Protecting the Other 1%: The Evolution of the Welfare State and Homelessness

Alison Smith

Department of Political Science

Université de Montréal/University of Toronto

[email protected]

Paper for the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association

Ryerson University, Toronto On

May 31 2017

1 Proponents of Housing First, a new intervention to end homelessness, tend to overstate the extent to which the program has spread across the developed world. There has been, however, an undeniable movement in many countries towards Housing First (HF). There are some differences between Housing First in the US and Finland, leading HF advocates to question the “fidelity” of some European approaches. Yet these HF programs all share a commitment to permanently housing the most chronically homeless through intensive wrap-around services, including medical support, psychiatric treatment, harm-reduction based drug treatment, and social supports. In my next major research project, I propose to ask what explains this move to HF. I will divide this major project into three phases: the first phase is a detailed study of the spread of the idea of ending homelessness throughout Canada. I argue that ending homelessness is an ambiguous idea with high valence; further, it was effectively exploited by key policy entrepreneurs such that it became a coalition magnet around which a broad and influential group of actors gathered. This is one important mechanism in how HF spread across Canada; in the second phase, I show how that idea contributed to the spread of HF in Canada by placing it within a broader framework regarding policy diffusion. The final phase brings a comparative angle to this study, documenting the spread of the idea of ending homelessness and the diffusion of Housing First internationally, notably in Finland, Denmark and the United States. This paper is a presentation of the first steps of the first phase of the project, regarding the idea of ending homelessness. There are a number of theoretical implications of this study. First, in this paper I carefully (though not exhaustively) document the extent to which governments and community groups across Canada have adopted HF. This empirically demonstrates policy convergence in a new and understudied area of social policy. This first phase also confirms the important role played by ideas in the spread of policies and programs. Future phases will broaden the theoretical implications. For example, given the move to Housing First not just in Canada but internationally, it also makes for an interesting test for new theories, notably instrument constituencies. Finally, convergence around Housing First, and the mechanisms that led to that convergence, shed light on recent changes to the welfare state. This project will thus also engage with the social investment literature, concluding that the turn to Housing First is further evidence of this emerging perspective. This article is divided into four sections. I first review the literature on the place of ideas in social policy change and expansion, and present the theoretical framework used in this paper. I then present the empirical puzzle for this research project, which is the striking extent to which Housing First has spread across Canada. I then begin to document the main idea that contributed to this convergence: ending homelessness. This story begins in Alberta, so this paper presents the original spread of the idea of ending homelessness to that Western Canadian province. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of the implications of the first portion of this research project and discuss next steps.

Literature Review There is a rich literature on the diffusion of ideas and public policies. Jenson’s influential 2010 article regarding the emergence of the social investment welfare state perspective in Latin America and Europe identifies three mechanisms that led to this. Drawing on constructivist and social learning theories, she argues that the convergence around this new social investment perspective resulted from the creation of space for alternatives (to the neoliberal model), an

2 ambiguous discourse, and the crossing of boundaries or worlds of knowledge. Particularly useful for this study is what she has to say about ambiguous ideas. She writes, “analyses within the social-learning theoretical perspective have long understood the contribution of ambiguity to altering connections among people, groups and networks. They often note that the ideas that spread most are ones that can draw together numerous positions and sustain a moderate to high level of ambiguity” (2010, 71). ‘Social investment’ was usefully ambiguous and helped propel the spread of the perspective; “the term was useful for the OECD both to refer back to neoliberals’ preference for markets as decision locales and to make claims for new spending, all the while allowing a distinction to be made between the ‘bad old days’ of social protection and promising future of social investment” (72). The idea on its own was not enough to lead to the spread of the social investment perspective in different parts of the world, but it was a key mechanism in the process. In a number of articles, Béland and Cox have (separately and together) zoomed in on the role of ideas in the spread of policies. In a recent co-authored article, Béland and Cox (2016) consider how ideas interact with power in the process of policy reform. They write, “one of the major ways in which ideas shape political power relations is through their role as ‘coalition magnet’” (2), which they define as “the capacity of an idea to appeal to a diversity of individuals and groups, and to be used strategically by policy entrepreneurs… to frame interest, mobilize supporters and build coalitions” (2). The authors write that in order for an idea to become a coalition magnet, three things need to happen. First, a policy entrepreneur must manipulate the idea, which enables the entrepreneur to build a coalition of key actors around it (this coalition building is the second “thing” that needs to happen). Finally, the resulting coalition “bring[s] together actors whose perceived interests or policy preferences had previously placed them at odds with one another” (2). Béland and Cox are careful to note that ideas do not inevitably lead to the development of influential coalitions; policy entrepreneurs and their actions are also very important in this process. They do emphasize, however, that “certain ideas are more attractive than others as coalition-building tools” (6), thus facilitating the spread of the idea and the construction of a coalition around it. These more attractive ideas tend to be, as Jenson also noted, ambiguous or polysemic. Referencing the work by Jenson (2010) and Palier (2005), Béland and Cox stress that these types of ideas have different meanings to different people, and are thus “more likely to bring many people and constituencies together” (5). In addition to ambiguity, Béland and Cox also introduce the notion of valence. Valence is the extent to which an idea is appealing, sometimes on an emotional level. Thus, “ideas especially prone to be understood in different ways by different constituencies (ambiguity) that have a strongly positive, emotional meaning (valence) are especially helpful to policy entrepreneurs looking to bring about large coalitions capable of altering power relations and tipping the balance in favour of their chosen electoral and policy preferences” (5). Power resource theory is a competing theory regarding policy change and reform. As Cox has noted, however, this theory is not able to explain why right of centre governments sometimes adopt the same policy reform as governments on the left (Cox 2001). His study of welfare reform in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany is a powerful rebuke of power resource theory for this very reason. Rather than seeing welfare reform as ideologically driven, he finds that the social construction of welfare reform was a more important factor. He writes, “reform was made possible in Denmark and the Netherlands by political leaders who mobilized public debate by a

