SHELTER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAm. Evaluation Report September 2009

Transcription

1 SHELTER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAm Evaluation Report

2 CMHC Home to Canadians Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has been Canada s national housing agency for more than 60 years. Together with other housing stakeholders, we help ensure that the Canadian housing system remains one of the best in the world. We are committed to helping Canadians access a wide choice of quality, environmentally sustainable and affordable homes homes that will continue to create vibrant and healthy communities and cities across the country. For more information, visit our website at You can also reach us by phone at or by fax at Outside Canada call or fax to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation supports the Government of Canada policy on access to information for people with disabilities. If you wish to obtain this publication in alternative formats, call

3 EVALUATION OF THE SHELTER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM september 2009

4 Acknowledgements CMHC would like to thank all agencies and organizations who provided assistance with the research for this evaluation. CMHC would also like to express its appreciation to all the people who gave generously of their time to complete and return the surveys. CMHC PROJECT STAFFing Ms. Claudia Marcondes, Program Evaluator, Audit and Evaluation Services managed the study and provided comments, suggestions and calculations for this report. Ms. Patricia Streich, former Manager of Program Evaluation, Audit and Evaluation Services provided constant support and advice throughout the study. Staff from other CMHC divisions provided data and comments throughout the study. SPR Associates Inc. The SPR evaluation team was led by Dr. Ted Harvey (Project Director and Principal Investigator). He was assisted by Ms. Marian Ficycz (Director of Survey Operations); Dr. Brent Rutherford (Methodology); and Ms. Lindsay Brunet, Ms. Lillian Stermac, Ms. Shirley Yeung, Ms. Daciana Drimbe, and Mr. Jason Garcia (Research Coordinators). Ms. Trish Longboat led the First Nations and Aboriginal Key Informant Survey Component of the evaluation. Auguste Solutions & Associates provided assistance by conducting site visits to 12 First Nations.

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 section A - Introduction... 5 Family Violence, the Family Violence Initiative (FVI) and the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)... 5 The Family Violence Initiative (FVI)... 8 The Shelter Enhancement Program... 8 Scope of the 2008 SEP Evaluation & the Evaluation Issues...10 Summary of Methodologies for the SEP Evaluation...12 section B - The Rationale of SEP...14 Issue 1: Is there a continuing need for a program to fund additional shelters and/or shelter spaces for people experiencing family violence?...14 Issue 2: Is there a continuing need for a program to fund repairs and enhancements of existing shelters?...16 Issue 3: Is there a continuing need for a program to fund shelters for First Nations and other Aboriginal communities?...18 Section C - Successes and Impacts of SEP...22 Issue 4: To what extent has SEP increased capacity of the shelter system to address family violence issues since 2001?...22 Issue 5: To what extent has SEP improved shelter conditions to minimum standards?...23 Issue 6: To what extent has SEP met the needs for shelters for youth and men?...26 Issue 7: What have been the impacts of SEP on the ability of First Nations and other Aboriginal communities to address family violence issues?...28 Issue 8: To what extent have SEP expenditures improved client services and contributed to enhanced prevention of and improved community response to family violence in Canada?...32

6 Section d - Cost effectiveness of SEP...38 Issue 9: Is the SEP approach of capital funding for new shelters and repairs, a cost-effective means of addressing family violence problems in Canada?...38 Section e - Summary of findings and conclusions...41 Glossary of Acronyms, Short-Forms and Technical Terms...44 Key Definitions...46 Bibliography...48 The SEP Evaluation Survey of Family Violence Shelters...50 Key Indicators and Corresponding Data Sources...52 Other Data Sources...54 Overall Data Reliability and weighting...55

7 List of Displays Display 1: Shelter Enhancement Program FVI Funding Allocation and CMHC Expenditures by Year... 9 Display 2: Total SEP Beds and Units Delivered and Total Loan Amounts, to Display 3: Cost of Repairs Needed as Estimated by CMHC Inspectors for all Canadian Women's Shelters...16 Display 4: Funding Sources for Shelter Repairs, Display 5: SEP New Beds, Units and Loan Amounts by Shelter Type, Display 6: Display 7: Percentage of SEP-Funded Shelters that Completed Repairs/Enhancements, Shelter Enhancement Program Changes in Loan Limits...25 Display 8: SEP Beds/Units and Loan Amounts for Men and Youth, Display 9: Growth of First Nations Shelters Under Various CMHC Programs, Display 10: Cost of Needed Repairs and Enhancements per Women s Shelter (Located on a First Nation Versus not Located on a First Nation)...29 Display 11: Key Informant Reports on Clients' Ability to "get all the help they need without leaving the community" on First Nations With and Without Access to Shelters...30 Display 12: Client Satisfaction With Various Aspects of Their Shelter Stay...33 Display 13: SEP Impacts on Clients and Services as Reported by Shelter Staff...34 Display 14: Summary of Key Indicators of SEP Contribution to the Federal FVI...37 Display 15: SEP Evaluation Shelter Survey Responses...51 Display 16: Reliability of the Survey Indicators...55

