In the beginning stages of our research, we defined social inclusion as a discourse that moved beyond more standard measurements of economic and social deprivation to include many more dimensions, which allow us to more fully participate in the rights of citizenship. It’s been difficult to find a definition that would include the questions we ask around housing but I like the language used by Catherine Frazee in her interview; “Inclusion is about people –all people- making their way into the human community.” I think that sums up in a profound way, why this discourse is important to us. Housing is the foundation upon which we make our way into community, in which we form community and are formed by it. It locates us. It makes us fit in or not. It offers a place to gather with our friends, to have a home-based industry. It gives us a private domain, or fails to. It nurtures and sustains us – or not. It gives space for intimate relationships. I also agree with Cathy that the opportunity and ability to form relationships has to be at the centre of an understanding of social inclusion.
We know intuitively what it takes beyond income support or a decent warm home to facilitate participation in the benefits of citizenship, but we can never know all the ways in which an individual can enhance their ability to reach their potential. That is why voice is such an important part of this framework.
We had a number of questions when we started the research. We wanted to know what data was available in Canada or elsewhere that might show the links between housing investment and better outcomes for kids. We wanted to know if the notion of secure housing, where costs are stable and predictable, is a prerequisite to social inclusion for children. Could the ideas in the social inclusion framework assist us with developing better housing policy? What kind of conceptual framework would be helpful to those who are involved in thinking about housing policy in this country? Is there existing data that can inform this discussion? What are the markers of success that demonstrate the importance of secure housing for children?
When I explain these questions to housing policy persons and developers, I say that we need to know whether and where housing fits in the social inclusion discourse. As we go through mammoth changes to how programs are funded, we have to ask whether our methods yield the best results in terms of increasing capacity and autonomy. How can you improve a system that serves some well and others not at all? How do we better take advantage of resources available at the community level? What do children understand their options to be?
Imagine that you are living in a home where the housing cost is greater 30% of the gross household income. 1.9 million households in Canada do. Imagine that it exceeds 50% of your income. About half of households in need face this scenario. Now imagine you are a child trying to imagine your future. Will you ever have a place of your own? Will you end up homeless? With 1.4 million children living in poverty, one can assume that many live in housing that is too costly and therefore insecure. Others live in shelters. What kind of options is available to those who cannot afford market-housing costs in areas where that may be able to find employment?
The debate in housing circles for many years has been around whether our housing affordability problems are related to a supply problem or an income problem. If you say supply, than the government might have a role in encouraging more supply i.e. through social housing development programs. If it is strictly income, then some proponents would say give people the money they need to access housing in the marketplace and the market will do the rest, which of course has many problems. That is a bit simplified, but it captures the flavour of the argument. But perhaps this framing of the problem is not enough. The arguments around it have certainly grown tiresome. Perhaps some of the questions raised through an approach that looks at social inclusion will open up the thinking around what kind of interventions make sense.
Needless to say, we were not able to get satisfactory answers to many of these important questions. But we now are more confident of what the right questions are.
The Laidlaw study gave us the opportunity to view housing programs and institutions through a different lens. We are only at the beginning of our work on this project, and over time, our work must be linked with the work of those in other social policy realms. In some ways, housing policy in Canada with its community development thrust has already captured some of the important factors that can increase capacity. Factors such as choosing the right location, using vernacular design that blends in with existing neighbourhoods, considering access to amenities, using mixed income approaches that can mimic the mix found in the surrounding community, resident involvement in design and management, access to transit have been important considerations in many developments.
Current discussions on social inclusion and exclusion are full of complexities. Broad acceptance of social goals does not imply social inclusion or equality of opportunity. One situation may give rise to both social inclusion and social exclusion. For example, social housing residents may have a sense of community within, while at the same time experiencing a sense of exclusion when they encounter prejudice from others because of their housing status. It is also important to realize that inclusion and exclusion are not necessarily opposites. A group may be opposed to social exclusion, but not want social inclusion at the expense of their unique identity, such as Aboriginal groups in Canada.
