“vision,!collaboration,!persistence!and!hard!work” the!canadian · 2019. 11. 8. · new!...
TRANSCRIPT
“Vision, Collaboration, Persistence and Hard Work”i
The Canadian Federal
Government’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy
Andrew Graham School of Policy Studies Queen’s University
For
The New Synthesis in Public Administration International Research Project
June, 2010
1
Contents Section 1: Context and Methods -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 2
1.1. Building the Case Study -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 2 1.2. Linkage to New Synthesis Thinking -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 2 1.3. Homelessness in Canada: A Policy Mash-‐Up -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 4 1.4 Homelessness in the Canadian Context -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 5
Section 2: The Homelessness Partnering Strategy -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 9 Mini-‐Case 1: Prince Albert, Saskatchewan -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 12 Section 3: Challenges and Linkages to a New Synthesis Analysis -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 13
3.1. Complexity as a Defining Characteristic and Organizing Principle -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 14 3.2. Societal Results Competing with Measurable Results -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 15 3.3. Civic Results and Engagement -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 16 3.4. Fluidity in Governance Models -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 17 3.5. Adaptive Governance: capacity for anticipation, innovation and adaptation -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 18
Mini-‐Case 2: HPS Teleforums: Building interagency capacity to report and focus on results -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 18
3.6. Multi-‐Party and Multi-‐Dimensional Risk -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 19 3.7. Systems of Performance Management and Accountability -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 20 3.8. Systems of Compliance and Control -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 21
Section 4: Lessons Learned -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 22 4.1. Role of lessons learned and knowledge transfer in harmonizing interagency reporting capacity -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 23 4.2. Impact of Constant Staff Changes -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 23 4.3. Reporting -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 24 4.4. Permanently Impermanent -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 24 4.5. Building Collaboration -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 25 4.6. Getting to Know You -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 26 4.7. Traditional Authorities Do Not Work, but Still Loom Large -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 26 4.8. Civic Engagement through Adaptive Governance -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 27 4.9. Information: Only Ask for What You Need -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 27
Footnotes -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 28
2
“Homelessness is not just a problem of failed public policies and programs: it is also ―a bone-‐crushing, right-‐to-‐the-‐core experience of loss of all of those things that we value and believe to be so near and dear to us.” ii The compelling story of how countries address their greatest economic, social and moral challenges in this complex age that invites a new synthesis of thinking cannot be told without first understanding that there are people engaged, involved and affected at visceral levels in these issues. The approach to homelessness in Canada is just such a case. Not only is there the immediate story of the homeless themselves, there are also communities of individuals, groups and public officials deeply committed to finding solutions to this intractable issue.
Section 1: Context and Methods
1.1. Building the Case Study This case has been written for a Roundtable meeting of the New Synthesis Project group in Ottawa, Canada, as well as the subsequent meeting in Rio de Janeiro, July 2010. It was based on
• a series of interviews with officials of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) of the federal department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC),
• other interviews with researchers and commentators on homelessness issues,
• extensive literature research, and • community-‐based information available from a large number of communities
and cities across the country. The case has a specific analytical focus, as outlined below. This is a case study, not an evaluation report. iii
1.2. Linkage to New Synthesis Thinking Public Results - Social and Civil This is the case of the federal government of Canada’s role and activities in the area of homelessness. The case, using the analytical framework of the New Synthesis (NS) thinking, documents the efforts, provides context that will permit further
3
thoughts and outlines both practical and theoretical challenges that remain. The case does not fully document all the efforts across the country to address homelessness. These are varied and complex. However, some insight into how the federal effort both connects to and actually binds those efforts is a good case in how a government with one set of tools can leverage those limited resources into impressive results not only with respect to frontally addressing homelessness as a public policy issue, but also to how to bind together governments at all three levels in the country, the not-‐for-‐profit sector and individuals. Homelessness in Canada certainly is not solved if such an outcome is even measurable. It remains one of those wicked problems that confront governments. By any definition, homelessness is a wicked problem. It is a problem -‐ perhaps more correctly, problems -‐ that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problemsiv In the case of homelessness in the Canadian context, there are a series of linkages to vertical public policy issues: poverty, housing, health, mental health and security of communities. The very term homelessness, itself a relatively new public policy designation, actually masks the complexity of the problem. In that regard, the concept of a wicked problem also suits the analytical framework
of the emerging work on the New Synthesis in Public Administration.v The New Synthesis (NS) development process focuses on the capacity of public services to be both resilient and integrative while holding to core values of public service. NS remains a formative set of concepts, but one set that recognizes the global and complex nature of many of the public policy issues facing governments today. An element, linked in practice as well as theory to the homelessness issue, is that many of these problems have multiple sources and are not readily categorized into one line of thinking, be it
social, economic or psychological. Individuals become homeless for different
4
reasons in different communities across the country. Further, the final outcome is not clear and defies clear measurement. Solutions to homelessness are contentious. With multiple causal inputs, there are also multiple effective outputs. People become not homeless one person at a time, not through categorical change. A final element that links to NS concepts is that the choice of delivery tools is mixed, owned by various players and governments, varied across communities and demanding collective action that needs intense co-‐ordination and common purpose. As NS emphasizes, the instruments of public policy, unlike in the past several decades, is not one of either public or private but of both public and private, both government and voluntary sector, both collective and individual. Homelessness therefore is a wicked problem, one with varied origins all gathered under this generic heading demanding varied responses with regard to the individuals and families but also to the communities involved. Government Power and Collective Governance Addressing homelessness in Canada also represents both innovation and challenges to how states apply their power, both through others (via contracting, funding, etc) and with others (through processes of collective governance). As will be seen in the facts of the case, the federal government’s homelessness efforts involved very little in the way of direct action, but a great deal in capacity building for local action. This
is recognition that homelessness really consists of a complex set of causes and equally complex set of responses that only work with a given context. For the traditional notion of government power and authority, one that stresses either direct government intervention and/or a single programmatic solution applied across the country, this is challenging.
Governance in this case is distributed among various levels of governments and a range of not-‐for-‐profit agencies. . The focus of the federal government on the creation of community councils has been a way to put itself in what resembles a driver’s seat, but with many restrictions on its own capacity to act. This is a healthy recognition of the realities of this complex policy area. However, on the other hand, it has also introduced, through the funding mechanisms, a range of accounting mechanisms that are not consistent with this distributed governance.