8

9 Executive summary protected Executive Summary Introduction Since 1997, the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has been part of the federal Family Violence Initiative (FVI). SEP provides financial assistance through capital funding for the renovation and enhancement of existing family violence shelters and for the addition of new shelters and units. SEP is partly funded under the federal FVI, with the majority of funding coming from CMHC s Renovation Program. Most Provinces and Territories deliver CMHC s renovation programs, including SEP, providing funding to the program on a cost-shared basis. CMHC delivers SEP in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon. For Prince Edward Island, the province cost-shares and CMHC delivers the program. CMHC also delivers SEP on-reserve across Canada in additional projects receiving SEP funding. Capital investment in shelters is also provided through other sources (e.g. other federal, provincial and territorial funding, municipalities fund-raising). Ongoing operating funding for shelters comes from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) for shelters on-reserve and from provincial/territorial programs and, in some cases municipal government programs for shelters off-reserve. The 2008 SEP Evaluation was conducted to meet CMHC s reporting requirements under the federal FVI and for accountability requirements related to the CMHC Renovation Program. Statistics Canada s 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization reported that some 653,000 women were victims of spousal violence at the hands of a current or former spouse or common-law partner in the five years preceding the 2004 survey. Rates of family violence among First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples are considerably higher than the national averages. In 2006, Canada had a network or "system" of over 550 women s shelters providing residential services and, one in ten abused women use a shelter or transition home, according to Statistics Canada data about 110,000 each year, as estimated by the evaluators. These are part of a larger system of services for people victimized by crime, which also includes non-residential services: information, emotional support, legal assistance, etc. These needs are somewhat different for shelters in urban areas versus First Nations (particularly the many small First Nations with populations of under 500) and small rural communities. The federal FVI was introduced in 1988 to address family violence in Canada. SEP contributes to the objectives of the FVI through assistance for repairs, rehabilitation and improvements of existing shelters for persons who experience family violence and for the acquisition or construction of new shelters and second-stage housing (SSH), where needed. In this report, family violence shelters are usually referred to as women s shelters. Literature review indicates that nine of ten victims were female. Shelters for youth have been eligible for SEP funding since Shelters for men have been fundable since 2003, however, no applications for dedicated men s family violence shelters had been received by CMHC as of August Federal expenditures for SEP during the period to have been over $105 million, with additional funding leveraged from others. In this period, CMHC received $11.4 million from FVI for SEP or about 10.8% of the total SEP funding. In the period to , SEP has aided the development or renovation of a total of 7,169 shelter beds and 1,085 shelter units, with total loans committed of $83.5 million. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 1

10 Protected executive summary The 2008 Evaluation of SEP examined the continuing need for SEP, its success, impacts and costeffectiveness. The evaluation assessed funding for new shelters and repairs to existing shelters, and also examined needs for and impacts of shelters on First Nations and other Aboriginal communities. Included in the evaluation were Canadian family violence shelters serving women and their children, and youth, as well as initiatives intended to extend shelter services for men. Rationale Regarding the rationale of SEP, the evaluation found that: There is a continuing need for additional shelters and shelter spaces. Admissions to women's shelters due to family violence have remained high since 2001 (the evaluators estimate that some 100,000 women and children are admitted to shelters each year since 2001) and many women and children are turned away each year due to lack of space. Over 60% of Canadians live in communities with shelters and an estimated 12.3 million Canadians (or 36.8% of the total population) reside in communities without local access to a shelter. This gap in access is particularly significant for Canada's 3,600 rural and small town communities. The evaluation does not suggest, however, that shelters should be built in every community. There is a continuing rationale for a program to fund shelter enhancements and repairs: There are still significant needs for future repairs and improvements in existing shelters about $19 million is needed to bring all Canadian women s shelters on and off-reserve to minimum health and safety standards, and close to $17 million to provide enhancements to safety, security, access for persons with disabilities, and children s play areas. There is a continuing rationale for a program to fund additional shelters and repairs in First Nations and other Aboriginal communities: rates of family violence are higher among Aboriginal people. In First Nations with shelters, there has been an increase in the use of shelters since Some 20% of residents of First Nations have access to a shelter in their own communities compared with 63% of the Canadian population who have such access. The evaluation does not suggest that shelters should be built in all of Canada s First Nation communities; however, there are substantial needs for shelters in other Aboriginal communities as well as in First Nations where shelters were not currently present. Particular needs were noted by Métis communities (and their provincial organizations). Overall, the need for shelters and related services was high in all Aboriginal communities. Success and Impacts of SEP The success and impacts of SEP were identified as the following: SEP has contributed to increased numbers of shelters and shelter spaces. SEP funding was provided for 55 new family violence shelters and 926 new beds and units both on and off-reserve between 2001 and In women s shelters and second-stage housing, the newly-funded units/beds accounted for 52% of the increase in shelter system capacity from 2001 to SEP has improved shelter conditions to minimum standards. SEP has had a clear impact on bringing shelters up to minimum health and safety standards, and providing enhancements to safety, accessibility, and children s play areas. Most of the improvements done by 68% of all shelters those that used SEP would not have been made without SEP funding. 2 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