Social inclusion is a concept, which has a particular and intimate link to housing. Housing is a gateway through which we connect to our immediate environment and society at large. It reflects social status, belonging to community, a centre to gather with friends and family and it has a direct bearing on the extent to which we experience social inclusion or exclusion.
Add to this complexity the importance of understanding how housing and social inclusion affect children, and it can be difficult to know where to begin. The objective of our project was to help sort this out, by developing a conceptual framework for considering the complex linkages that exist between housing, social inclusion and children.
In our research, we relied on the work of leading social researchers — such as Amartya Sen, Stephen Klasen, Jane Jensen and Paul Bernard — to help shape our thinking about social inclusion and housing.
Social inclusion can be defined as people’s capacity and agency — their means and supports — to control their lives. It’s about their ability to play an active role in influencing their circumstances and making autonomous decisions. So for us, there are three important components to consider: capacity, agency and autonomy.
Our research suggests that social inclusion is advanced when investments are made to improve people’s capacity and autonomy to control their lives. Capacity refers to the resources and tools at hand that help us create lives for ourselves that we value. This includes the tools to be healthy, well fed, adequately housed, integrated in society and active in community and public life.
Clearly, the capacity of individuals is not simply a function of personal intelligence, knowledge, strength, income and wealth. It is enhanced — or hindered — by the economic, social, cultural and political structures of communities and governments. Programs such as broad-based public education and universal health care can encourage inclusive social attitudes. Land use plays a central role. Zoning regulations can enable or prohibit inclusive types of housing like multiple family dwellings, secondary suites, special needs housing, etc. Inclusionary zoning and smart growth practices encourage the development of mixed income neighbourhoods that have amenities and work opportunities close to residences. It was our contention that housing defines an individual’s place in society, more so than income. Children learn and participate in society to a considerable extent based on where they live. Housing location can also enhance or detract from employment chances of adult family members, which in turn impacts on younger members of the household. It can offer amenities close at hand or be isolated from neighbourhood amenities, shopping, schools, parks, places for religious or community gathering, public transportation. Moreover, it can be located in proximity or far from family and friends who offer tangible supports as well as opportunities to relate. What we have learned so far supports the view that housing location can have a powerful affect on a person’s capacity.
Children’s sense of social inclusion or exclusion is primarily due to forces outside their command. Home and neighbourhood are of particular importance, with children learning much of their sense of autonomy from their own experiences within their family, school and neighbourhood. But they also observe the impact of housing on their parents and neighbourhood.
It is difficult for children to develop a sense of autonomy in families where economic realities limit and restrict decisions. If their parents cannot exercise capacity, influence circumstances and make autonomous decisions in their jobs, as tenants or in the community, the children are likely to conclude that their fate is similar, that there is not much value in asserting oneself. Little will change. They may not even learn methods of intervening on their own behalf. In fact, the limitations experienced by parents (e.g. unable to afford a car) in many ways can directly limit their children’s capacity, autonomy and sense of inclusion (e.g. unable to easily get to and from extracurricular activities located outside the immediate neighbourhood).
Our research presents a conceptual framework that looks at housing’s influence on children’s autonomy and their sense of place in society in three ways:
Housing indicators such as core housing need are not linked specifically to social inclusion and exclusion or to the social policy objectives of capacity and autonomy. A broader set of indicators for social inclusion would focus on the three spheres just mentioned, namely the symbolic, physical and socio-economic.
One indicator of capacity and autonomy would be housing’s impact on civic engagement. That is, it would look at the extent of residents’ involvement in making decisions about the operation of their home. Another indicator would be the presence or absence of support systems in the community that enhance the autonomy of residents.