1.3. Homelessness in Canada: A Policy Mash-Up The concept of homelessness as a public policy issue, taken as a mix of both causality and solution, is relatively recent. As David Hulchanski of the Cities Centre, University of Toronto has put it: “By the early 1980s we needed a new term for a widespread mass phenomenon, a new social problem found in many wealthy, developed nations. The response was to add yet another suffix to further qualify the word homeless, to give us that odd job word, homeless-‐ness. Adding the suffix −ness
“I don’t know one homeless person who has just one problem.” – HPS official
5
makes the simple and clear word homeless into an abstract concept. As such, it allows users, readers, and listeners to imagine whatever they want. It tosses all sorts of problems into one handy term. We thus have the ongoing problem of defining what homeless-‐ness is and isn’t. There is no single correct definition, given the different mix of problems that goes into the hodgepodge of issues, and depending on who is using the term.” vi Homelessness is certainly more of a policy mash-‐up than a simple program focused on a single problem with a single set of results statements readily measured. A mash up is a common phrase more associated with mixing music for iPods than for complex social and economic policies. However, the analogy is a worthwhile one in this context. The concept of a policy mash up is introduced at this point to complement the concept of wickedness that suggests complexity and intractability. A policy mash up is unlike the concept of a social policy mess introduced by Russell Ackoff when he wrote, “Every problem interacts with other problems and is therefore part of a set of interrelated problems, a system of problems…. I choose to call such a system a mess.”vii The concept of a mash up suggests that complex societal problems are increasingly colliding into each other demanding integrated solutions from various sources. They often reflect the capacity of communities to respond and be resilient in a dynamic environment. For instance, the lack of adequate short-‐term housing for victims of family abuse with substance abuse problems in aboriginal communities is a true policy mash up demanding not linear standardized responses by a single agency, but rather integrative often situational responses by a variety of agencies often working in concert adopting non-‐traditional roles to find unique short and long term solutions. In a traditional conceptualization of even wicked problems, we might think of a lead agency, allocation of specific resources, and fitting the problem into the solution. In a mash up, we think of the problem first, then the capacity to respond effectively and in a timely way (resilience), followed by the resources needed no matter where they are situated in formal governmental relationships. Therefore, a police officer heavily engaged in one community might sound the alarm of systemic family violence problems on her beat or patrol, try to find short-‐term housing solutions and then marshal the right community, First National-‐based resources to mitigate the final solution. Who leads? Who cares?
1.4 Homelessness in the Canadian Context Let us look briefly at what are some of the commonly understood origins of homelessness in the Canadian context. The most obvious one is the lack of adequate housing at an affordable price. However, underlying that are several other even more intractable issues. For instance, the gradual deinstitutionalization of mental health facilities in the later part of the twentieth century and the concomitant failure
6
to grow community-‐based mental health capacity has lead to many eligible users of social housing being seen as behavioral misfits incapable of the structured and co-‐operative life of community housing. The connection between poverty and criminal activity is well established. However, what is not is the viscous circle of the continuous engagement in drug sub-‐cultures and sub-‐economies that reinforce criminal behaviour, move individuals through the correctional systems, return them to the street not capable of escaping this circle and facing homelessness as one component of a greater incapacity. These are characteristics common to homelessness around the world. In the Canadian context, shared with other countries such as Australia,viii issues of homelessness strike at First Nation people even more than the rest of the population. Homelessness for them has two faces: inadequate or non-‐existent housing on First Nation reserves and the even more problematic issue of urban First Nation homelessness. For instance, it has been reported in the media that fully twenty five percent of Toronto’s homeless population is of Aboriginal descent – a gross overrepresentation compared to the two percent of Aboriginal people who form the ethno-‐racial makeup of Toronto.ix These numbers can be more dramatically cast if one looks to the western part of the country where First Nations urban populations are larger. For instance, in a single one-‐day count of the homeless in Edmonton, Alberta, 38% were identified as of First Nation origin.x There is much debate about a precise definition of homelessness around the world. That very debate points to the ‘mashed up’ quality of the challenge. In 2008, the Parliamentary Library of Canada, as part of its research support to Parliamentarians, published a paper entitled, Defining and Enumerating Homelessness in Canada. In it, the following concepts were put forward to describe homelessness: “Homelessness is a broad term that can encompass a range of housing conditions. These can be understood on a continuum of types of shelter:
o At one end, absolute homelessness is a narrow concept that includes only those living on the street or in emergency shelters.
o Hidden or concealed homelessness is in the middle of the continuum. These include people without a place of their own who live in
7
a car, with family or friends, or in a long-‐term institution.
o At the other end of the continuum, relative homelessness is a broad category that includes those who are housed but who reside in substandard shelter and/or who may be at risk of losing their homes.
Another way to understand these categories is as levels of a pyramid, where absolute homelessness is only the “tip of the iceberg.” Some organizations xi propose that for every homeless person visible on the street, there are four whose homelessness is hidden.”xii The first area affecting homelessness policy and the federal response is the breadth of responsibility distribution. As noted above, only a mash up perspective can provide any hope of defining all levels of government and agencies involved in this issue. In fact, the capacity of the federal government to act on its own is limited as many of the instruments both of policy and delivery are the responsibility of provincial and municipal governments. For instance, social welfare policy, while funded in part through federal transfers, is the shared responsibility of the provinces and municipalites. Economic policy, however, is a fully distributed responsibility among all levels, with the more macro-‐level instruments in the hands of the federal government. Public safety, while driven by the federal responsibility for criminal justice, is, in fact a direct delivery responsibility of the provinces and municipalities. Complicating this fact, and perhaps typical of how the federal government moves into and out of direct service even at the local level, is the fact that 8 of 10 provinces and all territories contract their policing to the RCMP, the national police service.
The reality is that the vast majority of first responder-‐type activities associated with homelessness, e.g., emergency shelters, social housing, food, medical and drug, are provided locallly. Further, these interventions often involve voluntary and not-‐for-‐profit agencies providing services on a contracted basis or through charitable support. The federal reach to these communities is constricted by jursidiction and issues of control. The ability to simply mandate solutions, even if ones were found, decided upon and funded, is defined by the ability to get all the players to act in concert in a given context, as noted above.