11 Executive summary protected SEP has had limited impact on youth and men experiencing family violence. Few shelters currently provide specialized services for these populations. Youth shelters surveyed were not generally focussed on family violence (many were more general "group homes" or treatment facilities). No family violence shelters for men were found similar to traditional women's shelters even though the program funded beds/units for men. Yet, the research and the SEP Evaluation Client survey indicate that both youth and men experiencing family violence have unmet needs. SEP has had a positive impact on First Nations. SEP has had a clear and positive impact on the ability of First Nations to address family violence issues through improvements in the safety, security and comfort of existing shelters. SEP also allowed for the implementation of new family violence initiatives (including culturally sensitive services and services for men) and created new shelter spaces. It has been directly linked to improvements in family violence services. SEP has had positive impacts on client services and family violence prevention. SEP funded improvements have enabled shelters to provide better services to their clients, with positive impacts seen in service delivery, especially in the areas of security and accessibility. Women, in particular, and also youth shelter clients, reported high levels of satisfaction regarding the extent to which shelters have aided their family violence situation. These results were directly linked to improved building conditions resulting from SEP. Broader areas of concern for the FVI, such as awareness and prevention, were also seen to have been aided by SEP, but shelters reported extensive unmet needs for preventive programs. The SEP approach to funding family violence shelters is a cost-effective way to address family violence problems. An exploratory sub study of the evaluation indicated that the SEP approach of capital funding for family violence shelters is more cost-effective than funding homeless shelters as a way of addressing family violence problems in Canada. Based on this exploratory analysis, compared with providing housing for victims of family violence through homeless shelters, the degree of improvement in the well-being of women resulting from each dollar spent at a family violence shelter is 240% greater than the gain in well-being from each dollar spent for women who go to homeless shelters (e.g. for similar clients experiencing family violence). These results do not suggest that homeless shelters/hostels do not provide appropriate services for those in need of emergency housing, but rather indicate that family violence shelters are generally better equipped in their services and experience to meet the needs of women who have experienced family violence. Overall, since 2001, SEP has continued to have significant positive impacts in improving shelter conditions and helping clients to address their family violence issues. SEP has expanded the network of family violence shelters and contributed to the overall response to family violence and the federal FVI across Canada (including First Nations and other Aboriginal communities). SEP has been successful in reaching shelters in need of repair and enhancements, has shown good incrementality (the majority of the repairs and enhancements funded by SEP would not have been undertaken without the program), and has resulted in significant improvements in the physical condition of shelters. Furthermore, the SEP funding model for family violence shelters is indicated as a cost-effective way of addressing family violence in Canada, and a prudent approach to protecting Canada's substantial investment in family violence shelters which totals hundreds of millions of dollars to-date in the buildings alone. SEP is a valuable program and there is a continuing rationale for SEP based on unmet needs, particularly for smaller urban centres and rural areas, and in First Nations and other Aboriginal communities. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 3

12 Protected executive summary Such positive findings in terms of the success, impacts and cost-effectiveness of the program suggest that there are many opportunities to enhance the reach and impacts of SEP and to build on the valuable contribution of SEP in meeting the FVI objectives and shared key results commitments of the 15 federal FVI partner departments. Many shelters suggested the need for further thinking in terms of second-stage housing, which may reduce crowding in first-stage shelters (and does not require operating funding from partners). Further thinking is also necessary to better meet the demand for women s emergency shelters in smaller towns, rural areas and First Nations, as well as a review of ways of addressing the needs of youth and men experiencing family violence. 4 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

13 Section a introduction protected section A Introduction Family Violence, the Family Violence Initiative (FVI) and the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) The Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is part of the federal Family Violence Initiative (FVI) since The federal government has undertaken special initiatives to address family violence since Statistics Canada s 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization reported that some 653,000 women were victims of spousal violence at the hands of a current or former spouse or common-law partner in the 5 years preceding the 2004 survey. 1 The GSS reported similar numbers of men experienced family violence, but generally in much milder forms and with far less serious consequences. 2 For example, women were much more likely than men to be physically injured and were much more likely to say that they feared for their lives. 3 As well, family violence was also noted to be a problem for youth. 4 The incidence of family violence varies across Canada. Rates of family violence tend to be lower in the eastern provinces, increasing to the west these patterns are consistent with the occurrence of other violent crimes. Rates of family violence are considerably higher than the national averages among First Nations and other Aboriginal people. 5 All Canadian communities are affected, however. This issue can be seen clearly in Canada's First Nations of which about 65% have populations of under In the 2004 GSS, women were likely to describe the effects of spousal violence as including fear for personal safety, lack of trust, lowered self-esteem, depression and guilt. For those who go to women's shelters, the shelters play an important role in not only providing immediate refuge but also outreach, counselling and programming for children affected by abuse. While some women may seek refuge at family violence shelters, these are not always available in all communities. As a result, many women return to abusive relationships (about 15% after departure from the shelter, according to the Transition Home Survey -THS), while others flee for safety reasons to shelters in other communities, experiencing loss of jobs and social supports and distress for children who are removed from school. 1 Juristat, Canada s Shelters for Abused Women, 2003/2004 page 2. The GSS survey replicated the 1993 Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS) which report similar numbers of women and children affected by family violence. 2 The actual number of men experiencing family violence was 546,000. The much milder level of violence experienced by men is also affirmed by Kimmell (2001), who after reviews of many previous studies, characterized family violence as "more than 90% a women's issue." 3 Statistics Canada, Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends. Ottawa. 4 Family violence issues for youth have been the subject of several CMHC studies, including a pilot evaluation (SPR Associates, 2001) and a pilot survey of youth shelters (Taylor-Butts, 2007). 5 Juristat, Canada s Shelters for Abused Women, 2005/2006 page 6. The 2004 GSS indicates that rates of family violence are three times higher for Aboriginal Canadians than for non-aboriginal Canadians. 6 CMHC. Census-based housing indicators and data. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 5