3 process called “path shaping” – framing issues in ways that generated widespread support for reform initiatives. In Germany the debate remained polarized, with many important political actors rejecting the suggestion that reform was either necessary or desirable” (Cox, 2001, 464). Similarly, the spread of Housing First in Canada (and internationally) is not clearly linked to ideology (as is documented more thoroughly below). This literature regarding ambiguous ideas is particularly useful in the study of the expansion or spread of policies, as it is able to accommodate the fact that governments with different (and often competing) ideologies sometimes align in their policy preferences. This project will argue that the idea of ending homelessness became a coalition magnet, which helped spread Housing First across the country. This paper begins with a small part of this story: how “ending homelessness” first took hold in Canada. Later stages of this project will document how this idea spread across the country. Once I have demonstrated that ending homelessness became a coalition magnet in Canada, I will take the next step and document, drawing on Jenson’s framework, how Housing First spread throughout Canada. Before taking a close look at the idea of ending homelessness however, it is first necessary to demonstrate the convergence around HF in Canada. The next section does just that.

Canadian Case: Convergence Around Housing First Housing First certainly does not benefit from universal support in Canada. Especially in the early days of its adoption, it was contentious among community groups and elected officials (German 2008; McLean 2008; RAPSIM 2009; Toronto Disaster Relief Committee 2006). HF remains contentious in parts of the country, yet there is a striking array of actors with various interests and political leanings who have come to support HF, including in Quebec. This section first presents the HF model and then illustrates the extent to which it has taken hold across Canada. Housing First advocates argue that this program is a significant break with past responses to homelessness (Falvo 2009; Gaetz, Donaldson, Richter, and Gulliver 2014; Hannele and Frederiksson 2009). They insist that prior to the adoption of HF, homeless individuals were required to demonstrate housing readiness before they were admitted to permanent, long-term housing. This required that they be clean and sober, and also that they were getting treatment for mental health issues. For a chronically homeless person, this can be very difficult; getting treatment for addictions or mental health is very challenging in a shelter environment. The Housing First approach turns this process around, putting permanent housing at the beginning rather than the end of a person’s transition out of homelessness. Once they have the stability and security of safe, permanent housing, HF advocates argue that homeless people are much more likely to be successful in resolving any addictions or mental health issues. Again with the stability of permanent housing and the flexible and sometimes intensive supports that come with HF, these are much more likely to remain housed in the long term. Of course, some argue that the Housing First approach is nothing new, and argue that this notion of permanent housing has long been present in different homelessness programs across the country (such as in Toronto and Montreal, see Smith 2016; Falvo 2010). An important difference between HF and these past programs, however, lies in the details. HF, as the model was originally intended anyway, depends on private sector housing (Tsemberis 2011). It is also because of the “scattered site” logic of housing homeless people. Scattered site housing, as opposed to congregate housing, houses people in the community and across the community; as the name suggests, people are scattered throughout the city. Social housing tends to be buildings

