more difficult for people to stabilize their lives.
Another area of consideration is whether activities required to meet basic needs are rendered illegal through the application of bylaws. People living in encampments need to engage in a variety of activities to meet their daily needs, including income-generating activities (for example, panhandling, selling of handicrafts), using public water-sources (ex. fountains and taps), using public washrooms (ex. at parks, at transit locations), preparing food and/or eating in public, resting and sitting in public (for example in parks, on benches, on sidewalks), and sheltering in public (for example using an umbrella, tarp, tent or blankets). Many neo-vagrancy bylaws target these activities of daily life, which people experiencing homelessness are forced to carry out in public. Anti-loitering bylaws and anti-obstruction bylaws can target individuals who are panhandling, selling crafts, or resting/sleeping in public spaces. In addition some municipalities had bylaws or encampment protocols that included prohibitions on particular forms of heating or cooking. Two municipalities also had specific bylaws prohibiting sanitation-related behaviours in public spaces. While bylaws limiting certain behaviours in public have a place in the regulation of public space, in the case of experiencing homelessness, the issue becomes the rendering of behaviour as illegal when people do not have alternatives to support carrying out necessary activities. This dynamic effectively criminalizes survival, exposing people to fines, displacement, and repeated contact with law enforcement for actions that are unavoidable in the absence of private space or accessible services. It also shifts responsibility for structural failures, such as inadequate shelter, washroom access, or safe warming options, onto individuals, reinforcing cycles of marginalization and making it more difficult for people to stabilize their lives.
Do protocols or bylaws offer guidance on improving conditions in encampments without resorting to forced removal or displacement?
|
A human rights approach also requires addressing conditions in encampments without forcing the displacement of individuals from encampments. This includes providing fire safety resources, supporting harm reduction, and pest mitigation. An example of an encampment protocol that does include environmental mitigation is that of the City of Toronto, which states: “The City will support people in their health and safety needs through various measures that may include, facilitating access to sanitation and hygiene facilities, waste disposal, wellness and safety checks, fire safety education and information, safety assessments, crisis prevention and intervention supports, provision and safe disposal of harm reduction supplies.” Consistent with the emphasis on health and safety as a rationale for displacement, however, the protocol additionally notes that when mitigation is not possible, enforcement will be considered. Mobilizing a different approach, the City of London’s protocol describes a Health and Safety Working Group, which addresses environment hazards, and requires reporting on attempts to ameliorate concerns without closing/removing the encampment. Yet most encampment protocols did not include plans for addressing environmental and safety concerns, while noting that these sorts of concerns can be justification for speeding up an eviction. The lack of guidance on improving conditions in encampments is concerning because it leads to safety becoming a punitive rationale for displacement, rather than something municipalities actively work to improve.
|
|