14 Protected section a introduction Extensive studies have been carried out by other countries (in addition to Canada) demonstrating the high cost of family violence. For Canada, Greaves (1995) estimated this cost to be in the billions of dollars, with health, mental health, justice system costs and lost earnings being major components. Costs to employers have also been documented (Johnson and Indvik, 1999). While shelters and transition homes are a public expense, research indicates that they contribute significantly to the wellbeing, health and safety of those to whom they give haven, so that women experiencing abuse can connect with and secure needed supports, heal and participate more fully in society. The Family Violence Shelter System In 2006, Canada had a network or "system" of over 550 women s shelters providing residential services and, according to Statistics Canada data, one in ten abused women use a shelter or transition home about 110,000 each year. Women s shelters and transition homes are the residential part of a larger system of services for people victimized by crime. The Statistics Canada Victims Services Survey (VSS) identified about 600 victim services agencies providing non-residential services such as information, emotional support, legal assistance, etc. Among victims of sexual assaults or other violent offences (excluding homicide, other offences causing death and criminal harassment) requesting assistance from victim service agencies across Canada, 47% had been victimized by a spouse, an exspouse or an intimate partner. Nine of ten victims surveyed were females. 7 Thus, in this report, family violence shelters are usually referred to as women's shelters or simply shelters (although women s shelters may occasionally assist men). In Canada today, 45% of women's shelters are transition homes, 18% are second-stage housing, and 13% are women s emergency shelters. 8 The women s shelter network is distinct from shelters which address homelessness in that their primary mandate is to provide specialized services and support for abused women and their dependent children and to address family violence issues. Generally, homeless shelters are not included in the universe for the biennial Statistics Canada THS. However, women leaving abusive situations may use homeless shelters to obtain temporary housing when women s shelters are not available or are full. Over the past 30 years, women s shelters have been developed and operated largely by nongovernmental, non-profit community-based organizations. Shelter development and services are financed mainly by capital funding from federal sources (particularly CMHC), and operating funding from provincial/territorial programs and, in some cases, municipal government programs. Averaging over $300 million per year, operating funds are critical to shelter staffing and specialized services in addressing the effects of spousal abuse. 9 In addition, many shelters receive additional financial support through donations, fundraising, lottery funds and local community contributions such as the United Way. Women s shelters are made possible by a combination of community capacity (to create and manage shelters), service expertise (to deliver services to clients) and sustained funding (to finance shelter operations and staff expenses). Local community support and capacity is required to develop, manage and operate the shelters through non-governmental organizations and community boards. In addition, the availability of staff with the required expertise to work in the shelters and additional support 7 A. Bressan. Spousal violence in Canada s provinces and territories in Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, 2008, page Other types of facilities include: safe home networks; other emergency shelters; family resource centres; and interim housing. 9 Shelter operating funding is provided under provincial/territorial social services programs for off-reserve shelters and by INAC family violence prevention programs for on-reserve shelters. The THS reported that government funding accounted for over 80% of the total shelter operating revenues of $333 million for the fiscal year (2005/06 Transition Home Survey, Juristat). 6 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