4 that concentrate people close together. Some proponents of HF believe that homeless people need to be in the community on their own, and away from other people experiencing homelessness (or people transitioning out of homelessness), who might be a bad influence. Further, social housing units that do exist are often targeted at specific groups in need of affordable housing, such as seniors, people with disabilities, or women fleeing violence. There have, however, been cases of community groups offering HF programs in social housing, such as the portion of the At Home/Chez Soi project run by the Portland Housing Society in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. With that caveat, the implementation of HF programs across Canada is quite similar. Where there were efforts to permanently house homeless people in the past, such as in Toronto and Montreal, this was often in social or community housing. While a seemingly small detail, there are big implications for this. In its assumption that there is enough space for homeless people to be housed within the private rental market, critics of HF say that this takes pressure off the government to build more affordable housing. Future phases of this project will go into this more fully, but there is a debate regarding the extent to which the type of housing used in HF programs matters in order for it the program be considered HF. Finland, for example, has had great success in reducing chronic homelessness through HF, but they have relied almost exclusively on social or community housing. Sam Tsembersis, the Montreal turned New Yorker psychologist who is said to have originally invested the HF model, has argued that the Finnish approach to housing the homeless is not in fact HF, because it does not use private sector housing (Tsemberis 2011). The Finns, for their part, tend to disagree, saying they do “Housing First the Finnish Way” (Pleace, Knutagard, Culhane, and Granfelt 2016). Returning to the Canadian context for the rest of this paper, it is clear that the supply of housing for HF programs is mostly dependent on the private sector. A number of community- based groups, local governments, provinces and of course the federal government support HF in this form. Left leaning politicians agree with right-leaning politicians that HF is an effective solution to chronic homelessness. Community activists have come together with private sector actors to advocate for the expansion of HF programs across Canada. In 2013, the federal government (Conservative at the time) made a significant change to its limited investments in homelessness across the country. Prior to this year, the federal government transferred money directly to local groups across Canada (except in Quebec, where the funding first goes to the province), who could use it towards programs to fight homelessness. This funding was for emergency responses to homelessness such as drop in centres or emergency shelters and was not (and is still not) for the construction of affordable housing or for the purchase of housing. Even if this was allowed, the funding allocated to local groups is not nearly enough to build or buy any significant amount of housing. Prior to 2013, local groups had significant autonomy in how to invest this money, but beginning in 2013, the federal government required that a certain amount of the funding – up to 65% in big cities – be directed to Housing First programs. The current liberal government is also committed to Housing First, as are a number of leadership candidates for the left-of-centre New Democratic Party (such as Peter Julian). Where there are disagreements, it appears to be in terms of magnitude of the program, and not form. With the exception of Saskatchewan, all Canadian provinces have expressed some form of support for Housing First. Some province, such as Alberta and Ontario, have fully and clearly moved to the Housing First model and have made it a centerpiece in their province-wide plans to end homelessness. Alberta was the earliest province to commit to Housing First and a plan to end

5 homelessness in 2008. Indeed, its commitment to Housing First is very clear: “The heart of the Plan for Alberta is based on a housing first philosophy… adopting a housing first philosophy will require a wholesale shift in thinking among governments, communities and homeless- serving agencies. This is because it involves a fundamental change in the way homeless citizens are served and assisted” (Alberta Secretariat for Action On Homelessness 2008, 16; emphasis original). Ontario has come to its commitment to end homelessness through HF much more recently. In the context of its provincial poverty reduction strategy, the province of Ontario explains its support of HF; “Research tells us that a Housing First approach, where people experiencing homelessness obtain permanent housing and appropriate supports, is more cost- effective over the long term than emergency responses” (Government of Ontario 2014, 74). The strategy continues, “As we set out with out ambitious goal to end homelessness, we know that the best responses to homelessness reflect this diversity of people’s circumstances. That is why we introduced the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). This program encourages local and tailored solutions through a Housing First approach” (78). Along with Quebec, BC has been the most engaged and interventionist Canadian province in the area of housing policy ever since the federal government stopped funding new housing developments in the 1990s. BC has not committed to ending homelessness across the province, but has supported HF interventions since at least 2006. Referencing the task force on homelessness, mental illness and addictions that was initiated by BC Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell, a 2008 annual report notes, “The Task Force led to the creation of the Provincial Homelessness Initiative which will provide more than 4,100 emergency shelter beds and housing units with support services for the high-needs group of homeless people who frequent shelters. This is part of BC’s shift to Housing First – providing priority housing to homeless people, regardless of barriers such as addictions, and then providing support services to help them regain their independence” (Minister of Housing and Social Developmetn 2008, 4). In 2017, the Government of Manitoba partnered with the federal government and the Manitoba Metis Federation Southwest Region to launch a housing first pilot project – The Housing First Rent Supplement program – in Brandon. Manitoba’s Families Minister said in a press release, “this rent supplement program provides financial support, while also connecting participants with other resources to improve their futures over the longer term” (Province of Manitoba 2017). While Manitoba has not fully moved to HF, this pilot project is a first step in that direction. Housing First was adopted a few years earlier in Nova Scotia. In a press releases from 2015, the Minister responsible for Housing Nova Scotia said, “Nova Scotia is pleased to support the Housing First initiative, and is committed to working with our partners to help break the cycle of homelessness… I am confident that Housing First will help people find secure, stable housing as the foundation for rebuilding their lives” (Housing Nova Scotia 2015). The Government of New Brunswick made the move to Housing First in 2010. In the province’s housing strategy, Housing First programs are first reviewed and then included as an “indication of success”. Specifically, a priority of the plan is to “give priority to programs and projects that support and promote quick access to housing” (New Brunswick Housing Corporation Department of Social Development 2010, 51). The accompanying indicator of success reads “the majority of funded programs support the housing first concept which includes the appropriate support services required” (ibid). Though the move to Housing First was originally prompted by the federal government’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy in rural areas of PEI, the program has since expanded throughout the small maritime province. A 2015 report on homelessness notes, “in addition to the existing resources that support people who are

