Findings:
Pillar 3 - Equitable and Accessible Social Services
Rethinking Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments: Building a Human Rights Approach in Ontario
Exploratory Questions:
- Do protocols include strategies for equitable access to services, for example health care, housing support, harm reduction, and culturally specific services?
- Do protocols require participation in data collection as a condition for accessing services?
- Do protocols include a statement regarding the ability to refuse services?
Do protocols include strategies for equitable access to services, for example health care, housing support, harm reduction, culturally specific services?
A third component of a human rights approach to encampments is the equitable and accessible provision of social services. Encampment residents should have access to social services on an equitable basis, without discrimination due to housing status. Individuals staying at encampments often experience barriers to accessing services offsite. For example, they may not have the transportation to travel to services. Moreover, individuals may be reluctant to leave encampments for fear that their belongings will be stolen. As a result, a best practice is mobile service provision: that is, bringing services directly to people staying in encampments.
A third component of a human rights approach to encampments is the equitable and accessible provision of social services. Encampment residents should have access to social services on an equitable basis, without discrimination due to housing status. Individuals staying at encampments often experience barriers to accessing services offsite. For example, they may not have the transportation to travel to services. Moreover, individuals may be reluctant to leave encampments for fear that their belongings will be stolen. As a result, a best practice is mobile service provision: that is, bringing services directly to people staying in encampments.
|
Ten of twelve municipalities with encampment protocols did discuss service provision to some extent, typically in terms of connection to housing, health or harm reduction services. At a minimum, protocols listed or referenced services that were appropriate to offer people experiencing homelessness in encampments, such as housing supports, income supports, and harm reduction services. Yet, while most protocols discussed the importance of services in general terms, few described how those services should be provided. The City of London was an exception, specifying that Service Depots should bring social and health services directly to encampment locations. Through its “Enhanced Outreach Model”, the City of Toronto also described a process of deploying social and health services directly to encampments, to “reduce service barriers and promote people’s participation in decisions that impact them”. However, the Enhanced Outreach Model is only offered in exceptional circumstances, due to budget constraints.
|
|
Very few municipalities included any reference to culturally specific services or trauma informed service provision. One exception was the City of Brantford, which discussed connecting Indigenous encampment residents with Brantford Native Housing as a way of providing culturally appropriate services.
Do protocols require participation in data collection as a condition for accessing services?
Typically, protocols did not mention whether participation in data collection was required to access services. The City of Greater Sudbury notes that social services share data with other municipal actors following outreach, excluding confidential information. The City of Hamilton requires completion of the ViSPDAT assessment tool to access some housing resources and supports. Other encampment protocols did not include sufficient details to understand how data collection may impact service eligibility. Clarity about any data-sharing requirements is important because requiring data collection can discourage people from seeking the help they need.
Typically, protocols did not mention whether participation in data collection was required to access services. The City of Greater Sudbury notes that social services share data with other municipal actors following outreach, excluding confidential information. The City of Hamilton requires completion of the ViSPDAT assessment tool to access some housing resources and supports. Other encampment protocols did not include sufficient details to understand how data collection may impact service eligibility. Clarity about any data-sharing requirements is important because requiring data collection can discourage people from seeking the help they need.
Do protocols include a statement regarding the ability to refuse services?
Some protocols included a statement about ability to refuse services. For example, London’s protocol explicitly states that homelessness is not illegal, and services are voluntary: “transformational outreach services are voluntary and are rooted in self-determination and choice. Outreach workers will promote choice while also using assertive engagement.” Similarly, the City of Thunder Bay’s protocol notes that people have the autonomy to stay or leave at an encampment site and cannot be forced to access services.
Other protocols included language about the right to refuse services but also included elements of service coercion. For example, the City of Greater Sudbury’s protocol states: “the process of service planning is a collaborative one” and “forcing people to access services should be avoided”. However, the protocol also advises that when police engage encampment residents, they should reinforce the importance of accepting services and refusing services can be grounds for the closure of an encampment. Similarly, while the Region of Waterloo notes that individuals living rough cannot be forced to accept services and supports, it also states that refusing services is “not sufficient reason to prevent the enforcement of Regional by-laws" prohibiting camping. Finally, the City of Toronto’s protocol states it “cannot force people living encampments to accept services and supports” but that if people continue to decline indoor space and/or to meaningfully work on a housing plan, they may be subject to enforcement. The language in these protocols uniformly emphasizes individual responsibility on the part of the person experiencing homelessness, rather than acknowledging limitations in the adequacy and appropriateness of services.
Some protocols included a statement about ability to refuse services. For example, London’s protocol explicitly states that homelessness is not illegal, and services are voluntary: “transformational outreach services are voluntary and are rooted in self-determination and choice. Outreach workers will promote choice while also using assertive engagement.” Similarly, the City of Thunder Bay’s protocol notes that people have the autonomy to stay or leave at an encampment site and cannot be forced to access services.
Other protocols included language about the right to refuse services but also included elements of service coercion. For example, the City of Greater Sudbury’s protocol states: “the process of service planning is a collaborative one” and “forcing people to access services should be avoided”. However, the protocol also advises that when police engage encampment residents, they should reinforce the importance of accepting services and refusing services can be grounds for the closure of an encampment. Similarly, while the Region of Waterloo notes that individuals living rough cannot be forced to accept services and supports, it also states that refusing services is “not sufficient reason to prevent the enforcement of Regional by-laws" prohibiting camping. Finally, the City of Toronto’s protocol states it “cannot force people living encampments to accept services and supports” but that if people continue to decline indoor space and/or to meaningfully work on a housing plan, they may be subject to enforcement. The language in these protocols uniformly emphasizes individual responsibility on the part of the person experiencing homelessness, rather than acknowledging limitations in the adequacy and appropriateness of services.