15 Section a introduction protected services from other community agencies are necessary to deliver the support services to women using the shelters. The availability of ongoing operating funding is a key determining factor in the shelters financial viability. The combination of capacity, service expertise and funding has been most readily available in urban centres and has contributed to the growth of women s shelters, especially in larger centres. According to the THS, 90% of women s shelters in Canada served urban/suburban areas, with more than half exclusively serving urban areas. 10 Some 7% of shelters served rural areas exclusively or a rural area as well as a reserve, and some 5% (or 30 women s shelters) were located on reserves, the majority being owned and/or operated by a First Nation Council. 11 A key difference for shelters located on First Nations versus off-reserve shelters is the ownership and management structure. First Nations shelters are, for the most part, owned and/or operated by First Nation Councils rather than separate shelter organizations. In these situations, shelter staff are employees of the First Nation Council, and the operating budgets may be managed through the First Nation Council. First Nations shelters are largely reliant on operating funding from the budgets available under family violence prevention programs delivered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). Only a small proportion of First Nations shelters have access to other sources of financing that are available to shelters located off-reserve. For small, remote communities, First Nation Councils face difficulties managing local facilities for a full range of social, health and community services with limited numbers of management and service delivery staff. Even where some shelter services are available, the general lack of affordable housing in the community makes it difficult for women to move out of abusive situations and into safe permanent housing, often leading to repeat shelter stays. This is reflected in the THS, which reported that repeat use of on-reserve shelters was double the rate of off-reserve shelters. Factors related to community capacity, staffing and funding create obstacles to the provision of services in many First Nations which are greater than those faced by women s shelters in urban centres. Research conducted by Statistics Canada (Juristat, 2004) has suggested that the growing system of family violence shelters may have played a key role in reducing spousal homicides over the past decade. The impacts of shelters in reducing spousal homicides is also affirmed by Kimmel (2001). Past research (e.g. the 2002 SEP Evaluation, reports from Juristat, etc.) provides a useful point of departure in understanding and modelling SEP's impacts. Shelter funding is expected to improve access to shelters for women and children experiencing family violence and have positive impacts on clients. The 2002 SEP Evaluation illustrated that good quality shelter conditions encouraged women to stay longer and not return to an unchanged abuse situation, and CMHC's Project Haven and Next Step evaluations affirmed the impacts of shelter programs in preventing return to an unchanged abuse situation. Past evaluations have also shown that funding for shelters raises awareness and contributes to more effective community responses to family violence. By aiding the sustainability of the family violence shelter system, SEP has previously been shown to make an important continued contribution to the effort against family violence, and is thus argued to reduce societal costs. 10 Juristat, Canada s Shelters for Abused Women, 2005/ Juristat, Canada s Shelters for Abused Women, 2005/06, p.6. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 7

16 Protected section a introduction The Family Violence Initiative (FVI) The objectives of the federal Family Violence Initiative are: to promote public awareness of the risk factors of family violence and the need for public involvement in responding to it; to strengthen the ability of the criminal justice, social services, health and housing systems to respond to the problem; and, to support data collection, research and evaluation efforts to identify effective interventions. 12 Under the FVI, 15 federal partner departments (including agencies and Crown corporations) are engaged in a range of activities that can be categorized as follows: coordinating among partners; developing and implementing policy; developing and synthesizing knowledge; disseminating information and educational resources; and supporting communities and services. To varying degrees, all partner departments are engaged in these activities. The overall expected results of the FVI are: effective, efficient and coordinated federal policy development and programming on family violence issues; enhanced prevention of and improved community response to family violence, together with the development and implementation of community activities through the creation and dissemination of relevant knowledge, tools and resources; and increased public awareness and reduced tolerance for family violence. The expected outcomes of the FVI are: strengthened Federal/Provincial/Territorial collaborative partnerships; enhanced federal policy, programs and legislative response to family violence; increased knowledge base; increased public awareness of family violence issues; increased and more effective community initiatives; enhanced community capacity to address family violence; and, ultimately, reduction of family violence in Canada. The expected immediate outcome of increased and more effective community initiatives is very concretely served by SEP achievements, in particular through its role in ensuring enhanced and new shelters. The Shelter Enhancement Program Between and , the FVI contributed $11.4 million to the Shelter Enhancement Program or about 10.8% of the total SEP funding in the period. One of the purposes of the current SEP evaluation is to meet CMHC s reporting requirements under the federal FVI and accountability for CMHC funding renewal. According to the Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) of the FVI, the SEP is expected to contribute to enhanced prevention of and improved community response to family violence. The SEP provides interest-free, fully-forgivable loans to sponsors of first-stage shelters and second-stage housing for women and their children who experience family violence. The objective of SEP is to assist in repairing, rehabilitating and improving existing shelters for persons who experience family violence, and to assist in the acquisition or construction of new shelters and second-stage housing where needed. The SEP renovation guidelines require that units be renovated to minimum standards of health and safety (i.e. completion of all mandatory repairs). 12 The Public Health Agency of Canada coordinates the FVI, which is horizontally managed. The following departments and agencies currently participate in the Initiative: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage, Department of Justice Canada, Department of National Defence, Health Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Public Safety Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Service Canada, Statistics Canada, and, Status of Women Canada. 8 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