Another reality is that the extent of the problem is never quite clear. Contentious problems with defining homelessness persist. The lack of reliable data may limit the country’s ability to address homelessness and has been a focus for international criticism. During a visit to Canada in October 2007, for example, the then-‐UN Special rapporteur on housing, Miloon Kothari, reported that he “was disappointed that the Government could not provide reliable statistics on the number of homeless.”xiii As one official pointed out during research interviews, the question of definition leads rapidly to the question of outcomes. What is the problem being solved? Is it placement in housing – and if so for how long, and at what level of economic,
8
personal and social self-‐sustainability? From different governments, there are also different perspectives. From the municipal perspective, it may mean getting people off the streets. From the social order perspective, it may mean the effective reduction of drug use and trafficking. From the provincial perspective, it may be reduced reliance on social welfare. From the federal perspective, it may mean less reliance on social assistance or greater justice for minority groups. State Power and Governance: Shifting Sands Homelessness policy has to be seen in the context of shifting responsibilities among governments. In fact, the shift of the federal government away from a direct role in social housing in the late 20th century may well be the key to understanding how a new role finally emerged. It is necessary to add to this an emergence at roughly the same time of an interest in cities as major deliverers and integrators of social and economic policy. Within the context of this divestment of responsibilities, there was considerable pushback from cities about homelessness, which they clearly understood to be well beyond their capacity to resolve in terms of their own powers and their resources. As homelessness began to emerge as a matter of public and media concern, mayors from Canada’s big cities pushed hard for a federal government involvement. The federal government of the day felt a lot of pressure to act, but it also recognized homelessness as an important policy issue. Pursuing this issue would allow the federal government to engage with and establish relationships with big cities at a time when big city issues were on the rise. It would also enable a form of social
intervention sought by the federal government, despite crossing what some would traditionally see as provincial and municipal jurisdictions. Therefore, in creating the policy on homelessness outlined below, the federal government was trying to insert itself into a more direct relationship with cities. This was a shift in governance approach. Added to this was the charismatic leadership of the responsible Minister. Minister Bradshaw was a unique type of apolitical politician with strong roots in community development. The approach adapted as outlined below was strongly opposed by the federal bureaucracy of the day. It was seen as too loose, too empowering of communities for variation, and crossing provincial lines of authority. However, there was strong political will. As one interviewee said, “This was driven by politicians. It
became a heart and soul issue for them. This is one of those cases where politicians are ahead of the bureaucrats.”
9
A governance model that treated many actors as active participants, based on community level organization, is not new. Many examples abound around the world. For Canada at this time, it certainly was, in that the federal government was in the game. The value is that it recognized all governments have already been involved through a variety of responsibilities. It also recognized the need to get communities involved. The true expertise and partnerships work most effectively at the community level. The challenge to notions of governance in this context is to being all government, private sector and NGOs together.
Section 2: The Homelessness Partnering Strategy One veteran official, who has worked through both the HPS and its predecessor, the National Homeless Initiative (NHI), noted that “Homeless is one of those areas that demands an asymmetrical response, one that is probably counter-‐intuitive to the bureaucratic mindset of program and compliance.” Further, addressing it from the federal perspective meant accepting a level of local variance uncommon to federal programming. Little was going to happen on homelessness unless communities were able to coalesce around the issue and marshal resources to address the specific problems each community faced. The National Homeless Initiative, created in 1999, was the federal secretariat most directly responsible for homelessness matters until its transition in 2007 to the HPS. The NHI was created to fund transitional housing and a range of services for homeless people across the country. NHI funded the federal program “Supporting Community Partnerships Initiative” (SCPI), which covered the costs of temporary shelters and services for the homeless. The federal government replaced the NHI with the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS), which was allocated to spend $270 million between 2007 and 2009. In September 2008, the Government of Canada announced that it would set aside funding for housing and homelessness programs of $387.9 million per year for the next five years. The federal role therefore has moved from any direct program funding to one of leadership and leveraging opportunity. It has not been that of direct service delivery of social welfare, health or public security programs. The motivation for federal involvement has been driven by a policy concern for homelessness and the view that federal funds are needed to support local initiatives. However, consistent with the NS basis of analysis, the model of program delivery was indirect, with three main features:
o Homelessness Partnership Initiative: This is the underpinning of the federal HPS program. Underlying it are the assumptions of helping communities organize to deal with homelessness, building community capacity and then
10
enabling through funding those communities to address their priority issues. The federal government has no jurisdiction to dictate to communities how they will deliver programs. Further, it is highly unlikely that any community could address homelessness in its own environment without the engagement of extended government agencies as well as the voluntary and institutional sector. The support of the HPI has focused on building that internal capacity. It has four funding components:
o Designated Communities: To date, 61 communities have received funding under the HPI. The HPS has required that the communities undertake a program of community planning, problem identification and priority setting. And the federal presence is important, as one official pointed out: “Having the federal government in this brings partners to the tables” While funding has flowed from this, it never meets all the needs and is not intended to. One of its benefits is that it limits the federal government’s involvement to capacity building, a clearly measurable result. One of the weaknesses is that funding tends to be project oriented and therefore subject to termination at some point.
o Outreach Communities: The funding for this program component primarily targets smaller cities, rural or outlying areas, and the north. Outreach communities do not have to develop community plans, but their requests for funding must include proof of support from a wide range of community partners.
o Aboriginal Communities: HPS partners with Aboriginal groups to ensure that services meet the precise and unique needs of “off-‐reserve” homeless Aboriginal people in cities and rural areas. The unique needs of all First Nation, Inuit, Métis, and non-‐status Indians are also considered.
The underlying community approach is articulated in the 2009-‐2010 Report on Plans and Prioritiesxiv of HRSDC: The Homelessness Partnering Strategy community-‐based program is delivered via two models: o Community Entity Model: Under this model, the Community Advisory
Board recommends projects to the community entity, which is the decision-‐making body responsible for approving project proposals and determining the eligibility of projects. HRSDC is responsible for managing the contribution agreement and all related activities. The community, in consultation with Service Canada, has designated responsibility for program delivery to a specific local organization; and
o Shared Delivery Model: Under this model, the Community Advisory Body reviews project proposals and makes recommendations to HRSDC, which
11
manages the contribution agreement and all related activities. Both Service Canada and the community work in partnership to support funding priorities, resulting in a joint selection and decision-‐making process. The Minister approves the project proposals.”
These models give focus to the HPS work as a community integrator rather than a direct service provider. As Margaret Eberle, Housing Policy Consultant, Eberle Planning and Research, said recently in testimony before a House of Commons sub-‐committee: “One of the things that SCPI or the Homelessness Partnering Strategy has done is to bring players to the table that were not involved before. If you look at some of the homelessness tables around the country, foundations and private-‐sector people are involved. Local governments are definitely on board.”xv In addition, other elements of the program are: o Federal Horizontal Pilot Projects: Even as the overall strategy of developing
community capacity was rolling out, it was recognized that the HPS within HRSDC could not act alone within the federal government. Many other federal programs and ministries had to be part of the solution. For that reason, it has funded a number of pilot projects, listed in the box below (entitled “Samples of Horizontal Pilot Projects supported by HPS), as examples to stimulate other parts of government to act on homelessness or develop their own capacities through experimentation.