6 homeless such as shelters and food banks, PEI has adopted the Housing First model as a part of its response to homelessness” (PEI Community Advisory Board on Homelessness 2015, 6). Newfoundland moved energetically towards Housing First, but has done so more recently. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador hired OrdCode consulting to produce a report on homelessness; unsurprisingly, given OrgCode’s strong support of Housing First, the report recommended that NL implement Housing First. In a press release following the release of the OrgCode report, Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation said, “As a government we are committed to finding a better way to provide services to the homeless – with the ultimate goal of preventing homelessness altogether. The [OrgCode] report recommends the adoption of a Housing First philosophy, whereby individuals in need are first provided with a safe place to live, and then provided with the supports they need to stabilize their lives. We agree with this approach” (Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation 2015). The Government of Quebec has also joined the provincial housing first party, although it has done so somewhat reluctantly. Quebec has negotiated a separate agreement with the federal government regarding its transfer of funding to the local level. Rather than sending money directly to local groups, the federal government transfers the funding to the province, which then administers the funding to local groups. In 2013, when the federal government required that 65% of funding in big cities be dedicated to HF programs, the province faced pressure from some community groups to maintain the autonomy that had previously been granted under this program. Indeed, in 2013, the National Assembly unanimously condemned the federal government’s decision to unilaterally change the terms of the HPS program. A few years later, under a new Liberal government, the province of Quebec agreed to the terms. In a thinly veiled attempt at gaining more support for the program in the province, the Government of Quebec renamed HF “stabilité résidentielle avec accompagnement” (ibid). Montreal based newspaper Le Devoir quotes then Minister responsible for Housing Lucie Charlebois; “le Québec a choisi de miser sur les convergences entre les priorité du gouvernement du Québec et celles du gouvernement du Canada” (Saint-Arnaud 2015). There is also strong convergence towards HF at the local level. Community driven plans to end homelessness have popped up across the country over the past 10 years – beginning in Alberta. Most if not all of these plans depend heavily on HF. Alberta’s main cities have all introduced plans to end homelessness that depend heavily on HF. Calgary (Calgary Homeless Foundation 2008), Edmonton (Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness 2009), Lethbridge (Social Housing in Action 2009), Medicine Hat (Medicine Hat Community Housing Society 2014), and Red Deer (Red Deer & District Community Foundation 2014) have been committed to Housing First since the early 2000s, as is evident in their plans to end homelessness. Community groups in these cities worked together and coordinated their actions, as well as their lobbying of provincial and federal governments, as will be documented below. Community groups across the country have also committed to using HF in their local action plans on homelessness. From Vancouver (StreetoHome Foundation 2010) to St John’s Newfoundland and Labrador (End Homelessness St John’s 2014) and in between places like Winnipeg (A Community Task Force 2014), Saskatoon (Saskatoon Homelessness Action Plan Steering Committee 2016) and Montreal (Mouvement pour mettre fin à l’itinérance à Montréal 2015), community groups reference the experience in Alberta and learn from it to develop strategies to end homelessness through HF. Local politicians have also expressed strong support for HF. Though their budgets are severely limited, which constrains their ability to freely develop and implement housing or

7 homelessness policies (Smith and Spicer Forthcoming), many mayors or even local councils have either lent political support to community action plans or have contributed financially to them. Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson has invested significant political and financial capital in homelessness in his city, often using the HF approach. Following an important study of the effectiveness of Housing First in Canada, Robertson said, “The results of the At Home / Chez Soi project provide one of the strongest confirmations to date that a “Housing First” approach is fundamental to ending homelessness and confronting the challenges of mental illness and addition” (Vancouver Mayor’s Office 2014). Mayors of other western cities, including Calgary (Nenshi 2015), Saskatoon (CBC News 2017) and Winnipeg (Rauff 2016) have also expressed strong support for Housing First. The City of Toronto has official responsibility for housing and homelessness, and its main instrument for homelessness interventions has been HF (City of Toronto 2009). In Montreal, where community groups remain divided on the desirability and effectiveness of HF, the Mayor Denis Coderre has navigated both sides of the issue. On the one hand, he has expressed support for those who opposed the federal government’s move to HF. In an interview with Le Devoir, Coderre said, “il y a une expertise qui a été developpée au Québec. On a fait des representations mais, évidemment, le gouvernement fait ce qu’il veut… Cette politique d’itiérance fédérale doit être reconsidérée” (Saint-Arnaud 2015). Yet Coderre has provided significant financial and political support to a plan to end homelessness that was developed by the Mouvement pour mettre fin à l’itinérance à Montréal. The MMFIM’s plan relies on HF (or stabilité résidentielle avec accompagnement as it is called in Quebec), and Coderre has invested $140,000/year for 5 years in the plan’s implementation (Corriveau 2015). Mayors on the East Coast of Canada also support HF. The City of Halifax made a $25,000 contribution to the local Housing First plan that is run by the United Way (Taylor 2015). Dennis O’Keefe, mayor of St John’s, has expressed strong support for the community driven plan to end homelessness, saying, “The City supports End Homelessness St John’s, which is making a real difference in peoples’ lives” (and is doing so through use of HF programs) (End Homelessness St John’s 2016). It is clear from this survey of the three levels of government in Canada and community groups that Housing First programs are indeed taking strong hold across the country. This striking convergence has taken place within a relatively short period of time: less than ten years. In this project, I ask what explains this striking expansion of HF programs in Canada? The story of Housing First in Canada has two beginnings, one in Alberta and the other one in Toronto. Reviews of the literature and personal interviews conducted for my PhD dissertation reveal that there was little communication between policy actors and advocates in these two parts of the country. More recently, with the development of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness and the Homeless Hub, Toronto and Alberta actors have become very closely aligned, advocating for Housing First programs across the country and at all levels of government. Though Housing First was developed in both places, the idea of ending homelessness first took root in Alberta. The next section begins with a look how the idea of ending homelessness came to Alberta, and argues that its ambiguity and high valence made it an effective coalition magnet.