17 Section a introduction protected Eligible repairs for SEP funding include the five Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) categories (structural soundness, electrical system, plumbing system, heating system and fire safety), plus three additional categories: accessibility (for persons with disabilities); children s play areas; and security. Eligible sponsors include non-profit organizations and First Nations. Most Provinces and Territories cost-share and deliver SEP under bilateral agreements with CMHC. SEP is delivered by CMHC in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon. In Prince Edward Island, the province costshares and CMHC delivers SEP. CMHC also delivers SEP on-reserve across Canada. SEP assistance for the acquisition of residential structures to be operated as shelters depends upon the availability of operating funding for payment of salaries and other annual costs for shelter operations, which are not covered by SEP. Provincial and territorial governments (and in some jurisdictions, municipal governments) as well as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) contribute annual operating funding for shelters. The existence of such operating funds is a determining factor for the development of new shelters and units. Since , federal funding for SEP has come from three different sources. Since , a base allocation of $1.9 million per year has been provided for SEP from the FVI on an ongoing basis totalling $11.4 million for the evaluation period ( to ) 13 or about 10.8% of the total SEP funding. In addition, SEP was allocated funding from the National Homelessness Initiative (NHI) in the amount of $12 million per year for each of and (a total of $24 million from the NHI). However, since , the majority of SEP funding has come from CMHC s Renovation Programs. Federal SEP expenditures in the period to were more than double the expenditures in the period to , totalling $105.7 million since 2001 (Display 1). Display 1 Shelter Enhancement Program FVI Funding Allocation and CMHC Expenditures by Year Year FVI Allocation $ CMHC Expenditures: (with funding from FVI, NHI, and CMHC Renovation Programs) Total, 1995/ /01 $ 7,600,000 $ 41,900, /02 1,900,000 13,496, /03 1,900,000 19,170, /04 1,900,000 16,794, /05 1,900,000 14,876, /06 1,900,000 12,907, /07 1,900,000 28,463,420 Total, 2001/02 to 2006/07 11,400, ,708,557 Source: CMHC Finance Division (Sept. 2008) 13 The ongoing resources for the FVI total $ 7.0 million annually, with a contribution shared by the 15 FVI member departments, to ensure the implementation of core activities deemed essential to the Initiative s sustainability. Member departments allocate additional resources for FVI-related activities from their regular budgets. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 9

18 Protected section a introduction In the period to , SEP aided the development or renovation of a total of 7,169 shelter beds and 1,085 shelter units, with total loans committed of $83.5 million (see Display 2, below). 14 Display 2 Total SEP Beds and Units Delivered, and Total Loan Amounts, 2001/02 to 2006/07 15 Off-Reserve On-Reserve New Reno Total Beds and Units SEP Loan Amount $ % of Total Loans Women 839 $36,360, % Youth $2,950, % Subtotal 893 $39,310, % Women 5,149 $26,456, % Youth 1,529 $13,098, % Subtotal 6,678 $39,554, % Subtotal Off-Reserve 7,571 $78,865, % New Reno Women 33 $1,659, % Subtotal 33 $1,659, % Women 618 $2,738, % Youth 32 $275, % Subtotal 650 $3,013, % Subtotal On-Reserve 683 $4,673, % Total 8,254 $83,538, % Source: CMHC Administrative Data. Loan amounts exclude administration costs and other amounts. Scope of the 2008 SEP Evaluation & the Evaluation Issues The 2008 SEP Evaluation was designed to examine the continuing need for SEP, the success of the Program and its impacts, and its cost-effectiveness. The 2008 evaluation covered program activities in all provinces and territories since the previous 2002 SEP Evaluation and examined SEP funding for new shelters as well as for the renovation of existing shelters. 14 CMHC data on commitments was used for the preparation of Display 2, adjusted for beds and units committed which may not yet have been produced as units. Adjustments were also made for consistency of data. As a result, data on Expenditures (Display 1) and Delivered Beds and Units (Display 2) is not comparable. Also, the information in Display 2 is different from other public sources of data on units, beds and loans committed such as the Canadian Housing Statistics. 15 Data provided by: CMHC Assisted Housing (for CMHC delivered beds, units and loan amounts), by: Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nunavut and Northwest Territories (for beds, units and loan amounts provincially delivered in their respective jurisdictions) and by CMHC Quebec Business Centre (for beds, units and loan amounts delivered by SHQ, based on statistics provided by SHQ to date). 16 The Youth category mainly covers youth beds/units; however it also includes 88 beds/units identified in CMHC data as beds/ units for men. An examination of other data has indicated that these are mainly youth shelters. The total also includes 68 beds/units where the client group is identified as "seniors". 10 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