Samples of Horizontal Pilot Projects supported by HPS: • Pre-‐discharge Support for Federal Offenders: Provides identification
documents to offenders prior to release to reduce recidivism. Location – Kingston. Partners – Correctional Service of Canada and Office of the Federal Interlocutor (OFI)
• Employment Support for Homeless Youth: Provides skills development to marginalized street youth for long-‐term housing and employment. Location – St. John’s. Partner – HRSDC Employment Programs
• Nutritional Health: Provides life skills program focused on nutrition to improve capacity of Aboriginal women living in a family shelter to become self-‐sufficient. Location – Brantford. Partner – Status of Women Canada
• Tending the Fire Leadership Program: Provides transitional housing, counselling and life skills training to encourage better outcomes for homeless Aboriginal men. Location – Regina. Partners – Public Safety Canada, Canadian Heritage and OFI
• Integrated Employability and Transitional Housing: Provides transitional housing with life skills training for persons involved with the criminal justice system. Location – Ottawa. Partners – Justice Canada and Health Canada
12
o Homelessness Accountability Network: This element of the program,
although small in resources, is designed to build knowledge and awareness of homelessness issues through building network and communities of practice. To date, almost 50 separate projects have been supported to build a better understanding of the dynamics of the homelessness process and linkages to mental and the criminal justice system.
o Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative: The federal
government owns property and buildings that frequently become surplus. This element was intended to make some of these buildings available to communities for shelters and residences.
Funding Structure of the HPS Program Like its predecessor, the NHI, the HPS has never been part of the base funding of HRSDC. Rather, when announced in 2007, it was given a two-‐year time horizon. In September 4, 2008, the Government of Canada decided to set aside funding for housing and homelessness programs at $387.9 million per year for five years to March 31, 2014. However, HPS was asked to return to Cabinet for the final three years (2011-‐2014) of funding. Therefore, in effect, there was a two-‐year commitment of funds and HPS had to begin again the funding process for the final three years. While there is a funding commitment for this period, the details of the programming are not yet certain. xvi The program has been reviewed and extended over the life of two governments of different political parties. It has enjoyed considerable grass roots support from many community groups, something that will often affect the decision to fund programs of this kind.
Mini-Case 1: Prince Albert, Saskatchewan The City of Prince Albert in central Saskatchewan is a good example of the many efforts of communities to come together to address homelessness and the way in which the HPS support has made this possible. Of course, it can be argued that the HPS requirement for a community action plan drove the results. But the benefits appear to be clear. The 2007 report of the City of Prince Albert states that “Not only does this mean that meager resources will be used more efficiently, but it also means that collective wisdom
Housing first – moving people from the street into secure affordable housing before addressing other issues they may have – has proven to be highly effective.
13
can be brought to bear on this overall plan as it emerges. When a community works together in a strategic fashion, they will not only use their resources better, they will also be able to leverage other funds because of their collective action and capacity.”xvii The City evolved its former Housing Committee into the CAB to pursue the funding available from the federal government. However, rather than this being a simple exercise in re-‐titling for entitlement, the community planning and analysis process that followed identified needs. It also brought together as partners in both the analysis and in the decision-‐making around funding, a number of groups already in existence in the community. The process also introduced discussion of measuring outcomes beyond the compliance measures that processes such as this often entail. While this discussion appears to be fulsome, it is clear that most of the efforts are devoted to those compliance issues associated with project and contribution funding. For Prince Albert, the CAP planning and governance process has been a success. It has increased the capacity of the City and its citizens. As noted in its report; “This document used the work and ideas of the people of Prince Albert, and the work by the service providers, for developing a document that could lead us into the 21st century as we discern how to most strategically respond to the critical need in our community.”
Section 3: Challenges and Linkages to a New Synthesis Analysis What follows is a mixture of story and analysis. The HPS has had many successes given its objectives. However, its broader linkage to the reduction of homelessness in Canada is more tentative. A recent Canadian Senate Report commented that “despite the thoughtful efforts and many promising practices of governments‘, the private sector, and community organizations, that are helping many Canadians, the system that is intended to lift people out of poverty is substantially broken, often entraps people in poverty, and needs an overhaul.“xviii While recognizing the intractable nature of this problem, the Committee also singled out the NPS as a success story: “The Government of Canada‘s National Homelessness Initiative and Homelessness Partnering Strategy have been widely praised and held up as a model for how the federal government can work with all stakeholders to tackle a problem in its local peculiarities. Most witnesses who addressed either homelessness in particular or approaches to local issues more generally flagged these programs as examples to be sustained and replicated in other areas. “xix What can be learned from the experience of the HPS is, above all, that even in a complex policy field, some advances can be made.
14
What challenges that finding, though, is the capacity to define the ultimate result and then to sustain it.
3.1. Complexity as a Defining Characteristic and Organizing Principle Homelessness is deeply rooted in complexity. Responses to it are, unlike so many federal programs that produce a single standard or entitlement for all Canadians, demand individual and localized approaches. The two dimensions key to defining the complexity and the reason that the NHS has had to be so adaptable over its life are:
o Defining the problem: While many begin their analysis with the issue of housing, it is an error to see the housing-‐first policy as anything but an opening strategy. Also entailed in homelessness are issues of health, mental health, drug, criminality, race and economics.
o A multitude of stakeholders: The HPS has been able to produce incentives to induce parties to work together. Further, it has leveraged work at the provincial and municipal levels, most of which tends towards the consensus view that a holistic and community-‐based approach is the best.
The best responses to complexity lie in resilience and organizational adaptability. In this instance, various communities, and, in the case the Province of Quebec, a whole province, have adopted their own means to collectively address homelessness. The HPS has learned to adapt to these differences. In doing so, it has tapped into a community base of support and leveraged that into the creation of certain required first steps such as the Community Advisory Board and needs process as coalescing forces. One reason that homelessness is so complex and demanding is that the seduction of short-‐term solutions meets many people’s view of a solution. This tends to translate into one of two courses of action: get these people out of our neighborhood or a specific intervention, e.g., housing, will solve all of our problems. In neither case does this hold up in reality. Like many intractable social problems today, the sources and solutions are both complex and idiosyncratic. Add to this the fact that the mix of issues varies with communities. The one big
“There is a real distinction between the way communities tell their stories. They want narrative, people and context. Governments need it in data form. Communities believe that the way governments collect data is not their story. Governments need data to support the policy direction. -‐ interview.
15
fix is both quixotic and wasteful. The federal government’s approach, given its reach and the limitations of both jurisdictional authority and resources, would appear to have some considerable wisdom.