Idea of ending homelessness It is in some ways unfair to say that ending homelessness is a “new idea” in Canada. In community meetings, blog posts, and annual reports, actors in the homeless service sector often

8 argue that they have long been engaged in a tireless effort to end homelessness, and stress that indeed they have ended homelessness for hundreds or thousands of people. Ending homelessness took on a new meaning, however, when used by actors in Canada and the US, including people such as Phillip Mangano, Tim Richter, and Gregor Robertson. Rather than looking at the micro level – how many individuals have been lifted out of homelessness – this new discourse focuses on the macro level – the extent to which the “system” as a whole (including health, housing, justice, etc) is structured to end homelessness. The idea of ending homelessness on a systematic level took hold in an impressive way in the mid-2000s. This is a story that, in Canada anyway, began in Alberta. By the time the idea was being introduced in Canada in the mid-2000s, it seems that “ending homelessness” had already become a powerful idea and a coalition magnet in the US. For example, in Seattle a plan to end homelessness “was being steered by a high profile lawyer, Bill Block, who was bringing on board a cross-section of the city’s influential people, including the mayor, the former state governor, the faith community… funders from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and representatives from such businesses as Nordstrom and Microsoft” (68- 69). Turning it into a coalition magnet in Canada (beginning in Alberta) required the efforts of well-placed and connected policy entrepreneurs. In her book about the history of the fight against homelessness in Calgary, Susan Scott says the idea of ending homelessness was first presented to the influential Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF) in 2006 by a powerful Calgary lawyer, Brian O’Leary. The idea was presented at a CHF board meeting, but it never gained any traction. Scott writes, “looking back, O’Leary thinks the idea was too big and too hard for people to wrap their minds around immediately” (2012, 69). It took a bit more time and interventions by the American “homeless czar” Phillip Mangano before the idea of ending homelessness (specifically with the help of Housing First and through a 10-year plan) took hold. Shortly after O’Leary first presented the idea, two few key entrepreneurs, including oil and gas mogul Jim Gray and then President of the CHF Terry Roberts, became interested in ending homelessness thanks in large part to a conference Roberts had attended in the US. The conference featured Mangano, who sang the praises of 10-year plans to end homelessness across the US. Following this conference, Mangano was invited to speak in Alberta, originally in Red Deer. Roberts took the opportunity to invite Mangano to also visit Calgary; knowing the governance culture in Calgary, Roberts knew that he needed private sector buy-in to the idea of ending homelessness if it was to go anywhere, and he believed that Mangano was the best placed person to convince the private sector to support the CHF. Though he was comfortable speaking with a private sector audience, Mangano wasn’t someone that community groups naturally trusted; “[w]ith his dark suit, silver hair and bronzed complexion that likely owed more to a lotion or a tanning salon than nature… Mangano is curiously uncomfortable in the presence of individual people experiencing homelessness” ( Scott 2012, 73–74; see also Crowe 2007; German 2008). Indeed, Mangano spoke a business language, defining the problem of homelessness not so much in moral or social justice terms, but as a cost and a drag on economic development. His promise was that ending homelessness would ultimately save money. Following the event, oil and gas mogul and policy entrepreneur in the area of homelessness Jim Gray ran with the idea of ending homelessness. He took it upon himself to build a coalition around the idea; the coalition would eventually form a board to oversee the development and implementation of a 10-year plan to end homelessness. The network he helped