19 Section a introduction protected The evaluation included all types of shelters for women and their children and youth, 17 both on- and off-reserve, and assessed the impacts of program changes since the 2002 Evaluation. It emphasized First Nation and Aboriginal issues, which had not been covered under the previous evaluation. The SEP evaluation was designed to contribute to the Family Violence Performance Report on the four year period ending March This evaluation reports on performance indicators for the SEP as a whole, even though the CMHC allocation under the FVI provided only 10.8% of total SEP spending in the period to Most of the survey and inspection data for this evaluation was gathered in It is noted, however, that some of the data, such as THS data, is only available up to the year Complete CMHC data is only available up to fiscal year Analysis and findings are related to the periods for which such data are available. This evaluation also incorporates, as much as possible, preliminary results of the evaluation conducted by the Société d'habitation Québec (SHQ) on its Programme d améliorations des maisons d hébergement (PAMH) in Evaluation Issues This evaluation addressed the following nine key evaluation questions: Rationale Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Is there a continuing need for a program to fund additional shelters and/or shelter spaces for people experiencing family violence? Is there a continuing need for a program to fund repairs and enhancements of existing shelters? Is there a continuing need for a program to fund shelters for First Nations and other Aboriginal communities? Success and Impacts Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 Issue 7 To what extent has SEP increased capacity of the shelter system to address family violence issues since 2001? To what extent has SEP improved shelter conditions to minimum standards? To what extent has SEP met the needs for shelters for youth and men? What have been the impacts of SEP on the ability of First Nations and other Aboriginal communities to address family violence issues? 17 As noted earlier, while the 2008 Directory of Services and Programs for Abused Men in Canada prepared by the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence lists three organizations which provide residential services to adult males who have experienced family violence, the evaluation found that none of these shelters provided dedicated services to men on the model of traditional women's shelters (rather, men were referred to homeless shelters and counseling and not to family violence specific shelters which offer special family violence counseling and support). Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 11

20 Protected section a introduction Issue 8 To what extent have SEP expenditures improved client services and contributed to enhanced prevention of and improved community response to family violence in Canada? Cost-Effectiveness Issue 9 Is the SEP approach of capital funding for new shelters and repairs a cost-effective means of addressing family violence problems in Canada? Summary of Methodologies for the SEP Evaluation Key Methods The 2008 SEP Evaluation included the following surveys and data sources: A SEP Evaluation Shelter Survey of over 407 SEP-funded family violence and youth shelters examined impacts on shelters and clients. The survey included First Nation shelters. The results of SHQ s survey of off-reserve shelters for the PAMH Evaluation were incorporated into the analysis for this report. A Survey of Shelter Clients examined client satisfaction with the accommodation, suitability of the facility to meet clients' specific needs. A total of 42 shelters participated in the client survey, with over 400 clients reporting on 369 "stays" at shelters for reasons of family violence. The results from this survey do not include Québec. A Survey of First Nations and Other Aboriginal Community Key Informants: The Key Informant Survey examined the need for family violence shelters or alternative approaches to family violence, and other family violence issues in a random sample of both First Nations and urban Aboriginal communities, and including Inuit and Métis communities. The survey included interviews with community representatives playing a key role in family violence prevention and response, from policing, health services, housing, Aboriginal government, family violence prevention, and other services. In total, 287 key informants were surveyed in 82 First Nations, 34 urban communities, and 12 Inuit communities and 4 rural Métis communities across Canada. A CMHC Inspection Survey of Shelters provided an objective indicator of the current condition of shelters and needs for mandatory repairs and three eligible enhancement categories (security, accessibility, play areas). In total, 100 shelters were inspected across Canada, in small and large urban areas, as well as rural and on-reserve communities. Off-reserve shelters in Québec were not included. Twelve First Nation Site Visits were conducted to provide qualitative information comparing First Nation communities with SEP-funded shelters with the experience of comparable communities without shelters. Interviews were conducted with individuals involved in family violence issues (including service staff, Elders, police officers, shelter directors, and others). Other Data Sources included biennial Statistics Canada Transition Home Surveys (THS), as well as CMHC and provincial SEP data, data on funding and the numbers of units added historically, INAC data, etc. Census data was used to classify both Canadian communities generally and First Nations as regards local access to family violence shelters. The 2001 Census was the latest detailed data available at the time of the research. 12 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

21 Section a introduction protected Statistical Notes Results from the SEP Evaluation Shelter Survey and the THS have been weighted by the evaluators to represent Canada-wide totals, including Québec. Thus, the evaluation speaks to shelter needs and implications for all of Canada. Multi-variate techniques (multiple regression, discriminant analysis, etc.) and statistical tests of confidence have also been applied to the evaluation results, where appropriate. Outline of this Report The report has four additional sections: Section B. The Rationale of SEP provides the evaluation findings on the rationale issues; Section C. Success and Impacts of SEP presents findings on success and impacts issues, and the contribution of SEP to the federal FVI; Section D. Cost-Effectiveness of SEP summarizes the results of an exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis. The report concludes with Section E. Summary of Findings and Conclusions. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 13