3.2. Societal Results Competing with Measurable Results In addressing societal goals, the issue of homelessness begs the question of where does it end? With the elimination of homelessness? With the elimination of poverty? Societal goals are by their very nature contentious, seldom well defined and subject to continual re-‐scoping. Keeping them on track is virtually impossible. We seldom see a precise goal such as: we will put a man on the moon in this decade. This is seductive as a bold, big goal. Unfortunately, “we will eliminate homelessness” will be difficult to measure and create unrealistic expectations of outcomes. Researchers rightly refer to homelessness as “an odd-‐job word, pressed into service to impose order on a hodgepodge of social dislocation, extreme poverty, seasonal or itinerant work, and unconventional ways of life.” xx There is also the issue of what goals are the real goals. Margaret Eberle suggests that “Focusing on reducing the use of costly government funded health care, criminal justice and social services through the provision of supportive housing for homeless people makes good sense from financial perspective.” The HPS has struggled with the goals that it is actually measuring. One challenge that it has faced, discussed below, is the amount of resources it has spent on short-‐term measurement of the results of the federal support versus the actual application of long-‐term goals measurement, taking into account all resources involved. However, in providing a relatively neutral ground that focuses on community self-‐organization, it has also enabled communities to take a more holistic perspective on problems. As noted in the referenced December, 2009 Senate Report: “Building on the work begun in the development of plans under the National Homelessness Initiative, some communities have developed broader plans, focused on current resources and directing new ones strategically toward the elimination of homelessness. Also as noted above, these strategies often use a ―housing first approach, which necessarily means that homelessness plans and housing plans become one and the same. “ xxi The very concept of what is a result for the federal government’s homelessness policy has changed over the years. At first, partnership was intermediary to bring resources together. Money was seen as a strategic leverage. More recently, the focus is on results-‐based initiatives: the focus became what the money actually does. One observer said, “We began to look at what our money does and taking credit for that. That means less focus on the cumulative focus, taking into account what others did and what we were all doing together.” This leads to a potential conflict between accountability and results. Even though the federal money is small in terms of impact, the focus on its reporting requirements has in fact diluted its leadership capacity to influence others. There is less focus on the initial concept of partnership
16
and solving the big problem. An example of a measurement tool is the community development surveys developed early in the process. These are not linked to federal dollars spent, but rather to measuring the cumulative effect of the community effort. While these surveys are still undertaken, they are not used extensively internally or by other actors. This is clearly a case of short-‐term measurement of flow taking precedence over medium or long-‐term results. The HPS spends most of its focused measurement resources on short-‐term issues. This has been driven by the government’s increased demands for greater accountability, most often manifest in linking money spent to specific results. As one program official noted, “All our tools now measure what we spend. We do not measure the impact on homelessness itself or on how communities work together. ”
3.3. Civic Results and Engagement The HPS is built on the model of civic engagement. In fact, for many of the 61 communities engaged in the Strategy, it has enabled them (see the Prince Albert case above), to build stronger working arrangements, leverage resources in a more effective way, distribute risk and focus action. This is also an example within the context of the New Synthesis, of how complex policy issues can find traction in the real world. The HPS, while having some clear requirements for the funding support it gives, has tended to be highly flexible in the ultimate adaptation. This has produced both very positive results and challenges. Creating an environment that permits local adaptation of program delivery has meant a leap in thinking from a traditional bureaucratic model, articulated by one program officials as the reality that there is “more known outside of Ottawa than inside.” Passion and commitment play a key role in any form of engagement: “The 20 agencies visited by the Committee and the dozens of agencies that submitted briefs, participated in roundtables and appeared as witnesses, all inspired the Committee with their innovations, passion and effective programs. “ This comment from the Senate Report should not surprise anyone
“The HPS is great framework. It is already in 61 communities. Relationships have been established with entities that are leaders at the local level. It is a great way to leverage and build on those relationships. You should definitely support the coordinating body across ministries”. -‐ Alina Tanasescu, Manager of Research and Public Policy, Calgary Homeless Foundation, Evidence, Senate Subcommittee on Cities, 2nd Session, 40th Parliament, 5 June 2009
17
engaged in community action. However, for so many programs of national scope, little effort is made to marshal that passion. The HPS is clearly an exception. In doing so, a challenge is finding a balance between national uniformity and local adaptation. As Deborah Kraus, a housing policy and research consultant noted: “The balance between national and community roles is very interesting, and we do have a program now through the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, which replaces the National Homelessness Initiative. One of the excellent things about that program was that it put in place a community process. Communities across the country were forced to get together and decide how to tackle homelessness in their community. “xxii
The HPS has been able to transcend various layers of government to instill this type of community-‐based engagement in the partner communities. As noted by Liz Weaver, Director, Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction: “Where we have seen a bit of a difference is around the national Homelessness Partnering Strategy, where there has been flexibility for local communities to help design what the community requires. There is some challenge around the shortness of that funding option, but it has allowed government, citizens, service providers and the development community in Hamilton to come together and identify strategies for that whole continuum of social housing that is effective and relevant to our community. That is the type of solution we are looking for. “ xxiii
3.4. Fluidity in Governance Models The number of players and cross of boundaries that characterize homelessness make it inevitable that there be greater flexibility in governance. This requires a frequent return to first principles. This is a shared responsibility in classical jurisdictional terms. In the context of the New Synthesis, responsibility is actually distributed and who is responsible for what will change in individual circumstance. Therefore, the potential of confusion about accountability is real. This is part of an ongoing debate. The file is so complex and has so many dimensions that “It doesn’t settle down.” as one of those interviewed noted. There is the constant potential for debate in which nobody owns it or everybody owns it. “We are constantly rehashing those ideas. These questions are unresolved and unclear.”
However, such fluidity is not necessarily a bad thing. Bureaucracies like certainty and predictability. Homelessness does not offer much comfort in that area. It does, however, require that those driving the policy spend more time on process and take a longer-‐term perspective, as they are not delivering in a direct way. Policy leaders saw that many communities were fragmented. This was not an issue of money alone, rather a lot of NGOs were competing for resources
18
and wanted to show results, so they targeted the easy cases. There was no co-‐operation. Therefore, in building the capacity to drive to results and have sustainable governance, community plans proved to be the most important tool to address homelessness at the community level and give the federal government some kind of hook upon which to hang its role and resources. “It created a focus on priorities. We made communities do policy exercises.” Program leaders have also noted that, as communities developed their initial plans and created the Community Advisory Boards, they grew in sophistication and capacity. In some cases cited, Boards were able, through small federal funding, to leverage municipal and provincial funding. In another example, faced with conflicting provincial and federal concerns – the clash of state power – one CAB developed a decision-‐making protocol that ensured all parties signed off on new program development. This increasing governance capacity at the local level is a positive result, poorly measured.
3.5. Adaptive Governance: capacity for anticipation, innovation and adaptation The HPS has been built on a concept of shared and adaptive governance. The small case of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan points to two elements that have stood out in the fact gathering stage:
o The deliberate pursuit of a community-‐based governance strategy, combined with
o The integration and building upon existing community arrangements. Adopting such a strategy has meant playing both a push role to see the creation of community entities envisaged in the strategy, and a pull role that supports the creation of structures that may not be common, but are common enough to satisfy higher-‐level notions of consistent implementation. It has also meant creating information and knowledge sharing tools that enable effective governance and reporting.