How we facilitate people’s capacity and autonomy raises some important questions for how we deliver and manage affordable housing. We need to reassess the models and regulations we use to determine eligibility and assistance, such as the rent-geared-to-income model sample. We need to look at the kind of involvement that those to be housed ought to have in the development and management processes. We need to look at whether housing can be used as a means to advance security and how this might impact on tenure forms. We need to ask whether our rules around RGI discourage initiatives and limit scope.
Another factor is certainty vs. uncertainty. I grew up in Cape Breton, and the question around whether you would find a job when you grew up was and still is an important one. It leaves an anxious feeling in your gut. How much more profound is the question around whether you will have a place to call your home. Yet, many, many Canadians face that uncertainty. More than we care to acknowledge.
As we consider both the immediate future and the long term and anticipate such programs as capital grants for affordable housing, we need to look carefully at whether it promotes people’s ability to participate in decisions affecting their housing — their lives — and their communities. We need to contribute to capacity and autonomy, and in doing so, foster inclusion, both for adults and children.
Housing operates in a very different reality today. Governments are very reluctant to support full programs in which rents are guaranteed to remain affordable. Instead, not only does the research lead to a more sophisticated understanding of social inclusion and integration, and the complexities involved, but also we have far more players involved and a diversity of housing programs. There is a greater ability to suit programs to local conditions and culture. At the same time, there is the danger that without principles, we may loose some of the valuable aspects that we currently have, such as discrimination requirements, ensuring that all groups, including those with special needs, are served.
In essence, the question and challenge facing us is this:
How do we ensure that housing provides supportive and inclusive environments, but within a radically different political, fiscal and program delivery context?
Any practical models that are introduced ideally need to have the flexibility to adapt to the particular policy interests of each political jurisdiction. Affordable housing is more than a matter of rental support. Keeping the aims of social inclusion in mind, we need to look at affordable homeownership, renovation and how we can engage the private sector, which continues to be the largest provider of housing for low-income households. During the 80s, while the government-supported social housing sector built 15,000 units/year, the private sector was building at twice the pace. Now the combined total is under 9,000 units. Clearly, massive intervention is needed.
Social inclusion and the ability to participate in one’s community touches on another important aspect of housing that CHRA has been actively involved in researching and promoting. We have long understood that housing is more than the shelters in which we live. It involves building community capacity, having local resources and supports in place to help people individually and collectively. This in turn has implications for the will and the financial resources that need to be made available, on the part of many partners, if we are to realize the aims of social inclusion.
Home and neighbourhood can hinder or assist with the capacity and agency of children. They contribute to identity. They can hinder or support good health. The socio-economic dimensions of the housing and neighbourhood are even more important. The capacity of the neighbourhood, based upon both its innate resources and society’s willingness to assist, can enhance the capacity of its residents. We need to know what the statistical indicators of capacity and autonomy are for further research. But, we need qualitative along with quantitative research to better understand how housing, its structure and administration can impact and a child’s sense of capacity and inclusion.
Sharon is currently Executive Director of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA), where she oversees the affairs of the association including advocacy, research, and communications. Sharon has been extensively involved in international relations and was on Canada’s delegation to UN meetings in Istanbul, Nairobi and New York.
Sharon’s career in the housing field began in Nova Scotia in 1975. She managed Access Housing Services Association (Halifax, NS) until 1985. During this period she assisted in the development of over 100 community non-profit and co-op housing projects and completed several research projects. In 1985, she became Housing Director for the City of Dartmouth where she put in place the City’s first major housing policy and developed its Housing Demonstration Project. In 1988, she moved to Ottawa where she managed the housing development division of the City of Ottawa. While there, she was responsible for the development of over 3,000 units of social housing. In order to accomplish this, she worked extensively with the community and developed partnerships with community groups and the private sector to implement the city’s ambitious housing plan. In 1994, she began her current work with CHRA.
She completed her education at Dalhousie University, BA and Carleton University, Masters of Canadian Studies.
[ Conference Page ][ CCSD Home Page ] [ The Laidlaw Foundation ]