9 to construct was mainly comprised of his oil and gas friends. Steve Snyder, an influential oil and gas executive, was approached to be chair of the board. Snyder admitted that he was skeptical at first; “I’m just an observer. I don’t know the facts. I’m not qualified. I’m just a business guy” (quoted in Scott 2012, 92). But Gray was convinced that Snyder was the guy to chair the group that led the 10YP; “we need a more visible member of the community, someone who can attract other people and focus us” (quoted in Scott 2012, 92). A highly respected executive in the oil and gas sector in Calgary, and Gray and Roberts knew that if Snyder was on board, he could bring the other influential players to the table. Snyder was aware of the problem of homelessness in Calgary. One actor noted, “Steve's office was… a big corner office. He looked out right at the Mustard Seed [a local shelter], and every day he'd see men lined up, a line a block and a half long at lunch time” (personal interview 2014). He was shocked and dismayed every day when he saw the same scene. Like Snyder, the oil and gas CEOs that he recruited to be a part of the ending homelessness coalition undoubtedly felt a human concern for homelessness. But there was a also sense that homelessness was getting in the way of the business community. Oil and gas leaders saw Calgary as on the cusp of becoming Canada’s economic engine and an international city; the appearance of homelessness was, for many of them, embarrassing (Feng, Li, and Langford 2014; Miller and Smart 2012; Smith 2016). There was a further belief that homelessness, because of its increasingly emphasized economic cost, was holding the city back from reaching its truly great potential. An actor involved with the CHF said that the money saving potential of ending homelessness was a key reason why the group came together so quickly; “it costs you less money, you save money. There are people out there who have got no faith but they understand economics. The current situation costs $110,000 but our solution costs $45,000. They understand there’s a big change there, there is a lot of savings here. So we tried to use some economic arguments. We just said ‘hey, this is a cost saving measure’” (personal interview 2014). The CHF board also welcomed a few people from the non-profit and NGO community, notably from the United Way, though these people were not in positions of influence (see Calgary Homeless Foundation 2008). It was recognized, however, that the board needed some on the ground expertise. Bringing community groups on board with this idea of ending homelessness was somewhat challenging; some community groups felt insulted that a few business men, having attended a prayer breakfast on the subject, felt they were better suited to ending homelessness than the actors who had been engaged in the area for decades. This barrier was dealt with in two ways; first, community groups that were sympathetic to the idea were approach and became a part of the coalition, whereas those who were opposed were left out (personal interview 2014). One group that originally came on board, somewhat surprisingly, was Alpha House. Alpha House is a very low barrier and harm reduction emergency shelter in Calgary; given the faith based nature of many other shelters in the city (Inn from the Cold, the Mustard Seed, etc), Alpha House was at times add odds within the community for its harm reduction approach; “traditionally, homeless shelters have been dry, refusing to take in those who were inebriated or high. Alpha House was the first non-profit organization to have both a shelter and a detoxification centre in the same building” (Maki 2015). Perhaps not the most likely to join forces with oil and gas leaders given its at time radical service offering in a more conservative and faith-based environment, Alpha House nevertheless saw ending homelessness as a central part of its mandate.

10 Secondly, key policy actors made the decision to “create” new community actors in the fight against homelessness. This was notably the case with The Alex, an organization whose original mandate was urban public health. At the urging (and funding support) of the CHF, The Alex expanded its operations during the early days of the 10-year plan’s development to include Housing First programs. This clever move created new community actors who were experts in Housing First and believed firmly in the idea of ending homelessness (in terms of its feasibility and its necessity). As noted above, other community groups that did not agree either with the idea of ending homelessness (believing it was not possible) or who were opposed to Housing First were excluded from the coalition (see McLean 2008). The key actors and entrepreneurs (oil and gas leaders Gray and Snyder and CHF president Roberts) were able to get the local government on board. Gray, the policy entrepreneur who originally worked with Roberts to spread the idea of ending homelessness, built a coalition around the idea that included the mayor of the city, important faith based leaders, community groups, and (in Calgary anyway) the requisite private sector support. Once these influential actors were on board (literally in many cases on the board of the CHF), the coalition grew. The idea of ending homelessness thus became a powerful coalition magnet within Calgary. It was first employed by effective policy entrepreneurs: Mangano, Roberts, and Gray. These actors redefined the problem of homelessness in Calgary; whereas before, homelessness was seen in moral terms, either as a personal failing or as an unacceptable failure of the social safety net that should be fixed because citizens deserve better. Drawing on language used by Mangano in the US, key actors in Calgary began to define homelessness as a costly problem, one that was an economic drag on the city and that was keeping it from becoming great. At the first annual Conference to End Homelessness in Canada (a network built largely by Calgary based actors as future stages of this project will show), influential CHF actor Tim Richter repeated over and over a version of the same sentence: I don’t care why you became homeless, it costs less to end it than it does to let you continue to be homeless. In speaking the business language in Calgary, policy entrepreneurs were able to win over the support of some key actors in the city, including the mayor, faith based leaders, some important community groups, and private sector leadership. Once this initial coalition was struck, more and more community groups and policy actors joined forces, making the CHF and its mission to end homelessness tremendously powerful within Calgary and eventually across Canada.