Mini-Case 2: HPS Teleforums: Building interagency capacity to report and focus on results A principal challenge in the area of homelessness, but also many emerging policy issues today, is the number of agencies engaged. State power can, to some degree, create requirements to report and exercise various iterations of accountability through funding and other controls. However making these requirements effective demands that there be some capacity to ‘skill up’ participants. Further, and ideally, leadership has to be focused not just on rule compliance but also on creating some means to come to a common and real understanding of the desired results and how
19
they will be measured and assessed. This is part of the new governance challenge as well – continuous linkages among partners. In 2007, the HPS initiated a series of webinars, known as Teleforums, to provide information and share practice among the disparate groups of partners across the Strategy. To date, over 20 have been successfully complete. On average there are about 70 phone lines connected, often with groups of people at the end of each line. HPS organizes content in conjunction with partner demand. The material is offered bilingually through distributed PowerPoint and verbal presentations. Topics cover a wide range of topics, reflecting the very nature of the homelessness issue. The highest demand area is in mental health and youth. HPS seeks out speakers who have ideas and information to share. There are no boundaries on who is engaged. Vancouver Police made a presentation on mental health and policing, for instance. For more information, see: http://www.homelesshub.ca/Resource/QuickSearch.aspx?search=teleforum In interviews with various HPS staff, they reported that much of their time involves constant communication outside formal channels with various community players. Much of this involves the transfer of information, the sharing of practices and the connecting of individuals across the country. The Teleforum point to a strong interest among smaller players who tend to be knowledge-‐starved and poorly resourced to gather such information on their own.
3.6. Multi-Party and Multi-Dimensional Risk The issue of homelessness is rife with risk:
o Strategic risks – the investments do not work or produce unintended consequences,
o Political risks – something awful happens to an individual directly linked to a government funded activity, political conflict among the various levels of government calls for greater political action by opposition parties or activist NGOs,
o Compliance risks – in a complex chain of delivery with multiple sources of funding, measurement and accountability, the potential of something of materiality actually going wrong rises exponentially,
o Performance risks – one party does not play its role or deliver on its promises.
It is of interest in this case that the risks have not deterred many of the actors from moving ahead. As one official said of the nature of risk, “It doesn’t settle down.” It is in constant flux among the various parties, most notably among the CABs, bureaucrats and politicians. While the risk environment is rich and complex, it would appear that there have been few systemic failures or points at which the latent risks materialize. Why is this so?
20
It would appear that risk management has taken place at various stages of the process. However, it would also appear that there has been no systematic and singular approach to risk. Rather, this is a case that might best be described as multi-‐dimensional risk gridding. Traditional concepts of risk management involve the application of risk analysis, definition and mitigation strategies in a linear fashion for a single organization. However, in this case, we have an example of an initiative that crosses all levels of government, the civic sector and the non-‐for-‐profit sector. Further, there are inherent risks in the very nature of homelessness with respect to safety, vulnerabilities and potential for harm that make this a complex and deeply human type of risk challenge. Some of the elements inherent in multi-‐dimensional risk gridding are:
o Spreading the risk throughout the system,
o Avoiding single risk targets, o Decentralized response.
In looking at this case through the lens of emerging paradigms, we see evidence of sustained efforts to ensure that risk was distributed in a multi-‐dimensional way. Further, even where short-‐term accountability risks represented a challenge for the players, efforts were made to ensure they were met without distracting from the strategic objectives.
3.7. Systems of Performance Management and Accountability The very concepts of performance management and accountability are built on the ability of organizations to learn and share information. This has been a challenge for the HPS, driven by micro-‐level reporting requirements, the constant churn of those engaged and the long-‐term nature of some of the principal performance issues. As one program official noted: “We are not good at learning from all this information we gather. People move on, memories are lost. You have to know how to handle the ingredients of success, but have to put it together within the context.” The metrics of accountability have changed over time. Some of the factors contributing to that are:
1. Phenomenon of Shifting Goals: “While organizations often grew in this way, their community expanded with them. Sometimes organizations can alleviate poverty or homelessness; sometimes they can simply make those conditions more survivable. Sometimes the relationship between the organization and the client is short term, such as a night at a homeless shelter, sometimes it is a much longer term relationship.” xxiv
21
2. Multi-‐Level Measurement: “We need to recognize that action must take places at three levels: the level of individuals and families; the community level, with initiatives at the local and municipal level; and the macro (federal and provincial) level, where the resources − for the most part, our tax dollars − are located. The failure to act appropriately at all three levels means that partial efforts have little chance of success – if success means having fewer homeless people and a dramatically smaller need for expensive services for homeless people.” xxv
3. Action Learning: This is a case in which performance and accountability
have to keep pace with more and more knowledge about the phenomenon itself and shifts in emphasis, e.g. the adoption of the concept of housing first as a major shift then affects what is measured.
3.8. Systems of Compliance and Control HPS represents an environment in which issues of centralization and decentralization compete. In addition, issues of compliance with various sets of rules and control over inputs, processes and outcomes are set in competition with the desired outcome. As one program official stated, “There is a blind spot on performance management and control. They drive you to the pursuit of the measurable. This distorts you towards standardization of approach in a public policy area that begs for specialization”. The point needs to be made when looking at the case of homelessness that, while there is a true mash-‐up of inputs, sources and local adaptation, variations are not extreme. They exist in terms of the things that work in specific locations, equipped with varying social and physical infrastructure. But they all operate within a band of reasonable effort. Therefore, the notion of deviance from a fairly broad base of actions is hardly one that entails either great risk or deep ideological divides. Certainly, there are some contentious issues, such as needle exchanges in some places. However, in the end, the variations are responsive to local situations and capacities. Therefore, while we see policies evolve based on partnerships and collective leadership, they work with a range of generally predictable alternatives. However, for some parts of the system, most notably the governments, variation is hard to integrate. From a New Synthesis perspective, therefore, the very definition of compliance in this case needs to be discussed. Is it compliance with the rules of the various players or the chief funder? Or is it compliance with the intended program outcomes? Even this language does not roll out easily within the current context of tightened accountability for input and processes prevalent within governments. Many of the actors with the HPS clearly identified this as a major impediment to sustaining a focus on the outcome target of reducing homelessness. As one interviewee pointed out, “We have had to act with some considerable stealth to avoid flooding the various communities with compliance requirements.”