22 Protected section b The rationale of sep Section B The Rationale of SEP Issue 1: Is there a continuing need for a program to fund additional shelters and/or shelter spaces for people experiencing family violence? Results from multiple data sources show there is a continuing need for additional shelters/shelter spaces. Needs are seen in the more than 100,000 women and children admitted to shelters each year since 2001 and the fact that shelters are reporting that many women and children are turned away from shelters each year due to a lack of space. The assessment of shelter needs examined a variety of needs indicators, including usage of shelters, women turned away from shelters that had no room, shelters estimates of units needed, and a censuspopulation based approach which estimates the percentages of the Canadian population lacking local access to shelters in their own communities. While these approaches are all very different, they provide very similar answers that a need for additional shelters and spaces exists. Previous CMHC evaluations provide estimates of the potential unmet demand for first- and second-stage shelters. Based on Statistics Canada surveys of shelter utilization and the numbers of abused women requiring shelter services reported in the Violence Against Women Survey, the Project Haven Evaluation Report (CMHC, 1995) estimated the potential unmet demand for first-stage shelters in the range of 32,000 to be 120,000 women who were in need but not able to access shelters in The Report concluded that: "If all these women sought residential shelter services within a one-year time frame, the current shelter capacity would have to be doubled to meet this potential demand for shelter services" (CMHC, 1995, p.71). These findings suggested the need to increase the number of first-stage shelters from 405 to 810, as of The Canadian population has increased by 11% since 1993 suggesting a potential need for a minimum of 900 first-stage shelters in These do not take account of the repeat use of shelters by the women who return to abusive situations and subsequently return to shelters. With respect to SSH, the 1997 evaluation of the Next Step Program estimated that an additional 1,500 units of SSH were required to meet the unmet demand for second-stage housing at that time. In 1997, there were about 500 second-stage units the findings indicated a need to triple the supply and subsequent population growth may indicate the need for as many as 1,665 units. Statistics Canada, through the Transition Home Survey (THS), also provides important source of information on demands for shelters, as it collects data about all residential facilities for female victims of domestic violence on a biennial basis. At the time of completion of the evaluation report, the latest data available from THS was In order to estimate the total number of women and children admitted to shelters between 2001 and 2008, the evaluators totalled the THS reports from the previous three biennial periods to obtain an average per year, and then adjusted those to also include the number of women and children who would have been admitted should the non-respondent shelters (about 8% or 13%, according to THS response rates) had actually completed surveys. As such, the evaluators estimated that over 100,000 women and children are admitted to family violence shelters each year. The continuing demand for shelter services is also evidenced by the fact that twenty per cent of all surveyed shelters in the THS reported turning away clients on the snapshot day (most often due to full capacity) and in the SEP Evaluation Shelter Survey, more than half of shelters reported that they regularly turned away clients. In the SEP Evaluation Client Survey, one-quarter of women 14 Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)

23 Section b The rationale of sep protected staying at family violence shelters reported having to wait to find refuge in shelters, with "wait" times averaging more than one week. As another indicator of need, shelters were asked if additional family violence shelter units were needed in their community. Seventy percent of shelters indicated a need for additional first- and second-stage shelter units in their communities. A projection of this need on a national scale is: 12,327 additional first-stage beds/units needed and 15,849 second-stage units needed. 18 To further examine unmet needs for shelters in Canadian communities, an analysis was undertaken using 2001 Census data obtained from INAC (using 2001 Census Subdivision (CSD) definitions) and related socio-economic data, which the evaluators combined with 2008 shelter data to project overall results to The analysis examined the geographical distribution of shelters in Canadian communities, looking at the level of "local access" for women experiencing family violence. In this analysis, a shelter was defined as "locally accessible" when it can be accessed by women without crossing CSD boundaries (and travelling to a nearby community). The evaluator s analysis shows that of Canada s largest municipalities (over 100,000 population), 100% have shelters which are accessible locally. This percentage having local access drops to 62.3% for CSDs with populations of 50, ,000, to 32.8% for CSDs with populations of 10,000-50,000, and 3.2% with shelters among CSDs with populations of less than 10,000. More generally, 63.2% of Canadians (a total of 21.1 million persons) resided in CSDs with shelters, while CSDs without shelters had a total population of 12.3 million (36.8% of all Canadians). This analysis does not suggest that shelters should be built in all of Canada's thousands of small communities, as shelters may not be needed in all of these communities and some shelters may serve multiple communities. However, these findings, particularly as regards rural communities, reaffirm that a large need for additional shelters exists in Canada today. The findings for rural areas also point to a need for new ways to provide refuge to women in smaller rural communities. Conclusion The evaluation found substantial needs for shelter spaces, and for a program to fund additional shelters and shelter spaces. Admissions to women's shelters due to family violence have remained high since 2001 (some 100,000 women and children per year since 2001), with shelters reporting large numbers of women and children turned away each year due to lack of space. While over 60% of Canadians live in communities with shelters, an estimated 12.3 million Canadians (or 36.8% of the total population) reside in communities without local access to a shelter. This gap in access is particularly significant for Canada's 3,600 rural and small town communities. Since it is not expected that shelters can be built in each community, additional approaches may be required to address need in rural communities and small towns. 18 These estimates were derived from the 2008 SEP Evaluation Shelter Survey where 166 shelters reported that they still required an average of 40 first-stage units to serve their primary client groups. Similarly, 177 shelters reported that they still needed roughly 40 second-stage units in order to serve their primary clients. Over 50% of shelters reported that they plan to apply for SEP funding in the next five years to increase shelter capacity by adding new units to their facility (20%) or by adding second-stage residences (31%). In a related vein, according to data from the CMHC SEP Shelter Survey, over half of shelters reported that, in the past 12 months, they had extended the stay of a client because no alternative or long-term accommodation (e.g. second-stage housing) was available in the community. Evaluation of the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) 15