Conclusions This paper is the first step in my next major research project, that looks at the spread of Housing First throughout Canada (and around the world). This first step of this project, phase one, is to demonstrate how the idea of ending homelessness originally took hold in Canada and then spread across the country. This paper is the first step in the process, which is to illustrate how the idea of ending homelessness first came to Calgary and how it transformed into a coalition magnet there. This paper accomplished two things. First, I have demonstrated the striking and undeniable convergence around Housing First across Canada. Nine out of ten provinces, all major federal parties, local governments of various political stripes and community groups in large Canadian cities all support Housing First and use the program in plans on homelessness. Having demonstrated the convergence around Housing First, I moved to the first part of the

11 explanation of how this happened. I argued that the idea of ending homelessness became a coalition magnet around which a diverse group of actors could build a coalition in Calgary. By continually making the business case for ending homelessness, a few key policy entrepreneurs were able to redefine the problem of homelessness in Calgary. They used the idea of ending homelessness to attract some key policy actors in the city to the idea, including Mayor Dave Bronconnier, more radical social service agencies such as Alpha House, and private sector leaders. The coalition that formed in Calgary was admittedly not terribly diverse in terms of ideology. Alpha House was perhaps the most out of place of the original coalition. There were some disagreements between actors, of course, but civil society in Calgary tends to be heavily dominated by the private sector (Miller and Smart 2012). As this project continues to other cities and provinces, however, it will become increasingly clear that the idea of ending homelessness did indeed attract a diverse group of actors, many of whom had (or continue to have) contrasting interests and ideologies. Whereas most (but not all) actors in Calgary were drawn to the idea of ending homelessness as a means of reducing economic costs associated with the problem, in other cities actors joined the coalition around the idea for different reasons (including notably social justice). The next part of this first stage will document how the idea of ending homelessness spread from Calgary to other cities in Alberta and across Canada. Calgary based entrepreneurs, notably Tim Richter and Alina Turner, sped up this process. Their work was helped by an alignment of interests between them and powerful Toronto actors, notably Stephen Gaetz. Once the idea of end homelessness has been traced through Canada, I will move to argue that this ideational process was a key mechanism in the diffusion of Housing First.

12 Bibliography

A Community Task Force. 2014. The Plan to End Homelessness in Winnipeg. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council. Alberta Secretariat for Action On Homelessness. 2008. A Plan for Alberta. Government of Alberta. Béland, Daniel, and Robert Henry Cox. 2016. “Ideas as coalition magnets: coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations.” Journal of European Public Policy 23(3): 428–445. Calgary Homeless Foundation. 2008. 40 Calgary’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, 2008- 2018. Calgary, Alberta. CBC News. 2017. “Saskatoon mayor says co-ordination needed to battle opioid crisis.” CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-mayor-says-co-ordination- needed-to-battle-opioid-crisis-1.4001134 (Accessed May 23, 2017). City of Toronto. 2009. Housing Opportunities Toronto. Toronto. Corriveau, Jeanne. 2015. “Un plan pour sortir 2000 itinérants de la rue.” Le Devoir. http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/montreal/458438/montreal-un-plan-pour-sortir-2000- itinerants-de-la-rue (Accessed May 24, 2017). Cox, Robert Henry. 2001. “The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany.” World Politics 53(3): 463–498. Crowe, Cathy. 2007. “Bush’s ‘Homeless Czar’ tours Canada.” Straight Goods News. Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness. 2009. A Place to Call Home: Edmonton’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness. Edmonton. End Homelessness St John’s. 2014. Ending Homelessness in St John’s: Our 5-year Plan (2014- 2019). St John’s. End Homelessness St John’s. 2016. “Welcome to Front Step: New program will help end homelesnsess in St John’s.” Falvo, Nick. 2009. Homelessness, Program Responses, and an Assessment of Toronto’s Streets to Homes Program. CPRN research report. Feng, Patrick, Ben Li, and Cooper Langford. 2014. “300 People Who Make a Difference: Associative Governance in Calgary.” In Governing Urban Economies: Innovation and Inclusion in Canadian City Regions, eds. Neil Bradford and Allison Bramwell. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gaetz, Stephen, Jesse Donaldson, Tim Richter, and Tanya Gulliver. 2014. The State of Homelessness in Canada 2013. Toronto: The Homeless Hub. German, Beric. 2008. “Toronto Adopts Bush Homeless Czar’s Plan: Another View of ‘Streets to Homes’ Programs.” Cathy Crowe Newsletter. Government of Ontario. 2014. “Realizing Our Potential: Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy 2014-2019.” Hannele, Tainio, and Peter Frederiksson. 2009. “The Finnish Homelessness Strategy: From a ’Staircase" Model to a ‘Housing First’ Approach to Tackling Long-Term Homelessness.” European Journal of Homelessness 3: 181–199. Housing Nova Scotia. 2015. “Housing Nova Scotia Supports Fight Against Homelessness.” Jenson, Jane. 2010. “Diffusing Ideas for After Neoliberalism The Social Investment Perspective in Europe and Latin America.” Global Social Policy 10(1): 59–84.