22
As Michael Power, in his prescient essay, The Audit Revolution pointed out, “The audit explosion is only in part a quantitative story of human and financial resources committed to audit and its extension into new fields. It also concerns a qualitative shift: the spread of a distinct mentality of administrative control, a pervasive logic that has a life over and above specific practices. One crucial aspect of this is that many more individuals and organizations are coming to think of themselves as subjects of audit” HPS, like most federal government programs, has seen an increase in reporting requirements. Further, these are taking place within regimes that require annual results reporting and review in the form of audits. However, neither the policy objectives nor the impact of specific interventions are limited to a single year. Such reporting requirements distort organizational behaviour and encourage the short-‐term actions that can be measured within an audit cycle. They are incompatible with what be might called the appropriate policy/implementation cycle of a complex set of responses and strategies. “We would just like to get one thing done before we start reporting on our compliance.” This telling comment from one interview clearly points to this risk of measuring before actually doing. Most government activities and services are not the final results but simply an intermediate step in a chain of activities involving many organizations working toward achieving a desired public outcome Several of those interviewed pointed to several factors that affect compliance and control issues emerging through efforts such as HPS which involved distributed responsibilities, powers and governance:
o Key levers of action are pre-‐existent and the innovation is bringing them together,
o Multiple actors create multiple accountabilities, rules and systems of compliance,
o There is little consensus on intermediate let alone final outcomes except the elimination of homelessness with no metrics to define that adequately,
o A profound mismatch in time between the audit and the policy/implementation perspectives with a distortion towards implementation by audit, and
o A focus of scarce audit results on short-‐term surrogates for results and poor allocation of those resources on actual outcomes.
Section 4: Lessons Learned Much can be learned from the HPS about how governments can perform well in complex public policy fields.
23
4.1. Role of lessons learned and knowledge transfer in harmonizing interagency reporting capacity The Senate Committee noted the importance of knowledge transfer in the context of homelessness in its recommendation to “use grants and contributions to fund community-‐based organizations to provide innovative solutions, to share innovation, and where appropriate to replicate successful community-‐based initiatives involved in poverty reduction, housing affordability, and supporting homeless people [Recommendation 71].” It has been a challenge for governments to stick to the project and not lose their corporate memory. This can seriously jeopardize complex issue management: “Governments must pay more attention to their internal succession planning and knowledge transfer with respect to comprehensive community initiatives. The success of this work is rooted in personal relationships that are built by working collaboratively. Consequently, when public servants are transferred, the remaining partners feel a sense of loss. It is easier for new relationships to form with the incoming public servants if they are personally introduced to the partners by their predecessor and have been well briefed on the initiative. While the same principles hold true for other partners, staff turnover is much lower.” xxvi
4.2. Impact of Constant Staff Changes While it is clear that relationships and trust, along with a deep knowledge of the local scene, are crucial to the success of long-‐term collaborative partnerships, the federal government has been plagued by constant turnover of staff, most notably in its office dispersed across the country. In the HSP, the first issue is not program delivery, but community planning and leveraging of resources. This takes time, trust and collaboration. This is the greatest benefit of this Strategy. Having staff unfamiliar with the local culture and not adequately embedded in the local system turns them into visiting bureaucrats who do not build trust and do not communicate and advise upon the local priorities. On the other hand, the national office has provided some consistency over the years. A number of the senior officials within HPS in Ottawa have been involved with the program for many years.
Soup Kitchen on Wheels – Moncton, New Brunswick
24
4.3. Reporting The HSP has suffered from a tension between transactional reporting and a focus on outputs. Most government activities and services are not the final results but simply an intermediate step in a chain of activities involving many organizations working toward achieving a desired public outcome. The federal role through HPS tends to fund other people doing things. They then try to measure results within a set of confined measures that focus strictly on the use of federal money. This is a double edged sword. Such intermediate and somewhat forced measurement of results may suffice to meet a sense of accountability for dollars spent. However, it would be foolhardy to suggest that they replace long-‐term impact. The federal pursuit of results measurement, while laudable in an of itself, is not a collaborative effort of the shared governance model, but rather a singular requirement of one player imposing its needs upon the others who also have their own internal dynamics. The uniform definition of results, protocols for their release and use, and a solid link to policy change is a challenge. There is very little agreement on how to measure homelessness. However, even more contentious is how to measure the impact of any one intervention to reduce it. Further, as this issue moves through the collaborative and jurisdictional grids, the very definition of results and outcomes becomes unclear. A major challenge has been the inability to come to a common set of measures that cross jurisdictions and serve the broadly based needs for community engagement and the new transparency. “System-‐wide performance management follows the chain of activities among actors leading to the ultimate public policy outcomes”, commented one program official. There appears to be no work underway across the networks to come up with common definitions or outcome measures.
4.4. Permanently Impermanent The HPS is not a permanently funded program. It is subject to renewal every two years, a fact that drains considerable administrative effort on a virtually full-‐time basis. Two years is a wink of the eye in the funding and budget game of any big government. The run up to decisions requires internal consultations, measurement,
25
evaluation, etc. Such impermanence destabilizes relationships with partners. The funding capacity to support efforts across the country is always in question. There is, however, another wink and nod at play here. Two different governments have renewed the program. Its impermanence does not seem to reflect any ambiguity of political will. Perhaps it can be argued that such impermanence creates a temporary, simulative role for the federal government, which will end as communities mount their successful efforts. The model of the temporary agency to address temporary challenges is both seductive and can be good public policy. The challenge here is that the model does not work. Homelessness is one of those wicked problems that will not go away easily and in the near term. It would appear that a constituency, a highly decentralized one, has developed around the federal role in homelessness. Such support has consistently translated itself into strong ministerial support for the program. Overall bureaucratic support is considerably weaker. As one official noted, “This program touches a lot of people for very little money.” It also, through the CAB process, engages many local elites, who are also politically active, a key source of support. Succeeding in the renewal process is not without costs. The HPS renewal is often last minute, requiring a scramble to renew contractual funding arrangements quickly in order to ensure continuity. This takes time and energy, both finite entities. With the renewal process linked to a policy review, an evaluation and a budget cycle, various players enter the picture, asking for information, clarification and answers. They are simply doing due diligence. However, this too takes time and energy – away from the program. “Ten years is not temporary any more. It wears you down. Do I have to go to defend this again? “ Was one observation of a long-‐term program official.
4.5. Building Collaboration The experience to date suggests some lessons in how to build collaborative forms of engagement that transcend notions of consultation or the traditional act/react/respond form of interaction through some basic steps:
o multiple entry points, o linking one strategy to another at the local level, o use time to build institutional and personal trust, o provide access to mutually useful risk management tools, o having effective intermediary persons and institutions, such as pre-‐existing
local committees, provincial and national organizations that support the objectives of the policy and offer support and facilitation to the process,
o avoiding standardization of solutions, o Transfer of lessons learned and leading practice.
26
4.6. Getting to Know You The various initiatives such as CABs need time and sustained support to be effective. The challenges of implementing a set of initiatives in different ways across the country increases the complexity and the risk that the entire enterprise will collapse with even one small adjustment in any one players’ commitment, resources or resolve. As a matter of reality, the federal government, while putting forward some good funding, is not a majority funder. Keeping the relationship going forward takes more than sound formal governance agreements. It demands that relationships of trust and common purpose be forged with people over time.
One risk in such multi-‐layered and cross-‐agency enterprises is the impact of changes in government. In reality, directions do change. Further, new relationships of trust must be forged. The Secretariat has been able to support a change in government by using its wealth of relational credits created over the past decade. As one senior official said, “The leveraging we get from these relationships go way beyond just good will. Often it
will mean that someone will connect the dots along the value chain of the program to find more resources, bring in a new funder and, most important of all, smooth over any threats to the total program by one change, reduction in funding, shift in emphasis.” What this points to in the new world of public administration is that, even with third party and arms length delivery tools now in play, trust and relationships are actually even more important than they have been in the past. On the other hand, in the new environment, the field of players is that much larger in disbursed program development and delivery.
4.7. Traditional Authorities Do Not Work, but Still Loom Large The HPS is not designed to deliver a set of standardized services. It is a leveraging device to improve ways to address homelessness through building community capacity and bringing a multitude of resources to the table to build locally-‐defined priority programs and processes. Even with specific accountability regimes in place for all governments, some authority and decision-‐making has to be shared in new ways. To date, the quest for a common base of measurement that avoids duplication has eluded the overall effort.
27
By finding ways to engage provincial and municipal actors, the Strategy has been able to leverage approximately $3 for every $1 it invests. In order to do that, it must ensure that it avoids a common problem of the old paradigm of federal funding which tended to distort local priorities and override or ignore local and provincial decision-‐making. For instance, in Newfoundland, no funding for any project is approved without provincial agreement. This then ensures a greater alignment of those resources and increases the likelihood that partners will see their contribution as value added.
4.8. Civic Engagement through Adaptive Governance Governments have to achieve results in a world of shared governance, characterized by a dispersion of power and authority involving the public sector, the private sector, civil society and citizens. In the instance of the HPS, the CAB experience clearly points to elements of this, but pushes it further. Core expertise to create governance is local. Knowledge about governance practice is not. Therefore, there is not simply a bottoms-‐up approach, but in fact, a combination of bottom-‐up and top-‐down. However the character of that governance changes from community to community. Shared governance then also means adaptive governance.
4.9. Information: Only Ask for What You Need At the outset, much information was demanded of the CABs from the federal government. It turned out that it was not used and certainly did not figure in decision-‐making, even about the renewal process. In addition, the reporting requirements, as noted above, were a burden. Simplification of reporting requirements over the review period helped somewhat in reducing the burden. However, the lesson is that information is a resource. The costs of its collection, reporting and use should be weighed against the need, materiality and risks posed, and not just a desire to harvest as much interesting information as possible.
28
Footnotes i The title is taken from the following quotation: “It will take common vision, collaboration, persistence and hard work over several years to resolve the long-‐standing problems that have led to the homelessness, untreated mental health, problematic substance use and crime that Victoria, and other communities across the country, are seeing in our downtowns.” – Mayor’s Task Force, Victoria, 2007, http://www.victoria.ca/cityhall/pdfs/tskfrc_brcycl_exctvs.pdf iiTim Crooks, Evidence, SAST, 2nd Session, 39th Parliament, 6 December 2007. iii A formal program evaluation of the HPS is available at http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/evaluation/2009/ehps/sp-‐ah-‐904-‐07-‐09e.pdf iv Ritchey, Tom; "Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with Morphological Analysis," Swedish Morphological Society, last revised 7 November 2007 v http://www.ns6newsynthesis.com/whatweare vi Homelessness in Canada: Past, Present, Future J. David Hulchanski, PhD Cities Centre and Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto Conference keynote address, Growing Home: Housing and Homelessness in Canada University of Calgary, February 18, 2009 vii See New Tools For Resolving Wicked Problems: Mess Mapping and Resolution Mapping Processes, Robert E. Horn and Robert P. Weber; Strategy Kinetics L.L.C., 2007. viii “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are over seven times more likely than non-‐Indigenous people to access the services of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), Australia’s primary service delivery response to homelessness. The total number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander SAAP clients for 2002–03 was 16,465 people. These clients comprised 11 per cent of SAAP clients in urban areas; 22 per cent in rural areas; and 68 per cent in remote areas.” – National Homelessness Information Clearing House, available at http://www.homelessnessinfo.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=504:indigenous-‐homelessness-‐within-‐australia&catid=133:homelessness&Itemid=111 ix Urban Aboriginal Homelessness in Canada, Maggie Wente, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, available at http://action.web.ca/home/housing/resources.shtml?x=67148&AA_EX_Session=a194a138075734ed56ec95e7e7ce43f5
x See: http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/CommPeople/HomelessCountOct2006.pdf xi See Marie-‐Chantal Girard, Determining the Extent of the Problem: The Value and Challenges of Enumeration, Canadian Review of Social Policy, Vol. 58, 2006, p. 104. And
29
Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia (SPARC BC), In the Proper Hands: SPARC BC Research on Homelessness and Affordable Housing xii PRB 08-‐30E: Defining and Enumerating Homelessness in Canada Havi Echenberg, Hilary Jensen, Social Affairs Division, 29 December 2008, available at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0830-‐e.htm#definition xiii http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/visits.htm xiv http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/dpr/rpp/index.shtml xv Evidence, Subcommittee on Cities, 2nd Session, 40th Parliament, 5 June 2009 xvi http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/corporate/whats_new/2008/080919.shtml xvii http://intraspec.ca/CommunityActionPlanOnHomelessnessAndHousing.pdf xviii In From the Margins, A Call for Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness, Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, December, 2009. xix Ibid., p. 114 xx Kim Hopper and Jim Baumohl (1996) “Redefining the Cursed Word,” Chapter 1 of Homelessness in America, J. Baumohl, editor, Phoenix: Oryx Press, p. 3 xxi Senate Report, p. 115 xxii Deborah Kraus, Housing Policy and Research Consultant, Evidence, SAST, 2nd Session, 39th Parliament, 6 December 2007 xxiii (Liz Weaver, Director, Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, Evidence, Subcommittee on Cities, 2nd Session, 40th Parliament, 3 June 2009). xxiv Senate report xxv Hulchanski, op.cit. xxvi Caledon, Gorman,