13 Maki, Allan. 2015. “Calgary’s Alpha House helps homeless addicts get a new start.” The Globe and MAil. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/calgarys-alpha-house-helps- homeless-addicts-get-a-new-start/article26154228/ (Accessed May 25, 2017). McLean, Linda. 2008. Beyond Ending Homelessness: An Alternative Perspective. Calgary: The Drop-In and Rehab Centre. Medicine Hat Community Housing Society. 2014. At Home in Medicine Hat: Our Plan to End Homelessness, January 2014 Update. Medicine Hat. Miller, Byron, and Alan Smart. 2012. “Ascending the Main Stage?: Calgary in the Multilevel Governance Drama.” In Sites of Governance: Multilevel Governance and Policy Making in Canada’s Big Cities, eds. Martin Horak and Robert Young. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Minister of Housing and Social Developmetn. 2008. Putting Housing First: Progress and Achievements on British Columbia’s Provincial Housing Strategy 2006-2008. British Columbia: Government of British Columbia. Mouvement pour mettre fin à l’itinérance à Montréal. 2015. “Mettre fin à l’itinérance: Objectif 2020 - fin de l’itinérance chronique et cyclique.” Nenshi, Naheed. 2015. “Nenshi: Let’s make sure everyone has a roof over their head.” Calgary Herald. http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/nenshi-lets-make-sure-everyone- has-a-roof-over-their-head (Accessed May 23, 2017). New Brunswick Housing Corporation Department of Social Development. 2010. Hope is a Home: New Brunswick’s Housing Strategy. New Brunswick. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. 2015. “Finding solutions to End Homelessness: Provincial Government Accepts ‘Housing First’ Approach.” Palier, Bruno. 2005. “Ambiguous Agreement, Cumulative Change: French Social Policy in the 1990s.” In Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, eds. Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PEI Community Advisory Board on Homelessness. 2015. PEI Report on Homelessness: The Fourth Report on Homelessness in Prince Edward Island. PEI. Pleace, Nicholas, Marcus Knutagard, Dennis Culhane, and Riitta Granfelt. 2016. “The Strategic Response to Homelessness in Finland: Exploring Innovation and Coordination with a National Plan to Reduce and Prevent Homelessness.” In Exploring Effective Systems Responses to Homelessness, eds. Naomi Nichols and Carey Doberstein. Toronto: The Homeless Hub Press. Province of Manitoba. 2017. “Governments Launch Housing First Program in Brandon to Address Homelessness.” RAPSIM. 2009. Projet federal “santé mentale et itinérance”: le RAPSIM se retire des travaux. Montréal: Réseau d’aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal. http://www.rapsim.org/147/Archivese2009.montreal. Rauff, Amani. 2016. “Indigenous Mayor Brian Bowman Delivers Lecture on Reconciliation.” Ultra Vires. http://ultravires.ca/2016/11/indigenous-mayor-brian-bowman-delivers- lecture-reconciliation/ (Accessed May 23, 2017). Red Deer & District Community Foundation. 2014. Red Deer’s Five Year Plan to End Homelessness 2014-2019. Red Deer. Saint-Arnaud, Pierre. 2015. “L’entente Canada-Québec sur l’itinérance confirme les priorités fédérales.” Le Devoir.

14 Saskatoon Homelessness Action Plan Steering Committee. 2016. Saskatoon’s Homelessness Action Plan (From Vision to Action). Saskatoon. Scott, Susan. 2012. The Beginning of the End: The Story of the Calgary Homeless Foundation. Calgary: The Calgary Homeless Foundation. Smith, Alison. 2016. “Filling the Gap: Cities and the Fight Against Homelessness in Canada.” Université de Montréal. Smith, Alison, and Zachary Spicer. Forthcoming. “The Local Autonomy of Canada’s Largest Cities.” Urban Affairs Review. Social Housing in Action. 2009. “Bringing Lethbridge Home” 5 Year Community Plan to End Homelessness 2009-2014. Lethbridge. StreetoHome Foundation. 2010. “A High Price to Pay: Community Action on Homelessness.” Taylor, Stephanie. 2015. “Halifax city council backs programs to help homeless, provide housing.” Metro Halifax. http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2015/07/21/halifax- city-council-backs-programs-to-help-homelessness-provide-housing.html (Accessed May 23, 2017). Toronto Disaster Relief Committee. 2006. TDRC Position on the City of Toronto’s “Street Needs Assessment.” Ontario Coalition of Poverty. Tsemberis, Sam. 2011. “Observations and Recommendations On Finland’s ”Name on The Door Project” From a Housing First Perspective.” Vancouver Mayor’s Office. 2014. “Mayor’s statement: Success of At Home/Chez Soi project.”

15